i was youtubing today and ran across paul harrell. He did a comparison on 9mm vs. 40 using a variety of media, and discussing the fbi change to 9mm.

They are actually both pretty close to each other, but it still goes to the fat bullet in some situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTTDgZZZFa0

It is my understanding from speaking with a few people at SHOT that the FBI is using a custom designed 9mm load. Not something that is currently on the shelf. I was told lots of factors went into their decision including that many of their agents are not gun people and tend of have smaller statues and weaker physiques. Hit ratios mattered too and they found in their records, for their agents, that using a lighter round provided more hits on the target.

Did anyone read the Battle of Barrington in the latest NRA magazine.

few years ago i ran across a long time employee of the federal bureau of confusion as he called it, and we had a long conversation mostly about the border.
But he had a little semiauto in a ankle holster he was showing me. The 9mm ammo was about 30% above sammi specs on a level with .357sig.i finally managed to get some from a place in texas.
He also mentioned teaching firearms courses at quantico and having to explain to students what he meant when he said wheelgun.

Most law enforcement personnel paid by the states, cities and counties are not gun guys either. The shoot as often as their agencies qualify every year and not a round more.

Agency heads could save themselves some grief by mandating every gun-toter had to qualify on a 100 round qualification course at the very least 4 times a year AND the regular qualifications. After several years officer involved shootings would feature less hurt or killed officers and more dead goblins.

But, it'll never happen because the bean counters aren't out there getting shot at, stabbed, bitten, hit, kicked and spit on on a daily basis.

Does anybody honestly believe that the .40 kills more quicker than the 9mm?

All things being equal?




Dave

No, they're not using some special mystery round. Good grief.

And "many" FBI agents aren't small and weak. Double good grief.




I teach a lot of "small and weak" shoooters, even...gasp...some women to shoot and when I'm done a lot of them could shoot circles around most manly men weekend warriors, and out PT them too.

They all, all, shoot a 9mm better. And so do I. And everyone I know. You just can't run a polymer .40 as fast as a polymer 9mm. But what do I know, I've just watched a couple thousand people shoot both.

I have a hard time trying to convince myself that the 0.1134 square inches frontal area (9mm), will be much different when compared with the frontal area of the .40 which is 0.1256 square inches, for a difference of 0.0122 square inches. The .45 ACP has a frontal area of 0.5674 square inches which is significantly larger than both the 9mm and the .40 S&W.

The larger, heavier bullet will be the surer killer and stopper when all things aren't equal- larger/heavier target than expected, oblique angles, intervening limbs and when limbs are all you have to shoot at.

The 165/180 grain .40 JHP is substantially better on four legged targets than the +P 38 and watered-down 357 LE loads ever were and it is just as good as the best examples of either were, against humans.

I suppose the average shooter may be able to get 1.7 more 9mm rounds off in five seconds or whatever arbitrary stopwatch figure you choose. He could probably get 2.9 more .22 LR's off than 9mm's.

Oddly that guy with the stopwatch was never around in the many shootings I studied first hand or within hours of the event. I taught a wide spectrum of 'shooter types' how to shoot for their lives during a 25 year period when the 40 S&W was at its apex as a LE round. They all learned to shoot it fast & accurately enough and their hit ratio in the field was about equal to what you see reported as the national LE 'miss' ratio.

I realize this is all against the current conventional wisdom. OK whatever, carry whatever you want. I don't care.

I don't buy into any of that.




Dave

he had quite a variety of tests in the video, and i thought it was pretty balanced.
9mm wasn't all that much better time wise.
what i found interesting was the last test of a couple layers of clothing, a roast, beef slabs, etc.
the 9mm actually penetrated further with the same type of ammo, but the 40 expanded out and stopped in what would be the heart.
He wasn't really advocating either one to the exclusion of the other, but in some tests the 40did better, same with the 9mm.
it was interesting in seeing video of all those different shooting situations.

Math check...

I just want to know where to get some of them square bullets

What you described was actually proven by the NYC Transit Police Division. They departed from the NYPD on training in that they required more frequent qualifications and made training free of charge, providing lots of range time and ammo year round. They had significantly fewer misses in real gun fights.

I'm not sure if that's still the case after they merged with the NYPD.

When the Federal Bureau of Prisons switched from revolvers to 9mm S&W's back in the mid 90's, we actually qualified quarterly...for about two years.

Scheduling and ammo costs wrecked havoc on the roster and the budget so they returned to the usual annual qualification.

Dan

And I can respect that. I will give you that the availability of good reliable 147 grain loads closed the gap some and puts the Nine on par with the 38 FBI load, a good LE/defense round for sure.

