https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

I have watched that video several times since it was released. It's good stuff.

For those that cannot take the time to watch it, their main point is: Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles, which of course means that no pistol is an adequate substitute for a rifle, but it also means that means that most pistol cartridges are equally (unequally) effective, among loads that both penetrate and expand. Caliber, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and energy don't make the difference among handgun cartridges.

I have a hard time accepting that as fact, but I am in no place to argue against it based on my own experience, or lack thereof.

Watched this when it came out. Mostly valid, I think, but I cannot help believing that the stopping power edge still goes to .40 and over vs .355/9mm. Not by much, but possibly, on occasion, when it counts most. I think, for example, that a 230 grain Gold Dot from a .45 will be more likely to produce a quick stop in a determined attacker than a 124 grain Gold Dot 9mm, all other factors (e.g., barrel length) being equal.

If one is observant and shoots enough game, it becomes obvious that larger calibers are higher on the food chain, especially as size of the game increases

A proper bullet and shot placement matter most

I regularly shoot plates. I’ve used a 22lr.,22magnum, 380, 9mm, 38special ,40 and 45. If you only shoot at paper targets you can’t tell any difference. But you can tell the authority in which each different caliber knocks over the plates
Hasbeen

I can see the physical reaction when I hit a deer in the rib cage with a 45ACP +P that I can't see with the 9mm +P with the same hit in the rib cage

Well, there you go. Makes intuitive sense, also.

I remember a few years after the military switched to 9mm from 45's as a service weapons, troops were complaining that the 9 did not have the stopping power as the 45. I think I would put more credence in those troops than anyone

When shooting modern JHP the 9mm is much closer than when both the 45 and 9mm are shooting ball ammo

.45 JHP expands larger than does 9mm JHP.

Expansion is close, but what is over looked is that enough is enough. If a quarter size hole through the heart brings the blood pressure instantly to zero, a silver dollar size hole can't bring the blood oressure down faster

The 45 IMHO is higher on the food chain, but is it enough higher to give up the added magazine capacity of the 9mm?

I accept that that's a perfectly reasonable position/argument.
I mostly carry 9mm, mainly with that point in mind, in fact. Although, when I carry .45, I must admit to feeling more comforted in the effectiveness of each individual round.

I agree with much or all above......

The thing you catch in the video, that one guy mentioned being in talks with Law Enforcement and getting real world street results. No doubt, if in war, using FMJ, a larger cal is preferred..........though you cannot get around sacrificing mag capacity. That said, it sounds like the Army might be going to JHP in 9.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFFVsARpdVM

Now again, I have always appreciated larger bullets, heavier bullets, in handguns and rifles when it comes to hunting. So back to my college days, I ran a lot of TC Contenders in 7TCU, 6.5TCU, etc. I also preferred 41 and 44 revolvers over 357.

Since then I have dropped deer with 6BR and 243, thru 338/06. They all died, and no doubt - STOPPING the Threat quickly IS the issue with handguns for personal protection. That said, bullet technology truly does seem to be closing the gap.

So, would one be better off with say a 16 rounds of 9mm in a modern quality JHP? Or 8-10 rounds in a 45 or 40?

Good bullets, placed thru vitals works on 2-legged just as they do on deer. Years back I had no interest in 9mm, as the concensus then was lackluster and mixed. Over time, the newer better bullets have made me completely rethink the 9 and it's reputation has grown alot since the better ammo has been issued to PD around the country.

Be well folks, and above all, train for accuracy, with dependable arms and ammo

JWP, I've read several articles where the author says a 230gr HP will often fail to expand at longer distances, but the 185gr JHP as a defensive round is better. Thoughts?

Wade, have you tried the 9mm in the big bore bowling pin events? By this I mean when we shoot our 45 ACP's and larger pistols, we set the pins at the front of the table (4x8' sheet of plywood). By the time we get to this stage of the event the pins are full of lead from the rimfire and mid bore shoots, so the pins are both heavier and lumpier in comparison than when they were closer to the back of the table. Last weekend at a bowling pin shoot, I was trying a new load with my 9mm which uses a 147gr JHP XTP bullet. I was running power pistol and velocities were pretty good. I didn't use it in the matches, but after the match I tried the new load out and low and behold the 9mm knocked them off the table just as well as the 45. The advantage of the 9mm is greater mag capacity, easier to shoot and get back on target and most times they are more accurate. One year a club member cleaned our clocks with his 9mm in all stages of the pin shoot, except for the rimfire event where it's not allowed. I've personally switched to the 9mm for the mid bore stage after witnessing that. As you know from shooting pins, some guys can take 5 pins off the table with 5 shots with their 45's in less than 5 seconds, but they are the exception, not the rule. I've never been a 9mm lover, but after shooting pins and seeing the results, its slowly winning me over. What's your experience on this? Thanks..

My opinion, MOMENTUM matters, all else equal when shooting inanimate objects. On bowling pins speed has to go up to offset lower bullet weights of the 9 no doubt. The 147 XTP holds together well, and very likely has a higher momentum than lighter bullets.

I shot steel silhouettes at 100 yds with 30/30, 7TCU, and 44. The 44 by far slammed the hell out of the rams, more so than the smaller bullets with less mass.

That said, for self-defense, there is more going on. Just depends on application, as often is the case.

Several good points in the posts above, and a little bit of confusion. Let me add my 2 cents.

Shooting pins off a table does not translate well to handgun use on people. Momentum knocks those pins off a table. Handguns do not carry enough momentum to "knock" a person down. Physics prevent this: if a bullet will "knock" a person down, then the recoil would also knock the shooter down as well. People fall down, collapse, etc, but are not "knocked" down by pistol bullets.

I've seen a few thousand handgun gunshot wounds, over 150 resulting in death, and attended many autopsies as a result. With modern expanding hollowpoints, (HST, Gold Dots, etc) I could not tell a difference in a person's reaction after being shot, or the resulting tissue damage from the projectile, based on caliber. If there is any difference I missed, it is miniscule. Non expanding bullets are different, bigger caliber usually means a bigger hole (increased wounding) but even then, the person shot doesn't react much different.

What does matter with handguns, is shot placement. Ive seen a 300 pound man take a .22 lr 40 grain roundnose to the armpit and collapse and die within seconds, and a little skinny kid take multiple .45's to the torso, never went down and recovered after a hospital stay.

My advice is use a good bullet (I prefer HST'S but there are several similar designs) of sufficient power (.38 special on up) that you can shoot accurately under stressful conditions. Shot placement is the most important factor, then bullet design, only then does caliber enter into the equation. The handgun projectile should expand yet penetrate through the vitals. Ive seen where a 185 grain Winchester Silvertip centerpunch a person a bit low, frontal through the stomach and came to rest against the person's spine, fully expanded but did not break the spine. The fight continued. A bit more penetration wojld have taken out the person's spine and ended the fight.

