.40 cal on the way out?

[agtman]

agtman,

Would this then be an accurate summary of why the FBI turned to the 10 Auto in the late '80s (in declining order of importance)?:

Better penetration than 9 Luger and .45 Auto, and
Slightly greater capacity than .45 Auto (a distant second).

From their testing of the 9mm, 10mm and .45acp (pursuant to their ballistics protocols - the most important of which was "penetration first, everything else second"), the FBI FTU concluded:

1) the 10mm was the superior penetrator;

2) the 10mm was the most accurate of the 3 cartridges;

3) only the 10mm offered an energy curve large enough to permit use of its lower end in the 1076 pistols and a higher/hotter end in tactical sub-guns or in custom 1911s used as entry pistols by their HRT teams. If you recall, HK made 10mm MP5s for the Bureau. The 10mm MP5s used double-stack mags, and back in the '90s I got to see and handle several of these weapons. Typically, they were carried and stored behind the back seat of Bureau SUVs.

4) the 9mm and .45 were tapped-out on bullet-designs, i.e., styles and especially weight, whereas the 10mm's potential for using various projectiles was just being tapped. In that era, exiting bullet-weights were 170gns, 180gns, 190gns & 200gns (again, circa 1989-1990).

5) depending on pistol and magazine design (i.e., double-stack v. single-stack), the 10mm would give you 1 or 2 more rounds over the .45, but less than the 9mm. The FTU heads preferred a single stack design, and while they liked the S&W 645 (the 45XX-series models weren't built yet), they also liked Sig-style ergonomics (e.g., the 220)

Then, is it fair to say these are the reasons the 10 Auto failed?:
Too much recoil,
Grip too long,
Gun too bulky, or
Capacity inadequate.

I wouldn't accept the premised that the 10mm "failed"; the Bureau simply concluded that training issues and weapon-size made the .40 a better choice for *most* of its non-shooter agents, as I mentioned in a post above. Many state & local agencies that had adopted the 10mm, like the Kentucky State Police, continued with it for many years after the FBI moved to the .40. Indeed, even after the FBI "officially" adopted to the .40, a huge number of senior agents, albeit dwindling as time passed with retirements, still carried the 1076 thru the '90s and into the early 2000s. I talked to a number of these guys over the years. Overwhelmingly, they accepted the opportunity to keep their 1076s upon retirement.

As far as the four reasons listed above:

1) "Recoil" had been addressed by the FTU's specifications for the so-called 10mm-Lite load (180gn @ 990fps). The shooters at the FTU liked and had shot some of the hotter 10mm ammunition that was available back then - not just Norma's loads; Hornady, Remington & Winchester were also marketing a hot 10mm load or two. But as practical firearms-trainers, they also knew that felt-recoil would affect the successful qualification of non-shooter agents, which back then included more & more women being hired by the Bureau as a consequence of court orders and settled discrimination lawsuits.

But there was a second 10mm load that Federal made for the Bureau, a 190gn bonded JHP @ 1050fps (actually, the first bonded slug designed for LE use), which most SAs who I knew back then actually loaded in their 1076s. This was the so-called 'X' load (XM1003A) and it had nothing to do with the X-Files or Agent Mulder. FYI, a friend (who had a 5" 1026) and I chrono-ed this load back about 1998-99, and it was doing just a tad under 1050fps from my 1076, and about 1090fps-1100fps from his 5" Smith. Very accurate too.

2) & 3) Grip too long/gun too bulky. As you know, the 45acp and 10mm share almost the same COAL (and if you've read Ron Carrillo's Bren Ten/10mm book, you know that's no coincidence). These cartridges simply necessitate a large-frame platform.

The COALs of the .40 & 9mm are close as well, and it's also no coincidence that the .40S&W's COAL is within a hair of the old 1970's .40G&A, the first experiential "10mm/.40" cartridge. In fact, the gun first used to test the .40G&A was a converted Browning 9mm HP, so the designers of the .40S&W already had a road map of sorts.

