quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:
While older 9mm rounds wouldn't be my first choice, I would consider ones with good track records, like the Federal 115gr 9BPLE +P+, acceptable if I couldn't get HST or Gold Dot.

My memory isn't too good on this but were the 2 authors in the study years ago that lauded the 9BPLE (among others such as .357 125-gr JHP) for street performance later discredited based on their controversial methodologies?

They certainly have their critics, but I was going on general reputation and not the Marshall-Sanow studies. Quantifying "stopping power" (there really needs to be another term for that) is tricky, at best, so I prefer to go by general reputation instead, i.e., "XYZ Police Department is satisfied with the performance of ABC JHP ammo in officer-involved shootings." That's the main reason I prefer 147gr HST, even though I think 9BPLE would be adequate for personal defense use and would have no problem carrying if my preferred load was unavailable.

180 GR .40's are pretty good on bowling pins

I believe it has to do with a few things, but mainly the fact that there are an abundance of polymer firearms that are light.

Concealed carry has brought a huge amount of small firearms into play.

Reality at end of day, a light small gun is no fun to shoot with a .40...

.40, also costs more than 9mm, and is more difficult to find during a rush.

Have there been advances, I imagine, but really, I think comfort and cost is most likely reason.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by henryarnaud:
While older 9mm rounds wouldn't be my first choice, I would consider ones with good track records, like the Federal 115gr 9BPLE +P+, acceptable if I couldn't get HST or Gold Dot.

My memory isn't too good on this but were the 2 authors in the study years ago that lauded the 9BPLE (among others such as .357 125-gr JHP) for street performance later discredited based on their controversial methodologies?

At least once Agency came forth and said that they did not officially release information to Marshall and Sanow.

Thanks for reminding me about them, I've been meaning grab a copy of the book and see what they had to say. Most of what I read of them came out of the gun rags.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
180 GR .40's are pretty good on bowling pins

The .40 is a good cartridge for competition, and it is the first choice in Limited Division of USPSA.

It is also a good caliber to have on hand when 9x19 dries up because of panic buying.

So, it is there for some good reasons if needed and will remain so.

Price and recoil.
$20 for 50 HST 9mm vs $24 for 50 HST 40.
Not a big deal if you're only buying 200-300rds but when you buy 10,000 it adds up.

I can shoot faster more accurately with a 9mm than I can 40 or 45.
Virtually the same guns except caliber but when timed, I can hit what I want faster with 9mm.

9mm ammunition technology has advanced so far that the gap in stopping power between 9mm and .40 has closed greatly. .40 is not a fun round to shoot for most people. Most people tend to like shooting 9mm or .45 and aren't a fan of the snappy .40. Plus you get 20-30% more capacity with 9mm over .40 in the same gun.

I only have one .40 caliber, compared to 8 9mm's and 7 .45's. But thank God, because during the ammo shortage a few years back, the only caliber I ever came across on the shelves was .40.

Just bought a G23. Another .40 in the stable.

My son just bought a G27. Another .40.

Still not dead.

Because .40 doesn't add much to 9mm, if anything.

It just doesn't do anything better than any other round, and is worse in some respects.

Folks following the band wagon back to improved 9mm ballistics. That said, there are a lot of very nice used pistols that can be had in 40 these days at very good prices. Most are interchangeable with 357Sig so you get two caliber capabilities if you are so inclined.

In the ER, surgery, (and even "on the slab") wounds caused by any decently well-designed HP bullets in 9 mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, etc. are very, very difficult to tell apart. I have gleened this from reading the literature, talking to my own medical friends (I am an A&P Professor), and from my paramedic son who sees a LOT of gunshot wounds. He, his fellow responders, and associated ER docs all personally carry 9 mm pistols off-duty because they are easier to shoot, period. (I only carry a.45 ACP b/c I shot bullseye competition for so many years, it is like an old friend.)

In a sense, change came because the .40 was simply defined to be less desirable than the 9 mm by the FBI and some other agencies. The criteria and tests were changed. But we are FAR from hearing the .40s dying gasps. To claim otherwise is a farcical. It is still very, very widely in use! It turned out to be a far better round on the street than anyone expected (and I am not referring to the perhaps very well-intention but still useless junk science of Marshall and Sanow).

Anyone knocking the .40 HP as "inadequate" is pretty-much merely voicing an unfounded prejudice. The .40 is alive and well. Still, now and in the next several years will be a good time buy police trade-ins. Don't be surprised if the wind blows in yet another direction one day, however, and we see some other cartridge championed.

