What happened to 40 caliber?

[Shawn Dodson]

Again Shawn, someone else's opinion from 20 years ago, is simply not evidence. You may wish it were, but it is not.

If I tell you the planet is getting warmer, and you say show me some evidence, a paragraph from Neil DeGrasse Tyson essentially saying "studies have been done and the planet is getting warmer" isn't going to cut it. If that kind of "evidence" worked, there'd be no debate on climate science.

You've given me nothing substantive to work with.

The papers present the evidence, either reported directly in the paper itself or in the provided references.

I can only provide information here that is publicly available on the internet for free. If the data isn't presented directly in the paper, and it isn't available for free online, then you're going have to look up the reference document yourself.

 

[WisBorn]

In practicality the decision of 9mm vs 357 Magnum is made based on the platform, not on the cartridge. If 15 357 Magnums would fit in a Glock 19 I would be the first guy in line to buy one.

I fully agree. Semiautomatic cartridges have a capacity advantage over revolver cartridges. Revolver cartridges have other advantages one being cartridges that deliver more energy.

 

[WrongHanded]

Assuming that you were able to do so--what would you do then?

Can't say til I see the data sets, and read the explanation of the scope of the testing, and methods used to measure.

Honestly, do you not understand what it means to look at data for yourself? Do you always just take someone else's word on a subject? If so, how do you decide if they are credible and if their word is any good?

 

[WrongHanded]

The papers present the evidence, either reported directly in the paper itself or in the provided references.

I can only provide information here that is publicly available on the internet for free. If the data isn't presented directly in the paper, and it isn't available for free online, then you're going have to look up the reference document yourself.

Uh sure. So you agree that you haven't actually provided any evidence then?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Uh sure. So you agree that you haven't actually provided any evidence then?

It's directly presented in the papers or the references.

 

[Kleanbore]

Can't say til I see the data sets, and read the explanation of the scope of the testing, and methods used to measure

So, you're fishing.

Honestly, do you not understand what it means to look at data for yourself?

Of course. I made my living doing that.

Do you always just take someone else's word on a subject?

No.

If so, how do you decide if they are credible and if their word is any good?

One learns to do that.

 

[WrongHanded]

So, you're fishing.

I'm forcing you to realize that you do not know the claims you are making about the 9mm being just as effective are true. Because you have not seen the data to prove it. Neither have I. That's my entire point. You mentioned earlier something to the effect of me being in the minority in not believing the 9mm is equally as effective as other service cartridges. But why would I when no one has proven it to me? You and others can believe what you want. But you cannot say you know unless you have seen the proof. It's all internet hearsay to me until that point.

 

[WrongHanded]

It's directly presented in the papers or the references.

I want you to do this one thing:

Go to the revolver forum, or hunting forum, or both, and start a thread. Title it "Big Bore Revolvers Only Poke Bullet Sized Holes In Big Game!" Then state why you believe that is true, sighting all those IWB pdfs.

You'll quickly have plenty of evidence proving you wrong. Which will in turn prove Fackler and crew wrong about it, which will mean you don't need to provide me with any evidence trying to prove your incorrect claim is correct.

Go on. I dare you!

Edit: You really want to stir it up? Tell them bovine bash isn't real either.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I want you to do this one thing:

Go to the revolver forum, or hunting forum, or both, and start a thread. Title it "Big Bore Revolvers Only Poke Bullet Sized Holes In Big Game!" Then state why you believe that is true, sighting all those IWB pdfs.

You'll quickly have plenty of evidence proving you wrong. Which will in turn prove Fackler and crew wrong about it, which will mean you don't need to provide me with any evidence trying to prove your incorrect claim is correct.

Go on. I dare you!

Edit: You really want to stir it up? Tell them bovine bash isn't real either.

Why don't YOU do that? Then you can post all evidence you collect into this thread and we can discuss it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm forcing you to realize that you do not know the claims you are making about the 9mm being just as effective are true.

You are not.

I consider the 9mm superior, when the rate of controlled fire is considered.

Because you have not seen the data to prove it.

That does not follow.

You mentioned earlier something to the effect of me being in the minority in not believing the 9mm is equally as effective as other service cartridges

Yes.

But you cannot say you know unless you have seen the proof.

I have seen proof--terminal ballistics results; large numbers of persons shooting the 9, the. 40, the 10, and the .45; the adoption of the 9 by law enforcement agencies around the globe; and a dearth of agencies returning to the .40 after having used the 9. That's more than sufficient for me.

