CustomSatellite
New member
Very nice
Which has more stopping power 9mm or .40 Caliber
- Thread starter NR232
- Start date
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Thank you.
And by the way, .30 Carbine that the M1 shoots beats both the 9mm and the .40S&W and is used for self defense. Out to 300 yards. There are also pistol versions and folding stock versions if someone wants to hide one under a coat. The problem would be the use of the 30 round mags. They tend to be a bit bulky.
CustomSatellite
New member
I want one...:yes4:
mikestone967
Banned
Would you be able to send me that info?
S&W645
NRA Life Member
PM inbound.
S
since9
Guest
The term "stopping power" has no precise definition, but the scope is usually bounded, and includes factors such as Kinetic Energy, Momentum, volume of hypovolemic cavity, volume of non-hypovolemic cavity, and many additional factors associated with the human target.
KE=0.5*m*v^2
P=m*v
In order to do a decent comparison, let's take a look at six rounds, three from each caliber, and for accurate comparison, let's use the following considerations:
- all rounds are from the same manufacturer (Winchester)
- all rounds are from the same family (Super-X)
- no +P or +P+ rounds are consider (most machine pistols in ownership are not rated for these rounds)
Thus, we have the following Winchester rounds, their masses, muzzle velocities, kinetic energy, and momentum:
1. 9MM LUGER 147 GR. SUPER-X. 1010 fps: KE = 451.36 J / P = 2.93 kg-m/s
2. 9MM LUGER 115 GR. SUPER-X. 1225 fps: KE = 591.44 J / P = 2.78 kg-m/s
3. 40 SMITH & WESSON 155 GR. SUPER-X, 1205 fps: KE = 677.44 J / P = 3.69 kg-m/s
For a proper comparison, I converted all dimensions to SI Units (meters, kilograms, seconds, Joules, and kilogram-meters/second), before calculating the Kinetic Energy and Momentum.
Findings:
A. The .40 has 50% more kinetic energy than the 147 grain round, and 30% more kinetic energy than the 115 grain round
B. The .40 has 26% more momentum than the 147 grain round, and 33% more momentum than the 115 grain round
C. The .40 is 12.89% wider than the 9mm round
D. The .40 is 5.44% and 34.78% heavier than the 147 and 115 grain 9mm rounds, respectively
Conclusion: All things considered, the .40 most certainly has more "stopping power" than either 9mm rounds in its same Super-X family.
Having said that, other considerations of stopping power include depth of penetration, size of cavity, damage inflicted within and beyond that cavity, resiliency of the victim, and location of the wound.
A. Depth of penetration: Clearly, if the depth of penetration is 16 inches but the perpetrator's chest is only 10 inches deep, the round will retain a significant portion of it's "stopping power" upon exit. This factor, along with the need to protect bystanders was the primary reason Winchester designed the Silvertip round. At the time, it had one of the least penetration depths of their rounds, and was originally marketed (as have most of their rounds) to law enforcement.
B. Size of cavity. The only significant measurement is one of total volume, and one cannot consider the maximum expanded volume during entry for the simple matter that if the flesh did not tear, then while it may still have been significantly damaged, it was wasn't necessary destroyed. Only the post-expansion volume indicates destroyed tissue, and it certainly qualifies as having experienced hypovolemic shock (hemmoraging). In fact, it will be a bloody mess.
C. Extra-cavity impairment and destruction: This is tissue volume outside the resting cavity volume which experienced both hypovolemic shock (hemmoraging).
D. Resiliency of the victim: Clearly, the same level of destruction in a small individual is going to be more capable of stopping the individual than if the round hits a large person with a lot of both fat and muscle. Some individuals are also great clotters, whereas others might experience profuse bleeding, not only initially, resulting in immediate shock, but also over time, greatly increasing the probability of death. Finally, even two individuals of identical gender, physical proportions, and clotting factors might react very differently due to overall level of physical fitness, age, and general level of health. Even one's mental and emotional status plays a significant role in their likelihood of being stopped by a particular round.
