.40 recoil snap - any truth?


PDA






tackleberry45
March 6, 2011, 03:22 PM
With the sheer popularity of the .40 round I cannot imagine that this is REALLY an issue. Would LEO not change if they could not get rapid, accurate, follow up shots? So is there really any hard core truth to "snappy" .40 recoil? I am feeling the waters here as there is a local with a really good deal on a G27.

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 recoil snap - any truth?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rellascout
March 6, 2011, 03:26 PM
9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

NMGonzo
March 6, 2011, 03:32 PM
Nothing to it ... but my only glock was a 35.

Which I am an idiot for trading.

But I made good money on the trade.

But I cannot find another one for reasonable.

JohnBiltz
March 6, 2011, 03:39 PM
Yes, it is true. Its why I went away from .40. If you go in a gun store and look at used pistols you will find a lot more small .40s than anything else. I see used Kahr .40s all the time when browsing, I don't think I've ever seen a used Kahr 9. They seem like a good idea on paper but when shot a lot of people find follow up shots to be slower and even uncomfortable to shoot. This is not everyone, but its true for a lot of people. You may like a G27 but I'd shoot one first if you have never fired one.

Ala Dan
March 6, 2011, 03:41 PM
Yes, that is why I don't own any .40 S&W caliber semi-auto's~! :uhoh: :eek:

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 6, 2011, 03:44 PM
9mm is fun to shoot, .45 recoils more but thats okay, a .40 in a poly gun is NOT for me.

Z-Michigan
March 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

Exactly this. It IS snappy, but that's not a big deal.

The Lone Haranguer
March 6, 2011, 05:48 PM
In the larger guns typically carried by uniformed LEOs, the ".40 snap" is much less noticeable, but I find it unpleasant in compact and subcompact guns.

BENBRU
March 6, 2011, 05:53 PM
I don't see any issue in it. M&P 40c is not hard to control for follow ups. I had a 105lbs girl who is not a shooter double tapping, and doing failure drills yesterday with it.

Does it snap more than say a full size M&P in 9mm? Yes...

On another note, I too have seen quite a few Kahr's on the used rack at the LGS. I'm under the impression it all boils down to the pistol, and the shooter's technique.

Walkalong
March 6, 2011, 06:01 PM
Yes, the .40 is snappy compared to a 9MM or .45 ACP.

Fishman777
March 6, 2011, 06:01 PM
I'd stop asking other people for opinions and rent some guns to figure it out for yourself.

To me, 40 s&w doesn't recoil too badly, but it does have more muzzle flip than 9mm or .45 acp in similiar guns. Is it tolerable? Yes. Do I shoot is as accurately or as quickly as 9mm or .45 acp? No. With practise, I'm sure that I'd get used to it.

Personally, I prefer 9mm and .45 acp.

40 s&w has a snappy, sudden muzzle flip.

verdun59
March 6, 2011, 06:16 PM
I'll go with YES for $200 Alex.

Redneck with a 40
March 6, 2011, 06:20 PM
I have an SA-XD full size 40 and the recoil is no big deal for me. Of course I've put close to 4000 rounds downrange, so I guess I'm used to it. Alot of it depends on the pistol, its weight, and its balance. My target loads with about 5.5 grains of Unique behind a 180 grain or 6 grains behind a 165 grain, are pleasant to shoot. Now I will say, the 165 grain Gold Dot's I bought for SD, have some serious pop to them, but its still controllable.

IdahoLT1
March 6, 2011, 06:31 PM
Yes.

I actually dislike it but enjoy the 10mm. My only rationale is the 10mm is equally snappy but also has a strong .45 push to it, so it kinda equals out.

Deanimator
March 6, 2011, 06:32 PM
Definitely true, at least with my Glock 22. I find it has a MUCH sharper upward whip of the muzzle than a friend's Springfield MicroCompact with .45 ball.

Ammunition does make a difference. I find that the muzzle whip is significantly worse with 180gr. bullets than with lighter ones.

beeenbag
March 6, 2011, 06:45 PM
On another note, I too have seen quite a few Kahr's on the used rack at the LGS. I'm under the impression it all boils down to the pistol, and the shooter's technique.

I agree with this statement. Not all polymer pistols are created equal.

I shot a kahr cw45 that was not pleasant to shoot at all, and in the same day shot a G36 which is equal in size to the cw45 and it was not bad. I could shoot follow up shots with it pretty easily.

I am an owner of a G27 and I find it easy to shoot, easy to follow up with, and very accurate. I also own a G19, and find the recoil of the 27 not much more "snappy" than it. The G27 is my EDC gun.

Of course this is just my opinion, yours may be different, I hold a high and firm grip which may help control muzzle flip.

If you were going to try one out I would suggest the Glock, it seems to me that they absorb recoil well.

Wishoot
March 6, 2011, 07:21 PM
I was really nervous when I picked up my Glock 22 thinking it would be akin to shooting a hand-held howitzer. After the first mag, I realized the difference in perceived recoil between 9mm and 40S&W is darn near nil.

My S&W 4006 is so heavy, that recoil is a non-issue all together.

NG VI
March 6, 2011, 07:25 PM
Sure is, but the Glock 27 in my opinion is their best gun. It's a frisky biscuit, and takes maybe 2-4 boxes to get used to, but once you're cool with it the 27 is an incredible shooter and carries like a champ.

Walkalong
March 6, 2011, 07:32 PM
The .40 in a full sized steel gun is a pussycat. It is a bit torquey/snappy in my XD SC. I prefer 180 Gr full load stuff vs 155 or 165 Gr full load stuff in it, as it feels less snappy.

Taurus_9mm
March 6, 2011, 07:36 PM
Somewhat snappy, yes. Though feels very tame to me after having shot .357s, .44 Magnums and the .500 Magnum.

McCall911
March 6, 2011, 07:41 PM
I've never really met a handgun round I haven't liked so far. The .40 is no exception. However, I do agree that the .40 S&W is a bit snappy, especially with the higher velocity rounds of 155 and 165 grains. Not unpleasantly so, but still snappy. That's why I prefer an all-metal handgun in this caliber.

Shadow 7D
March 6, 2011, 07:55 PM
Try shooting a Keltec P-40

A small, light platform that works in 9mm, is going to be an entirely different BEAST in .40,
But a Service, or full size gun, the difference is not as noticeable.