I understand why many of you have switched and it has nothing to do with wearing pink underwear or having the complete Elton John collection. I still beat around the woods frequently and favor larger bores and heavier bullets for reasons already stated.

I'm a fan of the .40.

I think it's a great round.

I just think the 9mm makes more sense for a duty gun.




Dave

The idea hatbrhere are no stopwatches in a gunfight is not only stupid, it's dangerous to parade around like some sort of catch phrase.

Is the bad guy trying to shoot you first? Then you better believe there's a stopwatch. A stopwatch that he's holding, he starts, and you don't know for sure when he's decided to "go".

Yes.

Times matter.

A lot.




Clark

I am sticking with a .45 ACP.

I'm mostly carrying a G19 these days.. for no particular reason other than I enjoy hearing people tell me how bad it sucks.

Ask them if there's one thing the G19 can't do.





Dave

I guess I'm just a Neanderthal.



L.W.

I'm partial to the 40 S&W and shoot it better than the 9mm for some odd reason. I do miss my Glock 17, that was an accurate 9mm!

The 2 Glock 19's I've shot have not been as accurate for me? No issue carrying a 40 or 9mm.

Ask them if there's one thing Rosie O'Donnell can't do.

Using an M&P as an example, there is zero difference in the time it takes to recognize the threat, draw, aim, and fire the first shot - it's the same pistol for all purposes. The difference is limited to fractions of a second in the subsequent splits, which is far down the line in importance.

Time and what you do with it, throughout any contested event, matters immensely.

What's stupid and dangerous is parading the notion that any part of that can be quantified with a stopwatch.

It's stupid to quantify time with a device that measures time?

Between shots are fractions of seconds.

But that's not all that we're talking about.

IME, seeing the results of well over a thousand people shooting identical polymer pistols in both .40 and 9mm, MOST people are more accurate on that first shot and far more accurate on subsequent shots.

So it's not just about the time, it's about what happens during that time. Not only are more shots fired, but they're typically more accurate shots as well.



I'm sure all the He-Men here can defy the physics, but IME experience of seeing more shooters than most that vary in ability from tiny females to pretty stout guys fresh out of the military and college athletes, people are more accurate with a 9mm than a .40. Not just a little, but a lot. And that's been true for everyone.

Blue, don't talk about experience and common sence (sarcasm).

40's are snappy, no way around it. I found that out with my G35.

Do you drive a Model T also? LOL.

No, seriously, John Browning's design was a huge advance in handgun technology, which remained the best choice for a very long time, far longer than did the Model T.

the only need I would have for a .40 is if I was hiking in black bear country when the cubs were around for mama if she got upset with me. A G23 would be fine with hard cast ammo. There is no reason to own one over a 9mm other than that and then Phil killed a grizzly with a 9mm! Never mind...

I don't shoot as much as used to. Want to, but don't.

To me, the 9 mm is a lot easier to shoot. I even think the 45 acp is easier to shoot than the 40. And all my pistols are Glocks: 20SF, 21,35,17,27/26.

For what ever reason I do better with larger heavier rounds? Shot Expert with a 38 M&P revolver and a 1911A1. Only qualified with the M9.. No idea why, It and I just do not get along. Bought a CCW, CZ Rami had a choice between 9mm and 40 S&W. Bought the 40. It's snappy, but no issues at 25 yards with a silhouette target. Not knocking the 9mm, but they don't seem to work for me. Only one I have owned that I could shoot well was a Star Model B, FIL asked to borrow a pistol for an Alaskan RV trip. Have yet to get it back after 15 years. Use what works for you.

I'll pass on your assumption that the first shots are equal in speed and accuracy, and focus some other faults in your logic.

First of all, you stated a singular "threat," and you can't possibly know how many threats you'll face. Secondly you stated that subsequent shots were far down the line of importance. That's making the assumption that your first shot was all that was needed, and again, against a single threat. In your perfect scenario, you're prepared for one bad guy, and assuming he'll toss in the towel after being hit once.

Since none of us gets to dictate our perfect scenario fight, we have to expect and train for one where there are multiple bad guys who require multiple doses of correction. That's where those followup shots come in............and they're way up there on the list of importance. Shooting the M&P accurately and quickly, can be done better in 9mm than .40.

Accuracy always count supreme, but so does speed. The 9mm does both better than the .40 for almost all shooters.

There seems to be a lot of evidence that with the common pistol rounds 9mm, 40sw, 45acp the wounds are almost indistinguishable in the operating room, and I personally can shoot a lot faster and more accurately on the follow up shots with a 9mm.

