.40 not so popular?


PDA






Nightcrawler
March 6, 2007, 07:00 AM
I've been wondering about this. Why isn't .40 more popular?

I mean, it's immensely popular. It's used by cops all over the US now, and tons of private shooters use it too.

But...it doesn't seem to be anybody's favorite. Most people seem to buy it 'cause they don't want a 9mm, but can get a .40 in the same gun.

From the person receiving the bullet's perspective, I doubt there'll be much difference between a .40 JHP and a .45ACP JHP. .45 +P might have a marginal advantage, might, but most .45 shooters don't seem to like +P anyway. .45 hollow points can theoretically expand to a larger diameter, but most premium JHP ammo all seems to expand to about the same size anyway. A .40 double stack isn't terribly fat, depending on the design.

So why NOT .40? I've heard it recoils snappily. Could this have something to do with it? Why all the disdain for .40 cal?

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 not so popular?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hankdatank1362
March 6, 2007, 07:16 AM
I've heard it recoils snappily. Could this have something to do with it?

Had everything to do with me selling mine. I can control 9mm much easier (not that .40 was bad, but rapid follow-up shots were more difficult) and .45acp was always like a more gentle "push" into my hands than a "snap."

Majic
March 6, 2007, 07:20 AM
Why isn't .40 more popular?
Because everyone is different and have their own opinions and preferences. Yes LEOs across the nation use it, but the vast majority of them have no say in the matter.

jonnyc
March 6, 2007, 07:36 AM
I hate .40, and all those who shoot it and don't police their brass! My back is getting older by constantly bending over to pick up .45 brass that turns out to be .40!
Have a little consideration you .40 shooters! :evil:

mscott
March 6, 2007, 07:50 AM
I guess it depends on the crowd you hang out with. I have several .40s just to keep my loading easier.

Spent Shell
March 6, 2007, 08:17 AM
I think .40 is a fine option, I just haven't been convinced I want one yet.

I to like the way a .45 recoils better than the .40, so if I'm looking for an accurate defensive round that's my choice. If I'm looking for a lighter recoil or cheaper ammo, 9mm is the way to go, as it seems much easier on follow up shots and I can generally buy a lot more ammo for the same money.

So for me, the .45 is more of my "serious" caliber with 9mm being perfect for target, fun and practice. The .40 just doesn't seem to offer anything that I really want. I think if I ever purcase a gun in .40 it will be because that particular model isn't offered in .45 and I want more power than 9mm, and then I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

I don't see it as being anything wrong with .40, it's more that .40 doesn't stand out as anything I need/want.

jeff-10
March 6, 2007, 08:38 AM
The 40S&W is exceptionally popular. Just not on Internet gun forums. The people who tend to post on these forums have an old school taste in firearms, for the most part.

distra
March 6, 2007, 08:51 AM
+1 jonnyc :D I hate getting excited by all the brass left on the ground only to find out it's .40! :p I think the popularity of .40 is from over hype and good marketing. Ballistics are slightly better than a 9mm. I don't particularly like the .40, but I do a pistol in this caliber. I think some of the reason for LEO using the .40 is to accomidate smaller handed officers and increased capacity.

Jeff-10, nothing wrong with "old school", gets the job done effectively. :neener:

Vonderek
March 6, 2007, 08:56 AM
Modern 9mm jhp gets the job done well enough for me to have confidence in it and is way cheaper and easier to buy in bulk.

Nightcrawler
March 6, 2007, 09:01 AM
Now this is coming from someone who carries a revolver almost exclusively and has never owned an autopistol that wasn't a .45. But...talk about the .40 being over hyped? I'd have to say that about .45ACP. Ballistically, especially in its standard pressure loadings, it's unimpressive. A 230 grain slug is good, but 800 feet per second is hardly a barn burner. They make +P loads, but a lot of shooters seem to think it kicks too much, or that you won't get anything out of it. It's only a hundred feet per second velocity difference, they say, which is true. (But, only 200 feet per second separates a lot of .40 loads from a lot of 10mm loads, and the 10mm guys will tear your head off if you say it's no better than a .40... :D )

I think Correia described it correctly, though. .40 seems to be a bureaucrat's round. Nothing fancy or endearing about it, and doesn't have the mystique of .45. Nobody's dad carried a .40 in Vietnam.

.40 is what the Henchmen would carry, but not the Villain. Of course, I say the same thing about Glocks, but...HEY, LOOK OVER THERE! :what:

*runs out of the room before the Glock guys can start throwing things*

:D :p

Walkalong
March 6, 2007, 10:22 AM
I think the .40 is great, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would get a 1911 in .40 instead of .45...:evil:

That said, there are some fine platforms for the .40. The 1911 just is not an option for many. The XD is a great pistol in .40. More rounds etc. Nice size, although fatter and bulkier than a 1911. If you get the .45 XD we are really getting big. The Witness Elite Match I have is a pleasure to shoot, very accurate, and holds 18 rounds. A great gun for a vehicle, but a bit sizable to carry. It is a great range gun. The 24/7 compact would be the closest thing I can think of to a higher capacity carryable .40.(Glock and XD fans don't even bother-too thick)

I have two .40's and enjoy them both. The .40 has a lot going for it, but recoil is a bit sharp and snappy with the speedy 155 and 165 Gr. loadings combined with todays current crop of lightwieght polymer pistols. The 180 Gr. loadings (& reloads) are much more pleasent to shoot. That is all I shoot in my XD SC any more.:)


I hate .40, and all those who shoot it and don't police their brass! My back is getting older by constantly bending over to pick up .45 brass that turns out to be .40!

