The 40cal on its way out?

[DocGKR]

Exactly.

[Jeep]

The more effective FPs have a wider meplat, and a sharper leading edge, and frankly are often used on the largest targets, big game larger than deer being an example.

Note one reason why Elmer Keith designed his own bullet was dissatisfaction with the regular SWCs of his time.

All of the available FMJFPs I have seen, and that is most common in the .40, are bullets with very rounded leading edges and don't cut any more efficiently than a RN bullet. The FP likely leads to a slightly larger temp cavity, but at handgun velocities that is wasted.

Thanks, Chuck. Do you think a concave flat point would do a better job? I note that in my .380 I carry Winchester flat points on the hope that they might be marginally more effective than most other pretty lousy .380 bullets. That bullet seems to be less rounded than most .40 FMJ's I've seen, but might a concave design for the .40 give it a better cutting edge?

For those unfortunate enough to have to follow the State Department's prissily eccentric view on the Hague convention (or who are forced to resort to a .380 for one reason or another), I keep looking for a FMJ design that has better wounding potential.

[DocGKR]

There are none.

[Jeep]

You keep dashing my hopes!

[Chuck Haggard]

I don't know of one either, although I think it would help cut better.

In .380, which in shooting at people I think is analogous to shooting magnum revolvers at large game (little bullet vs large mammal...) the FP on the WWB at least helps keep the bullet going in a straight direction, and the .380 needs penetration.

[Jeff22]

I'm re-reading this thread. I'm about to begin experimenting with a Trijicon RMR06 (type 2) on a Glock 34. (I already carry a Glock 35 [Hornady Critical Defense ammo] on duty)

I'm 60. Had cataract surgery in 2010 and my vision is now 20/45 or something like that (it was like 20/1000 BEFORE the cataracts). Even with the spiffy new bionic lenses in my eyes (and glasses) I am at the point where conventional iron sights are beginning to be quite fuzzy in the dim light of an indoor range. I am interested to see how the RDS works out.

What I'm trying to decide is, if the RDS experiment works out, do I just use the Glock 34 or get a G22 or G35. I'm in Wisconsin, and so people are wearing heavy clothing about four months out of the year and penetration in heavy clothing is an issue.

At one time, .40 S&W seemed to have better performance through intermediate barriers like winter clothing and laminated auto glass. My research seems to indicate that this is no longer necessarily true.

I'm fine with shooting lots of .40 in a full sized gun (Sig 226, G22 and G35 in .40 are what I am familiar with since 2004) but I'd be perfectly happy going back to 9mm as long as it will perform good against heavy clothing.

[Beat Trash]

There are several 9mm rounds that work well against heavy clothing.

I would stay with your 9mm.

[KhanRad]

What I'm trying to decide is, if the RDS experiment works out, do I just use the Glock 34 or get a G22 or G35. I'm in Wisconsin, and so people are wearing heavy clothing about four months out of the year and penetration in heavy clothing is an issue.

At one time, .40 S&W seemed to have better performance through intermediate barriers like winter clothing and laminated auto glass. My research seems to indicate that this is no longer necessarily true.

I'm fine with shooting lots of .40 in a full sized gun (Sig 226, G22 and G35 in .40 are what I am familiar with since 2004) but I'd be perfectly happy going back to 9mm as long as it will perform good against heavy clothing.

Indeed, the two most important tests in the FBI protocols to determine acceptable caliber and load performance are the heavy clothing(4-layers of denim better) and windshield tests. There was a time with the 9mm in which JHPs did poorly in those tests. The reason being is that the 9mm has a long ogive to the bullet to improve feeding. So old bullet designs tended to use nose cavities that were small which were more prone to plugging in clothing turning the bullet into a FMJ as it entered tissue. The .357magnum(pretty much the same caliber), used a short ogive with a more durable bullet and thus did not experience many terminal effects or barrier penetration problems. The other problem with old bullet designs is that they used thin, soft bullet jackets with relatively soft cores in order to help the bullet expand more easily, however the weaker material shredded apart as it passed through a windshield(especially in the 9mm with its pointy nose). The solution at the time was to create a bullet design that had a short ogive to give the nose more durability, and use a larger caliber to make the JHP cavity wider and less prone to plugging. The .40S&W fit this criteria, and was a more reliable alternative.

However, now we have bullet designs like the Federal HST, Speer G2, and Hornady Critical Duty which are considerably more advanced. They have addressed those design flaws of the past, creating a very durable bullet with reliable expansion and they have outstanding performance in the heavy clothing and windshield tests. In this day and age, I would not go out and buy a .40S&W(resale is terrible). If you already have .40s and like them, then keep using them. I used .40 for many years(in addition to 9mm and .45), and it has over the years become my least favorite service caliber. It has had almost 30 years in law enforcement(many of those being the dominant caliber), and hasn't really demonstrated any superiority over 9mm or .45 to justify using it any more. As least those are my 2 cents.......

9mm or .45acp........but 75% of the time I choose 9mm.

[JAD]

40 still does better versus barriers, per Doc’s last look. Mr. Givens carries a 40 by choice. It makes me flinchy or I could be convinced.

[KhanRad]

40 still does better versus barriers, per Doc’s last look.

My agency shot up 13 cars over 4 years. We shot in and out of the vehicles, as well as shot up the vehicles. We brought extra windshields with us to lay over the previously shot out windshield so that training would last longer. From all that shooting, the .40S&W more often(not always) did better than the 9mm in terms of passing through likely vehicle barriers. However, we found that the .40 showed more deflection after passing through the windshield resulting in our shooters missing the target inside and outside the vehicle more so than the 9mm shooters depending on the angle of attack. We also found that 9mm 124gr+P or 127gr+P+ were more likely to punch through the A/B/C pillars in newer cars(older cars were too tough) than any of the .40 155gr, 165gr, or 180gr loads that we tested. The .357magnum 158gr Gold Dot was by far the most effective all around out of our 4" test gun. The .40 is a trade-off just like the other calibers.....although many would argue that the juice is not worth the squeeze.