On the other hand, I do recall before I found out that it was not politically correct to shoot lead bullets in the 40 and having had a G23 at that time, I scored a bag of reloaded semi wad cutter 200 grain practice ammo at a gun show, lord knows who made them or what they were. At the time I had cut up a beam composed of laminated plywood about 2 inches thick IIRC, it was kind of cool the way the thing knocked a big hole in that plywood. I almost think the common 10mm ammo does not have a lot over some of the 40SW ammo.

Watered down 10mm = .40 S&W.

Exactly. 40 S&W=40 "Short and Weak". That said, I don't need a 454 Casull, only a 45 Colt. The 40 S&W is a useful cartridge, perhaps the best self-defense cartridge we have, leaving recoil out of the equation. With recoil factored in, make mine a 9.

A fat 200 grs at 1050 shoots like a 45 ACP in my P226 40 cal, easy to get back on target and 16 of those would have to leave a pretty good mark.

I think most of the factory 10mm is under loaded.

No "think" about it, it really is. That's one of the oddities of the 10mm, with most factory ammo being loaded to 40 S&W specs (or "FBI-lite" loads), and a lot of guns designed to run that ammo instead of real 10mm loads. That does not mean that 40 S&W is equal to the 10mm, as some here have claimed.

Overall fire power goes to the 9mm, with 15/17 shot mags and lower recoil pounding the target with sufficient lead weight isn't a problem, I like the 40 and own a number of them. I've always packed the 40, but recently have moved to the 9mm for daily wear...much smaller and lighter, tho only 7 rounds on board with a single stack.

Do I feel "under gunned" ?, not in the least.

Just astounding this is still a subject of debate. I guess there are just some really slow learners!

I live in the Rockies west of Denver. When I travel to the city there are human threats. When at home, sometimes working in the yard there are animal threats. So far in Colorado I have had no direct human threats, but have had many bear encounters including break-in.

I carry a 40 cal because it is concealable, I can have rounds suitable for defense against humans like 180 gr JHP Gold Dots and I can also have the smallest round chambered for the Double Tap Wide Hard Cast Flat Nose bullet, in the 40 cal I use the 200 Gr at 1000 fps from a short barrel. This round is probably a 3 ft of bear penetration. 9mm has no comparable dangerous game loads or I would probably carry that.

Phil Shoemaker killed a charging brown bear with Buffalo Bore 9mm 147 gr. +P hard cast. I'm not advocating for or against but it's there and obviously can work in a pinch.

Buffalo Bore makes some fun stuff. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=155

The 325 Wfn at 1325fps in a 45 colt is a doozy.

The .40 was merely an attempt to gain mass in a smaller 9mm platform. If they could have done it with a .45, they would have.

Cooper and Guns and ammo experimented with improving the Browning HP many years ago with a .40 caliber cartridge. They succeeded in gaining some energy and delivering a little extra mass, but the gun needed to be modified a bit. It was interesting, but most hand gunners at the time, weren't all that intrigued.

Even Cooper with his obvious (and earned) bias toward the .45acp, realized that in the triad, power was 2nd to accuracy, and more important than speed, whether the caliber was .452, .40 or .356.

I don't, and never have owned a .40 of any manufacture. But I've shot a bunch and respect their accuracy and power. I just couldn't get excited. Just like the .327. Why?

Use what you want, but don't expect to find some answer to a question that can't really be answered. Which is better? In many cases, depending on the application, a .22lr is just fine. A far better question would be, what the hell reason exists for the .380?

MOGC,

The bear Phil killed with the 9mm was a pretty big one, too. When it was skinned, the nose of one of the Buffalo Bore 147's was poking out of the shoulder on the far side of the bear. It didn't go through the hide, but there aren't any vitals in bear hide.

Over the years I've owned 5 different 40s.

Eventually sold all of them when I decided if I need more "oomph" in a semi than the 9mm provides, a 45 was a pretty damn good answer.
YMMV.

Doesn't convince me. But I'm glad you like it.

Can't make a 9mm that small.

Nope. Truth there. But then, you can make a 9mm small enough to matter.

Those tiny .380's fall into the "better than nothin' " category for times a guy can't carry a gun for some reason. Especially with today's ammo. While I do own and carry one sometimes as a BUG, in my opinion they do bit of a disservice to the handgun world by offering a sense of security those who want to carry concealed w/o making any concessions to carrying an effective handgun. Since only a small percentage of those who carry handguns concealed ever get into a gunfight, those who carry crappy guns never have to face the true realities of their gun selection.

If we're not careful, you & I might actually agree on something

there is very little ammunition that you can find for the .380 that consistently gives 12 inches of penetration except for ball, that said sometimes a Kahr 380 in your pocket is all that you can carry.

I believe the bear weighed about 900 pounds is what Phil said.

We agree on a great deal.