Just send it to me.:evil:

RNB65
March 6, 2007, 10:31 AM
Because 9mm is cheaper and .45 is a classic. And both are current/former military cartridges.

In a gunfight I'll take the .40 over either the 9mm or .45, but it will never come close in popularity until the military decides to adopt it as a standard service round.

tackleberry45
March 6, 2007, 10:39 AM
I concurr with the folks above. In my humble experience the recoil from the .45 is more "toward the hand" than a "snap". I have a Glock 21 that I have out a lot of 230 through without much punishment albeit I am a big guy. I have a Smith M&P in 9MM that I also like - VERY comfortable to shoot. I suppose I can say I am not against the .40, I just have found no reason to buy one.

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2007, 10:39 AM
Well, 10mm fans don't call it ".40 Short & Weak" for nothing. ;)

usp_fan
March 6, 2007, 10:39 AM
The .40 was the first serious pistol I bought. I started with the basic Smith 411 which I traded on a full sized H&K usp. The recoil was well managed in that platform. I traded for a glock 22 which decided it didn't like the .40 nearly as much as I did. I sold the new one Glock sent me to fund a USP compact in the the same caliber. I've had a .40 in one form or another since 1994. To say I like the round is soft peddling it. I think it does many things well and has only a few poor points.

I agree that the .45 is more pleasant to shoot depending on platform. I agree that the 9mm has lighter recoil--duh? I don't find the .40 to be objectional to shoot, nor do I find it to be inaccurate. It is one of several good options out there for each person to consider.

My wife has shot everything I've got and she has informed me that the USP40c is now her pistol. I'm not sure why she likes it best. When I watch her shoot it is clear that the recoil of the 1911 is easier for her to manage, but her perception is the .40 has less, and the gun holds more rounds, fits her hand, and is lighter. I'm not going to argue--she hits what she aims at and enjoys shooting it. I simply don't see any downside to the .40.

--usp_fan

FieroCDSP
March 6, 2007, 10:40 AM
Johnnyc, and other who dislike picking up 40cal brass. Pick it up anyway and box it up and send to me. I'll take that miserable trash off your hands. :D I'd even give you a few bucks for it.

-I'm sure the main reason people dislike the 40 is the snappy recoil. I like my 40's but I use 155-165gr bullets, rather than the 180's. They're a lot more controllable. I was honestly surprised when I fired a 1911 and the recoil wasn't any worse than my M&P 40. It was different (push vs snap), but was about the same force. I've also found the Iso grip to be better at controlling it than the Weaver.

rantingredneck
March 6, 2007, 10:44 AM
I've owned a Sigma in .40 and shot a Glock 23 and USP in .40. Didn't really like the platform/round combinations in either and that probably prejudiced me against the round itself. The recoil is just.......different. More snappy than either 9mm or 45 and just not as controllable for me. I like my 9mm. Just recently aquired my first 45 and like it too. Looking for a new CCW pistol, lighter and smaller than the two I've got so I'm looking for another .45 or another 9mm. Rugers both.

Headless
March 6, 2007, 10:50 AM
at the range i frequent most weekends, i see as many people firing .40s&w as 9mm...
i bought a 9mm first, but now that i'm looking at getting another gun and i've already got a 9mm and .40....i am looking at another .40, not another 9mm ;) Part of the perceived not so popular may be because the rounds are much cheaper for the 9mm -- for a new shooter who wants to avoid high costs, the 9mm makes more sense as it allows them to practice more for the same cost while still proving to be a formidable defense round in it's modern JHP forms out of a decent length barrel.
I will say that the .40 has snappy recoil that takes a little time to learn to control. I also think that it's easier to shoot quickly in iso vs. weaver, as mentioned just a couple posts ago. I find i'm more accurate when i get to play around with someone's .45 1911 than i am with my beretta 96 as of now. It's like a 9mm but much snappier...took me a while to get the hang of the 9mm too...jury is still out.

rantingredneck: ccw .45? :D
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=12753&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15712&isFirearm=Y

i really, really want one of those. They make it in 9mm too, but not .40s&w :( ...7+1 instead of 6+1, and the 9mm is 3oz lighter.

waynedm
March 6, 2007, 12:25 PM
I never thought that I'd get a .40. I'm getting into IPSC now and a CZ Champion .40 is sitting there for me at work.

Nomad, 2nd
March 6, 2007, 12:31 PM
The .40 is an answer looking for a question. (Similar to double action semiautos)
Why would I have it when I have a .45?

