Just saw this article and was wondering what your thoughts were? For me, I basically agree with the author, that the .40 is a solution looking for a problem. What are your thoughts?
We all know that handguns are poor stoppers. If you really need to stop someone, you're better off with a rifle. But, since you can't really carry an AR-15 or a Remington 870 in your waistband, that leaves us with handguns. Modern thinking tells us that temporary wound cavities don't matter (much), that hydrostatic shock is nonexistent with normal pistol rounds, and that, essentially, the tunnel you bore through your opponent is what matters. Fair enough. If that's the case, all else being equal, we'd want that tunnel to be as large as it can possibly be. Using a big bullet: good. Using a big bullet that expands: better still. However, we have to trade that desire off with capacity. After all, you may miss, or the first shot may not hit anything vital in your adversary. I used to value firepower over stopping power, the theory being that, since all pistols are poor stoppers anyway, better to be able to stick it out longer and give yourself more chances to score and reduce your need to reload. My defensive gun was a Beretta 92FS, a very reliable 15-shot 9mm. But I believe Elwood said once that the average number of shots fired in a law enforcement shooting was around two. That may not be typical for all defensive shootings, but that suggested to me that firepower probably isn't so important much of the time. And it occurred to me that, you may not GET more than 1-2 shots when the other guy is trying to shoot you, if you hit him first but fail to put him down. So, while firepower is potentially important in extreme situations, having a more dependable single-shot stopper is much more important. So, I switched to the .45 ACP, which--by real world shooting statistics--is a more reliable single-shot stopper. In modern loadings, I believe it is bested (slightly) only by a particular .357 Magnum JHP round. However, the .357 is a big round usually had in 5- or 6-shot revolvers. I'm partial to automatics, so my personal defense gun is now a Smith and Wesson M&P45. Its 10-shot capacity is substantially less than my old Beretta's, but given that an encounter is likely to last only a few shots, I know that I'll be serving up very reliable stoppers. Whither the .40S&W? It is a compromise between two camps, the firepower camp (9mm) and the stopping power camp (.45 ACP). Like all compromises, its virtue is in the balance it achieves. It's almost as good a stopper as a .45, and its size allows you to carry almost as many rounds as a 9mm. We come to another trade-off. What you keep on your nightstand is one thing, what you carry in your waistband all day is another. A bigger gun like a .45 is not optimal for most people who carry. Given I've said we want to punch as big a hole in the adversary as possible--and recognizing that firepower is nice to have in reserve--the .40 probably makes a good deal of sense. Most gun makes build their 9mm and .40S&W guns on the same frame; after all, that's the whole point of the .40. So, for a given size/weight, I think you're better off sacrificing 1-2 shots of firepower for the (presumed) edge in stopping power. I'm making the assumption that--in the real world, not just in test firings into ballistic gelatin--that the .40 is the better stopper than the 9mm. If it isn't, then all bets are off. If someone shows me real world INCIDENT statistics that show modern 9mm rounds to be the equal of modern .40 or .45 rounds, I'll go back to the 9mm. Long story short (I know, too late)...I think the .40 makes sense if you have to carry it around all day. It fits in the same size package as the 9mm, and probably offers superior stopping power which is worth the small loss in firepower. If I could carry and I could get regular magazines, I think I would carry a Glock 23. 13 rounds of .40 in a compact package seems like a winner to me...
Good post. I happen to disagree, but good post. I think that your position is based in old assumptions. Based on my research, wound cavity doesn't matter as much. It's shot placement. Under that standard a .22 LR would be just as effective if the round manages to hit the right area. Using a larger round you increase the chances of hitting a vital area. Look at the ER statistics, how many people come in being shot by a .45 and who still live. Also from what I have seen from the FBI stats, more than 2 rounds are normally discharged by LEOs and civilians in shootings. However at the end of the day the article is more about the trade offs between 9mm, .40, and .45. The .40 is only marginally more effective than the 9mm with more severe recoil and lower capacity. The .45 has less capacity, but a more manageable recoil, and is slightly more effective than the .40. For me that says something along the line of "whats the point?" of the .40 is it has these characteristics. I think something to consider as well are the findings and practices of the "top end" instructors. I'm not talking about guys like me who teach the basic NRA and CCW courses. I'm talking about the guys that train LE and MIL personnel.
I agree shot placement is important (and surely the dominant factor), but stopping power is real. Because if all calibers are equal otherwise, you wouldn't see such a huge real world statistical disparity in one shot stops between, say, the .380 and the .357 Magnum. Unless you assume .357 shooters are, necessarily, better shot placers than .380 shooters. In a real gun fight, you're probably not going to get the luxury of placing your shots with tremendous accuracy; therefore, you have to settle for doing as much damage as you can, so that the other guy--if he doesn't die--quits.
If you've seen newer stats, so be it. But, what I've read has been consistent over the years. That being, in civilian self-defense situations involving a handgun, the average number of rounds fired is two. It's different for cops, who are often taught, for good or bad, to shoot to slide lock (see any NYPD shooting in the last two decades). But, you kind of undermined your whole point. So, why aren't you using .40S&W? It's bigger than 9mm Para.
The two rounds average per shooting doesn't mean much to me. I always assume that when the shit hits the fan that I'll be the above two shots average. Closer to slide lock average.
Stopping power and firepower are a trade-off, simple as that. For a given size/weight package you sacrifice one to gain the other. Is there some circumstance where 13 or 15 rounds would've saved you, but 10 was not enough? Sure. But, statistically, how likely is that? Is it at least as likely as failing to stop on the first shot with a smaller caliber and winding up dead with 14 rounds left in your gun? Who knows? For all but the most extreme situations, could I have confidence in a 1911 or a Colt Python for defending my life? Yes. True, if my home is attacked by a biker gang or the Japanese Army launches a banzai charge in my neighborhood, 10 rounds may not be enough. But 15 or 17 probably won't be, either. In such a situation, I'll hope the AR-15 is close at hand. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
In nearly two decades of law enforcement work, I can count on one hand the number of times someone was attacked by multiple persons that couldn't have been avoided by even an ounce of common sense. I may have a flat tire, so I carry a spare. I may have a fire in the kitchen, so I have a fire extinguisher. I may need it, so I carry a gun. Those events are possible, but statistically unlikely. But, needing a gun is orders of magnitude more likely than needing a gun for multiple attackers. It's an infinitesimally small probability. After the North Hollywood Bank Robbery, one of our Lieutenants (our Training Supervisor) was all hot and heavy about everyone carrying the same weapon so we would all have interchangeable magazines. 1: Why limit everyone because of a once in a generation event? If I shoot an N-Frame revolver better and more accurately than I can shoot an M&P, guess what I need to carry. 2: If you can't solve the problem with the rounds you have on your person, I'm not going to give you mine to waste. Should multiple attackers be considered? Yes. Should your entire structure be built around it? No.
