How many here have shifted to 40sw?


PDA






el Godfather
October 18, 2013, 08:25 AM
Dear THR:
I want to know the following if you can oblige:

1. How many of you shifted from 9 to 40, and why?
2. How many of you shifted from 45 to 40, and why?
3. In moving from 9 to 40, you lose capacity, but whats the meaningful energy/velocity gain that can be quantified with some data/study?
4. In moving from 45 to 40, you can capacity, but, again, whats that meaningful energy/velocity gain that can be quantified?

Thank you

If you enjoyed reading about "How many here have shifted to 40sw?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RUT
October 18, 2013, 08:28 AM
I can't say that I've "shifted", but I do have a couple of 40s. (just because)

Pilot
October 18, 2013, 08:32 AM
I have 9MM's, and .45's so never felt the need to get a .40.

HOOfan_1
October 18, 2013, 08:44 AM
The first modern Auto loader I bought was a .40

I had been shooting a 1911 .45 ACP and a P38 9mm.

The last two modern auto loaders I bought are 9mm. I plan to buy another .40, but I am seriously thinking of sticking with 9mm because I can shoot them better..also they are a tiny bit cheaper to shoot.

My two self defense loads are...
Gold Dot +P 124 grain 9mm
HST 180 grain .40

Both of them are rated at 410 ft-lb

scaatylobo
October 18, 2013, 08:46 AM
I went to the .40 when my dept did [ over a decade back ] as we were then using the .9 MM.
I now am retired and still own and shoot 4 .40's.As well as EDC a G-23 that I have owned since we went to that caliber.
I do own and shoot most all other handgun calibers,but having had much trigger time and gone to firearms instructors course with the .40,I am fairly confident with it.
I keep trying to LOVE the 1911's and that caliber,as well as the really effective 9MM's that are very easy to shoot.
But the G-23 is on the belt 95% of the time.

madFive
October 18, 2013, 08:50 AM
Not me, moving away from .40 for the most part. In modern JHP defense loads 9, 40, & 45 are all engineered to have the same terminal performance, so in my mind it comes down to what feels best recoil-wise when fired, and what I am most likely to shoot the most at the range. Most of mine are 45, but currently I'm getting more into 9mm as well.

I will admit I'm a sucker for 10mm though. If you want something harder hitting, skip the Short&Wimpy and go straight for the real thing.

TarDevil
October 18, 2013, 08:51 AM
Still predominantly 9mm and will remain so. I will add a .45 sometime next year, but do not see a .40 in my future.

OARNGESI
October 18, 2013, 08:55 AM
i sold my last 2 40s about a month ago, sticking to 9 and 45 made more sense for me.

ritepath
October 18, 2013, 09:16 AM
I bought a 40 after the last ammo scare. Shot it 15 times...love buying 40 but don't shoot it. I'm debating on a 40 or another 9 in a single stack like the Shield. Or maybe I should just save some more and get an XDS in my favorite caliber 45...

Maybe I should sell my sig and 40 ammo and buy an XDS and Shield.

PistolPete45
October 18, 2013, 09:21 AM
Nope I have had a few 9's . kept one several 45's kept 4 . but prefer a revolver in a tight spot my main carry pistols are snubby 44 special and a kimber 45 .

Charger442
October 18, 2013, 09:29 AM
an old guy who i see frequently at gun shows put it the most eloquently. He was looking at a gun a guy had and it was chambered in .40.

he said " Why do i want to shoot a .40? If i want to take that kind of abuse, ill shoot a 45 instead and get more stopping power and cheaper ammo" (Disclaimer: this was some years pre-obama and 45 was cheaper than 40)

jimbo555
October 18, 2013, 09:40 AM
I shifted to 45acp,don't own any 9mm or 40s&w anymore.

WYO
October 18, 2013, 10:26 AM
The .40 was the eventual response to perceived poor bullet performance of the 9mm in the 1987 Miami shootout. It did bring something to the table in the early nineties because it worked on a 9mm frame and offered a bit more oomph, although at the cost of snappier recoil. Now, with improvements in cartridge and bullet development in 9mm and .45 ACP, and advances in gun design, it has become less relevant. I have transitioned away from the .40 in favor of the .45. I can get equal or better performance with a low pressure round that produces less recoil in my guns.

herrwalther
October 18, 2013, 10:38 AM
I have 9, 40s, and 45s. What I carry depends on weather, when the last time I carried it, last time I was at the range with it etc.

mott
October 18, 2013, 10:40 AM
We shifted in then back out. would'nt want to be on the receiving end of a
.40, but it has a nasty recoil. will stick with 9mm & .45.

jmr40
October 18, 2013, 10:49 AM
The 40 is a slight improvement over both 45 and 9mm. The difference is small, but it is there. It is not a compromise between power and ammo capacity as is commonly thought, and there is a very good reason it dominated in the LE community. That is what I'd carry if I were in LE if given an option.

I've had several 40 cal pistols in the past, but currently do not. With the better loads I'm quite confident in a 9mm's abilites and ammo is a lot cheaper. I own several 45's simply because I like the 1911. I don't believe it is any better or worse, just like them.

After buying a G-20 in 10mm I sold all of my 40's. Figured I had all of my bases covered with 9mm and 10mm. The 45's are mainly for show.

bannockburn
October 18, 2013, 10:58 AM
I had three different .40s over the years but never found one worth keeping around. Didn't really mind the snappy recoil so much but never felt the accuracy was all that great with any of them. Have plenty of 9mm. and .45 pistols (and ammo to go with them), so couldn't see the need for another caliber to buy ammo for.

GRIZ22
October 18, 2013, 11:05 AM
I'm with Pilot on this. I have no use for a 40. Don't own one and most likely never will. If I want more than a 9 I skip the intermediate step and go to 45. Capacity? That's why they make spare magazines AFAIC.

Scrambler
October 18, 2013, 11:16 AM
Had three .40 cal pistols. Selling the last one this weekend. Sticking with a Shield 9mm and Glock 30SF for EDC. Keeping a SIG 1911 and a Glock 19 for IDPA and range fun. A few 38 Specials I can't part with. 44 magnum? Must have for deer hunting! Don't need those 40's around, I'm trying to keep it simple.

BP Hunter
October 18, 2013, 11:23 AM
The only reason why I got a .40 was because I never had one.:p You must have guns of different calibers, right?:D:p Anyway, I have a Glock 22 used primarily as my sidearm when hunting. My GLock 19 is my regular carry.

wow6599
October 18, 2013, 11:43 AM
Sold all my .40s about 4-5 years ago, but during this latest ammo scare I did buy a .40 barrel for my Glock 20 (and .357 Sig).

