imported post
Sorry if I came across that way, but I did NOT think you were attacking me at all. I was "defending" my position so to speak, but I wasn't being defensive IMO. It does appear that you're ignoring the fact that I keep telling you I've researched all of this heavily.
I did say, and correctly IMO, that the comparison is invalidated by using different barrel lengths. That is the truth, as velocity does change with change in barrel length. I don't see how that could be argued. There are a few rounds that perform better out of short barrels, because they were designed to. Most seem to gain velocity with increased barrel length though. I'm really not seeing where I go around saying these "meme's" you speak of. I DO NOT make claims that are unsubstantiated. I won't just say something because I heard it somewhere once, that's what sheep and parrots do. If I say something, it's generally because I've seen a good bit of evidence supporting that fact. To claim that what I've just stated is similar to a statement such as "the .40S&W is better than 9mm," is honestly a bit insulting to my intelligence.
The problem is that the statement you responded to (My statement) was in fact a response to the very same statement you're making here. It was stated by another forum member. You just repeated what he said above my post, rather than providing real evidence. I didn't ask him why they changed, I only said that it's not evidence that the .40S&W currently outperforms the 9mm.
Again, I'll tell you that I've already read about all of these calibers and I've already read about the 10mm and the fact that they had to make it so weak there was no need to have a case that long. Hence the .40S&W. I already know all of this, you're not telling me anything new. What I asked for is actual evidence supporting a massive difference in performance, such as actual ballistic testing. One incident from 22 years ago, that I've already told you I'm almost certain I've already read about, is useless in that comparison. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I did see that you mentioned that the difference was greater at that time. Again, what does that have to do with today's ammo and the "massive" difference people often imply exists between the 9mm and .40S&W today? I was not talking about 22 years ago, I was talking about today.
You seem to think that if you keep telling me things I already know enough times that I'll ignore all of the actual performance analyses I've read and performed on countless rounds in each caliber. These analyses usually take into account muzzle velocity and energy (Taking barrel length into account), performance in bare ballistic gelatin and through various barriers and finally real world performance via emailing writers of gun and ammunition reviews. The calibers I can think of off the top of my head that I've looked into heavily include:
.22LR, .32ACP, .32NAA, .380Auto, 9x18mm, 10mm, .45ACP, .45LC, .38 Special, .357 Sig, .357 Magnum, 9x23mm Winchester, 9x25mm Dillon, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, 5.56x45mm, .223 Remington, 7.62x51mm, .308 Winchester, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mm, 410ga, 20ga, 12ga.
That is truly insulting considering the posts I regularly make concerning data and testing of all sorts of ammunition within numerous calibers. I was dead set on buying a 10mm auto for a long time. I did not want anything less to be honest. Many months of research, emailing and discussion of performance data and real world shootings led my opinions to change about certain calibers. I am not saying a 10mm is weak by any means, that actually is a significant bump in power over a 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP.
I still don't know why you'd again repeat what I already said I've read about and fully understand and then dodge the real request of my post, which is to show me the evidence of a large difference in performance. Also satisfactory would be to prove that the 9mm is insufficient in any number of ways (ie- Always fails to meet FBI minimums, fails through barriers, fails to expand similarly to .40S&W, etc.). I need to see the tests proving this though. I can show you quite a few demonstrating the exact opposite, but I am open to anyone proving me wrong with some good solid evidence to the contrary.
What this situation is like is this:
I compare two modern vehicles (Of identical weight and both having nice flat torque curves) with different engines. One is a turbocharged 4 cylinder with 380hp and one is a normally aspirated V8 with 400hp. I agree that there is a small difference in performance. But when I ask you to show me the massive difference in the 1/4 mile times, you instead give me a history of the I4 and V8, stating that 22 years ago a certain manufacturer's I4 was replaced with a V8 because of a difference in power at the time. You never address the current 1/4 mile times and you ignore the fact that I've already told you I've read about everything you're saying.
Do you see what I'm saying here? It doesn't address the issue I was addressing, and again you haven't told me anything I didn't already know. I don't get why you keep saying this over and over. Show me the massive performance difference, I was not asking why they switched. Someone else brought that up as being sufficient evidence that the .40S&W significantly outperforms the 9mm, which I completely disagree with. Evidence would be something along the lines of ballistic testing with a good scientific method applied to the analysis. Just because it's a current fad to think that the .40S&W significantly outperforms the 9mm doesn't make it true. Just because "everybody's saying it" doesn't mean it's true either. That isn't how I get my "opinions." My "opinions" are more facts than opinions because they come from real data, with large samples and many different factors being considered.
Sorry if I came across that way, but I did NOT think you were attacking me at all. I was "defending" my position so to speak, but I wasn't being defensive IMO. It does appear that you're ignoring the fact that I keep telling you I've researched all of this heavily.
Where did I say anything needed a 5" barrel? I'm not being defensive, I just don't recall saying that at all. I recall saying that testing is often performed with a 5" barrel when using .45ACP ammo, while 4" barrels are often used for 9mm and .40S&W. I don't think I implied either one needed the other. I said that to state that comparisons are less valid when using different barrel lengths, and the extra inch likely increases the performance of many .45ACP rounds. This can make them look a bit more powerful when compared with a different caliber tested out of a shorter barrel. I never said it was a huge difference, and nobody's ever told me about the fact that the test barrels are often different between those calibers, so I'm not just repeating some "meme." I simply noticed it during all of the research I've done. I did not say either one required a certain length barrel. I don't say generalized statements like, "no .45ACP will work in a 3" barrel," ever.
