10mm vs 40 S&W Recoil
- Thread starter KBintheSLC
- Start date
- Status
I always felt this way about the 40, since I got my first 23 in 1994. I got rid of the caliber and no longer use a 40 because of this. I always mention it when discussions about the 40 come up, for me, I stick to 9 and 45, I will on occasion carry a 38+p revolver. And find the 38 to be more accurate even with plus P ammo in it. I particularlly dislike the snap it gives to the wrist, and I am a big guy and recoil never bothered me, but that "feeling" is not the same as recoil from other rounds. It is a distinct twist that get annoying "at least to me" if I am shooting a couple boxes.
I had the perfect answer for you right up until you typed in the word "affordable"
If i wanted a Fighting 10mm loaded to the specs originally developed by Cooper, I'd take a steel framed Sig 220 (ST or Elite) and send it to Gray Gun Inc in OR for their 10mm conversion
sorry for the thread drift...this is more a thread about comparative recoil
If i wanted a Fighting 10mm loaded to the specs originally developed by Cooper, I'd take a steel framed Sig 220 (ST or Elite) and send it to Gray Gun Inc in OR for their 10mm conversion
sorry for the thread drift...this is more a thread about comparative recoil
Arthur Unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1
Strange, isn't it?!?!?
I own a Colt Ultra Ten and a .40 Sig P226.... I too have noticed that the recoil/muzzle flip is a little heavier on my .40 than it is on my 10mm.... Doesn't make a whole lot of sense since both projectiles are the same exact size, and the 10mm cartridge is actually longer... I was even firing 185 grain .40 and 200 grain 10mm, and my Sig weighs quite a bit more than my Colt... Granted, I do feel the dovetail wedging into the web of my hand a lot more over the course of 100-200 rounds, but this is probably due to the much slimmer grips of the Colt as opposed to the wide grips on the Sig...
I too get better grouping from my Ultra Ten than my P226, and the 226 is supposed to be an incredibly accurate weapon...
Can't imagine why this is so, but I have learned to love my old Ultra Ten as my carry piece.....
One thing I will give the P226.... It is the easiest weapon in the world to clean, whereas, it can be quite a chore getting that 23lbs recoil spring back into my 10mm Colt!
I own a Colt Ultra Ten and a .40 Sig P226.... I too have noticed that the recoil/muzzle flip is a little heavier on my .40 than it is on my 10mm.... Doesn't make a whole lot of sense since both projectiles are the same exact size, and the 10mm cartridge is actually longer... I was even firing 185 grain .40 and 200 grain 10mm, and my Sig weighs quite a bit more than my Colt... Granted, I do feel the dovetail wedging into the web of my hand a lot more over the course of 100-200 rounds, but this is probably due to the much slimmer grips of the Colt as opposed to the wide grips on the Sig...
I too get better grouping from my Ultra Ten than my P226, and the 226 is supposed to be an incredibly accurate weapon...
Can't imagine why this is so, but I have learned to love my old Ultra Ten as my carry piece.....
One thing I will give the P226.... It is the easiest weapon in the world to clean, whereas, it can be quite a chore getting that 23lbs recoil spring back into my 10mm Colt!
Mac's Precision
Member
I have had 3 of the 40S&W caliber guns. A Glock 23, a Glock 22 and an XD40. I have shot many customer's guns in this caliber to include Sig's and Beretta. I have tried honestly to like the caliber. I disliked them all from a strange, slappy muzzle flip recoil stand point.
I have shot quite a few 10mm guns. Glock 20, Delta Elites and the S&W semi auto 10xx series. I personally like the 10mm much better than the 40. I find it funny that the 10mm was regarded as too difficult to shoot and passed over in favor of the 40 S&W. The Glock 22 and 23 as well as the 27 are the darlings of the LE community yet I find them more annoying to shoot than the 10mm counterparts. Odd for sure.
I suspect that 40 is loaded with powders that produce a quicker pressure rise in a smaller case such that it spikes earlier in the barrel producing a slap in the hand. I would guess that the pressure is higher during that first few moments as the barrel and slide travel together prior to unlocking. Once the barrel and slide unlock then the recoil spring and mass of the slide can work to dampen recoil. My suspicion is that the ammo makers are optimizing the loadings for use in an average barrel length of 3.5 to 4 inches thus addressing the barrel lengths in the 23 and 27. They seemingly are striving to get that bullet up to speed ASAP to get all they can from a shorter barrel length. This equates to more sudden shock as the barrel length isn't there to get the speed over a longer length. This technique in a longer barreled Glock 22 would equate to less muzzle flame....making it more tactical
Again...a guess but perhaps the 10mm is using a slower powder in a larger case. The burn rate doesn't spike up as quickly and thus produces less of a concussive shock on ignition. It may be the factories are optimizing a burn rate for a 5 to 6 inch barrel. This may equate to a lesser shock as they are allowing more time for the bullet to get it's legs.
