Google FBI and 9mm vs 40mm/45mm
The FBI considered the leading expert on ballistic forensics has recently studied the topic and concluded there was a negligible difference in wounds made by the different calibers. So much so that doctors could not discern which wounds were made from which caliber bullets. They have also shown the 9mm to have a higher rate of accuracy for shooters, ability for higher capacity, higher velocity and more barrier penetration along with cheaper expense. The FBI is in the process of switching to back to 9mm's
https://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/
The FBI cited lots of experts and evidence with the 10mm, and that didn't go so well.
.
Link Removed
.
Certainly there will be different interpretations, but that doesn't look so negligible to me (picture from the link). And reading the executive summary of the FBI 'paper' doesn't exactly instill confidence. It's loaded with contradictions. For instance, they state that handgun stopping power is a myth, which should end the need for the rest of the paper, yet they continue on to say that the "single most important factor" to achieve this myth is penetration to a "scientifically valid depth". The practice of ignoring or de-emphasizing other important factors such as wound channel is very reminiscent of when they ignored other important factors in the debacle with their 10mm analysis. They didn't disregard it completely, because they do speak of "wound tracks", but they claim there is "little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks" in ammunition from 9mm through .45 ACP. One look at that image shows that to be obviously untrue. But don't take this critique to mean that they're completely off track, because they do get quite a lot right.
.
They make the critically important statement that "One should never debate on a gun make or caliber alone." They focused on the ammo, and rightly so. "The projectile is what wounds and ultimately this is where the debate/discussion should focus." Their goal was to subject various ammunition to "intense scrutiny and scientific evaluation in order to select the best available option." The executive summary however, makes it sound as if penetration in ballistic gelatin trumped all other factors, and that's the exact same mistake they made with the 10mm. Performance in ballistic gel is great for providing reference points for comparison of ammunition, but it's been proven time and again that performance in gel doesn't necessarily translate to performance on the street.
.
They also get right that "Shot placement is paramount", but apparently that doesn't equate to the "single most important factor". Semantics? I don't know, but that's something else that looks contradictory to me.
.
Their take on 'studies' of stopping power is interesting. "Studies of “stopping power” are irrelevant because no one has ever been able to define how much power, force, or kinetic energy, in and of itself, is required to effectively stop a violent and determined adversary quickly..." No they haven't, but they weren't trying to. That's like proclaiming nuclear power to be a failure because it doesn't produce milkshakes. Those studies were never intended to produce a finite measure of the energy required to incapacitate a person. They were designed to provide comparative results of different types of ammunition in real life shootings. the FBI is correct that many of these studies were poorly conducted and don't really deserve the title, but all of them aren't that poorly done.
.
"...and even the largest of handgun calibers are not capable of delivering such force. Handgun stopping power is simply a myth." This is the biggest contradiction of the entire paper. If it's a myth, why are they studying it and proclaiming a winner?
.
"Studies of so‐called “one shot stops” being used as a tool to define the effectiveness of one handgun cartridge, as opposed to another, are irrelevant due to the inability to account for psychological influences and due to the lack of reporting specific shot placement." That is quite simply untrue, and it makes me suspect there were no professional statisticians involved in the preparation of this paper and the data collection that produced it. That seriously calls the validity into question. Psychological influence would be a variable, and variables are accounted for in all reputable studies, just as the FBI accounts for some variables in their own study they're reporting on here. And there most certainly are studies that report not only on shot placement, but also on the wound tracks within the bodies. The fact that the FBI doesn't appear to be aware of that also calls the validity of their paper into question.
.
Don't take my criticism to be a dismissal of their conclusion though. Their overall point that the 9mm can be a highly potent self defense caliber with the right ammunition is absolutely valid. I think their study methods, data collection and analysis are seriously lacking though. They also correctly note that this is a highly contentious topic however, so obviously others will disagree with what I've said here as well, which is great. That's what discussion forums are for, and you're better educated if you know all sides of an issue.
.
But for the purposes of this thread I think Deanimator summed it up best.
.
9x19mm is easier to shoot.
.
.40S&W makes a bigger, deeper hole.
.
If you can shoot a .40S&W as well as you can shoot a 9x19mm. Shoot the .40.
.
If not, shoot the 9mm.
Whatever caliber or gun you use, just use good ammo. How do you do that? Remember that imperfect ballistic gelatin? Unfortunately that's usually the only reference you'll be able to find on a lot of ammunition. Some people go further with their own testing though, and the results are sometimes posted here, so ask questions if you're needing answers in that arena. Never hurts to ask. I'm personally no help in the realm of 9mm ammo. I shoot 45 ACP.
