DocGKR - Ballistics Expert

[robmcd]

Some of you may be familiar with Dr. Gary Roberts (DocGKR on many firearm forums). He's a leading expert in ballistics testing. Here's a link (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887) to another forum where he discusses defensive handgun ammo. If you go back one notch (http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91) in that forum, you see much more.

[REACT]

Great link(s). It is this kind of scientific data (as opposed to personal opinion/conjecture) that has changed my mind about .357 SIG & .40 S&W and steered me back to 9mm. (Almost) same hole with less drama.

I now carry 9mm 147 gr JHP bullets and feel comfortable about the decision.

[garyb]

Interesting but I read no mention of the Fed Hydrashock, Corbon DPX, faster 135gr JHP and other newer .40S&W defense rounds...hmmm;...when was this written/printed?

[earle8888]

I certanly agree with the last statemnet on the link. I think the rest has personal preference influence. That said the requirements for LEO's and for that matter, the military handgun, is significantly different that a ccw. The reliablity and proficiciency are required, BUT.

[robmcd]

The following is a brief bio on Dr. Roberts for your consideration. He is the "E.F. Hutton" of wound ballistics:


"Dr. Roberts, LCDR, USNR, is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role."

[Mr. S]

Interesting but I read no mention of the Fed Hydrashock, Corbon DPX, faster 135gr JHP and other newer .40S&W defense rounds...hmmm;...when was this written/printed?

He talks about the Hydrashock(not favorably) in the notes section on the 1st post near the bottom of the first link.
The Corbon DPX is listed under the Barnes XPB(now called Tac-XP) as Barnes makes the copper bullet Corbon uses in the DPX.
Black Hills also loads the Tac-XP(different name same bullet) and it is available in 50 round boxes at a good price compared to DPX.


Here is another link to look at.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

[garyb]

You have my attention that this is interesting stuff...seriously. I will read through it all much more carefully to see what I can learn from this material. I'd also like to determine if there have been any ammo changes since this 2006 link was posted or updates since the 1989 FBI document was written. FYI - I am not an expert nor stuck on any one particular round and am willing to make necessary adjustments. I would still like to read more on the newer 40S&W 135gr JHP rounds and the newer Corbon 140 Barnes ammo. If the 135gr is acceptable in the 9mm, why wouldn't it be in the 40S&W? Doesn't this raise a question in your mind? If you find any updated material which includes the 40S&W 135-140gr compared to the slower, heavier 165 or 180gr, please post it. Perhaps as I read the material you posted more carefully, it will be explained. Everything I've read about this shows the faster 135 JHP to be superior in the 40 format. Obvioiusly, the 9mm has also made progress and seems to be gaining more acceptance now that the ammo has been improved upon. Needs more research. Thanks.

[robmcd]

garyb: I like the quotes in your signature area. I use the last one in all of the courses I instruct.

At the botton of Dr. Roberts' post, it shows the last day he updated it was 8-18-2010.

I'm like everyone else. My curiosity is peaked by new, and possibly better ammo. I have to buy a box of everything and try it. Invariably I return to Gold Dot, Federal HST or Winchester SXT. Gold Dot will generally feed well in anything, and offers acceptable expansion and penetration.

[Mr. S]

You have my attention that this is interesting stuff...seriously. I will read through it all much more carefully to see what I can learn from this material. I'd also like to determine if there have been any ammo changes since this 2006 link was posted or updates since the 1989 FBI document was written. FYI - I am not an expert nor stuck on any one particular round and am willing to make necessary adjustments. I would still like to read more on the newer 40S&W 135gr JHP rounds and the newer Corbon 140 Barnes ammo. If the 135gr is acceptable in the 9mm, why wouldn't it be in the 40S&W? Doesn't this raise a question in your mind? If you find any updated material which includes the 40S&W 135-140gr compared to the slower, heavier 165 or 180gr, please post it. Perhaps as I read the material you posted more carefully, it will be explained. Everything I've read about this shows the faster 135 JHP to be superior in the 40 format. Obvioiusly, the 9mm has also made progress and seems to be gaining more acceptance now that the ammo has been improved upon. Needs more research. Thanks.

