The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - If you could change the U.S. Army standard issue pistol

Sarge · June 9, 2005, 10:41 PM

because it got me to thinking- always a dangerous situation.

Keep in mind that this is not a scientific test, and it does not relate performance on water jugs to performace on humans. What it does do is relate the performance of typical .40 FMJ to .45 FMJ ammo and guns, in the same medium. So, 1 gallon windshield washer fluid jugs are what I shot, backed up by an old Brownell's catalog. Sorry, but I was fresh out of nubian goats, or "Tactical Combat Experts" to supervise the exercise

I shot what I had on hand. In .45 ACP, that was Wolf 230 hardball. You can look the ballistics up if you want, but it is consistent with other round of that caliber and type; 850 fps or so. In .40, I used Remington UMC 180 FMJ, which is a flat-point bullet at a listed 985 fps.

Test guns were a 5" Springfield MilSpec and a 4" Springfield XD-40. The unfired rounds and recovered bullets appear below:

I find it interesting that the .40 actually riveted a bit, and the jug shot with the .40 jumped a bit, and showed some swelling on the bottom (impact) end. I managed to precisely center that jug, so the bullet shattered the cap on the way out. The jug shot with the .45 ball barely moved. The jug hit with the .40 also ruptured, and the jug shot with the .45 did not. Take this for what it is worth.

Both bullets penetrated to within 1/4 inch of the same depth, with the edge going to the .45 here. Neither of them penetrated the catalog, which was dry and about 1.5 inches thick.

What did we prove here? Does the .40 kick the old .45's hiney?

No, it does not; but it offers a similar, if not better in some cases, performance to the old Colt round, in a smaller package. I would not be at all bashful about carrying .40 FMJ flat-point in a military or defensive handgun, if that's the type of ammunition I was limited to.

PS- before anyone askes me "What kind of test was THAT?!", I'll just go ahead and answer the question in advance.

It's the kind of test that somebody else was paying for. Feel free to spend as much as you want doing a "better" one- just let us know how it works out.

June 9, 2005, 10:41 PM	#129
Sarge Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2002 Location: MO Posts: 5,457	No, this thread ain't dead yet... because it got me to thinking- always a dangerous situation. Keep in mind that this is not a scientific test, and it does not relate performance on water jugs to performace on humans. What it does do is relate the performance of typical .40 FMJ to .45 FMJ ammo and guns, in the same medium. So, 1 gallon windshield washer fluid jugs are what I shot, backed up by an old Brownell's catalog. Sorry, but I was fresh out of nubian goats, or "Tactical Combat Experts" to supervise the exercise I shot what I had on hand. In .45 ACP, that was Wolf 230 hardball. You can look the ballistics up if you want, but it is consistent with other round of that caliber and type; 850 fps or so. In .40, I used Remington UMC 180 FMJ, which is a flat-point bullet at a listed 985 fps. Test guns were a 5" Springfield MilSpec and a 4" Springfield XD-40. The unfired rounds and recovered bullets appear below: I find it interesting that the .40 actually riveted a bit, and the jug shot with the .40 jumped a bit, and showed some swelling on the bottom (impact) end. I managed to precisely center that jug, so the bullet shattered the cap on the way out. The jug shot with the .45 ball barely moved. The jug hit with the .40 also ruptured, and the jug shot with the .45 did not. Take this for what it is worth. Both bullets penetrated to within 1/4 inch of the same depth, with the edge going to the .45 here. Neither of them penetrated the catalog, which was dry and about 1.5 inches thick. What did we prove here? Does the .40 kick the old .45's hiney? No, it does not; but it offers a similar, if not better in some cases, performance to the old Colt round, in a smaller package. I would not be at all bashful about carrying .40 FMJ flat-point in a military or defensive handgun, if that's the type of ammunition I was limited to. PS- before anyone askes me "What kind of test was THAT?!", I'll just go ahead and answer the question in advance. It's the kind of test that somebody else was paying for. Feel free to spend as much as you want doing a "better" one- just let us know how it works out. __________________ People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.