Where does .40s&w fit in for a carry gun??

I've found .40 to be more reliable. A Glock 19 will limp wrist far before a 23. More power to cycle the slide. Wear and tear is negligible.

Recoil is a joke. It's not a .44 magnum or anything. If we're talking larger 4" pistols like a 23, up to a fullsize 35, then .40 is a darn good fit with acceptable recoil. Modern 9mm is snappy enough. I expect way less recoil from 9mm, the way ya'll talk about that. But I am always disappointed. It's about the same.

USPSA is owned by .40. By the time I get setup to reload .40, they'll drop the major/minor rules. Murphys law. Many shooters are to the point where the amount of time that the slide cycles, actually matters. Guess what?.......

More power than a 9. Do your research on modern ammo. If 9mm expands a millisecond too soon, or too late, it's as anemic as anything was 20 years ago. That argument is simply justification for less recoil, or less cost. And l suspect that less cost is by far the best real reason for the movement towards 9mm. Every other reason is to justify this. Nobody wants to hear the lowest bidder bit. Nobody wants to admit to themselves, that they prefer it because it's cheap. And 40, 357, and 45 have also improved. So it's the same old argument, except that 9mm doesn't completely suck anymore.

Carry as much power as you can shoot well, not the other way around. 357sig seems to be the caliber that's dying off, not 40.

Zerodefect said:

I've found .40 to be more reliable. A Glock 19 will limp wrist far before a 23. More power to cycle the slide. Wear and tear is negligible.

Recoil is a joke. It's not a .44 magnum or anything. If we're talking larger 4" pistols like a 23, up to a fullsize 35, then .40 is a darn good fit with acceptable recoil. Modern 9mm is snappy enough. I expect way less recoil from 9mm, the way ya'll talk about that. But I am always disappointed. It's about the same.

USPSA is owned by .40. By the time I get setup to reload .40, they'll drop the major/minor rules. Murphys law. Many shooters are to the point where the amount of time that the slide cycles, actually matters. Guess what?.......

More power than a 9. Do your research on modern ammo. If 9mm expands a millisecond too soon, or too late, it's as anemic as anything was 20 years ago. That argument is simply justification for less recoil, or less cost. And l suspect that less cost is by far the best real reason for the movement towards 9mm. Every other reason is to justify this. Nobody wants to hear the lowest bidder bit. Nobody wants to admit to themselves, that they prefer it because it's cheap. And 40, 357, and 45 have also improved. So it's the same old argument, except that 9mm doesn't completely suck anymore.

Carry as much power as you can shoot well, not the other way around. 357sig seems to be the caliber that's dying off, not 40.

Click to expand...

Yeah, when it comes to handguns it seems everyone wants the sole simplicity of one caliber to rule them all and have it be as cheap as possible. It doesn't get any cheaper than 9mm, but when it comes to pistols and the difficulty of shooting them well, some calibers will work better for others.

I get it if people aren't good enough to shoot a .40 or a .45 and stick with 9mm. I get it if people can't accept paying 10 cents more a round for practice shooting. I get it if people are in a ban state and all their mags are 10 rounds and they choose to carry the biggest caliber they can. That doesn't mean .40 is useless and I think a large part of the rejection is financial, but the other part is people can't bother to train and become better with a caliber that has more recoil (there's no escaping a heavier bullet having more recoil in the same size gun) when it's easier for them to be better with 9mm and spend less time and money doing so.

But those individual reasons for choosing 9mm aren't valid to say stuff like "ammo technology has improved 9mm while .40 hasn't improved at all in the same time" or that "9mm is just as good as .40." Yeah, when it comes to passing the FBI's gel test, 9mm passes the tests now and so does .40, so in paper they're both equal in terms of defensive capability to stop a person, but that doesn't take into account other factors like penetration on animals (just saw a thread about a guy using 9mm to stop black bear and he got a headshot on it, but you're not guaranteed to get headshots on a charging bear), barrier penetration, etc. Thess are factors that can't be ignored and you can't ever say there will never be a possibility that you might have to shoot thru a thick glass window to stop a mass shooter(s).

Yeah, I know the argument will be if you're in a mass shooting situation you're going to run away, but what happens if there's a stampede in the store, you get your leg stepped on and your leg is broken or you get shot in the leg and you can't run? Yup, unlikely that you'll ever find yourself stuck on the floor, but the shooter is behind a barrier that a .40 can punch thru and stop him while a 9mm can't, but you can't say it's impossible.

If you don't reload the best reason to have a 40 in the rotation is ammo availability when there is an ammo "shortage". There always seems to be 40 on the shelves.