Olde School
March 6, 2011, 08:13 PM
Glock 19 with 124 gr. +p.........Poppy
Glock 23 with 165 gr. .............Snappy
Glock 36 with 230 gr. .............Pushy

I like them all ! :)

Federal still makes the 135 gr. reduced recoil for the 40 S&W that tames it alot.

halfmoonclip
March 6, 2011, 08:32 PM
A buddy's mediocre results with a .40 has muddied the waters for me, too. I fired his Glock and wasn't much dazzled with it, and then there was the prospect of more dies, brass and bullets to feed the thing. Too, some pistol caliber carbines that I like had useful 20 rd mags in 9mm, but only 11 in anything starting with a '.4'.
I understand the rationale of the .40 being to fit a .4" into a .3" frame, but every one I've fired personally had more rap and other issues I didn't care to deal with.
No .40 for me, but YMMV.
Moon

Loggerlee
March 7, 2011, 02:00 AM
I've got one,I don't love it,Ruger P90sumthing.
Never noticed any recoil I don't like,but hammer bites me.
A friends .40 cal Witness is a dang fine weapon though,I can't miss with it,and recoil is low.
(May be snappy,but I never noticed,I'll pay more attention next time)

NoobCannon
March 7, 2011, 04:07 AM
I have limited experience on the matter, but I don't see what all the fuss it about. Every week or so I run a mag or two through my 840 to push it through the break-in period, punish those evil coffee cans, practice some drills, and most importantly to blow off steam. My pistol's recoil isn't much I'm afraid of. The little poof of fire, the jump of the pistol, the can dancing downrange, I like it. It DOES have more recoil than my dad's .32(the only other handgun I have access to atm), But that's apples and oranges. His also happens to be a full-steel German relic and mine's a Brazilian poly. Your results WILL vary in this case.

You love it, you hate it, or meh. I personally love it.

ksabo45
March 7, 2011, 06:20 AM
I have a Glock Mdl. 22 compensated (.40 S&W). It does not "snap as much as a non-compensated gun. I all hev a Springfield XDm .40 and a Walther P99 .40. The compensated Glock 22 is much more shooter friendly.

dorfer21
March 7, 2011, 09:41 AM
+1 to NoobCannon, I Love my PT 840 and have shot all three calibers. In full size pistols, I don't even notice the difference (PT1911, PT 840 and a S&W 910)
I guess i'll have to try a small .40 to see if i notice a difference there.

9teenEleven
March 7, 2011, 10:32 AM
I agree that there is much more muzzle flip compared even to larger calibers. However, I really like it in my USPc .40 and I liked it when I had a Glock 23. I shoot a lot of 9mm and can shoot it a bit faster, but to me, the flip from .40 helps me to focus more on the front sight as I bring the gun back down. On average, I shoot the .40 guns more accurately at speed.

Comedian
March 7, 2011, 11:01 AM
I'd recommend shooting one before buying it, Glocks are common enough that finding one available to rent and shoot shouldn't be an issue. I can't speak for subcompact guns (I have no use for them, so I don't own or shoot them) but I carry a USPc in .40 and the recoil never bothered me. I've shot the same gun in 9mm and .45, and I've shot the equivalent sized Glocks (23 and 19) and I can say that the difference wasn't substantial for me. I suspect that I have a slightly faster follow up with the 9mm, but I can't see a difference without a timer. Keep in mind, when I learned to shot I did so with a .40, and while I've shot quite a lot of 9mm it doesn't come close to the amount of .40 I've shot which may have something to do with me not perceiving a significant difference. When a friend of mine bought a Glock 23 after training with a Glock 17 in a police academy he certainly noticed the difference.

gofastman
March 7, 2011, 11:06 AM
Yes.

I actually dislike it but enjoy the 10mm. My only rationale is the 10mm is equally snappy but also has a strong .45 push to it, so it kinda equals out.
I agree.
I feel the .40 is a handfull in my converted G20SF, I dont think it would be too much fun in a sub-compact

ForumSurfer
March 7, 2011, 11:07 AM
9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

What that guy said.

I prefer 9mm or 45. I mostly carry and practice with 9mm these days. Times are tight, and quite frankly I can just practice way more often. After all of the endless debates and studies between 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP...I've come to determine that in a personal defense role I am perfectly comfortable with any of them and feel all 3 are more than adequate if I do my job.

I've owned 40's, and felt the recoil was easily manageable...just not as easily manageable as 9mm or 45 for me.

LawScholar
March 7, 2011, 11:43 AM
For me, the recoil between a .40 and a 9x19 is nearly indistinguishable, but I do have large hands and wrists.

Much like any problem, it has been exaggerated about 200x on the internet. It's really a very minor degree of recoil for a significant improvement in power applied to target.

IMHO. :)

ForumSurfer
March 7, 2011, 12:01 PM
It's really a very minor degree of recoil for a significant improvement in power applied to target.

And this is where all the endless and winner-less debates start. The dead horse is rolling over in his grave as we speak. :)

IMHO, it is a minor degree of recoil for a minor improvement in power applied to the target. We can talk stats all day long...but both are underpowered handgun rounds that lack stopping power. You need a rifle round for stopping power. Short of a rifle, I feel just as well armed with 9mm, 40 s&w, 357 sig or 45 acp. :)

greyeyezz
March 7, 2011, 12:39 PM
.40 recoil is a non issue for me. Watch Hickok45 shoot the .40, doesn't seem to be an issue with him either, he uses a nice firm grip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXS3c110Te4

Shawn Dodson
March 7, 2011, 01:03 PM
I carried a Beretta 96FS .40 S&W on patrol and I've shot various .40 S&W pistols, including a Glock 27. I've never noticed the recoil being any snappier than other calibers, but then my focus is usually on something other than recoil.

The only pistol in which I've noticed a "snappy" recoil is my PM-9 when I shoot 124gr Gold Dot +P, and that's because of the small grip area. I ended up installing a Pearce finger extension on my magazines to help me better manage recoil.

Franco2shoot
March 7, 2011, 02:48 PM
It really depends on the weapon...

I have a Walther P99 (not the compact) in .40 and when I purchased it I would take my 1911 A-1 and the Walther to the range and shoot them back to back. The 1911 is in .45 so I was going back and forth 8 rounds at a time.

