S&W M&P 2.0 Pistols

[hatt]

Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
Yes, 9 mm bullet technology has caught up to other bullets, mainly the .40 S&W rd. But, there are still ballistic tests out there that show the .40 caliber superior to the 9 mm. Besides, it will make a bigger hole in Mr. Bad Guy, hence, making him bleed out faster.

In what way? .40S&W has been on the decline for years with many LEO dropping it in favor of 9MM. There is also no real world experience that shows it is more effective--essentially they are all the same so shoot what you like.

The .40 didn't fall out of favor with agencies because it wasn't effective. 9mm is cheaper and 5'2" tall 110 lb people that have never fired a gun before shoot it less poorly than more powerful rounds. 9mm is the "good enough" LE round.

 

[tinkie]

@bsmithwins
"Shoot the caliber that you shoot best and don't get too wrapped up in it. They all suck when compared to shotguns and rifles."



FTW lol!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
Yes, 9 mm bullet technology has caught up to other bullets, mainly the .40 S&W rd. But, there are still ballistic tests out there that show the .40 caliber superior to the 9 mm. Besides, it will make a bigger hole in Mr. Bad Guy, hence, making him bleed out faster.

In what way? .40S&W has been on the decline for years with many LEO dropping it in favor of 9MM. There is also no real world experience that shows it is more effective--essentially they are all the same so shoot what you like.

The .40 didn't fall out of favor with agencies because it wasn't effective. 9mm is cheaper and 5'2" tall 110 lb people that have never fired a gun before shoot it less poorly than more powerful rounds. 9mm is the "good enough" LE round.

I did not suggest that .40S&W was not effective (at all), but there is no data to show that it is more effective than 9MM.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

I still prefer the 40 over a 9 mm anyday.

 

[bsmithwins]

Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
I still prefer the 40 over a 9 mm anyday.


Shoot the gun you shoot well. For a lot of people that's going to be a 9mmP. I like my .40 and I'm almost as fast with it as a 9mmP in the same fullsize pistol. I don't want a pocket .40 as that's more recoil than I want to deal with.

BSW

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted by bsmithwins
Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
I still prefer the 40 over a 9 mm anyday.


Shoot the gun you shoot well. For a lot of people that's going to be a 9mmP. I like my .40 and I'm almost as fast with it as a 9mmP in the same fullsize pistol. I don't want a pocket .40 as that's more recoil than I want to deal with.

BSW

I even prefer a pocket 40 as well, over a 9mm.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by 2015_PSD

I did not suggest that .40S&W was not effective (at all), but there is no data to show that it is more effective than 9MM.

I don't need to find data to figure out .40 does more damage to a target than 9mm. It has more diameter, mass, momentum, and energy. This WILL come into play sometimes. If you somehow knew the time and place, only had one shot and could pick the service handgun round you wouldn't pick 9mm. Saying all that, I carry .38 snub or 9mm Shield almost exclusively. If I carry a service size gun it's in .357 Sig.

"Shoot the gun you shoot well" does apply. If you're noticeably faster and more accurate with 9mm than some other round you should stick to 9mm. Needing a timer to see you're 4 hundredths faster with a 9 in the Mozambique might not tell you much.

 

[bsmithwins]

Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted by bsmithwins
Originally Posted by BlueOvalFitter
I still prefer the 40 over a 9 mm anyday.


Shoot the gun you shoot well. For a lot of people that's going to be a 9mmP. I like my .40 and I'm almost as fast with it as a 9mmP in the same fullsize pistol. I don't want a pocket .40 as that's more recoil than I want to deal with.

BSW

I even prefer a pocket 40 as well, over a 9mm.


There is a market for light alloy framed .357 Magnums. That market doesn't include me.

It seems counter intuitive that a 1mm bigger JHP bullet with 10 more ft/lbs of energy* doesn't significantly outperform the smaller, lighter, faster bullet across a a large number of actual shootings, but it doesn't.

BSW

*Comparing Speer 124gr 9mm +P to Speer 180gr .40 S&W from here: http://www.ballistics101.com/40_caliber_sw.php

The same source has a Hornady 55gr V-Max as having 1282ft/lbs of energy. Which is why rifles kill people.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by bsmithwins


There is a market for light alloy framed .357 Magnums. That market doesn't include me.

It seems counter intuitive that a 1mm bigger JHP bullet with 10 more ft/lbs of energy* doesn't significantly outperform the smaller, lighter, faster bullet across a a large number of actual shootings, but it doesn't.

BSW

*Comparing Speer 124gr 9mm +P to Speer 180gr .40 S&W from here: http://www.ballistics101.com/40_caliber_sw.php

The same source has a Hornady 55gr V-Max as having 1282ft/lbs of energy. Which is why rifles kill people.