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2007, 12:35 PM
Actually, the .40 S&W was the answer to the FBI, after they tried the 10mm and didn't like it. Their problem with the 10mm was excessive recoil. They started by downloading that round, then someone got the bright idea to make the case shorter, thus creating a new round, the .40 Short & Weak. ;)

I don't know why they didn't just go back to the .45ACP instead. But you know how the Government works, or rather DOESN'T. :D

mpmarty
March 6, 2007, 12:44 PM
hated it. It was a Glock 23 and it bulged brass with most all factory loads, and my splits on double taps were twice as long as with my 1911s in 45 with full house loads due to the twisting snappy recoil. I've shot 357 mags in 2˝ inch guns that were easier to double tap. My carry guns are all .45 acp +p 185gr barnes solid copper. My house gun is a 10mm Witness all steel full size with sixteen rounds of 175 gr Winchester silvertips. Interestingly the 10mm is easier to double tap fast than the 40, produces better ballistics and unfortunately is too big to carry concealed except in a large fannypack. Bottom line, if I ever have to use a gun in self defense again It will be double tapped and the speed with which I can deliver that second shot is very important to me so I'll probably never buy another fortyshortandweak.:D

CountGlockula
March 6, 2007, 01:16 PM
I love the .40S&W caliber. My first (and last) gun is a Glock 35. I'm planning on getting another Glock and a H&K P2K in .40.

Basically, it's snappy because shooters don't know how to keep their arms straight and their grip firm. This has been my shooting form; and I had only heard of "snappy" from others...so I tried to loosening my arm, and that's where the "snappiness" comes from. Cowboy up folks.

After shooting a .40 for a long time, shooting a 9mm seems like a plinker.

Another reason why I like the .40 is the price less expensive for a ".4+" ammo.

And lastly, according to the 23rd Rule of Gunfighting: Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

waynedm
March 6, 2007, 01:26 PM
And lastly, according to the 23rd Rule of Gunfighting: Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

:rolleyes: .357 magnum, 38 super and 9mm must be worthless. That's the dumbest rule I've ever heard. But if it helps you with your inadequacies . . .

eflatminor
March 6, 2007, 01:29 PM
It's really too bad 10mm didn't catch on more. I think it's a far superior cartridge to the .40 and yes, even the .45!!!

But, 10mm is way too expensive for those of us that shoot IPSC/USPSA and IDPA and Steel and go to the range twice a week. .40 brass is practically free compared to 10mm.

.40 is so popular in competition because it makes Major and can hold a much larger capacity in wide body 1911s (2011s). You could never hold the same number of .45s compared to .40s.

Why to so many dislike the .40? I suspect becasue it's like a weak 10mm that's not as effective for defense as a .45.

1BLINDREF
March 6, 2007, 01:40 PM
I have 4 forty's in my collection and love them all, Beretta 96, Hk USP Compact, Sig P229 dak, and a Sig P239. The two Sigs are two of my ccw's. I've shot 40's for about 6 or 7 years now and I don't get the "snappy" thing. My follow up shots and double taps are just as quick and easy for me as my 9mm's and my 45's. I have a Sig P220 in .45 and love it also, but it's tougher to conceal then my P229 and P239. The main reason I like the 40 Sigs is because of their size. I like bigger bullets for my ccw's, so for me, the P229 and P239 platform are the perfect combination of concealability and bullet size :D

CountGlockula
March 6, 2007, 01:43 PM
waynedm Quote:
And lastly, according to the 23rd Rule of Gunfighting: Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

.357 magnum, 38 super and 9mm must be worthless. That's the dumbest rule I've ever heard. But if it helps you with your inadequacies . . .

IDOIT.

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2007, 01:44 PM
I think, the 10mm might have a come back. We're seeing a new surge of interest in it. There are still pistols being made in the caliber, and they are, for the most part, very reliable, and not excessively expensive.

I will have a 10mm later this week when the conversion kit comes in for my EAA Witness (currently .45ACP). Which I do carry concealed, in an Uncle Mike's IWB holster when at work, or in a Fobus when not. And yes, it is a Wonder finish, full size steel frame Witness. ;)

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2007, 01:48 PM
My last instructor in the martial art of shooting told us, HIS 23rd rule of gun combat, "NEVER get into a gun fight with a gun that you can't hit your target with."

Which means, .4?+ is good, but if you can't hit with it, it's useless.

1BLINDREF
March 6, 2007, 02:02 PM
CountGlockula
IDOIT. :neener: :neener:

CPshooter
March 6, 2007, 06:25 PM
I love the .40, but only as much as 9mm and .45:p

It depends on a person's preference and the intended application. I too would choose a 155g JHP .40 over any 9mm or .45 round in a gunfight. Does this mean the 9mm or .45 wont do the job? No, but from studying several ballistic comparision documents I would say the average .40 has more kinetic energy than the average 9mm or .45 ACP. Even the +P .45 rounds I've seen numbers for don't seem to be all that spectacular..especially in sub-4" barrels. In a 5" 1911 you can squeeze out that extra velocity, but its hard to get any .45 moving fast enough in a sub-4" barrel. IMO a juiced up 135-155g .40 JHP round is definitely going to give you the best ALL AROUND numbers in terms of muzzle velocity, kinetic energy, bullet diameter, wound cavity in cubic inches, etc etc. It is known as a "comprimise" round, but an effective .40 is definitely not comprimising anything.