The link I posted was updated in 2010.
Read through it.Here's a few quick comparisons

.40 SW 140 DPX VS 180 HST Corbon 140gr DPX (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/40_CorbonDPX.htm)


9mm 115+P DPX VS 147 HST

Corbon DPX 9mm vs (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/9mm_CorbonDPX.htm)

[garyb]

I've carefully read through the material and have changed my way of thinking about a few things. It was good stuff, particularly the Handgun Wounding Factors paper. The link seemed to be lacking on ammo comparisons and I would have liked to see more ammo covered, but realize/admit it is difficult to cover it all. Specifically to see the Corbon 135 JHP as mentioned below.

Anyway, I originally selected Fed hydrashock 135 feeling this particular round had adequate penetration yet might limit over penetration and collateral damage to innocent bystanders. I learned that this concern is an over exaggerated one, as discussed clearly in the report. The rationale is there and I understand it. The words "too little penetration will get you killed" rang clear to me and I understand it even in civilian situations. I have changed my way of thinking on penetration in civilian situations and earle8888 tried to point this out to me previously. He was correct and I was wrong. Earle8888 I hope you read this.

The paper also changed my thoughts on temporary cavity (to some degree -although I have seen in deer that I've shot that surrounding tissue does get damaged with major brusing/internal bleeding). It changed my thoughts on shock and the myth of knock down power. It's penetration of at least 12" that is needed and the edge always goes to the bigger bullet.

I would like to learn more about velocity and penetration. Specifically, I am interested in the Corbon 135 JHP due to it's velocity. If anyone has any data on the penetration of this ammo, say compared to the Corbon 140 DPX and the Win Ranger 135 and 155; I would love to see it. Please pass it along.

I am not immediately going out and buying new carry ammo to replace my Fed hydrashock 135. I am going to do some more research and focus in on some new ammo for my next purchase - something with more penetration and that I can shoot well in my PM40. I already know the Corbon 140 DPX will do the job, but perhaps there is something better to suit me.

Hey guys, thanks for helping me to think differently :7:about some of these important topics. Clearly, we all need to be open to learn, change and not be so stuck in our ways. Much appreciated.

[robmcd]

garyb - like you, I carried CorBon 135 gr JHP for a few years, then I started to experiment a bit. I've been searching for test date, as I'm sure that DocGKR has tested just abiut everythng. I did, however, find the following test data on a post from DocGKR which includes 40 S&W 135 gr. PowerBall vs. 180 gr. HST. When PowerBall first came out, I switched to it during the winter months thinking it would better penetrate heavy clothing, and also thought it would better survive a trip through auto glass enroute to a car jacker.

I'll try to e-mail DocGKR today for info on the 135 gr JHP:


Let's review the critical data differences between Powerball and HST when compared using the same proven test methodology:

9 mm Corbon 100 gr +P PowerBall 1555 f/s from G17
BG: pen=10.9”, RD=0.60”, RW=93.9gr
4 layer denim: pen=11.4”, RD=0.58”, RW=97.5gr
The mighty 4.7” of pen after the auto windshield was not comforting…

9mm Fed 147 gr JHP HST (P9HST2) from G17:
BG: vel=1037f/s, pen=11.9”, RD=0.64”, RW=147.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=1049f/s, pen=14.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=147.5gr
auto windshield: vel=1042 f/s, pen=13.4”, RD=0.53”, RW=140.4gr

.40 S&W Corbon 135 gr Powerball from S&W 4006
BG: vel=1362 f/s, pen=11.6”, RD=0.65”, RW=131.4gr
4 layer denim: vel=1359 f/s, pen=12.1”, RD=0.65”, RW=131.9gr
auto windshield: vel=1365 f/s, pen=7.9”, RD=0.61”, RW=103.6gr

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr JHP HST (P40HST1) from S&W 4006
BG: vel=960 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.65”, RW=181.1gr
4 layer denim: vel=961 f/s, pen=15.6”, RD=0.62, 181.3 gr
auto windshield: vel=904 f/s, pen=15.2”, RD=0.47”, RW=180.4gr