It doesn't hurt to have the ability to shoot the rd if needed, but I won't buy another firearm chambered for it.

2wheels
October 18, 2013, 12:49 PM
I think more people have shifted away from .40 to 9mm and .45 than have shifted from 9mm/.45 to .40.

I'm one of them, I sold my one and only .40 a while back and never looked back. 9mm gets the job done just as well, and it's a little cheaper and there's less recoil to deal with.

Jitterbug
October 18, 2013, 12:52 PM
I use the 9mm, .40, .45 ACP, 10mm and .44 Mag. Each one serves a purpose in my carry rotation.

ETXhiker
October 18, 2013, 01:16 PM
I bought a .40 when they first came out - the "perfect pistol cartridge for defense", you know? :rolleyes: I liked it just fine, but now I have a bunch of 9mm's and a .45. Nothing really wrong with the .40 S&W, just don't see a need for one right now. With a 9mm, .40 or .45 and good ammo, the same hit on a bad guy is likely to produce pretty similar results. I find I can shoot my 9mm's faster and more accurately than a .40, especially with the compacts. YMMV.

beatledog7
October 18, 2013, 01:36 PM
My first semi-auto was a .40 because my research to find the one cartridge best suited to a range of needs pointed to the .40. I thought I'd only ever own one semi.

I don't have to have a one-cartridge-for-everything round anymore. I have others now and use them for specific purposes, but the .40 would still be the do-it-all cartridge for me.

RUT
October 18, 2013, 01:44 PM
>>Nothing really wrong with the .40 S&W, just don't see a need for one right now.<<

Well, I don't have a "need" for half of the guns I own, so that argument doesn't really hold water. :-)

Hunter991
October 18, 2013, 01:58 PM
I went from 9mm to 45. Why stop at 40 IMO

JTQ
October 18, 2013, 02:05 PM
jmr40 wrote,
The 40 is a slight improvement over both 45 and 9mm.
People don't like to admit it, with all the .40 Short & Weak talk, but jmr40 is correct, the typical .40S&W is more powerful than 9MM or .45 Auto. I'm primarily a .45 Auto shooter, but I can see how the .40 S&W would be a good round. I believe the .40 S&W ballistics are similar to those envisioned by Elmer Keith for the .41 Magnum as a police round, which I think was a 200-210 grain bullet at around 900fps. It makes sense the police would like the round, and also makes yet another case for Elmer Keith being a pretty smart gun guy.

JohnBiltz
October 18, 2013, 03:59 PM
Tried it, did not like it, went back to 9mm.

greenlion
October 18, 2013, 05:28 PM
I shoot as much 40 as I do 45 and 9mm now. It is a very versatile round, especially if you reload. You can load up very accurate soft recoiling target rounds. You can also buy very powerful defensive rounds in any flavor you want.

If you are a speed devotee, then use a 135gr going 1420fps. If you are a heavy-for-caliber person, use a 200 grain going 1100fps. If you are somewhere in between, the 180gr at 1120fps or a 165gr at 1150fps might be the ticket. If you don't like the snappy recoil, use the old FBI load which was a 180gr going 950fps, or the old "police lite" load which was a 165gr going 980fps.

You can make major in the shooting sports with it much easier than 9mm, and during the recent ammo hoarding, I saw more 40 available than 9mm or 45.

The 9mm sized 40 caliber guns fit my hands a little better than the 45's too.

A lot of the people who don't like the 40 are the shooters who absolutely HAVE to have the fastest most powerful ammo they can buy for it, and then complain that it is too snappy. It really isn't snappy at all if you buy ammo in the velocity range that it was originally marketed with.

420Stainless
October 18, 2013, 09:21 PM
I shifted from a .45 for awhile just because I never really liked carrying cocked and locked much. Now I have a pocket .45 and the .40 only goes along on car rides. Don't have any 9mm's except for an aftermarket barrel for the .40, but only keep in .40 mode for self defense. Won't ever get rid of the .40 since I really like the SIG 229, but I'm a Kahr .45 guy for the foreseeable future.

fanchisimo
October 18, 2013, 09:21 PM
I recently bought a police trade-in Gen 3 Glock 22. I have no doubts that the 9mm is a adequate round for self defense, but I bought the .40 because I can buy a barrel and some magazines and have a 9mm or a .357 Sig. As someone noted, .40 was a lot more available during recent months so in one pistol and some parts, I am able to shoot 3 calibers. That was my reasoning.

460Kodiak
October 18, 2013, 11:38 PM
First semi I owned was a 40. Hated the muzzle flip and went to a .45.

Happy now.

Capt. Ct.
October 18, 2013, 11:53 PM
I have mostly 9mm. A couple .45. Never gave a serious thought to .40. I don't need to start reloading yet another caliber. Why mess with .40 when I can go .45?

flatlander937
October 19, 2013, 12:18 AM
I like the idea of the .40 caliber cartridge(as far as size of bullets/velocity/capacity) but have yet to find a gun chambered in that round that I can shoot even reasonably accurately.

When I find that gun I'll buy it though :evil:


I have a 9mm Kahr CM9 and a .45 Colt 1911(Commander size) for reference. An in-betweener would be good with me.

Sergei Mosin
October 19, 2013, 12:51 AM
I am experimenting with the .40 at the moment. I bought one for a variety of reasons - I wanted to expand my cartridge options, I took a liking to the SIG DAK trigger, and the local Cabela's had a sale on police trade-in P229R DAK pistols.

What I like about the .40 - I subscribe to the theory that, all things being equal, bigger holes are better than smaller holes, and more holes are better than fewer holes. I'm also convinced by the statistical arguments set forth in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=665883). The .40 seems to hit that sweet spot between 9mm capacity and .45 size.

What I don't like about the .40 - it's a bit snappy for some. It may not be all that much more effective than the 9mm, and if that's the case then more 9mm rounds are preferable. I need to do some more statistical analysis on this score. And if you can conceal a double-stack .45 - which I can - the .40 loses some of its appeal.

On balance I like the .40, but it's only one of several handgun cartridges I find acceptable for defensive work. No handgun cartridge is the Hammer of Thor. But the .40 is still pretty good.

Screwball
October 19, 2013, 12:56 AM
Have two .40 M&Ps... but really got them to have a dedicated .40 (also have a Beretta 96 conversion slide for my 92).

At the same token, I have .45, .380, .38 Special, 10mm, and 9mm. Issued a 9mm, so that is predominately what I prefer. My backup guns are either the .380 (Ruger LCP) or .38 Special (S&W 642), but going to pick up a SIG P938 to try and make ammo a little easier.

