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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5: I hope they do! I have 2 handguns and a carbine that sit while I wait for their popularity to return. :)

I don't see the 40 going away anytime soon. Look at the 10, it seems to be making a small resurgence.
 
What you get from the .40 is almost Four Decades of outstanding field performance, traded away by Administrative bean-counters, small-wristed civilians and LEO's alike, and manic clock-watchers.

...all for a round that has been determined to be marginally suitable in the field, and was replaced by said cartridge in the first place.

Want a good deal on a LEO trade-in...?

Wait 'til the field performance of the 9mm Euro is compiled... again...

Magazine capacity...?

You'll need it.

:D

9mm Euro - the Participation Trophy cartridge.




GR
 
I like the 40 and have went to them the recoil is very little difference that a 9mm in fact I can not tell the difference when shooting the same weight bullet. Find a friend that has one and shoot it so you can see the different. I load all of my hand guns that I shoot paper with in the middle of the powder like 4gr up to 6gr so I load 5gr better for brass and gun. for CC & hunting load the 6gr Good Luck
 
In a capacity-limited state, the higher magazine capacity of a 9mm means nothing unless you're looking at lower-capacity single-stack subs. So for me, bigger holes trump smaller holes. I'd carry a .45 except I find many double-stack .45 handguns to be a bit large for my stubby fingers (except maybe the M&P), therefore I settled on the .40. I find the recoil snappy but controllable, and I'm every bit as accurate with the G23 as I am with the G19. I'm finding ammo at good prices, slightly more than 9mm but significantly less than .45.

I carry a G23.4 that I traded an M&P9 2.0 Compact for. That was a terrific pistol for the $$$, but had to use the longer full-size mags with sleeves o it tended to print. Plus a PD trade-in G23 is priced right. I'd consider picking up a new M&P40 2.0 Compact if I could get one with factory 10rd mags (S&W, what are you waiting for?).
 
My thought is that it's a fine cartridge that is a little more powerful than either the 9mm or 45, which are its usual comparators/competitors. That slight edge in power might or might not provide some extra terminal ballistics efficacy in any given application. The same extra power also means a bit more recoil than the 9mm, and more blast than the .45 (which is often perceived as also being recoil). Whether that trade off is worth it would seem to be rather individualistic.

Me? I like 10mm. ;)
 
More and more LEO are not shooters. They don't hunt or have personal guns. The move to the 9mm is twofold; vastly superior 9mm premium ammo, (over say, the 1990's selection) that closed the performance gap on larger calibers. And...the military and police trainers view, that you have to run as slow as the slowest runner. So everyone's scores went up with the 9mm, more people qualed, and trainer's headaches went down. The 40 is a fine round, but you have to train with it, just like any other gun.
 
The .40 is a fine cartridge. I would have no issue with carrying a .40, and once upon I did so with an HK USP. Ultimately that was just too chunky of a gun for my bean pole like self to carry concealed. For those that say 9mm is as capable as .40, they may be right, they may be wrong. Effectiveness of 9mm ammo has come quite a way over the years, but that same bullet tech that has improved 9mm also exists in .40. At the end of the day, .40 S&W will do all that the 9mm does, but it will make a slightly bigger hole with a little more energy at the expense of a coupe rounds of capacity, and perhaps a little speed depending upon the delivery system.
 
