40 S&W hard to shoot?

[stilllearning]

While browsing at a gun show today I was chatting with one of the exhibitors about replacing a 40 s&w that I can't "hit the broad side of a barn with" He mentioned that he felt the 40 was a difficult round to shoot and that he felt the 45 acp was a far better easier round to master.

I had never heard anything like that before. Of course there are probably more opinions on the subject than there are members on High Road but,

I'd like to "hear" a few......

 

[Saleen322]

Can't say the 40 is more difficult but the 45 is the better choice for precision shooting between the 2. A 40 will shoot fine but 45s are known for their accuracy and that is a big reason so many compete with them in precision type shooting.

As far as the broad side of a barn issue, that sounds more like a shooter or at worst, a specific gun problem--not an issue with the 40.

 

[DPris]

The comment about the .40 is more often directed at its snappy recoil than its accuracy.
Denis

 

[ljnowell]

Can't say the 40 is more difficult but the 45 is the better choice for precision shooting between the 2. A 40 will shoot fine but 45s are known for their accuracy and that is a big reason so many compete with them in precision type shooting.



As far as the broad side of a barn issue, that sounds more like a shooter or at worst, a specific gun problem--not an issue with the 40.

That's a chicken and egg argument though. The precision shooters use 45s because in NRA Precision Pistol, which used to be Bullseye, you are required to use a 45. That sport pushed development and customization of the 1911 which made the platform the chosen pistol across many other shooting disciplines.

 

[SSGT PRIDE]

Love my .40's but they are snappy and does take getting used to...if you shoot a lot...no problem....If you shoot a couple times a year...you may be jerking while anticipating recoil...Like any other gun really....Wouldn't trade mine for anything...And love them as much as my .45's and just as accurate! Once you run a thousand rounds through a pistol in a week you settle down immensely even if it is "PEPPY" LOL!

 

[Saleen322]

That's a chicken and egg argument though. The precision shooters use 45s because in NRA Precision Pistol, which used to be Bullseye, you are required to use a 45. That sport pushed development and customization of the 1911 which made the platform the chosen pistol across many other shooting disciplines.

Yes and no. The center-fire section you can shoot any center-fire 32 or larger.I have used a Smith 52 in 38 or my Benelli in 32 S&W Long. I have never seen a upper level competitor use a 40. Not saying it doesn't happen but I never seen it.

 

[Mike J]

I would say the gun you use to fire the .40 through can have as much to do with it as anything. Shooting .380 through a friends P3AT was snappier than any .40 I have ever fired. I like .40 but I would not want to shoot it out of a subcompact firearm. It does have more recoil than 9mm. Also recoil is perceived differently by different people.

 

[browningguy]

I love my .40's, in a full size steel framed pistol. I probably would complain about them in a micro lightweight pistol though.

 

[grter]

No.

I have rented one of the small .40 glocks (Glock 47) and I found it managable and quite accurate, however I am not a fan and would probably prefere it in 9mm (less recoil and more rounds.)

Why don't they have the baby glock in 9mm to rent ? Is there more profit in selling .40 cal ammo ?

In my opinion a .40 is fine but it's not my cup of tea.

 

[Quentin]

Watch Hickok45 shoot his .40S&W Glocks, he's pretty accurate with them. I find the G23 and G27 to be manageable and I'm 68 years old. Sure my G19 and G26 recoil less but the 40s aren't punishing by any means. Nothing wrong with 9mm or 45ACP though so choose the one you like best. Or get all three like I did.

 

[Tallball]

I have two 40's. One is plastic and okay. The steel 1911 is a pussycat and quite accurate.

 

[stilllearning]

Good replies about what I expected. The comments I heard from the exhibitor at the show were pretty much directed at the "snappy recoil" as described here.

As far as the accuracy issue it is a lightweight pistol a Sig Saur "SigPro" 2022 and I haven't shot "bulk quantities" of ammo through it. It is just really personally disappointing to see my accuracy be so much poorer than with my heavier frame pistols. Granted comparing a GP100 and a SigPro is comparing apples to avacados, but I expect better of myself.

Next question, who makes the larger steel frame 40's?