Initially, there was a difference that was very obvious, but after shooting the Walther for several months now, I'm totally accustomed to it. To me the biggest deal is that the weight of the Walther makes it much more comfortable to carry for long periods. Drawback to the Walther is if you empty the magazine and the bad guy is still coming at you, throwing it at him won't do very much, while throwing the 1911 at him would at least slow him down.

I would test fire the Walther P99 in S&W .40 as I can highly recommend this pistol!

KKKKFL

john5036
March 7, 2011, 02:59 PM
I'm going to echo with the practice practice practice practice practice practice with ANY gun in ANY caliber that you choose to own. If all guns or ammo shot the same then we'd be super bored as there would be nothing *new* to learn.

Manco
March 7, 2011, 03:20 PM
For me, .40 S&W does feel "snappier" than some other calibers, but while it appears to flip the muzzle back faster, the muzzle seems to get back on target faster, too (it's probably just my perception, though). I don't have more trouble with it than I do other similar calibers, so it works fine for me. 9mm also feels snappy, albeit lighter, while .45 ACP is heavier and less snappy, but I shoot them all equally well.

Everyone's different, though, and I can imagine (and have seen) .40 S&W's combination of snappiness and recoil being uncomfortable for some, negatively impacting their shooting speed and/or accuracy. It's not so different that this cannot be overcome by training, however.

2WheelsGood
March 7, 2011, 03:33 PM
I have a 9mm XDM that I'm quite used to. I shot a friend's .40 XDM, but I didn't know it was a .40 when I shot it. For some reason I assumed it was a 9mm. He didn't tell me it was a .40 until after I shot it. If he hadn't told me, I never would have known. Point being that if it is snappier, it wasn't enough for me to notice.

ScottieRussell
March 7, 2011, 04:13 PM
It's not an issue for me but others notice it. Rent one and see if it's an issue with you.

UnTainted
March 7, 2011, 05:11 PM
I feel like there is a bigger difference between standard pressure 9mm and +p 9mm, than there is between +p9mm and 40s&W.

In other words, if you like +p 9mm, you won't mind 40, but if you don't like the +p 9mm over the regular 9mm, the 40 won't follow as liked either.

Rail Driver
March 7, 2011, 05:28 PM
I had a S&W .40 for awhile, which did definitely have a "snappy" recoil compared to my 9mm and my .45s, however it wasn't any worse, just different. Personally I don't care for the round, and I only have 9mms and .45s now (looking at other pistol calibers, but not .40)

mljdeckard
March 7, 2011, 05:32 PM
We never said you can't learn to shoot it anyway. We just said that the felt recoil is snappier, not out of control.

I carried a Glock .40 for years, and I shot it just fine, but when I switched back to a 1911, I couldn't remember why I left in the first place.

Jeff82
March 7, 2011, 06:30 PM
My GSSF scores, accuracy and time, are always better with 9mm (G17, 115 gr WWB) than .40 S&W (G23, 180 gr WWB).

GLOOB
March 7, 2011, 06:54 PM
Yes, it has more recoil than 9mm. That's not rocket surgery.

Is it snappy? That depends on the gun and how it's loaded.

Is it worth the extra recoil? Depends on how bad it is, for you. Many people can hardly tell the difference in any particular gun.

Nushif
March 7, 2011, 06:57 PM
To me the unpleasantness of the .40 isn't so much in its size, or severity, but rather in its nature.
When someone describes the 9mm as a pop, that's what it feels like.
When someone describes the .45 as a push... that's pretty accurate, too.
And finally when someone describes the .40 as a snap, then they're right too.
The .40 really does feel like a go-between for the 9mm and .45. And I think that's what makes it so iffy for me. I could have an easy to control round in one way or an easy to control round in another way ... why would I go for a hybrid that's surprisingly unpleasant to control??

kmunch
March 7, 2011, 07:31 PM
I have a glock 22 and 27 and both shoot well even my g 20 10 mm is easy to shoot

QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW
March 7, 2011, 08:43 PM
i honestly can't really tell the difference, i shoot .357, .45acp, and .40 a lot and they really feel about the same to me. my .40 is a S&W Sigma, .45 is a 1911, and .357 is a 4inch S&W M66 no dash. love them all to death and carry them all without any fear of time between follow up shots.

hold the gun right and with a proper stance its no problem at all.

BeerSleeper
March 7, 2011, 08:50 PM
I'll agree with that one. .40 has a snappier recoil than 9mm, but it only has more muzzle flip than 9 if you're limp wristing it.

wgp
March 7, 2011, 09:22 PM
Yesterday I held my Glock 19 (124 gr) in the left hand and my 23 (165 gr) in my right and alternated shots. To me, I found little difference in perceived recoil. Certainly neither was objectionable, at least not to me.

pyth0n
March 7, 2011, 09:37 PM
Snappy, yes, not a problem. It's something you adapt to. I have the G27, G23, Ruger P944 and two Kahr P40's. As others mentioned, after shooting bigger guns, .44 mag and up, the .40 is tame.

Ben86
March 7, 2011, 09:38 PM
.40 recoil is a little snappier than 9mm and .45, with recoil being somewhere in between the two. It's definitely not objectionable. If you like the ballistics of the caliber go for it. It's not something I'd want in a tiny gun though. A glock 27 is about the smallest gun I would want in .40.

kludge
March 7, 2011, 10:29 PM
.40 recoil snap - any truth?

meh.

In my hands, I feel like a "GI" 1911 recoils more and is harder to get follow up shots than my XD-40.

RancidSumo
March 7, 2011, 10:35 PM
Yes it is an issue for me. I have a bad wrist (it cracks when it moves all the time) and I cannot shoot a Glock 22. It destroys my wrist after only a few rounds to the point where I can't even move it. It is more manageable out of a High Power but I still prefer a .45 and most of all a 9mm.

Coltdriver
March 7, 2011, 10:40 PM
A Kahr MK40 is really tough to shoot well. A Glock 27 is a piece of cake by comparison.

No two pistols are the same. Go rent a couple and see what you think.

