The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
Great round, shoots like a Cadillac in a heavy P226 Sig, 16 rounds on board is fine too, just found another bag of old blue and white 40 S&W brass last month, loaded it with 7gr Longshot under what the bud that gave them to me thinks was Federal's attempt at a 180gr HST for the 10mm, it has two crimp grooves, gotta be a pretty tough bullet, that said, Hodgdon's max of 8 grs Longshot for 180's ran that bullet 1250 fps from my pistol, i loaded these at 7gr thinking 1150-1175 will be more than enough for what that bullet was designed for, may also let it penetrate a bit better than when driven at 10mm light speeds.
I have no experience with 40 S&W's in smaller lighter weight pistols.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
I figured you had made a slip but then nobody corrected you and I wondered what I had missed.
There was no "Hoax". The people that ran that program, at that time, seriously looked for a better solution. Who could have known that it was really a failure of a bullet design as opposed to caliber? (BTW, I am not claiming that was the only failure that day).
Additionally, caliber was not the only thing the FBI changed as a result of that incident.
The most significant thing to come out of that incident and the FBIs response to it was a scientifically repeatable method of comparing projectile performance. This led to ammunition manufacturers making better bullets.
The "best" bullets of today are a far cry better than the "best" bullets of the late 80s (like FreeMe mentioned).
I think all of us that are interested in firearms have benefited from the advancements that the FBI and its testing drove forward.
To the point of the thread, the .40 S&W is a fine cartridge that, in my opinion, is too much for most people to handle when loaded to capacity. Even among those that can handle it, many of them are more efficient and effective with a 9mm.
If one were to pick the best terminally performing loads in 9, .40 and .45 Auto, it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to scientifically rank one as better than another.
I like to remind people who say "LE is switching back to 9mm" that LE is actually "Switching forward to good 9mms".
Somewhere I recall a report from the late 80s that said something to the effect of "Expect this protocol to result in better performing bullets in all calibers. Expect the 9mm to gain more than the .45 because it has more growing to do".
I recall someone saying "Hate the bullet, don't hate the caliber" and "If not for the bullet, nobody would fear the gun".
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
I figured you had made a slip but then nobody corrected you and I wondered what I had missed.
There was no "Hoax". The people that ran that program, at that time, seriously looked for a better solution. Who could have known that it was really a failure of a bullet design as opposed to caliber? (BTW, I am not claiming that was the only failure that day).
Additionally, caliber was not the only thing the FBI changed as a result of that incident.
The most significant thing to come out of that incident and the FBIs response to it was a scientifically repeatable method of comparing projectile performance. This led to ammunition manufacturers making better bullets.
The "best" bullets of today are a far cry better than the "best" bullets of the late 80s (like FreeMe mentioned).
I think all of us that are interested in firearms have benefited from the advancements that the FBI and its testing drove forward.
To the point of the thread, the .40 S&W is a fine cartridge that, in my opinion, is too much for most people to handle when loaded to capacity. Even among those that can handle it, many of them are more efficient and effective with a 9mm.
If one were to pick the best terminally performing loads in 9, .40 and .45 Auto, it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to scientifically rank one as better than another.
I like to remind people who say "LE is switching back to 9mm" that LE is actually "Switching forward to good 9mms".
Somewhere I recall a report from the late 80s that said something to the effect of "Expect this protocol to result in better performing bullets in all calibers. Expect the 9mm to gain more than the .45 because it has more growing to do".
I recall someone saying "Hate the bullet, don't hate the caliber" and "If not for the bullet, nobody would fear the gun".
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I never got into 40 because it took me long enough to get into 9mm. And I really didn’t want another caliber to load for. I was weened on 44 mag and 45 colt. The 45 acp. Helll I had a 380 before 9mm.
Remember forum twinkies, you only get equivalent 40sw performance from your wee little 9mm if you use hyper-expensive ammo.
I’m not sure that that’s true. A 7x57mm as one example will kill a deer just as dead just as fast as a bigger 30/06. Sure you could go to .460 Weatherby but at some point recoil, muzzle blast and more rounds in the mag become a real thing. I see a 9x19mm and a .40 S&W being on par with a 7x57mm and ‘06 for sake of comparison. Not much real difference in killing power.
Assuming that you’re correct you’d have to be a broke SOB for the price of good defensive ammo to be a factor IMO.
If you’re that big of a fan of the .40 why not carry a 10mm? No reduction in mag capacity and it should kill them even deader. Nothing wrong with the .40 S&W for a defensive weapon but it’s lost popularity for real reasons.
