.40 recoil snap - any truth?

I have limited experience on the matter, but I don't see what all the fuss it about. Every week or so I run a mag or two through my 840 to push it through the break-in period, punish those evil coffee cans, practice some drills, and most importantly to blow off steam. My pistol's recoil isn't much I'm afraid of. The little poof of fire, the jump of the pistol, the can dancing downrange, I like it. It DOES have more recoil than my dad's .32(the only other handgun I have access to atm), But that's apples and oranges. His also happens to be a full-steel German relic and mine's a Brazilian poly. Your results WILL vary in this case.

You love it, you hate it, or meh. I personally love it.

I have a Glock Mdl. 22 compensated (.40 S&W). It does not "snap as much as a non-compensated gun. I all hev a Springfield XDm .40 and a Walther P99 .40. The compensated Glock 22 is much more shooter friendly.

+1 to NoobCannon, I Love my PT 840 and have shot all three calibers. In full size pistols, I don't even notice the difference (PT1911, PT 840 and a S&W 910)
I guess i'll have to try a small .40 to see if i notice a difference there.

I agree that there is much more muzzle flip compared even to larger calibers. However, I really like it in my USPc .40 and I liked it when I had a Glock 23. I shoot a lot of 9mm and can shoot it a bit faster, but to me, the flip from .40 helps me to focus more on the front sight as I bring the gun back down. On average, I shoot the .40 guns more accurately at speed.

I'd recommend shooting one before buying it, Glocks are common enough that finding one available to rent and shoot shouldn't be an issue. I can't speak for subcompact guns (I have no use for them, so I don't own or shoot them) but I carry a USPc in .40 and the recoil never bothered me. I've shot the same gun in 9mm and .45, and I've shot the equivalent sized Glocks (23 and 19) and I can say that the difference wasn't substantial for me. I suspect that I have a slightly faster follow up with the 9mm, but I can't see a difference without a timer. Keep in mind, when I learned to shot I did so with a .40, and while I've shot quite a lot of 9mm it doesn't come close to the amount of .40 I've shot which may have something to do with me not perceiving a significant difference. When a friend of mine bought a Glock 23 after training with a Glock 17 in a police academy he certainly noticed the difference.

Yes.

I actually dislike it but enjoy the 10mm. My only rationale is the 10mm is equally snappy but also has a strong .45 push to it, so it kinda equals out.

Click to expand...

I agree.
I feel the .40 is a handfull in my converted G20SF, I dont think it would be too much fun in a sub-compact

9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

Click to expand...

What that guy said.

I prefer 9mm or 45. I mostly carry and practice with 9mm these days. Times are tight, and quite frankly I can just practice way more often. After all of the endless debates and studies between 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP...I've come to determine that in a personal defense role I am perfectly comfortable with any of them and feel all 3 are more than adequate if I do my job.

I've owned 40's, and felt the recoil was easily manageable...just not as easily manageable as 9mm or 45 for me.

For me, the recoil between a .40 and a 9x19 is nearly indistinguishable, but I do have large hands and wrists.

Much like any problem, it has been exaggerated about 200x on the internet. It's really a very minor degree of recoil for a significant improvement in power applied to target.

IMHO.

It's really a very minor degree of recoil for a significant improvement in power applied to target.

Click to expand...

And this is where all the endless and winner-less debates start. The dead horse is rolling over in his grave as we speak.

IMHO, it is a minor degree of recoil for a minor improvement in power applied to the target. We can talk stats all day long...but both are underpowered handgun rounds that lack stopping power. You need a rifle round for stopping power. Short of a rifle, I feel just as well armed with 9mm, 40 s&w, 357 sig or 45 acp.

.40 recoil is a non issue for me. Watch Hickok45 shoot the .40, doesn't seem to be an issue with him either, he uses a nice firm grip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXS3c110Te4

I carried a Beretta 96FS .40 S&W on patrol and I've shot various .40 S&W pistols, including a Glock 27. I've never noticed the recoil being any snappier than other calibers, but then my focus is usually on something other than recoil.

The only pistol in which I've noticed a "snappy" recoil is my PM-9 when I shoot 124gr Gold Dot +P, and that's because of the small grip area. I ended up installing a Pearce finger extension on my magazines to help me better manage recoil.