I did say, and correctly IMO, that the comparison is invalidated by using different barrel lengths. That is the truth, as velocity does change with change in barrel length. I don't see how that could be argued. There are a few rounds that perform better out of short barrels, because they were designed to. Most seem to gain velocity with increased barrel length though. I'm really not seeing where I go around saying these "meme's" you speak of. I DO NOT make claims that are unsubstantiated. I won't just say something because I heard it somewhere once, that's what sheep and parrots do. If I say something, it's generally because I've seen a good bit of evidence supporting that fact. To claim that what I've just stated is similar to a statement such as "the .40S&W is better than 9mm," is honestly a bit insulting to my intelligence.
The problem is that the statement you responded to (My statement) was in fact a response to the very same statement you're making here. It was stated by another forum member. You just repeated what he said above my post, rather than providing real evidence. I didn't ask him why they changed, I only said that it's not evidence that the .40S&W currently outperforms the 9mm.
Again, I'll tell you that I've already read about all of these calibers and I've already read about the 10mm and the fact that they had to make it so weak there was no need to have a case that long. Hence the .40S&W. I already know all of this, you're not telling me anything new. What I asked for is actual evidence supporting a massive difference in performance, such as actual ballistic testing. One incident from 22 years ago, that I've already told you I'm almost certain I've already read about, is useless in that comparison. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I did see that you mentioned that the difference was greater at that time. Again, what does that have to do with today's ammo and the "massive" difference people often imply exists between the 9mm and .40S&W today? I was not talking about 22 years ago, I was talking about today.
I don't disagree with any of this, all I said is the difference between the 9mm and the .40S&W is very small. Not 22 years ago, but today. I did not say that because I pulled it out of my ass, I said it because they expand and penetrate similarly. They have similar muzzle energies and velocities. They have similar starting diameters. They simply aren't very far apart at all, although many people would have you believe otherwise. You keep thinking I'm some idiot that only thinks there's one good caliber. You also seem to ignore the fact that I've told you repeatedly that I've researched pretty much all of the standard (And unusual) handgun cartridges available today. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. I'm always talking about how with today's ammunition the difference in performance is quite small between the standard 3 handgun calibers (9mm, .40, .45), but particularly between the 9mm and the .40S&W. If you have real evidence pointing to the fact that the .40S&W massively outperforms the 9mm, for the 100th time, I'm open to it. It needs to be significant, not a single incident or a single test. I didn't form my "opinon" based on that little evidence, so it will take more than that to change it.
You seem to think that if you keep telling me things I already know enough times that I'll ignore all of the actual performance analyses I've read and performed on countless rounds in each caliber. These analyses usually take into account muzzle velocity and energy (Taking barrel length into account), performance in bare ballistic gelatin and through various barriers and finally real world performance via emailing writers of gun and ammunition reviews. The calibers I can think of off the top of my head that I've looked into heavily include:
.22LR, .32ACP, .32NAA, .380Auto, 9x18mm, 10mm, .45ACP, .45LC, .38 Special, .357 Sig, .357 Magnum, 9x23mm Winchester, 9x25mm Dillon, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, 5.56x45mm, .223 Remington, 7.62x51mm, .308 Winchester, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54mm, 410ga, 20ga, 12ga.
You really don't believe I've read anything about ammuniton or personally tested it, do you? It's ridiculous that you're telling me there's a difference in performance between FMJ's and JHP's, and between various manufacturer's ammo within a caliber. Now it appears that you don't even believe I've looked at anything but one particular round of 9mm ammo. Of course that must be why I like the 9mm and any intelligent person would obviously see otherwise, right?
That is truly insulting considering the posts I regularly make concerning data and testing of all sorts of ammunition within numerous calibers. I was dead set on buying a 10mm auto for a long time. I did not want anything less to be honest. Many months of research, emailing and discussion of performance data and real world shootings led my opinions to change about certain calibers. I am not saying a 10mm is weak by any means, that actually is a significant bump in power over a 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP.
I still don't know why you'd again repeat what I already said I've read about and fully understand and then dodge the real request of my post, which is to show me the evidence of a large difference in performance. Also satisfactory would be to prove that the 9mm is insufficient in any number of ways (ie- Always fails to meet FBI minimums, fails through barriers, fails to expand similarly to .40S&W, etc.). I need to see the tests proving this though. I can show you quite a few demonstrating the exact opposite, but I am open to anyone proving me wrong with some good solid evidence to the contrary.
What this situation is like is this:
I compare two modern vehicles (Of identical weight and both having nice flat torque curves) with different engines. One is a turbocharged 4 cylinder with 380hp and one is a normally aspirated V8 with 400hp. I agree that there is a small difference in performance. But when I ask you to show me the massive difference in the 1/4 mile times, you instead give me a history of the I4 and V8, stating that 22 years ago a certain manufacturer's I4 was replaced with a V8 because of a difference in power at the time. You never address the current 1/4 mile times and you ignore the fact that I've already told you I've read about everything you're saying.
Do you see what I'm saying here? It doesn't address the issue I was addressing, and again you haven't told me anything I didn't already know. I don't get why you keep saying this over and over. Show me the massive performance difference, I was not asking why they switched. Someone else brought that up as being sufficient evidence that the .40S&W significantly outperforms the 9mm, which I completely disagree with. Evidence would be something along the lines of ballistic testing with a good scientific method applied to the analysis. Just because it's a current fad to think that the .40S&W significantly outperforms the 9mm doesn't make it true. Just because "everybody's saying it" doesn't mean it's true either. That isn't how I get my "opinions." My "opinions" are more facts than opinions because they come from real data, with large samples and many different factors being considered.