As an aside, I prefer a high capacity 9, as repeat shots are faster due to less recoil. In the woods, I carry a 10mm or 454 where additional penetration and power may be needed for animals much larger and with heavier bones than humans.

And then there is the 5.7.

Viking,
Good point. Admittedly, I have limited personal experience with the 5.7, as it just wasn't as popular as other handgun calibers in the city where I worked. Tactically, less recoil and high capacity is a plus, but the biggest factor I see is the ability to defeat body armor.

Manny

No one is making such a stupid argument. The point relates to the difference in the physical force applied to the target by the projectile. Greater force equals more damage potential.

I've been saying as much for years on this forum; handguns aren't rifles.

When the target impact speed is gone, handgun bullets may or may not expand, may penetrate less etc..

It's easier to make a larger caliber expand at lower velocity, but more difficult to get penetration from it while keeping recoil down. Range is an effect as well.

Handguns are pretty simple, it's only by treating them like rifles do the mechanics get complicated, convoluted and follows with nonsense that was universally quelled over a hundred years ago.

Flat, large and keep the expansion to a minimum. I hear pure lead or 1-20 punks up nicely, but as long as folks think they make a bullet that can go through a windshield and 7/8ths of a dead perp from 10 feet to 50 yards, the concept of an entrance and an exit hole is way too dangerous....

FWIW, lead and flat noses were banned from military application, probably because both worked.

I do find it interesting that what often gets recommended for large animal defense is suddenly not applicable for human defense and suddenly bullets must take on an entirely different composition, shape, role etc..

Interesting about that 2200 fps threshold where a temporary cavity results in tearing. Not a 45 vs. 9mm thing, but I did video my buddy shooting a 629 S&W with a .44 Special 200 grain jhp and then a .44 Magnum 240 grain jhp into water filled milk jugs. Both .429" diameter but 900 fps vs. 1400 fps DID make quite a different impression on the milk jug and those of us watching.

That 2200 fps threshold certainly explains why a snowshoe hare that I gunned once with a 180 grain from a .308 came apart like it did. A 180 grain .308 bullet sure wasn't going to expand much in a four pound animal, but the higher velocity temporary cavity exceeded the exterior size of the target.

No one is making such a stupid argument. The point relates to the difference in the physical force applied to the target by the projectile. Greater force equals more damage potential. [/quote]

My comment was made to illustrate there isn't a thing as "knock down power" in handguns, and meant to be taken in context with the rest of my comments regarding my personal experience with handgun wounding in humans. You can cherry pick my comments and take them out of context if you wish, but clearly, you missed the entire point of my post.

That may or may not be true depending on the bullet. I have some Underwood 45 Super Ammo with the 230 XTP and 185 XTP bullets. The 230's expand readily, wide and hold together like a bonded bullet. The 230's have a deep hollow point and a softer core than the 185's. The 185's have a shallow hollow point and a much harder core and don't not open as wide as the 230's despite 1300+ FPS velocity

The authors of those articles are using assumptions if they didn't test their position

Now shoot that same water jug with a 5.56 or a .270 Winchester and see what happens.

Your post was stupid. No one was saying a 9mm or 45 was going to slam a person to the ground. You implied that is what I was trying to say and the implication is truly idiotic. The real hawkeye was spot on:

The term "knock down power" was never meant literally. If a bullet could physically knock someone down, the shooter would also be knocked down when his gun went off. Attacking the concept as though it was ever meant literally is a straw man argument.

You literally just made my point.

I have not shot the 9mm in large bore events. I have seen guys use 9mm's and I think what I have seen mostly mirrors your experience. On fresh pins, the 9mm is enough to get the job done, and the shooter gets the advantages you've identified. However, as pins gain weight, the 9mm isn't enough. As others have said, momentum is key in a bowling pin match, and the 9mm just can't produce the necessary momentum, even with a 147gr bullet. (At our club, there is no "capacity advantage" with the 9mm, as our rules limit all guns to 6 rounds per magazine.)

As an aside, I've seen guys shoot 185gr bullets out of the .45 ACP in an attempt to lesson recoil, yet still have enough momentum. It didn't work though, because the lighter bullets didn't move pins when they got heavy. So the guys loaded the 185gr bullets to really hot sppeds (1000 fps, 1050 fps, or even a smidge faster). That, of course, increased the recoil and still only got them momentum numbers that were about equal to a 230gr bullet at 850 fps.

And just to be clear, I'm just answering a bowling pin question--I'm in no way saying that any of this has any impact on the question of what's best for self-defense.

Only if serious folks ever used that term literally, which they didn't.

FWIW, I read Mannyspd1's point as he says it was intended. It was not "stupid."

There's no harm in starting at the beginning--too many people still believe that when a person gets shot with a .44 Magnum or a 12 gauge shotgun that the person will be lifted off the ground and sent through the picture window behind them. They saw it in a movie so it must be true--just as "silencers" make guns completely quiet.

Mannyspd1's post must be read in its entirety and taken in context.

I would also add that this forum typically is more understanding and courteous than other forums on the 'fire. We all benefit when we take the time to clarify what somebody means rather than just flame them.

BSA, my post was stupid? Please enlighten me where anything I said was not factually correct? Again, I will type slowly so you can understand...

You are cherry picking and taking my comment out of context. It was meant as part of the complete post, illustrating handgun wounding.

One guy with over 34k posts, and another with over 106k posts, you think you guys could understand this. Yet my post was stupid.

How about this? If I need help with my computer keyboard, I'll give you a shout. When it comes to handgun wounding in humans, I'll stick to what I know.

See ya.

Manny

I trimmed his original post down to the most salient points. It would appear that his data sample is large, which is significant, and he's saying the same thing as the guys in the video. He also reaches the same choice as most of us for an EDC--a high capacity 9mm.

Thank you for sharing, Manny.

Momentum can be a plus (penetration).
Pistol bullets being large frontal area relative to length, IMHO, can more easily be bumped off course when traveling through stuff.

I laugh about shot placement being key.
Its always key.

Hit em with something, repeatedly, in the right spots. Even then, I would think bigger is better.

With todays criminals however, capacity may be more of a factor than caliber.
The one vs one, or two..........now we have to think about gangs/mobs.

I don't hear much about knockdown power these days.
Spine or take out a leg, that'll drop em.
Other than that.............yeah whatever.

Handguns are pretty wimpy for defense, they work, but aint magical.

I dunno if the old Sanow stuff was vilified or verified, but IIRC 10% of those shot by handgun died, and only 10% of those died at the scene.
Of course there's proly a ton of variables, and noise, in that data.