I find 10mm to be a bit more aggressive shove with less snap. More like a .45ACP loaded hot. .40S&W feels to me like 9mm +P+
Recoil is something that every person feels differently. .40 just happens to be annoying to me. I find it distracting and disturbs my ability to relax and shoot my best. I simply have never shot it in a gun that allowed the caliber to be something I could become friends with. Lots of people shoot it and pack it in defensive guns. I have a number of friends that shoot .40 and after handing them my .45 they shoot better groups. I attribute it to the .45's recoil coming in a nice controllable wave you can live with as opposed to shocking snap that unsettles the shooter.
I have hand loaded the .40 quite extensively and have made it perform differently and thus recoil different to some degree. The feel was to a degree not really all that much different. I simply never found any passion for the round and have abandoned it totally as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If history was re-written and .40 S&W never happened what would we have done? I simply think that .40 was marketed better and looked more attractive since it fits in smaller framed guns. It was a new better mouse trap that could be marketed to a larger customer base. It fit in more varied sized hands.
Cheers
Mac.
I have shot quite a few 10mm guns. Glock 20, Delta Elites and the S&W semi auto 10xx series. I personally like the 10mm much better than the 40. I find it funny that the 10mm was regarded as too difficult to shoot and passed over in favor of the 40 S&W. The Glock 22 and 23 as well as the 27 are the darlings of the LE community yet I find them more annoying to shoot than the 10mm counterparts. Odd for sure.
I suspect that 40 is loaded with powders that produce a quicker pressure rise in a smaller case such that it spikes earlier in the barrel producing a slap in the hand. I would guess that the pressure is higher during that first few moments as the barrel and slide travel together prior to unlocking. Once the barrel and slide unlock then the recoil spring and mass of the slide can work to dampen recoil. My suspicion is that the ammo makers are optimizing the loadings for use in an average barrel length of 3.5 to 4 inches thus addressing the barrel lengths in the 23 and 27. They seemingly are striving to get that bullet up to speed ASAP to get all they can from a shorter barrel length. This equates to more sudden shock as the barrel length isn't there to get the speed over a longer length. This technique in a longer barreled Glock 22 would equate to less muzzle flame....making it more tactical
Again...a guess but perhaps the 10mm is using a slower powder in a larger case. The burn rate doesn't spike up as quickly and thus produces less of a concussive shock on ignition. It may be the factories are optimizing a burn rate for a 5 to 6 inch barrel. This may equate to a lesser shock as they are allowing more time for the bullet to get it's legs.
I find 10mm to be a bit more aggressive shove with less snap. More like a .45ACP loaded hot. .40S&W feels to me like 9mm +P+
Recoil is something that every person feels differently. .40 just happens to be annoying to me. I find it distracting and disturbs my ability to relax and shoot my best. I simply have never shot it in a gun that allowed the caliber to be something I could become friends with. Lots of people shoot it and pack it in defensive guns. I have a number of friends that shoot .40 and after handing them my .45 they shoot better groups. I attribute it to the .45's recoil coming in a nice controllable wave you can live with as opposed to shocking snap that unsettles the shooter.
I have hand loaded the .40 quite extensively and have made it perform differently and thus recoil different to some degree. The feel was to a degree not really all that much different. I simply never found any passion for the round and have abandoned it totally as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If history was re-written and .40 S&W never happened what would we have done? I simply think that .40 was marketed better and looked more attractive since it fits in smaller framed guns. It was a new better mouse trap that could be marketed to a larger customer base. It fit in more varied sized hands.
Cheers
Mac.
It looks a lot like .40 S&W by the numbers.
The FBI 10mm load looks a lot like what you just said Jeff Cooper originally wanted, as well as .40 S&W.
With less volume in the case, it makes sense that the pressure curve would be sharper, although I wonder why it should make a perceivable difference in a short-recoil-operated auto, with which virtually the entire recoil impulse is transferred to the slide/barrel assembly before it is transferred to the frame and shooter.
Well, supposedly--if anybody knows what's really going on here, please tell us. In any case, .40 S&W causes less muzzle flip than .45 ACP for me, even when the former is shot out of a lighter pistol (recovery time seems similar, although I feel a bit faster with .40 S&W).I haven't shot much 10mm, but it feels (and sounds, which may affect the overall perception) pretty snappy to me. I can't fairly compare it with .40 S&W because the loads I shot were hot, so of course the recoil and blast were greater. Now with .45 ACP, I can sort of say that it feels like more of a push, yes, but personally I think the difference is overblown, as it still feels like the explosion it basically is.
Sort of, but a bit harder and with less of a blast when loaded with 180 grain bullets (my preference). With 155 grain bullets or lighter, the blast is more like that of 9mm +P+, at least to me.
Exactly. If I didn't shoot it well, then I wouldn't shoot it at all, but it feels fine to me--stout but just light enough to allow me to recover quickly. I don't perceive the severe twisting sensation that some folks do, although I don't doubt that they feel it.
