Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Caliber Corner' started by ChrisD46, Jul 28, 2019.
At Plus+P velocities it delivers more expansion.
Since we’re talking about older name brand ammo (Hydra-Shok & XTP), what’s the opinion here of the older Cor-Bon JHP in .40?
In 380acp, Hydrashock and XTP are two of the best.
I believe that Cor-Bon is either using a new Sehria Cup and Core JHP or there on designed Cup and Core JHP.
Railspiter would know 100%
Edited : I have had good results with there 125gr 9mm load.
Yes but still rarely gets to 65cal, even in 45. I like the 200gr xtp in my compact or ltwt 45. I know it drives deep & will always get over 50cal. A 1/2" hole going all the way thru works for me.
I carry a G23 as my EDC, and have for several years after a long time using 9mm. I find the .40 a fine round, and the G23 a good platform. I've no intention of changing calibers. FWIW.
FYI, if you ever need to use/test one of those G23's with WML again ... Replacing the magazine springs with the stronger magazine springs (from Glockmeister) totally fixed the G23.3 reliability issue when a WML is mounted for me.
Yes, even the newer stronger GLOCK OEM fixes the problem, with certain 180 gr ammo, sometimes. But how long before the springs start to wear or break in before the lack of tension causes the problem to exacerbate again ??? We got tired of worrying about all those factors so we switching to 9mm and .45.
Also, I think our problem was worse because we were using 165 gr HST's. I think 180's would have helped, but I'm not sure if it would have eliminated the problem entirely.
I haven't tested the 180 HST's yet. But my test G23, that will not make it through a magazine of 165 HST's with a WML, has been 100% with some 180 gr. FMJ's practice ammo I've tested. Now that's only with Gen 4 mags, it still chokes with a WML and a Gen 3 mag even with 180 gr. FMJ's.
The whole setup is just too temperamental to deal with when there are other viable (9mm & .45 ACP) calibers to go with.
The 9MM Parabellum is carried in Europe as a badge of authority. This is also the coming trend in the U.S.
I shoot hundreds of rounds of the 9MM in my WWII collectables. I much prefer the .40 S&W as a personal protection round. It feeds and fires with out a problem in my Kimber Camp Guard 10MM.
Reality doesn't really bear this out. For one, more and more law-abiding citizens are getting concealed carry permits and carry, and train, for personal protection. They don't choose 9mm as a "badge of authority". Likewise, LE agencies have and are continuing to switch to 9mm in swathes, not because a pistol is just a "badge of authority" (cops are having to use their pistols more today than in the past), but because .40 doesn't really offer anything over 9mm (the slightly larger wound cavity is inconsequential as shown by 2 decades of LE agencies analyzing OIS incidents) while having it's own distinct set of disadvantages. Delta (who used .40), MARSOC (who used .45), and the Navy SEALS have all switched completely to 9mm, and they are pretty much allowed to use whatever they want. Tell me, do they have their pistols only as a "badge of authority"?
The .40 came about not because the 9mm didn't "wound" enough, but because it was an era where most 9mm JHP loads were too lightweight and high velocity to penetrate effectively, especially after passing through barriers. Up until the Miami shootout in 1986, "velocity was king", and fragmentation of handgun bullets was considered a good thing. Ammunition companies had not yet developed barrier blind 9mm because there was no demand for it. Once the FBI established penetration minimums through standardized barriers, ammo companies were forced to spend the money on R&D to develop loads that would meet these requirements.
.40 was developed after the FBI minimums were established. It was always good at penetrating adequately after going through barriers. It has not benefited much at all in the last 2 decades of projectile developments, because it was already at it's peak. The loads available today are much like the ones available in the 90's.
.45, like 9mm, wasn't good at penetrating barriers either. It's larger frontal area made it less likely that it would punch through barriers and still be able to reach vital organs. However, the loads available back in the day were marginally better at penetrating than 9mm. So during "The Great Leap Forward" (where service caliber handgun ammunition technology was advanced to becoming barrier-blind loads), .45 did benefit somewhat from these advances.
9mm benefited the most from ammunition technology advancing. Where .40 was at it's zenith and .45 was closer to it, 9mm had a lot of room for advancement and potential. Once effective barrier blind 9mm loads were developed and data started pouring in from Officer Involved Shooting incidents, it became obvious that 9mm, .40, and .45 all performed roughly the same, and were equally effective at incapacitating a determined attacker. We now have over 2 decades of data points that have been heavily analyzed to reach these conclusions.