I've owned two 4" XD service models: one in .40 and one in .45. (sold both and now I'm getting the 9mm..lol)

The .40 was definitely easier to control and get back on target. I think people exaggerate the "snap" of a .40. If you can handle a +P 9mm round, you can handle the average .40. I see why people call the .45 softer shooting, but i'd rather have the muzzle "snap" up and fall right back down than have my whole hand/arm pushed back and upwards like with .45acp recoil. This is just from my experience, but in the end you need to shoot them all yourself and decide what's best for you. I never understood why people always try to knock on other calibers... everyone needs to be happy that they have the variety they do.

HMMurdock
March 6, 2007, 06:33 PM
9mm is a smaller caliber, but it has high capacity and low recoil.

.45ACP is a larger caliber, but lower capacity and higher recoil.

.40S&W is the clear balance between the two. So if you are going to have one firearm, the .40 only makes sense!

--Unfortunately, I'm a two gun kinda guy.

TRL,
Owner of a Sig P220 .45 and a Kahr K9 9mm

MikePGS
March 6, 2007, 06:58 PM
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that relative to the 9X19mm and the .45acp the .40 s and w is a new round. That being said, ballistically it delivers more energy in a 4 inch gun that almost any .45 load in a five inch gun.

Go here and check out the various loads and velocities http://stevespages.com/page8f.htm
Then here to calculate the energy
http://www.1728.com/energy.htm

Omaha-BeenGlockin
March 6, 2007, 07:01 PM
I've a owned few .40's over the years---IAI 1911(POS)---Ruger P94 and PC carbine----Glock 35 and 27---snappy recoil(main reason)---high cost and not enough shots are why I don't own one now.

I wouldn't absolutely rule out another .40 in the future if the gun were right.

Now if I'm looking---I usually pass up the .40's and I'm only really interested in 9's and .45's---which are much more comfortable to shoot and therefore more accurate if firing more than one shot.

Current auto's are a Sig P226----H&K USPf .45 and Bersa .380(which I'm thinking of trading as I'm not a big fan of blowbacks either)

CWL
March 6, 2007, 07:04 PM
I was an early adopter of .40SW, even bought a Ruger in .40. I remember all the buzz when this round first came out-it was The Solution in pistol calibers. It was going to replace 9mm, 10mm and .45ACP.

I found that there wasn't any real benefit, either shooting, costs or performance of this round when compared to 9mm or .45ACP. It wasn't the magic bullet solution that it was originally marketed to be.

I'm back to .45ACP which I really enjoy shooting and 9mm is my backup caliber.

ZeSpectre
March 6, 2007, 07:31 PM
The .40 can be a challenging round to master. The "snap" gives (in my opinion) a significantly more noticeable recoil that throws a lot of people off.

I come from a background in full power .357 Magnums so not that big of a deal for me. Someone learning from .22 to 9mm and moving up might be surprised at what a handful the .40 can be.

My buddy is a big bear of a guy who can absorb the recoil of a Mosin and come out smiling and he really doesn't like the .40 (though he'll shoot .45 ACP all day).

I'm a fan of .40 and enjoyed the challenge of getting the hang of it.

Nightcrawler
March 6, 2007, 07:36 PM
that's not as effective for defense as a .45.

What basis is there for the opinion that .40 is less effective than (especially standard pressure) .45? I submit that the two are similar enough that the target won't be able to tell the difference either way. And, playing devil's advocate, you can compare guns. You can get an FNP 40, which is DA/SA, DAO, or even SAO. Costs less than $600 around here. 14+1 capacity, thin frame for a double stack, interchangeable backstraps for different hand sizes.

For the same price, you can get an entry level M1911 .45 that holds 8+1 and weighs considerably more. Unless you're using some HOT .45 loads, I say that the two are ballistically close enough that it won't make much of a difference. And, of course, .40 has better sectional density for any given bullet weight, if that matters to you.

waynedm
March 6, 2007, 07:42 PM
But what about the Paras with 14+1!!!

I never really saw a point in getting anything in .40 until I was getting into IPSC, I wanted to make sure I made major so it was the logical step up for me. If it weren't for that I would have always stuck with .22lr, 9mm and .45.

Nightcrawler
March 6, 2007, 08:01 PM
But what about the Paras with 14+1!!!

They're considerably larger and heavier than your typical double stack .40. I compared my Colt and an FNP side by side in FBMG. The FNP-40 is no thicker in the grip than my Colt Gov't Model with the Ajax custom grips I had on there. The factory grips are thinner by a bit. Of course, you can replace your bushings and get very thin grips on a 1911.