But still.............I don't expect a bad guy to give up even with a good hit.

Pound em down.

The only time I've ever wanted a different gun than what I had. I wanted a rifle, not a bigger handgun. I would have, in that moment been satisfied with a 22LR as long as it was a rifle.

Maybe an irrational thought. Still, there's something to be said for confidence when its conspicuously absent.

You're welcome Waders.

My take is I'm certain,

That it depends.

So much varies that results can be lost in the noise.

22LR is often said to be unbelievably deadly.
And penetrates very deeply.

Then, someone takes a 22 direct to the head and it glances off.

Many instances of pistol rounds doing the same.

Small caliber guys claim it's all about accuracy.
Because they can shoot, by God. (You cant)
But they don't choose 32acp with fmj. Why?

Big caliber guys rely on size.
Like a big dam gun removes the need for decent hits.
Who actually believes that?

I believe bigger/faster is better than otherwise.
That it won't always show up in results, but it can.

Then, practicality pops up...

Thank you.

I vote with ample caliber, momentum, good capacity and expanding bullets. That way if one of your magic beans don't sprout, the rest will probably get you home.

Hey I heard about this cartridge the other day, Forty something or other, which combines the mentioned attributes with room to spare. But it is apparently impossible to shoot well because it 'snaps' the user, rendering him or her helpless.

i only know what the big boys tell me.

I plan on leaving my 27 converted to 9mm.. the 23 will stay 40 and the 35 might become my 357 sig (it remains 40 cal).

This my contribution since I have been having therapy sessions.
I am going to leave my 40 S&W's 40 S&W's my 10MM'S 10MM'S my 45 Autos 45 Autos.
I am not going to buy a 9MM.
I carry a 45 Auto probably 85 to 90 percent of the time and a M69 Smith and a 40 Smith and Wesson Glock M27 or a Springfield XDm 40 S&W balanced in the last 10 to 15 percent.
I do not feel undergunned or under capacity. I have owned 357 Mags in the past but dont own any now and don't anticipate owning one in the future.
I am happy with my decisions.

First of all, I will admit to not having anywhere near the knowledge and experience that most of y'all have.
That said, here is what I believe, bullet design and type can make any cal. better or worse. By that I mean a good bullet design that opens up and penetration is good will work better than a bullet that does not do either.
I did shoot IPSC for a very short time and shot in the "Limited Ten" division. When we shot plates, the 45 would take the plate down right then. The 9mm would give you a "plink sound" and when you were 4 or 5 plates down the rack, they would start to fall. Now most guys were loading to avoid recoil and therefore I am sure that had some to do with it as well.
At the time I thought "heck I need a 45 for a carry gun" because of what I saw at the plate rack. I will admit, I was dumber then than I am now, and now understand the whole "load to make min." concept.
Fast forward many years and my neighbor (he was a Special Forces Ranger in Afghanistan) and I were talking and his comment was "you will never hear anyone that has ever been in a firefight say, DANG I HAVE TOO MUCH AMMO".
All that said, I do carry a 9mm with high cap mags with "good ammo", and I carry a 45 with "good ammo". Even with "good ammo" it is like everything else in the firearms world, accuracy, and shot placement matters.

I was just thinking the same thing... Also consider there might be multiple perps.. I'd rather have the available 18+1 in one of my 9mm pistols than the 7-8 available in the compact 45s.. Agreed.

I used to shoot a lot of pistol silhouette. The 357 Maximum was used by some as was the 41 Magnum, but as I remember the 44 Mag was the best of the revolvers, back then (early 70's). Though bullet drop was an issue with the 44's at 200 yards. The contenders and the modified XP-100s did the best for me in steel silhouette.

I can't help but think a 7mm International or 7mm-08 in a modified XP with a 14" barrel would be quite effective, effective as many rifle cartridges.

30 yr progression....

FWiW

629, 1911, P30L

In a high stress I think I want more rounds, probably will not be making perfect shots. I have seen (on the target range) when the beeper goes off, some really good shooters not make the shots hit. That is with the beeper, can't and don't want to think about what real life would do to your stress levels.

Being in a rural area where crime is nearly non-existent other than people doing illegal drugs ( and not harming others) I have little need for an anti-personnel pistol. When I'm hiking where there's mountain lions or wolves or even rabid animals, I might carry a 357. Thinking back when I had to live in high crime areas, I think a derringer would be all that would be required for personal protection. I recently bought a Bond 45 ACP and it shoots surprisingly well. I also bought a slim single stack 9mm which fits in my pocket quite well - If I remember right, it holds 7 rounds. Every now and then I may have to go to the Twin Cities where I feel that a concealed weapon might be prudent. I HATE going to the Twin Cities! I can not imagine a scenario where a lot of rounds would be required.

Back in 1970 a group of us went to Washington DC to sell blood (ours) to get a little spending money. After I gave blood one of my buddies came into the building and told me there was a gang with knives outside and I was needed. The gang of thugs had knifes, but when the number of marines equaled the number of thugs with knives they backed off slowly. As I recall we sold our blood for $15 and we were not going to give that money to those thugs.

I think in that case a derringer would have been enough to cause the bad guys to back off, even if it were only one guy against them.

What seems to be lost, in that it is not definitively stated, is that tissue/ballistic gel behaves as a non-Newtonian medium/fluid - that it does not behave in an intuitive, numerically predictable manner to bullet mass, speed, and shape.

Some combinations simply seem to work better than others.

The way you find out which one works in a manner which may be compared is to shoot ballistic gel.

That was the point of the video.

Tag

Did not feel undergunned when firing my Glock M30 awhile ago with hard cast 230 gr FP bullets with a good sized meplat and Longshot.
Just shot at 25 yards though standing offhand.

A Derringer adequate to face a gang armed with knives... Darwin is smiling right now.

That was my thought as well

Two things stick out to me from my experiences:

1. People shot in the torso with a rifle don't always "stop" right away.

2. I was never in a gunfight and thought, "gee, I wish I had less ammo."

I base my carry weapon choices on those experiences. My home defense weapon isn't a handgun.

I usually carry a M&P compact 9mm, so 16 rounds of HST on tap. If I go small, and it's not often anymore, my 45 shield is only one less round than my 9mm shield, so I carry that. I'll take 7 shots of 45 over 8 shots of 9mm.

I'll probably get a Shield + and call it a day.

Only if you've actually measured it. Otherwise you are repeating a forum myth.
There are YouTube videos of folks testing followup shot time difference between 9mm and 40sw - no difference. I know there is no difference for me.

This oft-quoted piece of information only applies to new shooters. Like a typical FBI desk jockey.

^ Seconded. What decides gunfights is making the decision to shoot NOW, the ability to center your opponent with 1-2 + shots instantly and shoot him to the ground if necessary, If you'll piss down your leg and fail to shoot or throw away shots with a 40 or 45, having a 9mm isn't going to save you.

