Everyone jettisoning .40 S&W?

I think one factor is that the 9mil is easier to shoot for women and desk jockeys. Also, 9mil is a little cheaper, and the newer projectiles are highly efficient, a larger bullet isn't the end-all solution it was once thought to be.
More rounds in the magazine is another plus, though i doubt that was much of a factor in the decision.
BTW, I haven't had antything chambered in .40 for several years, but I did keep a few boxes of ammo in case one fell my way again (that philosophy has come in handy a few times already.)

I haven't shot any of my .40s in years. They were straight up uncomfortable to shoot with full power loads for anything more than a single magazine. The amount of shooting required to keep proficient with advanced skills would make my hands hurt.

Everything goes in cycles. While there may be a ton of .40s on the shelf today, tomorrow it may be something else. Some folks like .40 some folks hate .40, as for me it's just another caliber in the collection...

Around here, at least, it's not a new thing. I remember making the local gun-store rounds three (four?) years ago and finding at least one lightly used Glock 23 on every shelf. They stayed there for a long time, too.

I have sometimes thought the same thing (less consumer interest in .40 S&W), as I noticed that during the last few pistol ammo droughts there always was .40 S&W ammo still available wherever I shopped.

I just bought my first .40 S&W pistol a month ago (it is also my first Glock).

The Gen3 Glock 23 is only the third polymer handgun in my collection, joining a pair of Kel-Tecs: a P32 that I really, really like, and a P11 that has been utterly reliable, but a real handful to shoot - a couple of magazines of 9x19mm is all my hand wants to absorb on range day.

The Glock 23 has been a very pleasant surprise. I still do not shoot it very well (having trouble getting used to the "Safe Action" trigger, it seems) but it handles factory loaded 165 grain and 180 grain RNFP-FMJ very well. The felt recoil is not a problem at all. I expected it to be much snappier, but instead it is quite comfortable to run multiple magazines through it. I enjoy shooting it quite a lot.

I had the .40 S&W G-23 out with a 9mm Hi Power, a .45 ACP 1911, and a .357 SAA Uberti and it felt right at home. I ran about 50-60 rounds through the Glock and never once noticed any negative response to how it felt in comparison to the other handguns I was shooting.

I usually am 'late to the party' so it makes sense that I buy my first one just when everyone else is starting to jettison their own .40 S&W pistols.

I really like the .40. I have never seen it as a trade off between 9mm and .45. I bought an FNS-40 during the ammo drought, and I'll probably never trade it off. It's accurate, reliable, comfortable to shoot, and I like the holes the 180gr makes.

.40 is going to be around for a long, long time yet.

the 40 is not going anywhere, the majority of law enforcement carry it, homeland security carry's it , US Coast Guard duty weapon is a 40 , list goes on and on in fact Army and
Military is studying to drop the 9mm may go with 40 as well look it up, this topic has
been beat to death the 40 is here to stay pick what you like

"Jettison" as in throw away in an emergency with no thought of recovery or monetary loss? For anyone considering this please, Please, PLEASE, jettison them in my direction as I will be happy to relieve you of the discomfort, burden, and/or inconvenience of having a .40 caliber pistol. IMO all talk of the discomfort of shooting .40s is greatly exaggerated and probably only true for a very low number of experienced shooters. When I start to see comments about many people jettisoning their .45s for 9mms I will believe many people think the .40 is too uncomfortable and not an advantage with its larger bullets.

Had one with a 3.5 inch bbl. Didn't care for it due to recoil, and also the way the finish on the gun was wearing. Switched to 45 and am much happier. In hind site, I could have stayed with the caliber but switched to a heavier gun to mitigate the muzzle flip.

I don't regret ditching it though. I don't really think 40 does anything better than 45 anyway.

Honestly..... It's cost of ammo to me. That's it. I'm still shooting my stash of $8.99/50 CCI Blasers that I purchased over several years prior to Sandy Hook.

I'll keep my .40s and my 9s and .45s, .38s and .357s. I still enjoy the .40s and keep them in my carry/practice rotation. When 9mm ammo was hard to find, I could get .40 and that's enough reason for me. The FBI isn't always perfect. None of us is. Well, I'm close, but...

I'm seeing police departments trading in their old Glock or S&W 40's for newer versions in 40. At least around here.

Never wanted a 40 . but would consider owning one if the price was right . I have kept a 9 mm for over 16 years .. Sold about 6 others over the same basic time period . Have a 45 I bought about the same time . I do not have the attachment to autos I have for revolvers . Well to each his own . Still have almost every revolver I ever bought . but the auto loaders well come and go for the most part .

