what's the deal on .40 SW?

Buzznrose said:

Interesting article by Larry Mudgett about Jeff Cooper and the .40 S&W

http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/jeff-cooper-on-40-handguns/

a couple sentences that caught my attention:

“When the FBI decided that the 10 mm had too much recoil and the guns were too big and heavy for agents, Smith and Wesson dusted off Jeff’s (and Whit Collins).40 G&A project and created the .40 S&W. Jeff liked the .40 S&W but preferred to see it loaded with a 200 grain bullet at 1,000 FPS rather than the common 180 grain bullet at 975. “

Click to expand...

Youzzzzirrrr !

Gordon said:

Wrong on all three of your accounts ;
#1 that old black powder velocities of both the .38 Long Colt and the .45 Colt were the same as today with nitro powder with in any amount that counted. The Old .45 Colt was known to be 900 FPS with a 255 grain Bullet and the hot black powder it was loaded with in a 7 1/2" barrel ! Velocity is velocity. The OLD Thompson LaGaurde tests in 1904 of pistol cartridge effectiveness were conducted on cadavers AND live animals and the large calibers ruled and the new at the time European calibers were tested. True bullet profile matters on bleed out time and tissue destruction , I am not argueing that point ! In warfare we used to be limited in bullet profile and exspansive lead slugs.
#2 Stories about "getting knocked backwards" with .45 bullets is indeed not all that occured. The NVA I shot as he charged by with an explosive vest was not knocked backward with 3 to the chest and 2 other places , he went face down as it caused him to trip or collapse , and the two to back of head before slide lock instantly ended his ability to pull the detonator . It was war. I doubt similar RN 9mm would have done the same frankly.
#3 I personally know special op guys, have trained with them and they are friends. They are extremely accurate with bullet placement after week in week out months and months of high round count long training sessions under stress. , they do use modern HP ammo in the last 20 years, at least . Depending on the mission they MAY draw a .45 even tho issued 9mm currently. .45 is heavy and has less capacity generally but in SOME occasions they still use it, and guess why ? A .45 Ranger 230 grain +p and others expands to near 12 gauge diameter ! 900 fps provide 12-13" of penetration is why a 3/4" 1/2 .oz slug puts people down quickly and these guys can handle the recoil and large firearms !

Click to expand...

You missed the point of all 3 accounts.
1) Yeah, velocity is velocity. Modern smokeless being downloading to mimic old blackpowder velocities is still an old cartridge, just with modern powder. If I have to choose between a slow .38 long colt, or a slightly faster, heavier, and larger .45 colt of course the .45 is going to win. We're talking about the opposite here though, a fast .355 projectile compared to a slow .45 projectile.
2) Pure opinion and not fact based that 9mm wouldn't have done the same thing. Personally I'm pretty sure 3 chest hits, 2 "elsewhere" and 2 to the back of the head with a 9mm would have incapacitated him as well. Hell I'd wager a .22magnum would out of a 5" barrel have had a similar outcome.
3) Sounds like you agree with me that special forces picks and chooses what they take with them based on the mission. And a 124gr slug moving at 1100fps that hits vitals and expands to .60 is also going to put people down quickly as long as shot placement is good, which the same is true of .45, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

"If I have to choose between a slow .38 long colt, or a slightly faster, heavier, and larger .45 colt of course the .45 is going to win. We're talking about the opposite here though, a fast .355 projectile compared to a slow .45 projectile."

It all comes down to that really. And the .40 is not a slow projectile. As designed it was supposed to be a 200 grain bullet at 1000 FPS from "service length" barrels . It is close with the 180 at 1050 in duty loads and I guess the boutique loads as originally designed are available. All defensive "pistols" are weak sisters compared to long guns designed for same purpose. No argument there. However every day people are shot and put down with the pistols. The war story I related the enemy was downed with the first few shots in a full on adrenalin driven charge with a few steps. The two head shots are not part of that equation but special circumstances and yes a 9mm would have done as well at that task. But yes it was anecdotal, but real enough for me to pursue training in the 1911 format for the next 30+ years . Col. Cooper explained in early 80s to me in the 200 Class that the .45acp firing impulse was close to the limit of complete controllability of the average man , meaning the quickest accurate split times ect. In later gaming of the defensive pistol we saw minor calibers were able to fractionally improve on that by the non average person .
The .40S&W is certainly capable of being more powerful than 9x19 Parabellum by any standard. However is is harder to control .

