[J.Bourne]

Stephen:

Seeing that I am a big fan of the .40S&W cartridge, that you are not, and given that I have great respect for your opinions, I just wanted to ask why you formed the less than postive opinion of the .40S&W that you have (as I have gleaned from reading your various posts)?

Maybe you could respond to these questions in particular, in addition to adding everything else you think is relevant and instructive:

1) Hasn't the .40 S&W compiled an excellent street record with LE?
2) Wasn't the .40 S&W developed with extensive input from, and given extensive testing before being adopted by, federal and state law enforcement agencies?
3) Doesn't the .40 S&W offer excellent velocity, energy, penetration and expansion with the right ammunition manufacturer (e.g. Speer Gold Dots, Federal HydraShoks, etc.)?

Thanks Stephen. I appreciate your anticipated response.

[George Hill]

I'd like to hear this too...

[bountyhunter]

I didn't know Mr Camp had a low opinion of the .40. I can't answer for him, but I do know some of the answers to your questions:

1) Hasn't the .40 S&W compiled an excellent street record with LE?:

YES, some of the data I've seen on one-shot stops had the .45 defense rounds and 155gr high-vel .40SW loads as the same OSS rating (about 92%). One had the .40SW at 94%. Everybody argues about stopping power, knockdown power, etc but the .40 has shown itself to be extremely lethal and nearly as good if not as good as the renowned .45.

Wasn't the .40 S&W developed with extensive input from, and given extensive testing before being adopted by, federal and state law enforcement agencies?

The original cartridge was the 10mm and the .40SW sort of spun off from that. The 10mm had some negative aspects so it has not been widely adopted. The .40SW hit the sweet spot giving more thunder than the wimpy nine and more mag capacity (and less recoil) then the .45. It must be a good combination because the .40SW took off like wildfire and the 10mm is still almost non-existent in market share.

Doesn't the .40 S&W offer excellent velocity, energy, penetration and expansion with the right ammunition manufacturer (e.g. Speer Gold Dots, Federal HydraShoks, etc.)??

YES. I believe the hottest .45 loads I've seen were in the vicinity of about 490 ft-lbs of energy delivered to the target, most defense .45 loads are about 400 - 420 (?). There are some .40SW defense rounds in that 420+ range. With that much hitting power, shot placement is all you have to worry about.

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. Another fellow said better than I that we tend to view "best" through "life filters," or personal experiences. The reasons that I don't place .40 S&W at the top of my preferred caliber list are probably more "theoretical" than "real," but here goes.

I was a firearms instructor when the forty took over the police market by storm and I bought a forty Hi Power myself. Some of my shooting buddies bought these as well while others I came in contact with had primarily Glocks in this caliber.

In the early days of the caliber, I personally saw a few KB's with some pistols. In all cases, the firearms were repaired free of charge, but this was not something I particularly wanted to experience. I also noted somewhat lackluster accuracy with several pistol/ammo combinations. This has changed and the last few batches of forty-caliber ammunition I shot was quite accurate in a couple of pistols.

I never could get particularly "excited" about the caliber in the first place and on top of that I didn't care for the new "feel" of the heavier .40 Hi Power. While my CZ75B in forty shot fine, I just didn't care for it. I'm not particularly concerned about the KB issue with most current guns and factory rounds having seen several thousand go downrange with zero problems.

The round in its best loadings probably is better than the better 9mm rounds in "stopping power," but I've "experienced" a forty "failure" close to home, so to speak. An officer on my shift was shot in the lower abdomen with a 180-gr .40 JHP. While he was very seriously injured and with long term effects, he was told that he might want to sit down after being shot. I don't single the forty out as failing in this regard; I think any commonly-used defensive round might have had the same "effect."

In short, for me there is no compelling reason to go with the forty when I already have tons of 9mm and .45 ACP ammunition loaded up or available. Others really like the round and prefer it to the previous two. It's just not my "cup of tea." I supposed the KB's I saw influence that, but again this far into the forty's carreer, it's probably a non-issue.

I believe that the forty is a very capable caliber with placement and from what I read and hear, most who've used it were satisfied in its defensive performance. As noted earlier, I've shot some pretty nice groups with the caliber in more recent times so the accuracy issue is no more in my view.

For whatever reason, the caliber just does not have the appeal for me as it does for others.

