The 40cal on its way out?

[Hot Cereal]

I used to go a long with the 9mm has less recoil argument. I got a chronograph last Christmas. In my completely unscientific testing I found the 9mm to only recoil less than .40 when it was loaded with fairly anemic 115gr ammo. My results and observations: (Guns used: HK P2000 9x19; Glock 23)

115gr Perfecta FMJ: 1118fps
115gr Winchester SXZ JHP: 1138fps
Those loads were creampuffs. Recoil impulse was the same as any FMJ you'd find at the store: UMC, WWB, Blazer, etc. They were easy to shoot fast. I honestly didn't even notice the recoil.

124gr+P HST: 1171fps
124gr FMJ Winchester NATO: 1138fps
Recoil was substantially greater from these loads than the 115gr loads. The HST slightly greater than the ball load.

147gr+P HST: 1001fps
I found this load to recoil in between the 115s and 124s. Manageble, but you knew it was there.

165gr HST: 1108fps
165gr PDX1: 1123fps
These loads were pretty stout.

135gr HST: 1193fps
This load recoiled a lot harder than I thought it would. It wasn't as heavy as the 165s but it wasn't light.

180gr HST: 1018fps
180gr WWB FMJ: 939fps
180gr TAP XTP: 946fps
These loads all produced nearly identical recoil. The HST being just a tad more pronounced. The WWB and TAP loads were identical, I would never be able to tell them apart.

While this was a completely unscientific "experiment" I took a few things away from it. I know that when I'm throwing the bucks down for ammo I'm typically buying the cheapest decent quality stuff I can. Perfecta, WWB, Blazer, Fed Champion etc is probably going to be what I buy unless I find a good online deal. For myself and most people, in 9mm that means light 115gr loads. I really think the 9mm developed, gained, however you want to say it, a reputation for being "soft shooting" from light loads like the ones I measured. The 124+P HST and 124 NATO were loaded much "hotter", as evidenced by their velocity numbers, not only being higher, but actually being close to the list velocity. I found their perceived recoil to be much greater than either 115gr load. The 147+P was firm, but pleasant. If I have a chance to shoot some of the standard pressure stuff the recoil will probably be slightly less and more pleasant, which is probably one of the reasons why the 147 HST has become so popular. To me, it is pretty obvious that not all ammo is loaded the same and some of the 9mm stuff is loaded light.

As for the .40 loads, the 180s produced the least amount of perceived recoil, though not by much. The 165's were the hardest hitting and the 135 split the difference. Here is where I throw a wrench into this. To me (maybe not you) the recoil of the 124 NATO and 124+P felt the same as the 180gr and 165gr .40s, respectively. I didn't have a timer and didn't measure splits or anything, but I don't think the 9mm would have been any "faster" using those 124gr loads. Running the standard pressure HST might change that observation.

In my opinion, a lot of people praise the low recoil of the 9mm based on experience with light range loads, which probably won't be in your gun when the chips are down. I don't have a dog in this fight. I think they're all pretty much the same, yet try to find any reason I can to switch everything to 9mm. I think 9mm has a lot of benefits, but I don't in my own humble, non-scientific opinion think reduced recoil over the .40 is one of them, not when actual "duty" loads are compared. I'll do this with the standard pressure stuff and see if my opinion changes.

[Trooper224]

I carry 124 grain +P Gold Dots in my 9mm's and the 165 Golden Sabre in my issued .40. My handloads in the 9mm are ballistic duplicates of the GD loads. No light range loads here. When using equivalent guns in the two respective rounds, the lesser recoil of the 9mm allows me to put more rounds on target faster. I'm hardly recoil sensitive, but I can't deny the physics of the situation. If you're happy with the .40, rock on. It will certainly get the job done, but there are valid reasons for dropping in the favor of the 9mm.

[HCM]

I used to go a long with the 9mm has less recoil argument. I got a chronograph last Christmas. In my completely unscientific testing I found the 9mm to only recoil less than .40 when it was loaded with fairly anemic 115gr ammo. My results and observations: (Guns used: HK P2000 9x19; Glock 23)

115gr Perfecta FMJ: 1118fps
115gr Winchester SXZ JHP: 1138fps
Those loads were creampuffs. Recoil impulse was the same as any FMJ you'd find at the store: UMC, WWB, Blazer, etc. They were easy to shoot fast. I honestly didn't even notice the recoil.

