.40 recoil snap - any truth?

[Seven For Sure]

The 180's recoil a lot like 45ACP, the 155's and 165's have a bit of 'snap' in light guns. I've found the M&P and FNX to have very little recoil compared to Glocks but when I concentrate I can shoot tight groups with Glocks also. Nothing that a small adult of average strength can't handle. The biggest problem is (as with all handguns IMO) flinching. The recoil of a full power 125 gr. 357 magnum in a lightweight J frame is about four to five times as bad.

 

[speaksoftly]

To most shooters I've been around, it's not an issue. I have a hard time whining about the snap of my .40 when some of my fellow shooters are avid 10mm fans and are very accurate with the round. The round as well as the gun is going to be as comfortable as the amount of time you train with it.

 

[Hypnogator]

In the larger guns typically carried by uniformed LEOs, the ".40 snap" is much less noticeable, but I find it unpleasant in compact and subcompact guns.

Exactly! Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I had a Kel-Tec P-40 conversion that was downright painful to shoot. Kicked worse than any snub .357 Mag I ever shot, and far worse than my .45 ACP Detonics.

Nowadays, I have a Kel-Tec PF-9 that is a bit snappy on recoil, because of its small size and light weight, and a Walther PPS in .40 S&W that is just a bit more snappy than the PF-9. I minimize the recoil in my carry loads by carrying Cor-Bon DPXs in both of them -- good penetration and expansion, even through clothing, but minimum muzzle flip because of the lighter weight bullets.

 

[1911Tuner]

Still a lot of misconception about how recoil occurs and is perceived with an autopistol.

It's a function of the spring...the slide's mass and speed/momentum as it strikes the impact abutment...frame mass and grip angle/geometry...and the rate of the recoil/action spring itself.

With an auto, the gun is the slide and barrel. The frame is essentially no more than the gun mount, with no solid connection between gun and gun mount. Hence, the recoil impulse isn't immediately transferred to the mount.

The recoil system...the action spring...is a closed system that's separate and apart from the gun. When the slide starts to move rearward, an action/reaction system is set into motion...the spring pushing forward on the slide and rearward on the frame. The stronger the spring, the greater the force applied to both ends. The faster the slide compresses the spring...the snappier the felt recoil...until the slide hits the impact abutment, and then muzzle flip is factored in. It all happens so fast that it can't be separated, and the perception is that it's one instantaneous event...but it's not.

In a short recoil operated pistol, the slide only moves about 1/10th inch when the bullet exits. Once the bullet is gone, recoil from the ballistic event is over, and the slide continues to move rearward on momentum. When the slide hits the frame...we get muzzle flip...which is what we really think of as recoil...but it's not really recoil, and by the time we get muzzle flip...the bullet is about 20 yards downrange based on a 230-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 830 fps.

Fire a .40 caliber pistol side by side with an identical pistol of a different caliber. Say...a .40/180/1,000 fps and a .45/185/1,000 fps. If you can detect a difference in felt recoil, you've got the hands of a plastic surgeon.

 

[451 Detonics]

I did some experimenting with this, Using 2 Hi Powers, one in 9mm and one in 40 S&W and using bullets of similar weights I shot a series of 20 modified El Presidente drills changing guns every other run. My runs with the 9mm averaged almost 1.2 seconds faster than with the 40. I noticed the 40 definitely had more muzzle flip and took longer to bring back on target.

 

[1911Tuner]

Equal recoil spring rates? Equal bullet acceleration rate? So many variables unless we work to eliminate them.

Other things that can play a role is powder burn rate and rate of slide acceleration can make a real difference. In order to make a meaningful comparison...all else must be equal...or as equal as they can be made to be.

If a 200-grain bullet is driven to 1,000 fps in a revolver by X charge of Y powder...the bullet and recoil acceleration will be Z. That the calibers are different will make no difference. Recoil is acceleration of the gun. Momentum is a function of mass times velocity. The only things that matter are: Rate of acceleration, velocity, and momentum. Any difference in perception comes from outside influences.

Now, it's entirely possible that...with some powders...to actually have the bullet moving faster before it exits than it does at exit. That would place more force on the slide...hence greater speed and momentum...and it would carry more momentum as it compressed the spring and hit the impact abutment.