Best.

[Quartus]

Odd. What's THAT doing here? :confused:


It's a well reasoned, calm discussion of various calibers! :what:

:D

[Zak Smith]

I started out with some .40's: a USP40, a Glock 27, and 23. Then I discovered that both 9x19 +P and .45ACP were easier for me to shoot, fast and accurately.

For me, 9x19mm (even +P/NATO loadings) are easier to shoot in medium and compact guns such as the Glock 19 or BHP. 1911's tame recoil very well, so I'd just as well go with .45ACP or 10mm in that platform.

Again, this is just my experience and very subjective.

-z

[J.Bourne]

Thanks for the prompt responses.

I appreciate your clarifications Stephen. I can imagine how early problems with a particular cartridge may leve a bad taste in one's mouth, so to speak. I've always appreciated your range reports and excellent opinions.

Bountyhunter, the facts you recited are pretty much my conclusions from the research I have done and my personal shooting experience. I appreciated your comments very much.

To everyone else, please feel free to weigh in. I didn't mean to suggest that I only was soliciting Mr. Camp's opinion to the exclusion of everyone else's.

FWIW - I'm a big fan of the .40S&W if you couldn't already tell. My Sig-Sauer P229 (.40 S&W), Glock 23 and Sig-Sauer 239 (.40 S&W) are my favorite handguns. I carry 165 grain Speer Gold Dots and believe they offer optimal ballistics performance. Both my Glock and Sigs have been absolutely reliable workhorses, and I've yet to experience a single failure with any of them with many thousands of rounds fired.

Thanks guys. And please continue to weigh in with your experiences and comments.

[Handgun]

Stephen A. Camp,

Interesting. I am not a big fan of the .40 either but strictly from the point of view of how it shoots. I personally feel that it combines the worst of the shooting characteristics of the 9 mm and .45 ACP. To me it seems to have heavy (.45 ACP like) and snappy (9 mm like) recoil. Others feel it combines the best of 9 mm and .45 ACP.

Any thoughts on and/or experience with the .357 Sig round?

Thanks.

[Zeke Menuar]

Back in the day when I was ditched the late unlamented tupperware 9mm, I went into caliber selection with an open mind.
I went over the 40 vs 9mm data and came to an interesting conclusion ( for me anyway). If I went to 40S&W over 9mm, the cost of ammo(no reloading at the time) was considerable. It would cost me at least 30% more in ammo to practice at the same level that I practiced when I had a 9mm. Practice ammo in 9mm was and still is pretty cheap. The second conclusion was that 45ACP ammo is priced at about the same level as 40S&W and makes a bigger hole. If I want to spend more money on ammo, shouldn't I get my money's worth and get the biggest hole possible? In addition, the 40S&W guns I shot, Sig and Glock, both had more snappy recoil that I wanted to deal with. Throw in the "percieved" KB issue and both 9mm and 45ACP look like better choices for the average guy (that would be me) than 40S&W.

ZM

[BevrFevr]

I'll probably buy a .40 someday just to see what all the noise is about. I want a .45 first.

But as far as my needs go .22, 9mm, .357, 12Ga, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 pretty much handle all I need to handle pretty darned well.

All are fun to shoot, and deadly if they need to be.

-bevr

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, Handgun. My personal on-hands experience with the .357 SIG is limited. I've shot it in the Glock and the SIG-Sauer and prefer the latter. I've not really wrung it out in terms of accuracy and have never shot any critters with it. I hear and read that it's effective, but do not know anyone who has personally used it on anything living. Texas DPS does seem happy with its use from what I hear.

Best.

[mete]

From the research I have done there doesn't seem to be any difference in actual street use between the 357sig,40, and 45. The 9 is not quite as good. My own experience on 4 legged animals shows that the 40 and 45 are about the same. One problem with new cartridges is that the gun makers and ammo makers have to sort out the problems which at this point they have. Those that attempted to just take a 9 and convert to 40 with a different barrel learned a lesson. Also ammo companies and reloaders have (Ihope ) learned that bullet setback can greatly raise pressures. I think the cartridge is here to stay, certainly for civilians who nare limited to 10 rounds anyway.

[jacketch]

I don't shoot the .40 S&W but not because I don't like it. It seems to have both good and bad points like all cartridges. I have been shooting 9mm and .45 for 35 years and have never felt a need to change. If a really good deal on a .40 pistol came along I might get it.

