I think we can end this caliber debate by recommending that everyone CC a M61. NO problems with stopping power, even if a tractor/trailer is trying to rob you. It might print a little bit with most wardrobes, but the effectiveness is worth it.

OK, so more deadly was too flippant a term, my bad. The stopping power between the rounds listed vs the 9mm are all within mere percentage points of each other(all fall in the 90% range for one shot drop), so I guess they are really no better for purpose of stopping power. Hell, a 380 is going to kill someone. You have to admit, the amount of tissue damage done by a 45, 40 and 44 exceed that of a nine. The 357 is a wash. My point, in all reality, is why do I need a nine, when I already have these other guns? I know you love your nines, but there is no use fighting over it. Truth be told, I am looking at a 9mm sig right now, but have no money and cannot justify buying another round. I just want the damn gun. I did phrase my original statement incorrectly, but I do prefer the ones I already have.

BTW, why isn't deadly a good thing when someone is trying to kill you? I'm of the opinion that unless it's dead or near death, it can still harm me. It's just how I feel.

feel?

feel?

this is a gun board. and you are talking about "feelings"?

i call for a perma-ban!

I think this thread proves the OP's point.

The story about the FBI sissies being unable to handle the 10mm is pure myth. The tests that ended up picking the 10mm specified a total recoil no higher than the .45ACP and one of the team specifically hand loaded the 10mm down to that level. It won over the .45ACP because it had a smaller diameter and more energy so it worked better against barriers and that was a mjor part of the test protocol after the Miami fiasco. The .40 S&W was loaded to the same specification as the 10mm lite that won the tests but since it was fired in lighter pistols it had more felt recoil. Somehow the FBI's girly men and women still managed to shoot it.

Gel tests do not show the 9mm, .40S&W, 357SIG and .45ACP to be equal. They merely show them to have approximately the same penetration. They were designed to have that penetration because the FBI said that was what was requred. Since they start with different energies, they get the same penetration by giving up less energy per inch of travel in the gel. That means the lower eneergy rounds do less damage to the side of track. This is actually very clear if you look at pictures showing comparisons of their effects. I know that gel does not behave in the same way as tissue except for penetration and bullet expansion but that is Facklers fault and not mine. Given that, some simple measurements and calculation based on the most commonly repeated of these comparative photos shows shows that the volume of gel damaged by the 357SIG is approximately 2.7 times that damaged by the 147gn 9mm. Even in flesh, this has to be a significan difference.

The photos also show quite clearly that the permanent cavity is significantly greater than the expanded diameter of the bullet except for the last inch or two of track where it is narrower than bullet diameter. This is because the pressure field in front of a fast moving bullet crushes cells in a wider diameter than the bullet but for a slow moving bullet the tissue stretches around it and springs back. In other words, all the stuff about how much bigger the .45 is than the 9mm or the .40 is hogwash. The damage done at any point along the wound track is created by a combination of speed and bullet diameter. Bullet trauma is not equivalent to a neat expanded bullet diameter hole.

Can the 9mm do as much damage per shot as any of the others in the list? Obviously not, because it can't be fired fast enough to compensate. In the .357 magnum, 357SIG or 9x23mm Winchester this deficiency is removed. How can so many people ignore the long proven effectiveness of the 125gn .357 Magnum?

All that is left of that argument is the strange idea that in this one magical segment of bullet performance, with a two to one ratio of power, in the range from 9mm through .40S&W, 357SIG and .45ACP to 10mm Auto there is no difference in fight stopping effectiveness. All of the people who seem to believe this agree that the .380ACP and .32 ACP are below this magical range and that the .44 Magnum is above it. All handgun hunters using autos believe there are distinct differences in effectiveness within the range with the standard 9mm at the bottom of the list. Yet somehow, a majority think that against the human animal, the 9mm is as good as anything.

This problem comes down to a relationship between volume of tissue damage and effectiveness. We can't "prove" any of this because we can't control the data well enough but the NYPD LEOs have campaigned for a long time to get rid of the 147gn 9mm they were forced to use by their bureaucrats. I think they have finally succeded. The even heavier and slower .38 Sp, effectively 9mm caliber, used in the Phillipines had plenty of penetration but very little stopping power. Is twice as much energy twice as effective? Perhaps not, but if the question is whether it is more effective, I am sure that it is. Can any 9mm supporter show evidence against that? Not one! And neither can I show evidence that it is true.