1. Most people will tell you that the energy effectiveness of the three “Duty calibers” 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and the .45 ACP are nearly identical in effectiveness, I wholly disagree with this line of thinking. Bodies do not work as in gel or what energy statements on paper say, many bodies are different (i.e. Tall, Short, Fat, Skinny, Muscular, ect.) what is needed is a bullet of significant weight and speed that it can break through both bone and tissue and still have the energy to reach vital structures like the heart to stop an attack. The .357 caliber (9mm is .355 for reference) has shown historically that it can’t stop determined attackers (the Moro warriors of the Philippines and the .38 LC and Police shootings with LRN .38 spl ammo are a good indicator of this). It wasn’t until the advent of such rounds like the .38 Super and .357 Magnum was the caliber able to be used “seriously”, remember the goal of defense is to stop aggression not kill, if that’s the goal then even a pointed stick will suffice. Of course one must also note that in the examples mentioned above bullet construction did have a major role to play in the failures of said caliber LRN or FMJRN are terrible to use on humans, we see this even today in Iraq and Afghanistan with the 9mm failing to stop determined attackers since our forces only used FMJ ball ammo, we still haven’t learned from history. Even the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout had the 9mm fail and that was with the silvertip Winchester bullet, fairly hi-tech for the age. For .40 cal we actually have a good history as well ranging back from the .38-40 to the underappreciated .41 magnum, to our current offerings in .40 and 10mm. Throughout the decades we saw men the likes of Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith, and Skeeter Skelton say that the .40-.41 caliber bullet at a moderate speed (900-1000fps) would be the ideal lawman cartridge, what should’ve been culminated in the 1960s in the form of a .41 Special, was instead put on hold until the 1980s with the advent of the .40 S&W. This caliber has the ability to use moderate weight levels and depending on case capacity of course the right speeds. All advancements claimed by 9mm aficionado’s will claim that the bullet tech today has made the 9mm equal to its larger cousins, forgetting that the same advancements afforded to the 9mm was also given to the other service rounds. The .40 has better weight selections, the same size guns as the 9mm, and holds more rounds than a .45 while still being able to perform the job and perform it admirably. (No doubt we will see some naysayers with the whole “let me shoot you with a 9mm then”) Paul Harrell actually has a video entitled 9mm vs .40 intended as a side by side comparisons for law enforcement agencies, his “meat target” is a much better indicator of terminal effectiveness than any gel.

2. Recoil is highly subjective, I find the .40 definitely “snaps” more in my hand compared to the small “pop” of a 9mm and even the smooth “boom” of the .45 ACP but with proper technique and fundamentals its not even close to the realm of “unshootable”

3. The .40 caliber is here to stay, regardless if agencies are moving back to 9mm I still see some going to .40 from 9mm it is now a “standard” caliber and will likely be here for decades to come. No other cartridges have declared “dead” as much as the .44 special or the .45 colt and not only are those still in production but new guns are being made and constructed around said calibers.

4. No, I haven’t purchased an LE trade in yet though at the prices I am seeing (Glock 23 is especially interesting) I may pick ones up sooner or later.

5. Yes, I do believe that they’ll go back to .40 once they complain again of ineffective performance with the 9mm or they may do a whole new test and develop a new caliber again repeating the same mistake they did with the .41 mag and .40 smith.
 
I currently do not own a .40, nothing wrong with it, but I don't own one. My first semi-auto handgun was a 9mm. Chosen at the time mostly for ammo cost because I intended to shoot it a lot. Then I bought a second semi-auto and got it in 9mm because "I already shot 9mm". Then I started to reload for 9mm so my 3rd semi-auto pistol was a 9mm because I already shot and reloaded for 9mm. :) Then...... you get the idea. :)

FWIW I do shoot and reload 45 Colt for a revolver so I am not all 1 caliber, and I do have quite a bit of .40 brass when the day comes I'll have it. I do not think .40 is going anywhere, but it's popularity is falling off.

-Jeff
 
Thanks to everyone for the interesting responses.

And thanks for the info, JTQ. Since my center fire pistols probably average three trips to the range per year, and only about 50 rounds per trip, the Beretta and Glock will probably last a while. There are certain 22's and revolvers I shoot considerably more often, but I kind of randomly rotate which center fire semiautomatics go to the range on any given outing. As such, no particular one gets shot very much.
 