I was told by a former LEO that 9mm with Gold Dots was better than any other handgun caliber because it penetrates the best. I listened but didn’t agree because I was carrying a 40 cal at that moment. He was insistent than 9mm was more than equal, it was better. So I did some testing trying to simulate skin and membranes of a bad guy because in pure clear gel, 9mm and 40s&w both penetrated just over 16”.

Gel block with soft plastic inserts: If we believe we might have to shoot through a big bad guy’s arm before hitting center mass, the 9mm wins. After this test, I now carry a 9mm.

CDW4ME said:

I have a Glock 19 like it and have carried it, but prefer my 23. Why?
Lets use data from manufacturer testing, in this case HST:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
HST tested heavy clothed gel:
9mm 124+P HST 13'' / .61
9mm 147 HST 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 HST 12.5'' / .80

Click to expand...

JDR said:

The advancements in 9mm defensive ammo, and a lack of advancements in .40S&W defensive ammo do not argue in favor of the .40S&W for defensive carry purposes.

Click to expand...

tactikel said:

Ammunition truths established in the '90s likely don't hold up today. I like the .40 , but what can it do that a '9 or a 45 can't do? Bullet technology has come so far that IMHO they are a wash.
Get a 9mm and premium ammo.

Click to expand...

Looking at the manufacturer data, I linked above, it appears they applied advancement in bullet tech to 40 too.
Another test using heavy clothed gel: (Ammo I have)
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Federal HST 124 +P 9mm: 18.3'' / .66
Federal HST 147 +P 9mm: 19.2'' / .60
Federal HST 180 40 S&W 18.5'' / .72
Winchester Ranger Bonded 165 40 S&W 14.7'' / .77

I'm not knocking 9mm, I've got a Glock 19 and have carried it, the performance of that HST 9mm ammo is good.
However, although the difference may be small, 40 S&W still makes a bigger hole.
So if I consider my HST loaded Glock 19 as "good" (and I do) - I consider the 23 with either HST or Ranger Bonded as "better".
I know, slidelock 2 rounds sooner with the 23.

CDW4ME said:

Looking at the manufacturer data, I linked above, it appears they applied advancement in bullet tech to 40 too.
Another test using heavy clothed gel: (Ammo I have)
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Federal HST 124 +P 9mm: 18.3'' / .66
Federal HST 147 +P 9mm: 19.2'' / .60
Federal HST 180 40 S&W 18.5'' / .72
Winchester Ranger Bonded 165 40 S&W 14.7'' / .77

I'm not knocking 9mm, I've got a Glock 19 and have carried it, the performance of that HST 9mm ammo is good.
However, although the difference may be small, 40 S&W still makes a bigger hole.
So if I consider my HST loaded Glock 19 as "good" (and I do) - I consider the 23 with either HST or Ranger Bonded as "better".
I know, slidelock 2 rounds sooner with the 23.

Click to expand...

Standard gel tests only give one perspective. They are like testing how a vehicle runs with very little load. Think how a gasoline powered truck accelerates from 0 to 60 compared to a diesel powered truck. Then hook a 3 ton trailer to both trucks. Usually the gasoline engine accelerates quicker with no load and the diesel accelerates quicker with a heavy load. My gel test is simulating a "heavier load" than typical gel tests and IMO is what the bullet will have to contend with in real life.

I'm not trying to convince anybody to change anything. Just looking at testing from a different perspective which might explain why the fbi and law enforcement are switching to 9mm. Maybe the 9mm with the right bullet is actually better, not just cheaper and easier to shoot.

Hartkopf said:

Standard gel tests only give one perspective.

Maybe the 9mm with the right bullet is actually better, not just cheaper and easier to shoot.

Click to expand...

Manufacturer data (Federal):
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx

Heavy clothed gel
9mm 147 Gold Dot - 14.9'' / .57
40 180 Gold Dot - 13.2'' / .70
9mm 147 HST - 12.5'' / .69
40 180 HST 12.5'' / .80

Wallboard
9mm 147 Gold Dot - 15.6'' / .55
40 180 Gold Dot - 12.7'' / .67
9mm 147 HST 13.2'' / .70
40 180 HST 12'' / 1.00

Plywood
9mm 147 Gold Dot - 16.1'' / .49
40 180 Gold Dot - 17.1'' / .57
9mm 147 HST 15'' / .53
40 180 HST 13'' / .75

According to manufacturer testing, comparing Gold Dot vs Gold Dot or HST vs HST the terminal performance of 9mm qualifying as "better" than 40 is not what I'm seeing.

