13 minutes ago, Schrödinger's cat said:

I always wondered, as the technology advances and makes the 9mm a more effective round, wouldn't that also advance the .40 making it better too ?

Depends on who finances the research. Or if the research is financed.

32 minutes ago, Schrödinger's cat said:

I always wondered, as the technology advances and makes the 9mm a more effective round, wouldn't that also advance the .40 making it better too ?

The issue was was that most of the perceived downfalls of the 9mm bullet rested on FMJ bullets.  Once the technology of bullet design AND guns that could reliably feed said bullets (think Glock 17) was fixed, well, the rest they say is history.  For the 40S&W that is.  Hahaha

It eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns.

The projectiles are so close:

Diameter: 9mm = ~.355 cal, so a difference of .045" in circumference between 9mm and .40 S&W.

Now, let's look at weight. We'll use the heavier end of duty rounds:

9mm 147gr = .336oz

.40 180gr = .411oz

So again a miniscule difference of .075oz.

And, lets look at velocity. I'll use what I know, the ammo I issue my people Federal HST:

9mm 147gr 1000fps at muzzle

.40 180gr 1010fps at muzzle

from a Glock 17/22 size gun.

So, we are taking about a difference of 10fps in muzzle velocity from projectiles with a .075 oz different in weight and a .045" difference in circumference.

How much of a difference can there be?

IMO, the cause for the initial disparity between the rounds was the 9mm has been around for so long, it took a while to catch up to a round that was developed relatively recently. Also, the rounds were developed on different tracks with different desired terminal effects. 

I don't believe the 9mm was really underperforming, it was designed with a different set of performance parameters based on different set of TTPs that were based on what we knew of gunfighting at the time.

2 hours ago, High Exposure said:

9mm 147gr 1000fps at muzzle

.40 180gr 1010fps at muzzle

How much of a difference can there be?

From your example, according to an online muzzle energy calculator ( https://billstclair.com/energy.html ), 326 foot pounds ME for 9mm vs 408 foot pounds ME for the .40.  Using the presets on that site, Rem Golden Saber 9mm +p - 383 foot pounds ME vs Rem Golden Saber .40 - 484 foot pounds ME.  Small differences in weight but similar velocities still have a surprising effect on energy.  Seems not insignificant to me, though real-world results are likely not that different seeing how they are still fairly low velocity pistol cartridges.

For whatever it is worth, I have multiple 9mm handguns and one .40, so I'm happy with both calibers, and would trust either one in a carry gun.  Yeah, there's more snap to .40, but I still enjoy shooting it, and I shoot reasonably well with it.  I'm also not running into gun fights, nor do I carry anywhere other than my property.

Bottom line, I don't think you can really go wrong with modern 9mm or .40, and with all the options we have these days, either is perfectly capable.  I don't think .40 is going anywhere anytime soon*.

 

*Except for in NJ, where I'm sure we'll be forced to only have single shot .22 flobert pistols that use biometric scanners to usually verify who is holding the gun because really, this IS New Jersey after all...

.40 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.  Too many Depts carry it and will continue to carry it.  The FBI making the switch carries alot of weight with decision making.

     I have guns in .40.  I have always preferred guns in 9mm, going waaaay back to '02.  

Malice, your making an assumption that the energy at handgun levels has a significant impact on its effectiveness. I don't think evidence supports that position. A 10mm running at over 600 foot pounds of energy has not proven to be a more reliable stopper than a 9mm at under 400. So what you see as a significant difference, I see as insignificant based on the evidence that a much greater difference in energy still doesn't seem to affect its effectiveness. Keep in mind Im talking handgun calibers only. The math changes dramatically when you enter into rifle calibers.  As HE has alluded to, a level of understanding what makes a handgun caliber as effective as its likely to be has been achieved. Now all SD ammo manufacturers build around attaining those ballistic characteristics. And IMO this is what drives the equilibrium you now see in terms of 9, 40 and 45 being so similar in effectiveness. Of course they are, they are all driving towards the same ballistics now.

