40 Caliber S&W: What's Your Opinion?

[Tallball]

I am not generally a "technical" person, nor do I consider myself to be any kind of firearms expert. I'm actually more of a revolver guy than anything, and a pretty mediocre shot in general. I used to hunt quite a bit when I was a young man, but now due to age and health my hands are a little shaky, and my firearms "adventures" consist of going to the shooting range every few weeks to shoot handguns with family members or friends.

At any given moment I owned ten handguns or less for most of my life. In the past five years or so, shooting handguns is one of my main hobbies, and I have more money than I used to, so I've bought, sold, and traded quite a few. Lately it seems like police departments are ditching their 40 caliber pistols in favor of 9mm. I've gotten some nice pistols inexpensively as a result. But I don't really know a lot about the caliber.

1) Is it really much more effective than 9mm? Mine are just range toys (I prefer dogs and revolvers for HD), but I am curious if they are supposedly much more effective than my similar 9mm pistols. I am a simple guy, and to me a bigger hole at the end of the barrel gives me a little more confidence, but I am not scientifically knowledgeable in that area.

2) Does 40 caliber S&W seem to have more recoil than 9mm or 45acp for some people? Frankly, I can barely tell them apart. Keep in mind that all I have to compare them in is full-sized service pistols: That's all I own in 40 and 45. But my 9mm and 40 caliber "Berettas" (the 9mm is actually a Taurus) feel about the same to me. My Ruger P-series 40 and 45 feel about the same to me. Generally, if I pick up one of my full-sized service pistols, the recoil seems about the same to me regardless of caliber. I am a very large person with XXL hands, so maybe that's part of it.

3) Does the caliber have a bright future? I never have problems finding 40 caliber ammo at any store that sells ammo, but it seems like PD's are starting to move away from 40 caliber. It won't matter to me anymore because I'll be gone, but in 50 years would my kids have trouble finding ammo for these pistols? (I'm assuming they'll keep a few apiece and sell the rest.)

4) Has anyone else been taking advantage of the police trade-in pistols? I'm very happy with the ones I got. Maybe we can do some show-and-tell.

5) Related to Question #3, does anyone think that things might come full-circle and some PD's might eventually go back to 40 caliber, after using 9mm again for a while? I have no idea, I'm just curious on hearing opinions.

 

[Tallball]

Here are the 40 caliber police trade-ins I've purchased in the past year or so. Some of them are a little scuffed up (I would assume it's holster wear), but they're all good reliable shooters.

The Beretta 96 was a ridiculous bargain. Some vendor on Gunbroker was selling a bunch of them, a few at a time. Towards the end they offered up this "Frankenstein" gun, with an American DAO slide and a "regular" DA/SA Italian frame. No one seemed to want it. I think I won it for a $149 bid. It functions as a DA/SA pistol, but with no safety or decocker. It's a very nice shooter.
View media item 1867
The Beretta PX4 is interesting. It has the rotating locking system. It's DAO, and the trigger pull is kind of long, but not too stiff. I don't remember for sure, but I gave something like $175 for it. It's ugly as could be, but shoots just fine.
View media item 1567
Glocks never felt that great in my hand, but my FiL got one, and I found out that I liked shooting them a lot more than I liked holding them. I think I paid $280 for this one. IIRC, it came with the box and two or three magazines. It's a very good shooter.

Glock G22

• Tallball
• Jan 6, 2018
• 2

My most recent is this Sig 226. It cost more than I prefer to pay for a pistol, but I thought it would be nice to add a Sig to my collection. I paid $309 for it. It came with the box and three magazines. It's seems to be extremely well-made and is an excellent shooter.

Sig P229 40 Caliber

• Tallball
• Aug 3, 2018

 

[Plan2Live]

I have one polymer, double stack, striker fired pistol. Make and model withheld as it is irrelevant. This pistol is classified as subcompact but to me it's a full size carry gun with a grip that's just a tad too short. In this gun I find the .40 to be snappy. Not too snappy but still a bit harder to shoot well than 9mm from a similar gun. .40 S&W cuts nice clean holes in paper targets. Since purchasing and carrying this gun I have gravitated back to 9mm. Chest thumping aside, I've never seen any conclusive evidence that 9mm, .40 S&W or .45acp have much of an advantage over the other. Find a gun and caliber you shoot well and will actually carry. Practice with that gun and call it a day. Oh, and ignore the chest thumpers.

