40 s&w: is it that bad of a caliber for outdoor use?

Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
1,570
Location
Texas
While I convert my .40s to .357 sig, i have wondered is it really that suboptimal of a caliber? All .357 sig emulates is the specific 125 grain 357 magnum load. For the .40 you have anywhere from 165 grain to 180 grain projectiles. Surely that adds to something and has some effect? Lets do a comparison of heavier .357 sig (147) to .40 smith & wesson offerings, using .357 magnum .158 grain as a benchmark; which is closer to this original 357 magnum load?


Also as a note, if anyone has stories taking deer with any of the calipers mentioned, please share your results.
 
Like most rounds. The 40 will benefit from reloading or buying premium ammo at least if you want speed. I’ve got on the sig bus lately also and have done 2 sig pistols up. I’ve still got my 10mm and 45acp. I believe everything has a place. At the very least, 40 smmo is always around and cheap. I’ve loaded 135-200gr in 40cal. I never cronied them being then I didn’t have one. 40cal is pretty snappy compared to sig to me. And depending on the platform right there with 10’m
 
While I convert my .40s to .357 sig, i have wondered is it really that suboptimal of a caliber? All .357 sig emulates is the specific 125 grain 357 magnum load. For the .40 you have anywhere from 165 grain to 180 grain projectiles. Surely that adds to something and has some effect? Lets do a comparison of heavier .357 sig (147) to .40 smith & wesson offerings, using .357 magnum .158 grain as a benchmark; which is closer to this original 357 magnum load?


Also as a note, if anyone has stories taking deer with any of the calipers mentioned, please share your results.
i bought the 357sig to shoot 125-147's. don't load may 147's tho. however i do load lots of 135's in 40 and 10. i base my weights on most energy at muzzle. 125's can get more than 147's. 135's in 40s/w compared to 125's in 357sig are about equal (top end of 500 and just under 600 #'s). this is based on equal barrel lengths. my g22 and g31 are same barrel lengths, so that makes a better comparison with same firearm manufacturer. i haven't had time to chrono any yet, only based on published data and usually from the same published data company (sierra).
 
I’ll just say no matter what the caliber, there is almost never anything wrong with a 180 grain projectile traveling at 1000 ft/sec. That would defend against most critters except moose and bear. I will also say that when out in the woods, I’m much MUCH more cautious of the two legged animals out there than 4.
 
Bad caliber for outdoors use?

What kind of outdoors use you talking? Remote Alaska? Remote woods in new England? In the swamps in Florida? In the desert in new Mexico? We can not answer that unless you are a little more specific.

And you can not compare 357 to 40, Its like apples to oranges.

If you are in the "outdoors" in north America, Any round will work unless your in grizzly country, DO not over think it and carry what ever YOU think is best.
 
I’ll just say no matter what the caliber, there is almost never anything wrong with a 180 grain projectile traveling at 1000 ft/sec. That would defend against most critters except moose and bear. I will also say that when out in the woods, I’m much MUCH more cautious of the two legged animals out there than 4.
^^^^This right here^^^^
I'm pretty comfortable in the woods with just a 38 loaded with 158 SWC at 850 so anything more is a bonus.
 
Last edited:
There isn't worthwhile measure of difference between .40 S&W and .357 Sig. .40 can be loaded pretty hot and really moves 155 and 165 grain rounds along fast while the 180 grain rounds at around 1000 fps are very effective as others noted. 10mm is incrementally hotter.
 
And you can not compare 357 to 40, Its like apples to oranges.
Depends on how you load them. I carry both, and yeah, .357M has more potential, the best thing it has going for it if you consider equal weight bullets is the SD is higher, so theoretically penetration will be better at equal velocities. You can get .40S&W to 1300-ish with a 155 grain, and .357 to around 1350 (4" barrels on both). .40 gets close, but not quite equal. Call it oranges to tangerines. I don't load my .40 quite that hot but it can be done.

I like 155's in the .40, I go a bit heavier my 10mm, but you can go 200 in either one, I just prefer a smaller and faster bullet for personal defense. I size my carry for the threat, if I'm where I worry about lions and tigers and bears, oh my, then I take something bigger with me.
 
Depends on how you load them. I carry both, and yeah, .357M has more potential, the best thing it has going for it if you consider equal weight bullets is the SD is higher, so theoretically penetration will be better at equal velocities. You can get .40S&W to 1300-ish with a 155 grain, and .357 to around 1350 (4" barrels on both). .40 gets close, but not quite equal. Call it oranges to tangerines. I don't load my .40 quite that hot but it can be done.

I like 155's in the .40, I go a bit heavier my 10mm, but you can go 200 in either one, I just prefer a smaller and faster bullet for personal defense. I size my carry for the threat, if I'm where I worry about lions and tigers and bears, oh my, then I take something bigger with me.
Max load 40s&w in is 155's and 165's in the 10. Best muzzle energy in both with those weights. Plus I shoot out to 100 yards regularly. I go with 180's in carbines in 10mm only.
 