I like the .40, but not to the point where I see it as the "super" cartridge. All pistol cartridges pretty much suck for what they ultimately are intended for (defense).

saturno_v
October 19, 2013, 01:39 AM
The 40 is a slight improvement over both 45 and 9mm. The difference is small, but it is there. It is not a compromise between power and ammo capacity as is commonly thought, and there is a very good reason it dominated in the LE community. That is what I'd carry if I were in LE if given an option.



+1000

The .40 is not a compromise in power between a 9 and a 45....it is a cartridge that exceeds. 45 and matches 45 +P power level on a 9mm size platform and usually with higher round count than a 45.

tarosean
October 19, 2013, 03:00 AM
Just the opposite actually... Sold all 40's I had with the exception of one.

J_McLeod
October 19, 2013, 12:30 PM
I've sort of switched from 9 to .40. I usually carry a PF9 or my wife's XD9SC but sometimes carry a 4" XD40. I got it because I was looking for a bit more power and will probably never buy a .45 because I don't want to buy large and small primers. (I know some .45 have SPP, don't want to deal with it)

The first 40's I had tried were very snappy and I would never have considered buying a 40 until I started reloading. I haven't really worried about the 1-2 round capacity lost. Loaded with some HS-6 or Longshot I enjoy shooting it, but have considered going back to 9mm just to consilidate calibers among my pistols.

Potatohead
October 19, 2013, 12:45 PM
Thanks for the thread. Ive been thinking about making the switch from 9.

wow6599
October 19, 2013, 01:13 PM
A .40 cal bullet is fine......in 10mm :evil:

All kidding aside, I find the 40 S&W to have an odd, "flippy" recoil. Not the case with 9, 45 or 10. I have always found it odd that in my hands, a 10mm Glock has less (better?) felt recoil than a Glock 22....or S&W M&P40, etc..

For the same reason I won't buy .38 Special revolvers, I won't buy a 40 S&W.
If I don't care much for the cartridge, the platform needs to be versatile. .357 can take a .38, a 10mm can take a .40 - and I'm content not having a dedicated .40. YMMV

P5 Guy
October 19, 2013, 01:22 PM
My first pistol was a P5c (hence the screen name) and I have never entertained the idea of changing from 9mm.
Walther is long gone and I like my little G26 for carry, or a S&W 60. It is just my opinion but If I'm feeling the need for more power a rifle or shotgun is more fitting.

orionengnr
October 19, 2013, 01:27 PM
I have had at least a half dozen of them--first one was a G23, back in 92 or so.
Sold the last one probably five years ago, and there is not a .40 currently on the market that has my attention.

Rittmeister
October 19, 2013, 01:38 PM
I shoot 9mm and .45. I would consider a .40 though I did not care for the snappiness of the recoil on the Sig and Glock .40s I've shot; however, at this point I have no desire to add another caliber to my logistics train.

Sauer Grapes
October 19, 2013, 02:41 PM
I shifted to the 40 a few years ago, when I started shooting USPSA. I think it's great cartridge if your ''rolling'' your own ammo. I can download it to something near a 9mm for range work, or all the way up to SD levels.

Robbins290
October 19, 2013, 03:25 PM
Will never carry or shoot a 40 s&w. i keep one on hand, for scavenging ammo. Thats it, have no use for the cartridge.

Hangingrock
October 19, 2013, 03:33 PM
By the advent of the 40 S&W I was set in my ways with years of experience with the 45ACP and to a lesser degree the 9mm-Luger. Someone would have to give me a free S&W or Glock pistol along with ammunition before it would even perk my interest/curiosity.

el Godfather
October 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
+1000

The .40 is not a compromise in power between a 9 and a 45....it is a cartridge that exceeds. 45 and matches 45 +P power level on a 9mm size platform and usually with higher round count than a 45.
Please give us data with source.

TEC
October 19, 2013, 04:31 PM
Honestly, it was more the right pistol than the .40 caliber that made me switch. Have always liked my 9 mm Sig P225 and my 45 Sig P220, but when I picked up a Custom Shop Sig P229, and got the feel for the short reset trigger, the decision was easy.

CornCod
October 19, 2013, 04:32 PM
The .40 Glock Model 22 is the official handgun of the corrections agency I work for. I qualify with it once a year and don't touch one for another 12 months. I only get issued one if a felon escapes. I don't own a personal .40S&W. I own .45's 9mm's. .22's. .38's .32's and .380's. I conceal carry the .32's and .380's. I use the .38's for home defense and I shoot mostly 9mm. If I had the money I would buy a cheap .40 for fun and practice.

armsmaster270
October 19, 2013, 10:55 PM
I have 2 9mm's a S&W 6906and a Sig228, 2 .40's,S&W Sigma & a Sig 226 The Sig I converted to 357Sig & 3 .45's A Colt 1911 made in 1918, a Taurus a PT145 Millenium & a Sig 220. The 357Sig is my carry gun.

Kayaker 1960
October 19, 2013, 11:36 PM
I live in California so with a 10 round magazine limit I figure why would I want to shoot a smaller, less powerful 9mm cartridge in the same size gun? A few years back I bought a Colt Commander .45 because some of you guys were and are still saying that a .45 is easier to shoot than the "flippy' .40 "short and weak". I found that the .45 was heavier than my Glock mod. 22 .40 yet the recoil was at least as bad, possibly worse and the ammo cost was considerably more. The Colt was very slightly more accurate, no doubt due to the single action trigger but the difference was pretty small. I tried to like the Colt, it was pretty and the 1911 platform has a cool factor but it just didn't do anything the Glock .40 wouldn't do. I sold the Colt and bought an M&P40c. I really like the M&P. 11 rounds (10+1) in a small but powerful package. My most recent purchase is a Ruger LC-9. Now this is what the 9mm is good for, a nice small and thin pistol with good power for it's size.
Hey .40 haters, How can the .40 be "Short and weak" yet have too much recoil? Why would one caliber be more "flippy' than another?
I've shot steel in competition, .40 and .45 knock stuff down with very similar authority, 9mm often struggles to knock over the same targets, often the targets have to hit near the top with a 9mm where .40 or .45 will knock them over easily by hitting the target anywhere.
9mm and .40 shoot similar velocity but .40 is moving a bigger, heavier projectile. It makes a bigger hole and in most cases penetrates further yet can be fired from a gun of the same weight and dimensions as a 9mm. I've found that a full sized 1911 is a sweet shooting gun, the reason isn't the cartridge, it's because it's a big, heavy gun with a single action trigger ( though still with limited capacity )

Here's a recoil demonstration by Hickok 45. 9mm, .40. 10mm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxT53-Ukig

Magnuumpwr
October 20, 2013, 12:05 AM
No reason for me to shift from one caliber to another. I own several guns in each caliber and shoot them all to keep myself familiar with them.