.40 S&W is a pussy cat in a full size steel pistol. If you've only shot it out of a Glock and found it unpleasant, you should try it in a Beretta 96 or Sig P229. Its an amazing handgun cartridge in the right platform. Sure, carrying a 32 oz. pistol will drag your pants down on one side, but supported by a real gun belt and in a good holster its a very capable round in the right platform.
 
I'm a scientist, but my response here is totally subjective: The first pistol I shot was my Beretta 96 in 40. I shot it very well. I got married, had kids, and did not shoot for 12 years or so (go figure). Got back into shooting big time, and got a Sig 229 in 40. Hated it. Shot it poorly (always low) and got frustrated with the caliber. Got a Sig 45 and loved the POA/POI. Nice "push". Got a CZ Rami BD in 9mm for CC. Shot it very well, but it was too "fat" as a double stack for comfortable CC (for me). For me, I really prefer the push of a 45 recoil, or the "low-snap" of the 9mm. I really like shooting my new (old) full-sized Hi-Power. I got out of 40 and I doubt I'll take it up again.
 
I don't care for the round, but its one I've leaned to live with. I like to shoot as fast as I can hit, and that is more difficult for me to do with full-strength 40 than with full-strength 45 ACP or 9mm, with similar guns (in my case, a Glock 17 (9), Glock 22 (40) and Glock 21 SF (45). This is due to the recoil (really, muzzle flip, as I perceive it) with the 40. I can hit just fine with the 40, but I can do it faster repeatedly with the 9 or 45. The bottom line is, with quality HP ammunition, today's 9mm rounds are very effective, and can put down a human adversary as well as a HP from a 45, 40, etc., and the 9's are just easier to shoot. Also, handguns just don't compete with the effectiveness of rifles for these duties, and never will- and don't forget- there is a reason handguns hold more than 1 round (unless you are carrying a pirate gun). That said, I do own 1 40 S&W pistol- a 1st gen Glock 23, that I have no $ in. I also have no attachment to it. I keep it because it is a "beater" that I carry in a serpa holster as a sidearm hunting, with the largest significant threat around here being a wild hog (even though they tend to turn tail and run like greased lightning when they sense humans nearby, I do shoot them, so a pistol with some power is nice to have tracking a wounded one in the swamp). As far as the future of the round, I don't see it going anywhere any time soon. It is one of the few cartridges that has come out in the last several decades that has shown any real "staying power" at all past the "fad" stage, or "niche/boutique" calibers like the 10mm or 38 Super. This is due to the thousands of 40's that have flooded the LE ranks and are now being sold off, along with the thousands that have been purchased over the years by those who just like it. Even the russians make the ammo from that cheap and dirty wolf label- a plus if you have a Glock, since they don't mind that stuff a bit. If people love the 40, go crazy and enjoy your 40. As for me, a box or 2 a year of the Wal Mart bought wolf to get reacquainted with that old 23 is sufficient. The several boxes of HP's I have for it will last a long time as far as the hogs are concerned.
 
The 9mm and 40 are so close in effectiveness, I’ll take the 9mm for easier shooting.

Now, 10mm is worth the step up in recoil for what I get out of it.
 
In general, I feel the 40 S&W is a viable cartridge. I do not feel recoil is objectionable but it is different from 9x19 or 45 ACP depending on the platform it is shot in.

My first 40 S&W pistol was a Springfield P9C sub compact. It was fine to shoot but it would damage itself under recoil. It was adapted from a Tanfanglio (spelling?) design and many of the Tangfanglio parts would work as replacements parts. Since Springfield orphaned the gun, it has been about the only gun I have disposed of.

My second 40 S&W pistol is a Beretta 96. I replaced the fixed sights with an adjustable sight and it shoots well. It is a bit big for concealed carry.

My third 40 S&W pistol is a Sig full size M1911. I'm a fan of M1911's and it is a joy to shoot.

In my opinion, while the 40 S&W was designed to fit the 9x19 platform guns, it would do much better in guns designed specifically for the 40 S&W. 9x19 designs can be a bit light for good handling of the 40 S&W cartridge.

