124gr vs 147gr in 9mm

[DocGKR]

There is a reason why our Nation's most highly trained and experienced warriors are using .40 cal handguns in combat. As I stated above, if I needed a handgun for LE Patrol duties, 15 + 1 rounds of barrier capable 180 gr JHP in a compact size package like an M&P40 is quite compelling...

The following was written by an extremely qualified SOF veteran whom I know:

"Some people want to make up for their training short falls with a gun that recoils less. OK, but at least call a spade a ****ing spade. Ask yourself which bullet you would rather get shot with. You can show up with ANY 9mm platform you want, and I will bring .40 and if you are not master class bad ass, I will burn you down on a shot timer with full power duty ammo. Recoil management is a nice skill to learn. Other wise I would have just taken up eye socket shooting with a .22 magnum."

[fhpchris]

Actually, you fit into my mold exactly when it comes to the typical 9mm shooter and .45acp shooter. You're either focused on lots of ammo and easy shooting with the 9mm, or making as big of a hole as possible and compromising other attributes for the .45acp. It's harder to find guys that take the middle ground and try utilizing the .40 unless they got a feel for it in service use. The combination of good magazine capacity, hole size, and barrier penetration make the .40 a very appealing choice particularly with law enforcement who often engage in gun fights with perps who are more willing to fight to the death in dynamic barrier environments, versus your typical civilian self defense shooting which ends in 1-2 shots by voluntary surrender or a fleeing suspect.

Personally, I think many .45 ACP pistols are already at 13+1 which is only a little bit fewer than a .40. All of my 1911 friends really do not care about magazine capacity by citing that they will all gladly carry 5-6 mags if they really need to bring that same amount of ammo.

I think that .40 really only has an incremental advantage over 9mm +p in many of these aspects. That is why many people will say that if they are going into an environment that "perps are willing to fight to the death" they want to drop that guy with a .45. I feel that .40s have caught on with departments because honestly not everyone can shoot a .45 as well as everyone else. I think that it is clear that many women or other smaller stature people will never be comfortable shooting a .45 let alone a lighter one like a glock. I even notice myself that I am a much better shooter when I shoot 9mm. I can shoot much faster and with a greater accuracy than a .45.

What I am trying to say is that I feel that marksmanship makes a much bigger difference than the small diameter of the bullets themselves. I think that it is fair to say that on the whole police marksmanship sucks. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...=2&oref=slogin

I think that, "43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away" is quite terrible. These people shoot a .40 not because it is the best, but because it is the largest caliber that they are capable of carrying proficiently. Essentially a band-aid for poor shooting skill.

The 10mm seems like a good cartridge, but it is fairly uncommon and virtually non-existant in law enforcement or the military. It costs approximately 2-3 times as much to train with 10mm versus .40S&W, and available platforms and accessories are lacking. Also, other than the early 1990s case failures in generation 1 .40 cartridges the modern day .40 doesn't KB any more than other cartridges. The internet likes to turn early development issues into chronic unending legends. FLETC Glynco goes through about 1-million rounds of .40S&W per year and when I report to the training division I get their stats. The 1st generation .40 had a thinner case, and when used in chambers with less 6 o-clock chamber support like the Glock you ran the risk of a burst in the casing. The .40 was redesigned in 1993 to correct this issue with thicker case walls. Winchester also got rid of the large rifle primer used in the "10mm short" as it did not leave a safe enough amount of rim room for the ejector to avoid impacting a live primer. During testing, the FBI actually had the occasional live round detonate when ejecting......a flaw of the 10mm design. The .40S&W is one of the most tested and proven modern day handgun cartridges available. For service use, which often means that the pistol is beat up and run dirty, we actually have more problems with our 9mm and .45acp pistols than we do our .40S&W pistols.

If marksmanship is the most important than the cost of training with 9mm is a clear argument. God knows im not going to throw a 400$ 1911 in for anyone to reliability test, but there are other more modern options. .40 S&W with a glock seems quite sensitive to bullet setback at least by what I found...

Some police forces have started using .45 GAP. All of france uses the 9mm Gold dot. I think .40 is still a bad compromise and no magic bullet will compensate for bad marksmanship. It does not matter how big your bullet is if you cannot hit your target. If you have marksmanship issues, you need to be carrying a 9mm because it is just the easiest caliber to shoot, largest magazine capacity, and the cheapest to train with -- all three of those features aimed at the weaker shooters.

Rauch published some specific information on this set-back issue in the May/June 2004 Police and Security News, in a feature entitled "Why Guns Blow Up!":

One last cause of "blowups:" The simple chambering and rechambering of a cartridge does push the bullet back into its case. Hirtenberg Ammunition Company of Austria (at the request of GLOCK, Inc.) determined that, with a .40 caliber cartridge, pushing the bullet back into the case 1/10 of an inch doubled the chamber pressure. This is higher than a proof load. This "push back" can occur with but one chambering since it is dependent on how well the case was crimped or sealed to the bullet. How many of us regularly chamber and rechamber the first two rounds of our carry loads? (Also, this chambering and ejecting chews up the case rim, which can cause a malfunction. If you are limited to how much ammo you are issued, after cycling the first two rounds a few times, strip the magazine and load these two rounds first so they are the last up in the stick.)

