If popularity is based on the brass I pick up at the range, 9mm is by far the champion. It used to be I picked up a fair amount of 40 S&W, now, it is onesies and twosies. I find more 380 Auto than 40 caliber.
So what is going on?
I miss the days when I picked up coffee cans worth of 38 Special. Its a blue moon when I find any of those.
And likely more so as increasing number of 40S&W owners shoot 9mm with 40-9mm conversion barrels.there's way more 9mm
10 mm has a huge performance advantage over 9 mm. The questions are whether that was needed and whether it was worth the accompanying recoil and blast.Eventually, a whole lot of people would get around to saying "man, why am I carrying around something that only gives me a marginal performance increase over the 9mm, especially when I have more 9mm options, better 9mm prices, and higher 9mm capacity?"
10 mm has a huge performance advantage over 9 mm. The questions are whether that was needed and whether it was worth the accompanying recoil and blast.
Even there, a typical 9 mm load is 365 ft-lbs, (124 gr. bullet @ 1150 fps) while a mild 40 S&W load is 450 ft-lbs. (155 gr. @ 1200 fps)I agree. But the part you quoted from my post was about the .40 S&W, not the 10mm. This thread is about the decline of the .40 S&W.
The .40 S&W suffered because it was a "dumbing down" of the 10mm to a point where eventually practicality and the modern market cause people to essentially say "Meh, what's the point now?"
This is not to say, of course, that the .40 S&W isn't a good round; rather that it became something that couldn't effectively compete enough to maintain its initial popularity.
Even there, a typical 9 mm load is 365 ft-lbs, (124 gr. bullet @ 1150 fps) while a mild 40 S&W load is 450 ft-lbs. (155 gr. @ 1200 fps)
That's 23% more energy from "Forty Short & Weak" than good ol' 9 mm Luger.
The hotter defense loads in 40 S&W have pretty serious energy; 600 ft-lbs. (135 gr. @ 1400 fps)
That's 64% more energy.
Source: SHTF blog
Try not to laugh at the prepper title of the site; it's pretty well-reasoned.
I also bet that the FBI wanted the higher-performing defense-type rounds and with some barrier penetration ability and went with hotter loads in the 600 ft-lbs range, compared to a similar 9 mm load which would be closer to 400 ft-lbs for a similar load. It's 30% less energy and about that much less recoil.
There's always a lot of cherry picking and gaslighting that goes on in caliber wars add in good old human perception and cognitive bias and these mantras become accepted facts.I don't shoot often and this is what I remember. The drawback of the 40cal is the muzzle lift. The .45, as I recall recoils less with a longer push vs. the snappy .40cal.
There's always a lot of cherry picking and gaslighting that goes on in caliber wars add in good old human perception and cognitive bias and these mantras become accepted facts.
In reality if you put them in similar weight guns and shoot full power loads in both there just isn't that much difference on a shot timer.
There was some ebb and flow with gun designs and growing pains with 40 guns.
Many early ones were 9mm designs tweaked to shoot 40, many of the guns released more recently were blank page designed specifically for a 40. Many 40s will have a smidge more weight in the slide some do it internally some like my FN FNS have visibly deeper machining on the 9mm version.
If you compare it to a lightweight commander 45 cap it's very soft shooting they're both 27.5 oz ish.
Absofreakinlootly when it supports their bias if not then they'll downplay the differences or deny they exist.And most people assign more meanings to the differences than actually exists.
First off the "10mm was adopted and reduced" is one of those gaslighting things I mentioned.Shed some light for me here. But, when the 10mm was adopted and reduced to a point where the 40 came out, the development of today's new bullets did not exist yet. I think the Black Saber or whatever the government wanted to ban was the bullet at the time. And so, the larger caliber bullets had an advantage. That is not the case today. Would anyone care to agree or disagree?
First off the "10mm was adopted and reduced" is one of those gaslighting things I mentioned.
The FBI knew at the time that full power 10mm was too much for the average suit, I mean they'd been using 38+p in their 357s for years.
The 10mm was tested and adopted with the FBI load 180@980.
Second there's also been this gaslighting that has morphed 12" minimum and up to 18" is preferred into "as long as it penetrates 12" you're GTG".
So yeah modern 9mm is as good as the 40 was 30+ years ago, but modern 40 still out performs both.
Except the 357 runs double the pressure of the 38 so you're talking 500 FPS difference. With the 40 and 10mm it's only 7% which equates to about 200 fps and usually the 10mm lists a 5" barrel and 40 is 4".One can argue that the 40 is the equivalent of the .38 to the .357. I've seen my younger brother shoot a .40 through his 10. While the 40 is less expensive to shoot through the 10mm. The overall cost of shooting a 9mm more so. As a side note, what I do like about the 40 is that I can switch barrels so it can shoot .357 Sig.