9mm vs .40 on steel plates

[osxar]

I know with modern HP ammo the differences are marginal, but it sure seems that when shooting steel plates the .40 has so much more power than the 9mm.Is is just marginal when its soft tissue vs steel?Any thoughts on this?

[jamesonamac]

Or a video...

[Desert_Rat]

I just made some heavy plates today. I also made some 6 inch hanging targets too. I even shot them with 9mm from a Browning High Power clone and .40 from a glock 22.
The bases on the heavy plates are too big for pistol but will be fine for shotgun. I have 4 more of the big ones (16") and I'll put smaller "stands" on them so 9mm can knock them down. It's 125 grain 9mm lead cast bullets with 4.8 grains of unique and 165 grain factory PMC .40

Ask and you shall receive

[osxar]

like I said the .40 seems to have quite a bit more power. Nice video. Thanks

[G60]

Effects on soft tissue are pretty similar. A good place to read is the terminal ballistics forum on m4carbine.net

[whipkiller]

Ricochet?!

Looks like right at the 1:00 minute mark in your video, that ricochet almost took out your camera!

What distance were you shooting from?

[redcliff]

Despite claims by jello-shooters that less is more, you really get a different perspective as you shoot and attempt to knock down steel plates with various calibres. Hunters in general have long preferred larger diameter and heavier bullets to bring down game with thick hides and heavy bone structure.

Many years ago when I used to shoot a lot of short-course metallic silhouette courses at 25 and 50 yard ranges with production handguns we definitely preferred full power 45acp, hot .44special/light 44mag, and .45LC loads for their ability to knock the target from the stand with a marginal hit versus .38special and 9mm loads which could not.

[ianS]

Despite claims by jello-shooters that less is more, you really get a different perspective as you shoot and attempt to knock down steel plates with various calibres. Hunters in general have long preferred larger diameter and heavier bullets to bring down game with thick hides and heavy bone structure.

Many years ago when I used to shoot a lot of short-course metallic silhouette courses at 25 and 50 yard ranges with production handguns we definitely preferred full power 45acp, hot .44special/light 44mag, and .45LC loads for their ability to knock the target from the stand with a marginal hit versus .38special and 9mm loads which could not.

Yes, heavier larger diameter bullets are better at knocking down steel plates. But when shooting a 150-250 lbs perp and not a 2-3 lbs steel plate its not about knocking them over. Bullets don't knock people over. The body either absorbs them or they go through and through. If you want to knock someone over a sledge hammer is what you're looking for. BTW those "jello shooters" not only look at lab data they also study OIS (Officer Involved Shootings) as well to back up their data and findings.

The .40 is a bit better at intermediate barrier penetration than 9mm such as car windows and doors. Which is why LEO orgs like the CHP prefers the .40 over the 9mm. But strictly against human perps who wear soft clothing (everything up to thick heavy coats or leather jackets) and aren't built with extra thick hides fat and bones like a boar or bear any major caliber 9mm and up has plenty penetration. Sometimes too much which is why expanding hollowpoints are preferred instead of something like hard cast or standard FMJ

[redcliff]

And depending upon which studies you review generally the larger, heavier bullets always do at least as good if not better than the smaller, lighter bullet at handgun velocities. A .355 diameter slug may or may not expand; a .452 diameter slug will never shrink.

Please note I did not even bring up the self defense aspects of this unending argument; I merely stated a historical truth about "Hunters in general have long preferred larger diameter and heavier bullets to bring down game with thick hides and heavy bone structure".

[ianS]

And depending upon which studies you review generally the larger, heavier bullets always do at least as good if not better than the smaller, lighter bullet at handgun velocities. A .355 diameter slug may or may not expand; a .452 diameter slug will never shrink.

Please note I did not even bring up the self defense aspects of this unending argument; I merely stated a historical truth about "Hunters in general have long preferred larger diameter and heavier bullets to bring down game with thick hides and heavy bone structure".

Okay, the title of this thread is "9mm vs. .40 on steel plates" But OP also said "Is is just marginal when its soft tissue vs steel?Any thoughts on this?"

With soft tissue the problem is not about getting through tough hide, fat, or bone that humans lack. That's why its called soft tissue. 9mm has plenty of penetration. In fact too much which is why expanding bullets are generally recommended. Would a slightly larger diameter bullet be better against soft tissue? Yes. But marginally. Is .10 inches really gonna make a difference? No. But if we're talking tough hide, fat, and bone that four legged creatures in the wild have then sufficient penetration is an issue. When hunting large game there is that extra component of having sufficient penetration. It simply isn't an issue with two legged threats when talking 9mm and up. And yes, of course good shot placement is a constant necessity for both.

When people are discussing shooting "soft tissue" I hope they are talking about potential perps.

And when people are shooting steel they are trying to literally knock it down. When people shoot perps they are hoping to hit vitals to shut down their CNS to stop their attack. That is a different kind of "knock down".

[Bigdaa]

I am no competition or pro shooter by any stretch of the imagination, but I have fired a third world country's worth of ammo.

Steel plates in competition, I don't think you are going to use anything but lead or plated. No jacketed stuff.

9mm vs 40

147 gr max vs 200 gr max

I jumped over 9mm's to get the 40. Never even considered the Parabellum round whatsoever.

My position is hit the metal target with the biggest most controlable bullet you can.

If you are talking about fleshy targets, hit the damn things with the biggest, most controlable bullet you can.

[hogaboom]

I too am considering this as well....

[osxar]

Thanks ianS, I think you answered the question. For perps its to stop the vitals and for steel its about moving it. For moving steel the larger cal is better and for hitting vitals the 9 vs 40 is a marginal debate can be debated forever.

[foxtrotuniformlima]

If we are talking about knocking down or knocking over a steel plate target, a heavier bullet will out perform a lighter one at the same velocity. It is simple physics; M*A = F.

The greater the mass @ the same velocity will have a greater force.

Most people that are shooting 40 S&W use a 180 gr bullet @ 1000 fps or so.

Unless you go to a +p+ load in 9x19, your standard Winchester WhiteBox is 124gr @ 1140.

USPSA & IPSC use a formula called power factor ; bullet weight x velocity /1000.

the 40 S&W stuff is 180pf. the 9x19 is 141.

So the OPs question is Apples to Oranges. Load a 40 caliber bullet and a 9mm bullet at the same PF and you will see similar results on the steel plates.

[ubet]

RangerT ammo, comparing 45, 40 and 9mm. 40 and 45acp are pretty close. Energy ft/lbs at 25 yds is 65 more for the 40sw than the 9mm 45acp is 79ft/lbs more. The 9 and 40 are leaving the barrel at the same speed, but the 40sw bullet is 33grs heavier.

http://www.winchester.com/Products/le/handgun-ammunition/ranger/t-series/Pages/default.aspx

I dont know what people love for the 9mm is. Maybe its just because of the lack of recoil and cheap to shoot. But anytime you crunch numbers, it just doesnt stack up to a 40sw or 45acp