124gr+P HST: 1171fps
124gr FMJ Winchester NATO: 1138fps
Recoil was substantially greater from these loads than the 115gr loads. The HST slightly greater than the ball load.

147gr+P HST: 1001fps
I found this load to recoil in between the 115s and 124s. Manageble, but you knew it was there.

165gr HST: 1108fps
165gr PDX1: 1123fps
These loads were pretty stout.

135gr HST: 1193fps
This load recoiled a lot harder than I thought it would. It wasn't as heavy as the 165s but it wasn't light.

180gr HST: 1018fps
180gr WWB FMJ: 939fps
180gr TAP XTP: 946fps
These loads all produced nearly identical recoil. The HST being just a tad more pronounced. The WWB and TAP loads were identical, I would never be able to tell them apart.

While this was a completely unscientific "experiment" I took a few things away from it. I know that when I'm throwing the bucks down for ammo I'm typically buying the cheapest decent quality stuff I can. Perfecta, WWB, Blazer, Fed Champion etc is probably going to be what I buy unless I find a good online deal. For myself and most people, in 9mm that means light 115gr loads. I really think the 9mm developed, gained, however you want to say it, a reputation for being "soft shooting" from light loads like the ones I measured. The 124+P HST and 124 NATO were loaded much "hotter", as evidenced by their velocity numbers, not only being higher, but actually being close to the list velocity. I found their perceived recoil to be much greater than either 115gr load. The 147+P was firm, but pleasant. If I have a chance to shoot some of the standard pressure stuff the recoil will probably be slightly less and more pleasant, which is probably one of the reasons why the 147 HST has become so popular. To me, it is pretty obvious that not all ammo is loaded the same and some of the 9mm stuff is loaded light.

As for the .40 loads, the 180s produced the least amount of perceived recoil, though not by much. The 165's were the hardest hitting and the 135 split the difference. Here is where I throw a wrench into this. To me (maybe not you) the recoil of the 124 NATO and 124+P felt the same as the 180gr and 165gr .40s, respectively. I didn't have a timer and didn't measure splits or anything, but I don't think the 9mm would have been any "faster" using those 124gr loads. Running the standard pressure HST might change that observation.

In my opinion, a lot of people praise the low recoil of the 9mm based on experience with light range loads, which probably won't be in your gun when the chips are down. I don't have a dog in this fight. I think they're all pretty much the same, yet try to find any reason I can to switch everything to 9mm. I think 9mm has a lot of benefits, but I don't in my own humble, non-scientific opinion think reduced recoil over the .40 is one of them, not when actual "duty" loads are compared. I'll do this with the standard pressure stuff and see if my opinion changes.

You are going by “feel” which is completely subjective and you used two complexly different pistols with different felt recoil characteristics.

My agency issued 40 for the last 22 years and has allowed optional personal 9mm for the last 12 years.

Shooting otherwise identical guns like Glock 19/23: 17/22 or 34/35 or HK USPC 9/40 there is a noticeable difference in felt recoil between our current issue 180 grain HST 40 and the 124 grain +p Gold Dot. More importantly there is a measurable difference in time when shooting multi shot drills. Not a tremendous difference for me but it’s there, it’s real, and it’s consistent.

There is also a noticeable and measurable difference between the 180 HST and our prior stupid hot 155 grain ammo.

[Hot Cereal]

You are going by “feel” which is completely subjective and you used two complexly different pistols with different felt recoil characteristics.

My agency issued 40 for the last 22 years and has allowed optional personal 9mm for the last 12 years.

Shooting otherwise identical guns like Glock 19/23: 17/22 or 34/35 or HK USPC 9/40 there is a noticeable difference in felt recoil between our current issue 180 grain HST 40 and the 124 grain +p Gold Dot. More importantly there is a measurable difference in time when shooting multi shot drills. Not a tremendous difference for me but it’s there, it’s real, and it’s consistent.

There is also a noticeable and measurable difference between the 180 HST and our prior stupid hot 155 grain ammo.

