An M.D. Argues the 40 S&W...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Garandimal

member
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,899
Location
Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
Somewhat anecdotal, but an interesting, real world perspective.

An M.D. Argues the 40 S&W

.40S&W does inevitably offer greater recoil than the 9mm but remains more pleasant than the .45ACP. There were some teething problems but in general, the .40S&W has lived up to its press releases. Why then might the FBI and 60% of American Law Enforcement agencies be switching back to the 116-year-old 9mm Parabellum when the .40S&W was specifically designed to replace it?...

Regardless, It is a very good SD round, on the merits.






GR
 
I've always found the. .45acp more pleasant to shoot, especially in a full size M1911, but even in a 3 1/2" M1911, at least compared to a Gen 2 Glock 22 with stock recoil system.

I found the Glock EXTREMELY unpleasant until I replaced the stock recoil spring and guide with a 22lb spring and stainless guide. That made it shoot like an M1911 with full power loads.
 
I’ve always found the 40 recoil to be “snappier” than 45. More of a jolt than the 45s push.

What I find confusing though is that why is it all of the sudden it is time to go back to 9mm because of apparent “modern bullet technology”. If modern bullets are so great, wouldn’t the 40 be that much better?

And the 45?
 
There are a few who believe the .40 S&W will shoot itself loose far sooner than the identical platform in 9mm. I disagree that this makes any real difference for the average Joe who shoots perhaps 500 - 1000 a year.
Perhaps for a large department, these concerns may have bearing on their decision.

Some say the 9mm is easier to shoot well. Whether this is true or not, it's not to say pistols in .40S&W can't be fired rapidly with accuracy. Maybe "easier to shoot well initially" would be more accurate.

I like the 9mm and I like the .40 S&W; I have several handguns in both. I have no dog in this fight and see the merits of both sides of these 9mm/.40S&W arguments. I can say this though... a 10mm they are not. :D
 
There are a few who believe the .40 S&W will shoot itself loose far sooner than the identical platform in 9mm. I disagree that this makes any real difference for the average Joe who shoots perhaps 500 - 1000 a year.
Perhaps for a large department, these concerns may have bearing on their decision.

Some say the 9mm is easier to shoot well. Whether this is true or not, it's not to say pistols in .40S&W can't be fired rapidly with accuracy. Maybe "easier to shoot well initially" would be more accurate.

I like the 9mm and I like the .40 S&W; I have several handguns in both. I have no dog in this fight and see the merits of both sides of these 9mm/.40S&W arguments. I can say this though... a 10mm they are not. :D

But then, they don't need to be.

Form follows Function.

- 9mm Sig P938 Micro (147 gr.) "trunks/tuxedo" pistol.
- 45 ACP Glock slimline G36 Compact (230 gr +P.) EDC/IWB pistol.
- 40 S&W Glock G23.4 Compact (180 gr.) "Go-to-War" pistol.
- 45 ACP SA 1911-A1 (230 gr.) HD/SD pistol.

"'Merica!"




GR
 
I have heard that Federal brand ammo has strengthened their ammo case wall for the .40 caliber. And that Gen 4 Glocks have more case support than earlier versions. (Design to lessen chances of Kabooms.)

Have there been changes by other manufacturers that addresses the inherent problem of the 40 caliber? (Some say that there's not enough extra case space in the cartridge..and hence more prone to bullet setback than other calibers.)
 
What I find confusing though is that why is it all of the sudden it is time to go back to 9mm because of apparent “modern bullet technology”. If modern bullets are so great, wouldn’t the 40 be that much better?

And the 45?

It's because modern technology is following modern design specs for performance (FBI standard) and so all 3 calibers are being essentially designed to do the same thing, penetrate 12-18" in Gel and expand to .6" or more in gel.

Yes, .45 and .40 will penetrate and/or expand more depending on bullet design, but it's generally within 10-15% with compatible bullet design (e.g. HST) and more expansion is certainly better but it's been concluded, repeatedly, that the small extra isn't significant enough in stopping a threat to justify the drawbacks (recoil, cost, ease of training, gun size [in the .45s case])

So are the .40 and .45 also improved and arguably better? Yes. But to what degree and will it actually help you? Still hotly debated.

I have carried all 3 and would be happy with any of them but for me personally I like the 9mm for my carry purposes. I'm up to 30% faster with the same platform on the clock and, more importantly, it's easier for me to get good fast hits at any range with the 9mm. I figure should I need it I'll have a significant skill decrease due to the stress of the situation so I want the duty caliber i find easiest to shoot fast and accurate, hedge my bets.

If I was only concerned about terminal performance I would carry a 10mm
 
I carry a Glock 27 40 S&W everyday in a IWB holster, it's loaded with 165 Speer Gold Dots. I'd be just as happy with a 9mm but I have a 40 because it's what the LGS had when I went shopping. If I were buying today and had any choice I want I'd likely pick 9mm because of ammo capacity advantage in same size pistol, and ammo cost for pracrice.

But of course my 10mm is the best of them all lol.
 
I thought that the article from the Army Aviator turned doctor was pretty weak. If he was arguing against .40 S&W his argument was certainly pretty weak.

Here is one statement that stood out: "In 2014 the FBI produced a report that detailed how improvements in powder efficiency and bullet design had generated 9mm performance that was in some cases superior to comparable .40S&W and .45ACP Law Enforcement loads."

