Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: So...does everyone hate .40 now?  (Read 36324 times)

sqlbullet

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612

  • Offline
Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
« Reply #100 on: October 22, 2015, 01:40:35 pm »
If you prefer 40 or 45 use it in the gun you shoot best.  :coffee. Center mass shots win the fight not the caliber.
Everyone says that, but I know not everyone believes it.  If they did, 9mm would dominate sales, and .40 and .45 would be about as popular as .38 Super and .44 Special.  Niche rounds, relics, not best-sellers.

This is based on a very narrow definition of the utility of a sidearm for defense.  It assumes I am defending against humans.

For personal defense from criminal threats this statement is very true.  As a bush gun, I think there are real advantages in some other calibers, even in self-stuffers.
Utah

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Deer Hunter

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2890

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #101 on: October 22, 2015, 02:07:53 pm »
    .40 S&W and .45 ACP are known to greater significant digits than 9mm.

    Using this easily calculated criteria, we can sort out the most qualified pistol rounds for self defense in terms of accuracy.

    .380, three significant digits.  Very accurate.

    .357, also three significant digits.  Also quite accurate.

    Until firearm research develops further to deliver self defense chamberings surpassing three significant digits, our current level of accuracy must be sufficient.


    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #102 on: October 22, 2015, 02:27:20 pm »
    .40 S&W and .45 ACP are known to greater significant digits than 9mm.

    Using this easily calculated criteria, we can sort out the most qualified pistol rounds for self defense in terms of accuracy.

    .380, three significant digits.  Very accurate.

    .357, also three significant digits.  Also quite accurate.

    Until firearm research develops further to deliver self defense chamberings surpassing three significant digits, our current level of accuracy must be sufficient.

     :scrutiny
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    Outbreak

    • NRA Basic Pistol Instructor, Certified Sig P-Series Armorer
    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 11465
    • Outbreak Monkey ^

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #103 on: October 22, 2015, 05:00:38 pm »
    TL;DR.

    I have two guns in .40S&W. I load more .40 than probably all my other calibers combined. I probably shoot more .40 than all other calibers. At the height of my shooting, that was easily 10,000rds/year.

    All that said...

    I hate .40S&W. The only reason I have any of them is for USPSA Major Power Factor. 9mm scores lower than .40 in most divisions. .45 doesn't offer the capacity compared to .40. I don't want to spend the money to get into Open and load severely over-pressure 9mm. So I play the game and shoot .40.

    Why do I hate .40? It's harder for me to shoot than 9mm. I find it snappy in any gun less than about 3lbs (my STI Edge is 44oz from the factory, and I have an aftermarket aluminum grip which adds a bit of heft). Out of a full-size Sig P226 Elite(34oz), I find it slow to recover from recoil, which makes for slow splits, slow follow-up shots, etc. All of that disadvantage for no practical ballistic gain.
    TexasOutbreak

    I take my coffee black...like my rifles.

    I absolutely despise Glocks. That's why I only own two.

    I'm glad that your chains rest lightly upon you. --JesseL

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #104 on: October 22, 2015, 07:11:21 pm »
    :scrutiny

    1) I think he was joking.

    2) It isn't any sillier of a theory than Marshal & Sanow's "one shot stop" percentages.
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #105 on: October 22, 2015, 07:31:02 pm »
    Why do I hate .40? It's harder for me to shoot than 9mm. I find it snappy in any gun less than about 3lbs (my STI Edge is 44oz from the factory, and I have an aftermarket aluminum grip which adds a bit of heft). Out of a full-size Sig P226 Elite(34oz), I find it slow to recover from recoil, which makes for slow splits, slow follow-up shots, etc. All of that disadvantage for no practical ballistic gain.

    How do you feel about .45?  You give up even more in capacity, and the ammunition is more expensive. 

    Please note, everyone, that I'm not trying to stoke a caliber debate.  Everyone carries what they like, and few actually change their minds based on what the internet says.  I'm just trying to gauge how people feel about things these days, out of curiosity.  There is a camp that says that "all handguns suck" to the point where no round offers any advantage at all over 9mm.  I've seen that posted and parroted a lot.  When it comes down to brass tacks, though, a lot of people obviously have more faith in .45 than 9mm, because people keep buying them.

    Honestly, I think velocity is the primary wounding mechanism, even with handgun rounds.  .45 makes up for its lack of velocity somewhat by having a big bullet.  Being less dependent on velocity isn't a bad thing; it's actually a good thing, if especially in short-barreled firearms.  A lot of people believe in the big & slow concept.  Hell, how many people think a .44 Special or .45ACP makes for the ultimate fighting revolver, even though both cartridges are less powerful than a properly-loaded .357 Magnum, and even though in an N-Framed sized gun, you could get eight rounds of .357 instead of six rounds of the big bores?