 

[Tallball]

I also own a few other 40 caliber service-type pistols, but they weren't police trade-ins. The prices listed above are just the winning Gunbroker bids. I also paid something like $20 apiece shipping. My FFL usually doesn't charge me a transfer fee, but every once in a while he does.

I'm not sure if I would really care if the above pistols were in 9mm or 45acp, instead of 40 caliber. The 9mm's hold more rounds, and the 45's have a bigger hole at the end of the barrel, but they're all just range toys, so it's pretty much all the same to me. I couldn't say which of the above pistols I like best. The PX4 has a longer trigger pull than I prefer. The other three are such good shooters that it would be hard for me to choose my favorite. Maybe one day I'll shoot them all back-to-back and try to make a decision.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Nothing wrong with the .40, I'm not a fan as I was too heavy into 9mm and .45 when it came along to jump onto the band wagon for it. That said, I will buy bargains when they come along and enjoy shooting it just fine. Now is a good time to buy! I picked up 50rd boxes of Hydra-Shok yesterday for $9ea and since I bought several I got the guy to include the ammo can in the deal. Can't beat that!

May be a little better than 9mm but you have less rounds if that matters to you. Nice thing is that most made in 40 can be converted to 9mm if you want that option. Or, simply shoot up all the cheap 40 you can find.

 

[Theohazard]

Here's what you get with the .40:

-More recoil and therefore slower follow-up shots (more noticeable the smaller the pistol is).
-Lower capacity.
-More expensive ammo.
-Shorter gun life.
-No measurable increase in real-world effectiveness over 9mm.

If you like the .40, that's fine. Nothing really wrong with it. But I don't see any good reason to get one over a 9mm unless you're looking for more caliber diversity for the next time 9mm is hard to find.

 

[Buzznrose]

I started my concealed carry later in life (46 years old) when I retired from a long military career. My first CC gun was a Glock 23 .40 cal. I've shot that gun a lot, including three week long Gunsite classes. But all of my semi auto handguns since have been 9MM's and .45's. But I am looking to add a few more .40's to my safe based on simple economics...and the fact that I'm warming back up to the .40 after moving away of rtes last several years.

With many LE agencies migrating back to 9MM, there are a lot of .40's out there at pretty nice prices:

https://www.gtdist.com/products/guns-firearms.html?caliber=.40+Cal&cat=512

https://www.aimsurplus.com/catalog.aspx?groupid=11520&name=Used+Firearms

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/used-firearms/of3/40-SW

And while not as cheap as current 9MM prices, ammo can be bought for a pretty good price right now:

https://www.sgammo.com/catalog/pistol-ammo-sale/40-cal-ammo?sort=round_low

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/40-sw-ammo-c-59.aspx#ston|


IMO based on my research, which is unofficial and informal, when it comes to shooting people in the open, there seems to be little difference in damage between the 9MM/.40/.45, all things equal (same distance, same type bullet, etc.). But you cannot deny the added power of the .40 over the 9MM in the situations where, due to whatever circumstances, more power is needed. More and more, I am coming to the opinion that the opinions of folks like Larry Mudgett and Tim Sundles make a lot of sense:

http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/blog/

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=51

One point Sundles makes is that one advantage you can give yourself in a defensive firearm is to have some flat nose FMJ's towards the bottom of your magazine in the event you need to shoot through barriers is you are in a lasting gunfight.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=174

"In most police department shootings, around 80% of shots fired at humans, miss the human target and that means the bullet is going to head in the direction it was fired, until its kinetic energy is expended one-way-or-the-other. In civilian self-defense shootings, a similar percentage of shots fired miss the human target. Considering this, why are we so worried about over-penetration of the 20% of shots fired that actually hit the human target, when the much greater percentage of shots fired miss the human target and continue on? I am NOT saying that bullet over-penetration should be of no concern, but I am suggesting that we have turned that issue into something much bigger than reality says it is. A missed shot that hits an innocent bystander will land us and the poor bystander in as much trouble as a bullet that over-penetrated the human target and hit a bystander, right? In fact, there is the likelihood that the bullet that struck the intended human target and spent most of its energy on that target, would not have nearly the momentum remaining to continue on to do as much harm for as great a distance as the bullet that missed its target altogether and has retained its energy!"