Rasp
October 20, 2013, 01:40 AM
I sold my last 9mm last week. I started shooting USPSA last year with a Glock 35 which was my first exposure to the 40S&W. I have amassed a large stock of reloading components because of this. I find it to be the perfect comprise btw the 9 & 45.

My CCW weapon was a G26 which I enjoyed, but never started reloading due to low round cost and ready availability... until the current ammo drought. I've not had any issues finding .40 ammo in my area since, but it's been many months since I've seen 9mm on shelves.

I sold my 6yr old G26 and purchaced a G27. With the G27 I also gain added versatility with conversion kits, and don't find the .40 recoil as brutal as most do. The 155gr Remington hollow points however, can be distracting.

DIXIEDOG
October 20, 2013, 07:15 AM
I haven't shifted but I was unable to decide so I have some of each.:D

JDGray
October 20, 2013, 07:21 AM
I scrapped the .40 cal, a few years ago, in favor of the 9mm. But then I get a screaming deal on a CZ40B, and now I'm back on board:D Not much difference between 9,40,45... so why not have what you like!

bobandmikako
October 20, 2013, 07:35 AM
I was shooting a lot of .40 for a while when ammo was scarce. I also starting reloading for .40 and found brass and bullets easier to find than some other calibers. I still prefer 9mm but I like to have other options, including .40, .357Sig, and .45ACP.

OilyPablo
October 20, 2013, 08:13 AM
I was shooting a lot of .40 for a while when ammo was scarce. I also starting reloading for .40 and found brass and bullets easier to find than some other calibers. I still prefer 9mm but I like to have other options, including .40, .357Sig, and .45ACP.

Clicked the link to post this. Seemed like .40S&W was pretty much available during the last banic. Plus I have a decent stash, because it's not my usual plinking caliber. I have always said keeps guns in multiple calibers (across the spectrum if possible) is a good strategy. Guns with swappable barrels (10mm, .40S&W, .357Sig) work well for me.

JDR
October 20, 2013, 08:30 AM
I have a Gen4 Glock 22 that I can shoot good target groups with, the "snappy" recoil isn't bad with that one. I'm told that the dual recoil spring on the Gen4 helps to counter the snappy recoil. Some of the factory .40 S&W ammo that is out there is pretty marginal; if I could stick to Federal and Remington and avoid Win White Box, I'd be better off. My P226-40 has trouble with WWB, I had the same problem with a CZ 75B-40. The Glock cycles just about everything, although I did get an FTF on a round yesterday, it happened to be WWB.

DIXIEDOG
October 20, 2013, 08:52 AM
I have Gen 3 .40 cal as well as a Gen 4 .40 cal and I really haven't been able to feel a difference. I know they claim the recoil reduction but I just can't feel it. They both shoot well and the rough texture on the Gen 4 is nice but not much difference to me otherwise.


Am I the only one that has shot both Gen 3's and 4's back to back and not noticed a big difference?

JDR
October 20, 2013, 10:16 AM
I have Gen 3 .40 cal as well as a Gen 4 .40 cal and I really haven't been able to feel a difference. I know they claim the recoil reduction but I just can't feel it. They both shoot well and the rough texture on the Gen 4 is nice but not much difference to me otherwise.

I don't have a Gen3 G-22 to compare to the Gen4, I have a Gen3 Glock 17 that I could not tell the difference in recoil when I shot that alongside a Gen4 17. But I do have the P226-40 and an H&K USP 40; the Gen4 G-22 handles recoil better than the Sig with identical ammo, but this might be due to the Sig's higher bore axis. And I can't tell the difference in recoil between the Gen4 and the USP, which is a much more expensive gun! Big tip of the hat to the Glock!

TestPilot
October 20, 2013, 11:01 AM
Moved from 9mm to 40S&W.

Reason: More powerful.

There is an energy gain. This is visible in any ammunition manufacturer data.

However, there is no method of measuring how much increase in effectiveness it would bring.

Of course there are many who would say "It penetrates the same in gel, so it's the same as 9mm, blah blah..."

The problem is that there are factors a gel cannot measure.

TestPilot
October 20, 2013, 11:21 AM
Now, with improvements in cartridge and bullet development in 9mm and .45 ACP, and advances in gun design, it has become less relevant. I have transitioned away from the .40 in favor of the .45. I can get equal or better performance with a low pressure round that produces less recoil in my guns.
This is a reasoning I don't understand.

1. Chamber pressure is NOT a decicive factor in level of recoil. If it is, then 9mm should have more recoil than a 45ACP.

2. Sure, 45ACP has less chamber pressure. But,recoil force itself is still large, meaning if fired from same model of guns, like M&P40 vs. M&P 45, it's not as if 45ACP version of the similar model pistols have a longer service life. Of course, some love to say "45 is more of a push than a snap," which is totally subjective and not in any means universal. Sure, recoil from a 40oz all steel 1911 felt okay, but 45ACP Glock felt plenty snappy to me. But, 40S&W SIG P229 felt even milder than either of my full steel 45ACP 1911 to me. That does not mean I go around spreading "45ACP is snappy while 40S&W is more of a push than a snap" nonsense.

3. 40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm, but a lot of them loves to make an exception to 45ACP which is even more expensive and even less capacity.

Also, there really is no technology that can measure the power benefit from 40S&W or 45ACP over a 9mm. But, the critics just love to change "benefit cannot be measured" to "there is no benefit."

They just cite the gel tests, but ignore that more powerful bullets tend to crush through bone and get deflected less.

gym
October 20, 2013, 11:35 AM
No use for the 40, have tried it with half a dozen guns over 20+ yrs, and shoot the 9 and 45 much better. IMO very hard to shoot accurate follow up shots. I am shooting over 50 years and carrying 44, and it is the one round that I really cannot shoot properly no matter what gun it's coming out of. My groups are twice the size of other calibers.

Kayaker 1960
October 20, 2013, 12:07 PM
Gym,
You've seen Hickok 45 shoot his little Glock 27 at 230 yards right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEg4y54Dk


There is nothing wrong with the .40 as far as accuracy is concerned. I've shot a lot of different cartridges, the only one that I find to be more accurate than others is .22 L.R. , all others seem to be pretty equal accuracy wise.