Like poor Windows. He froze instead of firing his flame thrower at the alien.

^ Yeah we always hate it when that happens;)

Hi DLA ,

As you probably know, recoil is subjective from shooter to shooter, with variables such as hand size, grip egonomics, experience, shooting technique, physical weight of the handgun and individual load in the firearm.

My experience is, myself, and many other shooters, can control a 9mm firearm quicker and more accurately compared to heavier calibers, if other variables such as the firearm remain consistent.

Obviously, as you mentioned, there is plenty of material previously written on this, and physics also tell us this. As a firearm instructor for about 22 years, and daily carrying 9mm, .38 special, 357 magnum, 40, 10mm, 45 acp, and 44 magnum over a period of 32 years as part of my job, I can tell you that generally, handguns that recoil less are quicker to shoot more accurately for most people. Not something I read somewhere, its my experience.

Your experience may be different, I dunno.

Not only your experience, but the plain old laws of physics. I never understood why some people think of this fact as a challenge to their manhood. It's just physics. Same with any mention of bore axis height being a factor. Folks go nuts.

But you didn't measure it.
You THINK recoil is the major factor in shooting fast, but with handgun cartridges up to 200 power factor that isn't true.
Measuring reduces the BS.

Now with brand new shooters who are struggling with grip, stance, etc., recoil is a big factor.

Time yourself, then post.

If the laws of physics was all there was to fast follow-up shots, you'd have a point. But you either didn't think this through before posting, or you've never timed yourself (or both).

People repeat the same old forum myths never questioning their validity. This is one of those myths that is complete bullshit.

But hey, you have a high post count so you must be right.....

That's it. This is the same discussion gun nuts have been having since around 1912...this is just in a different wrapper.

I've been saying it for over 20 years now... It just doesn't matter.

Another BS myth is that 4" revolvers kick harder than 7 1/2" revolver. I guess they think the increased velocity adds nothing to recoil

Seems like accuracy, not pure speed, is a major factor in determining positive outcomes, i.e. other guy down, good guy still standing. So I'm curious if you've seen the majority of folks shoot just as accurately with heavier recoiling pistols when firing shots at the same speed?

Are we talking heavier recoiling pistols (485Linebaugh) or common defensive cartridges none of which have heavy recoil

Well, that would be a bit of argumentum ad absurdum, but to clarify, let's limit the discussion to semi-auto pistols firing .380 ACP on the low end through 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and 10mm, and those in standard or compact pistols of a size that allows the average person to grasp with all three lower fingers, i.e. no super tiny subcompacts.

I'm not trying to ask any leading questions here nor propagate a preconceived notion. I'm simply asking if the middle 80% of the bell curve of shooters with some training - not first time noobs nor super dedicated pistoleros who expend 1000+ rounds per month - can shoot just as accurately with each of those chamberings when squeezing the trigger at the same rate.

The discussion really focusses on 9mm versus 40sw, since the "faster followup shot" proclamation is what 9mm fans make to justify their position.

Some really smart people determined a long time ago that all things were pretty equal up to 200 power factor.

My position is that a moderately experienced shooter, (not a noob), will run a 40sw as fast as 9mm. Now if your last name is Miculek, then there will be a real difference, but if you are the average competent shooter - no difference.

All service type pistols are not heavy kickers. TRH is always downing the Sig P320 because of its high bore axis. Yet when Bluedreau shot it against a timer he found his times were the same as with a lower bore axis pistol. Blue is a highly accomplished shooter.
For an average shooter there may be some difference but I think it will be rather close

I believe a YouTuber named Colion Noir has a video of him shooting 9mm vs 45acp(?) as fast as he can and keep accuracy. Short answer is he did better with 9mm.

How much better? Power lever of the ammo used ie +P or standard pressure

Hi jwp475,

I found the video. Here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDFrki0T9o&t=43s

Let me know what you think.

He's shooting the 45 fast that’s for sure, maybe too fast

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM


He is using a 45ACP

Paul Harrell (in my opinion one of the best out there) has clearly demonstrated no speed advantage the smaller 9 has against a 40 or even a 45. He even proved it with a 38 special and a 44 Mag revolver.

There's some BS going on by those who claim they time the same, with the same accuracy. They might be slowing up a little with the 9mm in order to support their argument. I've been an avid handgunner since 1980, and shooting a Glock 17 then a Glock 22, I can definitely tell the difference. If I wanted to blast away at the same speed, I could, but not with the same accuracy level.

Image result for jerry miculek speed shooting world record revolver
Miculek is widely regarded as the fastest and most proficient all-around speed and competition shooter in the world, emptying a five-shot revolver in 0.57 seconds in a group the size of a playing card, thus often being dubbed "The Greatest Shooter of all Time".


Image result for jerry miculek speed shooting world record revolver
Miculek is widely regarded as the fastest and most proficient all-around speed and competition shooter in the world, emptying a five-shot revolver in 0.57 seconds in a group the size of a playing card, thus often being dubbed "The Greatest Shooter of all Time".

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

With a 45 ACP

Is Jerry Miculek using full powder loads? Or is he doing what those cowboy action shooters doing by shooting water-down mouse fart 38spec loads?

I've also shoot 44mag as well as 38special. I don't need a timer to know which one most shooters are going to shooter faster and more accurately.

A bit different genre but Cowboy Action Shooters use the lightest creampuff .38 loads they can put in their revolvers in an attempt to get the most speed with accuracy.

I don't follow the alphabet pistol games all that closely but IIRC the whole power factor system was put in place to handicap the 9mm since guys with 9's and .38 Supers were cleaning the clocks of guys shooting .45's, and that was with competitive shooters whom one assumes practiced a bit more than Suzy Soccer Mom. Even then guys were hot rodding their .38 Supers to the point of blowing up pistols to try to get the power factor into the .45 ACP range while still using a lighter bullet to keep recoil down.

Now the video in the OP is saying that size doesn't matter, placement combined with adequate bullet performance is the key. So why go with something that recoils more than something else if the things that cause increased recoil are not a significant factor in an effective self defense load? Again, this is all with the caveat of "enough" performance. I have to say that in anticipation of comments accusing me of saying a .22 Short is just as good as a .44 Magnum.*


What the top people in the world can do is impressive but has little application to the average shooter trying to make the best choices for a chambering which will allow them to place accurate shots as quickly as they can.




* Although if someone is shot in the medulla oblongata with either then a cessation of hostilities would take about the same amount of time with either, proving again that placement is key given enough penetration.

This forum really needs a like button. It's really just that simple. Sweating every little detail on caliber, bullet, etc, is just wasted time. Its an interesting "thought experiment" if you're obsessed with your gun...but in the end, it just won't matter.