Mudgett makes the point that for trail guns, more power is a benefit...so why isn't that power a benefit in a defensive situation:

http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/trail-guns/

"Now that we have selected the right ammo and barrel for predator defense in our Glock 17’s, let’s look at some other options to increase power. The .40 S&W Glock 22, or .357 Sig Glock 31 should be considered. These pistols feel exactly like your Glock 17. They function the same way. Having the same angle between the grip frame and barrel, these pistols point just like the Glock 17. Except for the caliber these pistols are nearly identical to the Glock 17. They have more recoil because they are more powerful. It is very difficult to avoid Sir Isaac Newtons third law of motion. More power is going to mean more recoil, all other things being equal."


Also, like one poster already mentioned, most .40's can easily be transformed into 9MM's and .357 SIG guns with a simple barrel and magazine swap. May need to change the extractors too, but that often isn't necessary, especially for range shooting.

So for me, I think this is a great time to buy a .40. Heck, for under $600 (including shipping and FFL fees), you can have a LEO trade in Glock 22, a couple magazines, and 500 rounds of decent ammo set aside in an ammo can for a "rainy day".

Something to think about...

 

[JTQ]

I think .40 S&W is a good round. I've often looked at it as the semi-auto version of the .41 Magnum Police Load ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.41_Remington_Magnum ). I don't have any guns in .40 S&W, but I think it is a good round.

Noting the .40 S&W guns you have pictured,
- the Beretta 96 has a reputation for a short service life with .40 S&W. The Brigadier slide was developed to help increase service life, though I think Beretta has probably determined it was a bad round for the gun, and doesn't really offer it anymore other than the 96A1 that comes with a buffer in the gun.
- with the Glock 22, the reason there was a Gen 4 Glock was because of the previous generations of .40 S&W Glocks.
- on the good side, the P229 was specifically developed to shoot .40 S&W and has a very good reputation with the round.
- the PX4 is also probably going to show long term durability with the .40 S&W, though neither the gun or the round are probably popular enough at this point for anybody to really know.

Chances are good though, as plinking guns, you'll most likely not shoot them enough to have any problems.

 

[BSA1]

1. Is it really much more effective than 9mm?

Depends on what you mean by “more effective.” All handguns are poor manstoppers. Bullet design improvements of the 9mm makes it’s possible to have a practical size gun that is small and comfortable enough for conceal carry, light enough recoil for small and people with disabilities to shoot well and hold a reasonable amount to ammunition.

The human body is too complex for the “bigger hole means better stopping power” theory.


2) Does 40 caliber S&W seem to have more recoil than 9mm or 45acp for some people?

Subjective. However people with small hands, weak wrists and disabilities find the 9mm easier to shoot. This is also a big reason why the .380 remains popular.


3) Does the caliber have a bright future?

“Bright” no. But it is not going away.

It is easy to draw the wrong conclusion about why Police Departments, et al are staying with the 40.

A case in point. A large nearby metro police department has issued Glocks in 40 caliber for many years. The training department and range officers (academy is combined with the S.O.) want to switch back to 9mm as it is easier to train and qualify new officers and 9mm ammunition is cheaper. The Sheriff Office also issues the Glock in 40 S&W.

However the Administrators are not “gun folks” and the budget is limited. They do not have a large number of officer shootings. The P.D. has invested big bucks into cameras in the cars and for officer wear which given today’s poor relationship the police have with the public makes sense. They have also changed uniforms which frankly I think makes little financial sense.

Since the Administrators are not “gunny’s” the 40 is good enough. The city is surrounded by a number of “bedroom” communities with small police departments. The Chiefs are mostly retired Captains and Assistant Chiefs from the P.D. so they have the same attitude and lack of knowledge about the 40 vs. 9mm. A friend that was the Chief of a nearby town issue Glock 40 S&W simply because the large city P.D. does and he figured if it was good enough for them then it was for his little department.

So citizens and newbies look to what the police are carrying when building a gun and wrongly conclude the 40 must be best.



4) Has anyone else been taking advantage of the police trade-in pistols?

Police trade-ins are usually don’t have a high round count.


5) Related to Question #3, does anyone think that things might come full-circle and some PD's might eventually go back to 40 caliber, after using 9mm again for a while?

Why not? The next generation always thinks they know more than us old folks.

 

[pblanc]

I like .40 S&W and I have three pistols chambered in that caliber. All are at least mid-sized, all-metal pistols. It is not my first choice for compact pistols partly due to recoil management and partly due to magazine capacity, which is already somewhat limited in that size gun. As for ammunition, .40 S&W has come down in price in recent years. It is now the second most economical center-fire handgun caliber after 9 mm Luger. I consistently find it at lower prices than .45 Auto, 38 Special, 380 Auto, 357 SIG, or 357 Magnum. As to what will happen with .40 S&W prices in the future, I don't have a clue. But I am perfectly comfortable that it is not going to go away, no matter what the FBI and LEAs choose to do. There are hundreds of thousands of forty caliber pistols out there and people who enjoy shooting them.