[fhpchris]

There is a reason why our Nation's most highly trained and experienced warriors are using .40 cal handguns in combat. As I stated above, if I needed a handgun for LE Patrol duties, 15 + 1 rounds of barrier capable 180 gr JHP in a compact size package like an M&P40 is quite compelling...

Personally I would feel fine with whatever. If it had to be a Glock I would pick a 34. I think the larger caliber ones just look huge. I am a 1911 fan assuming you have the budget.

"Some people want to make up for their training short falls with a gun that recoils less. OK, but at least call a spade a ****ing spade. Ask yourself which bullet you would rather get shot with. You can show up with ANY .40 platform you want, and I will bring .45 and if you are not master class bad ass, I will burn you down on a shot timer with full power duty ammo. Recoil management is a nice skill to learn. Other wise I would have just taken up eye socket shooting with a .22 magnum."

It still holds true. The people in question are not IPSC grand masters, they are shooters whom many only shoot one or two times a year.

A Glock 34 is nothing to laugh at if you bring a shot timer. My friends that have 34s frequently bring full power ammo to competitive events just because their guns cycle faster with it and they do not even notice the recoil anyway. I doubt a Glock 35 is different. I have seen 9mm 1911s that look like airsoft guns as far as recoil goes. Even if you can shoot a .45 well.. going to a 40 oz 9mm really enables you to engage targets fast and accurately.

I have shot a .40 M&P and it didn't feel much different than my USP 9mm or a Glock 9mm except it felt more smooth. I guess it cycled slower?

I still say the problem is training. .40 S&W is not a magic bullet. If I had free training ammo im bringing a .45 If I get stuck with a Glock 34 with a few mods I will not be crying...

I don't hold .40 any higher than 9mm just because any marginal gains are lost in the cost of the ammo for training. If a .40 is the bees knees for you than enjoy it. That does not make it a magic bullet, however.

[Alaskapopo]

I honestly don't care that much about the caliber any more. I like the 1911 platform because I find it easy to shoot well. The 1911 seems to run well as a 45 acp so that is what I carry. My second favorite platform is the Glock 17. I have more faith in the 17 than the 22. I have seen a lot of 22's choke in training and during qualifications. The 17's run and run. If you were going to get a 40 the M&P sounds like the ticket. My only experience with one is shooting a friends. The gun is reliable. Only complaint is the trigger is awful. I still prefer a Glock to the M&P. Mostly due to the trigger and my familiarity with the Glock.
Pat

[298436]

I really couldn't care less what other people want. I don't have any control over them, nor do I "wear" or "possess" them. If they are happy and are paying for their ammo, that is fine with me

But as a civilian with a low budget, I like 9mm. It is hated and loved across the board, but I don't think many can deny that it does a pretty smackin' good job for being only 9x19mm. The advantages of 9mm are are already known by those who know, so I don't need to restate them.

I do however feel that should the most unfortunate happen, it will be dark or dimly lit, multiple hostiles, much chaos and confusion, rapid movement, and many missed shots. In this case capacity and ease of shooting really start to highlight themselves. I figure I have a limited number of "chances" with a lower capacity weapon, so I reasoned more bullets = better, seeming that they perform fairly closely.

I also happen to really like shooting 9mm versus the other cartridges, so folks, count me happy. The cartridge I use for SD/PD happens to perform acceptable in Doc's standards, so that is fine with me.

[WillBrink]

There is a reason why our Nation's most highly trained and experienced warriors are using .40 cal handguns in combat. As I stated above, if I needed a handgun for LE Patrol duties, 15 + 1 rounds of barrier capable 180 gr JHP in a compact size package like an M&P40 is quite compelling...
:

Doc. If the person is carrying 9mm for the "right" reasons vs making up for lack of training/reduced recoil per comments posted, your general assessment:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.

Still holds, or has additional research/feedback have you feeling the 9mm no longer applying?

LE patrol duties being different than general civi recs.

Been a .45 ACP/1911 shooter all my adult life, but due to costs (and less $$$ out = more range time for me), and interest in working with a full sized MnP with Apex set up, some tendonitis that gets aggravated by 30 years in the gym and thousands of rnds of .45 ACP, etc, I have been on a 9mm kick recently.

Your thoughts?

[DocGKR]

I currently am qualified on both the 9mm Glock and .45 ACP 1911. Likewise I have stated that if I were going back on LE patrol duties, I would choose to carry a M&P40. In general, ALL of the common service pistol calibers work adequately when fed modern well engineered and constructed robust expanding ammunition. As I have stated before, do your research and pick a readily available and easily serviceable pistol that you shoot well; ensure that it has a history of reliable and durable field use. Purchase two or three identical ones. Buy a lot of ammo. Then forget about hardware and focus on getting good training and regular practice. At this point in time, the 3rd Gen 9 mm Glocks, any caliber M&P, along with the HKP30 and HK45, are the best out of the box pistols currently available--of those, I prefer the M&P w/Apex Duty Kit.