On 5/17/2017 at 3:44 PM, Maksim said:

I don't think anyone should have an issue with police being able to have access to AR's, and Remington 700's.... as long as they don't carry RPGs and Cannons, we are a ok. =)

What happens when the bad guys have RPGs and cannons?

Run for the hills...

Based on what customers ask us for 40 is no doubt dead at this point. But who knows...

it does not take much for people to change.

 

On 5/21/2017 at 9:37 PM, Schrödinger's cat said:

I always wondered, as the technology advances and makes the 9mm a more effective round, wouldn't that also advance the .40 making it better too ?

That's the thing, we didn't invent some awesome new technologies since the 80s. About the only thing that really started being done more was blended powders, which is mostly in other round than pistol SD rounds.

What really happened was the FBI developed a well defined set of criteria after blaming their gear for an event primarily driven by a series of procedural fuckups against determined individuals.

Develop a test and everything on the market starts to converge to the year criteria of possible. Which is what happened.

On 5/23/2017 at 3:19 PM, raz-0 said:

That's the thing, we didn't invent some awesome new technologies since the 80s. About the only thing that really started being done more was blended powders, which is mostly in other round than pistol SD rounds.

What really happened was the FBI developed a well defined set of criteria after blaming their gear for an event primarily driven by a series of procedural fuckups against determined individuals.

Develop a test and everything on the market starts to converge to the year criteria of possible. Which is what happened.

Then every other agency piggy backed off of the fed contract?

That makes sense.

 

Question to HE and Shane - Are there any appreciable differences between the two when used out of a 16" carbine? Aside from the added velocity (as we know,  some bullets perform better at higher velocities). For control purposes, say under 50 yards. I would hope you're not engaging a BG in a school corridor / open shopping mall area.You might wind up bouncing rounds off the deck (or shooting ceiling tiles) like that incident in Minnesota a number of years back when someone was using a AR in a pistol caliber.

FWIW - During the 40 craze, I bought a couple and have purchased the 9 conversion barrels. All of which have performed flawlessly. I also picked up a pair of Sub2K's to take either Sig or Glock mags. I am wrestling on going the 9mm route for my 3 daughters. They will each have a G19 / G26 at some point with a NJ Compliant S2K. My 6'5" son does fine with his G23 and the conversion kit. 

Coming from someone who was issued a 1911 just as the 92's were being introduced, it has been a roller coaster ride. But bullet technology has made me a believer. I'll still take a 45ACP over a 9mm 115 FMJ's doing boarding in tight steel enclosures.Slow and fat makes for a less exciting ricochet experience. YMMV.

I don't know of any real study into it for a few reasons. 

1) There isn't a huge market for .40 carbines (I have a .40 AR that takes Glock mags, only because .40 ammo and mags is what I have the most of) and it was a pain sourcing parts for it.

2) Most service/duty type Sub guns have barrels in the 7"-10" range.

3) Any agncey that would really want that data before deciding what to issue realize that a rifle in .223/5.56 will do everything a sub gun can do better, with a few niche exceptions.

I agree HE. God knows...every and anything has had a government study so I figured there might be some info.

 

I have some trigger time on MP5's and they were fun to shoot. But, I'd much rather have a short barrel in 223 for a duty weapon. That said, manning a standing static post for a 12 hour shift, or riding in a vehicle, I'd want a MP sized primary weapon.

I defer to HE's input and simply would add that I think the real gain for a 16" PCC would be the shootability and subsequent improved accuracy. I would, however, look for a SD round that is a known good performer out of a PCC. IIRC some rounds can actually become less effective when overdriven.

For social work I would take a subgun or a PCC over a pistol all day - better range and accuracy, possibly better ballistics to a point - but I'd prefer a rifle. My PCC lives in the safe and is used for steel comps only. It is set up identical to my work and training gun, but only so it feels generally the same.

I think you are right Shane, but I never really looked into it. Duty ammo is designed to work best within a certain parameter - one of which is velocity which can be effected in both directions by barrel length. Makes sense that you 

We used 115gr GDHP in our MP5s when we had them, but were phasing them out in favor of M4s by the time I joined the team and was issued one. We didn't spend a whole lot of time comparing the effectiveness of the pistol v subgun round. And they were 8" barrels if I remember correctly.

