40 S&W cartridge- how good?

[sgt_zim]

I have carried a Glock 23 for years. I have always thought that the 9mm is not a good stopping round. It’s a good wounding round though. I guess that Law Enforcement is citing new bullet technology and load technologies that make is more formidable. To me, you’re just putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a 9mm. I truly believe that the 40 S&W is a superior stopping round, but I think that the 45 ACP is even better.

The 45 ACP has great frontal diameter and great bullet weight. The 45 ACP is a fantastic stopping round. Yes recoil can be a bit stiff, but it works on the other end.

With all due respect, there is no such thing as a "stopping round" available in an EDC handgun. Pistol bullets only make people leaky, and slowly at that.

When I was a cadet in Houston Police Academy, we watched a CC video of a convenience store robbery. The clerk, armed with a 44 Mag and shooting 240 gr bullets, shot the turd square in the bread basket. Turd ran off about 100-150', sat down, and died. If he'd wanted to, he could have caused (or tried to) the clerk a lot more grief.

The Hatcher theory has been utterly debunked.

 

[JimP]

With all due respect, there is no such thing as a "stopping round" available in an EDC handgun. Pistol bullets only make people leaky, and slowly at that.

When I was a cadet in Houston Police Academy, we watched a CC video of a convenience store robbery. The clerk, armed with a 44 Mag and shooting 240 gr bullets, shot the turd square in the bread basket. Turd ran off about 100-150', sat down, and died. If he'd wanted to, he could have caused (or tried to) the clerk a lot more grief.

The Hatcher theory has been utterly debunked.

You could also say that the "At The Movies" has been debunked.

It is a lot like at the movies when a person is knifed or shot with a arrow and they just drop dead instead of running off to bleed out. It just doesn't happen.

But I would say that a person with a .44 caliber of a hole through them is a lot less likely to even try to cause further harm, but then that can also be said about the person with a 9mm hole through them.

 

[sgt_zim]

You could also say that the "At The Movies" has been debunked.

It is a lot like at the movies when a person is knifed or shot with a arrow and they just drop dead instead of running off to bleed out. It just doesn't happen.

But I would say that a person with a .44 caliber of a hole through them is a lot less likely to even try to cause further harm, but then that can also be said about the person with a 9mm hole through them.

True dat.

A 200# man still has almost 6000 times more mass a 240 gr bullet has.

 

[Opposite Pole]

defending himself from a neighbors pitbull with a .40. He fired 3 or 4 times at only a few feet but the dog went down from the first shot which was a head shot. The dog regained consciousness after a couple minutes and it was later found that the bullet from the first shot used all of it's energy to open on the back of its skull and completely failed to penetrate. It was laying on the sidewalk fully mushroomed.

I think it’s fair to say this dog is a definition of a numb skull.

 

[mdwest]

The 45 ACP has great frontal diameter and great bullet weight. The 45 ACP is a fantastic stopping round. Yes recoil can be a bit stiff, but it works on the other end.

I hear what youre saying... but lots of surgeons, and lots of combat results extensively studied of guys getting shot with the 45 ACP tell a very different tale.. which is why the guys that regularly shoot other guys with handguns are moving back to 9mm in droves.. we've killed a whole lot of people with handguns over the last 20 years in a variety of environments ranging from military action in a bunch of different places, to police operations across the US, to CCW guys involved in shootings... Data is far easier to assemble in the digital age, analytics are far easier to conduct.. and we have more data now than ever before..

what that data is telling us is the difference between .357 inches (9mm) and .45 inches (45 ACP)... so less than .1 inch.. at the different velocities each projectile is shot at, using similar ammunition types.. isnt enough to make any discernable difference in terms of how quickly or how often a bad guy is incapacitated or killed.. the trade off is the larger caliber = less ammunition, and = more recoil.. which means you get less shots on the target and its harder to put multiple shots on the target quickly.. but no real extra ballistic advantage...

Factor in that more than 70% of shots taken by trained law enforcement officers in gunfights are misses.. and that cops generally have significantly more training than your typical CCW guy (although there are clearly some serious exceptions).. and Im going to recommend more capacity and lighter recoil with nearly equal ability to incapacitate the bad guy every time.. .

 

[Ray B]

the difference between .357 inches (9mm) and .45 inches (45 ACP)... so less than .1 inch.. .

While that is technically correct, it is also correct to note that the frontal area of the 45 compared to to 9mm is 60% greater than the 9mm (.0989 sq in to .1604 sq in). 60 % is a statistically significant amount.