Then we have Marshall and Sanow. I actually like them and I think they were making an honest attempt at a real problem. What they showed without doubt was that there were actually lots of one shot stops. Unfortunately their experimental model and statistical method was rubbish. Hands up everyone who can believe that the .32ACP has a 66% one shot stop rate. If that is rubbish then so is the 1 or 2% difference in the 90 plus percent range of the best performers. The sad truth is that their percentages are nearly meaningless.

The simple truth is that it is very hard to stretch the imaginagion far enough to believe that the 9mm is as effective as the .40S&W or that the .40 is quite as good as the 357SIG or that the 357SIG is as good as the 10mm. What you choose should be based or the size and weight of pistol you are able and prepared to carry and the recoil you can handle under fire. That is far more recoil than you can handle for practice.

Within this size of pistol versus power of round choice space the .380ACP (and perhaps the .32ACP) has a valid place. Above that is the 9mm. Then above that are the .40S&W, .357SIG and .45ACP in a fairly tight bunch if they are all loaded hot. Then above them is the 10mm. In 135 and 155gn the 10mm is perfectly good against people without overpenetration but the pistol is bigger than those in .40S&W and 357SIG. The fact that the .45 pistols are as big as the 10mms but have less power and lower round count pushes the .45 out of contention in the middle group. The 9mm is brilliant in the Kel Tec PF9, Kahr whatever and Rohrbaugh sizes but in the G19 and G26 size you might as well go to the .40S&W or 357SIG. Below the PF9 size, the .380 in Kel Tec P3AT or Ruger LCP are a good compromise but as the P32 is only an ounce lighter than the P3AT the weight gain is not enough to compensate for the power loss.

This leaves us with a fight versus practice compromise. The solution is to practice with 9mm Glocks but carry .40S&W or 357SIG, practice with P32 but carry P3AT, or carry 10mm but pactice with a .40S&W conversion barrel. There is no nice solution to the PF9 or Rohrbaugh recoil problem but with the Kahrs you can carry polymer and shoot steel.

English

Hmmm.... found this tidbit on Wiki...

The nature of successful myth, rumour and innuendo is that it makes a good story and so gets spread very widely. In the process the truth is lost. We see it with the media and with politics. The fact that it appears in Wikipedia is not surprising.

I did have a better source for this information but a computer failure lost it and I have not been able to find it again. There was someone here or on 10mmtalk.com who had made an extensive and documented study of the history of the FBI and the 10mm but I cannot locate him or his work. The author of the post below is an ex FBI agent who was one of the last to hand in his 10mm 1076 under some coercion. To that extent he is biased but he was there and knew a lot of what went on. Note that the ex FBI pistols later sold to the public were warranty returns and not trade-ins. Ask yourself how S&W could have made all the 1076s supplied to the FBI so poorly that all were returned under warranty even though the same pistols have a high reputation for reliability. In fact, according to my lost information, as part of the turf wars within the FBI, one individual recruited a man with no armorer experience to test all 1076s and to return them if the least fault was found. Things that could be fixed in five minutes or less, such as a loose sight, were returned to S&W as faulty. This was part of the sneaky tactics of the turf war.

The main part of the following can be found on the Smith and Wesson forum at http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/.../4611047852/p/1
but is part of a post of mine on 10mmtalk.com:


The post below is from the smith-wessonforum.com quoted above. It is certainly the kind of authoritative information I was looking for and is very interesting. Unfortunately it is not the work I was looking for. Never mind, it debunks a lot of the myths that have been put around for 20 years.

English


dmc8163
Member

Posted 31 October 2007 07:53 AM
Sigp220.45

Thank you for your response about the 1076. I may be the person you are referring as one of the people the Gun Vault coerced into turning in their 1076 for a Glock. Smiler LOL

As you know the FBI's ultimate decision to return all its 1076s to S&W under warranty had everything to do with turf battles, egos and politics and very little to do with the pistol's or ammunition's performance. Further, over the two to three year period that the FBI and S&W haggled over the 1076 the .40 S&W had been developed. The FBI saw a way to extricate itself from the S&W entanglement and go with the .40 which had similar ballistics. Ironically, it so happened that the FBI selected Glock to provide the .40s. It also happened that Glock (and firearms manufacturers) had sued the FBI when the original contract had been awarded to S&W.

The FBI contract with S&W was never actually voided, rescinded or canceled, both sides simply "agreed to disagree" and left it at that. That is the only reason the FBI 1076 pistols made it to the commercial market rather than be destroyed as required by law. They were "warranty returns," not trade-ins (which the Feds are prohibited from doing.) It would be very difficult to find a street Agent in the FBI that was issued a 1076 that did not like it. most did not want to give them up. And some took extreme measures to hold onto theirs. Many Agents bought multiple 1076s from S&W as used guns when the FBI returned them to S&W.