[CWL]

I would like to point out that the .40S&W round took off "like wildfire" not because of actual effective street usage (none/few guns on the market), but as a direct consequence of the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. True or not, it was determined that 9mm and .38spl ammo were insufficient to stop desparate felons. Somethin BETTER was needed, people were concerned.

This resulted in the 10mm round (too powerful for some men & women to carry), so S&W chopped it down into our modern .40S&W.

The .40S&W grew in popularity with LE organizations and private owners lined up to buy, because there was so much 'buzz' about this being the first new cartridge to be scientifically designed, and endorsed by the FBI. Many LEOs and individuals (including myself) were concerned that our 9mms and .45ACPs weren't good-enough anymore. 6-shooters also became 'obsolete'.

Records of LEO street shootings only started to be compiled after the .40S&W became widely issued by agencies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was much organized compiling or comparison of calibers, rounds & performance prior to the mid 1980's.

Things have calmed down since then and people have finally realized that 9mm and .45ACP (and .357mag) are still pretty good calibers. I don't believe that the .38spl ever came back in popularity though.

[bountyhunter]

SPEAKING OF KNOCKDOWN POWER:

I just got this months issue of handguns and they test a couple of .40SW Rugers and one of the rounds they tested with is a COR-BON .40 defense load. It put out 419 ft-lbs of energy, pretty amazing because that is coming out of only 3 1/4" of barrel. I wonder what that little monster would do coming out of a full size 1911. Some pages earlier, there is an ad for a new Hydra-Shok defense load that looks externally like a hardball nose but collapses and expands. By coincidence, their published spec for that round is also 420 ft-lbs (does not specify barrel length). So, .40 and .45 are at least in the same ballpark.

FWIW:

A major mistake people make is not realizing how barrel length affects ballistics. You may select a great defense round, but it is only going to be effective if it gets up enough velocity to expand.

We saw it first hand at a shooting at our range. One of the workers there shot an armed perp with his compact .45 which was loaded with very good defense loads. Two hits, both slugs recovered later by the cops and neither one expanded at all. The guy ran off down the street after taking two full-power .45 hits at about ten feet away. Bottom line: they didn't get going fast enough to expand because of the short barrel and ended up with basically zero knockdown or stopping power. perp lived to stand trial and went to jail.

[bountyhunter]

FWIW - I'm a big fan of the .40S&W if you couldn't already tell.

Same here. I can get very good 180-gr FMJ reloads delivered to my door for $7/box ($140/case), so I can shoot the lights out and not break the bank. The recoil of a 1911 in .40 feels just right to me.

I always get a chuckle when I hear the one about how "inaccurate" the .40 is. I have two 1911's in .40 and they are both tack drivers. One is a hand-made STI, so it should be. The other is a factory Para 1640 whose barrel and slide are not particularly well fitted. I use the Para for the speed shooting league we have shooting at eight yard range on small multiple targets. I was practicing doing the double shots on target yesterday and I saw at least four times where the second shot I fired center punched the first shot's hole. No new hole, just saw the edges move a bit. I'd say that's pretty accurate.:what:

[saddlebum]

i only carry a 40 cause kahr doesn't make a 45. saddlebum

[CZF]

You really never heard of KBS until the advent of the .40
I think that the 155-165 .40 loads are doing well now.

I agree that the .40 takes the .45's recoil and the 9mm's
velocity, resulting in (my experience) one nasty recoiling cartridge.

Owning one of the first Glock .40s. The ammo at the time was
the 180 grain. I soon learned to dislike .40 recoil.

This might seem very odd, but
I prefer to shoot my steel framed 10mm, rather than any .40
that I've owned. (G-22, CZ40B, and CZ75SA)

The ten-shot 10mm has more appeal to me than a ten-shot 9mm.
Some people will argue that the ten-shot .40 makes a better gun.

Most .40s are less accurate than comparable pistols in 9mm.
This seems very true with CZs.

IN short, the .40 is not as fast/powerful as a 10mm, has more recoil
than a 45 or 9mm, and seems (in my area) more expensive to shoot
than 9mm or .45 ACP. It really does nothing as well as others in terms
of accuracy, power, or recoil comntrol- to be considered a far superior choice.