As noted earlier, the .40 cartridge allows one to take low-end 10mm "stopping power" and put it into a 9mm-size semiauto. So, yes, for "regular" field agents and other L.E. types who carry their sidearms way more than they ever shoot them (qual-time being the exception), it was a no-brainer that a 9mm-size auto would yield benefits in terms of handling and portability.

4) And while the "adequacy" of capacity was never an issue per se with the 10mm (notwithstanding the Miami '85 debacle, one FBI study put the *average* shots fired in agent-involved shootings at like 5-rds or less), it goes without saying that a double-stack design (e.g., S&W 4006s, G22s, G23s) gives you more bullets in the mag, which in a gunfight means having to reload less often.

Hope this helps ...

[Metalboy]

Hope this helps ...

Yes Sir. It helps. Thank you.

[CaptainO]

You are correct, sir! This is the way to tell the uninformed about the advantages held by the great 10mm Auto Cartridge.

If only the shooting public would come to realize that the 10mm was better than most LE Departments/Bureaus think it is, perhaps we could get the hot and mild loads that were once manufactured for the cartridge.

Scott

[Limnophile]

From their testing of the 9mm, 10mm and .45acp (pursuant to their ballistics protocols - the most important of which was "penetration first, everything else second"), the FBI FTU concluded:

1) the 10mm was the superior penetrator;

2) the 10mm was the most accurate of the 3 cartridges;

3) only the 10mm offered an energy curve large enough to permit use of its lower end in the 1076 pistols and a higher/hotter end in tactical sub-guns or in custom 1911s used as entry pistols by their HRT teams. If you recall, HK made 10mm MP5s for the Bureau. The 10mm MP5s used double-stack mags, and back in the '90s I got to see and handle several of these weapons. Typically, they were carried and stored behind the back seat of Bureau SUVs.

4) the 9mm and .45 were tapped-out on bullet-designs, i.e., styles and especially weight, whereas the 10mm's potential for using various projectiles was just being tapped. In that era, exiting bullet-weights were 170gns, 180gns, 190gns & 200gns (again, circa 1989-1990).

5) depending on pistol and magazine design (i.e., double-stack v. single-stack), the 10mm would give you 1 or 2 more rounds over the .45, but less than the 9mm. The FTU heads preferred a single stack design, and while they liked the S&W 645 (the 45XX-series models weren't built yet), they also liked Sig-style ergonomics (e.g., the 220)

Superior penetration sounds like a valid reason to opt for the 10 Auto.

I find it difficult to believe, in the hand, that 10 Auto could be all that much more accurate than 9 Luger or .45 Auto. If that were the case wouldn't 10 Auto guns be ruling the bullseye circuit?

I don't see ammo compatability between handgun and MP5 being a major selling point. Especially if you are issued an SUV to drive around in you have plenty of room to stash as much extra ammo as you want -- handgun, rifle, and shotgun.

I can see an advantage that large case capacity offers. One can load certain magazines with mild loads for use against soft targets, and others with hot loads for use when deep penetration is desired. All while using the same weapon. Of course, one can obtain deep penetration in any service caliber by simply carrying a magazine of hardcast +Ps.

Between 9 Luger and .45 Auto I don't see a dearth of bullet design options. The handgun terminal ballistics testing that the FBI took the lead on after Miami has given bullet designers great performance specification goals, which has resulted in improvements in all service calibers (and now in some backup calibers).

I see a benefit to a large capacity magazine, but imagine low-cap mags in the hands of a trained shooter who habitually carries a number of readily accessible spares do not hamper such a person.

One writer in a link that pblanc provided claims the decision to go with the 10 Auto was a political compromise, as the 9 Luger (high capacity) and .45 Auto (bigger holes) factions were at each others' throats. He also mentioned that Patrick was a member of the bigger holes faction, which makes sense from reading his report. Given my dealings with government I can believe the political compromise story.

I wouldn't accept the premised that the 10mm "failed"; the Bureau simply concluded that training issues and weapon-size made the .40 a better choice for *most* of its non-shooter agents, as I mentioned in a post above. Many state & local agencies that had adopted the 10mm, like the Kentucky State Police, continued with it for many years after the FBI moved to the .40. Indeed, even after the FBI "officially" adopted to the .40, a huge number of senior agents, albeit dwindling as time passed with retirements, still carried the 1076 thru the '90s and into the early 2000s. I talked to a number of these guys over the years. Overwhelmingly, they accepted the opportunity to keep their 1076s upon retirement.