There isn't worthwhile measure of difference between .40 S&W and .357 Sig. .40 can be loaded pretty hot and really moves 155 and 165 grain rounds along fast while the 180 grain rounds at around 1000 fps are very effective as others noted. 10mm is incrementally hotter.
False. .40 has way more potential to span a wider range of applications/power potential/bullet weights.
 
Depends on how you load them.

I don't think it "depends" on anything...

40 S&W and 357 Sig are both auto-pistol cartridges which share the same case dimensions until the shoulder and neck, the Sig literally being formed from the S&W, and share relatively similar bullet weights. Comparing the two is really that simple - the 40 can use a little heavier bullets than the Sig, the Sig gains a little speed over the 40 when using the same bullet weight, due to the improved expansion ratio and sustained pressure curve (which typically works the opposite direction for increasing bullet diameter due to the increased piston area).

If 40 S&W are 357 Sig can't be compared, God help us all, for our understanding of our world is nil... Luckily, that's just not the case.

I have 357sig barrels for both of the 40's I have left, but I carry them with my 40 barrels installed. The difference is incredibly small. I like the 357sig a little better for hog hunting, just a little better penetration for the increased speed and SD, but either work very well.
 
With having a couple of 10mm I personally don't have a lot of interest in 40s&w. The 357sig is neat. It would be a nice wilderness carry cartridge. More energy than a 9mm +p.
If you think 357 sig is neat, look at 9x25 barrels for your 10MM. Same as the concept at 40 short and wobbly, and 357 sig, but its a 10mm case necked down to 9mm.


Just a barrel swap is all that is needed.
 
What's 'wrong' with .40 S&W? Not much, when it comes right down to it. Just as with other service calibers, it's more about placement and whether critical tissues, structures and organs are hit (and how quickly?).

Back in '07, SFPD officers had to use their issued .40's against a 243-pound Siberian tiger, named Tatiana, that escaped her enclosure and went on the attack.
It was later determined that Tatiana had been hit seven times: twice in the head and five times in the chest.

I'd just attended a LE firearms instructor update at SFPD, maybe a year previously, and they were carrying 180gr JHP's in their .40's. I dunno what specific load was being carried by those officers in '07, but I knew they'd previously issued Rem GS and Fed HST, and were in the process of wanting to change over to something else when I was there. The rangemaster said he usually spent $750K for his annual ammo budget at that time, and they frequently changed ammo for various reasons, if only to prevent some ammo company from thinking they had a lock on the PD's business (paraphrasing him). Sure, there were some previous experiences he related of some key-holing bullets, low-powered loads (squibs) and some puzzling accuracy issues (and what he suspected was a barrel manufacturing issue with a previous gun company's weapons), but while those things are relatively infrequent (rare-ish?), if you buy enough guns and ammo and shoot enough rounds, you can come across those sort of things over the long term.

I remember in earlier decades when I took my family to the SF zoo, or chaperoned a group of kids for zoo field trips from the elementary school our kids attended. I always carried a full-size (4") .357MAG revolver concealed, because of the 'remote' concern that a dangerous animal might escape containment. Go figure. Then again, that's what I carried on-duty in those days. There was a time many, many years ago when I carried a concealed Colt Commander to a different zoo.

Bottom line? I'd not feel any particular concern or disdain for the .40/180gr combination as a general 'outdoor' defenisve load. It was one of the issued loads I carried when I worked some rather remote rural beats (also having carried issued .357MAG, 9mm & .45ACP in the same areas over the years). I used 158gr .38 SPL +P to kill seriously injured deer (replacing the .357MAG loads in my .357 for that purpose). That was why I carried the .38's in the car in those days. Others in uniform duty at my former agency have no doubt used .40, .45 and now the current 9's for the same role.

Just remember ... TANSTAAFL
 
I have no issue with the 40 S&W I have a Springfield XD in 40 and I am looking at buying another one I like it that much. It definitely benefits from hand loading my preferred bullet is a 155 grain LSWC. I am not shying away from the 40 it’s just a great cartridge.
 
I dunno. I'm a horsepower junkie who doesn't really believe in handgun "stopping power". In that light, I figure the .40 is not much better or worse than any other "service" cartridge, at least when it comes to human adversaries - regardless of whether you shoot them indoors or out.

As a real "outdoorsman's" cartridge it sucks, as do all the other "service" cartridges. No sane man would hunt a Kodiak bear (for instance) with 180 grains at 1000 fps. It might work, but "might" is not a good word in this scenario. I figure something like the .500 S&W is the absolute minimum cartridge for such purposes, and would be a lot happier with a .338 on up. And if I'm actually defending myself from the critter, I'd like a .577 Nitro, please.

Which is all a gassy way of saying that if you're going to need to kill a large animal before it kills you, you need either massive horsepower, or an interruption of the central nervous system. The former is an interesting conversation, but service cartridges are not a part of it. And the latter can be managed by the .40 as well as with the .357, .44, 10mm, and so on.
 
The 40 S&W is very similar to the .38/40. The .38/40 was very popular on the frontier and during a time when there was a lot of genuine threats to be addressed with a handgun. If it worked back then, I see no reason why the 40 S&W would not be a valid choice today.
 
Back
Top