9 vs 40 - a compelling case with some interesting test results.

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
410   0   2
Location
Onterrible
Was surfing gun vids on youtube and came across this guy. Once of the better pieces I've seen on the subject.


In essence, there is still a very strong case for agencies who already have the .40 to keep it. While the 9mm bullets and loads have improved, so have .40 bullets and loads.

To be frank, I have guns in both calibers (G17 and G22) and find neither to be markedly better or worse than the other in casual shooting. If I had to carry one, say in a typical USA concealed carry scenario, there is a strong case here to stick with .40, despite the FBI's recent decision to go 9mm an a general trend in that direction.
 
I was told the reason for changing back to 9mm was the excessive cost of .40 cal ammo (????????)

I do find the .40 to be a more unpleasant cartridge to shot, especially if not practised with as compared to the 9 mm.
 
I find a hot 40 load to be close to a hot 9 load in felt recoil. Both can be down loaded. A .40 ipsc load is like factory 9.

The FBI's stated logic is that 9 can be shot faster and more accurately, and that modern 9 loads have improved to be as good as .40 loads. The above video explores that hypothesis and speaks for itself.
 
Literally double the life on 9mm guns vs 40 cal guns and then some. More capacity, reduced recoil, reduced costs and absolutely no difference in terminal performance as all handguns suck. 40 is the result of a knee jerk reaction that resulted in trying the 10mm auto cartridge. Excessive recoil and gun size led to a 10mm lite, also known as 40 s&w. A very robust and clever marketing campaign made 40 the "go to" answer for the less informed.
 
Yycbulletsandbrass said:
Literally double the life on 9mm guns vs 40 cal guns and then some. More capacity, reduced recoil, reduced costs and absolutely no difference in terminal performance as all handguns suck. 40 is the result of a knee jerk reaction that resulted in trying the 10mm auto cartridge. Excessive recoil and gun size led to a 10mm lite, also known as 40 s&w. A very robust and clever marketing campaign made 40 the "go to" answer for the less informed.
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? Your statements are exactly what it debunks. Literally.
 
Claven2 said:
Did you even watch the video? Your statements are exactly what it debunks. Literally.
Click to expand...

The FBI did their own testing and compiled their own data, the life of a 40cal gun is roughly half that of a 9mm gun. More recoil and fewer rounds aren't abstract concepts, they're facts. There was never any reason to go away from 9x19mm. The Miami shootout in 1986 was the biggest catalyst for it and was rabidly pushed my suits who knew little and looked to industry for answers. S&W and Federal answered, and they bought it.
 
40 has more energy, with the advantages and disadvantages implied by physics. So no right or wrong. I find the 40 to be louder, if I had to fire without hearing protection I would go for the 9mm.
I like Harnell's presentation skills.
 
Juster said:
40 has more energy, with the advantages and disadvantages implied by physics. So no right or wrong. I find the 40 to be louder, if I had to fire without hearing protection I would go for the 9mm.
I like Harnell's presentation skills.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, physics. The results compiled from over 20 years of terminal shootings shows that 9x19mm, .40S&W and .45ACP all have the same terminal performance, which is they all need on average 3 rounds to do the job. If they all require the same number of rounds to be effective then I think it's safe to say that the gun with the most ammo on board with the lowest felt recoil would be the most advantageous choice. In Canada for use civilians, 9x19mm is simply cheaper and easier to shoot.
 
Yycbulletsandbrass said:
Of course it does, physics. The results compiled from over 20 years of terminal shootings shows that 9x19mm, .40S&W and .45ACP all have the same terminal performance, which is they all need on average 3 rounds to do the job. If they all require the same number of rounds to be effective then I think it's safe to say that the gun with the most ammo on board with the lowest felt recoil would be the most advantageous choice. In Canada for us civilians, 9x19mm is simply cheaper and easier to shoot.
Click to expand...

In Canada, "for us civilians", as I'm restricted to 10 rounds anyway, magazine capacity is irrelevant. As such, I'll take the most powerful round I can get.... 10 rounds of 10mm or .45 Super for me, thanks, if I'm ever in a position where performance against the "meat target" might matter. I've shot enough of both that I can shoot either pretty much as quickly and accurately as 9mm. That being said, I won't be selling my 9mm or .40 any time soon. Both good calibers for smaller guns, and for more affordable high-round-count training.

Interesting video.
 
CobraGT said:
In Canada, "for us civilians", as I'm restricted to 10 rounds anyway, magazine capacity is irrelevant. As such, I'll take the most powerful round I can get.... 10 rounds of 10mm or .45 Super for me, thanks, if I'm ever in a position where performance against the "meat target" might matter. I've shot enough of both that I can shoot either pretty much as quickly and accurately as 9mm. That being said, I won't be selling my 9mm or .40 any time soon. Both good calibers for smaller guns, and for more affordable high-round-count training.