The 9mm seems to be the sweet spot for concealing, plus mag capacity, plus shoot ability, and being about equivalent in stopping power. I love the .45 ACP but it’s lost ground for the same reason that the .40 has. You reach a point where there isn’t much difference in stopping power. At that point more bullets, less bulk, and faster follow up shots matter more.
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I understand your position FreeMe and, based on what you've read, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. Had I read only the same stuff you've read, I'd likely hold the same opinion.
I have personal knowledge that there was more than "an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers". The firearm type/caliber was only ONE thing that the FBI addressed/changed.
Each person tolerate recoil quite differently for a variety of reasons.
This can be due to physical size, overcoming preconceived ideas about recoil, previous injuries, as well as advancing age and arthritis.
For some people, the .40 does have more recoil than they want to deal with, especially as the handgun gets smaller and lighter, thus magnifying the felt recoil to the shooter.
Same thing with the .45 ACP.
A 185 grain lead semi wadcutter Bullseye load that has a velocity of 725 FPS kicks substantially less than a 250 grain hard cast flat point being driven at 925 FPS, that is used for hunting and large animal defense.
Using the USPSA power factor formula (just as a generic measurement), the 185 grain load has a PF of 134. The 250 grain flat point has a PF of 231.
That is a substantial difference.
You can choose loads to meet your needs, and there are a variety out there, and some have quite a bit more recoil than others.
I produce a .40 S&W polymer coated 170 grain SWC load that has an average velocity of 1175 FPS. It requires that the user have a fresh, properly working (not worn out) recoil spring. Personally I run a bit heavier than stock.
It was developed for deep penetration, and you can tell a difference between shooting this load and your typical range/paper punching, Walmart ammo, in terms of recoil.
I wanted a load that would be appropriate for carrying in the mountains where there were large bears, then go to town and not have to switch guns. This gun/load combo met those needs.
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.
The Tikka T3 in .308 Winchester is the Glock 19 of the rifle world.
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I understand your position FreeMe and, based on what you've read, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. Had I read only the same stuff you've read, I'd likely hold the same opinion.
I have personal knowledge that there was more than "an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers". The firearm type/caliber was only ONE thing that the FBI addressed/changed.
Good discussion though.
I'll defer to your personal knowledge, and thank you. In my reality, it holds at least as much weight as anything I'm going to see in any source I am likely to see. Probably more. The fact that I can say that without even knowing you tells me what I think of journalism in general.
Nothing wrong with the .40 S&W for a defensive weapon but it’s lost popularity for real reasons.
Yes - cost.
That and bearded skinny jean-clad man boys don't want to feel like the pussies they are so they cling to the FBI's direction.
So by the same “logic” were you a pussy that bought a .40 when the FBI went from a 9mm to a 10mm and then to a .40 S&W (short and weak;) before going back to a 9mm?
Again nothing at all wrong with the .40 S&W but you could look at a .40 S&W being to the 10mm what a .380 ACP is to a 9x19mm. No mag capacity gain, same bore diameter and unless shooting a very small gun no benefit and (theoretically at least) less effective.
There’s real reasons why it’s less popular today but that doesn’t make it a bad cartridge.
That’s my take. It obviously doesn’t make me right. All of my comments are meant in good spirited fun. Arguments about killing power around a campfire no doubt go back to the Stone Age and the best spear design for killing a T-Rex.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
Did one of his meat targets refuse to stop attacking?
Interesting that he would use the light 115 gr. JHP in the 9mm instead of one of the the more commonly carried 124 gr. or 147 gr. loads. I'd like to see that test with a 147 gr. Fed HST or Speer Gold Dot.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
Did one of his meat targets refuse to stop attacking?
Interesting that he would use the light 115 gr. JHP in the 9mm instead of one of the the more commonly carried 124 gr. or 147 gr. loads. I'd like to see that test with a 147 gr. Fed HST or Speer Gold Dot.
I thought the same. He used 115 grain run of the mill hollow point ammo similar to what was used in the Miami shootout rather than modern bonded and heavier bullets. Given basic cup and core bullets bigger and heavier has always been more reliable.
It was also interesting that with the second bullets chosen the 9mm had more penetration than the .40 but he seemed to arbitrarily decide that the 9mm hadn’t expanded enough based on nothing but his own opinion. None of it was based on anything scientific. He uses oranges for lung tissue…
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/baiNz6Il.jpg)