To be fair, the same could be said of many calibers, including the now-venerable .45 ACP. In my opinion, without .45 ACP we'd have been just fine with 9mm.
Last edited:
wow6599
Member
And without the 40S&W we would have been just fine with the 10mm..........
DenaliPark
member
Look there's no mystery to it, the .40 does almost everything the 10mm does, only in a smaller, more ergonomic pkg.... Is there some quirk of physics behind the recoil noted by the op? Perhaps, perhaps not, much of the factory 10mm stuff is loaded down to mid-range .40 levels as it is, while the .40 is commonly loaded up.....My bet is that the .40 ammo from Fiocchi was loaded up hot, just as they do their 9mm & .45 ACP....
Two small points should be noted when you envoke Cooper's suggestion:
1. In the 1911, his platform of choice, the 10mm feeds more reliably than the .40. For reliable feeding, the solution in competition has been to load the cartridge long
2. The 10mm has demonstrated better penetration of windshields than the .40. I don't have a reference to this or the explaination of why it occurred, I only remember reading it in American Handgunner...I'm thinking Ayoob, Taffin or Jones...and it sounded reasonable at the time.
Mac's Precision
Member
"Look there's no mystery to it, the .40 does almost everything the 10mm does, only in a smaller, more ergonomic pkg.... "
Well....Yes.....40 S&W does everything the 10mm does just 200-250 feet per second slower. This is like saying .38 Special does everything .357 Magnum does so it is the same.
Cheers
Mac.
Well....Yes.....40 S&W does everything the 10mm does just 200-250 feet per second slower. This is like saying .38 Special does everything .357 Magnum does so it is the same.
Cheers
Mac.
DenaliPark
member
Your statement is only partially correct, and I might add, more then a little out of context! The 10mm that the FBI wanted turned out to be a .40 S&W, of course they had no idea that the .40 was what they wanted, it didn't exist, it was the engineers at S&W that realized that this was what they wanted!
My comment centers around the practical LE application of the 10mm, which of course, there is none! However, if you're intending to insinuate that a 165 gr projectile traveling at over 1200 fps is not in 10mm country, well I'm all ears?
Mac's Precision
Member
I don't know where you are getting your ballistics from. 165 @ 1200 fps is not something I can find in my ballistics book (volume 4 by Bob Forker). Of available cartridges for the 40 S&W the hottest one I can find is made by Corbon 165 @ 1150. Keep in mind Corbon is a boutique ammo maker and not mainstream like Federal, Wincheser or Remington. Corbon is making ammo to turn the 40 into a 10mm.
If a person is going to compare calibers you have to keep to an apples and apples discussion. So that being said if we compare bullets at similar STANDARD velocity loadings the 40 is not in 10mm territory. Yes there are loadings that try to simulate 10mm performance because when the 40 is pushed that hard it becomes a good man stopper. Now...when it is pushed that hard it becomes recoil offensive. There are a number of loadings that make the 40 S&W ACT like 10mm. It seems funny that people defend the 40 because it does everything the 10mm does......but only when it is loaded LIKE the 10mm.
What I said before is accurate. 38 Special (in normal loadings) is NOT .357 Magnum in normal loadings. 40 when loaded to standard velocity is NOT 10mm in normal loadings
As for the practical application of 10mm in the LE community...there clearly IS an application because the end users of the 40 persist in using loadings to MAKE the 40 perform like 10mm. So, obviously 10mm IS what they wanted.
The standard loading for 40 is 180 @ ~950 fps. Yet the desire is to run 155-165 grain bullets at 1100 to 1180 fps. So...you are right THAT is 10mm country and not what the 40 was intended to be. It IS almost what the 10mm was intended to be. The standard defense loading from Winchester is a 175 grain Silvertip @ 1290 fps.
So...clearly the 40 is an unacceptable substitute for 10mm since many of the manufactures persist in making loadings to try and improve performance to mirror 10mm. THAT is how this conversation has come full circle. Recoil is a function of bullet weight and velocity and HOW you achieve that velocity. When the 40 is throttled up hard to match 10mm it bucks and snorts. By comparison the 10mm can run a 165 grain bullet @ 1150 easily as it is 140 fps slower than full throttle.
If we start introducing full throttle Corbon ammo in the mix we start to see 180 @ 1300 which is 41 Magnum territory. When 10mm is throttled that hard...it too is recoil offensive to most people.
So...40 when left as 40..is mediocre...when loaded hot and snorty....it is 10mm light...and annoying to shoot.....10mm when loaded light is a hot loaded 40... but easier to shoot. 10mm when loaded hot and snorty is 41 Magnum...and annoying to shoot.
The same thing occurred in the revolver world with .38 Special and .357 Magnum. There was much development in the .38 Special +p and +P+ loadings. There were many shooters that found the full throttle 125 and 158 grain Magnum loadings to be offensive. The 38 was throttled up to get into light magnum area. They took standard 38 Special loadings of 158 grain at 770 fps and pushed the cartridge to run a 125 grain bullet @ 975 fps. This is just sub Magnum velocity.
