Talk:.40 S&W

message: The Federal Bureau of Investigation had Commissioned the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, U.S.A. B.R.L. to conduct a comprehensive Study to determine the "Best" barrel length, caliber, of Firearm to be used by U.S. Law Enforcement.
Everything was considered, from Nationwide U.S. Law Enforcement Reports and International Reports, "RI Factor" (ability for person shot to shoot back), Full Sized Human Body Density Models, treatments of Gunshot Wounds at Medical Facilities, Autopsies, Crime Scenes, "Shootouts", Ricochets, availability, bullet and cartridge design, Civilian Use, possible U.S. Military Use.
The B.R.L Study was almost an inch thick of 8 PICA single space, full of numerical data from the Ballistic Tests, with charts. diagrams, photographs at the end, and lots of References at the back after the Charts.  Most of the References were from the individual Ballistic Tests.  A Glossary that defined Terminology, including new words, definitions and acronyms.
Shortly, after the B.R.L. Study was completed, Mr. Abe Flatau, U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, created a Revolutionary Bullet Design.  With a First Kill Capability greater than a Glaser Safety Slug and Frangible Bullets.   Normal Bullets are thrown thru the air, this bullet flies to the intended target.  Normal Bullets "displace" tissue, that can be repaired by Surgeons, Mr. Abe Flatau's Bullet Surgically Removes Vital Organ Tissue (not repairable) and "Displaces" tissue.  The Test Weapon was a Standard Issue U.S. Army M1911 with a standard cartridge and standard load of propellant.  
The Test of Mr. Abe Flatau's Bullet Design went sideways, a Demonstration Test attended by U.S. Congressmen was held.  A live sheep wearing a Standard Issue Kevlar Vest was the Target.  Upon impact the bullet cut thru the Kevlar Vest, the Sheep, the Kevlar Vest and flew going thru the backstop.  The sheep was thrown a couple of feet downrange.  The U.S. Congressmen got sprayed with sheep blood.  U.S. Congress stopped funding anymore Research.  All Film Footage of the Demonstration was destroyed.   Based on the Physics of his new Bullet Design Mr. Abe Flatau then designed the "Ring Air Foil Grenade" (not the same design found on the Internet), and the later used Riot Control Ring Air Foil Projectile.  Mr. Abe Flatau then designed the Supersonic 40mm Ring Air Foil Grenade for use with Automatic Grenade Launchers like used on early AH-1 Cobra Attack Helicopters, tests revealed that by design this was "Point of Aim Is Point of Impact", the Gunner does not have to "Lead" the Target even with the Helicopter moving at High Speed, "windage" is not a factor.
  
At the U.S. the U.S. Army wanted to build a U.S. High Technology Fully Automated Ammunition Plant and Factory.   The U.S. Labor Unions in writing vehemently opposed to U.S. Congress, threatening Nationwide Strikes.  The U.S. Army then built the U.S. High Technology Fully Automated Plant and Factory Overseas at a U.S. Ally Nation, as designed was capable of manufacturing ammunition, munitions from .22 caliber to 8 inch HE Artillery Projectiles, with more precision and accuracy than "Match Grade" Ammunition, so fast that could outproduce the numbers of U.S. Munition Plants and Factories of World War 2 combined with more Safety.   After that Test, the U.S. Fully Automated Ammunition Plant and Factory were turned over to the U.S. Ally's Government, that then sold everything to a Civilian Corporation of that U.S. Ally Nation.  Later on that Civilian Corporation got a hold of Mr. Abe Flatau's Bullet Design, and manufactured the Mr. Abe Flatau Bullets for Civilian Purchase, use with that Nation's Law Enforcement, and Military.
The U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory then created another Study, incorporating Mr. Abe Flatau's Bullet and Frangible Bullets.  Again the F.B.I. did not read the Study they Commissioned the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory to do.Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: F.B.I. Did Not Read Their Own Study