I have read how the FBI claims that modern powder and projectile advances have "narrowed the gap" between 9 mm performance and that of .40 S&W and .45 ACP and I have heard claims that modern 9 mm JHP is now "as good" as the heavier calibers. But this statement takes it to a new level. Nine millimeter performance is now "in some cases superior to comparable .40 S&W and .45 ACP Law Enforcement loads."

I don't doubt that a very poorly performing .40 S&W JHP cartridge can be found that performs less well than the better and best 9 mm JHP loads, but that is hardly relevant. If one looks at ballistic gel testing using a consistent and repeatable protocol, the better .40 S&W JHP cartridges still offer better expansion with equivalent penetration compared to the better 9 mm JHP loads. The relatively inexpensive white box Winchester .40 S&W load shown in the movie demonstrated 16" of penetration in gel, and an expanded diameter of just over twice the diameter of an unexpanded 9 mm projectile. One hundred percent expansion with 16" of penetration is something that only a very few of the best performing 9 mm JHP cartridges can achieve. Looking at the average expansion of the better and best 9 mm JHP cartridges compared to that of the better and best .40 S&W and .45 ACP JHP cartridges, the 9 mm still falls a bit short. And .40 S&W still offers more kinetic energy and projectile momentum if those metrics are important to you.

I still believe that on a shot for shot basis, the .40 S&W still offers terminal ballistic performance superior to that of 9 mm. Equal penetration, more kinetic energy, more momentum, and it makes a bigger hole. But the differences are small enough that a single hit is only going to make a difference in immediate and ultimate outcome in a very small percentage of instances. Certainly, if one shoots 9 mm better than .40 S&W, improved accuracy in bullet placement would trump those differences.
 
The 40S&W, I have absolutely no experience with the previously mentioned what so ever. Apparently I didn't miss anything either.
 
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but where can I find a surplus Sig 226 in 40 S&W? Need me a good 40 SW for testing and to form my own opinion on this caliber. Any other recommendations are appreciated.
 
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but where can I find a surplus Sig 226 in 40 S&W? Need me a good 40 SW for testing and to form my own opinion on this caliber. Any other recommendations are appreciated.

There have been great deals on police trade in and CPO (SIG-certified pre-owned) P226 and P229 pistols chambered in .40 S&W in recent years. I have seen good deals multiple times at CDNN. The P226 and P229 are all-metal pistols with a bit of heft and handle the recoil of .40 S&W very well indeed. And you can buy a SIG 357 barrel for them and shoot that caliber using the same magazines and recoil spring if you feel the need to scratch that itch.
 
I have always enjoyed shooting .45 ACP and it is still probably my favorite pistol cartridge to shoot. I do think it causes more muzzle rise, but the recoil is more like a strong but friendly push.

I did find .40 S&W rather snappy to shoot at first. With a better grip and more experience with the cartridge, I really don't notice much difference between in and 9 mm now, even when I shoot both calibers with the same pistol.

For whatever reason, my first shot accuracy seems to be consistently better with either .40 S&W or .45 ACP (especially the latter) than it is with 9 mm Luger and that must count for something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
I don’t think modern bullet tech makes 9mm equal in wounding capacity to larger caliber bullets. I just think it raises the effectiveness of 9mm to the point that it now performs adequately enough that ballistic gains from larger bullets don’t really matter as much as they used to.

Anything else to be gained is likely not to make a difference in the outcome of a defensive shooting.

I only believe this to be true though of human sized targets and smaller. Larger critters require larger bullets with more mass. Also, I’m talking for a civilian. If barriers are a potential issue like for law enforcement, larger and heavier bullets might help. Maybe not a street cop, but a SWAT team. I guess I’d consider.

There is no better. There’s only better for a given scenario.
 
Last edited:
Carry what you shoot best, if you can't handle a center fired round and .22 is your carry good. You won't stop anything if you can't hit it. Me , I carry 9mm and always will. I've shot the .40 and 45 and haven't experienced a need to go up in caliber. The 45 I shot I thought it was a 9mm but then the gun was a Wilson Combat 1911 so the sheer weight dampened down the recoil. Dead is dead whether it's a .22,9,40, or 45, 50 cal., 357,etc. Bazooka.
 
I will admit the 9x19 has appeal of being packaged into smaller pistol ammo weighs less and is less expensive to shoot with. Now being equal to .45 ACP is:uhoh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Cost is likely the biggest factor in agencies going (back) to the 9mm round. These agencies not only employ officers/deputies/agents, they also employ bean counters. I've also heard that more recruits perform better with the 9mm round, particularly those of smaller statures or lower strength levels.

The improved performance of the 9mm round helps justify the switch back as well, providing some assurance that cost isn't being considered over safety as much (and many agencies still allow their agents to self-select other, more-potent rounds and sidearms.)
 
There are some good 9mm bullets available, same can be said for 40, even more so.
Lucky Gunner tested a bunch of ammo:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Whats good? IMO if a bullet consistently expands to at least .60 and 12'' penetration its "good".
In those tests for 9mm, there were 12 out of 52 loads that averaged .60 and 12'' or more.
In those tests for 40 S&W there were 24 out of 40 loads that averaged .60 and 12'' or more.

What if one desires a bullet that averaged .70 and penetrated at least 12''
Three loads in 9mm meet that stringent criteria.
In 40 S&W there are a about dozen loads that meet that stringent criteria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top