The standard Magnum load for 357 was a 158 grain @ 1230. So...38 +P 125 grain is ALMOST low end Magnum loadings and easier to shoot than the full Magnum loading. This makes it more acceptable to recoil sensitive shooters. 40 (standard velocity) is again about 250 feet per second slower and supposedly easier to shoot than the 10mm.
The comparison is the same. People have a hard time accepting that 40 is 10mm Special.....and 10mm is 10 Magnum. Further most people carry 10mm Special +P loadings in their pistols.
As for S&W realizing that is what LE wanted I have to disagree. S&W is like any other company and produces what is needed to fill a need. The average police officer is not a shooter and isn't proficient with heavy recoiling loads. Shooters that complain about recoil create a need and the gun makers address that need. For every guy that likes 10mm there are a half dozen or more that are non shooters that are intimidated by it. Thus there is a niche to fill. So the gun makers see $$$$$ and make it happen. When the LE community all carried 357 Magnum there were a few smaller guys and gals that found the mighty 66 to be rude on both ends. Many of them loaded down with .38 +P so they could handle it.
The 40 S&W was just a better money making opportunity as it wasn't just an ammo sales opportunity. IT was a chance to re-tool and re-arm entire departments to the NEW better mouse trap. It was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. They simply could have loaded the 10mm....to lesser velocity and been done.
Cheers
Mac.
If a person is going to compare calibers you have to keep to an apples and apples discussion. So that being said if we compare bullets at similar STANDARD velocity loadings the 40 is not in 10mm territory. Yes there are loadings that try to simulate 10mm performance because when the 40 is pushed that hard it becomes a good man stopper. Now...when it is pushed that hard it becomes recoil offensive. There are a number of loadings that make the 40 S&W ACT like 10mm. It seems funny that people defend the 40 because it does everything the 10mm does......but only when it is loaded LIKE the 10mm.
What I said before is accurate. 38 Special (in normal loadings) is NOT .357 Magnum in normal loadings. 40 when loaded to standard velocity is NOT 10mm in normal loadings
As for the practical application of 10mm in the LE community...there clearly IS an application because the end users of the 40 persist in using loadings to MAKE the 40 perform like 10mm. So, obviously 10mm IS what they wanted.
The standard loading for 40 is 180 @ ~950 fps. Yet the desire is to run 155-165 grain bullets at 1100 to 1180 fps. So...you are right THAT is 10mm country and not what the 40 was intended to be. It IS almost what the 10mm was intended to be. The standard defense loading from Winchester is a 175 grain Silvertip @ 1290 fps.
So...clearly the 40 is an unacceptable substitute for 10mm since many of the manufactures persist in making loadings to try and improve performance to mirror 10mm. THAT is how this conversation has come full circle. Recoil is a function of bullet weight and velocity and HOW you achieve that velocity. When the 40 is throttled up hard to match 10mm it bucks and snorts. By comparison the 10mm can run a 165 grain bullet @ 1150 easily as it is 140 fps slower than full throttle.
If we start introducing full throttle Corbon ammo in the mix we start to see 180 @ 1300 which is 41 Magnum territory. When 10mm is throttled that hard...it too is recoil offensive to most people.
So...40 when left as 40..is mediocre...when loaded hot and snorty....it is 10mm light...and annoying to shoot.....10mm when loaded light is a hot loaded 40... but easier to shoot. 10mm when loaded hot and snorty is 41 Magnum...and annoying to shoot.
The same thing occurred in the revolver world with .38 Special and .357 Magnum. There was much development in the .38 Special +p and +P+ loadings. There were many shooters that found the full throttle 125 and 158 grain Magnum loadings to be offensive. The 38 was throttled up to get into light magnum area. They took standard 38 Special loadings of 158 grain at 770 fps and pushed the cartridge to run a 125 grain bullet @ 975 fps. This is just sub Magnum velocity.
The standard Magnum load for 357 was a 158 grain @ 1230. So...38 +P 125 grain is ALMOST low end Magnum loadings and easier to shoot than the full Magnum loading. This makes it more acceptable to recoil sensitive shooters. 40 (standard velocity) is again about 250 feet per second slower and supposedly easier to shoot than the 10mm.
The comparison is the same. People have a hard time accepting that 40 is 10mm Special.....and 10mm is 10 Magnum. Further most people carry 10mm Special +P loadings in their pistols.
As for S&W realizing that is what LE wanted I have to disagree. S&W is like any other company and produces what is needed to fill a need. The average police officer is not a shooter and isn't proficient with heavy recoiling loads. Shooters that complain about recoil create a need and the gun makers address that need. For every guy that likes 10mm there are a half dozen or more that are non shooters that are intimidated by it. Thus there is a niche to fill. So the gun makers see $$$$$ and make it happen. When the LE community all carried 357 Magnum there were a few smaller guys and gals that found the mighty 66 to be rude on both ends. Many of them loaded down with .38 +P so they could handle it.