    I've had people tell me, almost on the download, conspiratorially, as if they're afraid of being mocked, that "yeah, I've seen the data, I've seen the gel tests, but you know what?  A bigger bullet can't hurt.  I've hunted and shot stuff with a .45ACP, and I've seen what it can do". 

    So, that's all I'm trying to do, gauge people's opinions. 

    So, that leads into my second question.  What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    sarge712

    • WTA LEO
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5855
    • Just a teddy bear fulla luv, bub

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #106 on: October 22, 2015, 07:49:19 pm »
    I'd pick fmj. I'd rather clean copper fouling than lead. Otherwise as long as it goes bang, I don't care.
    North CarolinaBe without fear in the face of thine enemies.
    Be brave and upright that God may love thee.
    Speak the truth always even if it leads to thy death.
    Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.
    That is thine oath.

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 432

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #107 on: October 22, 2015, 08:00:15 pm »
    So, that leads into my second question.  What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?

    My greater tolerance for calibers other than .45ACP was based largely on the conclusion that modern hollow point wounds in common defensive/combat calibers are pretty much indiscernible one from another by surgical personnel.

    If forced to give up modern hollow point ammo for my daily carry, I'd probably go back to carrying .45ACP exclusively.
    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    strangelittleman

    • Small, Dark and Handsome
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3155

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #108 on: October 22, 2015, 08:34:42 pm »
    So, that's all I'm trying to do, gauge people's opinions. 

    So, that leads into my second question.  What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?
     
      No, it wouldn't bother me at all, if all that was available to me was FMJ, SWC or LRN in any of the main service calibers in both revolvers and autos, to include the oddballs/non-std service type ctgs like: .380, 9 Makarov, 7.62 Tokarev, .38 Super, etc.

      If the weapon is in sound serviceable condition and is of a quality design and manufacture, I'd be content. I care more about weapon quality than caliber.
    Semper Gumby.....Always Flexible.
    Vision without action is a daydream, Action without vision is a nightmare.
    Zol zayn azoy.

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1612

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #109 on: October 22, 2015, 08:51:32 pm »
    If modern hollow-point ammo wasn't available.....

    Hmmm.

    I would just break out my hollow-point bullet molds, and powder coat away.

    And as far as advances in the modern hollow-point, they apply to all calibers.  They give and advantage to faster bullets because below a certain minimum speed they don't open as well.  The question is does it somehow apply un-equally to smaller calibers?

    And I don't think so.  I don't think this:

    modern hollow point wounds in common defensive/combat calibers are pretty much indiscernible one from another by surgical personnel.

    Is really about modern hollow-points at all.  I think it is about some very good scientists applying good research methodology to wound examination.  I think if we had applied the same methodology to an analysis of 9mm ball to 45 acp ball, we would find very little discernable difference there either.

    Modern hollow-point rounds are the rising tide that have raised all ships.  And in reality, sounding the new harbor depths has actually given us less biased information about caliber comparison than we had previously.
    Utah

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #110 on: October 22, 2015, 09:03:57 pm »
    How do you feel about .45?  You give up even more in capacity, and the ammunition is more expensive. 

    Please note, everyone, that I'm not trying to stoke a caliber debate.  Everyone carries what they like, and few actually change their minds based on what the internet says.  I'm just trying to gauge how people feel about things these days, out of curiosity.  There is a camp that says that "all handguns suck" to the point where no round offers any advantage at all over 9mm.  I've seen that posted and parroted a lot.  When it comes down to brass tacks, though, a lot of people obviously have more faith in .45 than 9mm, because people keep buying them.

    Honestly, I think velocity is the primary wounding mechanism, even with handgun rounds.  .45 makes up for its lack of velocity somewhat by having a big bullet.  Being less dependent on velocity isn't a bad thing; it's actually a good thing, if especially in short-barreled firearms.  A lot of people believe in the big & slow concept.  Hell, how many people think a .44 Special or .45ACP makes for the ultimate fighting revolver, even though both cartridges are less powerful than a properly-loaded .357 Magnum, and even though in an N-Framed sized gun, you could get eight rounds of .357 instead of six rounds of the big bores?

    I've had people tell me, almost on the download, conspiratorially, as if they're afraid of being mocked, that "yeah, I've seen the data, I've seen the gel tests, but you know what?  A bigger bullet can't hurt.  I've hunted and shot stuff with a .45ACP, and I've seen what it can do". 