It really depends on the weapon...

I have a Walther P99 (not the compact) in .40 and when I purchased it I would take my 1911 A-1 and the Walther to the range and shoot them back to back. The 1911 is in .45 so I was going back and forth 8 rounds at a time.

Initially, there was a difference that was very obvious, but after shooting the Walther for several months now, I'm totally accustomed to it. To me the biggest deal is that the weight of the Walther makes it much more comfortable to carry for long periods. Drawback to the Walther is if you empty the magazine and the bad guy is still coming at you, throwing it at him won't do very much, while throwing the 1911 at him would at least slow him down.

I would test fire the Walther P99 in S&W .40 as I can highly recommend this pistol!

KKKKFL

I'm going to echo with the practice practice practice practice practice practice with ANY gun in ANY caliber that you choose to own. If all guns or ammo shot the same then we'd be super bored as there would be nothing *new* to learn.

For me, .40 S&W does feel "snappier" than some other calibers, but while it appears to flip the muzzle back faster, the muzzle seems to get back on target faster, too (it's probably just my perception, though). I don't have more trouble with it than I do other similar calibers, so it works fine for me. 9mm also feels snappy, albeit lighter, while .45 ACP is heavier and less snappy, but I shoot them all equally well.

Everyone's different, though, and I can imagine (and have seen) .40 S&W's combination of snappiness and recoil being uncomfortable for some, negatively impacting their shooting speed and/or accuracy. It's not so different that this cannot be overcome by training, however.

I have a 9mm XDM that I'm quite used to. I shot a friend's .40 XDM, but I didn't know it was a .40 when I shot it. For some reason I assumed it was a 9mm. He didn't tell me it was a .40 until after I shot it. If he hadn't told me, I never would have known. Point being that if it is snappier, it wasn't enough for me to notice.

It's not an issue for me but others notice it. Rent one and see if it's an issue with you.

I feel like there is a bigger difference between standard pressure 9mm and +p 9mm, than there is between +p9mm and 40s&W.

In other words, if you like +p 9mm, you won't mind 40, but if you don't like the +p 9mm over the regular 9mm, the 40 won't follow as liked either.

I had a S&W .40 for awhile, which did definitely have a "snappy" recoil compared to my 9mm and my .45s, however it wasn't any worse, just different. Personally I don't care for the round, and I only have 9mms and .45s now (looking at other pistol calibers, but not .40)

We never said you can't learn to shoot it anyway. We just said that the felt recoil is snappier, not out of control.

I carried a Glock .40 for years, and I shot it just fine, but when I switched back to a 1911, I couldn't remember why I left in the first place.

My GSSF scores, accuracy and time, are always better with 9mm (G17, 115 gr WWB) than .40 S&W (G23, 180 gr WWB).

Yes, it has more recoil than 9mm. That's not rocket surgery.

Is it snappy? That depends on the gun and how it's loaded.

Is it worth the extra recoil? Depends on how bad it is, for you. Many people can hardly tell the difference in any particular gun.

To me the unpleasantness of the .40 isn't so much in its size, or severity, but rather in its nature.
When someone describes the 9mm as a pop, that's what it feels like.
When someone describes the .45 as a push... that's pretty accurate, too.
And finally when someone describes the .40 as a snap, then they're right too.
The .40 really does feel like a go-between for the 9mm and .45. And I think that's what makes it so iffy for me. I could have an easy to control round in one way or an easy to control round in another way ... why would I go for a hybrid that's surprisingly unpleasant to control??

I have a glock 22 and 27 and both shoot well even my g 20 10 mm is easy to shoot

i honestly can't really tell the difference, i shoot .357, .45acp, and .40 a lot and they really feel about the same to me. my .40 is a S&W Sigma, .45 is a 1911, and .357 is a 4inch S&W M66 no dash. love them all to death and carry them all without any fear of time between follow up shots.

hold the gun right and with a proper stance its no problem at all.

I'll agree with that one. .40 has a snappier recoil than 9mm, but it only has more muzzle flip than 9 if you're limp wristing it.