 

[sgt_zim]

Well, except that it doesn't have a statistically significant impact on the outcome of shootings.

 

[ChrisG]

While that is technically correct, it is also correct to note that the frontal area of the 45 compared to to 9mm is 60% greater than the 9mm (.0989 sq in to .1604 sq in). 60 % is a statistically significant amount.

While that is technically correct, the difference in wound area on an 8" vital area is statistically insignificant. The vital area (the area you want to damage) is 50.27 sq. In If you figure that a 9mm (0.0989 sq.in) is 0.197% of the area to be damaged and a .45 is 0.319% the total area of the killzone, while this is 60% more of the killzone it is only 0.2% more of the total. Its like saying "using roundup increases your likelihood of getting cancer by 200%!!!" While that may be true, the chances of getting cancer anyway is, lets say 0.001% and the chances after roundup use is 0.003%... same principal. You can manipulate the statistics to make them look significant when you compare them in a vaccuum, but in real life, the difference amounts to so little that it cannot be proven that there is a difference between them. Why has this debate gone on for so long? Because neither side can come up with a clear advantage because there is statistically no difference between them.

The 9mm is known for its high speed, excellent penetration and low recoil. The .45 is known for slinging big heavy bullets and fighting in more wars than any American service pistol before or after it. There are probably a lot of germans that walked away from multiple .45 rounds and lots that didnt. Same could be said for American GIs and the 9mm.

What it comes down to in my opinion is that this debate was invented to sell periodicals... nothing more. Both are perfectly acceptable defensive calibers, both do an excellent job at what they were designed to do. With the caveat here of me saying that, personlly, I think the 9mm round was light years ahead, engineering wise, than the .45. Has nothing to do with its performance, I just think that it is a fully modern cartridge where the .45 really should have always been the .45 Super. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Ray B]

Why then do hunters of elephant us 45 caliber cartridges when a 35 would make an equally adequate wound?

 

[CoElkHunter]

I hear what youre saying... but lots of surgeons, and lots of combat results extensively studied of guys getting shot with the 45 ACP tell a very different tale.. which is why the guys that regularly shoot other guys with handguns are moving back to 9mm in droves.. we've killed a whole lot of people with handguns over the last 20 years in a variety of environments ranging from military action in a bunch of different places, to police operations across the US, to CCW guys involved in shootings... Data is far easier to assemble in the digital age, analytics are far easier to conduct.. and we have more data now than ever before..

what that data is telling us is the difference between .357 inches (9mm) and .45 inches (45 ACP)... so less than .1 inch.. at the different velocities each projectile is shot at, using similar ammunition types.. isnt enough to make any discernable difference in terms of how quickly or how often a bad guy is incapacitated or killed.. the trade off is the larger caliber = less ammunition, and = more recoil.. which means you get less shots on the target and its harder to put multiple shots on the target quickly.. but no real extra ballistic advantage...

Factor in that more than 70% of shots taken by trained law enforcement officers in gunfights are misses.. and that cops generally have significantly more training than your typical CCW guy (although there are clearly some serious exceptions).. and Im going to recommend more capacity and lighter recoil with nearly equal ability to incapacitate the bad guy every time.. .

mdwest,
Of course, your analysis is absolutely correct. But, this is AH and your taking the "fun" out of the never ending arguments here regarding calibers, cartridges, bullet weights, powder charges, etc. Ha! Ha! I continue to carry my Glock 22 .40 when working, going on 25 years. Before that, it was a Glock 21 .45 for about 5 years and a Smith 66 .357 before that for 14 years. Never owned a 9mm. But, I believe the reason for the never ending search for a "better" combat pistol cartridge in the past, was the poor bullet selection available. I remember when Super Vel came out with their hollow point bullets in the early '70s. They were revolutionary. Better bullets than the Super Vel are very commonplace now. I shoot my Glock well, so with a 15rnd magazine capacity, I won't be transitioning to a 9mm. Although, I wouldn't hesitate in owning a Glock 17 (I like full sized frames) with the bullets available today. I still prefer my Glock 10mm for my CCW. BTW, the .40 recoil IS "snappier" than the .45ACP, and of course both have more recoil than the 9mm. Carry and use the handgun caliber/cartridge which is comfortable in your hand and you shoot well. Just my 2 centavos.
CEH

 

[CoElkHunter]

Why then do hunters of elephant us 45 caliber cartridges when a 35 would make an equally adequate wound?