In the appropriate gun, the 40 S&W would be a great round. My Sig M1911 40 S&W is definitely a keeper.
 
>>What you get from the .40 is almost Four Decades of outstanding field performance, traded away by Administrative bean-counters, small-wristed civilians and LEO's alike, and manic clock-watchers.<<

My sentiments exactly!
 
cfullgraf said:
In my opinion, while the 40 S&W was designed to fit the 9x19 platform guns, it would do much better in guns designed specifically for the 40 S&W. 9x19 designs can be a bit light for good handling of the 40 S&W cartridge.
Click to expand...

Yep. It was kind of unfortunate that the rise of the .40 coincided almost exactly with the polymer frame coming to total dominance. That combination does make for a lot of muzzle flip, especially for shooters of modest skill in recoil control. Put the same round in a steel (not aluminum alloy) framed gun, and it becomes NBD.
 
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
Even the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout had the 9mm fail and that was with the silvertip Winchester bullet, fairly hi-tech for the age.
Click to expand...

The 9mm Winchester Silvertip did not fail in the infamous FBI Shoot-out.

The 9 mm round hit his right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart. The autopsy found Platt’s right lung had collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1.3 liters of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Of his many gunshot wounds, this first was the primary one responsible for Platt’s eventual death.

Platt was shot 12 times: Wounds included arm / chest, right thigh, left foot by Agent Dove.

Right forearm, fracturing the radius bone which exited the forearm by Agent Orrantia using his revolver loaded with 38 +P.

Right upper arm, exited below the armpit, and entered his torso, stopping below his shoulder blade by Agent Risner using his revolver with 38 +P.

Both feet by shotgun pellets fired by Agent Mireles

and the final round which entered his chest and bruised his spinal column using revolver with 38 +P.

The FBI failed in Miami. They knew how violent Platt and Matrix were, the high power weapons they used and yet left their more powerful long guns at the office entering the fight with handguns and shotgun.

The FBI, unwilling to admit that their agents screwed up, closed ranks to protect the image of the agency and chose to place the blame on the single 9mm Silvertip which performed exactly as it was designed to do.
 
BSA1 said:
The 9mm Winchester Silvertip did not fail in the infamous FBI Shoot-out.

The 9 mm round hit his right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart. The autopsy found Platt’s right lung had collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1.3 liters of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Of his many gunshot wounds, this first was the primary one responsible for Platt’s eventual death.

Platt was shot 12 times: Wounds included arm / chest, right thigh, left foot by Agent Dove.

Right forearm, fracturing the radius bone which exited the forearm by Agent Orrantia using his revolver loaded with 38 +P.

Right upper arm, exited below the armpit, and entered his torso, stopping below his shoulder blade by Agent Risner using his revolver with 38 +P.

Both feet by shotgun pellets fired by Agent Mireles

and the final round which entered his chest and bruised his spinal column using revolver with 38 +P.

The FBI failed in Miami. They knew how violent Platt and Matrix were, the high power weapons they used and yet left their more powerful long guns at the office entering the fight with handguns and shotgun.

The FBI, unwilling to admit that their agents screwed up, closed ranks to protect the image of the agency and chose to place the blame on the single 9mm Silvertip which performed exactly as it was designed to do.
Click to expand...
Yes, the FBI did fail that day in several ways, mostly due to a lack of preparation, but the fact remains that the 9mm silvertip did not incapacitate the attacker as he went on fighting for several more minutes after that shot was made. It only takes seconds to kill as I’m sure your aware. Incapacitation is the goal, it did not perform in that aspect.
 
The 40 S&W was a product of the time period.

First as I commented was the result of the FBI choosing to blame a single bullet for the deaths and injuries to the agents in Miami.