As far as the four reasons listed above:

1) "Recoil" had been addressed by the FTU's specifications for the so-called 10mm-Lite load (180gn @ 990fps). The shooters at the FTU liked and had shot some of the hotter 10mm ammunition that was available back then - not just Norma's loads; Hornady, Remington & Winchester were also marketing a hot 10mm load or two. But as practical firearms-trainers, they also knew that felt-recoil would affect the successful qualification of non-shooter agents, which back then included more & more women being hired by the Bureau as a consequence of court orders and settled discrimination lawsuits.

But there was a second 10mm load that Federal made for the Bureau, a 190gn bonded JHP @ 1050fps (actually, the first bonded slug designed for LE use), which most SAs who I knew back then actually loaded in their 1076s. This was the so-called 'X' load (XM1003A) and it had nothing to do with the X-Files or Agent Mulder. FYI, a friend (who had a 5" 1026) and I chrono-ed this load back about 1998-99, and it was doing just a tad under 1050fps from my 1076, and about 1090fps-1100fps from his 5" Smith. Very accurate too.

2) & 3) Grip too long/gun too bulky. As you know, the 45acp and 10mm share almost the same COAL (and if you've read Ron Carrillo's Bren Ten/10mm book, you know that's no coincidence). These cartridges simply necessitate a large-frame platform.

The COALs of the .40 & 9mm are close as well, and it's also no coincidence that the .40S&W's COAL is within a hair of the old 1970's .40G&A, the first experiential "10mm/.40" cartridge. In fact, the gun first used to test the .40G&A was a converted Browning 9mm HP, so the designers of the .40S&W already had a road map of sorts.

As noted earlier, the .40 cartridge allows one to take low-end 10mm "stopping power" and put it into a 9mm-size semiauto. So, yes, for "regular" field agents and other L.E. types who carry their sidearms way more than they ever shoot them (qual-time being the exception), it was a no-brainer that a 9mm-size auto would yield benefits in terms of handling and portability.

4) And while the "adequacy" of capacity was never an issue per se with the 10mm (notwithstanding the Miami '85 debacle, one FBI study put the *average* shots fired in agent-involved shootings at like 5-rds or less), it goes without saying that a double-stack design (e.g., S&W 4006s, G22s, G23s) gives you more bullets in the mag, which in a gunfight means having to reload less often.

Hope this helps ...

Given that the FBI gave a big nod to the 10 Auto a quarter century ago, the lack of pistols chambered for the round, the lack of such pistols being carried by LEOs and civilians, the lack of interest from the military, and the absence of ammo on gunshop shelves all point to failure in my mind.

I agree that making mild loads available seems like an effective mitigation of the recoil concern, while making hot loads available to those who need them.

Grip size is an important issue, as evidenced by the title of the US Army's upcoming Modular Handgun competition. I get the impression, based on models apparently designed for submittal, that tailored grips will be the norm in the not-too-distant future. Frames that are smaller are easy to make beefy, while it's tough to make a large frame smaller. That should work in favor of 9 Luger and .40 S&W.

As to capacity, while I acknowledged above that it shouldn't be a big issue in a semiauto pistol for a well-trained and prepared user, I must also admit that it is a big factor in my choice of a pistol. I like double-stack magazines, but I won't put myself in the category of well-trained or well-prepared. More often than not I leave home with no spare mag, so capacity is very important. For the first time I am considering a single-stack pistol -- for easy pocket carry.

I do appreciate your contributions on the subject of the history of the 10 Auto. I don't know much about it, primarily because, when I bought my carry guns three years ago, 10 Auto wasn't on the radar.

[BlueTrain]

I could also say that 10mm auto hasn't been on my radar either. But there's more to these cartridges than police use.