I'm sure that .40 fans will rejoice when the .40 Compact and RAMI
finally become a reality from CZUB. I'll sit back and await the stainless
P-01.

[J.Bourne]

I do not understand or share the opinion that the .40 S&W has more (let alone as much) recoil as the .45ACP or that it is an innacurate round.

I have fired both the .45 and .40 from alloy framed and polymer framed handguns. I find the .40 more easy to place quick follow up shots with.

I have always stood in bemusement whenever states that the .40 is more a handful to manage than the .45ACP.

YMMV.

[Zak Smith]

J.Bourne,

With regard to recoil-- Recoil experience is a subjective thing. Back on TFL, I started this thread about it: Perceived Recoil Model (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79012) which generated a lot of discussion. I would suggest reading that as background for this discussion here. Also, it'll save you all a lot of time flaming me. :D

My experience with 9mm, 9x23, .40, and .45 is the following: In 9mm/40-sized guns (including Glock 17/19/27), 9mm is always easier to shoot than .40. These guns are too small to fit .45. In .45-sized guns (e.g. 1911, STI/SV-widebody), 9x23, .40 have more "snappy" but less overall recoil. The .45 is a smoother recoil, but a larger impulse -- of course, depending on the load (for comparison, I'm considering 230gr hardball).

It's hard for me to "fairly" compare .45 and .40 because the guns they're most commonly found in are fundamentally different sizes. For example, I think my BHP shooting 9mm+P has more "flip" than a 1911 .45, just because of the fundamental design differences of the pistols.

-z

[Blueduck]

I think the .40 kicks more crowd is more comparing personal experience with guns than cartridges.

Shoot a .45 in a standard 38 oz 1911, and a 40 out of a 20 oz Glock 23 and you'll likely walk away with the assumption the 40 does kick more. As 40's tend to be built up 9mm's you have a lot more lightweight smaller guns around that spread this misconception (S/W 4006 a notable and pleasant shooting exeception ;) ).

Personally my 40's are all gone (G-23, G-22, 4006). Too much recoil for pleasant 150 round range sessions with the Glocks (for me at least), and could not justify the small power advantage over the 9mm when it came to prices to feed the Smith.

[Zak Smith]

For what it's worth, I think a Kimber Ultra Carry (.45ACP, 3.5" bbl, short aluminum frame) has recoil more manageable than the Glock 23/32.

Just my perception.

-z

[shooting4fun]

G'day J.Bourne, and et al.,

I'll contribute a couple of considerations that I've experienced regarding the adapting the 40 S&W as one of the calibers in my inventory. I've thought about it for quite some time.

On the pro side of things, there is an abundant supply of range brass down here in SE AZ due to all the LEOs using them for practice down at our pistol ranges. The other advantageous consideration is the additional energy over the 9x19mm while retaining a similar form factor for a pistol.

I put this to a side by side comparison with a stock Glock 26 and a 27. Using a shot timer, it was apparent that shooting the 26 was faster with similar levels of accuracy over the 27. Interestingly enough comparing the 27 to a 30 the times were similar but the accuracy was slightly better with the 30. Also the 30 has a more substantial grip so shooting was more comfortable to me. Again this is my personal comparison. Your mileage may vary.

I've had my share of longitudinally split brass in both 9x19mm and 45acp, all attributed to very tired brass that has been recycled many times. I've not had any catastrophic failures that classified as kBs with either caliber to date. Hope not to have any, ever, if I can help it!

Since I reload a significant portion of the rounds that I shoot. I've always been concerned with using high pressure rounds. That was and still is one of my concerns with the 9x19mm. I've always wondered just when I'll experience a kB with one. Several reloading manuals have always emphasized the critical significance of correct powder charges, case volume, and overall cartridge length with the 9x19mm, and that violating these could produce serious consequences. The lower pressure [relatively speaking] of the 45acp appears to be much more tolerant of variations. All this concern may just be a mental caution light on my behalf. I felt the 40 S&W with the much higher operational pressures over the 9x19mm, just amplified the level of concerns for safety.

I would venture that for defensive purposes the 40 S&W has quite a few advantages! I've had the opportunity to fire both the duty weapons/rounds from several LEOs from various agencies in 40 S&W. Based on casual observation it is a very potent round for defensive purposes. Delivery of that energy has quite a few additional factors involved.