The second was the Assault Weapon ban enacted while Clinton was President. With a 10 round limit it made a lot of sense to go with the 40 instead of the 9mm in high capacity guns such as the Beretta and Glocks.

Third is most Police Administrators are not "gun" folks. It is a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" when it comes to guns. Heck the FBI said the 40 was best so it must be.

By going back to the 9mm the FBI is admitting that there is no "magic bullet." A firearm is a platform that must utilize several different features and design elements to be a effective self-defense weapon. I have no axe to grind against the 40. I do not use it because I don't believe in magic.
 
The Evangelist Cowboy said:
Yes, the FBI did fail that day in several ways, mostly due to a lack of preparation, but the fact remains that the 9mm silvertip did not incapacitate the attacker as he went on fighting for several more minutes after that shot was made. It only takes seconds to kill as I’m sure your aware. Incapacitation is the goal, it did not perform in that aspect.
Click to expand...

I am going off my memory here so you can fact check my comments;

About 142 rounds were fired with the FBI Agents firing about 100 rounds.

What about the rest of them?

Platt shots to his left foot and right thigh were not effective.

A 38 +P bullet fired by Agent Orrantia revolver, penetrated Platt's right forearm, fractured the radius bone and exited the forearm. This wound caused Platt to drop his revolver.

Platt was shot (38 +P) a fifth time shortly afterwards, this time by Agent Risner. The bullet penetrated Platt's right upper arm, exited below the armpit, and entered his torso, stopping below his shoulder blade. The wound was not serious.

Shotgun blasts to both of Platt's feet failed to stop him.

Then the nearly point blank last shot by Agent Mireles.

So only three shots out of around 100 played a significant role in taking Platt out of the fight.

Yet the FBI would have us to believe that all of the deaths and injuries were the failure of that single first 9mm bullet.

Maybe you do. I don't.

As a LEO Range Officer I appreciated the fact that the 9mm made it easier to train and qualify Officers. Again no axe to grind about the 40. Just keeping it's history in the proper perspective. Oh course the Internet says otherwise so it must be true.
 
Last edited:
BSA1 said:
I am going off my memory here so you can fact check my comments;

About 142 rounds were fired with the FBI Agents firing about 100 rounds.

What about the rest of them?

Platt shots to his left foot and right thigh were not effective.

A 38 +P bullet fired by Agent Orrantia revolver, penetrated Platt's right forearm, fractured the radius bone and exited the forearm. This wound caused Platt to drop his revolver.

Platt was shot (38 +P) a fifth time shortly afterwards, this time by Agent Risner. The bullet penetrated Platt's right upper arm, exited below the armpit, and entered his torso, stopping below his shoulder blade. The wound was not serious.

Shotgun blasts to both of Platt's feet.

Then the nearly point blank last shot by Agent Mireles.

So only three shots out of around 100 played a significant role in taking Platt out of the fight.

Yet the FBI would have us to believe that all of the deaths and injuries were the failure of that single first 9mm bullet.

Maybe you do. I don't.

As a LEO Range Officer I appreciated the fact that the 9mm made it easier to train and qualify Officers. Again no axe to grind about the 40. Just keeping it's history in the proper perspective. Oh course the Internet says otherwise so it must be true.
Click to expand...
I already acknowledged the faults the FBI made that day, the round that HIT however did not perform the way that was needed, you also didn't look at my previous comment showing that it has been a failure of the caliber 9mm or .35 cal in general .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Opinions on Beretta .40 S&W Centurion
Replies
1
Views
571
otomik
O
B
  • Locked
CZ 75 RAMI: .40 S&W vs 9mm for CCW
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
CTGunner
C
F
  • Locked
Thoughts on .40SW
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
DougDubya
D
P
  • Locked
Pistols 9mm, .357 and .40 cal
Replies
4
Views
897
Accord
A
D
  • Locked
OK... is .40S&W a safe choice? What do you think about this?
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
meathammer
M
Back
Top