E. Location of the wound: Clearly, a shot through the center of their face is far more potentially lethal than a shot that hits in the center body mass area but misses any vital organs.
Bottom line: All things considered (all else being equal), a 155 grain .40 S&W round has considerably more stopping power than either a 115 or 147 grain 9mm round.
KE=0.5*m*v^2
P=m*v
In order to do a decent comparison, let's take a look at six rounds, three from each caliber, and for accurate comparison, let's use the following considerations:
- all rounds are from the same manufacturer (Winchester)
- all rounds are from the same family (Super-X)
- no +P or +P+ rounds are consider (most machine pistols in ownership are not rated for these rounds)
Thus, we have the following Winchester rounds, their masses, muzzle velocities, kinetic energy, and momentum:
1. 9MM LUGER 147 GR. SUPER-X. 1010 fps: KE = 451.36 J / P = 2.93 kg-m/s
2. 9MM LUGER 115 GR. SUPER-X. 1225 fps: KE = 591.44 J / P = 2.78 kg-m/s
3. 40 SMITH & WESSON 155 GR. SUPER-X, 1205 fps: KE = 677.44 J / P = 3.69 kg-m/s
For a proper comparison, I converted all dimensions to SI Units (meters, kilograms, seconds, Joules, and kilogram-meters/second), before calculating the Kinetic Energy and Momentum.
Findings:
A. The .40 has 50% more kinetic energy than the 147 grain round, and 30% more kinetic energy than the 115 grain round
B. The .40 has 26% more momentum than the 147 grain round, and 33% more momentum than the 115 grain round
C. The .40 is 12.89% wider than the 9mm round
D. The .40 is 5.44% and 34.78% heavier than the 147 and 115 grain 9mm rounds, respectively
Conclusion: All things considered, the .40 most certainly has more "stopping power" than either 9mm rounds in its same Super-X family.
Having said that, other considerations of stopping power include depth of penetration, size of cavity, damage inflicted within and beyond that cavity, resiliency of the victim, and location of the wound.
A. Depth of penetration: Clearly, if the depth of penetration is 16 inches but the perpetrator's chest is only 10 inches deep, the round will retain a significant portion of it's "stopping power" upon exit. This factor, along with the need to protect bystanders was the primary reason Winchester designed the Silvertip round. At the time, it had one of the least penetration depths of their rounds, and was originally marketed (as have most of their rounds) to law enforcement.
B. Size of cavity. The only significant measurement is one of total volume, and one cannot consider the maximum expanded volume during entry for the simple matter that if the flesh did not tear, then while it may still have been significantly damaged, it was wasn't necessary destroyed. Only the post-expansion volume indicates destroyed tissue, and it certainly qualifies as having experienced hypovolemic shock (hemmoraging). In fact, it will be a bloody mess.
C. Extra-cavity impairment and destruction: This is tissue volume outside the resting cavity volume which experienced both hypovolemic shock (hemmoraging).
D. Resiliency of the victim: Clearly, the same level of destruction in a small individual is going to be more capable of stopping the individual than if the round hits a large person with a lot of both fat and muscle. Some individuals are also great clotters, whereas others might experience profuse bleeding, not only initially, resulting in immediate shock, but also over time, greatly increasing the probability of death. Finally, even two individuals of identical gender, physical proportions, and clotting factors might react very differently due to overall level of physical fitness, age, and general level of health. Even one's mental and emotional status plays a significant role in their likelihood of being stopped by a particular round.
E. Location of the wound: Clearly, a shot through the center of their face is far more potentially lethal than a shot that hits in the center body mass area but misses any vital organs.
Bottom line: All things considered (all else being equal), a 155 grain .40 S&W round has considerably more stopping power than either a 115 or 147 grain 9mm round.
S
since9
Guest
I am very interested in that information, as well. Furthermore, if it's legal, then it's contained in publicly available U.S. Code (CFRs), or departmental policies and directives. Since that information is public, let's not play "secret squirrel" or worry about "political considerations. Please do share it with the rest of us.
Thank you.
