What happened to 40 caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
standardization tends to 'settle' on the lowest common denominator, over-time.
This observation, if true, is probably a consequence of the Law of large numbers.

Having economically feasible access to a larger variety of calibers, should be, in my view, celebrated and supported by firearm enthusiasts.
It helps to encourage the industry to stay above the 'common denominator', and thereby find better improvements at a faster pace.

I think .40 and .357 Sig should include marketing of 'bundles' a carry pistol and pistol-caliber carbine together that offers similar trigger and other controls.
These particular calibers benefit from the longer barrel.
But also give a better support for 'gradual' learning, that is, getting a comfort for new shooters over time with the operating controls (partially) and the ammunition of the carry gun.

I think the industry is retiring .40 and .357 Sig way too soon. They require better frame design, better though in recoil control of the firearm.
But in exchange, they give flatter trajectory, better penetrating ballistic, small game hunting options, and greater design freedoms of the bullets (as in case of .40).
For example, designing frangible rounds, or snake-rounds as an option, when needed, may be easier with a larger caliber rounds and larger powder capacity.

While the resources and needs of law-enforcement agencies drive a lot of personal-protection market, research methods an standards -- I would also prefer the actual self-defense public/market segment is brought together in some more organized fashion, to sponsor/fund the research methods and standards -- outside of the law enforcement needs.
I suspect that will result in faster progress and less of 'least common denominator' standardization.
 
I do remember reading Jeff Cooper's positive opinions on the original 10mm round, and it pushed a 200 grain bullet at 1200 fps. That is 41 Magnum range. I don't remember any of Jeff's comments on the 40 S&W.

Not even remotely close to .41 magnum range. A full-house 10mm far more closely resembles the .357 Magnum.

...While our steamy bromance with the 10mm Auto has flourished over the years, we do like to “keep it real” with our expectations. That said, we have yet to find any data to support the 10mm = .41 Mag comparison. On the contrary, when comparing the two, they were not even close… unless of course you compared the most powerful 10mm load to the weakest, powder puff, starting load in .41 Magnum, which is a far cry from a real-world comparison. Lets start by taking a look at the load data for Accurate #9 pistol powder, as the 200g XTP over 12.5g of #9 has been our go-to 10mm defensive load for about a decade now. Not surprisingly, #9 is also a fantastic powder for rolling your own .41 Mags. The published velocity of this load is 1170 feet per second [fps] and 608 foot/pounds [ft/lbs] of energy from a 5″ barrel. However, out of a 4.6″ Glock 20 barrel, real-world velocities of this load are around 1120 fps and 557 ft/lbs at the muzzle. Conversely, a 200g bullet over 16.9g of #9 in .41 Magnum has a published velocity of 1503 fps and 1003 ft/lbs from a 10″ test barrel. This yields a real-world velocity closer to 1350 fps and 809 ft/lbs of energy in a 5″ revolver. If comparing 5-inch barrel velocities, this constitutes a 15% increase in velocity and a 33% increase in muzzle energy. https://adigaarmory.com/2019/01/11/myth-busted-10mm-auto-41-magnum/

That is just one sample of many sources that explain a 10mm ain't a .41 magnum. One can load up a .41 magnum to safely push a 265 grain bullet to 1325 FPS from a 6.5" barrel for 1033 ft/lbs muzzle energy...10mm doesn't come close.
 
Last edited:
When I shoot my steel-framed double-stack 1911 in 40 caliber, the recoil is like mild 38's in a four-inch service revolver.

I do have a couple of small 40 caliber CC pistols. It's not really an ideal caliber for that, but I'm learning. I can hold the steel one on target fairly well, just a little slow. I've admitted to myself that at this point in time I can't control the polymer one properly without a +1 grip (it's only 14 ounces).

I like the caliber for large pistols, and it's nice to have it as an option if ammo is disappearing off the shelves. Last time I was able to order a bunch of 32's and 40's after the more popular calibers were already gone.

Shoots a nice fat bullet, accurate, easy recoil, holds lots of ammo, great trigger. What's not to like?

It's going to take me a while, but I'm enjoying the challenge of learning to shoot this one decently. It's smaller than it looks in the picture. I can cover the whole thing with my hand. It's like the Bulldog of pocket pistols.
 
Last edited:
When I shoot my steel-framed double-stack 1911 in 40 caliber, the recoil is like mild 38's in a four-inch service revolver.

I do have a couple of small 40 caliber CC pistols. It's not really an ideal caliber for that, but I'm learning. I can hold the steel one on target fairly well, just a little slow. I've admitted to myself that at this point in time I can't control the polymer one properly without a +1 grip (it's only 14 ounces).