CDW4ME said:

Manufacturer data (Federal):

According to manufacturer testing, comparing Gold Dot vs Gold Dot or HST vs HST the terminal performance of 9mm qualifying as "better" than 40 is not what I'm seeing.

Click to expand...

All done with pure gel in the manufacture testing. Did you look at the modified gel block I posted? It gives the bullets more to deal with than any of the standard tests(not including barriers, which is not my point here). I posted my test for anybody's benefit and again I'm not trying to convince anybody to change but I hope that people at least look at it and understand where I'm coming from. Bad guys almost always have two arms and there is a good chance one of them will get in the way of vitals. We always talk about the "what ifs" in a defensive scenario and I believe the most important what if is the bad guys arms.

I sure am glad the OP didn't want to start a caliber war.

Well...

CCW'd a G23.2/ .4 for decades - and then transitioned to the G36 .45 ACP because it gave me a 400 lb-ft subsonic round in a trimmer package.

And if Glock ever successfully chambers the G48 in .40... I'd probably transition to that.




GR

As would I.

I'm putting a lot of effort into avoiding the 48. Hopefully a .40 version arrives.

Everyone who designs cartridges or guns deals with the same problems, largely using the same tools, and under the same constraints. Expecting radically different results is not realistic. The cartridges are all limited by human factors.

You choose what you are willing to compromise on. If you want energy with less recoil the noise goes up. If you want energy with less noise the recoil goes up. If you want to stay within a specific box of gun size, weight, recoil, noise, effective range, etc., the effectiveness is going to be about the same. Anything you do to increase effectiveness is going to push you to the edge of, if not completely outside, that box. Which may be fine, people are different. One person may be able to handle 9mm recoil from a given gun, and another person handle full 10mm recoil from an otherwise identical gun. One person may think that hearing damage doesn’t matter, and to others it does. Find what you are comfortable with.

Unless you are completely average, it is unlikely that the “best overall” will be the absolute best for you. Choose whatever comes closest, and don’t take it personally if someone else makes a different choice. They are a different person.

Redcoat3340 said:

I DO NOT want to start a caliber war. I'm honestly trying to figure out (read: justify) buying a .40 for a carry gun.
Here's my question: I have a couple of "carry size" (IWB) pistols in .45 -- a Shield, a S&W 4513TSW that's been smoothed out, and a Sig 245. I also have a couple of 9mm for IWB carry -- S&W CS9, S&W 6906, and a Beretta PX4 Compact that I sent to Langdon and is darn near perfect.
I just added two 40's to the safe -- a Beretta 96 Centurian (too big for IWB but sorta compact) and a S&W 4006TSW CHP in honor of my friend, a retired CHiP who just passed away.
So where does a .40 fit into a carry rotation? If I want pocket carry I can use the .45 Shield and for a bit bigger but still handy the 4513. If I want lots of bullets the PX4 is perfect and for size and comfort the CS9 and 6906 are perfectly suitable.
So why should I carry a .40 when I can carry a .45? Or why use .40 when 9mm rounds are perfectly adequate for self protection.

I'd like to get something like a Smith 4013, PX4c in 40, .40 Shield, or an M&P compact....but I can't seem to justify spending money on a gun I probably won't carry as the .45 is bigger bullet (more "stopping power?") and the 9s can carry more rounds.

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Carry that with which you are proficient, in whatever manner you define proficiency.

40sw is a great middle cartridge for those wishing to economize on lead and maximize the hollow point meplat if loading jacketed loads. You can cast as little as around 135 gr. on the higher 9mm range, or as high as 200 gr. on the mid range of 45 auto. Its small enough to give more rounds than 45 auto, yet not so big in diameter that it gives up much to 9mm in round count. Its a straight wall cartridge so much easier to find a good load that doesn't cause leading.

I've read that the main reason the FBI and police organizations dropped the .40 because small statured people had trouble with controlling the gun which affected accuracy. I've not read anything that claims they switched to the 9mm because it was more effective round than the .40.

I keep hearing that technology had improved the 9mm over what it was and it is now equal to .40 and .45. Did not the ammo manufacturers improve .40 and .45 as well? Can you not buy all three calibers in nearly all of the improved defensive ammo brands now available?

I carry a 9mm and like the round as it is has less recoil than the larger calibers and the higher round capacity. I tried the Shield in .40 and it was just too snappy to get back on target quickly but not more harsh to shoot.

George Dickel said:

I keep hearing that technology had improved the 9mm over what it was and it is now equal to .40 and .45. Did not the ammo manufacturers improve .40 and .45 as well? Can you not buy all three calibers in nearly all of the improved defensive ammo brands now available?

Click to expand...