And that's why US LE, US military forces (not just regular Army, but MARSOC, Delta, Navy SEALS, and others that can pick whatever caliber they want) and law-abiding citizens have largely switched to 9mm. You get the same effectiveness of .40 and .45, but you also get higher capacity, lower recoil, faster follow up shots, more accuracy, less wear-and-tear on weapons (compared to .40), greater functional reliability in weapons (compared to .40), and much lower cost to train with. Why go with a caliber that recoils more, has lower capacity, has weapon wearing issues (proven by decades of LE using the G22, many of these agencies report breakages and much shorter service lives compared to 9mm guns), ammunition costs are greater, and you can't shoot as quickly and effectively as you would a comparably-sized 9mm gun?
.40 S&W really has no point to me at this stage. If you really want to use a caliber larger than 9mm, just skip the .40 and go to .45 or 10mm. At least with .45 you get an incrementally larger wound channel, it has less recoil and snap than a .40, and doesn't beat up guns. And with 10mm you've at least got power on par with lower end .41 Magnum loads, and the Glock 20 was actually designed to handle the pressure and slide velocity of the round. 10mm has a lot more diverse utility than .40 and it's sad that the inferior .40 cal took away much of the 10mm's thunder (though this is reversing today). If you are going to stick with 10mm you should really get a platform that is more reliable and durable than your Kimber, and for the love of God don't shoot .40 out of it. The 1911 design doesn't hold up well to even moderate round counts of 10mm. Still, if I had a 10mm 1911 I'd never shoot .40 out of it, and I doubt you've put 2000 failure-free shots of .40 down the pipe to verify long term reliability.
However, if you're using a Kimber (a brand who's employees even revealed that they are told to make the guns look pretty and get them out the door as fast as possible with little QC) and consider "hundreds" of rounds to be anything of note, I take it none of this matters to you.
Have you shot at least 1000 consecutive shots through this Kimber without any stoppages/malfunctions/breakages, and preferably 2000 rounds?
Can you present from your preferred concealed carry system with your Kimber and hit an 8 inch circle at 3 yards in under 2 seconds, COLD, every time?
Can you present from your preferred concealed carry system with your Kimber, and do a FAST Test in under 10 seconds, COLD, every time with no points down?
Have you taken any formal training beyond a CC class in the last 12 months? (No, military quals and range time doesn't count, non-SF military pistol training is mostly a joke.)
If not, you'd be far better off with a 9mm and caliber should be the last thing of importance down on your list of priorities.
Steve, with the stiffer mag springs, mine is 100% with 165 gr Rem Golden Sabers & 180 gr. Range ammo. But I understand your point.
This post should just be stickied to the top of the forum.
I second this!
I've seen (required in an outside class I attended many years ago) a timed skillset assessment drill of draw, step offside and shoot. It was presented to working cops using plainclothes/UC gear, and the goal discussed was developing the skill needed to consistently perform the drill in no more than 1.5secs.
Their (instructors') requirements involved doing it while shooting 2-handed (because it takes more time and coordinated skill, making it harder); at 7yds; while moving off the "X" on the timer signal; and since silhouettes targets were being used through that week, they required the hit to be in the inner scoring box.
I can see the utility and fun in being able to demonstrate running a reload under time, but for the typical "average" enthusiast I'd think being able to perform the reload would be a "second step" in skillset development and demonstration. Getting those first 2-5 or 6 hits accurately on the threat ought to come before being further distracted with loading technique.
Or, run it both ways, meaning with and without reloading, and use the "comparison" to help the shooter realize if a weak spot in his/her development is their loading technique.
When it gets serious, this can become obvious.
Hell, it can become obvious when the definition of "serious" may only be more quickly racking up points in a sporting environment using centerfire pistols.
Magnum revolver calibers and big bore pistol calibers are fun and entertaining when we're young, but age can bring about the inevitable changes in speed, as well as the ability to tolerate and withstand recoil & manage recoil, that brings favorable attention to .38SPL in revolvers and 9mmP in pistols.
I have some newer Corbon 135gr .40 and it's definitely not a Sierra or Nosler bullet, it's my understanding that they make their own bullet designs.
I don't disagree with everything you wrote, some of it I agree with. However I keep hearing that really only the 9mm has advanced with modern bullet technology, and interestingly you also said twice above (which I made bold and underlined) that the .40 peaked and was at its zenith basically at conception. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure .40 HST's and Ranger T-series, bonded Rangers, Gold Dots, etc. of today outperform any and all .40 offerings back in the '90's.
I understand that the 9mm had the most to gain but because it's an inferior cartridge to the .40 or .45, but to say the .40 (and .45) haven't seen much benefit from modern loading is simply your speculation, nothing more. If anything the 9mm is maxed out, the only way for the 9mm to change at all is bullet design, which again effects all calibers, whereas the .40 and .45 both more ballistic headroom available.
