40 Caliber S&W: What's Your Opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I'd read your post. Always get a chuckle when someone uses the failure of the old service revolvers against the Filipino Moros (who were generally small-statured, 5' - 5'4" or so and lean) in the jungles of the Philippines ... the failures were blamed on the weapon and the cartridges, when typically it was a failure of marksmanship, notwithstanding the fact that the troops were armed with a primary weapon - rifles with bayonets -- that did not stop suicide attacks anyway.

You are not proving your case with "historical proof." Sorry.
How is it a case of bad marksmanship when we have journals of the men who were there emptying cylinders of .38 long Colt into the enemy and they still keep coming. The .30-40 Krag also failed in those accounts but I'd wager that had more to do with the drugs and adrenaline they were on vs the cartridge. They didn't seem to have an issue when officers were loaded back with M1873s did they ? .
 
Yeah, and there were also the anecdotal accounts of the Moros impaling themselves on American troops' bayonets in attempts to get to them. These were suicide attacks, and yes, the small, slow cartridge of the time was not the most effective stopper, but relating this particular piece of history in attempt to prove the superiority of .40 S&W over 9mm is, frankly, a non-starter.
 
Yeah, and there were also the anecdotal accounts of the Moros impaling themselves on American troops' bayonets in attempts to get to them. These were suicide attacks, and yes, the small, slow cartridge of the time was not the most effective stopper, but relating this particular piece of history in attempt to prove the superiority of .40 S&W over 9mm is, frankly, a non-starter.
That's an argument over .35 caliber in general. It's just not an adequate caliber. If you disagree then fine .
 
.357 seems to be pretty adequate.

I’m always amused by these threads. People have lots of certitude around issues of terminal ballistics, despite the fact that we have rudimentary data and only the barest beginnings of a real understanding of the subject. I just do not see how anyone can reasonably be CERTAIN that 9mm is every bit as effective as .40, nor how anyone else could be CERTAIN that there is a material difference in the likelihood of incapacitation.

I suppose in the minds of many, such uncertainty is simply painful, and so they feel they have to pick a side and adopt it with the fervor of a religious conviction. Often while accusing others of the same.
 
I kinda remember the origins of the 40 S&W had to do problems with the 10mm. To much gun for many people-for real. The guns are a handful for a non-shooters. The came along the reduced load. The 40 S&W-short and weak. The 40 S&W was designed for an existing platform. Glock introduced the 40 S&W S&W in 1990 (Patooma 3rd. ed. pp 17). The Generation 2 Glock receiver was introduced in 1989. Basically, Glock has sold a bunch of G22's. Remember the 9mm 147gr. subsonic rounds. A bunch of this caliber stuff is whimsy and voodoo ballistics. I feel very strongly about two considerations here. One, is that bullet performance is unpredictable. Also, that the 9mm, 40 caliber, 10mm and 45ACP are highly effective calibers for personal protection. This anecdotal stuff is fine but only makes a good story. Since the move to 9mm, the 40 caliber bullets have not been bouncing off targets.

Caliber: Pick one. It will do. Sorry, no sides. That is, unless no sides is a side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top