.40 caliber pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't a big fan of the .40S&W until Christmastime, when I picked up a Walther PPS. I wanted a 9mm, but the price was too good to pass up. Now that I've run a couple of hundred rounds (and climbing) through it, I have to say that I'm glad to have the choice. It's got ample punch, and the gun is close to perfect for concealed carry.
 
That video is funny. what ever happened to that idiot?

His name is Lee Paige and the video essentially ended his career. He claims (in another video) that people stop him on the street and ridicule him over the video. He also claims that he can no longer do undercover work because his face is too well known. He sued the DEA and alleges that his co-workers ,prompted by jealousy, outted him maliciously in order to damage his career.

Arguably the worst 10 seconds of his life.
 
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Sig designed the 226/229 specifically around the .40 cartridge. Have a 229 in .40 and it's great. Also have an M&P full size in .40 and it's not bad either - has been very reliable and handles the recoil well, but not as good as my Sig.
 
To bad for lee, that was very funny. However it should also serve as a reminder that gun are not something to be taken lightly....ever...


+1 on the XD.....
 
Last edited:
gglass, I thought the .40 S&W was actually a joint project between Winchester and S&W?
Click to expand...

Yes it was, but that would just be splitting hairs... The company that was obviously the lead developer of the cartridge was Smith and Wesson, thus they named it the .40 S&W. It was the FBI that contracted Smith & Wesson to develop a new automatic cartridge. An actual cartridge manufacturer was needed to fully develop that product, so Smith & Wesson contracted with Winchester to bring the product to market.

Maybe S&W&W was a bit awkward.
 
My G23 could outshoot my G19, any day of the week. Very easy to get back on target with a Glock;)
 
Quote:
gglass, I thought the .40 S&W was actually a joint project between Winchester and S&W?

Yes it was, but that would just be splitting hairs... The company that was obviously the lead developer of the cartridge was Smith and Wesson, thus they named it the .40 S&W. It was the FBI that contracted Smith & Wesson to develop a new automatic cartridge. An actual cartridge manufacturer was needed to fully develop that product, so Smith & Wesson contracted with Winchester to bring the product to market.

Maybe S&W&W was a bit awkward.
Click to expand...

Never let it be said that folks around here are opposed to splitting hairs.

I like my Glock G22.
 
Agree with Supertack

:) I must say that I agree with SuperTAC45 and, the reason I say that is two-fold; 1 I have a 229 .40 and I also have 2 different pistols in 9mm that I have shot the S&W 5903 TSW and the Beretta 92f and 2 while there is some difference in the recoil of these comparing them to the 229 the 229 is still quite manageable. I am as one might say relatively new to shooting and, I am as accurate with the 229 as I am with my other pistols.
 
The BHP is mostly famous in the 9mm configuration, but my BHP Practical in .40S&W always puts a smile on my face at the range. A great fun and accurate pistol, which feels smooth shooting .40 out of it. I can't believe that FN/Browning stopped making the Practical models (I dig the reverse two-tones). Here's a pic of mine:


Hi-Power_1.jpg
 
.40 is my favorite auto cartridge, and my platform of choice for it is the S&W M&P. The M&P was designed first for the .40 and is a natural pointing, ergonomically incredible, and soft recoiling firearm. My daily carry piece in fact, with a CTC grip of course :p
 
I resisted the 40 caliber as long as I could, but finally broke down and bought two of them.

Both of them are High Powers. I didn't realize how nice it was to shoot a 40 after shooting a Beretta, HK and a Block in that caliber. I tried it in a High Power and I was, "hooked like a lady of ill repute on crack."

If I didn't have the High Powers I'd probably consider a CZ 75B. Nothing else really trips my trigger.

BikerRN
 
The Hk USP was originally designed to be chambered in .40, and the 9mm and .45 were developed for logical marketing reasons. But the design itself was built on the .40, whereas models like the Glock 22 or Beretta 96 were originally built around 9mm and just rechambered upwards to .40 --some argue that models like the Glock 22 and Beretta 96, while functioning fine in 9mm, weren't designed to handle the rigors of .40

Glock is a fantastic piece, but the .40 Glocks CAN be made to jam, due to their handling of the .40 and I'm sure some will chime in on the Glock's unsupported chamber. Regardless, the Glock 22 seems to be doing fine with the DEA and FBI and countless Police Departments across the country. I can personally vouche for their ability to malfunction in .40, though.
 
I wouldn't recommend a Glock in .40 caliber because they don't have a fully supported chamber. I would recommend Glocks in 9mm. Yes I know lots of Police Depts use them... still that doesn't mean anything other than they got a good deal... and of course the Glock reliability thing... still, no fully supported chamber... no no for me.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be an expert, but I did a fair amount of reading regarding this issue before recently deciding to buy a Glock 23. First, it is true that the Glock .40's do not have fully supported chambers, but that's also true of a number of other quality guns; this is not an accident of design, but, rather, a feature intended to facilitate the consistent feeding of rounds. Nonetheless, kabooms do occur, as they do across pretty much the entire spectrum of calibers and brands of autoloaders. 1911s kaboom. Sigs kaboom. H&Ks kaboom. Whether Glocks do it with any greater frequency is hard to ascertain, since there are a large number of Glocks in service, and the peculiar mixture of Internet fact and fiction that always accompanies these things.

Anyway, for me the bottom line was this: while failures do occur in .40 cal Glocks, they usually seem to involve reloads and/or lead bullets. The former sometimes can be traced to faulty loads or bad brass. The latter is just a no-no in Glocks. I tend to keep my guns clean and to use factory-new ammo. Under these circumstances, I believe that the Glock .40's tend to be at least as dependable as most other brands, and, likely, considerably more reliable.

Having said that, if I intended to shoot reloads in my .40, I'm not sure I'd go with a Glock.
 
The S&W apparently had some growing pains early on; sight alignment and inadvertent mag ejection being two I remember reading about. Both were supposedly fixed in later production. I've put only 200 rounds through mine so far and it's operated flawlessly. The top of the grip is a little closer to the centerline of the bore, so the recoil is said to be a little lighter than others. It's a very comfortable gun and comes with replaceable grip pads for a more tailored fit. I'm very happy with mine.
 
.40

+1 for the .40 here are mine Taurus PT-140, Taurus PT-24/7, FNP-40. They all have been 100%.:) I sold my Ruger KP944DC wish I had it back.:(
Dave Z
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Perceived recoil of polymer vs. steel pistols
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
JONWILL
JONWILL
Tallball
  • Locked
40 Caliber S&W: What's Your Opinion?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
P
  • Locked
Pistols 9mm, .357 and .40 cal
Replies
4
Views
897
Accord
A
A
  • Locked
Testing pistols - ammunition woes and recommendations
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
WESHOOT2
W
D
  • Locked
Which would be the better handgun for the military?
Replies
23
Views
752
bestseller92
B
Back
Top