Dr.Rob
March 6, 2007, 09:08 PM
Not as many bullets as a 9mm
Not as fast as a 10mm
Not as fat and heavy as a .45

That's a lot of things it's 'not'. I'm still not sure what it 'is.' (Arguably a compromise in speed power and capacity made popular by police forces and the power of Glock and SW marketing...but if you already have a 9mm and a .45 why would you need one?)

I never saw a reason to add a .40 because the cases (like 10mm) get lost among my 45 acp... you miss one in sorting and crush a case in your progressive it makes everything go to a standstill.

10-Ring
March 6, 2007, 09:24 PM
I've owned several 40's but never warmed up to it. I just didn't like how it felt when I shot it. Now I really like 45 acp, 10mm, 357 mag, 9mm, 38 special but not the 40.
Why isn't it more popular? For me it's because I get more enjoyment from my 9mm & my 45 acps :D

shield20
March 6, 2007, 09:25 PM
You have to look at what the .40 was - an answer to the real-life dismal performance of 9mm once the wondernines caught on - the ammo just didn't match the hype. And .45s were NOT available in the DA/SA or DAO choices they are today, did not fit most shooters, and had little capacity. I for one could NOT dump my 9mm 92F fast enough for duty carry when the .40 became widely available (the ammo not the guns). Then in a few years, the AWB limited the hi-capacity DAs, so why further limit yourself to the small 9mm in a big gun?

Now, the 9mm has consistently well performing rounds, along subcompact guns to shoot it out of, and the .45 has more shootable platforms, and especially for LE; but still the .40 is king in the proper platforms - a little snappy for subcompacts compared to 9mm, but in a nice p2000 or bigger - it is an awesome round for SD. Cops love it - and so do civilians when still ban-limited to 10rnds.

jbeltz7
March 6, 2007, 10:11 PM
Bought an S&W M&P .40 several months ago, it is a pleasure to shoot and with 15 cap mags and DAO not really in the same category as the old school favorites. Recoil with this pistol is… isn’t an issue. Gun geeks by definition are opinionated and biased to there favorite weapon which is why these boards exist. By the way, hate Glocks, love my M1991 A1 and think the .357 is the most versatile pistol round ever invented. The .40 M&P is my mid-life crises favorite, young and stacked. Best Regards.

Stachie
March 6, 2007, 11:35 PM
I enjoy the larger mag capacity afforded by the .40S&W.

Redneck with a 40
March 6, 2007, 11:48 PM
I've been shooting both my Mil-Pro 40 and my XD-40 for several years now, having put close to 3000 rounds downrange between the two guns. The recoil of the .40 does not bother me at all, I've mastered it and I'm accurate with it. I like the fact that out of a short barrel, 3-4", the .40 gives strong velocity and good energy on impact. If you shoot a .45 out of a 3" barrel, the velocity drops below 800 fps. In a 3" barrel, the .40 will maintain over 1100 fps with 155 grain loads. This is what appeals to me with the .40 and that's why I own two of them, lov'em both.:D Besides, dealing with stout recoil is a manly thing, if you can't shoot the big dog, put it back in the case.:p

cindynles
March 6, 2007, 11:54 PM
Does it really matter? Buy the gun that makes you happy.:cool: Even a 22LR will do the job at close range (not that it would be my first choice). I have a 44 Mag , 40SW, and two 9X19's. I shoot the 9mm's alot more because of the cost, $14 for 100 rounds of Winchester at Walmart vs. $30 for 50 rounds of 44 Mag.

FieroCDSP
March 7, 2007, 12:11 AM
I shot a 357 magnum last week after going four mags in my M&P 40. I was expecting a bit more recoil, but evidently my work to manage the 40 has helped me with other high-recoil firearms. It just didn't feel as big as I thought, though my roommate who rented it for the first time had a hard time dealing. Bring on the 500 S&W!!! Er..not really.

yongxingfreesty
March 7, 2007, 12:12 AM
.40 is a must own for me.

beretta 96 and p226

yes, they are more snappy but it is something i like.

daysleeprx
March 7, 2007, 12:16 AM
IDOIT.

ORLY?

:p :neener:

FireArmFan
March 7, 2007, 12:23 AM
i've heard the snappy recoil comment plenty of times before, which I think is a good reason not to own a .40 fortunately for me i have no problems shooting a .40 so i tend to like the round. i am however a .45 fan all the way.

Cokeman
March 7, 2007, 12:26 AM
I like the .40. If I change my mind I can get a 9mm or .357 Sig barrel for my gun. I haven't done that yet though.

amprecon
March 7, 2007, 12:29 AM
FWIW, I sold my pair of G19's for a G23, figured why not have a more powerful caliber in the same size gun? I had shot it alongside a buddies G23 and found the difference in recoil not enough to discourage me from moving "up". Besides, the family members had difficulty in racking the slide on the auto "house-gun", so it became a revolver.