I have always thought of getting rid of my .40 - Gen 4 Glock 22. My collection of guns always have their uses. The Glock is my sidearm when I am out in the woods. I don't shoot as often as I should because of the snappy recoil - hurts may hand after 2 15 round magazines.

I think it comes and goes in cycles. Most LEOs in the state I reside seem to use the .40 Glock 22, they dont seem to be changing. I have noticed a good bit of used .40s on the market lately and I think most of this is ammo price related.

Also with the recent FBI swap and guy switching from 40-9 like Rob Pincus people are realizing that .40 and modern defensive 9mm loads aren't all that different and with 9 you carry more ammo in the magazine, most of the time, and you have faster strings of fire.

Also with the proliferation of CCW pocket guns, like the Shield and others, people shooting full house 40 do not like the snap and recoil of the 40 compared to the 9. Case in point I could get a used 40 Shield right now for at least $50-$75 less than a used 9mm Shield.

I would also add that during the post-Sandy Hook buying frenzy, I couldnt find 9 or 45 on the shelf but I could find alot of 40 and that says something. I bout bought a glock 23 just so I could have something to shoot.

It goes in the cycles, I am sure in 5-10 years, some "wunderkind" round called the 9x19 Magnum or the 41 S&W Auto is going to come out and "take the law enforcement community by storm" and people will dump their 9's, 40's and 45's for it. Gun owners are second to golfers in the equipment they buy to improve their game, and most the time we just become victims of marketing. IMHO.

I bought my first .40 back in February. I did it to get myself a Gen-4 Glock which I wanted to try out (and which I like) and I wanted to diversify my calibers as a hedge against shortages. For me I find little perceived difference between my full sized 9, 40, or 45 although I am not sure I've ever fired them all in the same day.

I am in the camp of "just another caliber in the stable".

Never owned a .40, never will. 9mm ammo can be purchased anywhere in the world where ammo is sold.

The balistics between the 9mm,40 s&w, and 45 ACP are not very different in quality hollow points. Most would rather have more rounds, less recoil than the 40 offers.

The 40 cal is also harder on the weapon and they don't last as long. I personally have no use for the round and prefer 9mm and 45.

One thing I don't think most people realize, the .40 S&W that most people buy in the cheap bulk packs such as UMC, WWB or AE is a far cry from the full power round. Many people who were quite happy with their .40s have been quite displeased after shooting a box of Rangers or Silvertips.

I strongly suggest that anyone who carries a .40 regularly also regularly put a box or two of their carry ammo through it to keep accustomed to the extra bite the defensive ammunition has.

I have Glock 27 & 23 with 9mm conversion barrels. If I can only find .40 I have a pistol. If I can only find 9mm I have the same pistol. They both shoot good with either caliber.

Washington State Patrol switched some time back
from H&K .40 to S&W M&P 40 because of lack of
customer service from HK.

Here in Whitman County SE Wash State, the Sheriffs
carry Kimber 1911 .45s Pullman City Cops G17 glocks
and Plainclothed types G19 or G26. The WSU Campus
Cops carry Glock .40

I haven''t got a .40 - 3 .45s and 1 9x19 I don't need to
stock another cartridge.

Shooting buddy has a Glock 20 with a Lone Wolf Bbl. for
cast loads, and also bought a .40 Bbl. uses the same mags.
He got it because .40 S&W is more plentiful on store
sheles than 10mm.

R-

I always liked a .40 but I dislike automatics. It's a nice blend for me at least of 38 spl and 44 spl (revolver guy here) and the 40sw taurus 405 I had was quite nice but alas I traded it off when offered twice the gun in 44 mag. It is (as with most autos) not the recoil action of the gun but the slide weight moving that makes the gun uncomfortable and increases perceived recoil. With the majority of 40s being built heavier to hold added pressure from a 9mm chambered gun model for the bigger round they often greatly increased the slide and thus backwards momentum making the guns "flippy" and unpleasant on the wrist. It's no surprise that these guns are being ditched but it is surprising that the scaled down 45s are not exceedingly popular, and that more guns were not built specifically towards that caliber.

The caliber is certainly not the tradeoff between 9mm and 45, but the gun itself is a tradeoff between designs. If someone would design a gun specifically to be a 40 it would do well, but that is likely not to happen as the 40sw guns are not very desirable at this time.

I will gladly take a 40sw revolver that is built to not need moonclips. Make it stainless and 3" barreled with 5 or 6 shot capacity.