The first time I shot .40 S&W I did find the recoil to be more challenging to manage than either 9 mm or .45 Auto. I had purchased a used Beretta Cougar 8040F having never shot a pistol chambered in .40 S&W before and the first few times I shot it I felt as if I might have made a mistake. But I really liked the pistol so I stuck with it. With some improvements in my grip and just getting more familiar with the recoil characteristics, I came to enjoy shooting the caliber and now I shoot it pretty well. I am typically more accurate with my .40 S&W pistols than I am with my 9 mm Luger pistols, for whatever reason. And now if I shoot one of my .40 S&W guns back to back with a 9 mm pistol of similar size and weight, say my SIG P229 .40 compared to my Beretta 92 FS, I really don't notice any difference in perceived recoil.

As for whether .40 S&W is more effective than 9 mm Luger or not, now that is opening a can of worms. What is true is that quality .40 S&W JHP does expand to significantly greater diameter than quality 9 mm JHP does. I believe that will make a difference, single GSW to single GSW, in a very small percentage of cases, but it will never be enough to show up in the uncontrolled and retrospective analyses of handgun lethality that we have available. The .40 S&W delivers significantly more momentum to tissues than 9 mm Luger does, and this can have a positive effect on terminal ballistic performance that simply does not show up in gel testing. Projectiles penetrating tissues encounter many different structures of significantly different densities. Due to the principle of conservation of momentum, projectiles with greater momentum tend to maintain their trajectory and velocity better when encountering a boundary between a tissue of lessor density and one of greater density. You won't see this effect in homogenous ballistic gelatin.

But ultimately, the center-fire handgun caliber that will prove to be most effective in any given shooter's hands is the one they can shoot most accurately.

 

[WrongHanded]

I like .40. I think it's a solid and reliable cartridge. As far as recoil goes, I have never had an issue with it and neither has my wife. I don't own a 9mm and so she's never shot one. Therefore 'S&W' does not stand for 'Snap & Whip', in this household. I think .40 is superior to 9mm as a defensive round with a larger diameter, larger expanded surface area of hollow point bullets, and often higher calculated muzzle energy.

Of course that's just my personal experience, and not really the truth. The truth is that 9mm is better than any cartridge it's better than, and just as good as any cartridge it's not better than. It's soft shooting with little recoil, but in +p+ loads is also as powerful as .357 Magnum (which are still just as soft shooting, and won't beat the hell out of your gun). Magazine capacity is higher, which is neccessary because we all know those last 2 rounds are the most important ones, and you should never be without them. Of course, no other serious caliber offers those extra two. The 9mm HP expand to the size of a fist thanks to new bullet technology not available in any other caliber. They hit just right, any faster will do no good at all, but if it would, those +p+ loads are what you need (and if you check your magazine, you'll find they're already in your gun because you knew you'd need them). No heavier weight bullet is neccessary, and is just counter productive. And they recoil like a .22lr......but obviously are far superior. Oh, and with just the right load, the 9mm is superior to all other handgun cartridges when it comes to grizzly bears and general woods defense.

That's what the internet has taught me about 9mm.

I think .40 is going to be around for a while. I'll be shooting it as long as I can get it.

 

[JONWILL]

I have and M&P 40 Compact. I got it because I can have a 9mm and 357 Sig barrel drop in it for a 3 caliber gun on 1 frame with just a barrel change.
The 9mm requires a magazine change also.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I prefer 40 in all the guns that I have in both calibers. Difference in recoil is negligible except in the glock 26 vs 27. Even then it's no huge deal, but the snappy feel is definitely worse. (I do carry the model 27 almost daily) In all my full size guns my shot times are close enough to not worry about. If you are a weaker person this may not be the case. With inexperienced people using average form it's certainly not the case.
Most guns give up 2 or 3 rounds of capacity, not a big deal to me. My berettas give up 4 in their oe magazines they shipped with. My 9 came with 15 rd and the 40 came with 11rd.
Anything the "modern design" of the bullet will do in 9mm, the 40 (and 45) will do as well, with slightly more diameter. I just don't understand that argument. Sure if 40 and 45 were left with only fmj and the 9mm had modern bullets it would be different.
Service life is the area where 9mm will trump 40 every time I think. If you're going over 25k or so rounds then use the 9mm. That's what I do, I use 9mm for most of my practice. That said Ive yet to have a 40 frame or slide wear out and I have a couple high round count guns. An acquaintance has a 226 in 357 sig with over 30k documented LE rounds and its still going strong. Springs do get replaced sooner in my .40 cals. Of the 100 or so shooters I talk to , there are maybe 4 who have ever fired Any one centerfire handgun 10 k rounds, 2 are LE. Most People just don't shoot that much. Obviously some do, myself included.
I'd guess the percentage of guns that ever honestly fire a thousand rounds outside military or police is single digits. Most exaggerate their round count wildly. Ive worked on many guns that supposedly been shot thousands of times that simply hadn't. No possible way. They looked new......But I'm no expert.

