Pistol cartridge Muzzle energy - .40 superior to 9x19 and .45ACP?

[rat-man]

Thought I'd share some research and thoughts on pistol cartridge choices.

I've been wondering why there seems to be so many people poo-poo-ing the .40, as it seems that disliking it is the only thing upon which a 9x19 or .45ACP fanboy can agree. But, I like the .40. I like that it's an oddball. And, using some math and published data from Hodgdon, I created the chart below, that shows that as far as muzzle energy is concerned, the .40 is a damn formidable cartridge when considered in the typical 9/45 debate...



I calculated this chart with published data as stated from Hodgdon, taking their highest stated muzzle velocities and subtracted 5% per bullet weight for several popular pistol cartridge calibers, either JHP or FMJ. You really get a sense of how much the 357 Magnum is above the rest, and how much weaker the 380ACP and 9x18 Mak cartridges are. I found it interesting that the muzzle energy was almost universally higher on lighter projectiles than the heavier ones. Hodgdon's link here:

Cartridge Loads - Hodgdon Reloading Data Center - data.hodgdon.com

I get how the .40 is often stated as a compromise round, with what seems to be a negative connotation, instead of what at least mathematically from this data, looks like a positive one. Obviously there are plenty of other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a given round, but given this kind of info, I don't really understand why I read SO much dogging the .40.

I know everyone has their own favorites, and we all can either be stubborn or change own minds, and it all comes down to personal preference in the end, but this bit of math is certainly not the only factor, if not even much considered as part of the equation when choosing what to carry and shoot.

 

[chezuki]

 

[Leo]

Nothing wrong with the .40. With multible loadings it is plenty accurate and plenty powerful. It does it's job well. EVERY caliber has some positive points and some negative points. I think most of the problem with people disrespecting the .40 is it was the "new kid on the block" in a market that is steeped in deep tradition. Add to that the fact that the early glock .40 design was pretty poor gave the .40 a reputation of "too high of pressure" and "difficult to reload" did not help the new round. Neither of those assumptions had any credibility when shot in other firearms. Enjoy your .40, your 9mm, your .45, your .50AE, whatever you got. I don't worry about other peoples opinion of what I like.

 

[jwh20]

I get how the .40 is often stated as a compromise round

What is not stated is that EVERY round is a compromise of some sort. I could say, for example, "...the 50 BMG is unquestionably the deadliest round out there." And in some sense, I would be correct. It's deadly against almost anything you fire it at including hardened structures. Ok, so why don't people carry 50 BMG firearms around with them? Umm, they are darned big and heavy. So a COMPROMISE is needed. There are many tradeoffs, size, weight, bullet, aerodynamics, range, target characteristics, chamber pressures, etc... No one round fits all of these exactly. The good news is that there are MANY possible choices depending on what you're trying to accomplish with your weapon. The difficulty is figuring out what is best for what you EXPECT will be needed.

My personal opinion is that the .40 S&W is a great choice and neatly fits the "gap" between 9mm Luger and .45 ACP and addresses some of the complaints (i.e. unreasonable compromises) that some people have with the 10mm.

 

[HoughMade]

If the aim is to win the rimless auto-cartridge energy chart contest (excluding the .357 SIG and 10mm), looks like the .40 S&W is the round to beat.

If the aim is a good self-defense cartridge, it works fine for that too, but not significantly better than the 9mm or .45 ACP.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1) The fo-tay is a fine round.

2) Muzzle energy is a terrible way to show that. Muzzle energy may be useful in comparing comparable rounds, such as two 110 gr bullets or two bullets traveling at 1200 fps. However, it rapidly loses its usefulness when comparing bullets with a wide spread in velocity and mass. Why? Because muzzle energy doesn't take into account resistance to deceleration based on things like sectional density and the inertia advantage of higher mass. In other words, it doesn't take into account penetration.

 

[Birds Away]

1) The fo-tay is a fine round.

2) Muzzle energy is a terrible way to show that. Muzzle energy may be useful in comparing comparable rounds, such as two 110 gr bullets or two bullets traveling at 1200 fps. However, it rapidly loses its usefulness when comparing bullets with a wide spread in velocity and mass. Why? Because muzzle energy doesn't take into account resistance to deceleration based on things like sectional density and the inertia advantage of higher mass. In other words, it doesn't take into account penetration.

Quit, you're making my brain hurt.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Quit, you're making my brain hurt.

Oh, he's only touched the surface. There are even more variables than that.

However, the OPs chart is misleading and not really that accurate. While the .40s&w is a perfectly acceptable round and was designed around some compromises, it does suffer from some serious shortcomings, not the least of which is its being a high pressure round, not leaving it much room for a wide range of loadings. Because the .40s&w was designed for modern guns, it pushed the envelope more than some of the older rounds. If the 9mm were designed today, it could easily compete with the .40s&w with regard to sheer energy, and outperform it with regards to optimal stopping of human targets using modern bullets, especially in retention of energy at distance or through clothing.