Hangingrock
October 20, 2013, 12:18 PM
Test Pilot:Moved from 9mm to 40S&W.

It is not my intent to be argumentative. There is an apparent move from the 40 S&W to the 9mm-Luger by certain law enforcement agencies. This trend has been noted by I believe at least two shooting publications recently. Just an observation. It appears that ammunition technology has evolved to the point there is little difference between the either cartridges terminal results.

TestPilot
October 20, 2013, 12:37 PM
It is not my intent to be argumentative. There is an apparent move from the 40 S&W to the 9mm-Luger by certain law enforcement agencies. This trend has been noted by I believe at least two shooting publications recently. Just an observation. It appears that ammunition technology has evolved to the point there is little difference between the either cartridges terminal results.
That really have more to do with training and cost than anything else.

40S&W do take more discipline to control, especially in rapid firing multiple shots. Think about 38 Special and 357 Magnum. I prefer 357 Magnum in a revolver, but it also takes more training. Same with 40S&W.

New revelation is not about whether if 40S&W or 9mm is equal or not. It's more of a revelation that most law enforcement agencies were not able or willing to train more when they went to 40S&W. They barely train enough when they have a 9mm. This is the likely reason many agencies kept their 38 Special revolvers when some agencies went to 357 Magnum in the revolver era. But, that does not mean 38 Special and 357 Magnum are equal, altough I do not think the dispairity between 9mm and 40S&W is as great as between 38 Special and 357 Magnum,

I would recommend 9mm as a general issue. However, I would be opposed to removing 40S&W as an option in any agency.

gym
October 20, 2013, 01:10 PM
Hickok, is not your normal shooter. I invited him to join here several years ago, never checked to see if he did. Comparing oneself to him is a stretch of the imagination.
On top of which, he shoots more guns and more calibers than just about anyone on earth.
The consensus of opinion of the average guy who carries, for self defense, is that they shoot 9mm better.
Now I could tell you I shoot snub nose revolvers better than 90% of shooters do, because I carried them for 25 years, and competed with 2 and 3 inch snubbys on combat courses against the NYPD and FBI, but who cares. The average guy can't hit anything past 15 feet with one. The 40 is a viable caliber, I don't shoot it as well as either the 9 or 45, or 38, 32,22 357 and on and on, it's like Tom Selleck said in Quigley down under, I don't like it, I didn't say I couldn't shoot it. I am used to tight groups, and I can't get them with 40 cal. offhand. Nor do I shoot any handgun at 230 yards, just because a Gentleman who shoots all day can.

David E
October 20, 2013, 01:49 PM
The "average guy can't hit past 15 feet" because the guy has decided to be/stay "average."

This can be easily and quickly remedied once the guy decides to stop being average.

.

HexHead
October 20, 2013, 01:54 PM
I went from .40 S&W to 9mm.

ScarLata
October 20, 2013, 02:11 PM
40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm, but a lot of them loves to make an exception to 45ACP which is even more expensive and even less capacity.

:D I totally agree with TestPilot

David E
October 20, 2013, 03:10 PM
The .40 Glock Model 22 is the official handgun of the corrections agency I work for. I qualify with it once a year and don't touch one for another 12 months. I only get issued one if a felon escapes. I don't own a personal .40S&W....

It'd be smart to buy your own Glock 22 and shoot it regularly. Touching/firing one ONCE A YEAR is totally unacceptable. Since this gun model and caliber could keep you alive in a bad situation, you owe it to yourself, family and the public to be as proficient as you can be with one.

The bureaucrat(s) that made that decision won't even feel a twinge of guilt as they hand your casket flag to your widowed wife.

Don't let their incompetence impact you when you can avoid it.

Just sayin'

.

kennedy
October 20, 2013, 03:24 PM
I reload for .40, I like rainier 155gr with universal, so far have a smith and a witness silver team with a red dot. looking for a sig 226. my brother has a Hi-power in .40 and I tried it and liked it so decided to switch from 9mm to 40.

wow6599
October 20, 2013, 03:45 PM
40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm

Correct. At least for protection from 2 legged varmints.

ScarLata
October 20, 2013, 04:31 PM
I got all my guns in .40 caliber, so I can convert them to .357Sig or 9mm usually with just a barrel swap & recoil spring change if I want.
However .40 it's what I learned to shoot better on, so I spend my money & time enjoying the diversity of pistol brands with the same caliber.
I've settled on .40 S&W It's happily useful for me. No regrets!

armsmaster270
October 20, 2013, 06:28 PM
I am a fan of the light fast bullet not the slow big/heavy.

Mike J
October 20, 2013, 08:21 PM
I can't say I have shifted to .40. Back in 2000 when I decided I wanted a semi-auto pistol I wound up buying a Ruger P94 in .40. In 2007 when I decided to get more serious about being effective with my pistol the Ruger was what I had. My next pistol was an XD-40. I now own pistols in 9mm, .40 & .45. I am confident that any of them would work. I do prefer to carry the XD or the SR 1911 as my only 9mm is a subcompact Kel Tec P11. There are times when it is good to have something easier to conceal however.
I would not want a pistol the size & weight of the P11 chambered for .40 but for me it is fine in a full sized pistol.

kmbrman
October 20, 2013, 09:59 PM
It's not really like I shifted over to .40 S&W , it is actually about which ammo has been available during the recent ammo shortages. Some of my LGS,s have been out of one caliber and had lots of another. Nine was gone first, and then .45 ACP.,but .40S&W was sometimes still there. So I like to have several calibers I can fall back on.

351 WINCHESTER
October 20, 2013, 10:19 PM
I have never owned a .40 and never will. I'm happy with a properly stoked 9 or a .45.

gym
October 20, 2013, 10:26 PM
On top of the other reasons stated, I almost never see 40 for sale any place. I would have to buy it online. I am able to find 9 and 45, most of the time, but I haven't seen 40 for about 6 months "at the range" and they were asking $35 dollars a box for it. I can get 9mm for 15, and 45 for $20-25, so it really is not worth it to shoot paper targets with at almost a dollar a round. Now that is in the "treasure Coast" in FL, I am sure different areas of the country have different ammo issues, as we have discussed it before. And to the gentleman who commented on my 15 ft comment, if you read the whole sentence instead of what you saw as a challenge, you would have seen I was referring to snub nose revolvers when I said most average guys can't hit anything past 15 ft with one, and I stand by that from 5 decades of shooting them.
Most people who buy a snubby without really being a shooter from that era, find them very difficult to shoot accurately. They "look cool" but are an entire different animal than an auto pistol as far as putting 5 in the black from 7-25 yards.