A great deal would be a $300 model 29.

i suspect from the comments that not too many actually watched the video, and the different tests he ran through, which is what i found interesting. He wasn't really commenting per se one caliber was better than another in all things, but in some things the 9mm did better, others the 40. It's what rocks your boat.
but the tests were interesting, particularly the last one with several layers of clothing a bunch of meat in side the shirt, and what the same bullets in both calibers did. Both would in my thought have worked pretty good.
I have never been in love with the 40 although i own a number of them. I was never totally in love with the 9mm either from years ago
when i would find hollow points plugging up.
I am in love with a 250gr to 280grain .45 slug doing about 1000fps.

I watched the whole video.
I think the fact that he used 115 gr. and 135 gr. 9mm loads was a bit unrealistic.
Who loads 115 gr. anything as a self defense load? Any LE types? I doubt it.
124 gr. +P or 147 gr. would have been much more realistic as to what most of us carry in the 9mm, and would have fared better in the comparison.

Jimmy,
In the Lucky Gunner tests of .380 self defense rounds, 12 of the 21 penetrated 12" or more. The advances in bullet technology didn't stop at the 9mm.

This is the only 380 load we buy or carry. It's surprisingly accurate from the little Rugers and I expect it will penetrate enough.

My little Ruger LCP .380 always rides in my offhand or left front pocket as my BUG. Mine's loaded with the Buffalo Bore Hardcast 100 gr FP bullet at 1150 FPS and 20" of penetration.
The Buffalo Bore load makes the LCP a formidable little back up gun, and also for when you need a tiny little pocket pistol for the ultimate in concealment when your only wearing jogging shorts.

As far as the age old 9mm vs 40 S&W debate, I'll agree that the 9mm is easer to shoot for most people, and is faster for follow up shots due to less recoil. That being said, I'll stick to my Glock 32 in .357 sig caliber. It's the same size as a GLOCK 19 with two less rounds capacity.

And even though they aren't my first choice for concealed carry, I do carry a Glock 43 9mm occasionally, or my Springfield XDS in .45 acp every once in a while. It mostly depends on where I'm headed that day. If I'm headed to Houston, San Antonio, Austin, or the DFW area, I'm carrying my Glock 32 with 3 extra Glock 31 mags which hold 15 rounds each.

But if I'm headed to the Ranch for a couple of days, I'm probably packing one of my numerous 1911's in 45 acp, or a RUGER Blackhawk in .45 Colt on my person. And in my truck, there's always a Glock 21 in 45 acp with 10 extra mags, plus a extra 10mm barrel for it with 5 extra mags for it in the mag pouch. Takes me all of of 15 seconds to swap out barrels and mags. Not to mention theres also scoped M-4 AR-15 in .556 with at least 10 extra mags ready to go in there too

this guy found Precision one ammo! I wonder sometimes about these tests, Sarge probably has most fool proof solution in the flat point FMJ's, but the hard cast idea sounds good as well.

380 ammo test discusion

I wonder what Remington is using in the UMC line. I have two boxes of 95gr. Round nose FMJ's, but on the back of the box they only show Jacketed hollow points, Jacketed Soft points with a flat nose and a hollow point metal case. All they say is that they use "Popular Bullet styles". I have shot one box and they seem to be fine, but I'm curious about their penetration.

Federal 9BPLE

I googled that and read several different accounts of the battle, all very impressive. All had the same ending; dead bear with multiple holes dripping gear lube from the engine compartment. And with a single stack at that. Appears Phil, though respectful of them, ain't skeered of bears and don't miss much. That combined with a flat nosed HARD bullet seems to work miracles.

quote " That combined with a flat nosed HARD bullet seems to work miracles. "



thats why I prefer the 40 for all around use........the common cheap ammo for the 40 is of flat nose congfigruration , the equivalent 9mm ammo is 90% round nose , pretty much useless except for fun time blasting

The Rohrbaugh R9 Stealth 9mm is not far off. It’s barely larger than the Kel-Tec P-3AT. It first earned my interest a few years ago when the American Rifleman reviewed 25 .380 compact pistols, including the .380 Rohrbaugh version (the same size as its 9mm R9 version). It was the only compact .380 pistol that the AR testers could get 4” groups with at 25yds. The 9mm version is no different.

Attached are some pics comparing the size of the Kel-Tec P-3AT (.380); Rohrbaugh R9 Stealth (9mm); Kahr PM40 (.40 S&W); and the G27 .40 S&W). Judge for yourself.







The Rohrbaug is the only 9mm of which I know, that I can fit in my pocket easily I my front pocket in a slip-in holster.

P.S. I prefer the 40 S&W to the 9mm, but they don’t make a 40 S&W nearly as small as the Rohrbaugh, and it is barely bigger than any .380.

The SIG P938 9mm is pretty small.