Overall, today we have a wider variety of effective defensive handgun ammunition available than ever before. Improvements will continue to be made in terminal performance as feedback comes in from the street. The biggest decision we need to make is to carefully review the FBI protocols, and see if the really meet civilians needs. Shoot through any car bodies recently (apologies to LEOs who have a different set of challenges!)? You may find that even the "second string" ammunition, at a far better price, will do you just fine.

The only shame right now is that our military did not decide to go for .40 or .45; when mandatory use of FMJ is concerned, a heaver, larger diameter bullet has the decided advantage. There, .40 might just have been a nice compromise. We have had ample opportunity to try this out in field operations -but there I go, opening another can of worms.)

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Just bought a G23. Another .40 in the stable.

My son just bought a G27. Another .40.

Still not dead.

G23 is for some reason, an amazingly shootsble .40 S&W! Great gun! I am with you. I am hoping to see a good deal on one, soon.

I do wish I kept my last 40 229 that I traded for a 320. That was a nice pistol. But I do prefer the 9mm.

quote:

Originally posted by Brianm14:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Just bought a G23. Another .40 in the stable.

My son just bought a G27. Another .40.

Still not dead.

G23 is for some reason, an amazingly shootsble .40 S&W! Great gun! I am with you. I am hoping to see a good deal on one, soon.

Mine came in nearly new condition, teflon frying pan finish slide on Gen 3, this one with Trijicon HD's already installed, police turn-in from Recoil, under four hundred bucks. Very clean, no external wear, very, very minimal wear internally. I think three eighty plus transfer locally.

Why shoot a 40? 9mm is a lot cheaper to run. If you want more power, go to a 10mm which is a lot better round than the 40.

Some newer handguns, such as Ruger's American Pistol and some foreign brands, aren't even offered in .40.

quote:

Originally posted by Abn556:
Why shoot a 40? 9mm is a lot cheaper to run. If you want more power, go to a 10mm which is a lot better round than the 40.

Try finding 10mm ammunition on most gun store shelves. It's also almost twice the price of .40 and has less JHP options than .40. Also 10mm factory ammo has similar ballistics to .40 in most brands. To really see or utilize what 10 mm offers, you pretty much have to reload it yourself or go to a boutique brand that loads it up. 10mm has a lot more potential than .40. BUT, as snappy as .40 is, 10 mm is even worse in a defensive pistol, a follow up shot is not going to be nearly as fast or accurate as 9mm. .40 has it's place, just haven't quite figured out where that is...… I think .40 had a clear advantage over 9mm 10-15 years ago, but now bullet technology has advanced so much that the gap in stopping power between the two is pretty slim and most would rather have 1/3 more capacity. In a state with a 10 round magazine restriction, I'd rather have .40 in the same gun most of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Brianm14:
The only shame right now is that our military did not decide to go for .40 or .45; when mandatory use of FMJ is concerned, a heaver, larger diameter bullet has the decided advantage. There, .40 might just have been a nice compromise. We have had ample opportunity to try this out in field operations -but there I go, opening another can of worms.)

A nice compromise between what and what? Between bullet diameter and recoil? Every .40 I've ever shot has had nastier recoil than any .45 I've ever shot. 1911 in .45 FTW!

Advances in defensive rounds in general have improved, and almost everyone would likely be hard pressed to tell you which of the big 3 caused a particular wound channel.

Factor in cost, controllability, capacity, and smaller defensive pistols and you at least know why the 9mm is pulling ahead again.

I agree that the .40 isn’t going the way of the dinosaurs yet, not by a long shot. In large framed duty pistols, it is still a pussycat. My 226 .40is a dream to shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:

quote:

Originally posted by Brianm14:
The only shame right now is that our military did not decide to go for .40 or .45; when mandatory use of FMJ is concerned, a heaver, larger diameter bullet has the decided advantage. There, .40 might just have been a nice compromise. We have had ample opportunity to try this out in field operations -but there I go, opening another can of worms.)

A nice compromise between what and what? Between bullet diameter and recoil? Every .40 I've ever shot has had nastier recoil than any .45 I've ever shot. 1911 in .45 FTW!

I think of .40 as a clumsy compromise between 9mm and .45ACP. 9mm is snappy; .45 is shovey. .40S&W is a snappy shove. The sharpness makes it harder to control, while the push makes it, well, harder to control. The cartridge completely does what it was designed to do, so in the engineering sense is a success. But rather than combine the advantages of the other rounds, I'd say it more combines the disadvantages.

I have no trouble controlling .40 from a Glock 19, but I don't enjoy it much. I'd rather shoot 9mm, or go the complete other end of the spectrum and shoot .45. Snap or shove yes, but snappy shove, not for me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,