.40S&W ideas


May 28, 2004, 05:06 PM
Hey all,
For the last 4 years I have been the proud owner of a Glock M.22 .40S&W pistol. It has served me pretty well as my primary home defense weapon, all round range gun and occasional concealed carry gun. But with that said I am starting to feel the need to move on.
Recently I have been looking at a number of different replacements. So far my favorites are the Sig 229, H&K USP 40 and Springfield XD40. Any replacement must be able to stand up to a lot of use, and maintain good reliability without a bunch of modifications.
I currently have a Springfield MilSpec 1911 .45, a Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm, and a Runger SP101 .357mag, so I am really only thinking about a new .40 right now. I am interested to hear anyone and everyones thoughts on what would make the best replacement.

If you enjoyed reading about ".40S&W ideas" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 28, 2004, 05:22 PM
I have a Glock23 also three Kimbers Custom TLE II Tac Pro II and the Ultra Carry II I have carried the Glock and the Ultra and Tac Pro.

May 28, 2004, 05:29 PM
Your three favorites all look like good choices. If you want another plastic gun, (and can still find one cheap) check out the Steyr M40. I have had one for several years now and it has been extremely reliable. It's kind of like someone took the Glock and fixed everything I didn't like about it (trigger, sights, grip, lack of manual safety, etc.).

May 28, 2004, 05:41 PM
Of the three you mentioned in .40, I have the Sig P229 and have been quite happy with it. It has excellent ergonomics, accuracy and trigger feel, and has never jammed on any ammunition. It is also compact enough to carry if you wish.
I also have a Glock 23, which is somewhat similar to your G22. The one advantage of the Glocks is their light weight, making them easier to carry than the aluminum framed Sigs of similar dimensions. But the Sig is more comfortable and accurate to shoot, in my opinion.

May 28, 2004, 05:48 PM
Confirm each and all that crt360 says. My M40s have consistently swallowed everything from 135 Cor-Bons to 180 nameless practice rounds, without complaint, FTF, or FTE. First time I fired one, fresh out of the box, it ran 5 rounds inside .9" at 15 feet. Then I started working with it...(LOL). If you are ready to trade UP from the Glock, the Steyr will do it for you.

May 28, 2004, 05:53 PM
Since you seem to like 1911's, how about a conversion for your Kimber?
The SIG and HK are great durable .40's, wichever one fits and feels better.
I have a Glock 20 with .40 conversion and love it. It gives me and the wife low cost, low recoil practice with our 'one gun' (only auto 'till I get a G-29).
I do have a HK 9mm Elite that is nice, but not practical, it's going on the sales block for a second F/A 97 revolver.

May 28, 2004, 07:24 PM
The Glock 22 and Sig P229 are my only two guns in .40 S&W. The Glock is my boonies weapon; the Sig, my CCW. Both are straight shooters, and I personally wouldn't part with either one. But since you already have the Glock, may I recommend the Sig?

May 28, 2004, 07:37 PM
You really can't go wrong with a Sig, H&K, or an XD. They are all excellent choices.

If money is a problem, I'd go with the XD. They are very reasonably priced. And they operate just like a Glock!


May 28, 2004, 08:45 PM
For better concealed carry you might look at the HK P2000. Any HK is a good choice.

Ky Larry
May 29, 2004, 11:43 AM
If you want a full size, steel pistol, the CZ-75B is hard to beat. I have one in .40 S&W and it is a joy to shoot. If you want a full size plastic pistol, check out the SIG P2340. If you want a smaller steel pistol, look at the CZ RAMI or the CZ-40. Any of the guns you mentioned would be a good choice. Good luck and shoot well.

May 29, 2004, 09:10 PM
I went from a G22 to a CZ75B SA and never looked back. Soon there after the Glock was traded for another firearms purchase. Regarding the Sig I prefer the 226 over the 229 because the 226 is a full size frame whereas the 229 is a compact.

Both the Sig and the CZ are way more accurate than the G22 . Comparing the triggers of the Sig and CZ to that of the G22 is like comparing a razor blade which is sharp, shiny, solid to an old piece of soft pine. (the aforementioned is a subjective judgement based on my experience with all three weapons in .40 S&W)

I'll probably never go back to Glock. Compared to a Sig or CZ the only area they even come close to being competitive is reliability. They go bang every time you fire it. The Glock price is about half way between that of a Sig and a CZ so why would anyone buy a Glock when they could have a CZ for $100 less that is more accurate, just as reliable, has a better trigger and is way better looking.

Peter Gun
May 29, 2004, 09:52 PM
I changed from a G22 to a sig 229.
Both are excellent guns, but the sig points more naturally and makes the .40 seem less snappy and has a much better trigger. The glock was a lot lighter on the hip.
I test my carry gun for extreme winter duty. Both the glock and the sig had no trouble being dumped in the snow for a few minutes in negative temps and then blazing away. Both my ruger revolver and buckmark malfunctioned after this test. I know those arent comparable guns, just the only others i had to test.
I you get the sig, get some hogue grips (no finger grooves). I havent had any problems w/ them hanging up on clothing and it makes the gun fit me like a glove.

If you enjoyed reading about ".40S&W ideas" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!