.40 not so popular?

[Nightcrawler]

I've been wondering about this. Why isn't .40 more popular?

I mean, it's immensely popular. It's used by cops all over the US now, and tons of private shooters use it too.

But...it doesn't seem to be anybody's favorite. Most people seem to buy it 'cause they don't want a 9mm, but can get a .40 in the same gun.

From the person receiving the bullet's perspective, I doubt there'll be much difference between a .40 JHP and a .45ACP JHP. .45 +P might have a marginal advantage, might, but most .45 shooters don't seem to like +P anyway. .45 hollow points can theoretically expand to a larger diameter, but most premium JHP ammo all seems to expand to about the same size anyway. A .40 double stack isn't terribly fat, depending on the design.

So why NOT .40? I've heard it recoils snappily. Could this have something to do with it? Why all the disdain for .40 cal?

 

[hankdatank1362]

I've heard it recoils snappily. Could this have something to do with it?

Had everything to do with me selling mine. I can control 9mm much easier (not that .40 was bad, but rapid follow-up shots were more difficult) and .45acp was always like a more gentle "push" into my hands than a "snap."

 

[Majic]

Why isn't .40 more popular?

Because everyone is different and have their own opinions and preferences. Yes LEOs across the nation use it, but the vast majority of them have no say in the matter.

 

[jonnyc]

I hate .40, and all those who shoot it and don't police their brass! My back is getting older by constantly bending over to pick up .45 brass that turns out to be .40!
Have a little consideration you .40 shooters!

 

[mscott]

I guess it depends on the crowd you hang out with. I have several .40s just to keep my loading easier.

 

[Spent Shell]

I think .40 is a fine option, I just haven't been convinced I want one yet.

I to like the way a .45 recoils better than the .40, so if I'm looking for an accurate defensive round that's my choice. If I'm looking for a lighter recoil or cheaper ammo, 9mm is the way to go, as it seems much easier on follow up shots and I can generally buy a lot more ammo for the same money.

So for me, the .45 is more of my "serious" caliber with 9mm being perfect for target, fun and practice. The .40 just doesn't seem to offer anything that I really want. I think if I ever purcase a gun in .40 it will be because that particular model isn't offered in .45 and I want more power than 9mm, and then I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

I don't see it as being anything wrong with .40, it's more that .40 doesn't stand out as anything I need/want.

 

[jeff-10]

The 40S&W is exceptionally popular. Just not on Internet gun forums. The people who tend to post on these forums have an old school taste in firearms, for the most part.

 

[distra]

+1 jonnyc I hate getting excited by all the brass left on the ground only to find out it's .40! I think the popularity of .40 is from over hype and good marketing. Ballistics are slightly better than a 9mm. I don't particularly like the .40, but I do a pistol in this caliber. I think some of the reason for LEO using the .40 is to accomidate smaller handed officers and increased capacity.

Jeff-10, nothing wrong with "old school", gets the job done effectively.

 

[Vonderek]

Modern 9mm jhp gets the job done well enough for me to have confidence in it and is way cheaper and easier to buy in bulk.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Now this is coming from someone who carries a revolver almost exclusively and has never owned an autopistol that wasn't a .45. But...talk about the .40 being over hyped? I'd have to say that about .45ACP. Ballistically, especially in its standard pressure loadings, it's unimpressive. A 230 grain slug is good, but 800 feet per second is hardly a barn burner. They make +P loads, but a lot of shooters seem to think it kicks too much, or that you won't get anything out of it. It's only a hundred feet per second velocity difference, they say, which is true. (But, only 200 feet per second separates a lot of .40 loads from a lot of 10mm loads, and the 10mm guys will tear your head off if you say it's no better than a .40... )

I think Correia described it correctly, though. .40 seems to be a bureaucrat's round. Nothing fancy or endearing about it, and doesn't have the mystique of .45. Nobody's dad carried a .40 in Vietnam.

.40 is what the Henchmen would carry, but not the Villain. Of course, I say the same thing about Glocks, but...HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!