    So, that's all I'm trying to do, gauge people's opinions. 

    So, that leads into my second question.  What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?

    Let me see if  can help you get what you want.

    My opinion and standards are as follows:

    I don't like 380. I don't care that it is just a little smaller than 9mm, it feels wrong.

    If I am carrying from a bottom feeder, and it has to be in a common caliber, than I want either 9mm or .45 acp. Yes, you read that right. 380 is gross and ineffective, while 9mm is a "service cartridge" and just fine (hey, we are discussing opinions and if you can't honestly take stock of holding the beliefs you do; then how will you improve?). I trust .45 acp more than I do 9mm. Why? maybe it's a circumference thing. The velocity isn't there in most handgun cartridges, so maybe the second part of the equation is mass?

    Preferred carry: .357 magnum. I intentionally forego hollow points. I love flat nose bullets. Their effectiveness is not hampered by clothing.

    If hollow points were not an option then:

    Semi auto handguns: FMJ

    Revolvers: LSWC or flat nose rounds of any variation.
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    Raptor

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6938
    • Ain't nothin' like me 'cept me!
      • Raptor's Nest

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #111 on: October 22, 2015, 09:34:28 pm »
    No modern HP?

    Semi-auto: .45 ACP with FMJ semi-wadcutters if they'd feed reliably. If not, than standard FMJ rounds. Or alternatively, a 9mm loaded with 147-grain FMJ flat points, again if they feed reliably.

    Wheelgun: .38 Special +P lead semi-wadcutter hollowpoint (it's been around since, what, the 70s?) or ..357 MAG semi-jacketed HPs (again, old technology). If I couldn't have any hollowpoints, then I'd take .44 Special, .357 Mag, or .38+P lead semi-wadcutters. Or if I'm carrying a lightweight snubby, standard-pressure .38 wadcutters.
    PennsylvaniaNon Timebo Mala -- I Will Fear No Evil

    “Libprogs want conservatives to be silent. Conservatives want libprogs to keep talking so the world can see just how full of sh*t they are.” – Larry Correia

    "When the odds are impossible, count on crazy." - JesseL

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #112 on: October 22, 2015, 09:35:37 pm »
    Let me see if  can help you get what you want.

    Where's my pony?  :(

    In my own opinion, I suspect that extra kinetic energy from more powerful rounds doesn't go entirely to waste, even if it's as marginal as the difference between 9mm and a .45+P.  Bullets do weird things in an actual human body, things they don't necessarily do in gelatin, and the more ass you can have behind your bullet the merrier (so long as the recoil is manageable for you; you obviously have to be able to shoot straight and follow up).

    There is some interesting info on at this link, from a guy who says he worked in a morgue.  http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

    Like with anything else, it's just his opinion based on what he's seen, but the same can be said of gel tests and such.
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #113 on: October 22, 2015, 09:40:10 pm »
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    JesseL

    • Gun Mangler
    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 12451

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #114 on: October 22, 2015, 09:46:47 pm »
    If i can't have modern hollow points in my defensive pistol, I'm carrying my AK.

    I'm also terrible at answering questions in the spirit they're asked.

    Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk

    Arizona

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10230
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #115 on: October 22, 2015, 09:49:18 pm »
    How do you feel about .45?  You give up even more in capacity, and the ammunition is more expensive. 

    Please note, everyone, that I'm not trying to stoke a caliber debate.  Everyone carries what they like, and few actually change their minds based on what the internet says.  I'm just trying to gauge how people feel about things these days, out of curiosity.  There is a camp that says that "all handguns suck" to the point where no round offers any advantage at all over 9mm.  I've seen that posted and parroted a lot.  When it comes down to brass tacks, though, a lot of people obviously have more faith in .45 than 9mm, because people keep buying them.

    Honestly, I think velocity is the primary wounding mechanism, even with handgun rounds.  .45 makes up for its lack of velocity somewhat by having a big bullet.  Being less dependent on velocity isn't a bad thing; it's actually a good thing, if especially in short-barreled firearms.  A lot of people believe in the big & slow concept.  Hell, how many people think a .44 Special or .45ACP makes for the ultimate fighting revolver, even though both cartridges are less powerful than a properly-loaded .357 Magnum, and even though in an N-Framed sized gun, you could get eight rounds of .357 instead of six rounds of the big bores?

    I've had people tell me, almost on the download, conspiratorially, as if they're afraid of being mocked, that "yeah, I've seen the data, I've seen the gel tests, but you know what?  A bigger bullet can't hurt.  I've hunted and shot stuff with a .45ACP, and I've seen what it can do". 

