.40 S+W Best all around round

[DeltaElite]

All the stopping percentages are worthless at best.
These geniuses tell me that the same bullet at a higher velocity is less effective, when applied to 40 vs 10mm.
Yet when you apply the same higher velocity to 9, 38, 40, 45, etc, you get a more effective load.

Now we all know that is about shot placement and you should shoot what you can shoot accurately.
Honestly, I like the 40, but it aint a 10mm or 45acp in effectiveness, IMHO.
Of course, I can't get a 10mm or 45acp in the size of a Kahr 40, so each has its place.

 

[rock jock]

.40 S&W is an enfeebled derivative of the more powerful, flexible, accurate and safe 10mm Auto cartridge.

10mm wasn't considered for comparison. If it was, the 9mm and .45 ACP also lose out

.40 S&W is the least accurate of the major self defense autoloader cartridges.

At combat range (less than 25 yds), accuracy is largely dependent on the shooter. Differences in accuracy at that range are miniscule.

.40 S&W is the most prone to case failures of the major self-defense autoloader cartridges... too much pressure in too weak of a case.

Way overblown. Most .40 failures are from improper handloads.

.40 S&W has worse recoil than .45 ACP, and in return makes smaller holes in the target.

Recoil is subjective. When you get used to the .40, the recoil difference goes away. "Smaller hole?". Yeah, that extra 0.05" is going to make a huge difference in lethality.

.40 S&W has almost exactly the same muzzle energy in most loadings as 9x19mm +P & +P+ loads, making its claims of "superior stopping power" compared to 9x19mm seem spurrious.

Almost, but not quite, making their claim of superior stopping power in fact correct. And, I would note, recoil in a +P 9mm IMO is much more noticeable than that of the .40.

 

[meathammer]

I have to disagree with the .40 being inaccurate. My first semi was a Beretta 96. I find it to be very accurate. It met and exceeded my expectations. Especially for a military/combat style pistol. I do, however prefer shooting my 45. In my opinion, variety is a good thing and you should choose your preference.

 

[Beren]

I simply have no use for the .40S&W.

Personal taste, I guess - I use a .22 or 9mm for target practice, carry a 357SIG, and have a 10mm (S&W 1076 rocks!) for fun. I plan to add a .44 Mag revolver at some point, and maybe a .357 Mag revolver too..along with a .38 snubbie, of course! Then my collection shall be complete - except for the .45 1911 or three I want...

But no burning desire for a .40S&W.

If I /really/ need to shoot .40S&W, I'll drop a Glock 23 barrel in my Glock 32.

 

[cratz2]

Hate to rain on the 40 parade...

I've sold off most of my 40s except for my EAA Silver Team which I never have any plans on carrying.

Keep in mind, this is only my opinion. How I see it, a sensible person that has full control over their decision to carry has two choices in serious carry pistols: a small, medium or large 45 ACP or a very small 9mm.

If you practice a lot and are familiar with your carry piece, you will very rarely need over 22 rounds of ammo so a 4", 4.25" or 5" 1911 fills the bill nicely with an easy to control package that is capable of competition accuracy and utter reliability once some bugs get worked out, if there are any. I've long been skeptical for any civilian to feel a neccessity to carry 60+ rounds of ammo on their person - I just can't see it. For Glock fans, there is the 21, for SIG fans there is the 220 and for Beretta fans, well... there are always 1911s, Glocks and SIGs. If an Officer model is too large or more importantly, heavy, then there is the Glock 36 or even the PT145 which may or may not be in favor these days, I stopped keeping up.

If all of these are too large, there are the small polymer Kahrs in 9mm. If you're wearing your Speedos, then a carefully concealed P32 (or soon to be released KelTec 380) fills the bill.

I've never seen the reasons for a civilian to carry a 40. If you are a responsible CCW, then you hit what you aim at. Almost every single time. There shouldn't ever be 50 missed shots! That's ridiculous! If you have decided to use lethal force against your adversary, you should want as big a hole in him/her as possible and that means a 45. You hit what you aim at or else you more than likely shouldn't be shooting. If you plan on multiple targets, then 2 shots per target (more than likely will be less than 5) is still covered by the 1911. If you have more than 5 bad guys after you, then you probably need a semi auto rifle and should probably consider being nicer to people.

 

[bountyhunter]

"If you have decided to use lethal force against your adversary, you should want as big a hole in him/her as possible and that means a 45."

No, hole size does not automatically equal maximum lethality. If you want one shot kills, just get a .357 magnum with 125 gr hollow points.

 

[91101]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, can't we all just get along? Why must we always get into these "my gun/bullet is better than yours" peeing matches? I have firearms chambered in .380 .38 .357 .40 .44 and 10mm and would trust any of them for self defense. That being said if I had to fire one in self defense I wouldn't rely ANY of them for a one shot stop if you know what I mean. As far as being acurate I feel the design of the gun and the person behind it has more to do with it than anything else. Personally Im most acurate with my .44 mag, its the gun I've had longest and shot the most.