message: I added the photo of the casings for size comparison. Should I crop the photo down so it's just the pistol rounds? What do you guys think? --UNHchabo 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be best--then it and the cartridges of interest (mainly 9mm and .45 ACP, it's competitors) would be easier to see in the thumbnail.  scot 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The WPMILHIST tag has been remove due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 10:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST

message: American ammo manufacturers design their bullets to grain weight. The SI equivalent in grams that were originally shown here…
:*8.7 g (135 Gr) Full Metal Jacket: 400 m/s (1310 ft/s) - 696 joules (517 foot pounds) of energy
:*11.6 g (180 Gr) Full Metal Jacket: 290 m/s (950 ft/s) -  488 joules (363 foot pounds) of energy
:*8.7 g (135 Gr) Full Metal Jacket: 490 m/s (1480 ft/s) - 886 joules (654 foot pounds) of energy
…were overly-imprecise approximations. Even though it would normally be desirable in Wikipedia to have the SI values formated as the primary unit of measure, the loss of precision and accuracy due to rounding in the conversions to the various SI values makes this practice improper.
In the new data I've provided, each unit of measure in the SI-equivalent data was here-converted directly from the manufacturer’s original imperial data. Joules were calculated directly from the original imperial mass and velocity values; they weren't converted from the manufacturer-provided ft-lb values, which would have introduced a layer of rounding errors</font>. Consequently, you will especially find that calculating joules directly from the rounded values for m/s and grams now shown in this article will not always produce the true values. For instance, the 10.04 gram energy from the SI-equivalent data will yield 604 J whereas the actual value is 606.
Note too that expressing the gram-equivalent mass to two decimal places (yielding 6.5 times more precision than the grain values) is the practice of the ammunition manufacturer.
Future contributors to this and other articles which have values for exterior ballistics should use the following practices when calculating SI conversions:
When calculating joules, avoid converting directly from the manufacturers’ ft/lb value (these are rounded values). Energy (in ft-lbs) is the velocity (in ft/s), squared, times bullet mass (in grains), divided by 450,437 (precisely 450,436.6797900262).
To find m/s, multiply manufacturer's ft/s by 0.3048
To find grams, divide manufacturers grains by 15.4323583529414
To find J, multiply your calculated ft/lb value by 1.3558179483314
Greg L 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet weights and SI v.s. grains

message: I added some parameter information in the opening paragraph RE: bullet weights and velocities. These velocities are taken from the Hodgdon reloading site which includes loads using powder from Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester, so it is a good representative sample of what is possible and what is not in .40 S&W pistol loads using a 4" barrel. As noted, the performance is for 4" barrels and the Beretta full-size pistols are a bit longer barreled at 4.9" - so expect a bit more performance, especially with slow-burning powders like LongShot and High Skor 800-X.
I provided the equation for energy in ft-lbs so the reader can easily calculate their own figures and thereby verify claims made on behalf of any pistol (or rifle) cartridge. If someone were to create a little Java calculator, and link it, that would be most welcome. I am sure it would quickly be added to all relevant ballistics calculations.
I hope, that in general, what I have done in the performance section is replaced general statements characterizing performance which specific numbers where that can be done. I stayed away from giving a velocity range in the opening section as the 760 fps on the bottom end seems a bit low, and I'm sure there are slower loads possible. The high velocity loads were, interestingly to me, both achieved with slow powders, and especially in the case of 800-X, these produced both the lowest pressure AND the fastest loads. I have not personally tested loads for SD or extreme range of velocity so I cannot speak to the accuracy of such loads. Good load development will always help accuracy.
I also find it interesting that you can get very close to the same performance as the best handloads now, off the shelf, from people like Double Tap Ammunition. This was a recent find of mine - a tip from a pistol user's form.
Well, I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes. If there is a point of dispute I will be happy to join the discussion. 
Solidpoint 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .40 S&W Particulars