The two guns aren't the same, yes, but they're similar in size. If I buy a 9mm conversion barrel for the 23 it will be a better comparison. I did go by feel, which is subjective, but in reality that is what counts for me, not some recoil formula. Now, what would be great, and possibly even scientific, is a blind test. Take two identical pistols: 17/22; 19/23, load them with a given load and then ask a test subject to pick up the pistol and fire 10 rounds as fast as possible into a 6 inch circle at 5 yards or something. Don't tell them what they're shooting, don't let them eject loaded magazines or pick up brass. Then get their raw observation and feel, along with some data from their split times/accuracy scores.

ETA: I also shot the 9mm loads through a G17, but didn't include it in my original post because it was a full size pistol. I carried a G22 on duty for 5 years, issued 180 Ranger T. The recoil on the 124+P HST was very similar to what I remember the 180 Ranger T to be, yet slightly less. Both were "snappy". I think the perception of "recoil" from .40 and +P 9mm loads is actually an increase of slide velocity, which makes it feel "snappy" but I don't have any data to back that opinion up.

[JonInWA]

Another factor to consider is the gun; using identical .40 ammunition, I can fire faster and at least equally (if not more) accurately with my HK VP40 compared to my Glock Gen4 G22. Doesn't mean that the G22 is a "bad" gun, or that I plan on getting rid of it, but is was interesting to observe. HK spent a lot of time on the VP ergos, and on determining the slide mass necessary to adequately handle the .40 cartridge; the shooter accrues benefits from both.

Best, Jon

[HCM]

The two guns aren't the same, yes, but they're similar in size. If I buy a 9mm conversion barrel for the 23 it will be a better comparison. I did go by feel, which is subjective, but in reality that is what counts for me, not some recoil formula. Now, what would be great, and possibly even scientific, is a blind test. Take two identical pistols: 17/22; 19/23, load them with a given load and then ask a test subject to pick up the pistol and fire 10 rounds as fast as possible into a 6 inch circle at 5 yards or something. Don't tell them what they're shooting, don't let them eject loaded magazines or pick up brass. Then get their raw observation and feel, along with some data from their split times/accuracy scores.

ETA: I also shot the 9mm loads through a G17, but didn't include it in my original post because it was a full size pistol. I carried a G22 on duty for 5 years, issued 180 Ranger T. The recoil on the 124+P HST was very similar to what I remember the 180 Ranger T to be, yet slightly less. Both were "snappy". I think the perception of "recoil" from .40 and +P 9mm loads is actually an increase of slide velocity, which makes it feel "snappy" but I don't have any data to back that opinion up.

In practical terms the penalty for recoil in operational use is increased shot to shot recovery time.

For example If I need to shoot two or three opponents I can do so faster with 9mm than with the .40.

When I was considering switching from issued 40 cal P229 To POW G17 I ran Bill drills, the FAST, body armor / failure drills and some multiple target drills with the 229 in 40, the same gun with a 9mm conversion barrel, and a G22 and G17. The timer doesn’t lie.

Different guns have different recoil impulses. Recoil spring strength and polymer frame material type makes a difference. While the HK and the Glock are both “plastic” guns the Glock polymer is softer and flexes more that the HK polymer. You can actually fell the difference in recoil between the Gen4 Glock 22 and earlier Gen.

Memory can lie. For 8 years I carried an issued HK USP Compact LEM .40 cal with our issued 155 grain ammunition. At the time it was “normal.” However after years of shooting 9mm Glocks and 180 grain 40 out of an all metal P229, I shot 200 rounds of our old 155 grain through my personal HK USPC. It was not like I remembered and was kind of unpleasant to shoot. The gun and ammo didn’t change, but I did. The real test would be to put it on a timer with an identical 9mm.


During agency testing our national armory staff graphed the pressure curve of various duty loads. Basically, if you look at the pressure graph of a .45 it looks like a low hill, as the pressure is not only lower but spread out over a longer period of time. The 9mm looks like a classic “bell curve” while the .40 and .357 SIG graphs look like a spike on an EKG.

Todd Louis Green, the late founder of PF wrote an excellent article on why “Feelings lie.” https://pistol-training.com/archives/5108

[DocGKR]

TLG's comments are right on--I miss his cogent insight and intellect!