I'm a huge .40 fan, always have been since I bought my first one about 20 years ago. I have noticed here and there over the years people talking about how they just don't like .40, even at shooting matches I'd attend, even though I beat them using .40. Never really got a good answer but I think most of it has to do with recoil if I had to guess. To others who may own 9mm's and .45's they see the .40 as pointless, and in their shoes I can see why they would say that, even though if you have .40 you don't really have a use for 9mm or .45 either.

A lot of people erroneously think that handguns are poor performers, I tend to think the biggest issue is that most people can't accurately shoot handguns because they do take a bit more skill level to shoot proficiently. So people with that mindset often act like ALL handguns are EQUALLY bad, which of course is baloney, so they often choose 9mm since you have smaller sized guns and the highest capacity. But for years now a lot of people who have video channels or podcasts are quite vocal in their disdain for the .40, much of it is that idea I just mentioned but a lot of a lot of them really feel that it offers nothing over the 9mm. Many also follow the trends of LEO agencies and if many of them go to 9mm (for budget reasons), many feel compelled to do the same.

Another issue is this, there is a pervasive mindset that since the 9mm recoils a little less than the .40 (or 357 or 45 etc) that less recoil (for potentially faster follow up shots) negates the better downrange ballistics of the bigger/more powerful calibers. A lot of them think this way... a lot and they even admit it. I won't say there is no difference in recoil, but it's not large enough to have a significant impact on any given real life situation and certainly not big enough to give the less powerful cartridge the edge in performance. If you read up on real life shootings, recoil sensitivity is never mentioned.

Personally I think the .40 is fantastic and about as close to a perfect self defense caliber as you could ask for, you get 9mm sized guns with 9mm like capacity but with bigger bullets that hit about like a .45. A lot of people dislike it for whatever reason but a lot of people do like it, even though it's becoming increasingly unpopular to like the .40, but a lot of that too is that many handgun makers simply don't offer the newest designs in .40, at least not the really popular micro sized hanguns.

edwardware said:

The 10mm was going to be grand, and then it turned out the FBI was a bit too limp to handle a man's cartridge. . . hence the .40 Short 'n Weak was born. Wedged in that uncomfortable gap between the effete European 9mm Luger and the Manly Hairy Chested .45ACP (the way John Moses Browning intended, dammit!) it just doesn't do much that something else doesn't do better.

The spawn of high aspirations and small wrists.

Click to expand...

Seems they're put off by the .40 too nowadays since many have gone back to 9mm. But as for the 10mm and the FBI, the load used was quite weak by today's perceived full power 10mm threshold, the real problem wasn't recoil but the size of the gun as most found it bulky and uncomfortable. If anything the .40 would recoil more than that particular 10mm load because it would give the same ballistics but from a smaller, lighter gun, which was the whole concept behind the .40. But regardless the 40 became hugely popular and still is, although not as much.

LiveLife said:

There was a time where:

• Flint lock was popular then not
• .45 Colt was popular then not
• .38/.357 were popular then not
• 38 Super was popular then not
• 10mm was popular then not
• 40S&W was popular with match shooters ...
• 9mm Major was popular with match shooters ...
• .45ACP was popular ...
• 9mm was popular ...
• 380Auto was popular ...
• 22LR was popular ...

I think it's just a fad ... that cycles ... or not.

Click to expand...

True. The 40 rode the crest for 25 years. Unknowings abandoned it BECAUSE THE POLICE DID..........And they always will when the POPO changes calibers. The 40 is a great cartridge it just takes more of a man or experience to hand it well(same with the 45).

Brand spanking new Glock 27Gen5 in .40 S&W are now offered in stores, so Glock believes in it.

Nearly three whole pages and only one picture of a 40S&W handgun in the whole thread.


All three sizes of the original XD-40's

S&W 610, technically a 10mm Auto but I put thousands of rounds of 40S&W through it in USPSA competition.

Remington R1 Limited double stack.

I have two handguns for 40 S&W and would have a third if it had have been available when I bought my H&K P30. I also like the 357 SIG.

Police and other government agency are going back to 9mm for the same reason they used 9mm before. Low recoil to accommodate recoil sensitive recruits AND a government agency only has a memory as long as "the next election".

It has absolutely nothing to do with any goofy claim of improved ballistics or magic potions to allow a 9mm to now disassociate from the laws of physics. It is all STILL just lead and powder, velocity and mass. Same as it has been since the beginning of time and will be to the end of time. Only the perceptions people can talk themselves in to change.

Jack Ryan said:

Police and other government agency are going back to 9mm for the same reason they used 9mm before. Low recoil to accommodate recoil sensitive recruits AND a government agency only has a memory as long as "the next election".