The Remington 185gr +P in .45acp is rated 534 ft-lbs which outperforms the chart listing of the OP. Typical commercial self defense ammo for the .40 is in the 400-450 ft-lbs range and typical for the .45acp is in the 450-500 range. Typical for 10mm is in the 550-650ft-lbs range and typical for .357mag is also in the 550-650ft-lbs range.

The argument that the OP makes, while it may be accurate based on the chart he made, falls short when you compare commercial loadings of the calibers listed. For example, I CAN load 10mm ammunition that is in the 800-850ft-lbs range and still be within SAAMI specs, and my nuclear loads out of the 6.6"bbl for my G20 Longslide exceed 900ft-lbs, and get around 950ft-lbs out of my 10mm carbine. My plinking 10mm rounds are 625 ft-lbs...

 

[ljk]

Ballistic Coefficient is more important than muzzle energy, because reaching the target and hitting the target with proper power down range are more important than what happened at the muzzle.

 

[rat-man]

Ballistic Coefficient is more important than muzzle energy, because reaching the target and hitting the target with proper power down range are more important than what happened at the muzzle.

agreed, however I'm talking about pistol cartridge loads, with what, a max 50m "effective" range? I'm not even a good enough shot for THAT distance to matter with a handgun. At 5-10m how much of a hit are you really going to suffer on any of the graphed loads? Certainly it will be less across the board, but at distances that close from the muzzle I'm skeptical as to how one caliber could "make up" a considerable difference from the muzzle measurement.

 

[cosermann]

I don't sense a poo-pooing of the .40 on INGO. Maybe I missed something.

 

[rat-man]

...muzzle energy doesn't take into account resistance to deceleration based on things like sectional density and the inertia advantage of higher mass. In other words, it doesn't take into account penetration.

Of course not, it is only what it is - muzzle energy. I've seen lots of ballistics gel tests showing how the bullet design has a great effect on penetration performance, for example how the 380 sucks with hollow points, but has adequate penetration with FMJs. This, along with a lot of other factors, is why I stated in the OP:

...Obviously there are plenty of other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a given round...

 

[Tombs]

agreed, however I'm talking about pistol cartridge loads, with what, a max 50m "effective" range? I'm not even a good enough shot for THAT distance to matter with a handgun. At 5-10m how much of a hit are you really going to suffer on any of the graphed loads? Certainly it will be less across the board, but at distances that close from the muzzle I'm skeptical as to how one caliber could "make up" a considerable difference from the muzzle measurement.

Look up rifle energy levels, and what energy level is necessary for humane kills on soft skinned animals.

It becomes quickly apparently that a handgun round is a handgun round. 9mm, 40, or 45, you aren't getting enough of a difference with a decent bullet for it to matter. Full power loadings of 357 magnum, 10mm, and other magnum calibers are a step up but not as much as you would imagine. People consider the .223 to be weak with a muzzle energy of 1,300ftlb, what does this tell you about 300-500ftlb from a handgun?

For the record, 50m shots from a handgun aren't that hard, give it a try next time at the range. 100m is still entirely doable if your fundamentals are squared away.

 

[ljk]

I remember watching video clip of Bob Munden hitting steel from 200 yards out with a 3" revolver free hand.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Here we go again.

 

[HoughMade]

Speaking of .40 S&W, how about a Glock 23 at 230 yards?

[video=youtube;zFd3kF6LHz4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4[/video]

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I carry a 500 S&W.

 

[Tombs]

Speaking of .40 S&W, how about a Glock 23 at 230 yards?

[video=youtube;zFd3kF6LHz4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4[/video]

It's a lot easier when you have steel to shoot at lol.

The hard part about stretching way out with a handgun on paper is that you rarely can see where your shot landed to figure out where to hold.

I had some 2" square steel targets for 22lr I used out at 100 yards with a browning buckmark and it surprised the heck out of me when I went 6/10, I won that bet.
I don't think I'm that great of a shot either. If you can pop empty 12 gauge hulls at 20 yards fairly regularly, it won't be much different to hit something at 100 unless there's a lot of wind. Everyone needs to give it a try.

 

[Broom_jm]

There are really only a handful of cartridge categories and comparing cartridges within a given category can be entertaining, but is largely pointless. The differences between 9mm, 40S&W and 45 ACP are so slim they're difficult to quantify. The 9mm makes smaller holes at higher velocity, the 45 makes larger holes at slower velocity and the 40 splits the difference. Which is to say, there isn't enough difference to make it worth arguing about. The most important thing about any of these cartridges is the bullet you're shooting, not the round your pistol is chambered in.

They all do what they're designed to do, and they do it very well. 'Nuff said?