I don't know how hot his loads are but I do know he could have used a 9mm if he wanted

Your post is total bullshit, but because you have a high post count I will point you to a video that shows how wrong you are:
In the following, the guy clearly believed going in that his 40sw speed and accuracy would be worse than his 9mm effort - and he was totally wrong. He shot faster and more accurately with a Glock 22 than a Glock 17.
https://youtu.be/sEHROzM6FHw

Agree 100%.

Thank you for that video.

quote=The_Real_Hawkeye]
Not only your experience, but the plain old laws of physics. I never understood why some people think of this fact as a challenge to their manhood. It's just physics. Same with any mention of bore axis height being a factor. Folks go nuts. [/quote]

You need to watch the video that dla posted and study your physics a bit more

When I watched the video posted by the OP my first thought was that they made a lot of the same points that Martin Fackler made in his book that you used to quote here jpw. And their study had the same limitations that Fackler acknowledged in his work: homogeneous ballistic gel can replicate bullet performance in muscle or fat tissue but not when a bullet strikes bone or soft lung tissue. Still, interesting video.

Dr Falkner and Duncan MacPherson are directly responsible for the much better performing ammo that we now have available

I look at it this way, what’s the best with the worst. As in ball ammo. Sure the newer/better self defense ammunition is a huge improvement from a couple of decades ago, but it’s kinda hard to find these days.

I will say that just because one person (or a few) can shoot just as fast and accurate with a large cal. as they do with a smaller one, does not mean everyone can do it. If that were the case, we would all shoot like Jerry Miculek.

I agree with Jim in Idaho post.

All a man's gotta do is shoot the "test" 10 rounds at 10 yards from the draw on a B8. See which is faster and more accurate for yourself.

And the guy in the video above needs a rangefinder, that looked more like 5 or 6 feet than yards.

Well, I just as well throw in my .02 cents worth on this. Obviously, there are several factors at play here. One thing I would like to point out that few seem to realize is that just because a bullet is a hollow point does not mean that it will always expand or even sometimes or even will it rarely expand. Generally speaking, in my experience, most all pistol bullets need to be traveling at 900 or better FPS when they impact or they are not going to reliably expand. Some will a very little bit and some, other than the rifling marks, will look almost unused. That is unless you shoot them into a brick wall. Guess what, if you do that, you missed your target. There are exceptions to this, such as my pet handload for my .38 snubbies using huge cavity Federal HST JHPWC bullets loaded to about 825 or so FPS. But, again, those are not average hollow points. Additionally, if a HP bullet strikes heavy bone it is much more likely to expand than if it only encounters tissue and light bone. A simple fact is that bigger bullets make bigger holes. And something that seems to be ignored quite a bit these days that Bill Jordan, Elmer Keith, and Skeeter Skelton regularly mentioned, a wide meplat pistol bullet does a lot more damage than a round nose design. And, you must have good penetration. Additionally there is the argument about whether it is good to have two holes leaking or just one and the bullet remaining inside the target, theoretically expending all of it's energy inside the target. Also, with an exit wound, over penetration needs to be considered, especially if in a crowded area with innocent bystanders close to the target. So, in my opinion, there is not a perfect anti-personnel do it all whiz-bang caliber/bullet/load for all situations. I regularly carry several different sidearms from time to time, depending on how I am dressed, where I am going, etc. They include a .380 ACP loaded with flat pointed 100 grain bullets loaded to about 900 FPS, a .38 Spl J-frame loaded with either the afore mentioned HST JHP wadcutters or regular wadcutters, a 9mm with 150 grain LSWC loaded to about 930 FPS, a .357 Mag with 158 gr JHP loaded to about 1200 FPS, or a .44 Spl loaded with either 240 gr LSWC or JSP loaded to about 950 FPS.

So, FWIW, this is what I currently carry for anti-personnel use. I do have some Lehigh all copper .380 "whiz-bang" bullets that I have not yet gotten around to loading and experimenting with that are supposed to be super good defensive bullets. They look promising. Whatever you chose, you must first be able to consistently hit your target. A hit with a .380 is far better than a miss with a .45. The bullet must have enough energy to penetrate adequately into a vital area if not all the way through, and you need to be mindful of collateral damage. Don't waste your money on hollow points that will not have enough velocity to expand. If it is not going to expand, go with a wide meplat for effectiveness. JMHO,YMMV.

Gel - represents engineered bullet performance.

It does not simulate actual bullet performance in flesh and bone.

Hits - count
Good hits - count more
Bigger hits - count more
More hits - count more





GR

I watched that video a long time ago. It’s a good one.

And when you get away from the Gel - the larger calibers appear to be more reliable than the smaller ones.






GR

My experience as well with the Critical Duty, expansion is minimal or nonexistent

These are always,fun discussions to read.

However, if you can't clear leather FIRST, and put shots accurately on target,
Don't matter what caliber gun is falling from your hand, as you will likely are in DEEP s##t by now.

I've found Golden Sabre bonded +P to be excellent in expansion and penetration in my Sig P365

Hickok45 weighs in.

He shot that plenty fast enough in my opinion and accurately

Hickok is quite good with handguns, a huge man at like 6'7" with tons of hours on the Glock 22 and 23. But even he admits it's easier to shoot the 19 fast and accurate than it is with pre-Gen 5 Model 23. He states that the Gen 5 Model 23 closes the gap to a noticeable degree, however, due to three extra ounces of weight in the slide. Makes me think seriously about getting one.

I thought the reason folks hot rodded 38 super for the games was because they could make major, and have a double stack rig that holds 20 plus rounds.

I do know folks of shooting experience/ history that are mediocre at best w a 9mm and flat out suck w a .40 or .45.

Maybe thats the avg pistolero.

I dunno, but my time at a couple ranges would support such a view.

However, having grown up shooting handguns, I dont see a
45 acp as anything requiring effort to shoot well. Even w +P.

Do think some folks are just too sensitive and or lazy.

And I bet going to a 9mm doesnt help them as much as they think.

But confidence is not to be ignored. If they think a 9mm helps em and they do OK with it ( not great, just OK ), maybe thats good enough.

And make the compensator work more efficiently

IIRC my buds Para held 27?
Clark comp...... nasty blasty.

I can shoot the Glock 22 just fine. It's just that I'd rather not have to place a death grip on my handgun to keep from having to reacquire a proper two-handed hold after each shot. I get that with 9mm and .45 ACP Glocks, but not with .40 S&W (at least not with the Gen 4 Glock 22). To me, I need to put a death grip on the Glock 22 Gen 4 with my support hand to keep from needing to reacquire a proper hold from round to round. I can do it, but, like I said, I need to focus on maintaining a death grip with my support hand, and I'd rather not have to do that. That's why I prefer 9mm and .45 ACP over the .40 S&W Glocks.

