.40 not so popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have 4 forty's in my collection and love them all, Beretta 96, Hk USP Compact, Sig P229 dak, and a Sig P239. The two Sigs are two of my ccw's. I've shot 40's for about 6 or 7 years now and I don't get the "snappy" thing. My follow up shots and double taps are just as quick and easy for me as my 9mm's and my 45's. I have a Sig P220 in .45 and love it also, but it's tougher to conceal then my P229 and P239. The main reason I like the 40 Sigs is because of their size. I like bigger bullets for my ccw's, so for me, the P229 and P239 platform are the perfect combination of concealability and bullet size :D
 
waynedm Quote:
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 . . .
Click to expand...

IDOIT.
 
I think, the 10mm might have a come back. We're seeing a new surge of interest in it. There are still pistols being made in the caliber, and they are, for the most part, very reliable, and not excessively expensive.

I will have a 10mm later this week when the conversion kit comes in for my EAA Witness (currently .45ACP). Which I do carry concealed, in an Uncle Mike's IWB holster when at work, or in a Fobus when not. And yes, it is a Wonder finish, full size steel frame Witness. ;)
 
My last instructor in the martial art of shooting told us, HIS 23rd rule of gun combat, "NEVER get into a gun fight with a gun that you can't hit your target with."

Which means, .4?+ is good, but if you can't hit with it, it's useless.
 
I love the .40, but only as much as 9mm and .45:p

It depends on a person's preference and the intended application. I too would choose a 155g JHP .40 over any 9mm or .45 round in a gunfight. Does this mean the 9mm or .45 wont do the job? No, but from studying several ballistic comparision documents I would say the average .40 has more kinetic energy than the average 9mm or .45 ACP. Even the +P .45 rounds I've seen numbers for don't seem to be all that spectacular..especially in sub-4" barrels. In a 5" 1911 you can squeeze out that extra velocity, but its hard to get any .45 moving fast enough in a sub-4" barrel. IMO a juiced up 135-155g .40 JHP round is definitely going to give you the best ALL AROUND numbers in terms of muzzle velocity, kinetic energy, bullet diameter, wound cavity in cubic inches, etc etc. It is known as a "comprimise" round, but an effective .40 is definitely not comprimising anything.

I've owned two 4" XD service models: one in .40 and one in .45. (sold both and now I'm getting the 9mm..lol)

The .40 was definitely easier to control and get back on target. I think people exaggerate the "snap" of a .40. If you can handle a +P 9mm round, you can handle the average .40. I see why people call the .45 softer shooting, but i'd rather have the muzzle "snap" up and fall right back down than have my whole hand/arm pushed back and upwards like with .45acp recoil. This is just from my experience, but in the end you need to shoot them all yourself and decide what's best for you. I never understood why people always try to knock on other calibers... everyone needs to be happy that they have the variety they do.
 
9mm is a smaller caliber, but it has high capacity and low recoil.

.45ACP is a larger caliber, but lower capacity and higher recoil.

.40S&W is the clear balance between the two. So if you are going to have one firearm, the .40 only makes sense!

--Unfortunately, I'm a two gun kinda guy.

TRL,
Owner of a Sig P220 .45 and a Kahr K9 9mm
 
I've a owned few .40's over the years---IAI 1911(POS)---Ruger P94 and PC carbine----Glock 35 and 27---snappy recoil(main reason)---high cost and not enough shots are why I don't own one now.

I wouldn't absolutely rule out another .40 in the future if the gun were right.

Now if I'm looking---I usually pass up the .40's and I'm only really interested in 9's and .45's---which are much more comfortable to shoot and therefore more accurate if firing more than one shot.

Current auto's are a Sig P226----H&K USPf .45 and Bersa .380(which I'm thinking of trading as I'm not a big fan of blowbacks either)
 
I was an early adopter of .40SW, even bought a Ruger in .40. I remember all the buzz when this round first came out-it was The Solution in pistol calibers. It was going to replace 9mm, 10mm and .45ACP.

I found that there wasn't any real benefit, either shooting, costs or performance of this round when compared to 9mm or .45ACP. It wasn't the magic bullet solution that it was originally marketed to be.

I'm back to .45ACP which I really enjoy shooting and 9mm is my backup caliber.
 
The .40 can be a challenging round to master. The "snap" gives (in my opinion) a significantly more noticeable recoil that throws a lot of people off.

I come from a background in full power .357 Magnums so not that big of a deal for me. Someone learning from .22 to 9mm and moving up might be surprised at what a handful the .40 can be.

My buddy is a big bear of a guy who can absorb the recoil of a Mosin and come out smiling and he really doesn't like the .40 (though he'll shoot .45 ACP all day).

I'm a fan of .40 and enjoyed the challenge of getting the hang of it.
 
that's not as effective for defense as a .45.
Click to expand...

What basis is there for the opinion that .40 is less effective than (especially standard pressure) .45? I submit that the two are similar enough that the target won't be able to tell the difference either way. And, playing devil's advocate, you can compare guns. You can get an FNP 40, which is DA/SA, DAO, or even SAO. Costs less than $600 around here. 14+1 capacity, thin frame for a double stack, interchangeable backstraps for different hand sizes.