Daemon688
March 7, 2007, 12:33 AM
Well, I'll throw in my .02. I got a .40 for my CCW because it's got a little more uumph than the 9mm and it's cheaper to practice with than the .45. I haven't shot all that many handguns but the recoil isn't all that bad in my Sig P239. It was also very managable in my friends Beretta 96. For what it's worth, I thought the recoil was much worse in the 9mm Walther P99 I shot.

Autolycus
March 7, 2007, 04:06 AM
I wanted to get an HK P2000. The difference in capacity between .40 S&W and 9mm was one round. I figured I would take 12 + 1 of .40 S&W versus the 13 + 1 of 9mm. I liked the ballistics of the .40 better and figured I was not losing much in the way of capacity.

If HK imported the 15 round magazines as a standard thing for the HK P2000 in 9mm then I might have gone with that.

I like the .40 and plan to purchase a few more.

fattsgalore
March 7, 2007, 06:09 AM
Well for one most of the options in 40cal are normally polymer, some people just don't like the thought of plastic guns or these new fangled triggers. Also yes 40 is a bit snappy when compared to 9mm or even 45. I've enjoyed 45's and 9mm more but I haven't given up on the 40. Theres some guns that just shoot it better then others. I hate to use the word better so I'll say more consistent. Glocks and XD's(XD obviuosly the better grip) shoot to similar for me, I need to shoot a 40 Sig or Hk or something before I jump to any conclusions.

jlh26oo
March 7, 2007, 06:34 AM
Not as many bullets as a 9mm
Not as fast as a 10mm
Not as fat and heavy as a .45

That's a lot of things it's 'not'. I'm still not sure what it 'is.' (Arguably a compromise in speed power and capacity made popular by police forces and the power of Glock and SW marketing...but if you already have a 9mm and a .45 why would you need one?)

I never saw a reason to add a .40 because the cases (like 10mm) get lost among my 45 acp... you miss one in sorting and crush a case in your progressive it makes everything go to a standstill.

I hear that alot, the confounding .40 brass. I've pretty well trained my eyes to distinguish the difference when they're on the ground, from a distance. Also collect my brass not all at one time at the end, but periodically throughout a session makes it easier. But yeah, just picking out .45acp among .22, 9mm, and .45 is much easier than when .40/10 is in the mix. TONS of .40 left out at our range though anyways, so I have to be careful. Seems to be a popular choice.

But yeah, these are the reasons I gravitate toward 9mm and .45acp exclusively in centerfire autos. Nothing wrong w/.40sw at all- and it doesn't seem to me any more fierce of recoil to me, but if I was to downgrade from .45acp to .40sw for the capacity, size, and velocity advantages; I'd just assume go all the way to 9mm and further maximize these advantages. I just see a bigger gap (in terms of penetration and expansion only fwiw) from 40 to 45 than I do from 40 to 9, imo only and ymmv. Then again for others, the fact that it's right in the middle (velocity/bullet weight/capacity) is a positive.

lol at whoever said .40sw depends on what crowd you hang with. Don't let your kids fall into the wrong crowd!

.cheese.
March 7, 2007, 08:15 AM
I don't know why it isn't popular with some.

Personally - it is my caliber of choice. All of my guns (excluding rifles of course) are chambered in .40.

I own:

2 Glock 22's
1 Glock 23
1 Glock 27

I will be buying
1 more Glock 27
1 1911 of some sort chambered in .40SW.
Probably a Kahr MK40

Ammo I own:
2,150 rounds of Speer Gold Dot HP 165 grain .40SW
and the rest is .22lr

I own a couple other guns, but they're just .22lr's. I am in need of getting a good hunting rifle.... or I suppose if the going gets tough (ie: terrorists decide to come over here and cause the "blood to run through the streets" as they claim - it could be a sniper rifle.) ;)

rbernie
March 7, 2007, 12:44 PM
I like 40S&W. A lot. I think that it does exactly what it's intended to do; provide greater wounding potential than 9mm but still work within a double-stack format suitable for all hand sizes while providing sufficient power for self-defense without being overwhelming in any regard..

Can't ask for much more than that, IMO.

Marshall
March 7, 2007, 01:02 PM
Good caliber!

Radjxf
March 7, 2007, 02:48 PM
Got rid of all of mine. Just don't see any point in it now that 9mm ammo continues to evolve. Way too much "snap" for what little (if anything) it offers over 9mm in terms of terminal ballistics.
.45 first and 9mm second for me.

MD_Willington
March 7, 2007, 02:48 PM
I have a 5906, but now that I think of it, I should have also picked up a 4006.



So why NOT .40? I've heard it recoils snappily. Could this have something to do with it? Why all the disdain for .40 cal?

It does recoil snappily, has no affect on my shooting, last .40 I shot was a G22...

I think if I do eventually get a Stoeger Cougar, I will get one in .40 S&W

Caimlas
March 7, 2007, 02:54 PM
Not as many bullets as a 9mm
Not as fast as a 10mm
Not as fat and heavy as a .45

That's a lot of things it's 'not'. I'm still not sure what it 'is.' (Arguably a compromise in speed power and capacity made popular by police forces and the power of Glock and SW marketing...but if you already have a 9mm and a .45 why would you need one?)