But, with the new, heavy slide, Gen 5 Glock 22 and 23, I might have to reconsider. I may well give one or the other a shot.

This is the same conversation gun guys have been having for the last 50 years and continues to be supported with irrelevant BS..

Modern practice for self defense shooting as taught by the BTDT professionals universally concentrates on 3 priorities. Surgical accuracy, discrimination and speed...ON DEMAND. Rifle or pistol, the goal is to be able to stop multiple aggressors w/out endangering innocents in as short a time as possible.

Our best people have been winning bigly since 9/11 w/ poodle shooters and mouse guns favoring platforms that are consistently reliable, and training hard and constantly. Modern ammo has ended the handgun argument in regards to ammo and shifted it to proven reliability in the weapon.

9mm Glocks and 5.56 ARs have the most tested track records of success.


ymmv, ptl


mike r

If you can't maintain a perfect grip through fast and accurate mag dump the problem may be with the shooter. Or you can try different tools to replace training and practice. Buying new guns is fun but training is more effective if you are serious. You live in Florida, maybe you could get Deflave to help you out.


mike r

Amigos, just buy .40 S&W. You do not to worry about +P ammo (like 9x19) or high price of ammo (like .45ACP). The pistol can be same size as 9x19 (example double stack Glocks through Gen 4). This should help you.

The importance of ergonomics to new and moderately experienced handgun shooters is vastly underemphasized. Note: ergonomics is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "the study of people's efficiency in their working environment"... so in the matter of shooting handguns, it means nothing more or less than "how well does the gun work for you individually"?

Factors that come into play in ergonomics for each shooter are, in no particular order, the shape of the grip, the location/size/shape/articulation mechanism of the trigger, the trigger "reach", the height of the bore axis above the shooter's hand, the weight/center of gravity of the gun, the shape/color/size of the sights, and many more factors. All of these affect how the shooter experiences the firing sequence and the reaction of the gun in recoil. ALL of these factors are relevant.

I have spent many hours on the range teaching shooters from rank newbies to moderately advanced shooters. The moderate to advanced people are far less prone to negative effects of ergonomics than more experienced shooters. Newbies need a gun that is ergonomically good for them.

Only after you adjust for ergonomics differences can you start comparing the way different calibers affect these shooters.

My wife shot her first defensive pistol course about 3 years ago using a S&W Shield 9mm, and was unable to pass the Qualification at the end of the class. After some discussion, we let her try it again with a Glock 48 9mm and she was able to pass it easily. Some day, same course of fire, just a pistol that fit her better. I've seen similar results with many other new shooters over the years.

Pistol fit/ergonomics is absolutely the most important factor in handgun shooting success for beginners.




My on-the-job and competition experience includes all of the above calibers, although pretty minimal 10mm time and a lot more 357 SIG time. I would have to agree generally with your statement in bold above.

This doesn't necessarily apply however. I recall one State Match where I shot a multi-target stage, a "shoot house", on the day of the match, with a S&W 686 using 38 Special +P loads (158 gr JRN bullets at 890 fps). One of the ammo companies that was sponsoring the match, IIRC Federal, wanted to videotape some of us shooting the shoot house the next day before we tore the match setup down.

As one of the match champions, I was invited to shoot the course for the video. As LE at the time, after the match was done I had reloaded my firearm "for the street", which meant I loaded my revolver with 357 Magnum ammo (158 gr JHP at about 1250 fps), which my agency had authorized as an off-duty load. Because I hardly ever carried my 686 off-duty, and always carried/used it in matches in that time period, it never occurred to me as I stepped up to the starting line to switch out my carry ammo for my much lighter-recoiling match ammo. As it happened, I ran the course of fire about 2 seconds faster than I had done the day before (time included points down for misses outside the A zone, too).

In this instance, the heavier-recoiling load (and we are not talking about a minor difference in recoil energy!) was not a factor in my speed or accuracy. Would it have mattered over the course of a10-stage match? I suspect it would, but I don't know, as I've never been curious enough to shoot full power 357 Mag ammo at a sanctioned match.


I have had similar results in other matches where I was shooting 2 different chamberings of the same handgun: I shot a Glock 19 and a Glock 23 in several matches, competing in Stock Service Pistol with the 19 and Enhanced Service pistol with the 23. My scores at the end of each match were very close each time. On the other hand, I shot one match with a box stock Kimber 1911 45 ACP and Glock 19, and shot faster and more accurately with the 1911. Caliber and recoil considerations were trumped by better (for me) ergonomics of the 1911.

Agreed. In my years of shooting competitively in IDPA and USPSA my impression was that most people in the middle of the pack tended to shoot minor power factor calibers because it helped them achieve better scores. They proved it to themselves, and to the rest of us, so who am I to argue? Cowboy action shooters take it to an absurd degree... shooting mousefart loads in highly modified pistols extremely quickly. No question you can't shoot that fast with anything even close to a real fighting pistol load.

They certainly were/are.

I think most of the better performing handgun ammo we have today is because of the FBI handgun ammo test protocols.

Fackler and MacPherson are responsible for those protocols

No....not correct. Fackler and MacPherson studied and wrote about bullet wounds and the affects of bullets on the human body.

The FBI ran a series of tests designed to test hollow point handgun bullets by shooting them through barriers such as wallboard, steel, and auto glass before penetrating ballistic gelatin. The test ammunition was also tested for velocity and accuracy.

The more efficient bullets and accurate ammo we have today is the result of the FBI's testing.

Yes it does, a simple matter of physics, Mike Tyson is going to hurt me a hell of a lot more every time he hits me over being flyswatted by Sugar Ray Leonard.

If not fir Fackler and MacPherson at the FBI workshop after the Miami shootout laying out what mattered is how the FBI came up with the protocols

The FBI began the testing because they were looking at barrier penetration. Their tests and the resulting recommendations were about barrier penetration. The better bullet designs we use today are the results of the FBI tests.

All because of Fackler and MacPherson, whom taught the FBI the importance of a minimum amount of penetration.

You don't seem to know the history

"Dr. Fackler’s retirement did not conclude the U.S. Government’s reliance on his expertise. On April 11, 1986, FBI agents engaged in a 4 ½-minute gun battle with two suspected bank robbers. The two suspects succumbed from their wounds but not before one of them killed two FBI agents and wounded five others. To its credit the FBI launched a full review into the lack of effectiveness of the handgun ammunition it employed. It called upon outside medical and other experts, including Dr. Fackler, to participate in meetings it hosted in 1987 and 1992. Its focus was on terminal ballistic effectiveness rather than undefined lay terms, such as “increased lethality” and “stopping power”.