Fiv3r
October 20, 2013, 10:45 PM
I bought a .40 FNS40 because of the shortage and it won me over. I carry a 9mm day to day and prefer the .45apc, but the .40 has a lot to offer.
It defends my home and hearth. I rather like the fast snappy round.

stressed
October 20, 2013, 11:26 PM
If I want .40 ballistics I just shoot cheaper factory target 10mm through my G29. Never owned a .40 and never will.

WYO
October 21, 2013, 10:24 AM
This is a reasoning I don't understand.

1. Chamber pressure is NOT a decicive factor in level of recoil. If it is, then 9mm should have more recoil than a 45ACP.

2. Sure, 45ACP has less chamber pressure. But,recoil force itself is still large, meaning if fired from same model of guns, like M&P40 vs. M&P 45, it's not as if 45ACP version of the similar model pistols have a longer service life. Of course, some love to say "45 is more of a push than a snap," which is totally subjective and not in any means universal. Sure, recoil from a 40oz all steel 1911 felt okay, but 45ACP Glock felt plenty snappy to me. But, 40S&W SIG P229 felt even milder than either of my full steel 45ACP 1911 to me. That does not mean I go around spreading "45ACP is snappy while 40S&W is more of a push than a snap" nonsense.

3. 40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm, but a lot of them loves to make an exception to 45ACP which is even more expensive and even less capacity.

Also, there really is no technology that can measure the power benefit from 40S&W or 45ACP over a 9mm. But, the critics just love to change "benefit cannot be measured" to "there is no benefit."

They just cite the gel tests, but ignore that more powerful bullets tend to crush through bone and get deflected less.
I never said that pressure and recoil were necessarily related. Given the choice between something that has to be "hot rodded" to achieve the same basic result as something that does not, I will take the latter. Small things like bullet setback and/or deformation are much more critical in the high pressure round than the lower pressure round.

I also find that my Glock 30SF is more pleasant to shoot (and easier to conceal) than my former Sig 229 in .40.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 21, 2013, 11:30 AM
I'm a young guy. .40sw came out when I was a small boy. So, I never had to face the decision of whether or not to shift to it. I will share my short story, however.

My first handgun was a joke. I don't even want to say what it was on here. I was not old enough to purchase one, and knew the guy who owned this pistol. He sold it to me for $100. It was a 9mm, and jammed after every shot. I did NOT grow up with handguns. I was completely clueless. Anyways, this gun is gone. Not long after this ill-fated purchase, I was given a .22 H&R revolver. I carried this for a while, until I turned 21.

I had been saving up for a good pistol, and a couple of days after my birthday, my wife and I went to a local gun store. I was particularly interested in a 10mm pistol. A friend had one (Glock 20) that I absolutely loved. I didn't realize how rare they were. My second choice (per my friend...) was .45acp. I didn't have enough money for the pistols that interested me. But I DID have enough money for a new Taurus 445 .44 special 2.25" revolver. $229+ tax. I remembered my experiences with the 9mm pistol and the .22 revolver. The revolver was awesome and flawless, and the pistol was pure crap. I jumped on the revolver. Turns out, .44 special was NOT the same thing as .44 magnum, but still plenty powerful. I carried this every day for 3-4 years, and I LOVED it. Yes, it was a Taurus, but it was also flawless, concealable, and powerful.

Eventually we moved to an urban area, and 5 rounds worried me, perhaps irrationally so. I saved up a couple hundred dollars, sold the Taurus, and was ready to purchase a pistol. By this time, I knew a lot more about handguns. I still really liked 10mm, but the only 10mm I could find at the time was a brand new Glock G20 for something like $629. I found brand new Glocks in other calibers for $489, so couldn't justify the 10mm. I didn't know a whole lot about .40sw, and I wanted something more powerful than 9mm. (I don't want to start a debate about caliber, but I STILL don't like carrying 9mm because I want more power.) SO I was looking for .45acp.

The problem was that every store I went to, and every .45 I held, either didn't have much more capacity than the Taurus revolver, or was too big for my hand(s). I'm not a small guy--6"1" and 250lbs at the time--but my hands are small. None of the .45s seemed comfortable to me. So then I started trying 9mm and that semi-mysterious .40sw. They were better, but some were still too big, including the Glocks (much to my dismay).

After some research, I was sold on the .40sw as more powerful than the 9mm, but in a smaller and/or more affordable package than the .45acp or 10mm. Eventually I found the perfect pistol--a modified (w/ stippling) Glock G22 whose grip was smaller than a normal Glock, but powerful enough to satisfy me. Hence, my first REAL pistol was a .40sw. My next purchase was something more concealable, and I went with the Kahr CW40. Those are still my 2 primary pistols. I can make .45s work these days, as I've fired thousands upon thousands of rounds since then. The grips on most .45s are still large, but I am comfortable with them. I bought a Taurus 24/7 5.25" barrel 9mm to use as a range toy, and it has served wonderfully in that role; but I have never carried it. .40sw is my minimum primary carry. I still theoretically like 10mm and .45acp the best, but .40sw is more suited for me, personally.

Old Dog
October 21, 2013, 01:05 PM
I actually got out of the .40 a couple years ago ... the factory ammo was pricier than either 9mm or .45, and I never felt that the .40 did anything the 9mm couldn't.

Now, with .40 S&W on the shelves of Sportsman's Warehouse and WalMart, but no 9mm or .45 to be seen ... I'm almost tempted to start shooting 40s again ...

ScarLata
October 21, 2013, 01:45 PM
? "I actually got out of the .40 a couple years ago ... the factory ammo was pricier than either 9mm or .45"

still nowadays...?

Old Dog
October 21, 2013, 02:37 PM
Yep, at this point, availability almost trumps price ...

ScarLata
October 21, 2013, 03:17 PM
With the today's ammo situation I don't see a lot of 9mm or .22lr on the shelf. What I do see is a lot of .40s&w with prices less expensive than .45acp.

el Godfather
October 22, 2013, 01:37 PM
Ammo price is the last thing for me to worry about- it wont force me to make a compromise on better option.

Nuclear
October 24, 2013, 03:32 AM
I shifted from a 40 back to a 9 and to a 45.

DDawg
October 24, 2013, 07:05 PM
I qualified for 9 yrs in the military with a .45, I still prefer the 40 over 45. I like the stoping power of the 40 and the reduced recoil.

chrisTx
October 24, 2013, 07:30 PM
The last 40 I owned was in 1998. It really lost its appeal when the AWB expired and you could carry full capacity 9s again. I'm pretty much a 9 and 45 person now, but huge majority of 9s.