In a review of this forum and other related to defensive applications, pick the system [launcher and caliber] that you can use to deliver that energy reliably, accurately, and quickly.

Now several of the firearms vendors in this area would love for me to adapt the 40 S&W into my inventory. That way they could move some of their inventory. Right now that does not appear to be the case. I'm just not compelled to the 40 S&W cartridge. That may change if there is a strong enough motivation. Maybe that is why a friend just gave me 200 rounds of 40 S&W this weekend....

Thanks to all for sharing their knowledge. It is much appreciated! Cheers!

[MJRW]

I think anyone referencing "one shot stops" is putting too much faith and not enough research in a useless theory.

[J.Bourne]

Gentlemen,

I appreciate the continued substantive feedback.

I would tend to agree that platform matters when comparing felt recoil. I also believe, at least based on my personal experience, and all things being as equal as possible, the .40 produces faster and "snappy' recoil, while the .45 produces more forceful but slower (if that's possible?) torque-ish like recoil.

As far as KBs are concerned, I feel that such occurrences were somewhat more prevalent in the early days of the .40 because:

1) The .40 is a spikey, high pressure round, often fired from relatively compact barrels having polygonal rifling which causes additional pressure to build.

2) The early manufacturers of .40 cartridges didn't quite get it right, and have since strengthened the case wall of their cartridges (Federal, Speer, et al.), which should have been done from the outset given the higher peak pressure inherent to the cartridge and the more compact platforms from which it is typically fired. I understand the chamber support theories, as well, and can't dismiss these issues as a contributing factor.

3) There was a "tidal wave" of .40 chambered handguns issued in a very short time to both law enforcement and the civilian market. I may be wrong here, but I would not be surprised if more .40S&W handguns were issued in a shorter period of time than any other "new" caliber in a long, long time.

4) Reloaders having no previous experience with the .40S&W cartridge maybe weren't quite as precise as they might have been when reloading, having a little more leeway with the .45 and other cartridges they were accustomed to working with.

5) Newbie shooters may have used ill-advised ammo not recommended for polygonal rifled barrels, and may not have been as attentive to cleaning as they should have been, both leading to fouled barrels and even higher pressures building within the chamber of many handguns.

The .40 is clearly less forgiving.

I believe the larger ammunition companies have dramatically strengthened their .40 S&W case wall designs now.

Regards.

[Quartus]

I have always stood in bemusement whenever states that the .40 is more a handful to manage than the .45ACP


I've always stood in bemusement whenever someone states that the .45 a is handful to manage!


I dunno, mebbe I'm just wierd. I don't find a .454 to be a bit obnoxious. No, follow up shots are NOT quick. But it's fun to shoot.


Maybe that is why a friend just gave me 200 rounds of 40 S&W this weekend....

Uh oh! Sounds like a crack dealer's trick! He's trying to suck you in! :what:





SPEAKING OF KNOCKDOWN POWER:


Well, the short answer to that is this: There ain't no such thing. The long answer involves a discussion of physics, and that's another thread. Do a search on those terms, and maybe throw "shotgun" into the search. Preacherman started a good thread on the subject a few weeks back.

[GooseGestapo]

As others have stated, this is a particularily good thread on the .40 S&W. I second the worst of both regarding recoil,-stiff and snappy, but is largely due to all my .40's being of the "Tupperware" variety.

My experience with the .40 very much parallels that of Mr. Camps. As we're at roughly the same point in our careers and similar backgrounds.
(Should I mention I'm the cause/source of the "clueless emeritus" title ?)

I've unlike many, had a lot of experience "using" the .40 on man-sized wildlife and observed it's results, and have a considerable personal data base to compare it against.

I've shot approximately a dozen whitetail deer with the .40, as well as roughly three times that with .38/.357, and three with the 10mm. Only deer shot with .45 has been with .45 pistol bullets w/sabots from muzzle loader, and none with 9mm (unless you consider that many of the .38/.357 loads essentially duplicate the 9's) note: many of the deer were dispatched after vehicle collisions while "ON DUTY", but all with 10's were during "hunting" with a S&W 1006 personally owned firearm.