.45 ACP Corbon 165 gr +P Powerball from 1911
BG: vel=1230 f/s, pen=12.1”, RD=0.70”, RW=158.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=1267 f/s, pen=11.8”, RD=0.66”, RW=159.7gr
auto windshield: vel=1251 f/s, pen=5.5”, RD=0.73”, RW=143.5gr

.45 ACP Fed 230 gr +P JHP HST (P45HST1) from 1911
BG: vel=926 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.74”, RW=231.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=915 f/s, pen=15.4”, RD=0.67, 231.1 gr
auto windshield: vel=918 f/s, pen=19.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=228.6gr

[garyb]

Interesting what happens when you change your thoughts on something. Now I'm starting to lean away from the lighter 135's in the 40cal, as I've learned that velocity and power isn't everything. Perhaps penetration, size & expansion, and momentum (mass X velocity) are more important considerations. Trying to find something that feels more like my target/practice ammo Win 165 FMJ. I am interested in the Speer Gold Dot 155 JHP where www.firearmstactical.com (http://www.firearmstactical.com) shows it to have 13" gel penetration with expansion to .64"; and 16" denim pen with exp to .60"
It is comparable to Corbon 140 DPX with 12.6 gel pen and .64 exp; and 11.5" denim exp with .64" exp. Corbon DPX was designed around the Kahr, but a slight edge (and better price) goes to Gold Dot 155. I know some guys have said that price should not matter in defense ammo, but the reality is that if you can find something equal or better and at a better price, why spend more. Both seem to be very good choices and meet the criteria, based on all the ballistic and penetration data I have read thus far. However, I'd need to shoot both together to determine which I preferred through my PM40...accuracy and feel are just as important. Still researching...... Maybe even the Hornady 155 XTP JHP or the Federal 155 HST???? Good dialog and info.

[robmcd]

garyb - Coming from CorBon 135's myself, I lean toward the 155 gr. Gold Dot or Tactical HST because they seem to offer the best blend of muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and wound ballistics. Another feature that I like is the nickel plated cases and sealed primers. The Tactical HST probably has a slight edge due to sharp edges when expanded, but the profile of the Gold Dot is more conducive to positive feeding.

Gold Dot 155 gr = 1200 fps, 496 ft-lbs.
LE Tactical HST 155 gr = 1160 fps, 463 ft-lbs.

Gold Dot 180 gr = 1025 fps, 420 ft-lbs.
LE Tactical HST 180 gr = 1010 fps, 408 ft-lbs.

When students ask me what kind of gun, ammo, etc they should buy, my answer is always the same - reliable. I guess that reliability is subjective, as it's often tied to our specific application and personal opinions. I know that applies to me. Uh-oh, I just found out that Speer offers an LE Gold Dot 200 gr in .40 S&W. I need a box!

By the way, www.ammunitiontogo.com (http://www.ammunitiontogo.com) usually has both the Gold Dot and HST in stock in 50-round boxes.

Happy Holidays to everyone on the forum.

[earle8888]

Wish somebody had empirical data on reaction when different type and weight bullets hit BONE. I have personal experience with deer, elk, antelope, bear and others. A soft point bullet usually terminates it penetration and depending on energy, breaks bone and drives it farther. my experience also suggest, that a compound fracture or complete breakage of a larger bone brings the ]most effective stopping of the animal. Therefore I believe that the heavyest, fastest, FMJ, Truncated bullet, that is also one that promotes the best shot placement, is the one for me! That said, not only do trucated cone FMJ penetrate windshields and most other obsticles, BUT, if a bone is not struck will normally exit with potential for damage to others!