Contrary to old myths and legends concerning the demise of the 1076 in the FBI it had little to do with too powerful ammunition, they couldn't handle the recoil (down-loaded FBI 10 mm round or "FBI Lite" was equal to or less than a .357), it was too heavy (only 6 oz more than Model 13 it replaced), too hard to conceal (easier to conceal, it was not as wide), too large for small frame male and female Agents (remedied with addition of resized grips), it suffered from metal failure, cracks in the frame, etc. (one, possibly two documented cases), jams and stovepipes (yes, if you limp-wrist or pull your arm/shoulder back when you shoot - like new shooters do - the pistols jam and stovepipe - Duh - it's a pistol).

I could go on but my point is that the S&W 3rd generation 10 mm pistols are not the dismal failures that history has made them out to be. Had not the FBI rejected the 1076 the S&W 10 mm pistols might well have developed into an all around well thought of handgun. What strikes me is how little it takes to derail a new firearm or cartridge. Whether true or untrue, fact or innuendo, documented or rumors, information reaching the shooting population does in fact have a huge effect on what is available to us.

I respect everyone's opinion on the forum and I wanted to add mine to this discussion. I think the 1076 is a fine pistol that has been maligned based more on inaccurate information from the outset in the early 90's. And I would like to see the entire truth, whatever it may be, about the 1076 come to light.

Regards to everyone.

D

While your post is compelling English you have a source from a forum. I can find a million sources from different forums that claim the direct opposite. We both know that Wiki is not the best source to pick, but when there are issues it will generally be contested. This isn't the case for this article. I'd really like it if you could find the source you mentioned.

Thanks,
Dan

Dan,

You just need to quit hatin' on the .40!

JK, I have been trying to steer clear of this thread, but it has a gravitational pull that I cannot resist!

.40

the fotay is awesome... simply put... how many times was tupac shot with 9's before they finally did him in? When in doubt the 40 will shine with no worries. the 9 is for gang bangers and limp wristed rainbow chasing commies... (i am just kidding of course since I have one too! )

How does 9mm lethality stack if it comes out of a 10.5 inch barell? I am putting together a SBR and hoped the extra velocity would give the round more oumph.

I'm not hatin, were discussing the origins. I told you there will always be an empty spot in the safe waiting for a .40

Always? Your 9mm's are waiting for a big brother! Empty space in a safe is never good

If your not going to shoot that ammo, I will!

i like it

since 40cal just went up in price at my local walmart and is now almost the same as 45acp--i'm gonna be selling my 40's.

i'm not paying the same price for a smaller round (plus i just like the 45 better anyway).

I wish smith still produced the 10x series just think how good they would be today.

I like the 40. I guess I am a weird cuz what most folks call muzzle flip I call recoil. Sure it recoils a lil more than a 9mm but it does not bother me at all or my wife grant it a 9mm would be more comfortable for her to shoot. When I get one I will let her shoot both and decide for herself.

The local Sheriff's dept here had to switch from the Sig 220 to the Glock 22 because the female deputies complained about the recoil.

Muzzle flip is recoil.

Muzzle flip is simply describing how the gun recoils.

bc

The 40sw recoill is sharper! It is just an option that I am going to skip for now because as stated earlyer I am having a hard enough time feeding the guns I Have

Until the slide hits its stop then all the recoil you are feeling, roughly speaking,is that of the recoil spring being compressed. That is, you feel as much as if you manually racked the slide. The burn characteristics of any cartridge are such that the bullet has left the muzzle long before the slide has come anywhere near the hitting the front of the frame. So, provided the product of bullet mass and bullet velocity is the same for two different cartridges, as is true for the .40S&W and .45ACP, felt recoil will be entirely a matter of weight of pistol.

The only reason that people think the .40 is snappy is because it is fired normally from a 9mm size and weight frame. Put a .40S&W conversion barrel into a G20, which is the same weight and configuration as the G21 and the felt recoil is the same as the G21's. The choice is really whether you want a lighter to carry pistol and will pay the price of heavier felt recoil.

If you are one of those people who thinks that more KE in general produces faster incapacitation, and I know there are lots of things to be said to qualify this, then for a $130 dollars more you can have a .40S&W Glock with a 9mm conversion barrel and magazineso that you can practice with the 9 and defend yourself with the .40. Apart from 2 fewer rounds in the magazine you can have the best of both.

English

What is wrong with .40 S&W you ask? It is short & weak.....