P30shtr
March 7, 2011, 10:42 PM
Yes, there is truth to this. Of the 3 (9mm,.40, 45acp) calibers, It is my least favorite. A close friend of mine has BHP in .40 which, I've put many rounds through and I dont like it in that (heavy, fullsize, all metal frame gun). I could just imagine it in a poly, sub-compact weapon. Get my drift. As for my opinion, there are plenty of people who like this cal. (maybe they got a gun in this cal. and dont want to admit it sucks :)). Like the cal. or not, the ballistics speak for themselves (hence all the LE adoption) . Is it as fun to shoot, no. Is it as cheap as other cal., no. Will it stop a foe, absolutely. It wouldnt be my first choice. Thats not to say I wouldnt pick one up for s***s and giggles if the price was right. My thoughts.

P30

Thlax
March 7, 2011, 11:06 PM
To beat a dead horse...shoot it yourself.

I chose a g23 as my first. Yes there is a little more snap than 9mm but I didn't really care. I adapted. Since that's my current one and only I practice with it every weekend and now I don't notice it at all.

carbuncle
March 8, 2011, 02:16 AM
.40 has a little more meat that the 9mm, but it doesn't hurt or anything and it's not uncontrollable. Personally, I love .40 but your experience may vary.

BigN
March 8, 2011, 07:30 PM
I've got a 40 auto I haven't shot in years, it's just not fun. Not all that much recoil but the barrel does snap up. I guess I just don't like to shoot it. Both the 357 and 44 mags have much more actual recoil but are funner to shoot for that precise reason.

Top_Gunn
March 8, 2011, 07:51 PM
As is so often the case, it depends on you. My son has a H&K .40 which he has no problem with; I hate the wretched thing. The difference is probably because he's a lot bigger than I am. I don't mind full-size .45's at all. Nobody seems to deny that .40's snap; the differences are about whether they are bothered by it.

GLOOB
March 8, 2011, 08:40 PM
This whole caliber comparison is wrong. It's the pistol that makes the recoil.

40 recoil is about equivalent to 45ACP, as it should be. It's the size of the gun and the precise load that makes the rest of the difference. Is .38 special snappy out of your GP100? Is it snappy when you shoot it from your scandium snubnose?

If you like shooting a G36, you probably won't mind a .40. If you compare a 42 oz 1911 .45 to a 40 cal Glock, then there's your problem. There's no reason that a 40SW SHOULD have less recoil than .45ACP. So if you make the gun smaller, it will recoil more. Put a .45 into a 9mm frame and see what happens!

I've never heard anyone complain that a 1911 in 40SW is snappy. Although I have heard some complain that their .40 conversion barrel makes their G20 more snappy. I don't think they're delusional, but I think what they're experiencing is ammo-related. I can make my .45 snappy with a fast powder. Their full house 10mm ammo is probably using a slower powder. That does change the characteristic of the recoil. I still bet they can shoot 40 faster than full house 10mm loads, and can shoot more before getting fatigued.

Shoot a .45 derringer and tell me the recoil is a "push," yet 40 is intolerably snappy. Heck, shoot any full size 22 oz .45 (if you can find one), and tell me there's a significant difference between that pistol's recoil and a Glock 23.

CZ57
March 8, 2011, 09:32 PM
Put a .45 into a 9mm frame and see what happens!

The .45 GAP!;)

HD Fboy
March 8, 2011, 09:52 PM
First, shoot several guns until you find the FRAME that fits your hand. 1911, Glock, XD, M&P, USP Full size or compact.

Now, once you find the fit then work the calibers.

I have had 4 or 5 small handguns. I have big hands I hated shooting ALL of them except one. for me I shoot the M&P 40c the best. Does it snap, you bet. Is it a comfortable/accurate to shoot as my Glock 21c? no way.

The M&P it is small, easy to hide, has a thumb safety, and is accurate. For me a S&W M&P 40c is the best small carry gun caliber. It snaps but I can handle it and it is controllable.

Now I LOVE hot 357 loads and my 41 mag loaded hot but I wouldn't carry either.

GLOOB
March 8, 2011, 10:12 PM
Quote:
Put a .45 into a 9mm frame and see what happens!
The .45 GAP!
Yes. The G37. 26 oz. And it doesn't give a gentle "push" when you shoot it, either.

Kiln
March 8, 2011, 10:45 PM
My Springfield XDM 40 has very little recoil in comparison to my Kel Tec P40 but then again its barrel is probably twice as long and the gun itself twice the size. Every .40 I've ever shot has noticeably more muzzle flip than the 9mm variant of the same gun but you get used to it pretty quickly.

Just expect much more recoil from a small gun than a large one.

Lvl21nerd
March 8, 2011, 11:02 PM
this is just my humble opinion from personal experience and as always, YMMV, but i dont even notice a big difference between 9mm and .40...this could be that im not recoil sensitive but i am generally more focused on what im shooting at than what im shooting with...if it doesnt make my hand hurt, i dont care how much it recoils

wrs840
March 8, 2011, 11:17 PM
.40 has a snappier recoil than 9mm, but it only has more muzzle flip than 9 if you're limp wristing it...

Huh? And here I was about to believe that the precise definition of "snappy" IS "muzzle flip".

If not muzzle flip, exactly what does "snappy" mean? I own and shoot an number of mostly full-sized 9mm and .40 autos (none of them polymer or true "compacts"), and while I will argue that the .40 indeed does have more muzzle-flip in any given platform than a 9mm, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what "snappy" means.

jbr
March 8, 2011, 11:18 PM
I have a Beretta 96. Heavy solid pistol. Recoil isn't too bad but the muzzle flip does make it a little slower on follow up shots. It shoots very accurate regardless of the "snappy" flip. For SD - i prefer something i can handle without much concentration. That's a 9 for me! But hey - i'm a small guy. I do love shooting that .40 though

Ben86
March 9, 2011, 12:25 AM
This whole caliber comparison is wrong. It's the pistol that makes the recoil.

If you are comparing it in nearly identical pistols, like the glock 19 and 23, then it is relevant. The Glock 22 and 21, for instance, are also so similar that the caliber comparison makes sense.

eam3clm@att.net
March 9, 2011, 12:44 AM
I would consider the 40 to have a snappy recoil. I am issued a glock 22 and have a 27 for off duty/back up. I likew my 27 as it is easy to conceal hip carry with jacket IWB tshirt weather. The recoil is not too bad. As far as double taps in the range that most shootings occur (within 7 yrds) will not be aa problem with proper training. You most likely will have not have time to get the proper grip,stance,and sight picture before you start firing.

