New XD40

[lunchbox]

Is this thread about 9 vs 40 vs 45 or about the new XD toy the OP bought? Nice new blaster gman, be sure to post range report.

[Ryno12]

It does improve the other calibers. However, the 9MM performs so close to the 40 now that the 40 is no longer worth the problems that comes with it. More recoil, more wear on internal parts and in some cases, less reliable guns.

I get that but what I don't understand how bullet technology alone can "close the gap", so to speak, on other calibers. If it (bullet technology) improves one caliber by 'X' number of degrees, it should improve the other calibers by the same amount. Correct? I would think something else specific to that caliber alone would have to change to allow one caliber to gain ground on another.

I'm not trying to feed the caliber debate. I'm just trying to understand the mechanics behind that statement that I've heard for so many years. I've always wondered, so this time I decided to ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CoryCop25]

No. Bullet technology has improved one caliber by X number of degrees and another caliber by Y number of degrees and another caliber by Z number of degrees.
Let's say bullet technology improved 9MM by making it 42% more effective, and it improved the 40 by making it 23% more effective. If that makes an over all effectiveness of 70% for the 9mm and 76% for the 40, the extra recoil and wear on the parts don't make the extra 6% effectiveness of the 40's juice worth the squeeze.
For the record, I made all of the numbers up just to explain my point.

[Ryno12]

Thanks Cory. I had always figured the improvements would have to be linear across the caliber board. Now I need to wrap my head around the reasons why it's not. Is it the velocity? Bullet mass?
I don't want to derail this guys thread any more than I have. Time for some Googling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C4IGrant]

It is true that 9 is cheaper to shoot, however during the panic of 2008 and 2012 I could find .40 everywhere while 9mm and 45 were unavailable.

Valid point. Not a bad idea to own a 40 in a gun hat reliable in case a particular caliber is un-available.


C4

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ptmccain]

Caliber wars are stupid. That is all.

Interesting remarks from a trauma surgeon:

Caliber “wars” ARE stupid. I’ve been over this again and again, both in the OR and at the autopsy table (many times). I’ve seen a case where a guy was killed by a single .22 short, and another case where a guy was shot at point blank in the forehead with a 9mm by a drug dealer trying to execute him, who emerged with just a small skin wound!

Bottom line is that by FAR the most important determinative factor is WHERE the bullet hits, not what type it is. If the bullet hits a vital area, you’re done, and if not, you’re not. Period. Consequently, the single most important thing a prospective shooter can do is to make sure he/she can place shots into vital areas when necessary. Caliber is at best a secondary consideration, and also subject to issues of cost, availability, capacity, concealability, etc.

Yes, of course some bullets and calibers are better than others, but once we get into the category of “service” type calibers (eg 9×19 mm, 40, .45, 45LC, .44spl, .357, etc), **ALL** of these have the energy and bullet profile necessary to consistently reach vital areas. The real world performance differences between the better loads in each of these calibers are not only fairly marginal, but also subject to the usual compromises. EG, more power also typically means more noise, recoil, muzzle flash, expense, typically lower capacity, etc. So even if we stipulate that caliber “A” is a better “stopper” than “B”, that does **NOT** necessarily make it a better choice for personal carry. Higher per-round expense may translate into lower rounds expended during practice, meaning lower skill level, and that’s not really a boon.

Bottom line, you’ll be well served with any of these calibers, if you can do your part as a shooter. If you want to worry about something, worry about making sure you’re good with your gun, rather than which gun/caliber it is.

If, for reasons of concealment, availability, or others, you have to go with a “lesser” caliber, I’d say you probably really are better off with either .38sp, .380, or 9×18 (all of which are marginal/low end service type rounds), rather than .22, .25, or .32 (which have low bullet mass and energy, and offer relatively lesser penetration). But again, the .22 in your pocket is better than the 870 in your car trunk, or the .45 on the gun store rack. .22 isn’t optimal, but if the gun itself is reliable, and you know what you’re doing with one, its a *LOT* better than nothing.

[sevin8nin]

I'll be honest that the XD has never suited me, and 40 doesn't do much for me. However I am curious about the aftermarket parts you installed.
Any quoted weight difference in trigger pulls? Or better yet, do you have a gauge?
Anyone ever report light primer strikes or anything of that nature?
Got another picture of the whole gun?

[WillBrink]

Removed.

[GregP220]

Well this thread went straight down the crapper....

[jcshelto]

I think he was kidding. Most everyone that is anyone has moved away from 40 (or never went there to begin with).


What's that saying, if you can't say something nice........



C4

Really? .40 is probably the best all around caliber, especially if you game in USPSA Limited class. It is the most versatile caliber, too. It can be loaded to shoot softer than 9mm and hot enough to come close to 10mm velocities. I've pushed .40 pretty hard, but I've also pushed it very light to the point of almost cheating.

My carry guns are all 9mm and I do use a Glock 34 in IDPA and my nightstand gun is 10mm, but I love .40; it is a very capable caliber that offers huge amounts of flexibility.

I won't, however, comment on the XD :-/