"Now, what would be great, and possibly even scientific, is a blind test. Take two identical pistols: 17/22; 19/23, load them with a given load and then ask a test subject to pick up the pistol and fire 10 rounds as fast as possible into a 6 inch circle at 5 yards or something. Don't tell them what they're shooting, don't let them eject loaded magazines or pick up brass. Then get their raw observation and feel, along with some data from their split times/accuracy scores."

This has been done.............many times by different entities, organizations, and units; 9 mm beats 357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 GAP, .45 Auto every time when measuring shot splits and rapid fire accuracy--you can't beat physics.

[Baldanders]

In practical terms the penalty for recoil in operational use is increased shot to shot recovery time.

For example If I need to shoot two or three opponents I can do so faster with 9mm than with the .40.

When I was considering switching from issued 40 cal P229 To POW G17 I ran Bill drills, the FAST, body armor / failure drills and some multiple target drills with the 229 in 40, the same gun with a 9mm conversion barrel, and a G22 and G17. The timer doesn’t lie.

Different guns have different recoil impulses. Recoil spring strength and polymer frame material type makes a difference. While the HK and the Glock are both “plastic” guns the Glock polymer is softer and flexes more that the HK polymer. You can actually fell the difference in recoil between the Gen4 Glock 22 and earlier Gen.

Memory can lie. For 8 years I carried an issued HK USP Compact LEM .40 cal with our issued 155 grain ammunition. At the time it was “normal.” However after years of shooting 9mm Glocks and 180 grain 40 out of an all metal P229, I shot 200 rounds of our old 155 grain through my personal HK USPC. It was not like I remembered and was kind of unpleasant to shoot. The gun and ammo didn’t change, but I did. The real test would be to put it on a timer with an identical 9mm.


During agency testing our national armory staff graphed the pressure curve of various duty loads. Basically, if you look at the pressure graph of a .45 it looks like a low hill, as the pressure is not only lower but spread out over a longer period of time. The 9mm looks like a classic “bell curve” while the .40 and .357 SIG graphs look like a spike on an EKG.

Todd Louis Green, the late founder of PF wrote an excellent article on why “Feelings lie.” https://pistol-training.com/archives/5108

Having just bought a shot timer, I would say feelings are guilty until proven innocent in the court of empirical data.

In the interest of idle and useless speculation, would a "10mm lite" load likely have less recoil than a ballistically identical(heck, let's assume same powder type) .40 load fired from the same 1911 with a barrel switch? Is there much pressure difference?

It seems intuitive to me that a higher pressure spike would lead to sharper felt recoil, but I can't really explain why in terms of physics. Is it basically about velocity of expanding gasses? Anyone got a link to an article that explains this sort of felt recoil minutia?

[MDFA]

Here's my experience with the .40. In 1995 my agency converted from 9mm S&W 6906 to the first Gen Glock 22 .40 at my recommendation. I was the head firearms instructor at the time. During a Blackwater class the trigger pin and trigger spring broke in my pistol, we shot 2500 rounds in 5 days in that class. I'm not recoil sensitive but I was done shooting for a few days anyway after 2500 rds.

I had to repair a couple of our guns for similar parts breakage over the years. After around 15 years we changed over to Gen 3 M22, and did the RSA replacement soon after getting them. About a year before I retired in 2016 our new Chief asked me about changing over to 9mm, which I was in favor of. The previous Chief would not entertain the idea when I brought it up.... no surprise.... they are now converting over to 9mm.....

For what it's worth I agree as others have said. The .40 is a good round, but I don't think it brings anything to the table that isn't answered by quality 9mm now. The pros just don't out weigh the cons for most people... If you shoot it well and it makes you happy march on...

That being said my duty gun that I received upon retirement will be converted to 9mm or sit in the safe as I carry a M19.

Be Safe

[the Schwartz]

Tiro Fijo:

Is the US Army also currently using damage based metrics? Not Big Army

No more "computer man" calculations based on % hit probability, hit location, bullet energy, etc.? Nope--ORCA and its offspring are sadly very much alive in Big Army.

Is the gel standard the same as FBI, or still 20% gelatin, or whatever? Bizarrely, Big Army still clings to 20% gel.....and often fails to use standard, agreed upon ammo test protocols (ex. XM17 ammo testing).

Good morning, Doc.

Can you expand please on your commentary regarding ORCA and its offspring?

At your convenience, I would really value hearing what you see as being the issue/problem/shortcoming with those approaches.