Michael

 

[Blueduck]

Why must we always get into these "my gun/bullet is better than yours" peeing matches? I have firearms chambered in .380 .38 .357 .40 .44 and 10mm and would trust any of them for self defense.

So are you volunteering to stand downrange and catch my 41 magnum rounds 'cause you think they're no good

 

[91101]

'cause you think they're no good

Blueduck, HUH? From where in my post did you get that idea? :banghead: I didn't mention the .41 because i don't HAVE one. Re-read my post...

 

[meathammer]

Quote:

How I see it, a sensible person that has full control over their decision to carry has two choices in serious carry pistols: a small, medium or large 45 ACP or a very small 9mm.

cratz2,

Unfortunately, Wisconsin does not allow CCW. Therefore, I do not purchase any firearm designed specifically for carry. When I bought my .40, the pistol I wanted came in two calibers - .40 or 9mm. I chose the .40. I am happy with my .40, and will never get rid of it. I also have handguns in .44, .45, and .22. I like them all.

 

[Blueduck]

Sorry 91101, notice the winky at the end of the post. My attempt at levity

 

[91101]

Blueduck;

Opps.... I was trying to be a smart @$$ in my post and didn't realize you were doing the same...

mybad...

Michael

 

[Sarge111]

Back to the original question...

is the .40 the best "all around"?

To fit that description for me, it would have to do double-duty as a hunting round for deer-sized game, up to 250-300 pounds. The .40 might do that OK, but I doubt it would do it as well as a 255 SWC at 850 from a .45 auto- which can, incidentally, convert to .450 Triton (230 XTP @ 1150) with the addition of a 24 lb. spring.

That's just if you're talking autos. When you get into revolver country, there are a whole host of 'better than .40' candidates beginning with the .357 through the .44 mags and ending somewhere up around- where? .45 Caliber.

The .40 turned out OK, made a nice little mid-bore for folks who feel the need to pack a box of shells around on their belt (in $100 hi-caps) everywhere they go. I personally liked the 10 allright, but I wouldn't trade a good big-bore off to get one. I wouldn't part with a good .357 for one either, for that matter.

It seems necessary to re-invent the wheel every few decades, to satisfy the fad-fueled and the federal gubmit; the .40, despite its virtues, is about as good an example of this phenomenon as one can find. I believe I'll stick with my poor obsolete old war-horses and shut up while you pups rediscover the sword of Excalibur.

Good shootin-

 

[PCRCCW]

You guys are all grounded...go to your ranges and dont come home until I say so!
Just a note on the accuracy of the 40 vs other guns/calibers...
What causes the 40 to be less accurate than any other caliber?
Explain please if you can...................
Im just curious...my last full race/competition/target gun was my Kahr K40 Custom....with the Mep nights and trigger work...it would do 2" at 15 yds all day...if I did my part. Its one of those HUGE 3 1/2" MATCH BARRELS also......Ba ha ha ha ha ha
Shoot well.....

 

[Handy]

Ten years of gun rag reading. One month they test the 9mm Omni Blaster 2000, the next month its .40 version. Rag writers love the .40, yet they honestly report the groups for both and the .40 is almost never as accurate as the 9mm version. This is more pronounced in some guns, like Glock, than others, like the USP.

I think guns designed around .40 have a better chance at excellent accuracy. Maybe the accuracy "problem" stems for the blunt shape of the .40 cartridge feeding less consistently than 9 or .45.

BTW, that 2" group at 15 yards is a 3.5" group at 25 yards. Right after the first K9 came out I saw someone group 2" at 25 yards. Of course, all defence cartridges are in the same ballpark, but if you've been shooting for accuracy long enough, those slight differences in accuracy get annoying.

 

[cratz2]

No, hole size does not automatically equal maximum lethality. If you want one shot kills, just get a .357 magnum with 125 gr hollow points.

I've read on the topic ad infinitum and will stick with the 45. It has no doubt killed more bad guys (and good guys in the other uniform) than the 357 ever will. No slight against the 357 as it is obviously a good stopper. But a lot goes into those 'one shot stops' that is very misleading.

A .45 caliber hole into and out of someone, expanding or not, is likely to slow them down from doing whatever it is they are doing that caused you to shoot them. End of story.

 

[bountyhunter]

"What causes the 40 to be less accurate than any other caliber?
Explain please if you can..................."

"Rag writers love the .40, yet they honestly report the groups for both and the .40 is almost never as accurate as the 9mm version."

And yet, I'm stuck with this STI Trojan (1911) in .40SW. The stupid thing just keeps drilling holes in the 10 ring at 25 yards. Just last night, it insisted on posting a 599/600 at PPC (half of the rounds fired at 25 yards, half at 15).

I've explained to it that the 1911 was never designed for the shorter cartridge so it can't chamber it properly. I've explained that the .40SW is inherently inaccurate. I even point out that the ammo it's shooting is the cheapest reload junk I can find ($120/case), but the stupid gun won't listen. What are you going to do with a gun like that (answer: shoot it every week).