message: Since the .40 S&W is a very wide cartridge for its length (it was designed to fit in existing 9 mm frames) feed ramps are often steep, and reducing the angle to improve reliability leaves more unsupported case than with a smaller diameter 9 mm or a longer length .45 ACP cartridge.
I got curious as to how much "stockier" a .40 S&W is than a .45 ACP and discovered that they actually have the same identical aspect ratio - their COL to diameter. In short, if you take the .40's COL and multiply it by .45/.40 you get the .45ACP's COL. So much for steep feed ramps!
:The issue is not just the shape of the cartridge, but the distance the slide recoils.  The .45 ACP firearm was designed for a cartridge of it's size, the .40 S&W firearm generally was designed for the smaller 9mm (though some may be .45s or 10mms), which could go up the ramp with less slide travel.  Add in the .40 S&W's higher pressure compared to the .45 ACP, and SOMETHING in that combination gives you a higher likelyhood of case head failures.  scot 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do.  scot 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steep feed ramps?

message: Scot,
I like your rewrite of the case failures area. Kudos! I also took some time and gave my camera's macro capability a workout and added some pics of my Beretta 96's barrel breech. I also examined several brands of cases and they all had a cupped/concave web. This may be an "off-spec" improvement, but it definitely moves the combustion area forward in the web enough to prevent case bulging in my Beretta. Now I have to go clean the gun! FWIW, those Winchester Rangers are very clean burning and the case is top notch. --Solidpoint 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job with the photo from the bottom--that clearly shows that some of the cylindrical area of the case is visible.  Just about every case I've seen, other than rimfires, has a concave or filletted web; a sharp angle at the junction would quickly lead to head separation.  The web also has to come up to slightly above the extractor groove to provide support, otherwise you'd have a thin spot there to cause a case failure.  While the exposed case wall shown is supported by the web, I'll bet if you measured it you'll find it's running right on the edge of safe, and if it were at all out of battery, then you'd have some unsupported thin case wall.  I'm drawing a blank on the 92's disconnector layout, but I'm guessing it won't fire if the slide is far enough out of battery to allow exposed case walls; the Glock is pretty unusual as far as I know in being able to fire with the case not fully chambered; if I didn't find that statement at a reputable source, I'm not sure I'd believe it.  Certainly the Ruger P series and the 1911, both of which I've shot a lot, won't release the disconnector until the barrel is locked up, since there's no way that front locking lug will engage unless the case is fully chambered, and no way for the slide to go far enough forward to release the disconnector until the barrel is locked up.  scot 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrel breech photographs

message: I noticed my somewhat clumsy mention of drift and drop were replaced with a reference to ballistics being near identical.
The ballistics are almost entirely different. The BC, and thereby the drift and drop, and of course the energy levels, are all substantially different than the 9mm. Only the velocity is nearly the same.
In point of fact, accuracy has more to do with repeatability than external ballistics. This is why that article I linked shows the standard deviation and extreme spread along with groupings.
I think there is a better way to impart this info, and do so correctly, than what I had written, but as it stands, the page is factually incorrect.--Solidpoint 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'll fix it.  I was just trying to work in a wikilink to ballistics.  Didn't think it all the way through I guess.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Could use some work though I think.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballistics vs Accuracy

message: Which is better? considering power, recoil, penetration
:That's entirely subjective. However, I can give a rough comparison based on the traits of each:
:*The .40 will have more recoil, since it uses heavier bullets
:*The .357 will have a flatter trajectory, since it uses faster, lighter bullets
:*The .40 will be more efficient in terms of energy per grain of powder
:*The .357 will be louder and have more muzzle flash, due to a higher muzzle pressure
:*The 125 grain .357 and 155 grain .40 have nearly identical sectional densities, but the .357 has the potential to penetrate further due to a higher velocity
:*The .40 will produce a larger wound channel than the .357, given equal expansion
:*The .40 more easily produce an IPSC major power factor, and so will knock down reactive targets better due to a greater momentum
:So rank the traits according to importance to you, and then you should be able to get an answer.  scot 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .40 s&w vs .357 SIG