HitFactor
October 24, 2013, 07:37 PM
9mm or. 45 for carry these days. I only use. 40 for major power factor games.

Teachu2
October 25, 2013, 04:03 PM
Not shifted, added. Ammo availability was the deciding factor. I prefer 9mm, .45acp, and .22LR....

Arkansas Paul
October 25, 2013, 04:43 PM
I for one love em all. I do like the idea of more capacity than a .45 and a bigger hole than a 9mm, I admit.
I currently shoot 9 and .40 and plan to add .45 acp soon. Why choose.

leadcounsel
October 25, 2013, 07:25 PM
The .380 is bare minimum.

The 9x18 Makarov is low-adequate.

I feel the 9 is adequate with extra adequate ammo.

The .45 is great, but not enough ammo.

The .40 is the perfect mix in effective AND ammo capacity. Speed of the bullet, bullet weight, capacity, cost, and availability all influence my decision, but EFFECTIVENESS is the most important.

Here's a picture of my shooting an old steel water heater at 50 feet with 9mm and .40 caliber. The dents are the 9mm. The holes are the .40. Using similar factory ammo.

I've been through many shooting schools. When I was at Gryphon Group, we were issued the .40 because the 9 would not reliably penetrate windshields because it was too light, and the .45 was too slow to penetrate windshields consistently. Issues with the 9 and .45 penetrating AND remaining on target. The .40 was the ideal speed and weight to consistently punch through AND remain on target. That's me in the drivers seat in the picture. Training operation was shooting at targets through windshields and through side and rear windows.

While not scientific, it does make me want to carry the .40 over the 9mm. It demonstrates the deeper penetration through hard targets - breaking bones like ribs and femurs, penetrating car doors, wood desks, windshields, or wood studs that you may need to shoot through in self defense. Since most of us spend a lot of time driving, being able to shoot in self defense through a windshield or car doors etc. is important to me.

(Ignore the 5.56 holes).

Edited to add: I've at times carried the .380, 9mm, .40, and .45, and have examples of all of the above calibers. I would feel protected with any of them in standard day-to-day situations. For instance, when I go jogging in rural areas, the biggest threat is stray aggressive dogs, so I carry a compact glock with 9mm hollowpoints. I feel capacity for followup shots in the most important to ensure scoring a hit. (Note I also have pepper spray for dogs). However, I typically prefer the .40, but not always. Variety is the spice of life! :)

Manny
October 25, 2013, 08:05 PM
I started with .45acp, liked it and ammo was relatively cheap at the time. Tried .40 S&W next and just never got equal accuracy even after trying several different .40's. Became disenchanted and sold the .40's. Finally tried 9mm when ammo prices started jumping. Got great accuracy and lots of fun to shoot. Able to buy quality HP ammo for same or less than .45 ball, able to buy 9mm ball for substantially less. Sold the .45, put back some 9mm so recent shortages had no effect, now own only 9mm's and am very content with them. 9mm serves my needs very well, I feel no need to look further.

Geno
October 25, 2013, 08:11 PM
No, I have not. I still carry 9mms, 10mms and 45 ACPs, but don't even own a .40 S&W.

Geno

shadow9
October 26, 2013, 01:02 AM
Owned a .40, owned another .40, owned a 9mm PPS, and settled now on a .357 Mag. I can plink with .38 puff loads, or run a 158 or 170 with MORE Sectional Density AND Speed (for the weight) than any of the auto cartridges can muster. However, I cut my ammo by more than half (12 to 5). But, I figure realistically, if I need more than 5-10 (speedloaders), I'm over my head anyways. I'm not a bodyguard, hitman, PMC or LEO, so engagements with gangmembers, drug-stings, and the like I lack the training and everyday experience for.

leadcounsel - what was the bullet weights you were using for penetration? Also, I've heard .45 goes through (into) windshields more linear than .40 or 9mm...according to Box o' Truth...granted it was in a 6" SOCOM not a 3.5" Kimber or 5" Gov't model, but still...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2_3.htm

bronco_buster
October 26, 2013, 01:21 AM
Bought a couple 40s during the ammo drought because 45 was unobtanium. The 40 ammo was abundant, priced better than 9mm, and always in stock. I like 40 more than 9mm, but I'm a huge 45 fan, and shoot that more than 90% of the time.

Hangingrock
October 26, 2013, 10:26 AM
If we start by using the Pennsylvania State Police as an example in 1969 the issued sidearm was the Colt Official Police 38-Spl, followed by Ruger Security Six 357-Mag, then the Berretta 96D 40-S&W, and now currently the Glock G37 45-GAP. One would have to ask those involved in the adoption process of the 45-GAP/Glock G37 why the change from the 40-S&W. Probably Glock made an economic offer that PSP couldn’t refuse.

What seems to be gathering substance at the moment is that the 9mm-Luger is technologically advanced to the point of being on par with the 40-S&W which could if true spell the demise in law enforcement usage. The citizen market to an extent copies what law enforcement is using in regards to sidearm type and cartridge type.

On the other hand you have shooting venues which have a power factor rating scale of major to minor. I question the correlation as opposed to actual recorded law enforcement shooting results plus the FBI protocols in regards to penetration and expansion. Do real world results give a definitive answer in regards to effectiveness? I subscribe to Shooting Illustrated a NRA publication. There are often articles concerning testing of penetration and expansion per various self-defense ammunition products from different manufactures.

If those test protocols’ are correct and actual usage collaborates actual shooting incidents then it would seem the differentiation between the 9mm-Luger, 40-S&W, and 45-ACP in application is somewhat equivalent.

SDGlock23
October 26, 2013, 11:02 AM
I'll always have the .40 around, it can do just about anything you could ask of a handgun. It's a great cartridge!

TestPilot
October 26, 2013, 11:29 AM
The .40 is the perfect mix in effective AND ammo capacity. Speed of the bullet, bullet weight, capacity, cost, and availability all influence my decision, but EFFECTIVENESS is the most important.

Here's a picture of my shooting an old steel water heater at 50 feet with 9mm and .40 caliber. The dents are the 9mm. The holes are the .40. Using similar factory ammo.

I've been through many shooting schools. When I was at Gryphon Group, we were issued the .40 because the 9 would not reliably penetrate windshields because it was too light, and the .45 was too slow to penetrate windshields consistently. Issues with the 9 and .45 penetrating AND remaining on target. The .40 was the ideal speed and weight to consistently punch through AND remain on target. That's me in the drivers seat in the picture. Training operation was shooting at targets through windshields and through side and rear windows.