Other corrective measures followed. In August 1988, the first steps were taken in establishment of a world-class FBI Ballistic Research Facility to evaluate terminal effectiveness of law enforcement ammunition, utilizing 10% ballistic gel, for dissemination of test and evaluation results to law enforcement departments. In 1989, the FBI published “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness,” based on comments at its 1987 experts meeting."


http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/father-of-modern-wound-ballistics/

Quite so.

FWP is partly correct in giving the FBI some credit for establishing a database of ammunition performance, but they were Johnny-come-lately to the party. The FBI database was started after the 1987 conference (see FBI Spl. Agent Urey Patrick's paper, "Handgun Wounding Effectiveness" for some of the background here, it's available on the DOJ website). They began this work in 1987, and has been generated using test protocols devised by Dr. Martin Fackler in the 1970's and 1980's.

Dr. Fackler was the man who "invented" 4% ballistic gelatin as a bullet testing medium. Duncan McPherson, one of the other founding members of the International Wound Ballistics Association, was also a major contributor to the early study of terminal ballistics and in fact generated most of the mathematical formulae used today by all testers, including the FBI.

Additionally, there have been a number of very influential bullet/ammo testing entities working as private contractors for both the Dept of Defense and for LE agencies. Dr. Gary Roberts' group was very active for a number of years testing ammunition and compiling statistics on street shootings for LE agencies in the state of California. Their data have never been made available to the public, but it is quite possibly the largest single database of terminal ballistics research in existence. Unlike the FBI data, which is all laboratory findings, the California data is correlated with street shootings using proprietary info from CA's law enforcement agencies. I know that Federal/Speer has relied on this data heavily in developing defensive/police ammunition, and I've heard that Hornady and others have as well.

Correct. I believe that Dr. Fackler was the first to say that penetration was the primary concern even after barrier penetration

The FBI gets more credit than they deserve, dumbassses. By that I mean the Miami shoot out. They went in unprepared.

Hard to argue w/ bigger wound cavities and 400 ft-lbs...






GR

That mantra that small holes are the same as big holes, a desperate fiction, was one of the early manifestations of the Woke Weltanschauung. In many minds it is now Truth.

Hard to get one's mind around the notion that this wouldn't be more effective than the same round in 9mm.

https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-124-grain-jhp-hst-federal-premium-20-rounds#geltest

9mm looked like it did pretty well judging by the lucky gunner link.

What concerns me about the 45acp is it's loss velocity when fired from shorter barrels than the 5" govt 1911. It doesn't start with much velocity.

I agree. The 9mm +P in the Lucky Gunner test expanded to. 68 and penetrated 17+ inches.

[/quote]
The better bullet designs we use today are the results of the FBI tests.
[/quote]

Actually, the better bullet designs we use today are the results of the efforts of lots of people and entities.

The FBI, after consulting with many people and following the advice of those it thought most relevant, created a scientifically repeatable test protocol. This protocol has been adjusted with experience. It is a better protocol today than when invented. I hope (and expect) it will continue to be improved.

Much of the credit belongs to the engineers at the major ammunition manufacturers. Once they knew what LE desired AND had a repeatable test method, they could:

1 - Design a projetile
2 - Test the projectile
3 - Modify the design to achieve the desired performance
4 - Repeat

The people previously mentioned in this thread all contributed but the credit belongs to the collective, not any single individual. There are many others that share in the success.

If pressed to say who deserved the most credit, I'd point to John Hall. He was the Unit Chief (SSA Patrick's Boss) that allowed/encouraged/helped Patrick get the whole Ballistic Research Facility created.

That is not to take anything away from anyone else that contributed, just to say that it wouldn't have happened without the support of the Chief of the Firearms Training Unit.

He played a big role in establishing the FBI's evaluation criteria. I personally think the establishment of this criteria is the single most important step ever taken in the development of self defense ammunition.

It follows the old axiom "You cannot improve what you don't measure".

Previous performance measurements were far from scientific. Once someone established a standard that was scientific and truly meaningful, it gave ammunition developers a target to shoot for (no pun intended), and very quickly ammunition made huge leaps and bounds.

For 1988 the criteria they came up with was truly outstanding IMO. From time to time that may need to be re-visited, but for now; it's working very well.

The better bullet designs we use today are the results of the FBI tests.
[/quote]

Actually, the better bullet designs we use today are the results of the efforts of lots of people and entities.

The FBI, after consulting with many people and following the advice of those it thought most relevant, created a scientifically repeatable test protocol. This protocol has been adjusted with experience. It is a better protocol today than when invented. I hope (and expect) it will continue to be improved.

Much of the credit belongs to the engineers at the major ammunition manufacturers. Once they knew what LE desired AND had a repeatable test method, they could:

1 - Design a projetile
2 - Test the projectile
3 - Modify the design to achieve the desired performance
4 - Repeat

The people previously mentioned in this thread all contributed but the credit belongs to the collective, not any single individual. There are many others that share in the success.

If pressed to say who deserved the most credit, I'd point to John Hall. He was the Unit Chief (SSA Patrick's Boss) that allowed/encouraged/helped Patrick get the whole Ballistic Research Facility created.

That is not to take anything away from anyone else that contributed, just to say that it wouldn't have happened without the support of the Chief of the Firearms Training Unit.

[/quote]

The better bullet designs we use today are the results of the FBI tests.
[/quote]

Actually, the better bullet designs we use today are the results of the efforts of lots of people and entities.

The FBI, after consulting with many people and following the advice of those it thought most relevant, created a scientifically repeatable test protocol. This protocol has been adjusted with experience. It is a better protocol today than when invented. I hope (and expect) it will continue to be improved.

Much of the credit belongs to the engineers at the major ammunition manufacturers. Once they knew what LE desired AND had a repeatable test method, they could:

1 - Design a projetile
2 - Test the projectile
3 - Modify the design to achieve the desired performance
4 - Repeat

The people previously mentioned in this thread all contributed but the credit belongs to the collective, not any single individual. There are many others that share in the success.

If pressed to say who deserved the most credit, I'd point to John Hall. He was the Unit Chief (SSA Patrick's Boss) that allowed/encouraged/helped Patrick get the whole Ballistic Research Facility created.

That is not to take anything away from anyone else that contributed, just to say that it wouldn't have happened without the support of the Chief of the Firearms Training Unit.

[/quote]

Fackler set the criteria for how a projectal needed to perform and this was key. MacPherson math model of bullet penetration and wound trauma incapacitation assisted bullet manufacturers in designing a projectal that worked from the get go.

Before Fackler and MacPherson the FBI put too much emphasis on temporary wound cavity

Could you expound a bit more on this opinion?