    So, that's all I'm trying to do, gauge people's opinions. 

    So, that leads into my second question.  What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?
    In a revolver, probably a hard cast Keith style bullet or a softer lead semi-wadcutter depending on the occasion, probably out of a .38 special or a .357 magnum.  In an automatic I'd opt for a truncated cone FMJ in either .40 S&W or .45 ACP . 
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #116 on: October 22, 2015, 09:58:37 pm »
    In a revolver, probably a hard cast Keith style bullet or a softer lead semi-wadcutter depending on the occasion, probably out of a .38 special or a .357 magnum.  In an automatic I'd opt for a truncated cone FMJ in either .40 S&W or .45 ACP .

    Now that is interesting  :hmm. Why leave out the 9mm entirely?
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10230
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #117 on: October 22, 2015, 10:02:08 pm »
    Without a hollowpoint configuration or magnum level velocity I tend to favor bullet mass and 9mm's tend to be fairly finicky about what they will feed and what they won't.  If I were going to go with that bullet diameter out of an automatic I'd probably opt for the .38 Super in non - hollowpoint ammuniton .   I would definitely go with it if I could get it to feed cone shaped or truncated cone FMJ's.   
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    JesseL

    • Gun Mangler
    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 12451

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #118 on: October 22, 2015, 10:03:00 pm »
    Now that is interesting  :hmm. Why leave out the 9mm entirely?
    Probably because a 9mm is less likely to reliably feed a cast bullet with a really wide meplat.

    Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk

    Arizona

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 8059
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #119 on: October 22, 2015, 10:03:45 pm »
    Without a hollowpoint configuration or magnum level velocity I tend to favor bullet mass and 9mm's tend to be fairly finicky about what they will feed and what they won't.  If I were going to go with that bullet diameter out of an automatic I'd probably opt for the .38 Super in non - hollowpoint ammuniton .

    Probably because a 9mm is less likely to reliably feed a cast bullet with a really wide meplat.

    Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk



     :thumbup1
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    only1asterisk

    • Just some guy, you know?
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2405

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #120 on: October 22, 2015, 10:15:25 pm »
    Now that is interesting  :hmm. Why leave out the 9mm entirely?

    With flat nosed nonexpanding bullets it is about maximizing meplat and velocity while maintaining adequate penetration.  The velocity range (9mm, .40, .45) has significant overlap but there isn't way of giving a 9mm more meplat.

    sohmdaddy

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2869
      • inSOHMnia

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #121 on: October 23, 2015, 01:40:57 am »
      What if, for whatever reason, modern hollow point ammunition was unavailable to you?  You were left with FMJ, semiwadcutter, wadcutter, etc.?  Would that affect your handgun round of choice?

    FMJ? .45 acp. S&W M&P, Sig 220 or 227, Springfield Mil-Spec, or the new skinny Glock in 45.

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #122 on: October 23, 2015, 02:03:17 am »
    I think even without a hollow point, a lead bullet with a flat nose can give you a good permanent crush cavity.  Such loads may not feed well in a lot of semiautos, though.  In that case, your best bet might be a jacketed bullet with a flat point.  I've seen such FMJ loads in .40, but most 9mm and .45 FMJ has a round nose.

    A lot of 1911s (and I'm sure other guns) will feed .45ACP LSWC.  It's going to be better than a rounded bullet, I think.

    With a .357 Magnum, I think I'd want just a straight-up wadcutter, if hollow points were unavailable.  A 150-grain target wadcutter going 1400 feet per second is going to make a splash.  I think it'd possibly overpenetrate, but that means it would still be adequate on a big dude in heavy clothing and such.

    With a .44 Magnum, a lead semi- or full wadcutter would do fine, I think.  Buffalo Bore loads an "antipersonnel" .44 Mag.  It's a 200 grain wadcutter at 1300 feet per second.  It won't expand, but it'll do some damage.

    I will say, when I went to war, my sidearm was a 9mm, and I didn't worry about carrying ball ammo.  Getting shot still sucks, even if it's with FMJ.  A hollow-point bullet is, I think, a marginal advantage at best, slightly increasing your wounding potential.  I don't think it should be a make-or-break issue for you.

    As far as .380 goes, 9mm DOES have a real-world advantage over it.  The little extra bullet weight and slight-to-moderate velocity advantage gives it much better penetration than you typically get with a .380ACP.  I don't know that I'd carry any kind of expanding ammunition in .380.  I think I'd opt for one of the flat-point lead bullet loads I've seen offered, just to ensure the bullet goes deep enough, even after going through clothing or a rib cage.