Once upon a time, the .38 Super was considered a hot cartridge. It was thought to be better in some ways than a .45 auto. It was of course always chambered in pistols that were also available in the .45, too. It was advertised as a sportsman's handgun, although the .357 sort of had the same niche, too, and the first hot-loaded .38 specials (the .38/44) was aimed at that same market. There was even a model called the Outdoorsman.

I'd say the 10mm auto might be a step up from the .38 Super, which was never a really common caliber. But it never went away. In some ways the .357 Sig is a little similar, although I've done no paper comparison of the cartridges and haven't fired either one. But I've owned two .38 Supers, which I thought were perfect for what they were advertised for. It's a real mystery to me why I don't own one now, either. In any case, a .357 revolver works pretty much just as well if you don't care for the .44 magnum, neither of which have gone away, either. Here we are talking about a relatively new auto pistol cartridge without even bringing up the question of why anyone would still have a revolver in this day and age.

[Limnophile]

Limnophile quoted someone who questioned the accuracy of the .40 S&W. I've heard this repeated from time to time, but have never seen it substantiated. Does anyone have any facts on the accuracy of the .40?

The FBI Academy's Training Division issued a memo in May 2014 explaining their return to the 9 Luger. The entire memo is available here: http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fb...ning-division/.

Here is the memo's conclusion:

While some law enforcement agencies have transitioned to larger calibers from the 9mm Luger in recent years, they do so at the expense of reduced magazine capacity, more felt recoil, and given adequate projectile selection, no discernible increase in terminal performance.

Other law enforcement organizations seem to be making the move back to 9mm Luger taking advantage of the new technologies which are being applied to 9mm Luger projectiles. These organizations are providing their armed personnel the best chance of surviving a deadly force encounter since they can expect faster and more accurate shot strings, higher magazine capacities (similar sized weapons) and all of the terminal performance which can be expected from any law enforcement caliber projectile.

Given the above realities and the fact that numerous ammunition manufacturers now make 9mm Luger service ammunition with outstanding premium line law enforcement projectiles, the move to 9mm Luger can now be viewed as a decided advantage for our armed law enforcement personnel.

[skoro]

Nope. It's a good, effective caliber that's popular. It'll be around for a long time.

Me?

I've owned 9mm and 45acp since before there ever was a 40s&w, so I never bothered with it.

[Ibmikey]

Skoro, you summed up in two sentences the answer to the OP's original statement that eight pages of rhetoric failed to do. Hopefully this will bring this thread to a conclusion.

[skoro]

I like to be concise.

[Ibmikey]

Yup, you is

[skoro]

Thanks.

[tedbeau]

[quote\]
AustinTX wrote:
As all of the latest data shows, this is simply false. We're not in the 1990s anymore. The 9mm has made great strides in effectiveness thanks to advances in bullet technology and is now essentially on par with the other major service calibers in effectiveness. Time to challenge your old ideas with new data.

[endquote]

I understand that the 9mm ammo has increased it's effectiveness in the past 20 years, but you fail to take into account that the 40 caliber ammo is also using the newest latest bullet designs. It's not like the only ammo you can get in .400 diameter is round ball.

Given that your pushing a 165 grain JHP at near the same velocity as a 147 grain JHP the 40 is always going to give you more energy and a larger hole.

Comparing the data in the table at this link
http://gundata.org/blog/post/9mm-vs-...th-and-wesson/

we see :

9mm 115 gr jhp VS 40 S&W 165gr % difference

50 ft?
drop .09 inches VS .17 inches 1.8 %
velocity 1112 fps VS 1095 fps .98 %
Energy 316 lb ft VS 413 lb ft 1.3 %

250 ft
drop 77.8 inches VS 78.5 inches .99 %
velocity 851 fps VS 868 fps 1.02 %
energy 185 lb ft VS 259 lb ft 1.4 %

500 ft
drop 455.9 inches VS 444.43 inches .97 %
velocity 678 fps VS 711 fps 1.04 %
energy 117 lb ft VS 174 lb ft 1.48 %

difference in area of round .354 vs .401 1.13 %

Yeah yeah I know who the hell shoots a hand gun 500 ft? or is it yards, table doesn't say. I did find it interesting though that at distance the greater mass allows the 40 to carry more speed and have less drop.