[garyb]

earle888, I wonder what the expansion of that FMJ would be compared to a JHP or Barnes expander type? I am comparing penetration and expansion characteristics (with sharp tearing edges), as they both equate to tissue damage and I honestly don't have the comparisons with FMJ. I agree with your comments on bone. Sometimes I purposely take a deer through the front shoulders, so they don't make the mad dash to bordering property, etc.......They go down and stay down. However, the shoulders get destroyed, so sometimes I simply take them through the chest/heart/lungs and have a little track job (<100yrds). A good bone hit puts them down. However, on humans and in an emergent situation under stress, other than a head shot (for which any ammo will work fine), I can't see bone being a calculated opportunity. It could just happen by chance, but focus on center mass, the ribs and sternum are not really the same deal. Perhaps the hips and groin in very close combat, but why take the chance when center mass is a larger target. I'm interested in your thoughts. By the way, you were absolutely correct about the penetration issue...I admit that I was wrong with my original selection of 135gr ammo as I incorrectly focused primarily on velocity and wanted to avoid over penetration and the risk of collateral damage. Penetration is important...you were correct.

I am starting to focus on Corbons 140 DPX, Gold Dot 155 JHP, or 155 Tactical HST. I saw some good videos of the Corbons that were convincing and they are worth the extra cost. Claims are that Corbons will penetrate auto glass, doors, plywood, etc... and the expansion and tear edges are good. Corbon told me they were designed for short light guns like the Kahr. I am starting to appreciate them more and more. Each of these seem to meet the penetration and expansion criteria. For some strange reason, I am just not wanting heavy carry ammo.
This ammo selection stuff must be way too over rated. I read in another forum where one guy felt that defense ammo was all good and to quit quibbling over it and just focus on shooting better...shot placement. He makes a good point to some degree. I guess we are all looking for that extra 1% edge should it be needed.

[jg rider]

I stumbled onto this old thread and I thought I may be able to contribute to it. I think some will be bored with this.
I've been a long time follower of Doc.GKR, and Doc. Martin Faclker since the early,mid 2000's. And my interest in ballistics results goes back to the FBI 1986 Miami, FL. firefight.
I've lost most of what I had from these writings.

http://www.dlgunsmithing.com/uploads/4/5/8/2/45825609/wound_ballistics_2013_gary_roberts.pdf

This is what someone at AR.15 put together of Doc GKR's writtings, thanks

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/#mozTocId20101

I found this to be very informative of what happened in 1986

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86b.html

Here's a site I go to where Doc GKR contributes. Read the stickies. I apologize to the mods for posting another forum link, but I didn't think it conflicted with what is done here.

https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition

Then there's this written by Doc. Martin Falker

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

Here's the one under "The Human Target" heading along with suggestions from local deputy sheriffs that decided how the wife and I practice for real world encounters.

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

IMHO is there isn't any true one stop bullet, just some that may work better.
Because of my own ballistic tests, we decided on two brands for our K & PM9's, and Glock 17, 9mm 147 Fed. HST & 147 Win. RA9T. For 1911 .45's the same. We also felt in the event of a involved shooting we wanted to carry what local LEOs carried, but you knew that.

We practice with human shaped targets that are rounded to resemble the human torso. With a post or something in the back of it to simulate the spinal column. So shots taken at an angle may start through the rib cage

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/jgriders/Kahr%20Pistols/magbaseplates004.jpg (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/Kahr%20Pistols/magbaseplates004.jpg.html)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvIwxwD_RE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwSzVBguDY

Ok ! Everybody can wake up now
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwSzVBguDY)

[Bawanna]

The Miami shootout has had a profound effect on many things and continues to do so today.

I don't give it much credence myself. They knew what they were dealing with and rather than properly gear up or put more qualified people on it the primarily office workers went out in suits and ties and 9's.

Suddenly everyone needed bigger guns. I agreed with this. Now the circle is coming around again and the 9's acceptable again due to better bullet technology. This I do not agree with.

Sadly the FBI was hopelessly outgunned both in firearms and tactics.

[b4uqzme]

Cool thread. It makes my head hurt tho. For now, I'm sticking with my .40. Old habits die hard.

[jg rider]

The Miami shootout has had a profound effect on many things and continues to do so today.

I don't give it much credence myself. They knew what they were dealing with and rather than properly gear up or put more qualified people on it the primarily office workers went out in suits and ties and 9's.