It's all internet hearsay to me until that point.

Do you treat assessments of nutrition, toxicity, fire retardancy, water purification, and so on and so on using that standard?

 

[TomJ]

This is a statement I have seen made repeatedly through the years. I've seen gel tests that show modern premium 9mm ammunition reaches the FBI minimum standards for penetration and expansion in ballistic gelatin through a variety of barriers.

I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that round for round, a modern 9mm is as effective at wounding as the .357 Sig, .40S&W, or .45acp. I just hear a lot of people claiming that it is.

Is 9mm better than it used to be? Yes. Bullet technology has improved, powder has also improved. That means a better bullet going faster. And it's true for all service cartridges to one degree or another.

That does not mean the 9mm is just as effective terminally, per shot. Neither does lower recoil or higher capacity. So whilst it's possible that all the service cartridges are equally effective at stopping a threat, I've not seen any evidence to prove it. Just a lot of people claiming it, without providing proof.

I'm an open minded guy that believes in the scientific method. But when something appears to be too good to be true, I need some evidence before I really entertain the idea. And a cartridge with lower recoil and higher capacity, using a smaller lighter bullet, which is cheaper than the other options and also easier to shoot, being just as effective....well that definitely sounds too good to be true from my perspective.

I haven't read through the entire thread and am posting this in case someone else hasn't. It's a pretty comprehensive study. There is a difference between the most common calibers, but not much of one, at least in this study.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

 

[WrongHanded]

Why don't YOU do that? Then you can post all evidence you collect into this thread and we can discuss it.

I'm not the one making silly claims that handgun bullets only wound the tissue directly in their path. That's why. I'm also not the one claiming 9mm is just as effective as the other service cartridges. Those are your claims, Sir.

 

[Ethan Verity]

I believe most handgun rounds on the lower end of the power spectrum do just punch holes... there are a lot of rounds that will not create enough displacement velocity of tissue radially outward from the bullet track to cause damage, beyond just the crush damage from the bullet itself (this is where a HP round helps - and more ft/lbs of energy can translate into bigger HP expansion while being able to maintain adequate penetration depth). Whether the tissue stretches a lot, or stretches a little... if it doesn't stretch beyond it's elastic potential, then that additional energy will just be lost in the elasticity of the tissue. It's like getting shot with a low power airsoft gun, vs a high power airsoft gun... there is more kinetic energy in one, and it will dimple into the skin deeper on impact (and hurt more), but neither will actually break the skin (apart from a nasty welt).

There are too many variables in bullet design, caliber, and velocity, to state a specific handgun caliber power level in which just punching holes is no longer the case. For the more obvious rounds like 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, etc... I do not think these rounds are just punching holes! However, things like 380, 9mm, 38 Spl, even 45ACP... I'm not so sure...

 

[mavracer]

https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3053
Dr Courtney has done extensive testing and study's that show temporary cavity and remote wounding occur much lower than Fackler's claimed 2000 fps.
Which IMHO claiming that it's tied directly to a specific velocity is silly as there's a significant difference in cavitation between a 50gr .224 bullet at 2000 and a 500gr .458 bullet.
Courtney more correctly ties it to energy since energy cannot be destroyed and as the bullet slows much of the kinetic is converted to elastic energy.
For the record Dr Courtney used to post on TFL and I've had several discussions with him, his position isn't that as he calls it the ballistic pressure wave is the end all, but that it shouldn't be ignored and if you're better off with a round that's capable of 500+ ft lbs where you can penetrate 15-16" with the possibility of remote wounding.

 

[WrongHanded]

https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3053
Dr Courtney has done extensive testing and study's that show temporary cavity and remote wounding occur much lower than Fackler's claimed 2000 fps.
Which IMHO claiming that it's tied directly to a specific velocity is silly as there's a significant difference in cavitation between a 50gr .224 bullet at 2000 and a 500gr .458 bullet.
Courtney more correctly ties it to energy since energy cannot be destroyed and as the bullet slows much of the kinetic is converted to elastic energy.
For the record Dr Courtney used to post on TFL and I've had several discussions with him, his position isn't that as he calls it the ballistic pressure wave is the end all, but that it shouldn't be ignored and if you're better off with a round that's capable of 500+ ft lbs where you can penetrate 15-16" with the possibility of remote wounding.

I much appreciate you posting this. I'm familiar with the general concept and have looked at it previously.