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Yes it is in the laws of the US but I will not make it easy for any antis who might be hanging around. We have enough to worry about if she should get elected without giving them a free helping hand. A PM will be sent with the laws quoted.
bofh
Banned
That's overstating it. Yes, a .40 S&W round has more energy and momentum than a 9mm round, but it needs it to have the same amount of penetration at a 2mm larger expansion diameter. .40 S&W has more "stopping power" than 9mm, just not considerably. There have been many attempts to come up with a "stopping power" metric for handguns, but realistically speaking the differences in terminal performance between 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP are minor.
Link Removed
All service handgun calibers have poor stopping power, which is why the standard argument is to choose the biggest caliber you can shoot fast and accurate with. Two fast hits with a 9mm count more than two slow misses with a .40 S&W. Mindset, skill and gear are the important factors in a gun fight. Most people ignore the first two and go all out nuts on the last.
corneileous
Active member
My results are probably redundant compared to actual ballistics tests between 9's and 40's but the other day when I was shootin' at some stacked 2x6 scraps, it didn't look anything to me like my little 9mm was showing any less mercy than my 40. The only real difference I saw was the 40 would put a round through all three whereas the 9 would go about halfway through the third one. It's a difference but it ain't a whole lot to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gvaldeg1
NRA Member
I think that I've said this before that this often recurring argument is kinda like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". The posts are fun and many are informative but, as always, there is no definitive resolution both because there isn't one and also because it really doesn't matter! Here's something that presents a different and I believe realistic look at handgun stopping power:
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
Hope that you enjoy this. :smile:
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
Hope that you enjoy this. :smile:
Rhino
New member
Very interesting. Thanks. It's no more reliable than many of the other reputable studies are though, and in some ways it's worse. In statistical analysis you don't get to "determine the variables and their definitions", though you can certainly influence them. Variables are something that occur from the event or from factors that influence the event. You adjust or account for those variables to the maximum extent possible. You don't get to make up your own variables, or simply exclude what you don't like. I don't think he meant to say it that way though, so I would certainly concede he could make a better case for what was included and what was excluded by wording that statement a little differently. He believes choosing to include multiple hit shootings and non-torso hits makes his analysis more accurate than Marshall and Sanow's work where such things were excluded. He's unfortunately mistaken on that point. By including both single hit and multiple hit scenarios he introduces additional variables that simply cannot be accounted for. Any statistician can tell you that comparing like events is far more accurate than comparing events that are not similar. Proper statistical analysis expends maximum effort to exclude unlike factors or to empirically account for them as variables. You can't do that with multiple hit shooting scenarios. Take this passage for instance:
But don't take my critique to be a condemnation or a dismissal of what the author did, nor necessarily a refutation of his conclusions. On the contrary, I think his effort was incredibly rigorous and exhaustive, and far too few analysts go to the level of effort he expended. I wish more analysts would expend such effort. I also agree with much of his conclusion, though I don't think it was something produced by accurate analysis like he claims. I'd like to see his entire data set. He most definitely gets extremely high marks for effort though. And he achieves his goal. This is indeed an "alternate" look at handgun stopping power. My hat is off to him.
If you're tracking incapacitation and include scenarios where there were multiple hits, how can you know which hit creates the stop? If a subject is stopped after four shots, there's no way to know conclusively which shot actually succeeded in stopping the subject, especially if the shots were in separate anatomical areas. Shot one could have been the true stopping shot, but the subject might not go down until shot four is fired. The number of varying scenarios is almost impossible to accurately compare with just one shot, much less being accurate with multiple hits. And including hits in all body areas would just further convolute a data set that is already far too myriad to possibly adjust to with any statistical certainty. Even Marshall and Sanow noted how it was impossible to account for 100% causality when using just one hit shootings and torso hits. Multiple hits would have just introduced a huge amount of additional variables that were difficult or even impossible to adjust for. That's why Marshall and Sanow limited their study as they did, for more accuracy. But this author believes he achieves higher reliability by including more unlike events and variables. You simply can't do that. he even hints at that exact point with this statement:
That indicates he knows very well that unlike factors negatively influence the accuracy of your data. Yet, not only does he deliberately add unlike data, he actually claims that doing so makes his analysis more accurate than that of Marshall and Sanow. That's a significant contradiction.
