The 40cal on its way out?

[Default.mp3]

Thank you.

Im glad my memory hasnt failed me.

That specific link was actually discussed here years ago: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....aliber-rethink

To copy over info from that thread, according an ME that was posting on Lightfighter:

Not really adding anything that DocGKR and others haven't already said, but I thought I'd chime in on what I see in the terminal ballistics between 9-40-45.

I see a lot of GSW's. I do have selection bias, I only see the dead guys with GSWs. When I examine a wound track at autopsy, I can't tell the difference between 9 and 40. I can sometimes tell a 45 was used. Depends on what/where it hits but it does leave a bit bigger hole. Other than location, what does seem to make the most difference is what bullet was used. Good quality defensive bullets do a better job than crappy stuff. Yes, I know it's obvious, but a lot of thugs use whatever they find. Those bullets tear up, fall apart and sometimes only are successful from numbers or luck. The better bullets that we see, sometimes from LEO guns, do exactly what they are supposed to, dump a lot of damage, stop in the dead guy and generally ruin his day. Survival time is reduced and the hospitals have a much harder time fixing the injury.

And as a side note about shot placement, Bob, you are absolutely right about location isn't everything. I've had a guy get two contact range GSW from a 25 acp to the side of his head, and only died cause he got choked into unconsciousness and drowned. But I recently had a 25 acp foil 3 surgeons because it hit too many vessels and they couldn't save him. But, he made it to surgery, and it sure wasn't a one shot stop. Cause he was still fighting after he was shot. I still think shot placement is the most important thing, as long as the rest is squared away.

My bottom line as a civilian is pretty much what has been discussed, use a reliable gun, make the compromises where you need/want to, and use good bullets. And oh, yeah, practice.

WoodlandSOU - Honestly I don't see much difference between 9 and 40. Only when I pull the bullet out and see/hold it, or when they tell me what was recovered in cases with exit wounds do I know the difference. Bony penetration is pretty much the same. They both usually stop if they hit something hard and thick (Spine, pelvis, skull, etc) There may be minute differences in depth of penetration of bone, but nothing significant. Soft tissue injury is basically identical and more a feature of what type bullet was used rather than caliber.

Dr. Thanatos, Thats some good info and it confirms what I have heard from other sources. Basically you are saying that the size of the bullet doesn't matter as much as the type of bullet (FMJ vs HP) right? And thats just with with handguns correct? I've read many, many articles on ballistic tests and so on, but its a little more rare to hear what a doc has to say about caliber and bullet type in relation to wounds they have seen and/or treated.

Within the calibers we're discussing, (9mm and 40.S&W) I see differences based on the type of bullet rather than the size. Smaller calibers (22lr, 25acp and 32acp) this doesn't apply. .380, 38/357, and .45 are similar but a little different. (Most .45 and most 38/357 behave very similarly to the 9/40. But not always enough to make a generalization.) And .44 and up revolver cartridges may not apply either. (I haven't seen enough .44s to have an opinion yet and .500S&W or other handgun hunting rounds behave differently.) Rifle wounds are completely different as are shotgun wounds.

Sorry about all the qualifications, I talk to lawyers too much.

I'm just glad there is a topic I know a little about. I've learned a lot from y'all on here, I'm happy to contribute anything I can.

For what it's worth(not much), after I did this a bit and started to develop an opinion, I sold my Glock 23 and bought a 19. For me the cost difference between 40 and 9 was enough to make it worthwhile. Everything is a trade off, pick the ones you want to make. I think Bob and Pesty0311 said it best above me.

Source: https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/r...43236914629998

[JHC]

He noticed the .45.

[SiriusBlunder]

Yup. The problem with both of those studies is the plural of anecdote is not data. You have partial or bad information via anecdote and nothing repeatable to correlate against.

As I recall San Diego PD and CA DOJ did some very interesting correlation studies and found the FBI gel / 4 layer denim test most closely correlated to the results the same rounds produced in actual CA LE shootings. They access to official reports, autopsies etc as they were working in their official capacity. DocGKR can speak on this in more detail.