[Entropy]

Rauch published some specific information on this set-back issue in the May/June 2004 Police and Security News, in a feature entitled "Why Guns Blow Up!":

One last cause of "blowups:" The simple chambering and rechambering of a cartridge does push the bullet back into its case. Hirtenberg Ammunition Company of Austria (at the request of GLOCK, Inc.) determined that, with a .40 caliber cartridge, pushing the bullet back into the case 1/10 of an inch doubled the chamber pressure. This is higher than a proof load. This "push back" can occur with but one chambering since it is dependent on how well the case was crimped or sealed to the bullet. How many of us regularly chamber and rechamber the first two rounds of our carry loads? (Also, this chambering and ejecting chews up the case rim, which can cause a malfunction. If you are limited to how much ammo you are issued, after cycling the first two rounds a few times, strip the magazine and load these two rounds first so they are the last up in the stick.)

The study was theoretical. The .40's factory crimp is tighter than a .45acp, and has more contact area than a 9mm or .357sig. The .40 is also a straight walled case, and does not suffer from the typical nose dive into the feed ramp due to the 9mm's tapered casing. So, you have 4 advantages to the .40 when it comes to safety. It's case walls have been thickened, it does not nose dive during feeding and thus limits the contact angle of the bullet with the feed ramp, it has a tight factory crimp, and it has a larger crimp area than many other cartridges. This is why you really don't hear about .40S&W explosions anymore from large law enforcement agencies. Most of our KBs occur with .45acps. We did have a couple of .40 KBs in the last year, but that was when some moronic cadets were doing double feed malfunction clearing. One round in the chamber, and a second round is pushed by the slide on top of the other. Some of them were releasing their slide with full force, causing setbacks with the double fed round, and then recycling the round into their training ammo.

Put enough .40s in the hands of average joe cadets, and you will find some problems. Then again, that goes for any caliber. However, DOI and ATF have had fewer problems overall than they did when they were using 9mm only.

[Alaskapopo]

The study was theoretical. The .40's factory crimp is tighter than a .45acp, and has more contact area than a 9mm or .357sig. The .40 is also a straight walled case, and does not suffer from the typical nose dive into the feed ramp due to the 9mm's tapered casing. So, you have 4 advantages to the .40 when it comes to safety. It's case walls have been thickened, it does not nose dive during feeding and thus limits the contact angle of the bullet with the feed ramp, it has a tight factory crimp, and it has a larger crimp area than many other cartridges. This is why you really don't hear about .40S&W explosions anymore from large law enforcement agencies. Most of our KBs occur with .45acps. We did have a couple of .40 KBs in the last year, but that was when some moronic cadets were doing double feed malfunction clearing. One round in the chamber, and a second round is pushed by the slide on top of the other. Some of them were releasing their slide with full force, causing setbacks with the double fed round, and then recycling the round into their training ammo.

Put enough .40s in the hands of average joe cadets, and you will find some problems. Then again, that goes for any caliber. However, DOI and ATF have had fewer problems overall than they did when they were using 9mm only.

Sorry but my experience differs from yours greatly on the 40sw. Its the most common round I have seen KB's with. This is due to many pistols having poor case support for a high pressure round. The 40 also with 180 grian bullets does not have much of a margin for safety for bullet set back. The 9mm's taper case is an advantage in feeding not a disadvantage for bullet set back. 9mm's almost never have KB's. There is more steel around the case for starters and secondly it has less of an issue with bullet set back. The 40 ammo and gun situation has improved and there are less KB's today than in the past. But I still do not fully trust the caliber in a service pistol.
Pat

[Entropy]

Sorry but my experience differs from yours greatly on the 40sw. Its the most common round I have seen KB's with. This is due to many pistols having poor case support for a high pressure round. The 40 also with 180 grian bullets does not have much of a margin for safety for bullet set back. The 9mm's taper case is an advantage in feeding not a disadvantage for bullet set back. 9mm's almost never have KB's. There is more steel around the case for starters and secondly it has less of an issue with bullet set back. The 40 ammo and gun situation has improved and there are less KB's today than in the past. But I still do not fully trust the caliber in a service pistol.
Pat

Was your comparison with Glocks? If so, there is a distinct difference in chamber support between the 9mm and .40S&W/.45acp. I forget the exact diameter of the base of the 9mm casing, but I believe it is about a .38-.39". A .355" bullet through a .38" hole allowed Glock to offer excellent chamber support and a higher level of safety in the 9mm.

We use Sigs and H&Ks which have about equal chamber support between the 9mm and .40S&W. Thus, we have not noticed much of a safety difference. Our P220s and USP 45s are a little weak in the 6 o-clock and is my theory as to why we have an observed KB difference.

So, back to the premise of the arguement that the .40 is less safe than the 9mm or .45acp. Given similar platform characteristics and chamber support, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one to be less safe than another.