Suddenly everyone needed bigger guns. I agreed with this. Now the circle is coming around again and the 9's acceptable again due to better bullet technology. This I do not agree with.

Sadly the FBI was hopelessly outgunned both in firearms and tactics.

I agree that they went into a situation not being prepared for all eventualities, but they all weren't carrying 9s There were some .357's, but god only knows why they were loaded with .38 158 +P rnds. IIRC those were an instant fight stopper

Weaponry and wounds

Agents



Richard Manauzzi: lost control of weapon in the initial vehicle collision, no shots fired. Minor wounds from shotgun pellets.
Gordon McNeill: Smith & Wesson Model 19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_19) .357 Magnum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum) revolver, six rounds .38 Special (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special) +P (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure_ammunition) fired. Seriously wounded by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and neck.
Edmundo Mireles: Remington 870 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_870) 12-gauge shotgun, five rounds 00 buckshot fired, .357 Magnum revolver, Smith & Wesson Model 686 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_686) (Not FBI issue, but personally owned .357's and .38's could be approved for carry by supervisors, same applies with McNeil's Model 19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_19)), six rounds .38 Special +P fired. Seriously wounded by a .223 gunshot wound to the left forearm.
Gilbert Orrantia: S&W (model unknown, likely a Model 13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_13), as it was an issued weapon at the time) .357 Magnum revolver, 12 rounds .38 Special +P fired. Wounded by shrapnel and debris produced by a .223 bullet near miss.
John Hanlon: Smith & Wesson Model 36 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_36) .38 Special revolver, five rounds .38 Special +P fired. Seriously wounded by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and groin.
Benjamin Grogan: Smith & Wesson Model 459 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_59#Model_459) 9mm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm) pistol, nine rounds fired. Killed by a .223 gunshot wound to the chest.
Jerry Dove: Smith & Wesson Model 459 9mm pistol, 20+ rounds fired. Killed by two .223 gunshot wounds to the head.
Ronald Risner: Smith & Wesson Model 459 9mm pistol, 14 rounds fired, S&W Model 60 .38 Special revolver, one round .38 Special +P fired. Not wounded.

Suspects

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg/200px-Mini14GB.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mini14GB.jpg)

Ruger Mini-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14)




William Matix: Smith & Wesson Model 3000 12-gauge shotgun, one round #6 shot fired. Killed after being shot six times.
Michael Platt: Ruger Mini-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14) .223 Remington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington) with folding stock, at least 42 rounds fired, S&W M586 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_586) .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired, Dan Wesson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wesson_Firearms) .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired. Killed after being shot 12 times.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout_relative_positions_of_vehi cles_edited.jpg

After 1986 the FBI seemed to still like the 9mm rnd. All they did was change guns. From S&W to Sig, to Browning Hi Powers for HRT's. Weren't .45's in there somewhere ? I seem to remember some Hi-Cap Para-ordnance in there somewhere.
Then what, they went to a loaded down 10mm rnd. that agents complained about. Then when the .40 S&W rnd. came out they jumped on that bandwagon. IIRC there were complaints about that.

Now they're back to 9mm's which with today's technology I agree with. All test I read about say it does just as well as the .40 S&W.

Portland P.D. got away from .40 Glocks to 9mm Glock 17's years ago. And recently my local Sheriff's dept. went away from .40's and now allow .45 and for small hands 9mm for Glocks. I never liked shooting the .40's

My original boring to some reply was about individuals that I respect in the field of ballistics. And because of these I stick with my + opinion of 9mm ammo

Are we still friends ? :biggrin1:

[Bawanna]

We're pals. My day for a 9 will come but I'm holding off just as long as I can shoot a 45 without crying in pain.

Actually the complaints were about the 10mm, in answer to that in addition to tearing up guns not yet designed to handle the 10 the girlymanned it down to 40's. I never cared for the 40 myself. They are ok in full size guns but not in compacts.

I have a K40, too much flip for carry.

[jg rider]

I guess the love affair with 9mm still goes on.
Remember the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out. All LAPD had was Bereta 92's in 9mm or .40's and shotguns. Remember? They had to go to a gun store to stock up on better armament, until swat showed up.