I always like how people cherry pick data. You can go on the Speer LE site and easily compare the different calibers and loads. You're comparing a lighter weight 9mm load with a heavy .40. Since velocity is squared in the energy formula that's not apples to apples. Lets compare the 124 +P with the 165 .40. That seems fair since they're both middle of the road weight wise for caliber. Now we're at 484 ftlbs for the .40 and 410 ftlbs for the 9. That's around 20% more energy. Going heavy for caliber is also fun. 420 ftlbs for the 180 .40 vs 320 for the 147 9mm. This is why I usually ignore all the "data" pushed in the caliber wars. Agenda drives the "data." From the forum poster to biggest agency this is true.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammunition/speer/handgun/default.aspx

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
I did not suggest that .40S&W was not effective (at all), but there is no data to show that it is more effective than 9MM.

I don't need to find data to figure out .40 does more damage to a target than 9mm. It has more diameter, mass, momentum, and energy. This WILL come into play sometimes.
Again, not to start a caliber war, but the caveat is that in all of the reports that I have read, in the real world, there is not enough difference to matter. Below are the first articles that appear when searching (https://lmgtfy.com/?q=effectiveness+of+pistol+calibers). The author of the very last one tried to gather actual shooting incident data and compile it. His report is one of the few that I have seen that has actual shooting data.

So, which personal-defense cartridge is best? When it comes to terminal performance, there's less than a dose of cough syrup difference between the 9 mm, the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP. (https://www.shootingillustrated.com...ffectiveness-which-handgun-caliber-wins/)

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as "knock-down power." The only thing that can knock a target down is physiological incapacitation or psychological stress. Unfortunately, there is no valid, scientific method of analyzing actual shooting incidents. All studies are greatly flawed and there is no serious pursuit of better studies due to the enormous difficulty, if not impossibility, of scientifically analyzing real-life shooting incidents. What we do know, however, is that when most people are shot, they fall down. So any caliber is better than none.
(https://ammo.com/articles/handgun-wounding-factors-guide)

The most common rounds used by law enforcement these days (9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP) range between 345 and 534 ft-lbs. If the .45 +P is thrown out, the difference is less than 150 ft-lbs., which is not substantial. Further, the 9mm +P and standard pressure .45 ACP have almost identical muzzle energy. To get much beyond this range requires magnum revolver cartridges which have substantial recoil and limited ammunition capacity.
(https://skyaboveus.com/hunting-shooting/Defensive-Handgun-Cartridges-are-all-the-Same-Facts-vs-Hype)

I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.
(https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power)

 

[hatt]

Quote
Unfortunately, there is no valid, scientific method of analyzing actual shooting incidents.
Yep. And yet you posted several links with people just writing stuff. That's why I'm going to go ahead and figure more powerful rounds have the ability to do more damage. If there is no difference between 9mm and .40 why is there a difference between .32 and 9mm. We should modernize the .32 ACP pressure and it would be most bestest. More capacity and ever easier to shoot than 9mm.

Quote
I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power."
Yeah. You could have quoted where I carry .38 or 9mm too. That doesn't mean I ignore the reality that more powerful rounds and/or longer barrels will probably give me better performance.

 

[bsmithwins]

The ultimate bullet(s) for fight stopping is fired from a rifle or shotgun.

Instead of arguing over a 20% energy difference even .223 gets you ~3x more energy, with documented better terminal performance.

Pistol bullets break bones. Rifle bullets shatter bones and turn the fragments into secondary missiles. Pistol rounds create temporary stretch cavities that only fragment particularly fragile organs like the liver. Rifle bullets stretch cavities exceed the strength of most tissues and tear them apart.

All pistol calibers suck.

BSW

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted by hatt
Quote
Unfortunately, there is no valid, scientific method of analyzing actual shooting incidents.
Yep. And yet you posted several links with people just writing stuff. That's why I'm going to go ahead and figure more powerful rounds have the ability to do more damage. If there is no difference between 9mm and .40 why is there a difference between .32 and 9mm. We should modernize the .32 ACP pressure and it would be most bestest. More capacity and ever easier to shoot than 9mm.

Quote
I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power."
Yeah. You could have quoted where I carry .38 or 9mm too. That doesn't mean I ignore the reality that more powerful rounds and/or longer barrels will probably give me better performance.

I posted objective data some from well known sources and some not, but for clarity, no article had an agenda and no article "picked on" any one caliber. In the end, it is the real world data that counts and there many sources (not just the ones that I posted) that state between 9MM, .40S&W, and .45ACP there is no tangible difference. Choose to believe it or not; totally your choice, I have made mine.