Good point! If it doesn't have to penetrate the skull on a head shot, how many lesser than .45 cartridges would work on a side shot? Another never ending argument with no real concise conclusion. I love it! Ha! Ha!

 

[CJW]

Why then do hunters of elephant us 45 caliber cartridges when a 35 would make an equally adequate wound?

Know of a .35 cal that delivers the modern day legally required energy? Of course it's been done in the past and could be done now with a nice long heavy bullet but when you're facing multiple tons of human jelly maker, most will lean to the heavy side. I'll take a long 45 cal 500 gr bullet over a long 35 cal 250 gr bullet in that instance.

 

[ChrisG]

Why then do hunters of elephant us 45 caliber cartridges when a 35 would make an equally adequate wound?

You essentially compared the difference between a AAA and an AA battery like they are on the same level as the difference between a 150A and a 250A welder. Orders of magnitude are very important when you are trying to discuss statistics.

Actually the AA battery contains the same amount of energy as a .458 winchester impact.... perhaps one of those can bring down an elephant! Its so crazy it just might work!

 

[mdwest]

While that is technically correct, it is also correct to note that the frontal area of the 45 compared to to 9mm is 60% greater than the 9mm (.0989 sq in to .1604 sq in). 60 % is a statistically significant amount.

Like my statistics professor loved to exclaim... there are 3 types of liars in the world.. liars, damn liars, and statistics...

60% is a pretty insignificant amount when we're talking less than 1/10th of an inch and all of the research, data, and actual study of wounds that has occurred in the last 20 years clearly demonstrates that you pretty much have to hit a major blood vessel or a key organ like the heart or brain if you want to take out a human with a handgun with any reliability and with any quickness..

we can cuss, discuss, debate, and argue what hollywood, gun writers, ammo manufacturers, and others have told us all for years.. or we can look at the thousands upon thousands of actual no shit handgun wounds that resulted in incapacitation or death that were closely studied by physicians, and other professionals (such as military special operators and major metro swat teams) that have a vested interest in making sure they are taking advantage of every possibly opportunity to more efficiently and effectively kill men with a handgun...

the facts are pretty simple and clear.. and significant changes have occurred in the last 20 years and continue to occur as a result of those facts..

Theres a reason most of US military SOF transitioned to a .45 ACP in the early phase of GWOT.. and there is a reason they all have now transitioned away from it... There is a reason major federal and municipal law enforcement has transitioned away from things like 357 Sig, 45 ACP, and are now even moving away from .40 S&W in fairly large numbers...

What be THOUGHT might be right 20 years ago, has now been proven wrong.. and what we KNOW now based on 20 years of killing people in large numbers with handguns everywhere from Kansas City to Kabul.. from Baltimore to Baghdad.. From New Hampshire to Nigeria.. and being able to effectively collect all of the associated data, analyze, it etc... is that the difference in killing and "stopping" capability of a .45 ACP and a 9mm luger is negligible.. and that an overwhelming number of organizations that have people carry handguns for the purpose of either self defense or straight up offensive actions against other humans think that the negligible difference that a .45 ACP might afford is WAY offset by the obvious advantages of magazine capacity, lower recoil, and in most cases the size/weight of the weapon platform..

 

[mdwest]

Why then do hunters of elephant us 45 caliber cartridges when a 35 would make an equally adequate wound?

Lots of reasons...

Youre now talking about a single, well placed, precision shot... not a fight with a handgun where in most cases 70% of rounds fired fail to connect with the target (in many groups the miss % is significantly higher)..

Youre talking about a much heavier projectile traveling at similar speed that has greater straight line penetration and that delivers SIGNIFICANTLY more kinetic energy on the target..


Gunfights generally do not afford the shooter the time or ability to shoot specifically for vitals.. There is a reason that shooting "center mass" is trained as opposed to shooting "on the shoulder".. and there is a reason cops, soldiers, etc are trained to shoot targets multiple times, regardless of whether or not they know they hit them.. vs putting one round through both lungs and the heart.. or a frontal brain shot like you would take on an elephant.. double taps, hammer drills, mozambique drills etc exist for a reason.. gunfights typically have the shooter moving, the person being shot at moving, often involve low light, lots of loud noises, dirt and debris flying everywhere, stress and anxiety reaching levels people that havent been in close combat cant understand, and the likelyhood of the shooter connecting with the heart or brain (specifically a medula shot that would result in flaccid paralysis and immediately put the target down and immediately removing the threat), even a top 5% shooter in the world.. is highly unlikely..

a 7x57 will kill an elephant reliably.. old Ivory hunters proved that.. the question would be.. why would you choose a 7x57 today? why do we think thats the best tool today to hunt elephants? or not?

by the same token a .45 ACP will clearly kill people reliably.. WWII and other conflicts.. proved that... the question would be.. why would you choose a .45 ACP today? why do we think thats the best tool today for defense or offense against humans? or not?