I don't think there as anything LAPD could have done better with their side arms and shotguns

After that LAPD allowed .45's but still allowed the 9mm's

According to LAPD’s website, here is a complete list of the guns authorized for duty:

Beretta 92F/S
Beretta 8045
Smith & Wesson 3rd Generation models: 459, 5904, 5903, 659, 5906, 645, 4506, 4566, 4567, 5903 TSW, 5906 TSW, 4569 TSW, and 4566 TSW
Glock 17
Glock 19
Glock 22
Glock 23
Glock 21
As far as know then and maybe now they use Fed HST in .45's And Win 147 Ranger T series for 9mm

Here's a documentary with real footage of that shoot out. Damn ! I'm really enjoying posting vids now that I know how to do it. Thanks EdM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtyxCiPpkHQ&amp;t=2025s

[berettabone]

Cool thread. It makes my head hurt tho. For now, I'm sticking with my .40. Old habits die hard.
That makes 2 of us................always .40, always will.

[jg rider]

That makes 2 of us................always .40, always will.

I respect your decision
But I know there's a lot of agencies going away from .40's.
And for us the quicker accurate recovery time for follow up shots is key.
I wish I could find a way to copy & paste some .pd files from what was then ATK, the parent company of Federal doing ballistic tests into b.g. at three different Sheriff's departments in Wash. Oregon & California for different ammo brands and calibers.

Since I don't know how I only have this. Again my apologizes to the mods

http://www.stoppingpower.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27411&whichpage=1

[b4uqzme]

?..
And for us the quicker accurate recovery time for follow up shots is key...1 (http://www.stoppingpower.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27411&whichpage=1)

I can't really explain it but my follow ups are better with .40. So much so I choose it for IDPA. I think maybe that legendary "snappiness" snaps the muzzle back in line quickly too? All I know is it works for me.

[berettabone]

I would tend to agree with your statement. I try to explain it to my associates, but I'm not sure they are getting the concept. To make it easy, I just say that I think that the 9mm round is a bit lazy with normal loads. In contrast, I think the .40 round is more robust. That snap, recoil, flip, what ever you want to call it, actually helps me get back on target faster than other calibers. If you shoot/practice with the round exclusively, you get more accustomed to the flip, and turn it to your advantage. It's almost like you can(and I said almost) relax your grip and your arms, and let the flip do all of the work. The firearm just comes back down naturally. It's a very difficult thing to explain, but when I go shooting, it's a bit of 9mm, but mostly .40 cal. I don't know if it matters, but I shoot .40 cal out of compact firearms only. I have no practical proof to any of this, it's just how it is with me. I know others who also prefer .40 over everything else. Whenever I get a feeling that .40 is a bit robust, I shoot heavy .357 loads out of my wife's SP101. .40 is a piece of cake.:p:p

[jg rider]

I would tend to agree with your statement. I try to explain it to my associates, but I'm not sure they are getting the concept. To make it easy, I just say that I think that the 9mm round is a bit lazy with normal loads. In contrast, I think the .40 round is more robust. That snap, recoil, flip, what ever you want to call it, actually helps me get back on target faster than other calibers. If you shoot/practice with the round exclusively, you get more accustomed to the flip, and turn it to your advantage. It's almost like you can(and I said almost) relax your grip and your arms, and let the flip do all of the work. The firearm just comes back down naturally. It's a very difficult thing to explain, but when I go shooting, it's a bit of 9mm, but mostly .40 cal. I don't know if it matters, but I shoot .40 cal out of compact firearms only. I have no practical proof to any of this, it's just how it is with me. I know others who also prefer .40 over everything else. Whenever I get a feeling that .40 is a bit robust, I shoot heavy .357 loads out of my wife's SP101. .40 is a piece of cake.:p:p

I guess it's what you're use to, and what you own. I wouldn't want to go out and buy a new gun base on someone else's opinion.