I like the caliber for large pistols, and it's nice to have it as an option if ammo is disappearing off the shelves. Last time I was able to order a bunch of 32's and 40's after the more popular calibers were already gone.

Shoots a nice fat bullet, accurate, easy recoil, holds lots of ammo, great trigger. What's not to like?

It's going to take me a while, but I'm enjoying the challenge of learning to shoot this one decently. It's smaller than it looks in the picture. I can cover the whole thing with my hand. It's like the Bulldog of pocket pistols.
ntzmIh6.jpg
ORIwYO6.jpg
I love this little guy, and have no problem shooting it or with the recoil being that it's an all stainless steel 24oz micro 40s&w. Easy to carry and conceal. 6+1 in the gun + a 7 round backup is what a carried for a few years before going to the K40.
 
Last edited:
I've never owned a subcompact .40. I do like the caliber in Compact or full sized pistols. Of course I tend to like Compact pistols. Easier to carry than a full sized, easier to shoot well than a subcompact or micro.
 
I've never owned a subcompact .40. I do like the caliber in Compact or full sized pistols. Of course I tend to like Compact pistols. Easier to carry than a full sized, easier to shoot well than a subcompact or micro.

When I was issued a Glock 22 as my service weapon I picked up a Glock 27 as a BUG. Still have it and it shoots great. I toss it into a cargo pocket when it is too hot out for a cover garment.
 
When I was issued a Glock 22 as my service weapon I picked up a Glock 27 as a BUG. Still have it and it shoots great. I toss it into a cargo pocket when it is too hot out for a cover garment.
Is there more blast and recoil with the G22vs the G27?
 
Is there more blast and recoil with the G22vs the G27?

Since the 22 has a longer barrel and more mass than the 27, the blast and recoil are a little less, but hardly enough to make a huge difference to me.
 
G22 vs G27 recoil: A shorter barrel length reduces velocity, which reduces recoil. So a smaller lighter gun is not all increase.
 
I find the reduction in recoil due to velocity loss does not offset the mass lost and smaller grip of the compact guns. Shooting the same ammo in all three XD-40s I have and the same ammo is significantly more manageable in the 5-inch gun than the 3-inch gun. The 4-inch gun as expected sit between the two in shootablility.
 
I did not see a huge drop in velocity between the two. I think the grip size variation accounts for more subjective felt recoil differences, but they seemed similar to me.
 
Wow. 15 pages.

The answer is two fold.

1. The concealed carry industry has completely taken over, and advances in bullet design allows said industry to concentrate on the much, much easier to shoot 9mm in sub compact and compact handguns. This is not only where the innovation capital is spent but the marketing money as well, hence the feeling that the .40 is going somewhere

2. The Armed Forces and many, probably, most, law enforcement agencies in the US moving towards 9mm because it is easier to shoot. The public tends to follow.

My personal experience has been similar to many as I have transitioned to 9mm. I have owned two .40s in my life, a Kahr K40 and a Baby Eagle. Both were fantastic pistols, but my wife could not control them and especially hated the K40. Since they were both actively used(not range toys, safe queens, etc) I felt I needed to change. I traded the K40 for a K9 and traded off the Baby Eagle for a Glock 19. She is now pretty good with both, though still prefers revolves which is fine.

To further the problem with .40 and my own experiences, I am in the process of acquiring a Sig p239. I chose the 9mm over the .40, which were both available for about the same price, because I have thousands of rounds of 9mm and zero .40. I can buy it, throw a couple of hundred rounds of FMJ and HP downrange, and have it ready as an active SD pistol in an hour at no additional cost. I can test a few different SD cartridges and pick the best for the gun, where the .40 would require a couple of hundred more dollars in initial investment + a couple of hundred more dollars in reserve ammo. The gun is expensive enough as it is.
 
G22 vs G27 recoil: A shorter barrel length reduces velocity, which reduces recoil. So a smaller lighter gun is not all increase.

It been a few years since I shot my 27.
However, I have a 22.3, 22.5 and 35.4 - the 22.3 has more felt recoil than the 22.5 or 35.4
I always thought the 35.4 was soft shooting, well the thicker (heavier) slide on the 22.5 makes felt recoil (subjectively) on par with my 17.5
If anyone thought the 40 "snappy" they should try one of the gen 5 Glock fortys. I really like my 35.4 and 22.5
 
I find the reduction in recoil due to velocity loss does not offset the mass lost and smaller grip of the compact guns. Shooting the same ammo in all three XD-40s I have and the same ammo is significantly more manageable in the 5-inch gun than the 3-inch gun. The 4-inch gun as expected sit between the two in shootablility.

No, it doesn't offset it. But with some designs and loads it does help. Something I have noticed shooting .357 Sig is that due to velocity velocity loss between a 4" and a 3.5" barrel (Glocks), the smaller gun really isn't any harder to shoot.

I seem to recall people commenting that they shoot a G26 more accurately/better than a G19. And I've wondered if that too is based on reduced recoil from reduced velocity.

Some cartridges may show little velocity gains between 4.0" and 4.5" in barrel lengths, but significant drops from 4.0" to 3.5".
 
Hey @Shawn Dodson if you don't want to read too much, just scroll down and look at the pictures.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.357+Magnum.html

Alternatively, you could do some reading and learn something new.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I was busy painting my house before it’s supposed to rain later this week.

The view of the photograph appears to show the wound produced when the Hornady .357 Magnum 158gr XTP JHP bullet (@ 1300 fps) exited from the bear’s shoulder and entered the thoracic cavity.

The shoulder contains a complex group of small muscles that do not tolerate stretching very well from temporary cavitation because of their size as well as being tightly bound to surrounding structures by connective tissues. They simply cannot stretch and absorb the strain of the temporary cavity without tearing, which increases the amount of permanent tissue disruption.

In addition, the bullet involved, Hornady XTP, fragments when it expands. The mushroom petals shear off. These fragments can cut soft tissues, allowing the temporary cavity to tear open the cuts, increasing the size of the wound.

Except for the fragments, the tissue disruption produced is probably very similar to the wound profile produced by the .357 Magnum 158gr JHP @ 1393 fps shown in the link below.

See page 32, Figure 11, at this link: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

Note that the dimensions of the temporary cavity produced by this bullet are approximately:
  • Diameter is a little over 4-inches.
  • Length is a little over 6-inches.
 
The wound shown in the first photo (and described in the text) is what I'd expect to see and is common with the wound trauma produced when a bullet exits the chest wall and enters the thoracic cavity. Intercostal tissues (tissues between ribs) can only stretch so far before they tear due to their size as well as being restrained by connective tissues.

(From my post #110 in this thread - "Entrance wounds through ribs often show greater damage than the diameter of the bullet. The reason is because the tissues between the ribs are limited by how much they can stretch before they tear and rupture.")

The left lung wound in the photo is an exit wound of the lung that appears to be within the position along the wound track where the maximum temporary cavity occurred. I agree that the permanent tissue disruption is a little bigger than 1”.

Given the bullet’s estimated impact velocity of about 1350 fps, it probably produces a wound profile like the .357 Magnum 158gr JHP, except with a penetration depth of 12 inches, that I posted in my earlier reply. (I’ll post the same link here: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf )
 
So @Shawn Dodson , do you agree that handgun bullets at handgun velocities can cause wounds notably in excess of the bullet's expanded diameter? Or do you not?

Either they can, which means Fackler's blanket statement that they cannot, is wrong. Or they can't, which means those wounds in the links didn't happen.
 
Handgun bullets can obviously cause damage to tissues beyond what they actually touch. It is correct to claim that this type of damage is not a reliable factor in wounding but going beyond that to say that it is not a factor at all is obviously incorrect. It does happen, it can be a factor, it's just not something you can count on always being present.

The context was that at the time those claims were made you had two sides and both sides overstated their cases in an attempt to discredit the other and build themselves up.

One side claimed that temporary cavity was very important and that ammo design should emphasize that even if it resulted in minimal penetration.

The other side claimed that temporary cavity and tissue stretch was never an issue and that penetration with reliable expansion was the only thing that mattered.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but neither side was inclined to rational discussion or even the hint of compromise.

Stupid was spouted on both sides and unfortunately some of it has persisted in spite of the intervening years.
 
I have a Glock 17.5 plus a 34.5 and like them both; I also have a 35.4 and a 22.5 in 40 S&W.
So, why give up two rounds capacity to carry the 40?
Lets check with Federal and see how my HST in 9mm and 40 compare:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
Bare gel (I live in FL so heavy clothing is usually unlikely)
9mm 124+P - 10'' / .87 (oh, I don't like that 10'')
9mm 147 - 12'' / .85
40 S&W 180 - 12'' .96 (9mm 147 did very well, but this is better)

Heavy Clothing (if it hits 48 degrees people wrap up in FL like its Alaska)
9mm 124+P - 13'' / .61
9mm 147 - 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 - 12.5'' / .80 (again, 9mm 147 did very well but this is better)

What if one had to shoot through auto glass (unlikely, but use your imagination)
9mm 124+P - 11'' / .54
9mm 147 - 11'' / .68
40 S&W 180 - 14'' / .62 (the only bullet in this comparison to penetrate 12+'')

Well, it looks like Federal applied their "modern" bullet tech to 40 too. ;):D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top