While not scientific, it does make me want to carry the .40 over the 9mm. It demonstrates the deeper penetration through hard targets - breaking bones like ribs and femurs, penetrating car doors, wood desks, windshields, or wood studs that you may need to shoot through in self defense. Since most of us spend a lot of time driving, being able to shoot in self defense through a windshield or car doors etc. is important to me.

Once again, it is proven: You don't get somthing for nothing.

No matter how much jellos "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same" crowd love to show, jello is never a total reflection of real life complexities.

They are not equal.

Fiv3r
October 26, 2013, 02:41 PM
The more time I spend around the .40, the more I like it. I know it will always be seen as a bit of a compromise and snappy cartridge. Hell, I used to think the same thing. 9mm for cheap shooting and light carry, .45 for HD and woods defense.

The more I mess around with the .40S&W, the more I rather like it. I get good penetration with ball ammo for woods defense, and there are enough good choices in SD ammo to keep it stoked for walking down the street. Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to stop carrying my little Glock 26 day to day nor will I be selling my .45s. I just find that after buying one out of near desperation, I keep coming back to the caliber even though I no longer have to.

leadcounsel
October 26, 2013, 03:06 PM
What seems to be gathering substance at the moment is that the 9mm-Luger is technologically advanced to the point of being on par with the 40-S&W

If you think about it, this statement makes no sense. Assuming that the 9x19 could be loaded "up" to being like the .40.... then it stands to reason that the .40 could be loaded "up" correspondingly to be that much better.

Stated otherwise, if the baseline of a 9mm is "D" and .40 is "E" and you bump 9mm up to "E" then you could also bump the .40 up to the next power, "F."

And you're back to a big difference in power.

Hangingrock
October 26, 2013, 03:35 PM
If you think about it, this statement makes no sense. Assuming that the 9x19 could be loaded "up" to being like the .40.... then it stands to reason that the .40 could be loaded "up" correspondingly to be that much better.

I'm not a fan boy of a particular cartridge. That said I'm only reporting what I've read in firearms journals and talking with law enforcement sources. If you are madly in love with the 40-S&W so be it that's your choice.;)

BlindJustice
October 26, 2013, 05:22 PM
I haven't shifted to .40 S&W I shoot a
CZ 75B 14+1 9x19
1911 8+1 .45 ACP
Also S&W 625 .45 ACP/.45 Auto Rim for heavy loads

Some of the .40 S&W chambered platforms do attract, but
so far not. I would like to pick up a S&W 610 10m AUto/.40 S&W
w/Full Moon clips just cuz.

The S&W M&P40C 10+1 3.5" bbl. oes appeal as
an EDC but reality is I'm shoppingfor a Commander sized
1911 in .45 ACP for another carry option and
already have the holsters and spare magazines.

My shooting buddy did get a Glock 20 / 20mm AUto
and he's working up some handloads in 180-200 gr. XTPs
then I mention my .45 ACP 200 gr. lSWC @ 1,000 FPS

Sorry just bored no WSU Football game til next thrusday
what's with a game onHlloween?>

R-

MCgunner
October 28, 2013, 09:47 AM
If I buy a .40, it'll be that Taurus 405 revolver in .40. I like the idea of a .40 snub, sorta, not that much, but sorta. :D My 9s and my .45 ain't broke, won't replace 'em. I'd wanted a .40 when I was in my old gun club, lots of brass laying around at the range for the taking since local LEOs used the range. BUT, I no longer belong to the gun club, have moved and have my own back yard range, now, so taking advantage of free brass is no longer an issue.

If I want firepower, I have total confidence that a well placed shot with a 9mm +P is as good as a .40 or .45. I like my .45 because the gun is so good, great DA/SA trigger, very accurate and shoots where i look. The .45 is what I usually carry when I belt carry. I do have a pocket 9 that don't get carried as much now as it has iin the past.

Arkansas Paul
October 28, 2013, 10:16 AM
That said I'm only reporting what I've read in firearms journals and talking with law enforcement sources.

With all due respect, neither of those are reliable sources of firearms knowledge IMO.

1. What do you mean by firearms journals? If you mean mainstream publications, they're all shills for the products they're pimping at the time. I've never read a bad review in a gun mag. Hell, I saw a G&A article singing the praises of the Remington 710. That ought to tell you everything you need to know about that.

2. Law enforcement officers or even members of the military aren't automatically gun people with vast knowledge of firearms. Most police officers and soldiers I know aren't. I'm not dissing on them, they deserve our respect 100% but just because one's job requires that they carry a gun doesn't make them a gun expert. Some are far from it.

Hangingrock
October 28, 2013, 01:20 PM
Arkansas Paul With all due respect, neither of those are reliable sources of firearms knowledge IMO.

Firearms journals that could be a valid criticism but I have correspondence from several authors of articles that they provided information to validate their articles. The law enforcement people I've talked with and corresponded with were knowledgeable and had accumulated data pertaining to the subject. I've always liked to communicate with people that have been there done that with all due respect.

mgmorden
October 28, 2013, 11:15 PM
I owned 7 9mm's before I bought a .40 (which I now own 2). I have to say that it did nothing but solidify my like of the 9mm. Less recoil, more rounds in the mag, less cost to practice.

Don't get me wrong I like owning a .40 just because I like variety, but to me it's not as practical.

el Godfather
October 29, 2013, 12:35 AM
Which would be better in distance

I travel a lot and some times in a very hostile neck of woods. I have always wondered if .40 would hold better energy and momentum or velocity at not so close distances than 9 or 45?

wow6599
October 30, 2013, 07:20 PM
I travel a lot and some times in a very hostile neck of woods. I have always wondered if .40 would hold better energy and momentum or velocity at not so close distances than 9 or 45?

Say......50 yards or so?

Where do you travel so much that has such hostile critters roaming freely? Brown bear? Cougars? Velociraptors?

g_one
October 30, 2013, 08:04 PM
I started at 9, moved to 45. Now I'm considering switching to 40. 45 got me used to low capacity, but also made me want something just a little smaller/faster. I don't consider one to be more effective than the other, but I will say this: to this day, the most fun I ever had at the range was with a Gen 4 G23. It felt like that gun and that cartridge were just made for each other.

NEAL39
October 30, 2013, 10:49 PM
I went from 9MM to 40S&W when my neighbor bought a .40 mold. (He has the world's largest collection of wheel weights and is very generous. NEAL39

If you enjoyed reading about "How many here have shifted to 40sw?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!