Come now, that's not even being honest. Just say "I only like .45ACP" and be done with it. I suppose the "40 haters" also dislike .357 sig for the same reasons ("it's not .45" or "it's new and has no mystique"), despite its ballistic similarity to .357 mag.

How about:

More bullets than .45
Less kick than 10mm
Larger than 9mm

Personally, I like 40S&W for a number of reasons:
1) It's not as expensive as .45ACP
2) the 3 above stated reasons
3) a compromise between the 'snap' of 9mm and the 'push' of .45, allowing for a less jarring experience while shooting than 9mm, and a faster recoil recovery than .45
4) There aren't a whole lot of carryable guns available in .45 that aren't 1911s or entirely too fat. Thus guns like the CZ75 or BHP in .40 come into favor.

Really, if you're used to .45 or 9mm, you'll end up limp-wristing .40. A .40 USP was my first handgun, and I've learned how to shoot it properly and make quick recovery shots. I like the 'twisty snap', and like many of you feel about the slower push of .45, you learn to let your body work "with" the recoil and not against it, working out a subconscious response to the recoil.

g5reality
March 7, 2007, 03:36 PM
Not as many bullets as a 9mm
Not as fast as a 10mm
Not as fat and heavy as a .45

I agree.

I've shot the .40 and I'm not a fan. I like NATO calibers. 9mm, .38, .357, .45.

I don't really like the 10mm either.

Personal preferance. nothing wrong if YOU like the .40, I just don't.

I'm going out to buy a Glock 26 now.

rmurfster
March 7, 2007, 04:43 PM
A couple of you have stated that the .40 is cheaper than the .45.

According to The Armed Citizen Solution Handbook, Ammo Comparison Chart, the Avg Cost/Round of a .40 is $0.36 and the .45 is $0.24.

Download at: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/460.cfm

Richard

chaim
March 7, 2007, 04:49 PM
In auto calibers the .40 is my favorite all purpose caliber, but I think the "big three" .45, .40 and 9mm, are all "good enough" and each shines in its own particular application.

For some time I didn't like it. I felt that 9mm was good enough and if you needed more you should just get a .45. I had a CZ 40B which I never warmed up to because I wasn't into the caliber.

Then, a few years ago I wanted a smaller pistol. I decided on the Taurus Milennium Pro which I could have had in any of the three calibers. I wanted a little more power in a carry gun (I can't carry in MD but I sometimes carry out of state) than 9mm would give and I wanted more flexibility in ammo choice (in 9mm some loadings are just fine, and others aren't good performers while in .40 and .45 most are at least decent). I was a little concerned about .45ACP in a short barrel- in a short barrel they just don't get enough velocity and that seriously effects performance. The .40 seemed a good compromise out of a short barrel.

Shooting the .40 out of the PT140 M. Pro was very comfortable (to me, a friend feels it is too uncomfortable, but he isn't really a shooter). I really liked the gun and caliber combination. I started researching the caliber more to see what ammo I wanted to use and the more I read the more it seemed to stack up well against .45ACP in any length barrel. It can be chambered in 9mm sized guns so it is good for CCW duty. In a service sized pistol it holds more rounds than .45ACP with more power (and ammo flexibility) than 9mm. It is cheaper to shoot in practice than .45ACP, and all three are similar in price in good premium defensive ammo.

I ended up liking it enough to buy a SIG 229 in .40S&W and when I get a 239 (and several other guns available in more than one caliber) it will be in .40S&W.

I think the 9mm shines in the smaller autos like the Kahr PM9. It is available in .40S&W but I think that small a gun would be too much in .40. Due to the lowest prices for practice ammo I also think it is ideal for a shooter with only one gun- it is capable for defense, and relatively cheap to shoot.

I think .45 is the best auto caliber for home defense. It is powerful (as far as handguns go), recoil is fairly low, overpenatration issues are lower than 9mm or .40S&W and it is quieter than either. It is also the most proper caliber for a 1911 which is one of my favorite platforms.

I think due to size of the platforms, capacity, and power the .40 is a best all around caliber. Almost the .357mag of auto calibers.

Eyesac
March 7, 2007, 05:02 PM
will never come close in popularity until the military decides to adopt it

Greg8098
March 7, 2007, 05:39 PM
Look at my signature and just take a look at all the .40's that I own :rolleyes: . I used to have a Glock 22 and absolutely hated it. The .40 in my opinion is overhyped. One thing I can say is that when somebody "necked" the .40 case down to except a 9mm bullet, true magic was born on that day :cool: { 357 SIG }, the true .357 magnum of the autoloader calibers.

Marshall
March 7, 2007, 10:19 PM
Dangit, we got us Mustangs and we got us Station Wagons, we don't need no Mid Sized cars, they just a compromise and an answer to a question that ain't been asked. :rolleyes:

If you're a handgun shooter, the recoil of a 40 shouldn't be an issue, unless you're a "recoil sensitive" (politically correct) person. I can't imagine someone selling a 40 S&W handgun because it's recoil is just to much for them to handle. Maybe they're shooting hot loads in sub-compact guns, I dunno? I've shot about all calibers in handguns and the 40 S&W is very fine cartridge that has a lot of positive attributes.