My observations are essentially those well documented by Mr. Camp. See his article on his STI Trojan 6" in 9mm. That is essentially the performance I've seen with all the above mentioned cartridges/loads/calibers. As he observed on the injured officer, performance with "best" 9mm, "MOST" 155gr-180gr JHP .40's, and "BETTER" .45acp is essentially the same now.
Neither are tossing "Nerf balls", and none are equivalent to high-powered rifles or 12ga shotgun.
As regarding the 9mm, I do intend to use it on some does this year from a S&W Super-9, as I have a few Speer Gold-Dots, Hornady XTP's and ZERO hp's left over from the PPC season.

There is seldom anything new under the Sun !!

Just "marketing" to convince you there IS.

FWIW, I really can't see a material difference between the .40 and the 10mm. I think that the FBI and Dr. Fackler actually were onto something when they set forth the criteria that led to the .40 S&W. I haven't seen a discernable difference on the performance of .40 vs 10mm using the exact same bullets/weights on game. However, I do recommend the 155gr JHP's over the 180's in .40, and the 180's in 10mm over 200gr; ie approx. 1200fps works better than 950-1,000fps, IMO.

I know that now that our agency has been carrying the .40 Glocks for 7 years, we have no reason to change, and don't plan to for the forseeable future.

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, GooseGestapo. It's nice to see similar observations from an independent source. I'd feared seeing this thread degenerate into name-calling as is sometimes the case and unfortunate, in my view. You summed up my views to the "T" in what I consider one of best posts I've seen in a good while.

That different folks perceive felt recoil differently just flat seems to be true. I'm not sure why, but have noticed it in 11 years as a police firearms instructor and continue to see it as a CHL instructor. Could it be that some of us are not so sensitive to say muzzle flip as we are to the total "shove" while exactly the reverse is true in others? In other words perhaps our individual senses hone in on one aspect of recoil more than another? IF that is the case, then the fellow saying that the forty's kick is "sharper" than the forty-five's" and the guy saying that the forty kicks less than the forty-five and so forth, are both telling the truth, honestly reporting what they observed. Perhaps this is a possible source of divergence in descriptions of recoil, etc.

Best.

[GooseGestapo]

YEP ! THAT TOO !

Also consider that different "launchers":Sigs, Glocks, 1911's, S&W's, Hi-Power's, all have different ergonomics. ie:grip angles, weights, height of axis of bore above point of grip, ect.

Different loads have different energy impulses. ie: 90gr bullet @ 1400fps vs 230gr @ 800fps.

Also factor in the difference in "torque" due to different velocities, bullet weights, and rifling twist rates and directions (cw vs ccw).

(BTW, it's the barrel torque factor that I believe the 9mm is favored in PPC over the .45 as the .45 "torques" you away from the baricade, making the .45 harder to "shoot" than the 9mm.)

No wonder we have different "EXPERIENCES".

[Blueduck]

In other words perhaps our individual senses hone in on one aspect of recoil more than another?

One thing I think might contribute to this is muzzel blast. While not really an aspect of recoil, some people are more sensitive than others to it and measure "recoil" or "kick" in terms of "pleasant to shoot", or it just frankly scares people into thinking the gun kicked harder than it really did. See the Blackhawk in 30 carbine for a gun that does not "kick" bad, but tends to induce flinch in some shooters.

40 has a higher pressure level than the 45, and often shorter bbls as well, doubling up the blast effect on people.

[Quartus]

Add the last three posts together, add it different hand sizes and shapes, and I think we've come as close as we ever will to nailing this to the wall.

[bountyhunter]

That different folks perceive felt recoil differently just flat seems to be true. I'm not sure why, but have noticed it in 11 years as a police firearms instructor and continue to see it as a CHL instructor. Could it be that some of us are not so sensitive to say muzzle flip as we are to the total "shove" while exactly the reverse is true in others?

Yes, and that is my main gripe with the .45 when I shoot the heavy factory loads: it is a long, slow push that makes me wait on the gun before I can start driving it again. The .40 has a quick "pop" recoil that just seems mesh with what I am trying to do when I am shooting.

As to muzzle blast: it can be disconcerting. I ordered some .38 reloads and when I first shot them I saw flames about 18 inches long shooting out of the barrel/cylinder gap on each side.... slightly hotter than the target loads I had been shooting. This stuff must be +p. Once I got used to it, I just ignored the flamethrower effect.