Like bruqzme, the wife and I shot IDPA matches, and before that IPSC in the late 70's, then UPSA with major powered 1911 .45's. We got out of that when the gamesmanship started. We tried IDPA, me with a .45, and her with a borrowed .40. She didn't like the snap, and I had to agree. She preferred the push of a .45.
Then I had to have my knee replaced, so no more running and jumping. We only compete Steel Challenge matches. Me with a light loaded .45, her with a Glock 17 or her .45.

I all my years of shooting I, as others have, come to my own observations / conclusions. I can take two identical set up .45 1911's, same load, one mine and a borrowed one, and draw and shoot double taps or Bill Drills. With my gun I can do .18- .20 splits with all A zone hits. With the borrowed gun the times are slower and some of the hits are B zone.
The only difference between pistols is that mine has a 20 lpi checkered front and back strap. So I tend to use a more relaxed grip. With the smooth front and serrated rear back strap borrowed 1911 the gun would slip in my hands.

I even tried this with my checkered gun against wife's stippled one. I still lost some control

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/jgriders/1911%20Pistols/Colt%20Gold%20Cup/02ColtGovtModel.jpg (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/1911%20Pistols/Colt%20Gold%20Cup/02ColtGovtModel.jpg.html)

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/jgriders/1911%20Pistols/Wifes%20Reminton%20Rand/002Jos1911.jpg (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/1911%20Pistols/Wifes%20Reminton%20Rand/002Jos1911.jpg.html)

When I tried the same drills with a .40, I was all over the place. Grip and muscle memory went all to hell.

But that's playing games, although there is a bit of adrenaline flowing. We practice a lot for real world encounters. With the biggest fear being of missing the subject and hitting an innocent bystander

Looking at ballistic results of 147 9mm vs. 180 .40, IMO there doesn't seem to be much difference in penetration / expansion

So for us the 9mm is the more controllable round for follow up shots out of our Kahrs

(http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/1911%20Pistols/Wifes%20Reminton%20Rand/002Jos1911.jpg.html)Check out my above vid and link, you'll see very little muzzle flip. Those are all spinal column hits with no misses with Kahr K9's (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/1911%20Pistols/Wifes%20Reminton%20Rand/002Jos1911.jpg.html).

(http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/1911%20Pistols/Wifes%20Reminton%20Rand/002Jos1911.jpg.html)http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/jgriders/Kahr%20Pistols/Jos%20Kahrs/02JosK9.jpg (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/Kahr%20Pistols/Jos%20Kahrs/02JosK9.jpg.html)

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/jgriders/Kahr%20Pistols/My%20Kahrs/01-JohnsK9.jpg (http://s126.photobucket.com/user/jgriders/media/Kahr%20Pistols/My%20Kahrs/01-JohnsK9.jpg.html)

Again these are my opinions and observations.
Thanx for reading this.

[ct9kahrtoter]

I would tend to agree with your statement. I try to explain it to my associates, but I'm not sure they are getting the concept. To make it easy, I just say that I think that the 9mm round is a bit lazy with normal loads. In contrast, I think the .40 round is more robust. That snap, recoil, flip, what ever you want to call it, actually helps me get back on target faster than other calibers. If you shoot/practice with the round exclusively, you get more accustomed to the flip, and turn it to your advantage. It's almost like you can(and I said almost) relax your grip and your arms, and let the flip do all of the work. The firearm just comes back down naturally. It's a very difficult thing to explain, but when I go shooting, it's a bit of 9mm, but mostly .40 cal. I don't know if it matters, but I shoot .40 cal out of compact firearms only. I have no practical proof to any of this, it's just how it is with me. I know others who also prefer .40 over everything else. Whenever I get a feeling that .40 is a bit robust, I shoot heavy .357 loads out of my wife's SP101. .40 is a piece of cake.:p:pIs it like that with the 10mm, for you that is? I shot a friends 10mm Glock, and loved it.

[berettabone]

Is it like that with the 10mm, for you that is? I shot a friends 10mm Glock, and loved it.
A friend of mine has a Gluck 20. Although I don't like the firearm in general, 10mm is fun to shoot, and really doesn't seem like that much recoil to me. Not much more than .40 cal........357 out of my wife's firearm seems like a lot more.