GLOOB
March 9, 2011, 04:37 AM
Quote:
This whole caliber comparison is wrong. It's the pistol that makes the recoil.
If you are comparing it in nearly identical pistols, like the glock 19 and 23, then it is relevant. The Glock 22 and 21, for instance, are also so similar that the caliber comparison makes sense.
That's fine. Compared to 9mm in the same gun, it has more recoil. What's a "snap" vs a "pop" anyways? It's just a "bigger pop." No mystery, here. It's a hotter round.

G22 vs G21 is not too different, granted. So the round with equivalent energy in the lighter gun has sharper recoil. Still no mystery. If you could swap them, you'd probably see the same thing the other way around. Esp if you used similar energy ammunition.*

*I tried to google an energy comparison, which Ive seen data for before. Failing to find it, I calculated the energy for the hottest 180gr 40SW load on hogdon's reloading center. It has over 20% more energy than the hottest 185gr or 230gr 45ACP load on their site. It is over 100fps faster than the top 185gr 45ACP load. I know that's not a big sample, but I'm just making the point. 40SW is going to recoil more than 9mm for sure. It will also recoil more than 45, because it's the same energy (actually fairly higher energy with most common loads than standard pressure 45) in a smaller gun, period. People get wrapped up in the recoil, because they expect it to recoil less than .45. There's no reason to expect that. That's like complaining that 9mm is snappy compared to the "larger" 38 special. Of course it is.

**just for more kicks, I looked up the first common training ammo I could think of. Blazer. They list only one 45 ACP load. 230 grains. They list three 40 loads, from 155 to 180 grains. Ready? The 40 loads range from 9.5% to 30% more energy than the 45 load. This isn't hot-rod 40SW ammo. It's training ammo, for crying out loud. In fact, the weakest of the Blazer 40SW training rounds (the 180gr) has only 5% less energy than the hottest 230 gr 45ACP round listed on Hogdon's reloading center. To face the facts, the 40SW auto pistol is the titanium .357 snubbie of the auto world. The strongest round of the "big three" in the lightest package. (Actually, it outperforms .357 out of a short barrel!)
http://www.blazer-ammo.com/blazer_chart.aspx

hardluk1
March 9, 2011, 10:49 AM
You will know better if the 40 is for you after you get to shoot one in the size and frame you are looking at. I have owned several 40's with no real preference in caliber tell i got my glock 27. I guess it just does not fit my hand well for me to control quick DT's and instead of selling it I bought a 9mm convesion barrel and wow what a difference it made. The full sized glock is fine . So just try and see what you think. Most ranges have rentals .

Onward Allusion
March 9, 2011, 12:09 PM
It's all about what you practice with. For me 9 & 40 are virtually identical in recoil. 45 has a little more push but all 3 are totally manageable. My wife's everyday is a 1st gen Sigma in 40S&W (please no bashing 'cause she has about a 3,000 flawless rounds through it and it was carried by a policewoman for a few years as well). She does 1.5" to 2" groups (like 10 to 15 shots at a time!) at 10 yards. If she can do it any guy in good health can handle the 40.

contender
March 9, 2011, 12:12 PM
the 40 is more "snappy" than a 9mm in like weapons.....it is a matter of physics.........and as mentioned, with any cartridge, the size/design of the pistol is a factor along with the individual shooter as to what is tolerable.

As for LEO's and the 40...........I still believe the 40 is just a compromise round between the 9mm and the 45........

more capacity than a 45
more power than a 9mm

and offered in a 9mm format size weapon.

On another note, when LEO's transitioned from the revolver to the 9mm, qualification scores went up. Now that the 40 is established and on the scene, qualification scores are going down.

Now you can point your finger at the weapon, the caliber, or the shooter.........

many an officer failed qualification with a 357 but could pass with a 38 spl.

comparing the 357 to the 38 and the 40 to the 9 is apples and oranges, but its as close as i can explain it.

the 40 is probably the most successful new cartridge introduction since the .223..........and it is the current flavor of the fbi and other federal agencies..........so many naturally mimic those depts in equipment and caliber................if the fbi was to change to the 9mm next year as std issue, many would follow.

Seven For Sure
March 9, 2011, 01:39 PM
The 180's recoil a lot like 45ACP, the 155's and 165's have a bit of 'snap' in light guns. I've found the M&P and FNX to have very little recoil compared to Glocks but when I concentrate I can shoot tight groups with Glocks also. Nothing that a small adult of average strength can't handle. The biggest problem is (as with all handguns IMO) flinching. The recoil of a full power 125 gr. 357 magnum in a lightweight J frame is about four to five times as bad.

speaksoftly
March 9, 2011, 01:41 PM
To most shooters I've been around, it's not an issue. I have a hard time whining about the snap of my .40 when some of my fellow shooters are avid 10mm fans and are very accurate with the round. The round as well as the gun is going to be as comfortable as the amount of time you train with it.

Hypnogator
March 9, 2011, 03:43 PM
In the larger guns typically carried by uniformed LEOs, the ".40 snap" is much less noticeable, but I find it unpleasant in compact and subcompact guns.

Exactly! Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I had a Kel-Tec P-40 conversion that was downright painful to shoot. Kicked worse than any snub .357 Mag I ever shot, and far worse than my .45 ACP Detonics.

Nowadays, I have a Kel-Tec PF-9 that is a bit snappy on recoil, because of its small size and light weight, and a Walther PPS in .40 S&W that is just a bit more snappy than the PF-9. I minimize the recoil in my carry loads by carrying Cor-Bon DPXs in both of them -- good penetration and expansion, even through clothing, but minimum muzzle flip because of the lighter weight bullets. :cool:

1911Tuner
March 9, 2011, 04:06 PM
Still a lot of misconception about how recoil occurs and is perceived with an autopistol.

It's a function of the spring...the slide's mass and speed/momentum as it strikes the impact abutment...frame mass and grip angle/geometry...and the rate of the recoil/action spring itself.

With an auto, the gun is the slide and barrel. The frame is essentially no more than the gun mount, with no solid connection between gun and gun mount. Hence, the recoil impulse isn't immediately transferred to the mount.

The recoil system...the action spring...is a closed system that's separate and apart from the gun. When the slide starts to move rearward, an action/reaction system is set into motion...the spring pushing forward on the slide and rearward on the frame. The stronger the spring, the greater the force applied to both ends. The faster the slide compresses the spring...the snappier the felt recoil...until the slide hits the impact abutment, and then muzzle flip is factored in. It all happens so fast that it can't be separated, and the perception is that it's one instantaneous event...but it's not.

