Posted: 7/21/2025 8:59:15 AM EDT
|
The FBI standard, using calibrated organic jell, has led to a repeatable "scientific" test to measure bullet performance. This in turn has led to great improvements in bullet designs that has benefitted all calibers, especially the previously marginal calibers like the 9mm, by bringing them up to the "good enough" level of reliable performance (a single center mass hit WILL cause incapacitation in under 1 minute). The vast majority of the SD, HD, and LE community feel perfectly comfortable carrying a 9mm and many feel it is best, do-all cartridge. Some of us still argue that the bigger calibers are still "better" performers since they also benefitted from the technology improvements just like the 9mm (and others like the 38Spl and 380auto). The larger calibers provide a larger margin of error. More IS still more and a .75" bullet that penetrates "15" has a greater chance of nicking something important than a .55" going the same depth. Some threats don't stop even though they have been technically killed (suffered a fatal wound) due to drugs, adrenalin, stubbornness, demonic possession, whatever, they absorb lead but keep attacking. Also, aside from performance in human flesh, defensive shots often have to defeat hard and soft cover like auto glass, car bodies, furniture and heavy clothing. Bullets often shed 50% of their weight going through auto glass so half of 230 is still more than half of 124. Then there is the chance of using the CCW caliber for animal defense. Many of us still believe that the bigger calibers (40, 10, 45) perform better against cars, walls, doors, moose, bears, mountain lions, etc.? But is it true though? Did the modern tech improvements just bring the 9mm up to the same level of performance that the 40SW, 45ACP, 10MM had achieved in the 90's: Maxing out the potential from a pistol by successfully penetrating enough (12-18") AND expanding/fragmenting enough to maximize damage. Can we really expect more than the .70" expansion and 15" penetration that the 40SW and 45ACP was delivering back in the 90's? Since no common cartridge fired from a typical pistol will ever be 100% guaranteed one-shot incapacitation, unless the brain/spine is hit (talking about a typical duty or CCW handgun, NOT some single shot hunting handgun in 45-70, etc) is there a benefit to carrying something other than the 9mm (9X19, 9mm Luger, Parabellum, etc) today? With so many variables in the targets, two exact same bullets fired at the exact velocity and angle, hitting the same spot on two different subjects, can have two very different results. Hunters have seen this first hand. Some animals are just tough. Until we develop the Pulse-rifle in 40Watt range, this will be the case. But what if AI gets fed all the variables? All the anatomy, ballistics, jell-test data, physics of bullets, soft and hard cover, everything possible and goes to work modeling it creating millions, maybe billions of "shots into flesh" and compares the data between the calibers. I think AI will finally settle the question of which caliber is best and I think we will get data on how much better is one .vs the other. I predict that the 40/10mm will be the "best" followed by the 45ACP, then 9mm. I also think the differences will be interesting (more than expected) and we can get to arguing about the recoil and capacity differences being worth the moderate difference in performance. |
|
Originally Posted By MarkHatfield: OP forgets 'garbage in, garbage out'. AI will say whatever it thinks it's supposed to say. Consider '42'. Certainly true. It can and will be manipulated and we will need to pay attention. I'm just assuming (probably naively) that the best, clean data is used for the modeling, just like we assume the ordinance jell is properly calibrated on actual testing. But I think with AI all known possible variables can be plugged in and modeled millions of times to compile more data than every coroner and ME in the world could compile in 100 years. |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: Assuming AI can interpret all that data, it still doesn’t know my capabilities. I have downgraded from .45 to .38 Super, and at times 9mm. 1980s me would still prefer .45 ACP. Agreed. Id be happy if it can tell us which calibers and loads are better and maybe for what scenario ie winter vs summer. It may even be able to refine the target areas on a body most likely to cause quicker incapacitation. |
I'm not lazy, I just really enjoy doing nothing.