EDIT: for clarity, those quotes are from the articles and not my words, hence the reason I posted the reference beneath each of them.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by hatt
Quote
Unfortunately, there is no valid, scientific method of analyzing actual shooting incidents.
Yep. And yet you posted several links with people just writing stuff. That's why I'm going to go ahead and figure more powerful rounds have the ability to do more damage. If there is no difference between 9mm and .40 why is there a difference between .32 and 9mm. We should modernize the .32 ACP pressure and it would be most bestest. More capacity and ever easier to shoot than 9mm.

Quote
I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power."
Yeah. You could have quoted where I carry .38 or 9mm too. That doesn't mean I ignore the reality that more powerful rounds and/or longer barrels will probably give me better performance.

I posted objective data some from well known sources and some not, but for clarity, no article had an agenda and no article "picked on" any one caliber. In the end, it is the real world data that counts and there many sources (not just the ones that I posted) that state between 9MM, .40S&W, and .45ACP there is no tangible difference. Choose to believe it or not; totally your choice, I have made mine.

EDIT: for clarity, those quotes are from the articles and not my words, hence the reason I posted the reference beneath each of them.

Can you post the one link showing data with no difference in 9mm, .40 etc performance. You posted a bunch of stuff all over the board. One showed .32 to be more effective than 9mm in "one shot stops."

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by bsmithwins
The ultimate bullet(s) for fight stopping is fired from a rifle or shotgun.

Instead of arguing over a 20% energy difference even .223 gets you ~3x more energy, with documented better terminal performance.

Pistol bullets break bones. Rifle bullets shatter bones and turn the fragments into secondary missiles. Pistol rounds create temporary stretch cavities that only fragment particularly fragile organs like the liver. Rifle bullets stretch cavities exceed the strength of most tissues and tear them apart.

All pistol calibers suck.

BSW

20//25/30mm HE cannon rounds are even better than rifle or shotgun. Those are hard to carry too. That leaves us arguing the performance nuances of service pistol calibers. If you don't think 20% more energy is of any benefit why not go to a modern .30 or .32 auto? You get more rounds and even softer shooting gun. Ammo companies could get the bullets to pass FBI penetration tests.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted by hatt
Can you post the one link showing data with no difference in 9mm, .40 etc performance. You posted a bunch of stuff all over the board. One showed .32 to be more effective than 9mm in "one shot stops."
The better question(s) are--would it make any difference if I did and would it be a complete waste of my time? We can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by hatt
Can you post the one link showing data with no difference in 9mm, .40 etc performance. You posted a bunch of stuff all over the board. One showed .32 to be more effective than 9mm in "one shot stops."
The better question(s) are--would it make any difference if I did and would it be a complete waste of my time? We can agree to disagree and move on.

Probably not. I've never seen anything very compelling on the subject. Gel tests outweigh street results is the theme. Everything is a model these days. We've seen how accurate those are. All they show is the bias you're promoting. I've moved on years ago when I started carrying .38s and 9mms. Package > absolute cartridge performance. I still like to have a little fun though.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by hatt
Can you post the one link showing data with no difference in 9mm, .40 etc performance. You posted a bunch of stuff all over the board. One showed .32 to be more effective than 9mm in "one shot stops."
The better question(s) are--would it make any difference if I did and would it be a complete waste of my time? We can agree to disagree and move on.

Probably not. I've never seen anything very compelling on the subject. Gel tests outweigh street results is the theme. Everything is a model these days. We've seen how accurate those are. All they show is the bias you're promoting. I've moved on years ago when I started carrying .38s and 9mms. Package > absolute cartridge performance. I still like to have a little fun though.

 

[KCJeep]

Gel testing has become so prevalent, that a lot of today's rounds are intentionally crafted to do well in gel tests. Why? To sell ammo, that's why.

If you haven't seen Paul Harrell's testing, it's definitely worth a look. My bet is his "meat target" is much closer to real world applications than gel.

Spoiler: Kings of gel block testing, Federal HSTs and Winchester Ranger Ts, don't do any better than basic hollow points against the meat target. There really is no magic bullet.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by KCJeep
Gel testing has become so prevalent, that a lot of today's rounds are intentionally crafted to do well in gel tests. Why? To sell ammo, that's why.

If you haven't seen Paul Harrell's testing, it's definitely worth a look. My bet is his "meat target" is much closer to real world applications than gel.

Spoiler: Kings of gel block testing, Federal HSTs and Winchester Ranger Ts, don't do any better than basic hollow points against the meat target. There really is no magic bullet.

I've stopped loading HPs for my .357 mags. All wide meplat cast. If they work good for hunting deer they probably do other things well too. Wadcutter .38s are probably fine for snubbies too. Even short barrel Gold Dots are iffy with expansion. Wadcutter gets you full diameter and deep penetration.