 

[Sean Smith]

Confusing generalities with specifics, and tendencies with certainties.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ah Jesus...

Here we go!

 

[Onslaught]

cratz2, your first post seemed very contradictory, and made very little sense to me... the lowly Civilian. This will probably sound like a flame, but it's REALLY not....

I've long been skeptical for any civilian to feel a neccessity to carry 60+ rounds of ammo on their person - I just can't see it.

This first line of reasoning sounds like you're alluding to a "spray and pray" mentality. That's always been the WonderNiner's label. A person who chooses the .40 over the 9mm in an otherwise identical pistol is opting to carry LESS rounds that are arguably MORE powerful. You will have to look hard to find a non-leo that regularly carries 3 spare mags on them (well, Blackhawk maybe ) From what I've gathered on TFL over the years, most concealed carrying "Civilians" (myself included) usually only carry 1 spare, which gives me only 21 rounds from my big CCW, or 13 from my little CCW.

there is the 21, for SIG fans there is the 220 and for Beretta fans, well... there are always 1911s, Glocks and SIGs. If an Officer model is too large or more importantly, heavy, then there is the Glock 36 or even the PT145

None of these are as small as the similar offerings in .40 (Glock 27, Sig 239, PT140).

If all of these are too large, there are the small polymer Kahrs in 9mm.

Why not a small polymer Kahr in .40? Exact same size pistol, one less round, more potent caliber.

I've never seen the reasons for a civilian to carry a 40.

It always makes me nervous when someone who doesn't consider themselves a "Civilian" just DECIDES that I, as a "Civilian", have no reason to carry XXX or shouldn't do XXX.

If you are a responsible CCW, then you hit what you aim at. Almost every single time. There shouldn't ever be 50 missed shots!

50 missed shots? That's usually reserved for a small group of LAPD's finest firing their Glock 9mm's at an unarmed perp, isn't it?

If you have decided to use lethal force against your adversary, you should want as big a hole in him/her as possible and that means a 45.

Not if they don't MAKE a pistol the size and style we "Civilians" might want in .45... So using your own logic, if I only have 2 choices, a 9mm or a .40... I should want a .40, right?

I agree with you that I should want to make as big a hole as possible, and I choose the venerable .45 for all my "big guns", but since I prefer the convenience of small, thin, lighter weight pistols for CCW, I have chosen the .40 over the 9mm as my concealed carry caliber.

And I'm not going to even get into the already slow .45acp's velocity loss from short barrels...

 

[mr. e]

Just for the record, don't group me with those who think the 40 auto is less accurate than the other calibers. I simply said that I shot the 9mm and 45 ACP calibers more accurately.

I have a friend who regularly beats me at slowfire targets. He uses his Walther P99 40 Auto, and I use my CZ-85 9mm, which I've found to be one of the most consistent and accurate pistols I own. I'd say we were pretty evenly matched with these weapons. If I used my 40, I think he'd win most of the time.

 

[agtman]

"And yet, I'm stuck with this STI Trojan (1911) in 40SW. [It] just keeps drilling holes in the 10 ring at 25 yards."


It probably does. So will just about any hand-tuned, customized target or competition pistol available in the calibers typically discussed on this Board.

My comments on the .40's motley accuracy referred to the out-of-the-box service grade pistols that I've personally shot and seen shot, like Smiths, Glocks, and Sigs - not high-priced customized eye-candy.

 

[Fair 'n Square]

Don't want to carry a 10mm

The one-shot-stopping power percentages of Marshall and Sanow may, or may not, be valid. "I only know what I read," as the man says. My gut feeling is that the .40 and .45 (with JHP's) are more effective that the 9mm, but NOT TOO MUCH.
So here's what is right for me: The .45 and the .40 are at the upper limits of controllable recoil for a carry gun, and then only in guns 2 pounds or more. Yes, the 10mm is more powerful, but I wouldn't want to practice with it as a carry gun. A hunting gun? Yes, but not a carry gun.
I have a Kahr K9 and a Ruger P95, close to the same weight at 1.5 pounds or a little more, and they're both fine to shoot, and I like them both enough to practice with them. And they both work for me as carry guns.
I also have a Ruger P94 in .40 cal. at about 2.2 pounds. It's also fun to shoot. But I wouldn't want it to be lighter. My son has a .40 that weighs about the same as my 9's, and he's working on getting rid of a flinch caused by the recoil.
For those that can handle the recoil, more power to them. As for me, I'll stick with what I'm willing to practice with.

 

[WonderNine]

9mm is more accurate than .40's

9mm is more reliable in feeding (and all around) than .40's

9mm is available in NATO waterproofed spec

hot 9mm have just as much energy as hot .40's

9mm's hold more rounds in a smaller lighter package than .40's

9mm is MUCH cheaper to shoot than .40.

9mm has better ballistics...oh wait, I already said that

 

[WonderNine]

The perfect carry ammo....