Thanks for the input

 

[greenlion]

If your .40 is "snappy and hard to control, it is because you are making it that way. The .40 was originally loaded as a 180gr bullet doing around 950fps. That is the round the FBI found to be very effective in many different situations. Later when the "faster is always better" crowd realized they could add a few hundred feet per second to it, they created the "snappy" .40 that everyone whines about. The original round is still very effective (more so with modern bullets) and still very pleasant to shoot. So are the 165gr loads when loaded to around 980fps.

Check out how well the lower velocity .40 loads did in this extensive ballistics gel test compared to even the +P 45ACP loads:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#380ACP

 

[ljnowell]

Yes and no. The center-fire section you can shoot any center-fire 32 or larger.I have used a Smith 52 in 38 or my Benelli in 32 S&W Long. I have never seen a upper level competitor use a 40. Not saying it doesn't happen but I never seen it.

Yes, and no matter what you are using a 45 for 45. That just goes to prove my point. The reason there is so much development in the platforms and cartridge is because it's required. You can shoot a 32 or 38 in centerfire. You HAVE to shoot a 45 though, and it's probably going to be one of the platforms that have been specifically modified and made to fit that task.

 

[kcofohio]

Next question, who makes the larger steel frame 40's?

Thanks for the input

CZ 75-SA and Beretta 96A1. And several of the 1911 makers offer 40 in full size frames.

stilllearning, welcome to THR!

 

[Saleen322]

Yes, and no matter what you are using a 45 for 45. That just goes to prove my point. The reason there is so much development in the platforms and cartridge is because it's required. You can shoot a 32 or 38 in centerfire. You HAVE to shoot a 45 though, and it's probably going to be one of the platforms that have been specifically modified and made to fit that task.

Not much if any modification required with a a 45. Stock Springfield with just a trigger job..


I have not seen a stock 40 go under 2" @ 50 yards. Again, not saying they don't but I have not seen it yet. YMMV

 

[ljnowell]

Not much if any modification required with a a 45. Stock Springfield with just a trigger job..





I have not seen a stock 40 go under 2" @ 50 yards. Again, not saying they don't but I have not seen it yet. YMMB

You still don't get it. Precision pistol was started with stock GI 1911s. You are shooting a gun that is waaaaay tighter, has better bushing fit, 100 times better sights, a Beavertail grip safety, better trigger, etc and telling me no modifications need done? Your gun is a perfect example if the evolution of the platform that was spurred by precision pistol shooting.

I'm done with this conversation with you. You are completely clueless in the evolution of the sport and the firearms used.

Thank you however for posting a picture of a gun that proved my point exactly.

 

[DeepSouth]

In my limited experience, I get the 45's back on target faster mainly because they seem to have less muzzle rise.

Now most of the 45's I own and shoot are full sized, metal frame (read heavy) guns. While most of the 40's I've owned and shoot are poly framed and frequently more compact. So is my experience the result of caliber or the firearms it self, I don't know. One day I'll buy a P226 then I'll know for sure.

As far as accuracy, with slow fire from a rest I've noticed almost no difference, I'm normally the weak link. I do complain about triggers a lot though, especially on striker fired guns.

 

[ATLDave]

There is absolutely nothing inherently accurate or inaccurate about .40 S&W.

But the rise of the .40 coincided almost perfectly with the rise of polymer framed guns. Polymer frames are light. That means that when the slide slams into the frame at the rear of its travel, there's little mass there to soak up the impact or to resist the upward rotation of the gun. So whatever recoil is there must be managed by the shooter alone, primarily by grip strength.

The recoil of a .40, while not severe, is certainly more pronounced than a 9mm. And, being of comparable pressure to the 9mm, it has more blast/flash than the .45 if you're sensitive to that. Combine that with the polymer frame issue I described above, and a lot of the most popular .40 handguns are going to be somewhat uncomfortable to shoot for a lot of shooters.

If a gun is uncomfortable to shoot, you're probably not going to shoot tight little groups with it. But that doesn't mean the gun is inaccurate. That means YOU'RE inaccurate WITH THAT GUN.

 

[Deanimator]

I've got a 2nd Gen Glock 22 and a 3.5" Citadel M1911 in .45acp.

I find the 3.5" M1911 MUCH easier to shoot.

I can't say I'd NEVER buy another .40s&w gun.