If I understand this correctly the improvements in 9mm brought the round within the FBI's performance parameters. The .40 and .45 were already there and the same improvements didn't make them more there.

Trunk Monkey said:

If I understand this correctly the improvements in 9mm brought the round within the FBI's performance parameters. The .40 and .45 were already there and the same improvements didn't make them more there.

Click to expand...

Tell you what...

The .45 ACP HST, either Std. pressure from a service length Bbl., or +P from a 3.8" Compact...?

...is a thing of beauty.
GR

Garandimal said:

Tell you what...

The .45 ACP HST, either Std. pressure from a service length Bbl., or +P from a 3.8" Compact...?

...is a thing of beauty.

0.87" Average Expansion.
4-layers of Denim and Two 1-Gal. water jugs (12").
View attachment 928154
View attachment 928155



​

GR

Click to expand...

OK.

I care why?

40 S&W is still useful as a cartridge. It fits wherever you want it to.

Offhand McFlan said:

.38 Super

Click to expand...

too long so it has to go in a medium, or long frame gun.

murf

Redcoat3340 said:

So where does a .40 fit into a carry rotation?

Click to expand...

for me, it doesn't fit anywhere; it never has fit and never will.

luck,

murf

I fired three pistols the other day in identical drills. Two were full-size .40 S&W and one was a P365 sub-compact in 9mm. I didn't notice any difference in recoil between any of them, but the full-size pistols were faster to get back on target, for obvious reasons. When firing my compact pistols; the S&W M&P40c and the Glock G19, I don't notice any difference in recoil. Both are so close that from a self-defense perspective, it comes down to whether or not you want a slight increase in power, or slightly more capacity.

I reload, so I like the .40 S&W since the larger cartridge and bullets makes it easier for my fat fingers to handle on my single-stage press.

I carried the .40 S&W for years and really like it, but switched to 9mm since the P365 was such an amazing little gun and I do believe the 9mm is adequate for self-defense. Now I'm thinking of going to a G23 just because I think that size of pistol really is the bare minimum for an effective combat handgun. I don't know, maybe I just need more trigger time with the P365 to get faster and more confident with it.

I really don't fault anyone for their carry choices when it comes to .40 S&W, 9mm, or .45 acp, until they start bad-mouthing the .40 S&W and saying illogical things.

Funny how people will poo-poo a 9mm for woods carry when facing predators 250lbs or less (the average black bear is under 200lbs), and say a .40 S&W or 10mm is minimum when that same 9mm is just fine for drug-crazed 300lb criminals.

Carry whatever you want, just don't delude yourself.

Well, since you're looking for an excuse more than a reason, I'd say the .40 cal is maybe marginally better as a woods gun vs the 9mm. That's assuming you hike and do outdoors stuff. No grizzlies in WA (or there shouldn't be) but presumably you have plenty of black bears and the odd mountain lion or two. In a gunfight the faster split times with the 9mm are more important than with a woods gun (after all, we keep and bear arms not arm and keep bears. The bear won't shoot back!). Penetration wise I suppose a 147gr hard cast 9mm will do a little better than a 200gr .40 cal hard cast but that bigger bullet is at least potentially better against an animal two or three times the size of a human.

Again, more excuse than reason but if you can nab a new .40 for $500 why not?

Hartkopf said:

All done with pure gel in the manufacture testing. Did you look at the modified gel block I posted? It gives the bullets more to deal with than any of the standard tests(not including barriers, which is not my point here). I posted my test for anybody's benefit and again I'm not trying to convince anybody to change but I hope that people at least look at it and understand where I'm coming from. Bad guys almost always have two arms and there is a good chance one of them will get in the way of vitals. We always talk about the "what ifs" in a defensive scenario and I believe the most important what if is the bad guys arms.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did look at your target.
I'm open minded, if I thought I was better off with my Glock 19 and HST rather than Glock 23 with HST - its on the table.
This video is lengthy, but I think Paul does a good job, about 12:50 into it is the "meat target" - may be of interest.

CDW4ME said:

Yes, I did look at your target.
I'm open minded, if I thought I was better off with my Glock 19 and HST rather than Glock 23 with HST - its on the table.
This video is lengthy, but I think Paul does a good job, about 12:50 into it is the "meat target" - may be of interest.

Click to expand...

I've watched this video before and it's one of the reasons I carried a G22 for a while. But he's not using the same ammo between the two calibers and I believe none of what he uses is the best (HST or GoldDots) Also nothing he uses in his targets is a good simulation for human skin. The more I talked to people who have worked in morgues and the more testing I've done, I went with the 9mm. But I do like Paul Harrell and watch his videos when I have free time.