The 40 won't go away any time soon. There are exponentially more 40 calibers than 10mm and 41 magnum combined and they have been around for generations and are still readily available. And yes i,ve bought a few police trade ins lately.

 

[CDW4ME]

More effective?
A bigger bullet has more potential.
Using comparable bullets from Lucky Gunner tests as examples:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
147 HST 15.2'' / .61
180 HST 18.5'' / .72 (increase of 15%)
124 Gold Dot +P 16.8'' / .52
155 Gold Dot 16.3'' / .67 (increase of 22%)
Given equivalent penetration, increasing diameter of bullet (wound) 15-22% desirable to me.
How much effect that would have on incapacitation time, don't know, but bigger hole is desirable.

Recoil
Using self defense ammo (+P in 9mm) and comparable pistols (Glock 19/23) my average split time with 40 S&W about .03-.04 slower - three or four hundredths second, consistent disparity compared on different days. For me, that is an insignificant difference.

LE Use
Law enforcement contains members that are not gun enthusiast and probably view practice like I do mowing the yard - a task.
I'm not small stature, nor are my wrist compromised, so my perception of recoil is different than that of a small stature non-enthusiast.
Who knows if a a couple instances where 9mm failed to stop would steer any agencies toward 40 or 45. Given that over half the rounds fired by police miss, they may continue to prefer to have the most bullets in pistol as possible rather than a couple less (9mm vs 40) potentially more effective bullets.

I prefer bigger / more powerful bullets: 40 / 10mm / 45 ..... bigger holes are desirable.

 

[Kendal Black]

I think the .40's popularity slump among police is a fine thing for private citizen shooters who like the caliber. Buy some pistols while bargains are to be had. There is nothing much wrong with the .40 cartridge. It performs exactly as designed, and the design was accompanied by blared fanfares at the time.

As JTQ pointed out already, the .40 S&W is not far off the mark of the old .41 Magnum Police midrange load. That, in turn, was kinda sorta like the .38-40.

In the previous century, various police departments tried the .41 Magnum midrange and .357 Magnum with high velocity, light bullet loads, sorta like .40 S&W and .357 SIG, and when the dust settled the most popular police revolver cartridge was the .38 Special, with an improved bullet. Progress marches on.

 

[GEM]

I found comparing the G26 and G27 that the latter was a tad more snappy. Not that I couldn't shoot it. I see no convincing evidence that the 40 is vastly superior to the 9 mm in any way. Thus, I focused on the 9s for carry.

I can shoot 230 gr 45 ACP with ease, BTW. I just didn't see that the 40 gave me anything but a few less rounds.

Snappy - that's a 38 SPL load in a 642 (unless you specifically load low recoil stuff). I can shoot them also.

 

[PuddlePirate]

I've had a HK USP in .40 since 1995(maybe 94, I don't recall). I am told this was the first gun designed around and specifically for the .40 SW. The DA trigger pull is so smooth I really don't worry about reacquiring the target. It's a little large for concealed carry, so I stuck a light on the rail and keep it on the night stand. Up until a few months ago, my carry gun was a Glock 27 that was accurate but just plain unpleasant to shoot. So I have returned to 9mm for carry in the form of an HK P30SK. More rounds that I shoot more accurately under stress from concealment.

 

[Mike J]

I believe Paul Harrell does a good job of comparing 9mm to .40 S&W in this video. Personally I like .40. I own a couple of pistols in the caliber I enjoy shooting them & often carry a pistol chambered for .40.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

It's a service cartridge. Like any other service cartridge, if you make good hits it'll have the desired effect on the target. I keep a few around, two of which have duplicates in 9mm, mostly for redundancy in the event of another ammo shortage; I keep thinking I should get a police trade-in G22 Gen4 but I'm just not that into Glocks.