[J.Bourne]

I don't find muzzle blast to be a problem with .40 S&W or .45 ACP.

Now, my Sig 239 in .357 SIG is a fire breathing dragon. :)

I get back on target faster with my .40s than I can with any of my .45s, with the possible exception of my Sig P220 Stainless. I think it's heft really helps to dampen felt recoil for me.

[Stealthfixr]

First off--great discussion here! No name calling or anything. Very welcome!

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm? It seems to me, and I am NOT an expert--just an average reloader, the larger case size with a slower (relative) burning powder would yield greater power, the same/similar accuracy with less felt recoil. Gun mags from the 10mm creation time-frame seemed to criticize the round and call it too powerful and inaccurate. So, where is my non-experience based assumption off target (so to speak)? Can't a 10mm be downloaded to 40S&W power levels and provide a lot more headroom for case pressure issues?

I've shot a buddy's SA XD40, and I too felt it was a little snappy. I must admit to never having shot a 10mm ... hence the question. I do not have a 10mm pistol, but I am considering buying the Dan Wesson Razorback. Comments much appreciated!

[Zak Smith]

Stealthfixr,

My take is this: If you don't mind full-power 230gr in a steel 1911, then 10mm or 9x23 in 1911 will be a pleasure to shoot.

-z

[bountyhunter]

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm?

I am not sure exactly why the 10mm got a bad rep out of the gate. I do know that some of the first 10mm ammo built up was not good and that pissed off some people. The other problem is that it may have been perceived as too powerful for LE use because of the risk of "over penetration", similar to the rap put on the full-power .357 magnum today. I suspect that the .40 was seen as hitting the right blend of power, penetration and recoil for LE. It's true a 10mm could be downloaded to match the .40 ballistics, but the user would probably ask: 'Then why do I need the larger 10mm cartridge?" Peak pressure is higher in the .40, but not dangerously high. From what I've seen, case blowouts resulted from brass reloaded too many times or poorly designed guns (9mm guns "beefed up" to launch the .40). IMO, a well designed .40 shooting decent ammo has no higher danger of a failure than any other gun.

[Sean Smith]

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm?

Because they are idiots.

Though in truth, the .40 S&W isn't just a cut down 10mm. If it was, we probably wouldn't be reading about .40 S&W blow-ups with regularity. This is because the .40 S&W case is actually a different, substantially weaker design than the 10mm case. Combined with its near-10mm pressures (35,000 psi vs 37,500 psi), the generally faster powders used to load .40 S&W and the drastic reduction in internal volume (about 50% less than 10mm when both are loaded with 180gr bullets), and you get a cartridge that isn't real tolerant of loading errors, bullet setback, or anything else that could contribute to a case failure.

Hence 10mm guns are not famous for blowing up, while .40 S&W guns are, even though 10mm loads can deliver vastly superior ballistics. I wouldn't say the .40 S&W design is unsafe per se (never had a problem with mine), but it clearly has a smaller margin of safety by design than many other cartridges.

[agtman]

"***but it clearly has a smaller margin of safety by design than many other cartridges."


Bingo. :)

Not only a shorter case, but the .40 has thinner case walls than its parent cartridge - especially in the critical web area. This is also why bullet-weights in factory .40 ammo come to a screeching halt at 180gns (and at slo-pokin' velocities), whereas the 10mm keeps right on going with the 190gn, 200gn and 220gn bullets and can do so at speeds that would KABOOM! a .40 pistol into the next dimension.

Not surprisingly, the higher internal pressure generated by the .40's cramped case using 180gn bullets have caused many LEAs, looking for higher velocity without risking KABOOMS!, to consider .40 loads using the lighter bullets, either a 165gn HP or a 155gn HP.

A lighter .40 bullet has the twin virtues of reducing pressure somewhat, while still allowing for decent velocities to get penetration into the target.

The 165gn .40 loads (e.g., Remington's Golden Saber HP load in .40S&W) are, generally speaking, about 150fps faster than their 180gn counterparts (somewhat more for the 155gn .40s, depending on the ammo-maker).

[jedi]

I recently shot a Beretta 92fs and a Sig P226 in .40 back to back. I noticed know difference in recoil between the two...they were both quite pleasant. The 9mm round was 115 grain +P and the .40 was 155 grain. FWIW.