I'm also pretty keen on the whole 10mm vs. .40 thing, and while I'll never claim the .40 to be more powerful, I do think the .40 is better overall than the 10mm is. It's cheaper in every metric and has better ammunition selection, it can be loaded very light or it can be loaded to nearly 10mm ballistics. Everyone has their opinion, and you don't like the .40, but I very much do. The .40 gives up nothing to the 10mm in terms of real world effectiveness, yet some people claim it's no better than 9mm. What a joke.
The last Cor-Bon with JHP's I bought were so long ago they were the old Sierra bullets.
I have always liked there Copper HP and when Remington bought out Barns and told Cor-Bon to fly a kite I new they started making there own, and I actually like those better than the Barns.
I just wasn't 100% on there Cup & Core bullets.
This is good to know, the Sierra 115gr 9mm bullets seemed to fragment to much, I need to get some newer Cor-Bon JHP's and try them. Thanks for the info.
All yes. One should also shoot various LEA quals to see where you are in relation to LEO. I have yet to find one I can not shoot 95%+ on, then again I train & shoot a lot.
Federal Hydra Shok 155gr .40 S&W-
Federal HST 155gr .40 S&W-
Not that different. The difference in expansion between .063" and .067" isn't even enough to account for shot-to-shot variation. Likewise, penetration is very close.
The only thing that's changed with .40 duty ammo from back then is that today it expands more reliably. But when they both do what they're supposed to, they perform very similarly.
Whereas 9mm Winchester Silvertip 115gr +P (the "gold standard" back in the day) typically got 11 inches or shorter in penetration, these days your Winchester Ranger Bonded gets somewhere between 14-16", comfortably within the FBI minimums. Likewise, .40 and .45 get about the same penetration, and penetration is far more important than diameter.
The real advance in ammunition technology was not expansion or bigger wound channels, though expansion has become more reliable. It's barrier blind ammunition that gives "Goldilocks" performance - that 12' to 18' of penetration needed to reach the vital structures in the human body that cause incapacitation without exiting the body. What Kyle DeFoor refers to as "timers" (significant blood loss) and "switches" (Brain, brain stem, etc). .40 S&W had an advantage on going through barriers right out the gate, it performed about as it should when it was developed, unlike 9mm and .45. It has nothing to do with one caliber being "inferior" or "superior" to another in terms of incapacitating someone. All pistol calibers suck at stopping people, even an expanded .40.
To give another rough illustration:
9mm = 9mm
.40 = 10mm
.45 = 11.4mm
Expanded JHP diameter:
9mm ~= 15mm
.40 ~= 17mm
.45 ~= 19mm
The typical artery is ~3mm wide with the largest being 10-25mm. Does a 19mm bullet really do all that much more damage to a 10mm artery than a 15mm bullet? I'll answer it for you: no.
If you hit what matters, it will be just as effective whether 9mm or .40. If you don't hit what matters, it will not be effective whether it's 9mm or .40. It's that simple.
Besides the rare instance of a larger bullet hitting a blood-bearing organ or artery a smaller bullet barely misses, the larger diameter of .40 and .45 give no advantage, and in fact are past the point of diminishing returns. The juice ain't worth the squeeze.
It's only when comparing 9mm and .40 in terms of expanding ammunition was there ever any difference in effectiveness. Comparing FMJ to FMJ, 9mm was never inferior; both it and .45 produced pretty insignificant wounds. .40 was never meant to be an FMJ round in anything but training ammo. It was designed to be a JHP from the get-go, whereas 9mm and .45 had been, for the most part, purely FMJ rounds in practical use for the past century.
10mm is more useful than .40 in that it can be loaded with a 200gr hardcast bullet going 1200+ FPS, which, while still very marginal for a large animal load, is about the absolute bare minimum for being able to penetrate the skull of a grizzly bear. You will not be able to get that ability from a .40 unless you want a hand grenade of a pistol. Now granted, even a 10mm is a horrible choice for grizzly (I'd want a .45-70 lever gun or shotgun with Brenneke slugs), but for a last-ditch defensive sidearm, the 10mm has compelling qualities when compared to the old .44 Magnum revolver. 10mm's superior terminal performance is not applicable to self defense from humans, though it performs neither better nor worse than 9mm, .40, or .45. So it is both useful in both outdoors defense and defense against humans, which makes it more useful than .40.
But .40 (again for me) has no use. It doesn't do anything 9mm or .45 can't do, but has distinct disadvantages. Now, if I were part of an agency that issued me all the free .40 I could shoot, I'd switch to .40 in a heartbeat.
Yeah, if it was just me, maybe I could find a compatible spring weight/bullet weight that would give acceptable results with a WML. I vet my gear and retest often.
But, many LEO’s do not test their gear. Some only shoot them at their mandated qualifications. So I wanted to provide the most fool proof system I could. Hence, the switch to 9mm or ,45 ACP.