Joined:
Mar 2019
Posts:
13897
EE: 100% (17)
USA
|
There's no resolving this "debate". Every discussion has both sides moving the goalposts, begging the question or simply calling the other side liars about their "data". Everything has worked and everything has failed. Repeatedly. It won't reduce to pithy epithets, hunting experience has little to do with driving away a human attacker and no one alive has shot enough people with either caliber, much less both calibers to even have a reasonable opinion. Then there is the phenomenon of "psychological stops" that are believed to account for up to half of all "stops". Most people won't even agree on what a successful "stop" is defined as, and many freely intermix "lethality" with stopping. The primary attribute of a pistol is its presence, followed by its reliability. Then penetration. And men aren't Cape Buffalo. Everything else...caliber, load, capacity, shoot ability, accuracy are such distant thirds that collectively they don't even belong in the same discussion as the first two. People don't get defeated by force of numbers and arms in DGU, they get took because they're unarmed or too incompetent to make the gun go bang at least once. |
|
Originally Posted By NE223: You lost me at: "More IS still more and a .75" bullet that penetrates "15" has a greater chance of nicking something important than a .55" going the same depth." Who is carrying a 19.05mm or 13.97mm handgun? Maybe someone, but it's not common. A typical 45, even some of the better 40cal JHP can reach .75" expanded diameter and penetrate 15". Compared to a 9mm that expands to .55" that manages the 15"... |
|
Originally Posted By feudist: There's no resolving this "debate". Every discussion has both sides moving the goalposts, begging the question or simply calling the other side liars about their "data". Everything has worked and everything has failed. Repeatedly. It won't reduce to pithy epithets, hunting experience has little to do with driving away a human attacker and no one alive has shot enough people with either caliber, much less both calibers to even have a reasonable opinion. Then there is the phenomenon of "psychological stops" that are believed to account for up to half of all "stops". Most people won't even agree on what a successful "stop" is defined as, and many freely intermix "lethality" with stopping. The primary attribute of a pistol is its presence, followed by its reliability. Then penetration. And men aren't Cape Buffalo. Everything else...caliber, load, capacity, shoot ability, accuracy are such distant thirds that collectively they don't even belong in the same discussion as the first two. People don't get defeated by force of numbers and arms in DGU, they get took because they're unarmed or too incompetent to make the gun go bang at least once. I agree fully. I am just hoping that plugging in all the possible data and letting AI digest it and poop out something informative. Basically like creating a computer model of human anatomy (animals too, why not) and then a computer model of common cartridges and letting AI do its thing. If it is detailed enough with accurate anatomy and ballistic data, it should learn and maybe teach us something. |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I agree fully. I am just hoping that plugging in all the possible data and letting AI digest it and poop out something informative. Basically like creating a computer model of human anatomy (animals too, why not) and then a computer model of common cartridges and letting AI do its thing. If it is detailed enough with accurate anatomy and ballistic data, it should learn and maybe teach us something. Everything old is new again, and (as always) FPNI. NIJ did exactly what you propose in the 1970s: created a computer model of human anatomy, incorporated gelatin testing, all the common cartridges, everything. It was called the Relative Incapacitation Index. It was hot garbage and horribly misleading, because GIGO. RII reflected the 1970's obsession with expansion, velocity, and temporary cavity. But we're so much smarter now, and our model will be way cooler! It will be different, but highly unlikely to be better. The reality is that everything works if you shoot it well, and everything doesn't if you don't. But shooting well requires lots and lots of thoughtful, intelligent practice, which is work. And humans are lazy. We prefer to buy results instead of working for it, because working for it is hard. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat! |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: The FBI standard, using calibrated organic jell, has led to a repeatable "scientific" test to measure bullet performance. This in turn has led to great improvements in bullet designs that has benefitted all calibers, especially the previously marginal calibers like the 9mm, by bringing them up to the "good enough" level of reliable performance (a single center mass hit WILL cause incapacitation in under 1 minute). The vast majority of the SD, HD, and LE community feel perfectly comfortable carrying a 9mm and many feel it is best, do-all cartridge. Some of us still argue that the bigger calibers are still "better" performers since they also benefitted from the technology improvements just like the 9mm (and others like the 38Spl and 380auto). The larger calibers provide a larger margin of error. More IS still more and a .75" bullet that penetrates "15" has a greater chance of nicking something important than a .55" going the same depth. Some threats don't stop even though they have been technically killed (suffered a fatal wound) due to drugs, adrenalin, stubbornness, demonic possession, whatever, they absorb lead but keep attacking. Also, aside from performance in human flesh, defensive shots often have to defeat hard and soft cover like auto glass, car bodies, furniture and heavy clothing. Bullets often shed 50% of their weight going through auto glass so half of 230 is still more than half of 124. Then there is the chance of using the CCW caliber for animal defense. Many of us still believe that the bigger calibers (40, 10, 45) perform better against cars, walls, doors, moose, bears, mountain lions, etc.? But is it true though? Did the modern tech improvements just bring the 9mm up to the same level of performance that the 40SW, 45ACP, 10MM had achieved in the 90's: Maxing out the potential from a pistol by successfully penetrating enough (12-18") AND expanding/fragmenting enough to maximize damage. Can we really expect more than the .70" expansion and 15" penetration that the 40SW and 45ACP was delivering back in the 90's? Since no common cartridge fired from a typical pistol will ever be 100% guaranteed one-shot incapacitation, unless the brain/spine is hit (talking about a typical duty or CCW handgun, NOT some single shot hunting handgun in 45-70, etc) is there a benefit to carrying something other than the 9mm (9X19, 9mm Luger, Parabellum, etc) today? With so many variables in the targets, two exact same bullets fired at the exact velocity and angle, hitting the same spot on two different subjects, can have two very different results. Hunters have seen this first hand. Some animals are just tough. Until we develop the Pulse-rifle in 40Watt range, this will be the case. But what if AI gets fed all the variables? All the anatomy, ballistics, jell-test data, physics of bullets, soft and hard cover, everything possible and goes to work modeling it creating millions, maybe billions of "shots into flesh" and compares the data between the calibers. I think AI will finally settle the question of which caliber is best and I think we will get data on how much better is one .vs the other. I predict that the 40/10mm will be the "best" followed by the 45ACP, then 9mm. I also think the differences will be interesting (more than expected) and we can get to arguing about the recoil and capacity differences being worth the moderate difference in performance. The 10mm won with the FBI’s FTU honchos back in the’80s, bettering the .45acp and the 9-minimeter in their extension ballistic testing. The 10mm proved to be more accurate than either round and out-penetrated both against intermediate barriers. Sonny Crockett knew a thing or two because he’d seen a thing or two. 