 

Why are we shooting a pistol caliber carbine?  They make almost zero sense.  Other than suppressor quiet, they have no advantage over a 556 or 300BLK AR type.

People have been using pistol rounds in rifles since the mid-1800's when you had revolver calibers in lever action rifles.

 

14 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

Why are we shooting a pistol caliber carbine?  They make almost zero sense.  Other than suppressor quiet, they have no advantage over a 556 or 300BLK AR type.

Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one Ray.

1 hour ago, Ray Ray said:

Why are we shooting a pistol caliber carbine?  They make almost zero sense.  Other than suppressor quiet, they have no advantage over a 556 or 300BLK AR type.

Says the guy that had a pistol with a bayonet attached to it

2 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one Ray.

I agree with him.. I had a CX4 carbine for like less than a year maybe (no bayonet LOLz) and when I was able to legally build a SBR, I saw absolutely no reason for a pistol caliber carbine.. it just seamed so silly to me.. 

As an example - You can't shoot steel comps with a rifle caliber.

14 hours ago, High Exposure said:

As an example - You can't shoot steel comps with a rifle caliber.

That is another discussion, but true.  

On 5/29/2017 at 6:07 PM, Wojo said:

Question to HE and Shane - Are there any appreciable differences between the two when used out of a 16" carbine? Aside from the added velocity (as we know,  some bullets perform better at higher velocities).

I know you didn't ask me, but I have info, so I'll share. 

A while back when one of the steel matches at OB was debating allowing PCC to shoot static steel, we were concerned about their impact on the plates and how much damage they would do shorten the lifespan, etc. We were already losing more equipment than we would like due to major PF .38 super and .40, and figured that we would lose money letting PCC play. 

So we asked everyone who had one to bring them down to the next match to crono with their usual pistol loads. 

We had a sampling of 9mm, .38 super/supercomp, .40, and .45. 

Surprise of surprises, most of the 16" barreled carbines produced the same muzzle velocity as a 5" barreled pistol. Some were a little slower, some were a little faster. IIRC you could pick up about 50 fps. .40 picked up the most FPS. Looking at what people were shooting the answer was that you needed both a slow burning powder AND case capacity. The only cheaper plinking ammo that does that is .40. The guys shooting their .38 super/supercomp ammo were using powders slow enough to provide lots of jetting gas to drive the comp, but I guess not slow enough or big enough case capacity. They pretty uniformly were producing the same velocities at 16" as at 4-5" + comp. 

 

A few years after that ballistics by the inch did pistol calibers, and their results weren't far off. I do wish they had used some cheap plinking ammo too rather than just pricey SD ammo that tends to be at max pressure and thus using slower powders. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html 

If you are using a fast burning low charge weight powder like tite group, don't expect to pick up much, if any muzzle velocity form a carbine. You are burning up the powder before you reach the end, and then adding friction. If you are pushing the envelope and using a slower powder to do it, you might get a 100-200 fps gain. Just don't expect it with white box type loads, nor with popular powders that feel soft becausee they produce higher velocities with low volume fast burning powders like titegroup. 

 

 

 

Excellent info Raz-0! Thanks for posting.

Raz-0...great input. Thank you.

I haven't had a chance to use my chrony on my 40 - S2K. But Raz's input got me to thinking. One of the reasons I like a 40 is the subsonic component on shooting inside a residential room using 165/180's. (I used to keep a 1911 handy, but I like having those extra rounds so I made the switch).  I used my S2K for part of an outdoor Urban Carbine class to see how it would function. I was very surprised at how quite it was. Reason...even with the extra 12 inches of barrel, it must have remained subsonic. (stroking chin...veeeery interesting). Regardless if 40 is on the way out, it still makes for a nice backpack carbine to take down game and have the interchangeability using the larger mags in a G27 / G23. Glad I have one in Sig as well. When in doubt...get both.

Told ya

Well that figures. I bought a .40 carbine because it had the capacity in the mags, as opposed to the .45

 

Yes, I have no clue.  but it looks nice.

It needs more than a home. It needs a website.

The URL is invalid.

Ray, that was pretty good!