The 40 S&W was just a better money making opportunity as it wasn't just an ammo sales opportunity. IT was a chance to re-tool and re-arm entire departments to the NEW better mouse trap. It was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. They simply could have loaded the 10mm....to lesser velocity and been done.
Cheers
Mac.
DenaliPark
member
^^^ Sorry Mac, but you're obfuscating, simple question, why is the 10mm not the issue sidearm of the FBI? Thats my only point, and it's irrefutable....The .40 does exactly what the FBI wanted the 10mm to do, except better....
OP
OP
KBintheSLC
Member
"Better" may be a bit of an overstatement. I think it is more accurate to say that the .40 was "good enough" for what the FBI needed. For most defensive or LE purposes, the .40 is plenty of power without the added case length. However, the 10mm really has a broader spectrum of uses, such as woods defense/hog hunting/etc... where more power is needed. Of course, anything that can drop a 230 lb boar dead in its tracks can make quick work of most 2-legged predators.
Last edited:
I can't fathom, honestly, how anyone can complain a G23 loaded with any conventional JHP round feels difficult to control or unpleasant to shoot.
Then again, we're all different in tastes, observations, perceptions.
The .40S&W is the best round for SD carry, IMO, because of the energy and diameter, but with the ability to carry as much as 15 rounds in a magazine.
As far as ballistics, Georgia Arms (canned heat) makes some .40S&W that impresses on the velocity front, well over 1,100 fps with a 155 or 165 grain bullet.
I will try and dig that up and link it when I get a chance.
Then again, we're all different in tastes, observations, perceptions.
The .40S&W is the best round for SD carry, IMO, because of the energy and diameter, but with the ability to carry as much as 15 rounds in a magazine.
As far as ballistics, Georgia Arms (canned heat) makes some .40S&W that impresses on the velocity front, well over 1,100 fps with a 155 or 165 grain bullet.
I will try and dig that up and link it when I get a chance.
Skylerbone
Member
MP, that is perhaps the best explanation I've read on the 40 S&W. As an owner, I chose it not as a substitute for 10mm but a substitute for 9mm. While 10mm would likely have been a better choice for me (big mitts, not recoil sensitive, does the 40 really have any?) it was prohibitive in available offerings. I don't care for Glock (I do respect them and what they've forced other manufacturers do emulate) and I couldn't afford a Colt.
The other problem is brass. I pick up hundreds of rounds nearly every range trip to reload or recycle and I can count the 10mm cases on one hand. That means the added expense of new brass, something I've never had to buy for my 40. I'm also a big believer in slow and heavy projectiles rather than overkill for SD.
The other problem is brass. I pick up hundreds of rounds nearly every range trip to reload or recycle and I can count the 10mm cases on one hand. That means the added expense of new brass, something I've never had to buy for my 40. I'm also a big believer in slow and heavy projectiles rather than overkill for SD.
Mac's Precision
Member
"simple question, why is the 10mm not the issue sidearm of the FBI?"
I answered that already in this comment:
The average police officer is not a shooter and isn't proficient with heavy recoiling loads. Shooters that complain about recoil create a need and the gun makers address that need.
Large departments have an issue in that they have to select a gun / cartridge that works for the entire department. Not every small handed cop can handle a 10mm sized gun or a 45ACP sized gun. MOST shooters can handle a 40 caliber sized pistol and I truly think that gun size played a bigger part in adopting the 40 than did caliber issues. It was a way to address every officer with one gun / caliber that they could all handle.
Locally the PD was carrying the S&W 1076. MOST every officer packed it. The smaller men and the gals had the option of the 4006
As of late the department has switched to Glock. Again they give an option. If you have big hands and the skills you can carry the 21/30...if you are small and a lesser skilled shooter you can carry the 22/23 combo.
JQP says: "The .40S&W is the best round for SD carry, IMO, because of the energy and diameter, but with the ability to carry as much as 15 rounds in a magazine."
Uh...like the Glock 20
Just messin with ya!
Sorry guys... I just have to stir the pot a bit on the 10 vs 40 discussion. There are so many caliber whizzing matches over the years and they are all pretty silly. Many times I have to agree to disagree on the merit of the 40 S&W. I have always maintained that it is a middle ground cartridge that is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It does nothing that 45 ACP can't do. It does nothing that 10mm can't do. It is only marginally better than 9mm in bore diameter as 9mm can develop as much energy.
In short they are all handgun calibers which makes them ALL puny and weak. Whether it holds 8 or 15 is irrelevant. If a person is counting on magazine capacity as a deciding factor you have bigger problems. Your handgun is there to allow you to fight your way to your rifle or shotgun.
When it comes to handguns, I'll take mine in large bores that make as much energy as I can get and yet still be no larger than the 1911. I carry a Sig P220 loaded with 45 ACP Winchester Ranger-T 230 +P. 3 magazines of that + 1 in the pipe makes for 25 total. If I can't solve my problems with 1 magazine load.... I am probably in too deep.