It has absolutely nothing to do with any goofy claim of improved ballistics or magic potions to allow a 9mm to now disassociate from the laws of physics. It is all STILL just lead and powder, velocity and mass. Same as it has been since the beginning of time and will be to the end of time. Only the perceptions people can talk themselves in to change.

Click to expand...

Rather the bottom line there ! Bingo !

Improvements in bullet technology have made the .40 S&W less necessary, as much more-effective 9mm ammunition is now widely available, compared to when the .40 S&W was being developed, and introduced. I was a fan of the 10mm and 40 S&W, when they were introduced, but am now confident that I can defend myself with the better 9mm duty/defensive loads, available today. Nothing wrong with .40 S&W, but 9mm is “more right” than it used to be.

.40 S&W is more snappy than I want to fire, in a duty-sized pistol, these days. I am not so young, anymore. I carried a .44 Magnum duty revolver for a year, and then a .41 duty revolver for five years, in the Eighties. It is wonderful to be in one’s twenties, and immortal. Next, was three years carrying .45 ACP duty pistols, in the early Nineties, followed by four years of .357 Magnum duty revolvers, then back to .45 ACP for five years. (These transitions were voluntary.) Then, from 2002 to 2015, I was required to carry .40 S&W duty pistols. In 2002, .40 S&W recoil was piece-of-cake. By 2011, at age fifty, .40 Snap & Whip, when fired from a light-alloy-frame, high-bore-axis, somewhat-rounded-butt P229R duty pistol, was becoming problematic, for some of the joints in my right hand and wrist, whether I was shooting right-handed, or even two-handed lefty, with a “proper” thumb-forward support grip. (I do better with squared-profile grips.) So, it was a relief to transition to an “orthopedic” 9mm Glock G17 primary duty weapon, in October 2015, a month after my chief OK’ed 9mm duty pistols.

FWIW, .45 ACP remains fun to shoot, using all-steel, 5” 1911 pistols.

I've carried a Glock 19 (9mm) quite a bit, as I have the Glock 23 & 22 (40).
I'm slightly quicker (hundredths of a second) on follow up shots with the 19 using +P ammo versus the 23 with 180 gr. and the 19 has 2 more rounds.
I'm subjectively (no timer this time) as quick on follow up shots with the 22 as the 19 and capacity is equal.
If a 124/147 HST is good, then a 180 HST is arguably better given equal shot placement, speed of subsequent shots and capacity.
I like 40 and give up nothing to 9mm if the comparison is Glock 19 vs 22 - dissimilar size (I know) but in return for slightly harder to conceal, I prefer the 22 grip.

All those claiming it fits between the 9mm and. 45 are just repeating what you have heard the .40 flat outperforms any .45acp load ,standard or +p , you have to move up to .45 super to outperform the 40 and at that point you are into hot 10mm and full size hand guns. As far as 9mm goes I carry them and they are adequate but don't lie to yourself and think that the 124/147 grain HST will do as much damage down range as a 165/180 grain HST yes either will get the job done but if you have the skill to make the shots with the 40 use it, if you don't use the 9mm

CDW4ME said:

I've carried a Glock 19 (9mm) quite a bit, as I have the Glock 23 & 22 (40).
I'm slightly quicker (hundredths of a second) on follow up shots with the 19 using +P ammo versus the 23 with 180 gr. and the 19 has 2 more rounds.
I'm subjectively (no timer this time) as quick on follow up shots with the 22 as the 19 and capacity is equal.
If a 124/147 HST is good, then a 180 HST is arguably better given equal shot placement, speed of subsequent shots and capacity.
I like 40 and give up nothing to 9mm if the comparison is Glock 19 vs 22 - dissimilar size (I know) but in return for slightly harder to conceal, I prefer the 22 grip.

Click to expand...

This accurately mirrors my experiences…. And I’ve opted for my 22 going forward and retired my 19 to range duty. Now I might try a 35 if I can get my hands on one to test and experiment with.

Anchorite said:

This accurately mirrors my experiences…. And I’ve opted for my 22 going forward and retired my 19 to range duty. Now I might try a 35 if I can get my hands on one to test and experiment with.

Click to expand...

I have a 35 and love it; I've carried it, but only strong side IWB, its a bit too long for me for AIWB.

SW40VE 3rd generation and it's perfect for what I use it for and no, it's not a paperweight.

There is nothing wrong with the 40, it's just not as popular as it used to be. Just like every other cartridge it has its plus and minuses. It's up to you to decide what aspects you want. Ive seen first hand what it will do and have several students/coworkers who have used it in gunfights. Our duty load is the 180 HST. It works well.

