I’m not a fan
James Yeager says your .40 sucks. I don’t think the .40 sucks, per se. But getting 10% more performance with 30% more recoil and 30 – 40% more cost doesn’t really do it for me.
22 Responses to “I’m not a fan”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 30th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Do you have a cite for the 10% more performance figure? The numbers I’ve seen are quite a bit better than 10%.
October 30th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
All I can say is when it comes to shooting 4 legged varmits around the farm, there ain’t no comparison between the 9x19mm and the .40 S&W and that’s why I carry one when I’m not packing a .41 Mag or a 10mm. I guess it all depends on whether you shoot flesh on a regular basis or brown paper…
All The Best,
Frank W. James
October 30th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Basing my calculation on these one-shot stop probabilities (there are lots of tables out there):
40 S&W – 93%
9mm – 83%.
Probability of a stop, given n stops, and p one shot stop probability: 1-(1-p)^n
Equal probability of a stop, comparing p1 and p2, given n1 and n2 hits respectively: 1-(1-p1)^n1 = 1-(1-p2)^n2
Thus: log(1-p2)/log(1-p1) = n1/n2
Solving for 83% and 93%: log(.07)/log(.17) = 1.5007
Thus, it takes 1.5 rounds of 9mm to equal the stopping probability of 1 round of 40 S&W. Or, using round number of shots, 3 good 9mm hits is equal to 2 good 40 S&W hits (99.5% stop probability).
Thus, 40 S&W has 50% “more performance” than 9mm. Not 10%.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Depends on the measure. But the one I find most useful is here.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Also, curious on your one stop probabilities. Since, according to data, the caliber used in the most stops is a 32, IIRC. I’ll have to find that reference. Check back later.
October 30th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
@SayUncle: Uh, what recoil?
October 30th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Use your 9mm for practice (or just reload .40 ammo) and the cost comes down. And a AACK .22 unit (if a Glock) and the cost comes down even more.
I don’t really care if you pack a 9mm, .38, .357, .40 S&W, 10mm, .44, .45, or even a 50 GI. As long as you can control it one handed and you shoot strait and fast.
BTW, I do pack a .40, and I do have 9mm and AACK .22 unit. And I sure do reload!
Different rounds had different assets and liabilities, as does the platforms that fire them. Learn them well and it won’t really matter cause when push comes to shove, it’s not rounds-per-minute that count, it’s hits-per-minute, good hits.
October 30th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
.40 is much more expensive than 9, has bullet setback issues, and not as many good pieces. Too many .40s are 9mm designs that were hastily converted to .40. I hated .40 Glocks up through Gen 3. Haven’t tried the Gen4.
I’d rather have the 9mm and good ammo.
October 30th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
When I switched from a .357 to a semiauto, I went with a 9mm because I am financially challenged. I felt the shame of shooting a Europellet at the range whilst those around me fired off .45 ACP at 2x the price per round, and .357SIG at twice the volume per round, and .40 like they were going out of style.
I just kept plugging away, and now it looks like fashion has caught up to me. Where are those wide ties from the 80s?
October 30th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
The Best caliber is the One you can shoot and hit what you are aiming at consistently…
October 31st, 2012 at 12:58 am
Yeager is pretty much a tool. The dude over at Everyday No Days Off is always making fun of him and comparing him to a tranny he looks a lot like. Pretty funny.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:25 am
> Depends on the measure. But the one I find most useful is here.
Looking at that graphic, I see a strong argument for the .40 delivering significantly better performance.
You might be looking at depth of penetration, as they are all pretty much the same. However, I’m pretty sure that each of these loads were intentionally designed to give that same level of penetration, which is currently thought to be optimal. The differences in effectiveness will be illustrated not by the depth, but by the width of the wound channels.
Small changes in the width of the channel correspond to fairly large changes in power and effectiveness – remember, the wound channel is 3D. If you increase the radius of a hole by 50%, and the volume of the resulting hole is more than twice as large.
Look at those wound channels – the .40, like the .357 sig, is noticeably wider. That looks a pretty significant difference in hole size, much more than just 10%.
How much of a difference this actually makes on a human target is of course speculative. I’m only pointing out that a .40 makes a significantly larger hole, that’s all.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:28 am
Even when hit by 44 Magnums, goblins don’t go backflipping through the window like they were on a pneumatic catapult.
40 is more powerful than 9, but not enough that it matters. I like the link that Unc had up to the trauma surgeon a while back , which pointed out, they only care if it was a rifle or handgun.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:53 am
One-shot stop probabilities? Really?
October 31st, 2012 at 11:17 am
Gerry, really. The biggest garbage I’ve read on the Internet lately. Does anyone really believe that crap?
October 31st, 2012 at 11:28 am
The .40 may or may not compare favorably to the 9mm but who gives a crap what an ass clown like Yeager says about it?
October 31st, 2012 at 11:55 am
This began with .38 vs .45, and has gradually refined itself to a finer breaking point. Ten years ago I was sure that point was .40 vs 10mm, but in this economy that wouldn’t hold, so it has devolved to 9mm vs .40, and may yet slide lower. But it will never go away, even if it’s eventually 9mm vs 9.2mm, because a Galaxie will just never be a Caprice and that’s all there is to it. It’s what we do.
I know people who argue 7.65 vs .32. You want to?
October 31st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Carry a .45 and don’t worry about it.
October 31st, 2012 at 1:51 pm
“‘Cause they don’t make a .46”.
October 31st, 2012 at 4:45 pm
I quit reading at Yeager. Fuck that guy.
October 31st, 2012 at 7:49 pm
It’s not scientific, but spend a few years living next door to a Baltimore City paramedic and talking to a bunch more of them…and you’ll learn that .22 kills a lot of hoodrats and some of them survive a .45 in the ear. The only ones I’ve ever heard give an opinion in this debate will tell you that if they had to catch a slug, they’d choose the 9mm over the .40 any day of the week. YMMV.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 am
recoil — terminal performance — cost
I’ve never been recoil shy, but I definitely prefer less recoil when possible.
At least when it comes to Glocks, the compensated models seem to solve any problems with .40 recoil. I own a Glock 23C and have fired a friends Glock 23 and the difference in recoil is quite remarkable. I find my Glock 23C quite pleasant to shoot. So I don’t see what the big deal is for those who complain about .40 recoil.
As to terminal effectiveness, we are talking handgun cartridges here and cartridges which fall into the mid-level scale of handgun power at best. To me that means any increase in energy and/or bullet size is a good thing. Otherwise you might as well shoot a .22 long rifle.
And honestly, when it comes to actual self-defense with a handgun if we consider the most probable encounters even the lowly .22 is enough gun. Many situations don’t require any shots fired and when shots are fired half the time a goblin will surrender or flee if he is shot once anywhere in his anatomy with any size caliber. So an argument could be made that a quality mousegun is the best pistol because it could almost always be carried.
But of course we all want more insurance than provided by just a rimfire.
The doctor video lecture linked to earlier if anything just convinced me all the more of the importance of bullet penetration to handgun effectiveness. That makes me even more likely to prefer a large caliber solid wadcutter bullet instead of lightweight hollowpoint bullet when it comes to middle-powered handgun cartridges.
If ammunition cost is the most important factor favoring the 9mm, isn’t a quality hollowpoint 9mm load more expensive than a wadcutter load in .45?
Here is another rant I found online that I thought valuable when it comes to handgun performance…
http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm