40 Caliber

What are your view points on the 40 cal

  • I like the 40 cal because........................................

    Votes: 120 55.6%
  • I hate the 40 cal and will not use it because.............

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • I perfer the 9mm over 40 cal because......................

    Votes: 35 16.2%
  • I perfer the 45acp over 40 cal because...................

    Votes: 54 25.0%

  • Total voters
    216
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I prefer the 45ACP over the 40S&W, because the reloading componets are darn near the same cost, and the 45 can do anything the 40 can do:D
 
It's the worst of both worlds, it has neither the magazine capacity or ease of shooting of the 9mm nor the payload of the .45. I own exactly 1 .40 (FNHP) because I happened to stumble into a couple cases of ammo. That being said, it is adequate and is a good cartridge for the one gun person.
 
Bad Poll Question

Ah, I didn't like to have to take one over the other.

I like the .40 because it beats the 9mm ballistics in the same sized package.
I like the .45 over the .40 because it beats .40 ballistics on days when handgun size/concealment is not an issue.
 
I bought my pistol before 40S&W was invented. Nine millimeter was what best suited my needs for CHL so, that's what I bought and carry still. I do not feel that investing in a 40 and losing a couple of rounds would benefit me.
 
I discounted the .40S&W for the longest time, basing my opinions on internet drivel and various articles. It wasn't until I fired a G23 myself that I was able to form my own opinion and liked the caliber. It was a nice compromise between the 9mm and the .45acp.
.45acp power in a 9mm platform, what's not to like?
 
I don't like the 40, and that's no secret.

10 MM and .357 Sig are good rounds, so are the 9 MM and 45. I think the 40 is the "re-invention" of the wheel withouth any improvements.

BikerRN
 
I prefer the 9mm over 40 cal because...

Mainly, I have about a gazillion platforms for the 9mm cartridge and exactly TWO for the 10mm kurz!! :evil:

It's not a bad cartridge, I just have practically no use for it.

My G23 is a fine specimen.
I shoot it when I can afford to and actually carry it on occasion!!

My SW40F is also a fine gun.
It was obtained to prove a point to renegade Glocksters.
 
The biggest reason I like the 40 is the fact that it is very efficient in short barrels, less then 3.5". Its a great reloading caliber and it has a proven record on the street. The fact that the 40 can be chambered in 9mm sized guns, including subcompacts, makes it an awesome CCW caliber, in my opinion. The 40 only gives up a couple of rounds to the 9mm also, excellent combination of power, size, and capacity.
 
40 GOOD and BAD

My agency issues the .40 S&W. We now use the H&K P2000. Before that it was the H&K USP Compact. We started with the BERETTA 96D Brigadier.

I like the .40 for its stopping power and selection of guns. I shoot the BERETTA 96D in .40 caliber when I am at the range. In a gun as large and heavy as the BERETTA, recoil is manageable and the accuracy is outstanding. I use it for a house gun. I would take it over any .45ACP.
My SIG 229 worked well, but has less power than the BERETTA due to the short barrel and did not have as smooth a trigger.

As a self defense gun, I use the 155 grain JHP. I found this load in my GLOCK 22 was just to much for me and sold the gun. The H&K absorbs recoil much more effectively and is more controllable for me.

The .40 caliber, 180 grain loads offer little reason for me to switch from a 9m.m. +P. Less stopping power than the 155 grain ammo and lower ammo capacity than the 9m.m. +P.

For off duty concealed carry and a range gun, I use a 9m.m. I like the BERETTA 92 and WALTHER P99 the most. I have also used and carried on duty, the GLOCK 17 & 19 and the SIG 226. All good guns.

At the range, the low cost of 9m.m. WHITE BOX ammo and easier recoil make the 9m.m. more enjoyable for me to shoot.

In the end, it is how well the caliber works for the individual shooter.

I trust the power of the .40 caliber, but enjoy shooting the 9m.m.

Jim
 
What Lonestar49 said. I like the way it works with the 229 platform. It does everything I need. Components are cheap. I'd probably like 45 more if I owned one. 9mm is plenty for anything you'd need 40 or 45 for. Not enough difference between those 3 to warrant a dislike of the others.
 
I see NO earthly need for the existence of the .40 S&W; as anything
the .40 can do, I can do with a 9m/m or a .45 ACP. IMHO, the .40S&W
evolved as an answer to a problem that did not exist

I think the 40 is the "re-invention" of the wheel withouth any improvements.

I shoot an XD40 and I love it. I also have an XD45 and a M&P9 Pro that I shoot. All are fine guns in good calibers. I always wonder what opinions would be if the .40 had come along before the 9mm and .45 and hadn't been a conversion from the 10mm. Would the 9mm be considered underpowered and the 10mm just some odd magnum type cartridge? Would we think of the .45 any differently? Think about it.
 
The OP forget the poll option " I'd like to see the next creator of one of these 'x versus Y' polls roasted in his own juices and served in place of the Thanksgiving turkey."
 
the poll has no definition....

Nonsensical polll....

.40 Cal

includes
.40 S&W
10 MM AUto
.38-40
.400 CorBon
.40 SUper
and probably more

The same applies to 9MM as well as .45 Callibers

Calibers come in specific CARTRIDGES

phhhhfftt....

Randall
 
.40s&w

I Like The .40 S&w. I Have Carried It On Duty For The Last 15yrs. It Has Proven Itself On The Street. It Is The Smallest Caliber I Own. I Also Own Pistols In .45 Acp
 
In the end if your a half a$$ed shot it wont matter what caliber your shooting, just hit your target. I wouldnt want to get shot with a 9mm, .40, or .45
 
I do prefer the .45 only because I was already established with it prior to the introduction of the .40. I consider the SIG 229 in .40 S&W to be a good all purpose weapon and take it with the same confidence I have in my 1911.
 
I prefer the .45 over the .40 because the 1911 is more common in .45.

I prefer the 9mm over .40 because its cheaper and easier to find. It doesnt matter where you go, there's always more 9mm than there is .40. There is normally so much stocked that if they're out of everything, including .22, they still have two boxes 9mm on the shelf (and I bought them:p)

Its also one less caliber to buy in bulk. Gotta buy .45 in bulk because I have 5 1911s and two thompsons (that lack da switch, but they're still fun). I have to buy 9mm in bulk because of my 9mm AR15 and my G19.
 
I agree that is really depends on the gun. I like the 165 or 155 gr ballistics. I think its a good compromise (all calibers are a compromise in some way) between velocity, mass, and diameter.
I had a glock 22, but i ddint really like it. too much muzzle flip. I love my sig 229 in .40. seems made for the caliber (which i think it was, G22 was really made for 9mm, ie g17)
The only other .40 I have fired was a smith SW99, it was nice in .40 as well, but not quite as nice as the sig.
BTW, to me, the 180 gr loads are the wrong compromise. If you go that route, the only advantage over .45 is mag capacity and you give up mass and diameter.
 
I have nothing against the .40 except that I believe it was developed as a comprise between 9mm and .45 ACP. Some LEOs could not handle the size of a good duty .45, and they found the stopping power of the 9mm to be limited- ergo the .40.
If it works for you, great.
I own 9mm’s for magazine capacity and .45s for pure stopping power. I guess it depends upon the situation. Oh, by the way, my night table gun is a S&W Model 10 loaded with 158 grain FMJ - simple and effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top