Personally for me I prefer the 9mm for the same reason I prefer the 5.56 over 7.62. I'll take more ammo and less recoil. Ive never been at the end of a gunfight and said "I wish I brought less ammo" and Ive also never said "I wish this gun was harder to control"..... but Ive said the opposite of the second quote, hence why I preferred the M240B over the M2 when I was gunning on a truck.

Now that doesnt mean I hate the 40. I carried one for several years on duty and shot a little bit of competition with it. I will always have a 40 because I have my fathers Glock 22 (he wanted to buy the same gun I carried when I became a cop) and it's the only real thing I care about that I got when he died. For a woods gun or hunting back up, I'd say the 40 is better than a 9mm. In that case Im going to carry 180 grain FMJ for deep penetration. But for fighting against people, the 9mm is better for what I want in a fighting handgun.

There's nothing WRONG with it. What it comes down to what someone likes, or is required to use due to some policy. If I go to Texas Roadhouse and decide to get chicken instead of steak, its because that is what I like. I'm eating it, and everyone else can eat what they want. If you are required to use a specific model or caliber of handgun you don't like, you just need to suck it up and get over it and get good with what you got, because that is what you got.

FL-NC said:

There's nothing WRONG with it. What it comes down to what someone likes, or is required to use due to some policy. If I go to Texas Roadhouse and decide to get chicken instead of steak, its because that is what I like. I'm eating it, and everyone else can eat what they want. If you are required to use a specific model or caliber of handgun you don't like, you just need to suck it up and get over it and get good with what you got, because that is what you got.

Click to expand...

Just remember to ask for the honey cinnamon butter for the rolls.

Grumulkin said:

The 40 S&W was popular with law enforcement but many decided to go back to the 9mm Parabellum. The reason, I was told by someone who should know, was that some shooters (females) could handle the 9mm better because of less recoil. A few years ago, one could get a LEO reject pistol in 40 S&W at a very good price because of this.

Click to expand...

Ironic, isn't it? That was the same argument the FBI made in the late 80s/early 90s in favor of the .40 after having adopted the 10mm (ultimately in the reduced power Federal loading), and choosing the 10 (reduced load that was developed into the .40) over the .45.
The Miami shootout spawned the entire thing as they (the FBI) blamed armament for what was actually a training/tactics failure. The gun/ammo was the scapegoat.
It was a round from a .38 Spl that ended the fight.

Old_Grouch said:

Ironic, isn't it? That was the same argument the FBI made in the late 80s/early 90s in favor of the .40 after having adopted the 10mm (ultimately in the reduced power Federal loading), and choosing the 10 (reduced load that was developed into the .40) over the .45.
The Miami shootout spawned the entire thing as they (the FBI) blamed armament for what was actually a training/tactics failure. The gun/ammo was the scapegoat.
It was a round from a .38 Spl that ended the fight.

Click to expand...

I read an article (maybe it was a Youtube interview, I cant remember) a while back that talked with one of the agents that worked at the FBI firearms unit back during the Miami shootout. He said they chose the Silvertip because it expanded fast and large at the expense of penetration. Their reasoning was they believed the agents would be shooting bad guys in the front of the torso and didnt need a lot of penetration to get to the vitals. That shootout changed their thinking.

Old_Grouch said:

Ironic, isn't it? That was the same argument the FBI made in the late 80s/early 90s in favor of the .40 after having adopted the 10mm (ultimately in the reduced power Federal loading), and choosing the 10 (reduced load that was developed into the .40) over the .45.
The Miami shootout spawned the entire thing as they (the FBI) blamed armament for what was actually a training/tactics failure. The gun/ammo was the scapegoat.
It was a round from a .38 Spl that ended the fight.

Click to expand...

I guess you haven't read all the reports...

C-grunt said:

I read an article (maybe it was a Youtube interview, I cant remember) a while back that talked with one of the agents that worked at the FBI firearms unit back during the Miami shootout. He said they chose the Silvertip because it expanded fast and large at the expense of penetration. Their reasoning was they believed the agents would be shooting bad guys in the front of the torso and didnt need a lot of penetration to get to the vitals. That shootout changed their thinking.

Click to expand...

Before I retired I was a firearms instructor at the Bureau for 20 years. That was not the reason the Silvertip was selected as explained to me by guys that were in the unit at the time. They did not do any significant or standardized testing prior to 1986 on ammunition and pretty much went with what the gun-rags were recommending. Sad, but there it is.