Interesting video.
Click to expand...

And statistically speaking neither calibre has a runaway with terminal performance and science says less recoil means easier to shoot.
 
Claven2 said:
Did you even watch the video? Your statements are exactly what it debunks. Literally.
Click to expand...


He debunked nothing about parts wear and the increased recoil management and the human factor of you need more work with the 40 to be equally competent with it, nor has he debunked the reduced capacity in similar sized handguns. He said the projectile improvements have made the 40 a better round terminally. While he isn't wrong on that front it still doesn't change the fact that 40 needs more time behind it to be equally effective as it would if you were using 9mm. Which would in turn invoke higher costs from increased parts consumption/shorter firearm life on top of the higher ammunition costs to get officers qualified across the board.

Which brings us right back to square one. 9x19 is the standard for the simple reason it hits the sweet spot of terminal capability, ease of shootability, and capacity.

As far as real data collected from homicides along with police shoots the caliber debate is a wash. It comes down to shot placement. Good hits in the right bits is what matters. And the simple truth is it's easier to get solid hits on vitals with 9 than a 40, 45 with less practice. At this point 40 is a dying caliber that's getting more and more expensive to shoot making the argument to stick to it not economically viable.

Even with our mag restrictions in place(some clever workarounds such as using 40 mags in 9mm to get more than 10 rounds in tips it in the 9s favour again) the ease of shootability for 9mm along with the lower cost of practicing with it gives it the edge for most people.

And to the guy thats as fast with both or even hotter stuff like 10mm or 45 super. I would like to see that because physics says otherwise.
 
r34skyline said:
He debunked nothing about parts wear and the increased recoil management and the human factor of you need more work with the 40 to be equally competent with it, nor has he debunked the reduced capacity in similar sized handguns. He said the projectile improvements have made the 40 a better round terminally. While he isn't wrong on that front it still doesn't change the fact that 40 needs more time behind it to be equally effective as it would if you were using 9mm. Which would in turn invoke higher costs from increased parts consumption/shorter firearm life on top of the higher ammunition costs to get officers qualified across the board.

Which brings us right back to square one. 9x19 is the standard for the simple reason it hits the sweet spot of terminal capability, ease of shootability, and capacity.

As far as real data collected from homicides along with police shoots the caliber debate is a wash. It comes down to shot placement. Good hits in the right bits is what matters. And the simple truth is it's easier to get solid hits on vitals with 9 than a 40, 45 with less practice. At this point 40 is a dying caliber that's getting more and more expensive to shoot making the argument to stick to it not economically viable.

Even with our mag restrictions in place(some clever workarounds such as using 40 mags in 9mm to get more than 10 rounds in tips it in the 9s favour again) the ease of shootability for 9mm along with the lower cost of practicing with it gives it the edge for most people.

And to the guy thats as fast with both or even hotter stuff like 10mm or 45 super. I would like to see that because physics says otherwise.
Click to expand...

This and what KiddX/TDC said.
 
Harnell does have a video about how gunfight statistics aren't particularly meaningful. .40 has more energy, but that may not translate into an observable advantage in actual use. Same as the extra 2 rounds in the Glock isn't going to translate into a measurable advantage, even though it would obviously be some help. So if you are happy with .40, no reason to switch to 9mm. Ease of training is probably more significant than terminal effectiveness, in terms of ammo budgets and recoil sensitive noobs.
 
yz295 said:
Just own both... Works for me!
Click to expand...

Jay said:
And that's why I have a G22 with a Lone Wolf 40-9 barrel...

Best of both worlds @ your whim!

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

+1 to the above.

That said, I have shot way more .40 S&W ammo than 9mm in my lifetime, so far.

We'll see if the next 25 yrs changes that.... :)

1CanadaFlag.gif

------------------
NAA.
 
Sinasta said:
This and what KiddX/TDC said.
Click to expand...

I hope you are wrong but the writing is the same.

I have a retired police officer friend in California. He retired as a Detective a few years back from one of the larger Departments in the State. I asked him once and his reply went something like this. In retirement - "I carry a 75 BD CZ 40cal. I base my caliber choice on what I saw while attending a large number of autopsies."

Not sure if his observations mean much but there you are. I don't carry often and when I do under a Wilderness Permit it is a .357mag with 200 gr bullets. If I needed and could carry for self defense on the street I might differ to his experience and carry the .40Cal.

What various LEO/Military groups do doesn't mean much. Their choices are dictated by more factors than just effectiveness of caliber.

Good video by a respected author.

Take Care

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom