Why or Why not the S&W 40 only, nothing else

Why Not:
-The round is very "snappy". It imparts a lot of felt recoil and this makes it a fairly challenging round to learn to shoot well. (I think this is how the reputation for inaccuracy started).

-Not the least expensive round to choose (though certainly not the most expensive)

-Somewhat limited on loads and bullets (though this is changing)

-People on either side (9mm or .45cal) tend to give you attitude about your "useless" round.

Why:
-It hits HARD (short & weak? In yer dreams).

-High capacity guns (though now the high-cap .45's are catching up).

-Compact .40 semi-auto pistols have a really nice mix of power, capacity, and small size.

-Wide adaption by official agencies means good support for the round in terms of production, research, etc.

Also for handloaders, what improvements or changes make it nice.

Click to expand...

.40 S&W is a not a good round to hot rod or play around with IMHO as its near magnum pressure levels to start, and the small case volume doesn't leave much margin for error. Tests have shown even 0.1" bullet setback in .40 S&W can cause dangerous pressure levels, so make sure your dies are setup right.

Best thing is you can usually pick up all the brass you'd want for free or nearly so and 180gr hard cast lead bullets loaded to 1000-1050 fps is pretty cheap and close to the factory loads in recoil.

Also .40S&W usually has the best deals in "premium" JHP as various law enforcement surplus finds its way to market. CDNN recently had Win Ranger-T 180gr JHP for $130/500 rounds.

Edit: I think its reputation for inaccuracy is because many factory loads are just a bit over supersonic at the muzzle and accuracy becomes poor as the bullet flies thru the transition zone at longer ranges. Start out subsonic or use lighter bullets well above supersonic and it should be as accurate as .45ACP or 9mm.

--wally.

Brian

I understand what you are trying to do here, but this:

Anybody who comes up with the idea that 45 does not need to expand or I can get more shots on target quicker with a 9mm and it has the same penetration...Will be dealt with harshly.

Click to expand...

Seems like a pretty good reason to choose another caliber over the 40. You asked why or why not. Well, many times the why not is because there is something better. Why or why not use an ax to cut down a tree? Because I have a chainsaw.

Ok, we’ll do this your way. I’ll go with not to block Alex. First, the 40 is a high pressure cartridge pushing a somewhat heavy bullet. This is not much of an issue until you realize that the majority of guns chambered in 40S&W are 9mm sized pistols. This contributes to its nasty recoil.

Second, it’s the 10mm short.

Third, there are better alternatives. Note: I did not say 45ACP or 9mm. I’m not even thinking about them right now… Honest…

The 40 has its place, I’m sure. Some folks even shoot it very well, but as long as there are other alternatives (I swear, I not even thinking about 45’s or 9’s) that I like better, I will have no interest in the 40.

Thank you Sir, You may now deal harshly with me.

I have a Glock 23 as my only .40 S&W. Here's why I chose it:
Good expansion, good penetration, good capacity in a modest sized gun (same gun as a glock 19, you give up 2 rounds of capacity).
The Bad:
The round is snappy. Recoil is more abrupt than the .45s I've shot. Because of the reduced case capacity and high pressures it doesn't seem there is much room to go significantly hotter (I haven't started playing with loads yet though).

IMO the .40 is the best of both worlds, you get the capacity of a 9mm and the wounding power of a 45 with the right ammo.

The thing most people forget when they decry the 40 is that it was never meant to replace either round that most people compare it to for the normal shooter.

For a cheap high capacity ammo (for example for IDPA and other competitive outlets) I would go with a gun chambered in 9mm. The 45 has it's place also, as a big hole gun.

But at my side as my concealed carry weapon I would rather have a 40 in the holster then a 9mm or a 45.

Time for full disclosure: My carry gun is a P99c chamber for 9mm, and my current competition gun is a USP Tactical 45 (replaced my USP 40 because I wanted a suppressible gun).

Once I have the cash I am going to get a P2000SK chamber in 40 for my new carry gun. But I have other projects that have priority.

The .40 S&W owes it's very existance to the two rounds you don't want to discuss, the 9mm and the .45.

The limitations of these rounds, the lackluster stopping power of the 9mm and the ammo capacity limitation of .45s of the time, created the need for something just like the .40.

You get the best of both worlds. Stopping power in the .45 range and ammo capacity of the 9mm.

At 15 yrds a FMJ bullet will go through a 4 X 4 pressure treated post.

Hold the Phone....

For a cheap high capacity ammo (for example for IDPA and other competitive outlets) I would go with a gun chambered in 9mm. The 45 has it's place also, as a big hole gun.

Click to expand...

The 45 is more than just a pretty hole. It is a nice shooting low pressure round that is easy on the gun and the shooter. I would rather shoot a 45 over a 40 in the same size gun any day. The “lack luster” performance of the 9mm that folks speak of is largely due to poor bullet performance. New bullet technology allows the 9mm to really shine. Look at the 124+P Speer Gold Dots. They take 9mm performance to a new level. The 40 has had the benefit of being “born into” better bullets. Keep in mind that the 40 was designed as an FBI round in fairly recent times. The 9mm and 45 were designed as military cartridges 100 years ago. They were designed as FMJ cartridges and spent most of their lives so far as such. The 45 achieved its reputation, for the most part, on FMJ rounds. Stuff some high tech HP in there and you have a formidable round that is softer shooting than the 40.

For those who say that you get 45 performance in a smaller package, you are right, you do if you look at FPS and energy. But remember that it comes at the cost of higher pressure and more recoil. Raise the 45 to 40 pressure levels and you would have 45 super stuff going on. Pressure is important because higher pressures are harder on the gun and the brass.

The .40 S&W owes it's very existance to the two rounds you don't want to discuss, the 9mm and the .45.

Click to expand...

Actually, the 40 was a result of the 10mm. FBI agents were complaining about the 10’s recoil, and wanted something a bit tamer to carry and train with.

Terminal ballistics testing shows that the 40S&W makes bigger wounds than 9mm and less than 45ACP - as expected. The 40S&W provides more capacity in a given pistol design (e.g. M&P) than a 45ACP pistol but less than that of a 9mm - as expected. The recoil of a 180gr 40S&W is incrementally harder than that of a 147gr 9mm but less than that of a 45ACP 230gr hardball load - as expected.

I think that a lot of the folks that don't like the 40S&W have had negative experiences with the hot 155gr-165gr loads, with lots of muzzle flash and KABLAMMOLOUDENBOOMEN factor. Kinda like a shooting a +p+ 115gr 9mm or +p 185 45ACP round.

When comparing apples to apples, you get a predictable experience - the 40S&W has more eneergy and makes bigger holes than smaller chamberings and offers more capacity than larger chamberings.

Greeting's Brian My Friend-

NO .40 S&W for me, please~! Cuz, I don't shoot 'em very well.
I've owned three, two Glock's (a 23, and a 27); and one SIG (P229),
and of the three I shot the G-27 the best~!

rbernie

Can you specify the recoil numbers? It's not that I don't believe you, but I could have sworn that I can remember reading that the 40 actually had more recoil than the 45.

My personal feeling is that a full-size 40 is snappier and presents more recoil for the shooter to overcome than a full-size 45 -- though I admit I've never had occasion to take two basically identical pistols (USP 40 and USP 45, etc.) and do a side by side comparison test. The sense that it is actually a little slower back on target due to recoil than either of its two never-to-be-named competitors ( ) has been the primary reason I've never bothered to pick up anything in 40 cal (again, this may just be my sense from the 40 cals I've shot, etc., don't claim it's a scientific finding).

I don't find that .40 has more recoil than .45, but I do find the recoil to be more abrupt. The .45 is more of a push and the .40 is more of a snap. I just bought my first .40 (XD-40 Service) and I find the recoil to be quite manageable.

Yesterday, I took out three of my latest acquisitions, a Kimber Government 1911 .45, a CZ75 in 9mm and an FN HP in .40.

Recoil differences amongst the three was negligible.

Multiply bullet weight times muzzle velocity and you have the momentum transfered to the gun (its pretty safe to ignore the mass of the powder gases with handguns). Unfortunately the recoil energy you have to dissipate when shooting (so-called free recoil energy) depends on the weight of the gun.

"reasonably hot" loads:
9mm 124gr X 1250 fps = 155000
.40 S&W 180 gr X 1100 fps = 198000
.45ACP 230 gr X 900 fps = 207000

Basically in the same weight gun the .40 and .45 "kick" about the same although the .40 has a lot more muzzle blast and flash, 9mm is pretty close to the .40 in muzzle blast and flash but much lighter than either in recoil.

I've 5" Armscor widebody 1911s in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP (basically Para P18, P16 & P14 clones) and my perception easily matches the numbers above, in a gun designed for .45ACP, the 9mm is a real pussycat.

Clearly a very popular IPSC-type load for the .45ACP of 200gr X 850 fps = 170000 is about midway between the .40 and 9mm. There is little doubt my Kahr CW9 kicks more than my 1911, since the more than a factor of two in the weight of the guns dominates making free recoil energy of the little Kahr significantly greater

--wally.

I am not an experienced semi-auto handgun shooter, but I do have quite a bit of experience shooting revolvers. My lack of experience in using the auto-loader calibers did not allow me to have a pre-formed opinion on which caliber was the best. After doing 3 months of research, I decided on the .40 S&W as the caliber of choice for me. I then sought the advice & opinions of members on this forum in helping me make a decision on an ambidextrous 40 compact for personal defense. I received many helpful replies and almost as many replies promoting the 9mm & .45 acp. I was able to make an informed decision, which I do not regret, with the information supplied to me by members who actually tried to answer my question instead of selling me on something I did not ask about. Therefore, through personal experience that I have had on this forum, I certainly know where the moderator is coming from with his topic.

In my opinion, the recoil on my compact .40 is nothing compared to what I was led to believe by those who I did not ask. It might well be substantially more than a 9mm or a .45 acp, but compared to revolver calibers that I shoot (.357 magnum & 44 magnum), the recoil is minimal. After shooting my .40, my son who was in the Army for 4 years, told me the recoil was no more than the 9mm Beretta he used to qualify with. The handgun that I use is a Smith & Wesson M&P 40 Compact.

When it comes to accuarcy, I shot 250 out of a possible 250 score when qualifying for my CHL. I used the 100 round Winchester USA 165 gr. FMJ .40 S&W value pack from Wal-Mart for practise and for qualifying. I'm obviously not a competition shooter and maybe the 9mm and 45 acp are better suited, but for what I want to use it for, the 40 is perfect for me.

When it comes to reloading, I am very meticulous about it, and I am not going to seat the bullet .1" deeper than it is supposed to be seated among other things. The reloads I have worked up so far have caused me no pressure nor feeding problems with consistent accuracy for my application. I have been using Winchester & R-P brass, WSP primers, 155 gr. JHP Remington & 150 gr. JHP Nosler bullets. The Bullseye & Herco powders which I already had on my bench are the powders I've been using. When I use them up, I'll probably switch to a powder which may be a little better suited for the .40 S&W.

In conclusion, I am very impressed with the .40 S&W caliber for my application. If someone is seeking advice about the 9mm or 45 acp, I am not going to give them my .02 cents worth about the .40 S&W.

When it comes to reloading, I am very meticulous about it, and I am not going to seat the bullet .1" deeper than it is supposed to be seated among other things

Click to expand...

I should have been clearer, the issue is not OAL when they come off your reloading press, the issue is bullet setback when the round chambers. If the bullet crimp is not adequate, setback can cause issues in all calibers, but .40 is particularly sensitive to it. I use a taper crimp die as the last step. Its worthwhile to cycle some reloaded rounds and eject without firing them to compare OAL before chambering and after.

Most factory ammo will show some setback after three or four trips thru most autoloaders -- which is why its not a good idea to recycle the top round if your carry gun is loaded and unloaded frequently.

--wally.

Wally,
I was aware of bullet setback when the round chambers. I also use a taper crimp die as the last step. I should have been more clear on my post as well.

Thanks for clearing that up.

rr13

Ok, why the 40 (being nice as I am a "see sig line below" fan).

The 40 is easy to reload because the cartridge is easier to pick up and handle. Bullets are cheaper then the 45 and again are easier to handle then the 9mm's. It does well with the 135 grns and 150 grn JHP's and can produce reasonable velocities for expansion. The non-tapered (think 9mm) brass is easier to load into magazines and feeds better then 9mm when in high capacity double stacks.

Recoil is reasonably mild and moderately easy to control in general.

Ammo is common and easily available.

It has enough pressure to run a comp/ports effectively.

It can be had in very fun guns to shoot like the P9 Ultra or MD96.
Such is my opinion of the 40.

I own but 1 40 caliber pistol;
The Walther P99.

it is Very accurate, but surely snappy, finicky bout loads, ala where POI is between 155,165, 180....

Quality firearm, proven Police/defensive cartridge...

BUT

I also have a .357 sig bbl for it and use the 40 mags, and get the power and penetration of a .357 mag from a bottle nose case.

more factors, please.

Can you please provide some more factors/concerns to consider? For example, the pros and cons of the .40 for target, hunting, reloading, trick shooting, recoil, etc.

P.s. I caught onto your very red caveat...

Anybody who comes up with the idea that 45 does not need to expand or I can get more shots on target quicker with a 9mm and it has the same penetration...Will be dealt with harshly.

Click to expand...

I take you have noted the off topic replies that folks make. Recently, I brought up the issue of off-topic replies to the chagrin of some "senior" members (apparently, when someone says "no Glock" discussion to some it means maybe). But, the message of staying on topic needs to be said. Good for you.

I do not own a .40 cal yet. But I plan on picking one up. Currently I have a G19 and a G30. I like the appeal of the .40 cal platform, the recoil never really bothered me much. I plan on picking up a G22 because that model allows me to get conversions in .22, 9mm, and .357 sig.

I just can't handle the recoil. Not "OMGWTF it huuuuuuuurts" can't handle the recoil; its just crisp in an unpleasant way, and I find it affects my accuracy.

Click to expand...

I shoot 180gr bullets moving at just under 1000fps, and the recoil is really quite tame. The only time it seems snappy to me is when I'm shooting commercial 155gr loads that are trying to beat 1200fps. Feh - who needs that?

A 180gr 40-cal bullet has the same SD as a 230gr 452-cal bullet. Push that along at just under 1000fps and you've got a really potent load that can be shot extensively without pain or flinch - and that makes right proper holes in whatever it hits.