 

[mdwest]

It is a lot like at the movies when a person is knifed or shot with a arrow and they just drop dead instead of running off to bleed out. It just doesn't happen.

I can personally attest to this...

I have both been shot with a handgun (center body, abdominal wound).. and have seen more than a few others shot with handguns...

Hollywoods version of what happens is BS..

 

[CoElkHunter]

I can personally attest to this...

I have both been shot with a handgun (center body, abdominal wound).. and have seen more than a few others shot with handguns...

Hollywoods version of what happens is BS..

"I have been shot with a handgun"? Your supposed to unload it BEFORE you attempt to clean it! Ha! Ha! In all seriousness (which is unusual here on AH), I have not. I know several others who have been, and two that didn't make it.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

When John Browning designed the 1911, and for that matter the 45ACP, the cavalry still had a lot of pull in the army. The cartridge was originally designed to fire a 200 grain bullet, the cavalry decided, after testing, they wanted a heavier bullet. So he used 230 grain bullets, then they adopted the handgun and the cartridge.
The reason the cavalry wanted a 45 caliber handgun with heavy bullets was to be more effective on horses. Their testing consisted of shooting several dead and live, horses and cattle.
It’s been proven that a 9mm is nearly or as effective as the 45 on men. My question is which one would be better on large, heavy boned animals in today’s times?

 

[CoElkHunter]

When John Browning designed the 1911, and for that matter the 45ACP, the cavalry still had a lot of pull in the army. The cartridge was originally designed to fire a 200 grain bullet, the cavalry decided, after testing, they wanted a heavier bullet. So he used 230 grain bullets, then they adopted the handgun and the cartridge.
The reason the cavalry wanted a 45 caliber handgun with heavy bullets was to be more effective on horses. Their testing consisted of shooting several dead and live, horses and cattle.
It’s been proven that a 9mm is nearly or as effective as the 45 on men. My question is which one would be better on large, heavy boned animals in today’s times?

"Large ,heavy boned animals". A .458 Lott!

 

[mdwest]

"I have been shot with a handgun"? Your supposed to unload it BEFORE you attempt to clean it! Ha! Ha! In all seriousness (which is unusual here on AH), I have not. I know several others who have been, and two that didn't make it.

25 years ago.... I was hit by a 9mm 147gr Federal Hydra-Shok literally a mm below the bottom of my vest, just to the left of the naval.. the bullet exited on the right rear of my hip... I lost about 6" of intestines, my appendix, and a ton of blood...

What matters as it relates to this discussion is... I stayed in the fight for a full additional 60 seconds (until the fight ended) and could have likely stayed in the fight a good bit longer if it was required..

Thats not because I am some super human, stud dog, bad ass.. It was simply because thats what humans do when they are in the fight...

Hollywood lies.. handguns as a rule, dont put men on their asses immediately unless vital organs are hit.. and even then you'd be amazed at what a dying man can do in the last 5 seconds of his life after you take out the top of his heart..

.45 ACP, .40 S&W, or 9mm... makes not a bit of difference.. hit the center of the heart with a 9mm, the result is going to be the same as hitting the center of the heart with a 40... Dont hit the heart/brain.. and you are likely still very much in harms way... and you are far better off putting 2, 3, 4, or however many additional rounds into that threat as fast as possible, hopefully depressurizing the threat rapidly, or hitting the vitals with one of those follow on shots..

Knowing people miss A LOT in gun fights.. and knowing that the vast majority of people can get off multiple rounds from a 9mm a whole lot faster and more accurately than with a 40 or a 45.. the reason for 9mm being chosen by so many agencies and organizations becomes clear..

All of that said... Dont get me wrong.. I LOVE my 1911s.. and I LOVE my .45 ACPs.. If I already owned a 1911 in 45 ACP and didnt own another handgun or want to buy another handgun.. I wouldnt go rushing out to buy another one now.. it will absolutely get the job done..

You just better not be one of those guys that misses 70% of your shots in a gunfight... even if youre showing up with some nifty wilson combat 8 round mags..