In a short recoil operated pistol, the slide only moves about 1/10th inch when the bullet exits. Once the bullet is gone, recoil from the ballistic event is over, and the slide continues to move rearward on momentum. When the slide hits the frame...we get muzzle flip...which is what we really think of as recoil...but it's not really recoil, and by the time we get muzzle flip...the bullet is about 20 yards downrange based on a 230-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 830 fps.

Fire a .40 caliber pistol side by side with an identical pistol of a different caliber. Say...a .40/180/1,000 fps and a .45/185/1,000 fps. If you can detect a difference in felt recoil, you've got the hands of a plastic surgeon.

451 Detonics
March 9, 2011, 04:07 PM
I did some experimenting with this, Using 2 Hi Powers, one in 9mm and one in 40 S&W and using bullets of similar weights I shot a series of 20 modified El Presidente drills changing guns every other run. My runs with the 9mm averaged almost 1.2 seconds faster than with the 40. I noticed the 40 definitely had more muzzle flip and took longer to bring back on target.

1911Tuner
March 9, 2011, 04:27 PM
Equal recoil spring rates? Equal bullet acceleration rate? So many variables unless we work to eliminate them.

Other things that can play a role is powder burn rate and rate of slide acceleration can make a real difference. In order to make a meaningful comparison...all else must be equal...or as equal as they can be made to be.

If a 200-grain bullet is driven to 1,000 fps in a revolver by X charge of Y powder...the bullet and recoil acceleration will be Z. That the calibers are different will make no difference. Recoil is acceleration of the gun. Momentum is a function of mass times velocity. The only things that matter are: Rate of acceleration, velocity, and momentum. Any difference in perception comes from outside influences.

Now, it's entirely possible that...with some powders...to actually have the bullet moving faster before it exits than it does at exit. That would place more force on the slide...hence greater speed and momentum...and it would carry more momentum as it compressed the spring and hit the impact abutment.

Short explanation. Recoil is acceleration of the gun, and that only happens when the bullet is in the system. Perceived recoil...what we see and feel...is mostly momentum after the real recoil is over.

JohnBiltz
March 9, 2011, 04:42 PM
Muzzle flip and follow up shots is why I went away from .40. I consider this to be recoil, it never hurt my hands. Now this was a long time ago about 15 years ago. I use a different grip now maybe it will be better. But I'm pretty happy with 9 mm. I don't see a need to change at my age and I know I can make fast follow up shots with the 9 mm.

1911Tuner
March 9, 2011, 04:47 PM
To expound, let's do a hypothetical thing.

Assuming two revolvers of equal weight/mass and identical in every way, except for barrel length. Let's say they're .41 magnums...mainly because it's my favorite revolver cartridge.

One has a 2-inch barrel and the other has a 12-inch barrel.

Work up a load in the long gun with a slow powder that produces 1200 fps with a 210-grain bullet. Easy enough.

Then, work up a load for the short one, using a quick powder that would produce 1200 fps with the same bullet. Ignore pressure requirements. All we're concerned with is that the muzzle velocities are identical.

Which gun will generate the most recoil...the one that accelerates its load to 1200 fps in 12 inches...or the one that accelerates the same mass to 1200 fps in 2 inches?

Jurist
March 9, 2011, 04:51 PM
I shoot a Stoeger Couger in 40S&W,I actually think that my S&W 3913 9MMand my Browning BDA .380ACP ,have more snap than my Couger.

UnTainted
March 9, 2011, 07:28 PM
So did we solve the 9mm vs 40 yet?
:evil:

cwcoolcow
March 9, 2011, 07:59 PM
I typically shoot 9mm at the range. I have two of them. My .45 tactical is great out in a open field. However, the .40 Beretta PX4 full size has become my favorite handgun to shoot. At first the recoil and flip were a challenge, but they have forced me to become a better shooter. All my shots were low and left until I found a better balance between my hands and more consistent trigger pull. Thanks to these "problems" I have been practicing more, which is what I want to do anyway. I'm still more accurate with the CZ 75, but who knows after a little more practice ;)

clutch
March 9, 2011, 08:05 PM
9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

I have a M&P compact in .40. Snappy. My Airweight 442-1 shooting .38 spl +p brutal.

Now if you need that firepower in the package you are holding, well, I'll take the pain for the gain.

Clutch

BeerSleeper
March 9, 2011, 10:06 PM
Fire a .40 caliber pistol side by side with an identical pistol of a different caliber. Say...a .40/180/1,000 fps and a .45/185/1,000 fps. If you can detect a difference in felt recoil, you've got the hands of a plastic surgeon.

I have sigmas in 9 and 40. I can tell the difference, but I bet you don't want me working on you.

Assuming two revolvers of equal weight/mass and identical in every way, except for barrel length. Let's say they're .41 magnums...mainly because it's my favorite revolver cartridge.

One has a 2-inch barrel and the other has a 12-inch barrel.

Work up a load in the long gun with a slow powder that produces 1200 fps with a 210-grain bullet. Easy enough.

Then, work up a load for the short one, using a quick powder that would produce 1200 fps with the same bullet. Ignore pressure requirements. All we're concerned with is that the muzzle velocities are identical.

Which gun will generate the most recoil...the one that accelerates its load to 1200 fps in 12 inches...or the one that accelerates the same mass to 1200 fps in 2 inches?
You seem to have a firm grasp of the physics involved here. What is recoil, quantified? Is it work, or peak force? The shorter barreled one will be a greater amount of force, for a lesser duration of time, while the longer barreled one will be a lesser force, for a greater duration of time, but the work done by each should be the same.

Jonah71
March 9, 2011, 10:30 PM
I am slowly learning to shoot my G 23 with some degree of accuracy and the recoil isn't that much of a problem. Getting the first 2 rounds where they belong is getting easier. It's the time needed and accuracy of the 3rd shot I need to work on. But I like the pistol and it will be my primary carry eventually.

Jonah71
March 9, 2011, 10:35 PM
I do have to admit I have a lot more fun with my G 26. And until I achieve the same degree of accuracy with the .40 cal. (and I will eventually) I'll stick with the 9mm.

goon
March 9, 2011, 11:10 PM
I find it true. The only .40 I've liked to date was the M&P in that caliber. Having said that, using 180 grain rounds does make the recoil more .45 ACP like.