The need for 46 rounds of 40 S&W on a duty belt...is a bit wacky. Folks that is nearly a full box of 50.
In the end....the perceived recoil difference between 40 and 10mm is slight as is the difference between 9mm and 40...as well as 40 and 45. They are all pretty close. You have to shoot a LOT of each caliber to notice specific characteristics in each round. Further each round behaves different in different brand guns.
I happen to notice that 40 has a trait that I notice in every gun I shoot it in. Therefore it is a caliber trait...not a gun trait. I shoot a LOT of different brands that I work on. I can formulate opinions on guns and calibers that I like or dislike. Those will not be the opinion of others...but mine only. What I like might be shared by others or not.. The recoil of the 40 is NOT unmanageable by any means...I just don't find it very smooth or conducive to accurate shooting. Does that mean 40 isn't accurate.. No. I just don't like shooting it as much as 10mm.
Cheers
Mac.
I answered that already in this comment:
The average police officer is not a shooter and isn't proficient with heavy recoiling loads. Shooters that complain about recoil create a need and the gun makers address that need.
Large departments have an issue in that they have to select a gun / cartridge that works for the entire department. Not every small handed cop can handle a 10mm sized gun or a 45ACP sized gun. MOST shooters can handle a 40 caliber sized pistol and I truly think that gun size played a bigger part in adopting the 40 than did caliber issues. It was a way to address every officer with one gun / caliber that they could all handle.
Locally the PD was carrying the S&W 1076. MOST every officer packed it. The smaller men and the gals had the option of the 4006
As of late the department has switched to Glock. Again they give an option. If you have big hands and the skills you can carry the 21/30...if you are small and a lesser skilled shooter you can carry the 22/23 combo.
JQP says: "The .40S&W is the best round for SD carry, IMO, because of the energy and diameter, but with the ability to carry as much as 15 rounds in a magazine."
Uh...like the Glock 20
Just messin with ya!Sorry guys... I just have to stir the pot a bit on the 10 vs 40 discussion. There are so many caliber whizzing matches over the years and they are all pretty silly. Many times I have to agree to disagree on the merit of the 40 S&W. I have always maintained that it is a middle ground cartridge that is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It does nothing that 45 ACP can't do. It does nothing that 10mm can't do. It is only marginally better than 9mm in bore diameter as 9mm can develop as much energy.
In short they are all handgun calibers which makes them ALL puny and weak. Whether it holds 8 or 15 is irrelevant. If a person is counting on magazine capacity as a deciding factor you have bigger problems. Your handgun is there to allow you to fight your way to your rifle or shotgun.
When it comes to handguns, I'll take mine in large bores that make as much energy as I can get and yet still be no larger than the 1911. I carry a Sig P220 loaded with 45 ACP Winchester Ranger-T 230 +P. 3 magazines of that + 1 in the pipe makes for 25 total. If I can't solve my problems with 1 magazine load.... I am probably in too deep.
The need for 46 rounds of 40 S&W on a duty belt...is a bit wacky. Folks that is nearly a full box of 50.
In the end....the perceived recoil difference between 40 and 10mm is slight as is the difference between 9mm and 40...as well as 40 and 45. They are all pretty close. You have to shoot a LOT of each caliber to notice specific characteristics in each round. Further each round behaves different in different brand guns.
I happen to notice that 40 has a trait that I notice in every gun I shoot it in. Therefore it is a caliber trait...not a gun trait. I shoot a LOT of different brands that I work on. I can formulate opinions on guns and calibers that I like or dislike. Those will not be the opinion of others...but mine only. What I like might be shared by others or not.. The recoil of the 40 is NOT unmanageable by any means...I just don't find it very smooth or conducive to accurate shooting. Does that mean 40 isn't accurate.. No. I just don't like shooting it as much as 10mm.
Cheers
Mac.
I've owned a Glock 22 and I currently own a 29. For me, the G22 had no appreciable recoil, snappy or otherwise. The G29 I currently carry has more recoil, but not what I would call "a lot", the difference I've noticed is that the 10mm is louder and has a bigger fireball. If you like the .40 (160gr at 1200fps and 511 ft-lbs) fine, carry what you like and can shoot. but if you can handle and afford 160gr at 1400fps and with almost 700 ft-lb of energy then all the better. Plus with the 10mm, you can get the 9x25 barrel for a 9mm round, 95gr at 2000fps for 890 ft-lb... but that's just silly.
DenaliPark
member
The FBI wanted to load the 10mm with a 180 gr 950 fps round. When the engineers at S&W began tinkering with this idea they realized, "HEY" we can do the same thing in a case about half as big, we can even load it in our "EXISTING" 9mm pistols!
Which of course is exactly what they did....resulting in an expedient & efficient manufacturing process, so expedient & efficient, Glock actually beat them to market with their own invention! The result is a pistol that 90% of shooters or better can safely, and confidently handle & deploy, in all conditions and environments.