Introduction
Debates in terminal ballistics such as light-andfast vs. slow-and-heavy debates are dramatic oversimplifications of the more scientific question of whether the wound channel (directly crushed tissue) is the only contributor to handgun bullet effectiveness or whether a more energy dependent parameter such as hydrostatic shock, the temporary stretch cavity, or ballistic pressure wave can also contribute. These debates have been dominated by longwinded rhetoric and authoritative appeals rather than scientific data and analysis. Here, we summarize findings that support and quantify the pressure wave hypothesis:​

 

[mavracer]

I much appreciate you posting this. I'm familiar with the general concept and have looked at it previously.

NP oddly when I first started discussing it with him I was pretty much a Facklerite and bought into HWFE's conclusion that energy was irrelevant.
But his study's and conclusions more closely resembles my personal experiences making live stuff dead with handguns. That even at very low velocity there is an identifiable difference between a 38 RN and a wadcutter and a significant difference between a 38 cal JHP @ 850 and a 357 JHP @ 1400 even when they expand to similar diameter.

 

[TomJ]

A lot of these caliber wars focus on the theoretical. The theoretical is fine, but it's just that, people's theories. I don't have a dog in this fight from the standpoint that I don't care which caliber is most effective, I just want to know which one gives me the greatest chance of stopping an attacker if I'm ever in the unfortunate situation of having to do so. If anyone is aware of a reason why the study Greg Ellifritz did of actual shootings is not accurate I'd be interested in knowing that. Assuming it is accurate, and I've yet to see anything showing it isn't, I give it more weight than a study based on gel blocks, animals or anything else that is not based on actual shootings of people. If there are additional studies based on actual shootings that either support or contradict Greg Ellifritz's, those would be helpful as well.

 

[WrongHanded]

If anyone is aware of a reason why the study Greg Ellifritz did of actual shootings is not accurate I'd be interested in knowing that.

I suppose the glaringly obvious question is how did .22, .32, and .380 outperform most of the service cartridges. It makes me wonder if those were disproportionately headshots, which sort of defeats the purposes of trying to identify which cartridge would be preferable for defensive shooting that is focused on Center Of Mass. You see what I'm saying? Perhaps headshots should be excluded.

 

[BJung]

This police officer makes good points. In the comments, one officer said that he had to shoot an assailant 6x until the person died.

Why COPS use .40: Q & A With a Cop - YouTube

 

[TomJ]

I suppose the glaringly obvious question is how did .22, .32, and .380 outperform most of the service cartridges. It makes me wonder if those were disproportionately headshots, which sort of defeats the purposes of trying to identify which cartridge would be preferable for defensive shooting that is focused on Center Of Mass. You see what I'm saying? Perhaps headshots should be excluded.

It depends on how you define outperform. Calibers below 380 failed to stop a significantly higher percentage of attackers than 380 and above. That being said his conclusion is pasted below. Take a look at the data he provides and if it's helpful, consider it in making your decision.

"This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!"

 

[WrongHanded]

If anyone is wondering if maybe Fackler was wrong, you might take a look at this:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701268.pdf

 

[Rodentman]

Simple for me. I enjoy shooting the 40 more than the 9. It is easier FOR ME to reload as well. I have so many 9's that I almost have to load OAL for each one! And I use the 40 bullets for the 10mm, one of my favorites. I won't speak to ballistics as that isn't my suit. Fun is. And I'll pick up and reload 5.7 brass too, after careful inspection.

 

[BJung]

It depends on how you define outperform. Calibers below 380 failed to stop a significantly higher percentage of attackers than 380 and above. That being said his conclusion is pasted below. Take a look at the data he provides and if it's helpful, consider it in making your decision.

"This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!"

I saw this chart comparing handgun caliber effectiveness listing the .380 too. This made me think that my Makarov could just be as effective since a 9x18 round is between a .380 and a 9x19. My oldest brother swears by .22lr handguns because they are compact and will make any sane person leave him alone.

 

[Robbins290]

I saw this chart comparing handgun caliber effectiveness listing the .380 too. This made me think that my Makarov could just be as effective since a 9x18 round is between a .380 and a 9x19. My oldest brother swears by .22lr handguns because they are compact and will make any sane person leave him alone.

the 9x18 will work just fine with a good bullet.

 

[Kleanbore]

I suppose the glaringly obvious question is how did .22, .32, and .380 outperform most of the service cartridges

Anyone who concludes that those rounds "outperform most cartridges" lacks real understanding of data analysis, and of what Greg's data tell us, do not tell us, cannot tell us, and why.

We have discussed those data ad nauseam on THR.