But don't take my critique to be a condemnation or a dismissal of what the author did, nor necessarily a refutation of his conclusions. On the contrary, I think his effort was incredibly rigorous and exhaustive, and far too few analysts go to the level of effort he expended. I wish more analysts would expend such effort. I also agree with much of his conclusion, though I don't think it was something produced by accurate analysis like he claims. I'd like to see his entire data set. He most definitely gets extremely high marks for effort though. And he achieves his goal. This is indeed an "alternate" look at handgun stopping power. My hat is off to him.
The 40 Cal has more foot pounds of force at impact and is generally better for stopping, but it had considerably more recoil than 9mm. Whatever you can carry better and shoot better should be your choice. By the way, the 9mm is way cheaper to shoot and train with.
Sent from my SM-G935T using USA Carry mobile app
Sent from my SM-G935T using USA Carry mobile app
Probably 'bout as many as you have
mikestone967
Banned
Better be careful!
Oswald is a leaning, greenish kinda machine that will roll over you like the tide in Nevada!!
Oooohhhhh!! Spooky!
schadenfreude
New member
Which has more stopping power 9mm or .40 Caliber?
Depends upon what you hit (anatomically speaking) and the mental state of the person posing the threat. KE, momentum, cavity volumes all mean nothing until something is hit and what that ''something'' is is very important.
A 9mm to the foot probably won't stop someone who is intent on killing you from killing you, but a .40 through an eye socket most likely will. Flip around the calibers hitting the locations (a .40 to the foot and a 9mm through an eye socket) and the statement is just as valid. Too many variables when the human body, and the mind attached to it, are involved to say with any certainty how a shooting (with any caliber) will come out.
Depends upon what you hit (anatomically speaking) and the mental state of the person posing the threat. KE, momentum, cavity volumes all mean nothing until something is hit and what that ''something'' is is very important.
A 9mm to the foot probably won't stop someone who is intent on killing you from killing you, but a .40 through an eye socket most likely will. Flip around the calibers hitting the locations (a .40 to the foot and a 9mm through an eye socket) and the statement is just as valid. Too many variables when the human body, and the mind attached to it, are involved to say with any certainty how a shooting (with any caliber) will come out.
mikestone967
Banned
Don't ever count on some simple pistol round to stop an attacker..
There is a video that I saw from Paladin Press about the myths surrounding stopping power..
One man was shot, in the face, with a 44 mag. The blast alone blew his eye out but this man crawled two blocks to his car to retrieve his own weapon before he died!
Or what about the perp who takes 20+ rounds of nine mil, a dozen rounds of 12 gauge and isn't stopped until his spine is severed by another 12 gauge blast!?
Don't ever count on any pistol round to end the fight. It takes training and consistency to achieve that..
There is a video that I saw from Paladin Press about the myths surrounding stopping power..
One man was shot, in the face, with a 44 mag. The blast alone blew his eye out but this man crawled two blocks to his car to retrieve his own weapon before he died!
Or what about the perp who takes 20+ rounds of nine mil, a dozen rounds of 12 gauge and isn't stopped until his spine is severed by another 12 gauge blast!?
Don't ever count on any pistol round to end the fight. It takes training and consistency to achieve that..
I'm probably going to get the terminology wrong but there is a difference between lethality and incapacitation. During "The Miami Shootout" one of the robbers (Platte I THINK) received a lethal wound. Apparently the damage done was so severe that he would have died if he'd been on the operating table when he was shot.
Even so in the time it took for the wound to kill him he was able to stay in the fight and kill at least one agent
Even so in the time it took for the wound to kill him he was able to stay in the fight and kill at least one agent
New Threads
-
G19 AIWB carry: Is the Surefire X300U much more uncomfortable than the TLR-7A?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 2
-
-
Members online
No members online now.