The 10mm pistols were just too damn big! When the FBI demanded a loaded down 10mm, the engineers at S&W capitalized on the opportunity, the rest is history....BTW, there likely wouldn't even be a 10mm if not for Glock....
Which of course is exactly what they did....resulting in an expedient & efficient manufacturing process, so expedient & efficient, Glock actually beat them to market with their own invention! The result is a pistol that 90% of shooters or better can safely, and confidently handle & deploy, in all conditions and environments.
The 10mm pistols were just too damn big! When the FBI demanded a loaded down 10mm, the engineers at S&W capitalized on the opportunity, the rest is history....BTW, there likely wouldn't even be a 10mm if not for Glock....
OP
OP
KBintheSLC
Member
In an attempt to get this thread back on track, and away from the 40 vs 10 debate...
I was merely comparing the .40 and the 10mm recoil out of the same gun (G20+conversion). Comparing the G22 with the smaller G29 would sku the results. I am not recoil sensitive, but I did observe a distinct difference between the two. The hot Fiocchi .40 loads were definitely snappier than even the full-power 10's. For me, the 10mm was more pleasant to shoot, despite the added ~200 fps.
IMO of course.
Have you ever even seen a 10mm case? It is nowhere near 2x as "big" as a .40 case. The 10mm case is 0.992" and the .40 is 0.850"... that is only 0.142" of difference in length... that is only 16.7% longer than a .40 case.
Do you have some sort of repressed aggression towards the 10mm cartridge? Why not just let people use what they like? Not all hands are small... and you shouldn't feel insecure if you have small hands. If the 10mm is too big for you, there is plenty of .40 to go around.
...
I was merely comparing the .40 and the 10mm recoil out of the same gun (G20+conversion). Comparing the G22 with the smaller G29 would sku the results. I am not recoil sensitive, but I did observe a distinct difference between the two. The hot Fiocchi .40 loads were definitely snappier than even the full-power 10's. For me, the 10mm was more pleasant to shoot, despite the added ~200 fps.
IMO of course.
Have you ever even seen a 10mm case? It is nowhere near 2x as "big" as a .40 case. The 10mm case is 0.992" and the .40 is 0.850"... that is only 0.142" of difference in length... that is only 16.7% longer than a .40 case.
Do you have some sort of repressed aggression towards the 10mm cartridge? Why not just let people use what they like? Not all hands are small... and you shouldn't feel insecure if you have small hands. If the 10mm is too big for you, there is plenty of .40 to go around.
...
Last edited:
DenaliPark
member
The cartridge description was rhetorical, and silly you, it was on topic! Since you asked, I'm not harboring any repressed feelings for the 10's, do you think Mac is harboring any feeling's, he's the one who took YOUR thread in a different direction...All I did was explain that that the .40 was a more efficient solution for the S&W engineers...BTW, I posted my exact thoughts on the reason for your recoil perceptions....
MTMilitiaman
Member
I should point out while everyone is getting their love on for the Short and Weak that the 10mm Auto, by the FBI's own admission, outperformed all other cartridges and loads tested using its original full power offerings. It was only concerns over the recoil tolerance of some non-field agents and those of smaller stature that led to the downloading of the 10mm and the creation of the .40 Smith and Wesson. If you are one who can swallow compromising performance and are fine with whatever works for the lowest common denominator, then fine, go with the .40.
Look at it this way; when the .40 came along and the 10mm started its supposed decline into the dark void--way back in the early 90s--everyone said the 10mm Auto was dead. It may have looked that way. The 10mm wasn't a war hero like the .45 ACP or the 9mm, and didn't have the commercial support of a big name in the industry like Smith and Wesson, and the resulting benefits of advertising and ammunition development. Things looked dim, indeed. But people spoke too soon, and underestimated the timeless appeal of having the best. Decades later it is apparent the 10mm Auto is not and probably never will be mainstream. But it is far from dead. And it has survived in the shadows, kept and expanded on it avid fan base, even thrived by the standards of its eulogy given decades earlier not through flashy advertising campaigns or nostalgia, but through performance. Turns out, the 10mm doesn't need mainstream support to keep a decent following because performance speaks for itself, and always has. It isn't for everybody. You probably aren't going to rattle off .1 sec split times with it (at least while maintaining any usable degree of accuracy), and it is going to take a little more time and dedication to reach and maintain a level of proficiency with it. But when you care enough to send the very best, the 10mm Auto gives you the increased capacity of an auto with .357 Magnum level ballistics. That's right...I'm skeptical of saying the 10mm Auto is or ever was on par with any decent .41 Magnum load. But it is fully the equal of any .357 Magnum on the market from a similar length barrel. And with 15 in the mag and one in the tube, my Glock 20 gives me twice the firepower of any .357 Magnum on the market in a duty-sized handgun that weighs under 30 oz empty. That, ladies and gents, is true firepower from a handgun--something you can fight your way to a long gun with.