In summation, at 50 feet the 9mm is 80 percent more accurate (by .08 inches, less than an 1/8 inch.)

But the 40 caliber always has at least 30 percent more energy on the target plus you get a 13 percent increase in wound diameter, assuming equivalent expansion, which may not necessarily be the case, but if we consider 900 fps to be the minimum speed required to expand, the 9mm falls just below at 200feet but the 40 stays just above it.

In conclusion yeah a 9mm does the job alright, but the argument about modern ammo increasing the rounds effectiveness ALSO APPLIES TO THE 40, THE 45ACP, and the .380!

[Frankly]

I've gone back and forth and up and down on the debate over 9, 40, and 45.

I've finally arrived back at my starting point: 40 is the perfect answer to both 9 and 45. It hits harder than the 9, but with better accuracy than the .45 acp. The .40 S&W combines the best of both worlds -- IMO. I use the 9mm conversion barrel in my M&P 40 for target practice, but I conceal carry with the .40 barrel...

[mrdaputer]

Not a chance.... I just picked up a PPQ 40 5" and loving it. Very little muzzle flip. It weighs the same as my 9 mm When ammo was tough to find I always found the 40 S&W

[zombietactics]

I would submit that any data regarding handgun cartridges be subject to review regarding it's metrological significance, to the problem being solved or examined.

Raw numbers are almost always meaningless, and in some cases yield innumerate assessments.

Bullets do not "fight" other bullets. The assumption that they somehow do underlies many faulty conclusions.

The difference between performance parameters should not be compared against each other in light of the thing doing the wounding, but rather in relationship to the thing being wounded.

Noting that a .40S&W round is 1mm greater in diameter (and therefore about 11% greater) means almost nothing in relationship to the actual problem: physical incapacitation of a human being.

Even if you extrapolate that to a columnar wound channel, it's the wrong way to look at the problem. (more on this later)

You need to compare the resulting parameters to the dimensions and structures which are being affected.

Nobody bleeds out quickly with wounds through tissue which does not contain major vasculature. Therefore, almost every "bit" of wound which does not cause damage to major vasculature is insignificant. Paths through voids make no contribution to the effect of the wound profile.

The vasculature which provides for major external bleed-out is usually very close to the surface of the skin ... carotid, brachial and femoral arteries, for instance.

The vasculature which provides for major internal bleedout does so into body cavities in very close proximity ... pleural cavity, lungs, abdominal cavity, etc.

Therefore, a long columnar cavity provides no advantage, unless it gets to (and through) something important.

When we compare the actual wound profiles on human beings, with an eye towards what is important, the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

[Dashunde]

Noting that a .40S&W round is 1mm greater in diameter (and therefore about 11% greater) means almost nothing in relationship to the actual problem

Incorrect. Do the proper math for the area of a circle. (pi*r^2)
That 1mm brings nearly 25% more frontal area, (~78sqmm vs 63sqmm).

When we compare the actual wound profiles on human beings, with an eye towards what is important, the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

Your attempting to define what is important in a realm of infinite variables ranging from barriers, jackets, a wallet/phone in the chest pocket, on out to what we simply like or want to own.

There is not one single sane person on the face of this Earth that would prefer to be shot by a proper 10mm instead of a 9mm of same bullet type/brand.

40 fits right in the middle of everything available... its win-win for me.

[zombietactics]

Incorrect. Do the proper math for the area of a circle. (pi*r^2)
That 1mm brings nearly 25% more frontal area, (~78sqmm vs 63sqmm).

I don't think you realize it, but you (sort of) just made my point. Your math & geometry are solid, but referencing area, as opposed to diameter ... or even the columnar wound channel does not address the issue properly. You simply made no reference to the nature of the actual problem being solved ... referencing the "thing doing the wounding", rather than it's relationship to "the thing being wounded".

You're attempting to define what is important in a realm of infinite variables ranging from barriers, jackets, a wallet/phone in the chest pocket, on out to what we simply like or want to own.