From what I've read they used comput d r models and chose what produced the larger temporary wound channel

You would know more about this than anyone here since you worked for the FBI

I personally believe temporary wound cavities at typical handgun speeds are far less significant than say a 223 round.

Good bullet and placement works on all critters - and today's options are better than ever. I think the LEO today are far better equipped if shooting say a 9, then they were long ago. Before Gold Dots, HST's and similar, I was not a big fan of the 9.....no doubt a 40 or 45 can give a certain level of confidence, maybe greater. Whether that's an illusion or there is merit is debated often. Data and Stats are not to be dismissed.

Yes, Sir. That is why I was asking. I don't recall anything in the documents I've reviewed that even mentioned temporary wound cavity before the Wound Ballistics seminars of the late 80's (when Dr. Fackler and Mr. MacPherson were consulted).

I didn't know if you were someone that was there before I was and had info I'd not seen.

In any event, the documents I've reviewed don't support the opinion that "The FBI put too much emphasis on temporary wound cavity".

I didn't come into the FBI until 1988 and there is bound to be information I didn't review, despite my attempt to look at all of it.

Dr. Fackler became a personal friend. I visited him days before he passed because I wanted to look him in the eye and tell him he was important to me.

Hope you have a great weekend.

Edited to add that the FBI didn't have much in the way of computers when I entered in 1988. I recall dictating reports onto cassette tape to be sent to the steno pool for typing (onion skins for copies). To my knowledge, the FBI has never used computers to model wound ballistics.

There are always two different conversations going on in these threads.
1-Is a 9mm as effective as a .40 / .45?
2-Are shooters (of varying abilities) able to shoot the 9mm more accurately at speed as the .40 / .45?

I don’t know about #1, because I’m not a science nerd like some of y’all. But I do know anecdotally that a 9mm will work well enough for my purposes.

As far as #2....
The only people still debating this are those who have never seen large groups of shooters fire .40s and 9s back to back. They’re all more accurate at speed with a 9, regardless of skill level or type of weapon. I’ve seen it from beginners and I’ve heard it from the mouths of the best shooters on the planet.

How much the accuracy degrades depends on a lot of things. I believe that those who don’t see much difference aren’t that accurate or fast to begin with. You’re just an average shooter with no frame of reference for what really exceptional shooting looks like.

This.

Bullshit as usual.

The US Army knew this all the way back to the Thompson LaGarde studdies at the turn of the 20th century. All the way back then they had determined that temporary cavity generally doesn't come into play until a projectile is moving about 2,000fps, and even then its kinda hit or miss...like everything else, it depends on where you were hit. If its only muscle tissue, the stretch cavity won't matter much. If it's less elastic material such as intestines, blood vessel branches, etc...then it can be a very big factor. What does it all mean? Well, you still have to place your bullets well, even at 2,000+ FPS.

I agree with you here. The FBI was not a pioneer in the study of terminal ballistics, but built on the work of the ballistics pioneers such as Fackler and his IWBA associates and systematized it in a manner that could allow broad applicability.

Credit is due where it's due. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the FBI's ongoing work in the BRF.




I confess I wasn't aware of Mr. Hall's contribution to this work. Thanks for the information.

What I've always wondered is those that say "a 9mm allows you to be more accurate on follow up shots due to recoil recovery" - or some variation of that.

Ok - sure. Great. But what's the degradation in accuracy between the two in any given shooter and more importantly is it large enough you endanger your chances of surviving the encounter? I may open up my group but what are the odds it opens enough to miss center mass? Assuming the first one went there to begin with.

9mm means 6/6 center mass
45 means 6/6 center mass - tho there's more space between them - does that really matter? Does one need benchrest accuracy and repeatability to be effective in an armed confrontation? Obvious answer is no and that's hyperbole. I agree but while everyone's saying "there's a difference!" - I'm wondering if the difference actually matters....

And I don't know how you'd be able to really measure that.

In my personal experience of watching many shooters shoot both the .40 and 9 in identical pistols—Yes, it would be enough to matter in a gunfight.

I see there’s a few of tnoutdoors9’s videos posted in this thread. A few years ago I watched and collected the data from all his vids. I’ll post his data below. I must say up until 12-15 yrs ago I would only carry 45 acp. I have owned and handloaded for all the calibers listed except the .357Sig. I’ve been a handgun hunter since the late 70’s and love the big bores. When I averaged the data of the current factory defense loads I was surprised.

Ballistic gel with 4 layers of denim Avg. of all loads

Velocity / Penetration / Expansion

9mm- 18 loads/ 115-147gr. 1109fps. 14.21”. .625”

.357 Sig- 5 loads/ 125-147gr. 1345fps. 15.14”. .562”

.40 S&W- 10 loads/ 155-180gr. 1086fps. 14.50”. .665”

10mm- 4 loads/ 135-200gr. 1225fps. 15.40”. .684”

.45acp- 13 loads/ 185-230gr. 930fps. 13.84”. .675”

As you can see the ammo factories are producing defense rounds in all calibers to the FBI standards. It’s hard not to carry a round that offers more capacity and still pretty much does the same thing as a larger caliber. At least from the data tnoutdoors9 collected.

Averaging the data waters down the numbers of a particular load that out performs the others. And then there are always the "real world" results that do not always conform to the "numbers".

Interesting thread.

In a full-size handgun that fits well, I'm fine with the .40cal, as the extra handgun mass seems to tame things down to where it feels rather "shootable" and recoil isn't much of a factor. Yes, a 9mm is even easier to shoot, but not that much.

In a compact/micro handgun, the .40cal is too much of a handful in my experience. In that role, I'll settle for a 9mm with good ammo. With neither handgun would I expect a solid torso hit or two to put a grown man on the ground with regularity, but they will likely not have much fight in them and the shooter can likely exit the situation. Dispatching deer and hogs with defense pistol loads tells me that handguns kind of suck for providing decisive incapacitations unless you hit CNS.


Another interesting line of thought is the nature of the perpetrator in a civilian vs. LEO shooting. There are a lot of actual shooting videos out there these days and I don't recall many of the "charging bullet-receptacle" scenarios taking place with private citizens. It seems like most of those bad guys hit the road as soon as any bullets were hitting their flesh, regardless of caliber or bullet construction. It was the LEO shootings that saw occurrences of the guys that soaked up so many hits before stopping their attack. Different pools of participants, I suppose.

Same here... I had a Kahr K-40 at one time... Even though that particular model was all steel, the recoil was just too snappy.. Sold it shortly after..

I know, from experience, big heavy bullets have a visual increase of effectiveness over lighter, smaller calibers on big game animals. When a large caliber, heavy handgun bullet hits bone and penetrates deep or clear through a animal they have a tendency to want to lay down. I can’t imagine a human being much different.