*runs out of the room before the Glock guys can start throwing things*

 

[Walkalong]

I think the .40 is great, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would get a 1911 in .40 instead of .45...

That said, there are some fine platforms for the .40. The 1911 just is not an option for many. The XD is a great pistol in .40. More rounds etc. Nice size, although fatter and bulkier than a 1911. If you get the .45 XD we are really getting big. The Witness Elite Match I have is a pleasure to shoot, very accurate, and holds 18 rounds. A great gun for a vehicle, but a bit sizable to carry. It is a great range gun. The 24/7 compact would be the closest thing I can think of to a higher capacity carryable .40.(Glock and XD fans don't even bother-too thick)

I have two .40's and enjoy them both. The .40 has a lot going for it, but recoil is a bit sharp and snappy with the speedy 155 and 165 Gr. loadings combined with todays current crop of lightwieght polymer pistols. The 180 Gr. loadings (& reloads) are much more pleasent to shoot. That is all I shoot in my XD SC any more.

I hate .40, and all those who shoot it and don't police their brass! My back is getting older by constantly bending over to pick up .45 brass that turns out to be .40!

Just send it to me.

 

[RNB65]

Because 9mm is cheaper and .45 is a classic. And both are current/former military cartridges.

In a gunfight I'll take the .40 over either the 9mm or .45, but it will never come close in popularity until the military decides to adopt it as a standard service round.

 

[tackleberry45]

I concurr with the folks above. In my humble experience the recoil from the .45 is more "toward the hand" than a "snap". I have a Glock 21 that I have out a lot of 230 through without much punishment albeit I am a big guy. I have a Smith M&P in 9MM that I also like - VERY comfortable to shoot. I suppose I can say I am not against the .40, I just have found no reason to buy one.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Well, 10mm fans don't call it ".40 Short & Weak" for nothing.

 

[usp_fan]

The .40 was the first serious pistol I bought. I started with the basic Smith 411 which I traded on a full sized H&K usp. The recoil was well managed in that platform. I traded for a glock 22 which decided it didn't like the .40 nearly as much as I did. I sold the new one Glock sent me to fund a USP compact in the the same caliber. I've had a .40 in one form or another since 1994. To say I like the round is soft peddling it. I think it does many things well and has only a few poor points.

I agree that the .45 is more pleasant to shoot depending on platform. I agree that the 9mm has lighter recoil--duh? I don't find the .40 to be objectional to shoot, nor do I find it to be inaccurate. It is one of several good options out there for each person to consider.

My wife has shot everything I've got and she has informed me that the USP40c is now her pistol. I'm not sure why she likes it best. When I watch her shoot it is clear that the recoil of the 1911 is easier for her to manage, but her perception is the .40 has less, and the gun holds more rounds, fits her hand, and is lighter. I'm not going to argue--she hits what she aims at and enjoys shooting it. I simply don't see any downside to the .40.

--usp_fan

 

[FieroCDSP]

Johnnyc, and other who dislike picking up 40cal brass. Pick it up anyway and box it up and send to me. I'll take that miserable trash off your hands. I'd even give you a few bucks for it.

-I'm sure the main reason people dislike the 40 is the snappy recoil. I like my 40's but I use 155-165gr bullets, rather than the 180's. They're a lot more controllable. I was honestly surprised when I fired a 1911 and the recoil wasn't any worse than my M&P 40. It was different (push vs snap), but was about the same force. I've also found the Iso grip to be better at controlling it than the Weaver.

 

[rantingredneck]

I've owned a Sigma in .40 and shot a Glock 23 and USP in .40. Didn't really like the platform/round combinations in either and that probably prejudiced me against the round itself. The recoil is just.......different. More snappy than either 9mm or 45 and just not as controllable for me. I like my 9mm. Just recently aquired my first 45 and like it too. Looking for a new CCW pistol, lighter and smaller than the two I've got so I'm looking for another .45 or another 9mm. Rugers both.