message: The only reason the Coast Guard is the only military branch to adopt the .40 S&W is because they're the only military branch under civilian authority. The DHS decided to adopt SIG P229R DAKs in .40 S&W across the board, and the Coast Guard played along. Could someone reword this? Currently it looks like the Coast Guard did an independent evaluation and decided for themselves to change to this caliber. --Joffeloff 10:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USCG

message: Removing MilHist Tag as there is no reference in the article to any military force using this ammunition. --dashiellx (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

message: Do any law enforcement agencies outside the United States use .40 S&W? It seems to me that it's a purely American phenomenon. --84.163.243.89 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia: New South Wales police carry Glock 22, Glock 23, or Glock 27 pistols in .40 S&W; Queensland police, Northern Territory police, and Western Australian police  carry Glock 22 pistols; and South Australian police carry S&W M&P or S&W M&P Compact pistols in .40 S&W. Agemegos (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: At Great Britain, the British Special Air Services (Counter Terrorist "Experts") under the Direct Command of the British Prime Minister (and Queen of England) that Operate within the British Isles with the British Ministry of Intelligence and Local Law Enforcement, use Browning Hi Power Pistols chambered for the .40 S&W. Nakamuradavid (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: usage outside the US

message: Inconsistent with "Ballistic performance" table
Inconsistent with Federal Cartridge data (352-468 ft·lbf)
Inconsistent with Speer Gold Dot (420, 496 ft·lbf)
Inconsistent with Magtech (390-500 ft·lbf)
Inconsistent with S&B (375 ft·lbf)
Inconsistent with Fiocchi (468, 483 ft·lbf)
What is this nonsense? Are the hotter Buffalo Bore and Double Tap loads now considered "typical"? --84.163.206.247 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "mid to high 500 foot-pounds force (680 N·m) typical"

message: I checked the sources for "hydrostatic shock" -- none of the sources mention  0.40 caliber and some pre-date development of the caliber so are not relevant. Spectre9 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the same sort of stuff was re-added, this time with the citation "ballistic pressure waves" once again pointing to hydrostatic shock.  Unfortunately, the citations given were incomplete and unclear.  Please add INLINE CITATIONS with DIRECT QUOTES from WP:RS to substantiate these claims before re-adding them. This is not an article on wounding effects. 70.123.121.92 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at edit history further, it appears that this article and others may be suffering from Wikipedia:ADVERT#Citation_spam by User:Michael_Courtney who is methodically adding similar phrasing and citations to multiple articles.  If these citations are relevant, please include inline quotations of the relevant information  Also, fully disclose the author of these papers in the references.  Spectre9 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that I can be more complete in the referencing by including the authors.  However, I am not aware of any policy that requires supplying inline quotations.  Quotations have their place, but too many quotations can raise copyright violations issues, and inline quotations are not appropriate for verifying material simply because other editors are unwilling to do a search on Google Scholar and/or visit a University library. Visitors to encyclopedia pages on firearms cartridges are usually interested in performance information, so as long as the article is within its space limitations, why would there be a problem with adding performance information beyond velocity and energy?  Do you have any objection to including approriately sourced penetration and expansion information?  I wish I could include gelatin pictures that I have showing penetration and temporary cavitation, but these have permissions issues.  Invariably, the figures one owns the copyright permissions for are most likely one's own.  Wikipedia poicy recognizes this in its image posting policy and images are not considered original research unless they introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.  The figures I've posted contain the same ideas as many published papers and figures, but I don't have permission to post figures from papers of other authors.  If you object to specific content in this article, perhaps you should explain precisely what content you object to and why?  Is it unsupported by the citation?  Do you think readers are uninterested in sourced performance information?  If you think other points of view deserve greater mention, you can certainly add them (appropriately sourced, of course).Michael Courtney (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think my core point is that there appears to be a conflict between the editors desire for exposure vs. the relevance of the information to this article   See what is currently paragraph #4 in WP:UNDUE and consider that none of these hydrostatic shock articles have titles like "Wounding characteristics of the .40 S&W cartridge." I'd be especially troubled if content regarding wounding was being duplicated in multiple articles. I welcome the contributions on wounding/hydrostatic shock, but don't think this article is the appropriate place to be expanding this knowledge. Spectre9 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrostatic shock removal