Not at all, and it's strange that you'd derive that from text which says no such thing. I referred to the wound profile itself ... is there some other factor we should be looking at to determine the actual effect on a human being? If two different bullets produce wounds so identical to each other that they cannot be told apart, what difference do you suggest exists to account for one being more effective than the other?

There is not one single sane person on the face of this Earth that would prefer to be shot by a proper 10mm instead of a 9mm of same bullet type/brand.

Why exactly? Consider a perfect shot to the head ... are you saying the person shot w/ 10mm will fall faster than if shot with 9mm? How much faster? If you claim to know such a thing, based upon what evidence?

Apply the same logic to a perfect shot to the heart, or two well placed rounds anywhere. If a 10mm round bisects the brachial or carotid artery, how does that do anything "more" than a 9mm round bisecting the same structures? More to the point of the thread, why would 10mm be a better choice than .40S&W, if each round achieves sufficient penetration, and similar expansion?

Perhaps you could show the ballistics data from two different duty rounds (same type/brand) from a known manufacturer, and explain how one is going to do something especially better than the other on a human being?

[Fjblair]

I never bought a .40 or a 10mm but plenty of friends did. Some of the 40's are still around but very few of the 10's survived with my crew.

[Frankly]

Zombie,

I struggled to understand the main ideas of your first post, but I did gather you were saying a bullet producing a wider wound channel has no greater likelihood of hitting a major organ or artery than does a bullet producing a narrower wound channel. Am I paraphrasing you correctly?

[mavracer]

the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

Bovine fecies. Even if the difference is small it still exists and from top to bottom there is actually quite a bit of difference.

[zombietactics]

... I struggled to understand the main ideas of your first post, but I did gather you were saying a bullet producing a wider wound channel has no greater likelihood of hitting a major organ or artery than does a bullet producing a narrower wound channel. Am I paraphrasing you correctly? ...

I don't think I said or implied that anywhere, but nonetheless it's a common line of reasoning, and causes many misconceptions based upon incomplete understanding or unfounded assumptions.

If I read Fackler, Patrick and others correctly, only wounds which directly penetrate, bisect or destroy structures cause significant damage likely to cause rapid incapacitation. If we're talking about peripheral hits which cause a slightly faster bleed-out over long periods of time, that's a different matter altogether, and I am unaware of any competent study regarding that kind of thing.

A corollary to this is the fact that the diameter of a projectile does not directly relate (1:1) to the diameter of the wound. This is because most bodily structures stretch quite a bit. Projectiles which are significantly greater in diameter will yield measurable differences. Projectiles in the 9mm-to-.45ACP range are so close in diameter that no difference regularly occur ... the tissue just stretches more in the path of the slightly larger round, and you end up with (essentially) identical wounds.

Any "greater likelihood" of hitting a major structure would not result in anything besides a "nick" ... not the direct penetration, bisection (sp?) or destruction that the literature says is necessary.

Could that make a difference? I suppose in some very rare "corner-case" kind of way it could, but that's where you get into counting angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory. For every such rarity (where some factor of a larger round might make a difference) you can find various performance characteristic of different rounds might make a (equally unlikely) difference in some other case. 9mm and .357sig will generally penetrate many types of soft body armor better than .40S&W, 10mm or .45ACP, for instance. Even though criminal types are wearing armor more frequently, I don't think this makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

[zombietactics]

... Bovine fecies. Even if the difference is small it still exists and from top to bottom there is actually quite a bit of difference. ...

I can't find a Medical Examiner, Coroner, Trauma Surgeon or Forensic Pathologist who agrees with this "quite a bit of difference" assertion, as it relates to rapid incapacitation.

Do you know of any? Please direct me to them.

[Frankly]

the diameter of a projectile does not directly relate (1:1) to the diameter of the wound

Agreed. Nonetheless, there is a proportionate relationship. A wider diameter bullet does indeed produce a wider path of destruction and is therefore more likely to take out a vital structure, all other things being equal. If a shot from a 9mm Luger just misses a major artery -- literally by a hair -- it stands to reason that a shot from the wider .40 S&W, placed precisely in the same spot, would have taken out that artery, no?

[Evan Thomas]

This thread has run its course, methinks. No one is going to say anything new at this point.