 

[Headless]

at the range i frequent most weekends, i see as many people firing .40s&w as 9mm...
i bought a 9mm first, but now that i'm looking at getting another gun and i've already got a 9mm and .40....i am looking at another .40, not another 9mm Part of the perceived not so popular may be because the rounds are much cheaper for the 9mm -- for a new shooter who wants to avoid high costs, the 9mm makes more sense as it allows them to practice more for the same cost while still proving to be a formidable defense round in it's modern JHP forms out of a decent length barrel.
I will say that the .40 has snappy recoil that takes a little time to learn to control. I also think that it's easier to shoot quickly in iso vs. weaver, as mentioned just a couple posts ago. I find i'm more accurate when i get to play around with someone's .45 1911 than i am with my beretta 96 as of now. It's like a 9mm but much snappier...took me a while to get the hang of the 9mm too...jury is still out.

rantingredneck: ccw .45?
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15712&isFirearm=Y

i really, really want one of those. They make it in 9mm too, but not .40s&w ...7+1 instead of 6+1, and the 9mm is 3oz lighter.

 

[waynedm]

I never thought that I'd get a .40. I'm getting into IPSC now and a CZ Champion .40 is sitting there for me at work.

 

[BADUNAME13]

The .40 is an answer looking for a question. (Similar to double action semiautos)
Why would I have it when I have a .45?

 

[Big Gay Al]

Actually, the .40 S&W was the answer to the FBI, after they tried the 10mm and didn't like it. Their problem with the 10mm was excessive recoil. They started by downloading that round, then someone got the bright idea to make the case shorter, thus creating a new round, the .40 Short & Weak.

I don't know why they didn't just go back to the .45ACP instead. But you know how the Government works, or rather DOESN'T.

 

[mpmarty]

Had a 40

hated it. It was a Glock 23 and it bulged brass with most all factory loads, and my splits on double taps were twice as long as with my 1911s in 45 with full house loads due to the twisting snappy recoil. I've shot 357 mags in 2½ inch guns that were easier to double tap. My carry guns are all .45 acp +p 185gr barnes solid copper. My house gun is a 10mm Witness all steel full size with sixteen rounds of 175 gr Winchester silvertips. Interestingly the 10mm is easier to double tap fast than the 40, produces better ballistics and unfortunately is too big to carry concealed except in a large fannypack. Bottom line, if I ever have to use a gun in self defense again It will be double tapped and the speed with which I can deliver that second shot is very important to me so I'll probably never buy another fortyshortandweak.

 

[CountGlockula]

.40S&W fanatic here!

I love the .40S&W caliber. My first (and last) gun is a Glock 35. I'm planning on getting another Glock and a H&K P2K in .40.

Basically, it's snappy because shooters don't know how to keep their arms straight and their grip firm. This has been my shooting form; and I had only heard of "snappy" from others...so I tried to loosening my arm, and that's where the "snappiness" comes from. Cowboy up folks.

After shooting a .40 for a long time, shooting a 9mm seems like a plinker.

Another reason why I like the .40 is the price less expensive for a ".4+" ammo.

And lastly, according to the 23rd Rule of Gunfighting: Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

 

[waynedm]

And lastly, according to the 23rd Rule of Gunfighting: Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."

.357 magnum, 38 super and 9mm must be worthless. That's the dumbest rule I've ever heard. But if it helps you with your inadequacies . . .

 

[eflatminor]

It's an IPSC thing

It's really too bad 10mm didn't catch on more. I think it's a far superior cartridge to the .40 and yes, even the .45!!!

But, 10mm is way too expensive for those of us that shoot IPSC/USPSA and IDPA and Steel and go to the range twice a week. .40 brass is practically free compared to 10mm.

.40 is so popular in competition because it makes Major and can hold a much larger capacity in wide body 1911s (2011s). You could never hold the same number of .45s compared to .40s.

Why to so many dislike the .40? I suspect becasue it's like a weak 10mm that's not as effective for defense as a .45.