message: Some ammo looks better than others in my contributions, reliable sources have been cited.  I have no financial interests in any ammo company.  How are my contributions “citation spam” since the WP:CITE policy allows “as many proper and correct citations as desirable?”  Citation spam is “removal of multiple valid sources” and using questionable web citations to funnel hits to commercial web sites, not adding relevant citations to scholarly sources.  There’s nothing unencyclopedic about citing scholarly sources in discussing performance issues of firearms cartridges.  Most firearms articles are frightfully low in their citations of scholarly sources.  The “performance” sections of most firearms articles would be more encyclopedic with greater usage of reliable sources, and many readers want cartridge specific performance information in cartridge specific articles.  If one editor thinks that the introduction of scholarly sources is too heavy on one POV, that editor is encouraged to add scholarly sources that bring balance perceived as needed.  The consensus of a discussion in March 2008 (when I added a mention of hydrostatic shock to the 10mm Auto article) was that since there were reliable sources, it should also be mentioned in other cartridge articles where there is support in the scholarly sources.  I’ve added some quotes to my user page that show my use of sources is appropriate in the .40 S&W article.  The quotes are inappropriately long for the article itself.  (However, in general, it is not an editor’s burden to provide quotes to support his use of references.)Michael Courtney (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the central issue involves WP:UNDUE and its relevance to WP:NPOV and WP:COI.  Since you are not hiding your identity, and are editing publically, COI is not much of a concern to me.  But NPOV and UNDUE still are.  Ideally, having a one-sentence mention of injuries and hydrostatic shock with links to one or two separate WP articles, and no further "study" of wounding within this article would satisfy my concerns.  This is great information, but probably us UNDUE attention on a cartridge.... unless this research and its findings were documented as central to adoption of this cartridge by a major customer, or factored centrally in the development of the cartridge.  Otherwise, it isn't really notable in an article about the cartridge... this information belongs in an article on wounding and should be covered in this detail. I'd prefer to coax the changes than do them myself, because in the end your interest and continued contributions to WP are valuable and I don't wish to interrupt them -- merely focus them more narrowly on germane articles  It is an encyclopedia, and "see also" is appropriate in this case. Spectre9 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is information from reloading manuals also undue weight simply because it is contained in a book with information about lots of other cartridges?  Does it make sense in cartridge articles to only include information from sources that treat only one specific cartridge (.40 S&W  in this case)?   Even so, Netto et al. reports (ref 5) on hydrostatic shock for the .40 S&W specifically and includes no information specific to other cartridges.  Marshall and Sanow (ref 6) has a separate section treating the .40 S&W data and remote effects of that specific cartridge.  Aren’t readers of articles on firearm cartridges interested in verifiable performance information?  Several handgun bullet patents include reference to hydraulic effects, and several brands of .40 S&W ammo are marketed with names suggestive of hydrostatic shock (Hydra-Shok and Quik-Shok, to name two), so there is definite notability.  Massad Ayoob (officer, defense expert, gunwriter) explicitly recommends a .40 S&W load with large hydrostatic shock (Shooting Industry, January 1998)  and says that he carries this load himself.   I have already removed a number of references to works I have co-authored; the article now contains only 3 of 39 references to work I have co-authored.  I suggest a further compromise to further reduce the weight of terminal effects coverage, but perhaps not to as low a level as you have suggested.  What would you say to a compromise of removing one of the related figures and leaving the text and references as they are?Michael Courtney (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you offer a good compromise solution, particularly since no other editors have joined in with opinions.  So for know, one diagram and might I also suggest one paragraph of text remain, along with the appropriate references and of course a link to other WP articles.  I'll remove the POV tag in good faith that we have resolved this for now.  If other editors later wish to work with us on this issue, they at least know that you are attentive and responsive.  Thanks, Spectre9 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: citation issues

message: The following sentence contains derogatory quotes from 3rd parties and does nothing to enhance or add useful information to the article:
"The reduced power of the round compared with the 10 mm Auto it was based on led to derogatory names such as ".40 Short and Wimpy" or ".40 Slow and Weak""
Opinion-based comments are tedious and add unneeded bulk to an already lengthy article. Removal of details such as these will help make Wikipedia a more useful resource.
Gulftanker (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the term is actually used and it is sourced, it is not inappropriate in Wikipedia. No person is being insulted, so WP:BLP does not apply. Also Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, so a single sentence adds no "bulk". --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant/Derogatory quotes should be removed.