Short explanation. Recoil is acceleration of the gun, and that only happens when the bullet is in the system. Perceived recoil...what we see and feel...is mostly momentum after the real recoil is over.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Muzzle flip and follow up shots is why I went away from .40. I consider this to be recoil, it never hurt my hands. Now this was a long time ago about 15 years ago. I use a different grip now maybe it will be better. But I'm pretty happy with 9 mm. I don't see a need to change at my age and I know I can make fast follow up shots with the 9 mm.

 

[1911Tuner]

To expound, let's do a hypothetical thing.

Assuming two revolvers of equal weight/mass and identical in every way, except for barrel length. Let's say they're .41 magnums...mainly because it's my favorite revolver cartridge.

One has a 2-inch barrel and the other has a 12-inch barrel.

Work up a load in the long gun with a slow powder that produces 1200 fps with a 210-grain bullet. Easy enough.

Then, work up a load for the short one, using a quick powder that would produce 1200 fps with the same bullet. Ignore pressure requirements. All we're concerned with is that the muzzle velocities are identical.

Which gun will generate the most recoil...the one that accelerates its load to 1200 fps in 12 inches...or the one that accelerates the same mass to 1200 fps in 2 inches?

 

[Jurist]

40s&w snap

I shoot a Stoeger Couger in 40S&W,I actually think that my S&W 3913 9MMand my Browning BDA .380ACP ,have more snap than my Couger.

 

[UnTainted]

So did we solve the 9mm vs 40 yet?

 

[cwcoolcow]

I typically shoot 9mm at the range. I have two of them. My .45 tactical is great out in a open field. However, the .40 Beretta PX4 full size has become my favorite handgun to shoot. At first the recoil and flip were a challenge, but they have forced me to become a better shooter. All my shots were low and left until I found a better balance between my hands and more consistent trigger pull. Thanks to these "problems" I have been practicing more, which is what I want to do anyway. I'm still more accurate with the CZ 75, but who knows after a little more practice

 

[clutch]

9mm = pop
45 ACP = push
40 S&W = snap

This does not mean it is not controllable.

I have a M&P compact in .40. Snappy. My Airweight 442-1 shooting .38 spl +p brutal.

Now if you need that firepower in the package you are holding, well, I'll take the pain for the gain.

Clutch

 

[BeerSleeper]

Fire a .40 caliber pistol side by side with an identical pistol of a different caliber. Say...a .40/180/1,000 fps and a .45/185/1,000 fps. If you can detect a difference in felt recoil, you've got the hands of a plastic surgeon.

I have sigmas in 9 and 40. I can tell the difference, but I bet you don't want me working on you.

Assuming two revolvers of equal weight/mass and identical in every way, except for barrel length. Let's say they're .41 magnums...mainly because it's my favorite revolver cartridge.

One has a 2-inch barrel and the other has a 12-inch barrel.

Work up a load in the long gun with a slow powder that produces 1200 fps with a 210-grain bullet. Easy enough.

Then, work up a load for the short one, using a quick powder that would produce 1200 fps with the same bullet. Ignore pressure requirements. All we're concerned with is that the muzzle velocities are identical.

Which gun will generate the most recoil...the one that accelerates its load to 1200 fps in 12 inches...or the one that accelerates the same mass to 1200 fps in 2 inches?

You seem to have a firm grasp of the physics involved here. What is recoil, quantified? Is it work, or peak force? The shorter barreled one will be a greater amount of force, for a lesser duration of time, while the longer barreled one will be a lesser force, for a greater duration of time, but the work done by each should be the same.

 

[Jonah71]

I am slowly learning to shoot my G 23 with some degree of accuracy and the recoil isn't that much of a problem. Getting the first 2 rounds where they belong is getting easier. It's the time needed and accuracy of the 3rd shot I need to work on. But I like the pistol and it will be my primary carry eventually.

 

[Jonah71]

I do have to admit I have a lot more fun with my G 26. And until I achieve the same degree of accuracy with the .40 cal. (and I will eventually) I'll stick with the 9mm.

 

[goon]

I find it true. The only .40 I've liked to date was the M&P in that caliber. Having said that, using 180 grain rounds does make the recoil more .45 ACP like.

Of the choices, I prefer a 9mm or even a small .357 to a .40. But I prefer almost anything to a Kel-Tec P3AT!

 

[1911Tuner]

Beersleeper...Yep. I probably should have asked which gun would have been the least pleasant to shoot.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I would guess if the guns were of equal mass, the difference would be negligible.

