.40 S&W recoil.

"Snappy" recoil in a full-size .40 short-and-weak pistol?

Really???

The 96 is all steel... The recoil should be minimal. The only thing that comes to mind is the open slide making everything a lot lighter and you're not used to it. Maybe the recoil spring is worn? IMO, the MAK is a lot more snappy than the 96. The 1911 also has more recoil - though not snappy recoil.

The 96 is all steel... The recoil should be minimal. The only thing that comes to mind is the open slide making everything a lot lighter and you're not used to it. Maybe the recoil spring is worn? IMO, the MAK is a lot more snappy than the 96. The 1911 also has more recoil - though not snappy recoil.

Click to expand...

The beretta has an aluminum frame.

I know I'm splitting hairs, but it's alloy. It's no where near as light as aluminum and definitely much heavier than poly. It's similar metal as the 59.

Also, the 92 has little to no recoil (IMO).

Now, if we want to talk about snappy recoil, try an older 38 spl snub with wood grips.

I've got a Glock 22 and while the actual "recoil" isn't objectionable, the upward snap of the muzzle is considerable. The normal two hand hold that works with an M1911, whether with 230gr. ball, 230gr. Gold Dots, or 200gr. Hornady TAP is not sufficient to maintain enough control for quick followup shots. I found the muzzle climb most pronounced with 180gr. Blazer FMJ flatpoints.

When I had the money, I was considering a CZ-75 in .40 S&W for the extra weight. I don't like double-action autos, but the CZ can be carried cocked and locked. There are single-action versions as well.

Recoil is relative, but I perceive the recoil of the guns you listed in this order least to greatest: 92FS, 1911 (steel framed), 96.

It is theoretically possible that the recoil of a heavier gun is "worse," at least in regards to followup shots, particularly if it has a higher bore axis.

I feel less recoil in a .40 Cougar than my compact/subcompact 9mm/40 Glocks. But the followup shots aren't as fast. I feel like the Glock sights come back on target a little quicker. The Cougar sights come back down pretty quick, but they don't want to settle down as fast, at least in my hands. It's likely just a familiarity issue, but maybe the weight and bore axis have something to do with it, too.

I suppose I don't really care how much felt recoil there is or how far the muzzle rises, as long as it gets back on target quickly. But as for the OP, I dunno. The Beretta should be really comfy to shoot! I've never shot one, but the 92 feels like a.22, and the 96 has an even heavier slide. The Makarov should also be a peach to shoot. My 2 smaller 9x18's are a picnic.

In my (albeit limited) experience of learning and teaching other people shoot, I see .40 S&W as kind of an acquired taste. A lot of people get turned off of it because they don't pick it up as easy as they did 9mm or .45acp. The more you shoot it, the more you learn to compensate for the snappy-ness.

My S&W M&P .40 compact is more of an effort to shoot than my other handguns. This one tends to give me a flinch for some reason.

My Ruger Superblackhawk in .44 mag doesn't seem to bother me as much. Why? Heck if I know.

Clutch

Spec ops Grunt said:

Maybe snappy isn't the right word......

It just seems like the recoil is more, I dunno, intense, than the Mak.



My mak is all steel.

Click to expand...

I think snappy is a reasonable description of the recoil of a 40 as opposed to that of a 45.

I must be strange then. I like shooting .40. In fact, I like shooting my G22 more than most of my 9mm's.

I have 2 .40 caliber full sized pistols. Recoil doesn't bother me when shooting either of them. My 9mm is a Kel Tec P-11. It recoils about as bad as either of the .40's due to it's small size. The gun can have as much to do with how recoil is perceived as the cartridge it fires. Guns with a high bore axis have more muzzle flip. Guns with a low bore axis tend to put more recoil into your hand. It seems to me everything about handguns is a compromise.

I have a CZ 2075 Rami which is a subcompact in 40 caliber. I feel it is a handfull and is not easy to hang on to. I shoot fairly well with is but is has a very snappy recoil. I have a friend I shoot with who has a full size glock in 45 and IMHO it has much less recoil than my subcompact 40.

i have carried and shot .40 for a few years now, i also own .38/.357 revolvers, 9mm, and .45's. i shoot the .40 the most. i havn't had my 1911 that long but the .40 is what i always grab when i head to the range.

I own a Beretta 96 and it is by far one of the least snappy .40's I have ever fired. I think you are psyching yourself out in the recoil. I'm a 5'10'' and mid weight and can more than handle the snap of this firearm. If you want to talk snap fire a Sigma in 40 or any compact.

Maybe snappy isn't the right word......

It just seems like the recoil is more, I dunno, intense, than the Mak.

Click to expand...

This is because the .40 recoil IS more intense.

After all, the .40 is quite a bit more powerful than the 9x18 Mak.

Kind of like comparing a .32S&W to a .38 Special+P.


Here's a link to a video by Hickok45 demonstrating the recoil/muzzle-flip of the 9mm, .40S&W, and 10mm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxT53-Ukig


You can see from the video that there really isn't much difference in muzzle-flip between the 9mm Glock 26 and the .40 Glock 27.

Easy

I never really noticed any difference in recoil when shooting .40 S&W. I reckon my focus is somewhere else when I'm shooting and I just don't notice it.

I carried a Beretta 96FS on patrol. I could quickly hit bowling pins at 35 yards, no problem, shooting weak hand only.

The 96 is all steel...

Click to expand...

I know I'm splitting hairs, but it's alloy. It's no where near as light as aluminum and definitely much heavier than poly. It's similar metal as the 59.

Click to expand...

Your not splitting hairs. Your just plain wrong. The S&W 59 also has an aluminum frame. Aluminum frames are much lighter that steel frames. Also, the materials added to the aluminum to produce the "alloy" do not add any significant weight.

From Beretta

. Light Aluminum Frame: Each pistol features a lightweight, forged frame made from extremely strong aircraft-quality aluminum alloy

Click to expand...

If you want to talk snap fire a Sigma in 40 or any compact.

Click to expand...

The Sigmas in 40 are a pleasure to shoot. Perceived recoil is less because of the excellent ergonomics. It's also still much more gentle than a 38 spl snub. Which brings to mind, why do people recommend 38 spls to 1st time women shooters as a SD/HD weapon...but I digress...

Which brings to mind, why do people recommend 38 spls to 1st time women shooters as a SD/HD weapon...but I digress..

Click to expand...

• The only firing controls are the trigger and (on exposed hammer guns) the hammer.
• They can reliably fire any ammunition which can safely expel the bullet from the barrel.
• They're MUCH harder to fire negligently, especially the concealed hammer guns.
• The immediate action drill for a failure to fire is to pull the trigger again.
• They can be fired from INSIDE a coat pocket or purse.
• They can be fired from contact distance without fear of the mechanism being taken out of action, unlike a semi-auto pistol.

Now, if we want to talk about snappy recoil, try an older 38 spl snub with wood grips

Click to expand...

The worst for me is the airweight snubbies - I rather shoot a S&w 500. Seriously I have shot both many times and prefer the 500.

To me - the .45 acp is more of a push than the snap of the .40. jmo The .45 is not uncomfortable at all.

The worst for me is the airweight snubbies

Click to expand...

I believe that. I shot a friend's airweight snubbie with full throttle .357 mag loads and WOW! It was plain painful. I've shot a .50 Desert Eagle and a .480 Ruger that were more comfortable than the airweight.