I can GUARANTEE you that I'll never buy another polymer .40s&w gun.

 

[OilyPablo]

Not this thread again. Buy a 10mm and be done with it. Oh snap!

OK OK I kid, but there was a thread last week about .40SW snappiness.

I shoot .40SW in my 20SF Longslide. It's pretty accurate for a Glock.

 

[Saleen322]

You still don't get it. Precision pistol was started with stock GI 1911s. You are shooting a gun that is waaaaay tighter, has better bushing fit, 100 times better sights, a Beavertail grip safety, better trigger, etc and telling me no modifications need done? Your gun is a perfect example if the evolution of the platform that was spurred by precision pistol shooting.

I'm done with this conversation with you. You are completely clueless in the evolution of the sport and the firearms used.

Thank you however for posting a picture of a gun that proved my point exactly.

No need to get personal, it is not that important to get worked up over.

To make it simple, I found in actual shooting that accuracy is easier to achieve in 45 than it is in 40. Even if the platform is the same; like two similar 1911s - one in 45 and one in 40. This is for the benefit of those seeking experienced answers. Maybe your experience is different. Again YMMV

 

[pblanc]

It is interesting how different people perceive the recoil of the .40 S&W so very differently.

I have heard some maintain that the .40 S&W is inherently less accurate than 9mm Para, .357SIG, or .45 ACP. I seem to recall some comments on the beretta forum from Beretta 96 owners who claimed that their 96s were less accurate than their 92/M9s. Massad Ayoob in the Gun Digest Book of SIG Sauer says this about the SIG P229:

"The P229 .40 simply does not shoot as well as the self-same P229 in either of its other calibers (9mm or .357 SIG) and that tells me it's the caliber, not the gun, that's causing the mediocre if still acceptable accuracy."

I currently own only one pistol chambered in .40 S&W, a Beretta mini-Cougar 8040 which is an all-metal pistol, but a bit lighter than the SIG SP2022 .40. When I first got that pistol years ago it was the first .40 I had shot and I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. I found the recoil to be unpleasant to say the least, and I had shot plenty of 9mms and .45 ACPs.

Now when I shoot the same pistol I really don't notice the recoil much differently than my 9s or 45s and I am pretty accurate with it, so I think part of managing the "sharper" recoil of the .40 S&W is just getting used to it. Once I did, it was no longer a distraction.

I don't know that I agree with the concept that .40 S&W shot from polymer-frame pistols is inevitably unpleasant. Last spring I first shot a SIG P320 full size pistol that was a range rental. It happened to be chambered in .40 cal. That pistol is polymer-framed and almost exactly the same weight as the SP2022.

I was blown away by how pleasant that pistol was to shoot and the accuracy I was able to achieve with it. When I came to buy a P320 full-sized I chose one chambered for .45 ACP but I would have no hesitation whatsoever to buy a P320 .40.

 

[Fiv3r]

I think it depends on the gun and the shooter. My second most accurate pistol (for me) is a compact fns 40. It's polymer, 24 oz or so unloaded, and sports a 3.5" barrel. I can keep my shots on a paper plate at 25 yards off hand. I'm not a particularly good shot, I don't shoot more than once every few months, and I don't find the .40 unpleasant other than it is loud and has a good bit of flash. That said, for what it was designed to do, it works for me.

The only pistol is shoot better is a Beretta 92fs. Of course, that's a heavy metal frame, sports nearly a 5" barrel, and fires a 9mm bullet. It doesn't buck much at all, obviously.

Still, when you talk about a round designed for defense performance, I don't see a problem with the .40. Not being able to keep your groups combat accurate is either an issue with your gun or you need more time behind your gun.

 

[ATLDave]

I don't know that I agree with the concept that .40 S&W shot from polymer-frame pistols is inevitably unpleasant.

It isn't, and I did not mean to say that it is. I believe, however, that the unpleasantness, or lack thereof, of this particular combination is HIGHLY dependent upon grip strength. For shooters with crushing grip strength, they can hold the frame pretty still all the way through recoil... and so the barrel doesn't flip and it doesn't look or feel "snappy." For shooters with less grip force and/or sub-optimal grip technique, the .40 on a polymer frame is going to rotate more in the hand than a polymer 9mm or a steel 1911 in .45acp.