    I don't know that bore diameter is a very big deal, either.  The difference between 9mm and .45 is a tenth of an inch.  If someone ran you through with a metal spike, would you feel better if it was only a 0.35" diameter spike instead of a 0.45" diameter one?

    I think maybe all of this is contributing to .40 not being that popular these days.  Maybe it has a slight ballistic advantage over 9mm, pushing slightly heavier bullets five-hundredths of an inch wider to comparable velocities, but is that worth the extra recoil and ammo cost?
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    cpaspr

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2279

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #123 on: October 23, 2015, 12:09:50 pm »
    <snip>

    I think maybe all of this is contributing to .40 not being that popular these days.  Maybe it has a slight ballistic advantage over 9mm, pushing slightly heavier bullets five-hundredths of an inch wider to comparable velocities, but is that worth the extra recoil and ammo cost?

    But . . . but . . . but . . . a .40S&W starts with a "4", and "everyone" knows that real defensive ammo starts with a "4".  Anything less isn't worth shooting.   :neener

    Okay, humor over.

    As I mentioned earlier, the range I shoot at has had proportionately a lot less .40 brass being left these days than in the past.  Much more 9mm and .45.  I think the FBI switching back to 9mm has some to do with it.  You'll always have those who "shoot what the cops shoot, to be safe in court".  Plus, I'm not sure if there's still a lack of .40 on the shelves, what with DHS allegedly buying 8 billion or so rounds recently.  And as has been pointed out, 9mm is cheaper to shoot.  But as I also mentioned, much more 9mm and .45 is being left.  In nearly equal quantities.  So the "9mm is cheaper to shoot" argument fails a bit if equal amounts of .45 are being shot.  Remember though, this is just one range, and just my observations.  Still, I think the FBI decision and the potential lack of .40 on the shelves are both contributing somewhat to my observations.

    Oregon

    Mississippi556

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 915

    • Offline
    Re: So...does everyone hate .40 now?
    « Reply #124 on: October 23, 2015, 02:15:32 pm »
    Wow, guys!  I step away from the forum for a few days and find a five page thread on .40 S&W and FBI change to 9mm.

    FWIW, on the tail end of this thread, my two cents worth is much like the comments above that all handgun rounds are a suboptimal compromise, but are often a necessary one.

    I have owned a Glock 22 since the first year they came out.  Yeah, one of the ones that were supposed to be bad.  It has performed flawlessly.  I'm not a high round count shooter, but have probably put a couple thousand rounds through it.  I reload and have some pretty stout, but safe +P type loads worked up for it.

    I also shoot 9mm in a Hi-Power.  I know what y'all are saying about the "snap" nature of recoil in the .40, compared to the 9mm, but it is not really bothersome for me in my more leisurely shooting sessions.

    My view of the whole thing about FBI change, is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I'm not aware of any valid reason to go back to 9mm and consider the data they employed to be marginal at best.  But, I do like my 9mm.  It is in my night stand. The .40 goes with me most of the time.

    Both the Glock and the Hi-Power are now using Barnes TAC-XP bullets that are somewhat light for caliber.   I think the all-copper bullets perform very well, with dramatic expansion and close to 100 percent retained weight.  They will leave a big exit wound.  That has been my experience with the .40 as a back up weapon deer hunting.  I've had to "finish off" a couple white tail deer that I thought were down only to see them try to get up after approaching them. (rare, but usually due to suboptimal shot placement on a running deer).

    Of course, excessive penetration may be a negative in some scenarios, but I'd rather have that.

    All I can say that modern bonded soft points or hollow points or expanding monolithic bullets like the Barnes TAC-XP change terminal ballistics so much that minor quibbles about 9mm v. .40 S&W, v. 45 ACP may be more determined by variations in bullet construction and weight than any inherent differences in the three rounds.  If possible, shoot until the threat is eliminated anyway, never relying on what a single handgun bullet may or may not accomplish.  I am modest in expressing these opinions in that I am not military or law enforcement.  Just a recreational shooter or hobbyist, who measures terminal performance primarily on what a particular firearm does on deer sized game, and realistically appreciating that a human with bad intentions may not be deterred after being wounded.

    When all is said and done, any of them, with properly designed bullets will get the job done.  Choose whichever pleases you.  A bigger hole is not a bad thing.  I see no reason to ditch the Glock 22.   I do want a 1911, always have.  Looking at various models now, but don't expect to sell the Glock.
     
    « Last Edit: October 23, 2015, 02:35:23 pm by Mississippi556 »
    Mississippi"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe"  Words of Jesus, Luke 11:21 (ESV).

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.