Are you thinking of the Gene Wolberg study?

http://www.lignod.com/winchester_9mm.pdf

[Bucky]

Where it lands is far more important than a few millimeters one way or another.

Without a doubt, shot placement is critical. Also, the 9mm typically gives the best chance of said shot placement out of all the proverbial “service calibers”. As a platform, the 9mm excels (provided there are no arbitrary restrictions like mag capacity limitations). All my current CCW guns today are 9mm, though admittedly none of the 3 even offer a .40 counter part.

That said, I think the debate of 9mm vs. .40 should not be minimized to the extra 1mm of diameter. The .40 typically has a little more muzzle energy, but also a LOT more momentum. Whether it’s needed or not is certainly debatable.

[Galbraith]

He noticed the .45.

Lol, I noticed that too. I'd also be curious to see a study that could determine the rate of bleedout and blood pressure loss as it relates to hole size. For instance water flow through a pipe at a constant pressure increases exponentially as the diameter of that pipe increases. There is also the consideration of the surface tension of water which will slow down flow through a smaller pipe. I would think that blood flow would behave similarly through an entrance/exit wound. I'm not sure how this could be studied except for maybe setting up a gel block with donated blood in a central cavity, fed by a pump that matches the pressure a heart would deliver. Cover the block in something to match a skin flap?

[DocGKR]

Gailbraith:

Did you read Dr. Ken Newgard's article in the IWBA journal on this subject (Newgard K: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets" in Wound Ballistics Review; 1992; 1(3):12-17 ?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[BehindBlueI's]

Lol, I noticed that too. I'd also be curious to see a study that could determine the rate of bleedout and blood pressure loss as it relates to hole size. For instance water flow through a pipe at a constant pressure increases exponentially as the diameter of that pipe increases. There is also the consideration of the surface tension of water which will slow down flow through a smaller pipe. I would think that blood flow would behave similarly through an entrance/exit wound. I'm not sure how this could be studied except for maybe setting up a gel block with donated blood in a central cavity, fed by a pump that matches the pressure a heart would deliver. Cover the block in something to match a skin flap?

Just something to keep in mind, while there are major blood vessels and the heart, even most of the circulatory system isn't really an analogy to pipes. The body swells to attempt to cut off blood flow, clots, and many blood vessels are really small to begin with. The brachial artery is usually something like 4.5mm in diameter, while capillaries are measured in micrometers. A severed artery doesn't get more severed. A bigger hole doesn't necessarily mean bigger leaks, or that a bigger bullet makes bigger holes in "pipes". Pressures vary in different parts of the circulatory system, a hole in the aorta is a way bigger problem then a much bigger hole in veins/capillaries in the calf. Etc.

[HCM]

Are you thinking of the Gene Wolberg study?

http://www.lignod.com/winchester_9mm.pdf

Yes, thanks.

[JohnO]

Just something to keep in mind, while there are major blood vessels and the heart, even most of the circulatory system isn't really an analogy to pipes. The body swells to attempt to cut off blood flow, clots, and many blood vessels are really small to begin with. The brachial artery is usually something like 4.5mm in diameter, while capillaries are measured in micrometers. A severed artery doesn't get more severed. A bigger hole doesn't necessarily mean bigger leaks, or that a bigger bullet makes bigger holes in "pipes". Pressures vary in different parts of the circulatory system, a hole in the aorta is a way bigger problem then a much bigger hole in veins/capillaries in the calf. Etc.

Agreed. Human Hemodynamics is dependent on many factors. Blood thickness, cardiac output, vessel size, vessel elasticity are a few factors. Traumatic blood loss can be greatly altered in a "fight or Flight" scenario. There are numerous examples of individuals who did not exhibit rapid blood loss from sustained wounds until the stress hormones subsided.

[Ed L]

I did a typo in my last response and left some information out.

In writing about Marshall & Sanow's so-called studied, I forgot to include the bolded part of the next sentence.

1. Their so-called one-shot stop numbers deliberately did not include situations where someone was shot one or more times and did not stop and had to be shot again.* Bottom line, how can you claim to calculate the percentage of times that a round successfully stopped someone with one-shot when you don't include the number of times that it failed?

2.<any agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, and that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow have attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record.