Muddying the waters a little further, I think your comparison of 2 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel makes the implication that the bullets acceleration is slower, spread linearly over the 12 inches of barrel, to reach the same comparison velocity. In actual practice, the acceleration is non-linear. It will be variable, but generally by the time a bullet is 2 inches down a 12 inch barrel, it will already have most of its velocity (guessing a bit here, maybe 66-75%?).

I think another interesting comparison would be to shoot a .40, and alongside that shoot a revolver of as much comparable caliber, bullet weight, and muzzle velocity, to compare recoil. The revolver lets you feel the recoil of the shot, directly. With the auto, at the moment the shot is fired, the slide absorbs a large portion of the recoil, but then at the end of the slide travel, it hits the stop like a hammer, and flips the muzzle up, then on the return trip, goes into battery, again hitting like a hammer (with less force than the first impact) and flipping back down.

sorry if i've overthought this, or gone off topic. the discussion just set me off a'thinkin...

 

[1911Tuner]

I think your comparison of 2 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel makes the implication that the bullets acceleration is slower,

I understand that. I know that pressures and forces peak early, and fall off rapidly. The comparison was purely hypothetical for demonstration purposes...in the sense that the rate of acceleration would be spread out over 12 inches as opposed to two in a make-believe gun...and not the actual reality, and it was never my intent to represent it as such.

But...Let's muddy'em a bit more since you seem to be headed in that direction.

We all understand that, as a rule, longer barrels produce higher velocities with a given force applied.
If we presume to try to accelerate a given bullet to an identical velocity in a shorter barrel, we can accept that the force requirement is going to change. It will require more force to to obtain the same velocity in the shorter barrel. No?

If you lift a 50-pound weight to a height of six feet in 10 seconds, it's pretty easy to do. If you try to lift that same weight to the same height in .001 second...you're going to have to use more force, and that 50-pound weight suddenly becomes much more difficult to accelerate. The amount of work is the same. The force requirement to do the work in the prescribed time...is not.

Force forward equals force backward. If the force requirement goes up in one direction, the force will be applied equally in the other.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Yes, it will take more force to accelerate to the given velocity in the smaller barrel. Bullets of the same mass, at the same velocity, have had the same work done on them, regardless of barrel length, but the one from the shorter barrel takes more power to accelerate to the given velocity. The work done on the bullet is equivalent it's kinetic energy at the muzzle.

Also in the lifted weight example, force has to be greater, work is the same, and accordingly, power is greater (same work done in less time)

Intuitively, I think the shorter barreled gun in the example would be more harshly recoiling, but I'm looking for the math to back it up. Perhaps recoil is better viewed as a function of the power of the load, rather than the kinetic energy?

 

[1911Tuner]

Yes, it will take more force to accelerate to the given velocity in the smaller barrel.

Yep. That was the point of my hypothesis.

Intuitively, I think the shorter barreled gun in the example would be more harshly recoiling, but I'm looking for the math to back it up.

It would. Guaranteed. The math is right in front of you. Newton 3, Part 2. Force forward is force backward. Whatever level of force is imposed on the action side, is likewise imposed on the reaction side.

Perhaps recoil is better viewed as a function of the power of the load, rather than the kinetic energy?

It's not about kinetic energy. It's not really about momentum. Recoil is acceleration on the reaction side of the system, and the force requirement to make it happen in a given time and distance. Once the bullet has left the system, the acceleration is over...and it's all on momentum conserved during the acceleration and the final velocity achieved by the acceleration. What we see and feel as recoil is mostly momentum. The actual recoil...the acceleration of the reaction side...is over too quickly for our brains to process until afterward...when we say: "Ouch! That thing kicks like a river mule!"

 

[BeerSleeper]

For the sake of the hypothetical comparison, are the long and short barreled guns of equal mass?

 

[1911Tuner]

For the sake of the hypothetical comparison, are the long and short barreled guns of equal mass?

Yes. I mentioned that when I cooked up the hypothetical gun.

 

[Brasso]

Most of my .40 shooting has been with a Glock 22. I hate that gun/ammo combo. It's not so much the snappiness, but the fact that it torques high left, instead of straight up. That and I shoot the 9mm much faster, with better accuracy. I just really prefer 9mm. To me, the .40 is even worse than a .45 because of how it torques.

 

[Delford]

the g23 is a nice package but it's also the reason I went with .45. Since I had to learn control of recoil and fast regaining of sight picture, I preferred to go with the larger caliber and I now shoot the 230 gr fmj most often in a Ruger P345.