|
|
Here's a link to the first published description of the 1989 FBI ammo test. https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/ It hints at the genesis of the 10mm Lite that led to the .40 S&W(that had been floating around as wildcats like The Centimeter, the .41 AE and the .40 G&A since the late 1970s) shortly after that. There are some implicit assumptions in the article that haven't born out true, and a couple of logic bombs, but most notable is the decided emphasis on the failure of one bullet...out of 70 verified to have been fired by agents, and the foregone conclusion that the FBI wasn't going to adopt any 9mm in any load in any pistol. But here's your "scientific" meat and taters. |
|
Originally Posted By splogan: I honestly want to know how the comparison goes if you limit all 3 FMJ. Lets face it, SHTF, the latest greatest ammo will go quick and everyone would have the shitty ball ammo they stocked up. Good point. Using FMJ, a LOT of variables go away. Still, it would need AI level analysis since all the variables in the human body. I will theorize that the 40/10mm will be best in both JHP and FMJ since it has diameter, mass, sectional density, velocity (and unrelatedly decent mag capacity). |
|
No matter how much data you get, how well it is inputted or manipulated, once a live target is engaged, with endless variables in anatomy, nervous system and vascular system response, and the biggest variable psychological response- all bets are off. I have either personally witnessed or have viable first hand accounts of instant one shot stops with 22’s & 25’s, and people survive torso hits from 50 BMG. Simply no way to predict how one particular individual is going to respond to being shot |
|
Hello, I am AI and I am here to settle the 9-40-45 caliber debate. I have analyzed data from thousands of gunshot wounds in humans that were made by each of these cartridges, using both FMJ and JHP bullets. Result: ALL WORK EQUALLY WELL - 1) If the bullet damages vital structures, incapacitation will occur rapidly, followed by death. 2) If the bullet does not damage vital structures, only psychological incapacitation can be expected. Thank you for your query. ............end thread |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: Blood loss can result in incapacitation even if no vital structures are hit. Might take more time than the shooter likes, but it definitely can work. Yes, it can. But that requires time, and that is the antithesis of a self-defense shooting. It serves no purpose to incapacitate your assailant if he kills you while you wait for your shot to incapacitate or kill him. This "wait for them to bleed down" situation is very, very common, but it represents a failure of shooter, gun, or bullet: either the shooter did not aim well, the gun is not accurate, or the bullet failed to penetrate to the vital structure. It is axiomatic that psychological stops, although far, far more common than physiological stops, cannot and should not be relied upon, and that proper self-defense shooting is focused on causing significant damage to vital structures. These vital structures are central nervous system and circulatory system, specifically the more primitive parts of the brain that sit lower in the skull, and the heart and aorta. Damage these and incapacitation will occur as quickly as it is possible to accomplish with a pistol. It will also nearly always be fatal, generally before 911 is even called, let alone EMS arrival. The foregoing is why it is both unproductive and misleading to look at GSW cases that make it to the hospital: they represent a failure. We don't talk about this, or even like to acknowlege it, because we are focused on making the assailant stop, not killing him. But effective stopping means an extremely high liklihood of killing. Otherwise, we are depending on him choosing to give up the attack, i.e., a psychological stop. Therefore, when it comes to service pistols, the choice of cartridge simply doesn't matter. All that really matters is choosing a bullet that penetrates adequately, learning the relevant anatomy so as to know where the important structures are located, and practicing sufficiently to be able to hit them from all angles on command. But people would rather buy results than work for them, hence the recurring 9-40-45-10-357 etc., "debate", which is simply arguing over distinctions without a difference: amusing, but ultimately irrelevant. |
|