message: References 9 and 10 do not support the statement that cites them ("Most .40 caliber handguns can be easily converted to 9MM for cheaper target shooting with a simple barrel and magazine swap.") In fact, ref. 10 is just a bunch of bafflegab that doesn't say anything at all.  I don't want to delete the statement if there are references to support it, but I know it is NOT true for the SIG and H&K pistols, and is questionable at best as applied to S&W and Glock pistols. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IGB Austria, Wolf and probably other companies offer drop-in barrels for .40 S&W Glocks to convert to 9mm. So at least for Glock this can be confirmed. 217.6.212.138 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad references

message: This article is confusing. Several paragraphs go on to talk about other calibers than .40 . This article needs to focus on the .40 caliber, rather than unrelated trivia.
Also, the cartridge dimensions chart is cute, but useless if the caption says that all of its information is incorrect. The old graphic should be removed and replaced with one with the correct information on it.
The next paragraph switched to metric. This is incorrect. The .40 is based on the Imperial system of measurement, and this system should be used consistently throughout the article.
76.208.63.54 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Handgun/Standarddata/40Cal(10mm)/40%20Smit%20Wesson%20pages%20116%20to%20118.pdf
** In .40 S&W on 2011-05-20 21:37:22, 404 Not Found
** In .40 S&W on 2011-05-31 12:54:24, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://accuratepowder.com/Safety.htm
** In .40 S&W on 2011-05-20 21:37:22, 404 Not Found
** In .40 S&W on 2011-05-31 12:54:32, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: I propose to remove the load/mass/energy/penetration table for various manufacturers which is currently in the Performance section.
The following points are why I believe it should be removed:
* For 99% of wikipedia users reading this page, it's not relevant to have figures on permanent cavity volume in ballistic gelatin or the temporary stretch cavity volume  in ballistic gelatin.
* Key information is already summarized above in "Bullet weights from 8.7 to 11.7 grams (135 to 180 gr) are common.[7] Loads are available with energies from 490 to 750 J (360 to 550 ft·lbf) and penetration depths from 25 to 64 centimetres (9.8 to 25 in) are available for various applications and risk assessments."
* The source is almost 20 years old and the listed manufacturers and data might no longer be accurate.
* It clutters up the page and is distracting from the other content.
If you are a opponent of removing this table, please provide your comments on why you think it is relevant. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Boris Barowski (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the table after 1 week without feedback. The last version that included the table (for reference) is Revision ID 604730562. Please discuss here with your arguments before placing the table back to avoid the appearance of an "edit war". Thanks! Boris Barowski (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance/penetration table not needed 

message: This article has reference issues to include "dead links" and formatting issues. I removed doubletapammo.com as it is not a source for content and is simply advertisement. Please do not restore this reference. Otr500 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference issues 

message: I have trouble following the history section. It sounds like it's saying the FBI asked S&W to develop a new cartridge and a gun to go with it...and then once S&W introduced their new cartridge, the FBI went and gave the whole contract to Glock, using the round that S&W just developed? And not only that, but Glock cut in a ahead of them and started sellling guns in .40 S&W before S&W did? Seems kind of messed up. Did S&W even get any compensation for the guns being built in their cartidge? Seems like it couild give more detail about this.
Idumea47b (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't follow 

message: 65-75-Pike st new York city 10002 4D 2603:7000:413B:2BB6:E929:1E3F:FB42:F074 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Morales