Of the choices, I prefer a 9mm or even a small .357 to a .40. But I prefer almost anything to a Kel-Tec P3AT!

1911Tuner
March 10, 2011, 05:06 AM
Beersleeper...Yep. I probably should have asked which gun would have been the least pleasant to shoot.

BeerSleeper
March 10, 2011, 09:05 AM
I would guess if the guns were of equal mass, the difference would be negligible.

Muddying the waters a little further, I think your comparison of 2 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel makes the implication that the bullets acceleration is slower, spread linearly over the 12 inches of barrel, to reach the same comparison velocity. In actual practice, the acceleration is non-linear. It will be variable, but generally by the time a bullet is 2 inches down a 12 inch barrel, it will already have most of its velocity (guessing a bit here, maybe 66-75%?).

I think another interesting comparison would be to shoot a .40, and alongside that shoot a revolver of as much comparable caliber, bullet weight, and muzzle velocity, to compare recoil. The revolver lets you feel the recoil of the shot, directly. With the auto, at the moment the shot is fired, the slide absorbs a large portion of the recoil, but then at the end of the slide travel, it hits the stop like a hammer, and flips the muzzle up, then on the return trip, goes into battery, again hitting like a hammer (with less force than the first impact) and flipping back down.

sorry if i've overthought this, or gone off topic. the discussion just set me off a'thinkin...

1911Tuner
March 10, 2011, 09:12 AM
I think your comparison of 2 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel makes the implication that the bullets acceleration is slower,

I understand that. I know that pressures and forces peak early, and fall off rapidly. The comparison was purely hypothetical for demonstration purposes...in the sense that the rate of acceleration would be spread out over 12 inches as opposed to two in a make-believe gun...and not the actual reality, and it was never my intent to represent it as such.

But...Let's muddy'em a bit more since you seem to be headed in that direction.

We all understand that, as a rule, longer barrels produce higher velocities with a given force applied.
If we presume to try to accelerate a given bullet to an identical velocity in a shorter barrel, we can accept that the force requirement is going to change. It will require more force to to obtain the same velocity in the shorter barrel. No?

If you lift a 50-pound weight to a height of six feet in 10 seconds, it's pretty easy to do. If you try to lift that same weight to the same height in .001 second...you're going to have to use more force, and that 50-pound weight suddenly becomes much more difficult to accelerate. The amount of work is the same. The force requirement to do the work in the prescribed time...is not.

Force forward equals force backward. If the force requirement goes up in one direction, the force will be applied equally in the other.

BeerSleeper
March 10, 2011, 05:31 PM
Yes, it will take more force to accelerate to the given velocity in the smaller barrel. Bullets of the same mass, at the same velocity, have had the same work done on them, regardless of barrel length, but the one from the shorter barrel takes more power to accelerate to the given velocity. The work done on the bullet is equivalent it's kinetic energy at the muzzle.

Also in the lifted weight example, force has to be greater, work is the same, and accordingly, power is greater (same work done in less time)

Intuitively, I think the shorter barreled gun in the example would be more harshly recoiling, but I'm looking for the math to back it up. Perhaps recoil is better viewed as a function of the power of the load, rather than the kinetic energy?

1911Tuner
March 10, 2011, 06:37 PM
Yes, it will take more force to accelerate to the given velocity in the smaller barrel.

Yep. That was the point of my hypothesis.

Intuitively, I think the shorter barreled gun in the example would be more harshly recoiling, but I'm looking for the math to back it up.

It would. Guaranteed. The math is right in front of you. Newton 3, Part 2. Force forward is force backward. Whatever level of force is imposed on the action side, is likewise imposed on the reaction side.

Perhaps recoil is better viewed as a function of the power of the load, rather than the kinetic energy?

It's not about kinetic energy. It's not really about momentum. Recoil is acceleration on the reaction side of the system, and the force requirement to make it happen in a given time and distance. Once the bullet has left the system, the acceleration is over...and it's all on momentum conserved during the acceleration and the final velocity achieved by the acceleration. What we see and feel as recoil is mostly momentum. The actual recoil...the acceleration of the reaction side...is over too quickly for our brains to process until afterward...when we say: "Ouch! That thing kicks like a river mule!"

BeerSleeper
March 10, 2011, 11:34 PM
For the sake of the hypothetical comparison, are the long and short barreled guns of equal mass?

1911Tuner
March 11, 2011, 10:25 AM
For the sake of the hypothetical comparison, are the long and short barreled guns of equal mass?

Yes. I mentioned that when I cooked up the hypothetical gun.

Brasso
March 11, 2011, 11:47 PM
Most of my .40 shooting has been with a Glock 22. I hate that gun/ammo combo. It's not so much the snappiness, but the fact that it torques high left, instead of straight up. That and I shoot the 9mm much faster, with better accuracy. I just really prefer 9mm. To me, the .40 is even worse than a .45 because of how it torques.

Delford
March 11, 2011, 11:59 PM
the g23 is a nice package but it's also the reason I went with .45. Since I had to learn control of recoil and fast regaining of sight picture, I preferred to go with the larger caliber and I now shoot the 230 gr fmj most often in a Ruger P345.

sarduy
March 12, 2011, 10:04 AM
The .45 GAP!;)
i really dont like that round.

WildBill
March 12, 2011, 10:15 PM
As someone else mentioned. Shoot a few handguns and find out fwhat works for you. I've never had any problem with my Glock 23 or Kahr PM40. Neither does my 95 pound wife. But that's us. I think there are great benefits (stopping power wise) to the .40.
If the recoil bothers you buy an all steel handgun (for the weight) or a ported one or both. Everyone has there own tolerance levels to recoil. Find what works for you.

SpodWo
March 13, 2011, 09:41 AM
Probably because I shot .357 and .44 mags in my earlier days - I am not one to feel that the .40 is something that is too "snappy" to shoot...but I also don't want to shoot a .40 in a small pistol like a Kaher PM40 or small Keltec or small .45 ACPs for that matter.

I have a G22 and a Sig 229 in .40. It is relative to you experience, your tolerance, and the design of the pistol.