For the same price, you can get an entry level M1911 .45 that holds 8+1 and weighs considerably more. Unless you're using some HOT .45 loads, I say that the two are ballistically close enough that it won't make much of a difference. And, of course, .40 has better sectional density for any given bullet weight, if that matters to you.
 
But what about the Paras with 14+1!!!

I never really saw a point in getting anything in .40 until I was getting into IPSC, I wanted to make sure I made major so it was the logical step up for me. If it weren't for that I would have always stuck with .22lr, 9mm and .45.
 
But what about the Paras with 14+1!!!
Click to expand...

They're considerably larger and heavier than your typical double stack .40. I compared my Colt and an FNP side by side in FBMG. The FNP-40 is no thicker in the grip than my Colt Gov't Model with the Ajax custom grips I had on there. The factory grips are thinner by a bit. Of course, you can replace your bushings and get very thin grips on a 1911.
 
Not as many bullets as a 9mm
Not as fast as a 10mm
Not as fat and heavy as a .45

That's a lot of things it's 'not'. I'm still not sure what it 'is.' (Arguably a compromise in speed power and capacity made popular by police forces and the power of Glock and SW marketing...but if you already have a 9mm and a .45 why would you need one?)

I never saw a reason to add a .40 because the cases (like 10mm) get lost among my 45 acp... you miss one in sorting and crush a case in your progressive it makes everything go to a standstill.
 
I've owned several 40's but never warmed up to it. I just didn't like how it felt when I shot it. Now I really like 45 acp, 10mm, 357 mag, 9mm, 38 special but not the 40.
Why isn't it more popular? For me it's because I get more enjoyment from my 9mm & my 45 acps :D
 
You have to look at what the .40 was - an answer to the real-life dismal performance of 9mm once the wondernines caught on - the ammo just didn't match the hype. And .45s were NOT available in the DA/SA or DAO choices they are today, did not fit most shooters, and had little capacity. I for one could NOT dump my 9mm 92F fast enough for duty carry when the .40 became widely available (the ammo not the guns). Then in a few years, the AWB limited the hi-capacity DAs, so why further limit yourself to the small 9mm in a big gun?

Now, the 9mm has consistently well performing rounds, along subcompact guns to shoot it out of, and the .45 has more shootable platforms, and especially for LE; but still the .40 is king in the proper platforms - a little snappy for subcompacts compared to 9mm, but in a nice p2000 or bigger - it is an awesome round for SD. Cops love it - and so do civilians when still ban-limited to 10rnds.
 
Bought an S&W M&P .40 several months ago, it is a pleasure to shoot and with 15 cap mags and DAO not really in the same category as the old school favorites. Recoil with this pistol is… isn’t an issue. Gun geeks by definition are opinionated and biased to there favorite weapon which is why these boards exist. By the way, hate Glocks, love my M1991 A1 and think the .357 is the most versatile pistol round ever invented. The .40 M&P is my mid-life crises favorite, young and stacked. Best Regards.
 
40 S&W

I've been shooting both my Mil-Pro 40 and my XD-40 for several years now, having put close to 3000 rounds downrange between the two guns. The recoil of the .40 does not bother me at all, I've mastered it and I'm accurate with it. I like the fact that out of a short barrel, 3-4", the .40 gives strong velocity and good energy on impact. If you shoot a .45 out of a 3" barrel, the velocity drops below 800 fps. In a 3" barrel, the .40 will maintain over 1100 fps with 155 grain loads. This is what appeals to me with the .40 and that's why I own two of them, lov'em both.:D Besides, dealing with stout recoil is a manly thing, if you can't shoot the big dog, put it back in the case.:p
 
Does it really matter? Buy the gun that makes you happy.:cool: Even a 22LR will do the job at close range (not that it would be my first choice). I have a 44 Mag , 40SW, and two 9X19's. I shoot the 9mm's alot more because of the cost, $14 for 100 rounds of Winchester at Walmart vs. $30 for 50 rounds of 44 Mag.
 
I shot a 357 magnum last week after going four mags in my M&P 40. I was expecting a bit more recoil, but evidently my work to manage the 40 has helped me with other high-recoil firearms. It just didn't feel as big as I thought, though my roommate who rented it for the first time had a hard time dealing. Bring on the 500 S&W!!! Er..not really.
 
i've heard the snappy recoil comment plenty of times before, which I think is a good reason not to own a .40 fortunately for me i have no problems shooting a .40 so i tend to like the round. i am however a .45 fan all the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Why is .40S&W so popular?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
.357 magnum
3
S
  • Locked
I apologize in advance. ;-) .40 VS .45
Replies
23
Views
1K
soda
S
TanklessPro
  • Locked
Is 40 S&W the red-headed step child?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
ku4hx
K
S
  • Locked
Lets hear you favorite jhp brand and weight
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
altitude_19
A
T
  • Locked
40 s&w and panic buying
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
anchorman
A
Back
Top