Once the .357 Magnum was considered a premium law enforcement and defense cartridge, as well as an overall versatile performer capable of being loaded heavy for medium sized game at close range. It is still among our most popular handgun cartridges. Why an auto cartridge producing equivalent ballistics and possessing similar versatility both on the streets and in the fields has not achieved a similar level of success is bizarre and only attributed to the lack of support given to the cartridge.
Also, while reviewing history, we find another example around the same time period of people compromising for the lowest common denominator for many of the same reasons. I seem to recall the military claiming they wanted something that smaller stature soldiers could shoot more easily. They ended up with the Beretta, which if you've ever handled an M9/92FS, you realize how laughable that is. The grip circumference and trigger reach on the Italian gun is much larger than its predecessor, the 1911. And again, decades later and years after it was declared obsolete, you still see certain HSLD units clinging to their antiquated M1911 .45s.
I'm a metal head. Certain things are better without mainstream acceptance. If the majority of mindless drones and sheep out there can't handle the 10mm, fine. But for those who put performance first, the 10mm has a lot to offer.
Look at it this way; when the .40 came along and the 10mm started its supposed decline into the dark void--way back in the early 90s--everyone said the 10mm Auto was dead. It may have looked that way. The 10mm wasn't a war hero like the .45 ACP or the 9mm, and didn't have the commercial support of a big name in the industry like Smith and Wesson, and the resulting benefits of advertising and ammunition development. Things looked dim, indeed. But people spoke too soon, and underestimated the timeless appeal of having the best. Decades later it is apparent the 10mm Auto is not and probably never will be mainstream. But it is far from dead. And it has survived in the shadows, kept and expanded on it avid fan base, even thrived by the standards of its eulogy given decades earlier not through flashy advertising campaigns or nostalgia, but through performance. Turns out, the 10mm doesn't need mainstream support to keep a decent following because performance speaks for itself, and always has. It isn't for everybody. You probably aren't going to rattle off .1 sec split times with it (at least while maintaining any usable degree of accuracy), and it is going to take a little more time and dedication to reach and maintain a level of proficiency with it. But when you care enough to send the very best, the 10mm Auto gives you the increased capacity of an auto with .357 Magnum level ballistics. That's right...I'm skeptical of saying the 10mm Auto is or ever was on par with any decent .41 Magnum load. But it is fully the equal of any .357 Magnum on the market from a similar length barrel. And with 15 in the mag and one in the tube, my Glock 20 gives me twice the firepower of any .357 Magnum on the market in a duty-sized handgun that weighs under 30 oz empty. That, ladies and gents, is true firepower from a handgun--something you can fight your way to a long gun with.
Once the .357 Magnum was considered a premium law enforcement and defense cartridge, as well as an overall versatile performer capable of being loaded heavy for medium sized game at close range. It is still among our most popular handgun cartridges. Why an auto cartridge producing equivalent ballistics and possessing similar versatility both on the streets and in the fields has not achieved a similar level of success is bizarre and only attributed to the lack of support given to the cartridge.
Also, while reviewing history, we find another example around the same time period of people compromising for the lowest common denominator for many of the same reasons. I seem to recall the military claiming they wanted something that smaller stature soldiers could shoot more easily. They ended up with the Beretta, which if you've ever handled an M9/92FS, you realize how laughable that is. The grip circumference and trigger reach on the Italian gun is much larger than its predecessor, the 1911. And again, decades later and years after it was declared obsolete, you still see certain HSLD units clinging to their antiquated M1911 .45s.
I'm a metal head. Certain things are better without mainstream acceptance. If the majority of mindless drones and sheep out there can't handle the 10mm, fine. But for those who put performance first, the 10mm has a lot to offer.
OP
OP
KBintheSLC
Member
Amen Brother.
Jurist
Member
Stoeger Couger 40S&W
I have been shooting my Stoeger Couger forty for the past six weeks since I bought it new.300 factory and a equal amount of reloads.I am reloading Hornady 180grain FMJFN,AT 977fps,6grains Unique,min O.A.L. 1.125.lESSfelt recoil than my .380acp BrowningBDA,or my 3913 9mmS&W.I am seriously thinking of selling them off to finance a Stoeger 8045.Currently putting all eleven rounds into 3"&4" circles at 21'.Maybe the rotating barrel has something to do with the light recoil?.
I have been shooting my Stoeger Couger forty for the past six weeks since I bought it new.300 factory and a equal amount of reloads.I am reloading Hornady 180grain FMJFN,AT 977fps,6grains Unique,min O.A.L. 1.125.lESSfelt recoil than my .380acp BrowningBDA,or my 3913 9mmS&W.I am seriously thinking of selling them off to finance a Stoeger 8045.Currently putting all eleven rounds into 3"&4" circles at 21'.Maybe the rotating barrel has something to do with the light recoil?.
- Status