But what if AI gets fed all the variables? All the anatomy, ballistics, jell-test data, physics of bullets, soft and hard cover, everything possible and goes to work modeling it creating millions, maybe billions of "shots into flesh" and compares the data between the calibers. I think AI will finally settle the question of which caliber is best and I think we will get data on how much better is one .vs the other. LLM ai's don't and can't reason and have no understanding at all. They do word association. The software takes the words given and guesses what's next from the avialable words it has in it's databse. Humans or other ais tell them if any given word association is good/preferred or not. This is broadly called training. You have to know what a tool is capable of to use it properly. eta: so an LLM AI can never give word *associations* better than it's training, and the thing can't even *do* reasoning. It's literally just been trained enough to trick us into thinking there might be a real mind there, when there isn't (pass the turing test). |
| IMO it's going to vary widely based on the shooter and the gun. Whatever you can shoot quickly and accurately w/ good hits. Ammo capacity could matter in longer encounters. I grew up shooting 45 in dad's Combat Commander. I loved 45. Bounced a lot of the cardboard oil cans around back when they were cardboard w/ metal ends. Went from it to 10mm. Tried 40 but wasn't impressed. With modern bullets I'm happy w/ 9mm. I can shoot it accurately faster and I think that's one of the most important things. It doesn't matter how much damage it would do if you don't hit or they hit you first and stop you. I'd be happy w/ any of those (except 40 Short and Weak) but mostly I carry 9mm. I'd carry 10mm or 44 Mag if I thought I might have to deal w/ something tougher than 2 legged varmints. |
You must play the game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game.
|
Originally Posted By jhereg: I'd carry 10mm or 44 Mag if I thought I might have to deal w/ something tougher than 2 legged varmints. That is something most people forget. More horsepower is definitely warranted against a large animal. Not all threats are 2 legged. |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: . That is something most people forget. More horsepower is definitely warranted against a large animal. Not all threats are 2 legged. Originally Posted By grendelbane: Originally Posted By jhereg: I'd carry 10mm or 44 Mag if I thought I might have to deal w/ something tougher than 2 legged varmints. That is something most people forget. More horsepower is definitely warranted against a large animal. Not all threats are 2 legged.  My 329PD carries really well in my OWB holster. 44 Special Gold Dots in it. 240 grain HP 44 Mag for reloads. It's bigger than a 19C but IMO it carries better.
|
You must play the game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game.
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: Assuming AI can interpret all that data, it still doesn’t know my capabilities. I have downgraded from .45 to .38 Super, and at times 9mm. 1980s me would still prefer .45 ACP. AI is no match for the NS (Natural Stupidity) of GD. Am willing to wager that AI is going to say that the 9.8 mm Colt ACP* is the best round. * link  Colt's Prototype Scaled-Down Model 1910 in .38/9.8mm |
Call the tune and let's dance; but beware that the devil is the piper and the tab for that soiree will be hell to pay.
Training&Trigger Time are more important than chasing a hardware Holy Grail
Training&Trigger Time are more important than chasing a hardware Holy Grail
|
Also realize that the study used to justify going back to 9mm is the same study used to justify the initial move to .40. They just reinterpreted the results. .40 is going to be about 18% more energy than 9mm. And also about 18% less capacity. And 10-15% bigger. That sounds pretty important. But then you consider that that 18% still doesn’t make it rifle power effectiveness and the size difference isn’t likely to turn a miss into a hit. I still like .40. When doing 3 gun I’d occasionally see a knock down need a real high hit with a 9 to knock it down, where I could hit anywhere with a .40 and it would fall. So I’ve seen the extra oomph it provides. I decided I wanted capacity instead. Anyway, I don’t know why people get all worked up about it. Any of them will do something and none of them are a guaranteed one hit kill. Pick what you want. You shouldn’t need anyone to validate your choice. |
|
Originally Posted By grendelbane: Blood loss can result in incapacitation even if no vital structures are hit. Might take more time than the shooter likes, but it definitely can work. And a bullet expanded to .99" with sharp "talons" will cause more damage and more blood loss than a .356 FMJ. Also more likely to nick a vital organ. Likewise 3-4 9mm FMJ hitting the body will probably do more damage too. |