If you look at some recoil energy charts - you can see that with just about any of the pistol cartridges in 9mm, .40 and .45 ACP - by the time you mix and match type of pistol, barrel length, bullet type, weight, type of powder and amount of powder - you can pull recoil energy to within 1 lb. or less of recoil energy.

After you watch hickock shoot his favorite G23 pistol and hit 100 yard targets - it becomes generally evident that practice negates just about every detraction from a specific round.

Mike J
March 13, 2011, 12:18 PM
I own a P944 Ruger & an XD-40. .40 is actually what I shoot the most of as far centerfire pistol goes. I tend to believe that the design of the individual pistol has as much to do with how it recoils as what caliber is shot out of it. I also own a Kel Tec P11 & have no desire to shoot .40 out of a pistol that size & weight though I would like to have a .40 in the G-27 size range.

stevereno1
March 13, 2011, 12:35 PM
I carry a g-27. I'm past the recoil issue, and I doubt that I'd ever hear the report, let alone feel any recoil if I were ever in a defensive situation with this pistol. I'm a fan of the .40, and of the G-27.

GLOOB
March 13, 2011, 06:26 PM
I'll be the first to say I can't shoot my G27 as accurately as my other Glocks past 20 feet. But I think it's due to the length, more than anything (I also have the same problem with a 9mm conversion barrel installed). Presumably, that's also the reason I can't shoot my G19 as well as my G21 past 45 feet.

But I have no problem shooting it fast. The other day I was playing with timed targets, 3 seconds on, 5 seconds off, doing Mozambique drills from the low ready. Then I picked up my friends MkIII, and for the fun of it I did a mag dump, 10 rounds in 3 seconds, to the head. I thought of how awesome it would be if I could shoot my G27 that fast. But then I thought I'd never really tried. So I did. Low ready, target turns, I raise the sights onto target and hammer 9 shots into the center from 21 feet. The group was about the size of a fist. I heard the guy in the next lane complaining to his friend about the noise. :)

stevereno1
March 14, 2011, 10:18 AM
^^^ nice.

Manco
March 14, 2011, 11:35 AM
Most of my .40 shooting has been with a Glock 22. I hate that gun/ammo combo. It's not so much the snappiness, but the fact that it torques high left, instead of straight up.

I wonder if that's because Glocks have a relatively fast twist rate for .40 S&W.

Ben86
March 14, 2011, 01:26 PM
I thought of how awesome it would be if I could shoot my G27 that fast. But then I thought I'd never really tried. So I did. Low ready, target turns, I raise the sights onto target and hammer 9 shots into the center from 21 feet. The group was about the size of a fist. I heard the guy in the next lane complaining to his friend about the noise.

Confound it Gloob! You and your noisy, fancy fast shooting! :D

It's surprising how fast you can shoot something that supposedly has a bunch of recoil (if internet talk is to be believed) if you just put forth the effort. You just have to learn to work with its rhythm.

SIGLBER
March 14, 2011, 02:50 PM
The .40 is very snappy. One of the reasons I thinned the heard to just 9mm and .45. The .40 in a light polymer package is often unpleasant to say the least. The .45 rolls more in your hand than anything else. The 9mm of course is very mild in most guns. Some like the PF9 are pretty stout. But I just don't think the .40 gives you anything over the 9mm or .45 to bother with the it.
JMHO.

CZguy
March 14, 2011, 04:19 PM
Ben 86,

It's surprising how fast you can shoot something that supposedly has a bunch of recoil (if internet talk is to be believed) if you just put forth the effort. You just have to learn to work with its rhythm.


According to the internet, everyone is a really good shot. I guess it's just my range where I see most people shooting shotgun like patterns at 7 yards.

But what do I know, I like .357 Sig. :D

Ben86
March 14, 2011, 04:52 PM
I guess it's just my range where I see most people shooting shotgun like patterns at 7 yards.

Everyone is also a tough guy. :D

.357 sig? OMG how do you handle it's cataclysmic snappiness without loosing a hand? ;)

glockky
March 15, 2011, 01:37 AM
i honestly dont notice much recoil i have a g26 and my buddy has a 27 and we shot both and passed them back and forth and could not tell much difference at all until he loaded the 27 with some hydra shocks then the 27's recoil went up a little.

aryfrosty
March 15, 2011, 02:18 PM
Yessir, it's true. It isn't anything that can't be trained around so that you don't have your firing compromised.
Our agency went to .40s with Beretta 96D Centurions in 1993 or so because we wanted something with greta ballistics but with more mag capacity than the .45acp. Some Officers couldn 't get adjusted to Berettas so they traided them and got Sig P229s. It's a good round, but since I retired I don't own anything in that caliber. I still like the .45acp.

MidwestRookie
March 15, 2011, 03:55 PM
i haven't shot .45 yet, but to me, the .40 was FUN...

im a big guy so I wasn't worried about it blowing me out of my socks or anything, but compared to my 9's that I shoot the .40 was so much fun to shoot, even out of a polymer framed m&p..

i didn't notice anything that would make my shooting worse, in fact the box I shot of .40 (range's own reloads) I put them in a much better group than the first time I shot (factory) 9mm..

volgunner
March 15, 2011, 03:59 PM
I was a died-in-the-wool revolver guy (mostly j- and l-frame Smith & Wessons), until last week when I went over to the dark side by acquiring a new G27, gen3. While I rented a lot of 9 mm's in the process of deciding on the G27, I'm really learning on the 40 cal platform, and, so far, it's working out fine and recoil/flip isn't a problem. It's sure a lot easier placing shots with the G27 than the S&W 642! Also, I got a 40/9 conversion barrel, so I've got the best of both worlds. Get the G27.

jeepmor
March 15, 2011, 11:48 PM
It's a 35,000 psi cartridge with a 0.40 diameter bullet. You do the math.

GLOOB
March 16, 2011, 03:49 AM
According to the internet, everyone is a really good shot. I guess it's just my range where I see most people shooting shotgun like patterns at 7 yards.
I think it's partly a matter of selection bias. Everyone has good days and bad days. People are more apt to share their good stories. :)

I wasn't even expecting to keep them all on the target. This was the first time I "hammered" without even trying to pick up a flash sight picture. My only thought was to shoot it as fast as I could and see what happens. And that was what happened. It was probably a fluke. But it was the last mag of ammo, so for now I'll hope it can be repeated! :)

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 recoil snap - any truth?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!