357SIG
March 7, 2007, 10:27 PM
I have two .40s and they'll probably be the only ones I buy. I'd like to buy 9mm, 10mm, and .45 from now on.

woodstock72000@yahoo.com
October 16, 2007, 07:25 PM
I don`t understand either. I actually have a thread on this topic or at least similiar to it. The fact is that the .40 is a better choice. It`s got everything. As far as the recoil goes, I have a 9mm, a .45 and a .40 and the differences are slight but not enough to complain about. The way that I look at it is , "why would anyone not like the .40?" I mean come on, this caliber is nearly perfect in all aspects. I guess you`ll always have the 9mm lovers and the .45`s or nothing guys but as far as I`m concerned, the .40 is the perfect carry weapon. Like I`ve stated, I have one of each and after my personal testing, the forty is the weapon that`s in my holster and strapped to my side.


Check out my thread and give me your thoughts if you`d like to.

.45&TKD
October 16, 2007, 07:56 PM
A .40 double stack isn't terribly fat

Its a compromise going to a double stack design. 45 double stacks have too thick a grip, so people compromise with a .40.

quickcanary
October 16, 2007, 08:33 PM
a compromise between the 'snap' of 9mm and the 'push' of .45, allowing for a less jarring experience while shooting than 9mm, and a faster recoil recovery than .45

When did shooting a 9mm become a "jarring experience?" :confused: That's the first time I've ever heard anyone describe it that way, and it certainly hasn't been my experience with the exception of very small 9mm guns like the Kel-Tec and a 9mm derringer that a friend owned. If you can shoot a .40, you certainly shouldn't be bothered with a 9mm. The .40 is a more violent round, period.

I have also seen a lot of guys say that they feel the .45 allows for faster recovery between shots than the .40, but hey...whatever works for you! I'm glad you like the caliber; if more people owned the 10mm, prices for the round would go down and I could justify the purchase of a G20. :D

bruss01
October 16, 2007, 09:21 PM
<CountGlockula>
IDOIT.

Yeah, me too. But I like to spread out a little when I DO IT.

:neener:

Archer1945
October 16, 2007, 09:42 PM
I happen to have both .40 S&W and .45acp and like both of them. My .45s are a P220 and an XD45 Compact 5". The .40, which is strapped on right now, is a P226. For those who think a .40 is a bit weaker than a .45, would you like to volunteer to stand in front of me and tell me which hits harder? If you are still able to talk that is.:rolleyes:

Btw, as far as grip sizes go both the P220 and P226 have wider and longer grips than my XD45. Go figure.:D

76shuvlinoff
October 16, 2007, 10:25 PM
Liked the glock 23, hated the glock 27, loved the sigpro 2340, liked the xd40 service and the xd45 but decided the XD40 subcompact was a keeper, added the pearce pinky mag extension and it's a different gun, "snap" is nothing to me now.. (btw just got and installed the 9mm conversion for the sc, today) really enjoyable shooting 9s out of it but it's back to .40 for everyday.

...and next to the bed is a 1911 in nothing less than .45.

Guess they're all popular with me.....:uhoh:

f4t9r
October 16, 2007, 10:28 PM
If you check , I am hearing of more LEO going to 45
I know our office just changed recently.

mavracer
October 17, 2007, 12:08 AM
it's simple math the 9mm has high capacity and less power you shoot the BG twice.the .45 has more power but low capacity you shoot the BG once.If someone will explain how to shoot a BG 1.5 times I'll run out and sell all my 9s and 45s and get a bunch of .40s.If I want 45 power with more capacity I'll shoot my 10mm.

Autolycus
October 17, 2007, 01:15 AM
woodstock72000@yahoo.com: You know that your resurrecting old threads?

possum
October 17, 2007, 04:00 AM
.40 not so popular?

how much popular can it be, every major and minor gun maker is making there guns in that caliber there is a reason for that, and a reason that they make and sell so many .40 guns. if a gun company wasn't selling them so well they wouldn't offer them in the numbers and models that they do. as a matter of fact i think that .40 is getting more popular everyday in the private sector.

look at guns like .357sig great defense rd but ammo is outrageous and most folks would rather go with a rd that is cheaper and more avaliable, and easier to reload.

the .45gap a total flop IMHO i don't know one single person that has one, again ammo is crazy high. great idea but it just hasn't taken off.

my carry guns and my home defense guns are all .40 i love .40 and will always have .40 guns. i talk alot of people into buying guns and they say they would rather have .40 over 9mm. and .45acp

skipjack_1st
October 17, 2007, 07:16 AM
I've got or owned most of the popular calibers, and I'll say it loud and say it proud, I LOVE MY 40's! My everyday carry choice and the one I spend most of the time at the range with.

I wish the ammo price would get in line with the 9mm though...

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 not so popular?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!