 

[Walkalong]

I never could learn to love the fourty, but did recently take advantage of the market and bought an FNS-40 at a good price. I had a subcompact XD .40 where recoil was too much for a fun range gun and I wasn't going to carry it. My nephew loved it, and shot it well, so I gave it to him. I had a Witness Elite Match in .40 and it was a great gun, but ended up trading it.

There are so many more important things than caliber choice we need to become proficient at that I don't sweat it. But if I want a jump up in power from the 9MM, I prefer the .45 ACP over the .40. Nothing at all wrong with the fourty, it's a great choice if you like it. Mine will remain a range toy.

 

[badkarmamib]

When I started carrying a pistol while hunting, it was relatively difficult to find 9mm rounds above the 350ft-lb threshold for legal deer hunting in VA. I didn't want to accidentally run afoul of the law while performing a coup-de-gras, and didn't want to have to hunt down ammo. So, .40 looked appealing. I bought one, and was hooked. The recoil difference was barely noticeable.

When the banic of 2008 hit, I couldn't find 9mm ammo anywhere. I wasn't concerned, as I had already sold my 9s and moved on. Wal-mart had stacks of .40. 9mm, .380, and .45acp were nowhere to be found. Now that I reload, having figured up the cost difference, I would save less than $0.01 per round to go back to 9mm.

As far as handling the recoil, I am sure some people notice it, and hand-to-grip fit plays an important part. But my wife, with the tiniest hands I have ever seen in an adult, loves her XD-S and my M&P FS. She hated every single 9mm that I ever owned. So, there is more at play than recoil, ammo availability, and cost. As said above, find something that you are comfortable with, get proficient with it, and be confident in your choice. Or choices. I mean, who says you can only own one caliber?

 

[blue32]

I was initially issued a Glock 22 and we carried them for about 5 years with a gen 4 replacement somewhere towards the end. A few years ago we were issued the 17. After shooting both the 9mm definitely recoils less and I think improved scores on requals were the main reason for the switch. We had people that for whatever reason could not pass, (even after remedial) with the 40sw and I think recoil had a lot to do with it. I don't buy into the improved-bullet reason for going to the 9mm. The 40sw worked and we have examples of that. We also have examples of the 9mm working as of late.

As far as police trade-ins, I didn't buy back my gen 4 22 because I already had the gen 3. My experience says most guns only see requal rounds. Whoever bought mine got one with ~5k on it as I was the first and last before it was sold to an FFL. If you end up with a pistol used by a member of a special unit where they get as much ammo as they can shoot, you might be getting a worn out gun. That's an exception but it is a possibility. Your police trade-in could have seen multiple users who shot a bunch or one user who requaled then put it away.

I'll give a nod to 40sw for being a great cast bullet cartridge. When the alloy and fit is right, the Glock 22 with its stock barrel is a sweet shooter with range scrap. The 9mm, with its tapered case, has been giving me fits so I don't recommend it unless you plan to shoot nothing but cheap jacketed loads.

 

[Walkalong]

I mean, who says you can only own one caliber?

Amen to that.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Some long posts here.

All I'll say is that my first Glock will probably end up being a LE trade in 22. One LGS seems to almost always have them in stock between $250-300.

Got nothing against the .40 but don't see any real need to have one. Eventually I'll probably end up grabbing one of those above mentioned 22's just so I can say I have a Glock, and a .40.

 

[mljdeckard]

If you have one, and you like it, run it.

I have no more use for them. I carried a G-22 for years before I went back to a 1911. Now I carry a 9mm 1911. I think that with modern JHP bullets, there is so little difference in real-world effectiveness between the service cartridges, it's negligible, if any. I think you could shoot five hundred people in various parts of the body with various bullets, and the results would be mostly inconclusive. The original theory of a .40 is; "Less than full-house 10mm, but still more muzzle energy than 9mm or .45."

What I KNOW, is that a .40 has a snappier recoil and less capacity than a 9mm. If that recoil makes the difference between having time to get another hit, than that is a clear disadvantage over a 9mm. More hits is better than a bullet that is 1 mm bigger. 9mm is cheaper to shoot and reload. My wife's gun is a 9mm. Now we're all the same. If it's cheaper to shoot, you can get more practice for the buck.