Am I going crazy- I may now think .40S&W is better than .45ACP

[chaim]

I must confess, for some time I was not a .40S&W fan at all. In fact, I got rid of a great gun (CZ 40B) because I couldn't warm to the caliber. I saw it as completely unnecessary- 9mm with proper loads is a good defensive caliber and if you want more go with the .45ACP.

Now, for purely defensive purposes I think that the .40S&W may be the best of the three. It has the velocity, and penatration, of a 9mm. It is a big bore like the .45ACP, in fact the 180gr .40S&W has the same sectional density as the 230gr .45ACP. Looking at ammo manufacturers' claims it appears that the .40 has nearly the power levels as the .45 in the top loadings for each. Like .45ACP all the defensive loadings seem to be at least adequate. So, it gives the advantage of the .45- you don't have to be as careful in ammo selection as you do with 9mm. However, it is a little cheaper than .45.

Recoil in full-size firearms is more than managable and no worse than .45ACP. In smaller firearms recoil is pronounced, however it can be put in much smaller firearms than .45ACP can (it can be used in 9mm sized firearms). In a full-sized firearm it can carry a couple more rounds than a similarly sized .45ACP.

I still think 9mm is a better only gun due to cheaper practice ammo plus decent defensive ammo. I think 9mm is better for those who are recoil shy. For emotional reasons I'll aways prefer .45ACP- the bigger bullet looks more comforting, and it is THE caliber for guns like the 1911. But, for purely defensive functionality I think .40S&W just might be the best of all worlds.

Just thought I'd share my complete turnaround on this popular caliber.

 

[el44vaquero]

The pull to the darkside is strong with this one. Next thing you know you'll be lusting after a Glock. The .40 S&W is a slippery slope.

 

[IndianaDean]

Some of the ballistics test done have the .40 finishing behind both the 9 and the 45. There was one done recently in Austria. The people that performed the tests posted results and photos on one of the boards. I can't recall if it was here of TFL. But in their results had the 9 and 45 almost even, with the 40 third.

 

[mattw]

the .40 has not been proven in combat, the 9mm has proven inadequate, the .45 has the respect of everyone who has ever used it.

 

[wbond]

Latest shooting stopping power stats I read said

(based on civilian and police shootings since early 1990s)

.40 cal is the top for one shot stopping power right now, especially if using the 135 gr JHP. The 155 gr JHPs are also good. The 180 gr JHP is NOT very good. Anyone dumping on the .40 cal is probably referring to data about the 180 gr JHP. Search Google for handgun stopping power.

Followed closely by the .45 ACP.

Followed closely by the 9mm. (I think the .357 Mag was between the .45 and 9mm, but the .357M is not part of this topic)

For stopping potential, you can't beat the .40 cal and it holds a lot of ammo.

However, the 9mm is almost as good for one shot stop stats and it holds a lot more ammo and can be speed shot much more easily. Also the 9mms are usually smaller, lighter, easier to carry and still have more ammo.

So although the .40 is best if you're only allowed to shoot once, the 9mm is almost as good for that. However, if you're allowed to shoot more than once the 9mm is best because it has more rounds. That's my opinion.

A lot of how powerful a 9mm is or isn't has to do with barrel length. I don't like 3" pistol barrels because that robs excessive power. However, 4" 9mms are difficult to conceal and carry. That's why I prefer a 3.5" barrel 9mm whenever available.

I don't own a kahr, but I really like their 3.5 inch barrel model due to the fact that it has a 3.5 polygonal rifled barrel. Polygonal is supposed to help accuracy and velocity, which would be especially helpful in a shorter barrel. A 3.5" barrel should be long enough, especially if polygonal. There's other things I don't like about Kahr's, but the barrel has to be loved. Likewise with Glocks, I think. If you don't like Glocks, then surely you'd like a Kahr. How could anyone not love a Kahr? They look so cute and cudly.

==============================

P.S. - all of the above applies only to police and civilian shootings and ammo. i.e. - applies only to JHP ammo.

===============================

With ball ammo, the 9mm has proven poor, the .45 OK. Ball ammo is required for the military because of the Hague Convention. Terrorists don't subscribe to the Hague Convention, nor the Geneva Convention either. Therefore, I think we should be able to use hollow points on any combatants who are not members of the Hague Treaty. Heck, I'd like to fill hollow point cavities with that frog venom the Indians use on blow darts. But of course, we can do that. We can't even use hollow points on them because it wouldn't be sporting. We must give the terrorists every advantage and fight them fairly.

To paraphrase US Army Colonel somebody, he said the USA against the terrorists is like Woody Allen with brass knucks fighting Evander Hollyfield (Mr. Clean). Woody knows it's a street fight, Evander thinks it's a boxing match. That about sums up the whole thing. Don't you think?

I feel very sorry for our guys in the military who must rely on 9mm ball ammo. A friend of mine is shipping out soon and he brought this to my attention. He's very worried about it because it typically take 2 or 3 center mass hits of 9mm ball ammo to put down a hashish cranked up nutcake. Likewise with the M16. The .223 is great with hollow points like my cousin uses on deer, but it wouldn't be sporting to use a hollow point on a terrorist. Our guys have to use full metal jacket in the M16s too. My friend is not happy about this. I can see why. Foreign terrorists have more rights than American deer.

When using ball ammo, you need the biggest caliber you can get, which means the .45. The best idea would be 9mm with JHP, but we'd never do that. Since a lot of recruits can't handle .45, I think the army should try .40 cal ball. It would be a double tap proposition, but that's better than a triple tap needed for 9mm ball. Most recruits could probably handle the .40 cal.

 

[dsk]

Don't ever bet on "one-shot stops"

The one-shot stopping formulas are about as flawed as they get. I thought everybody knew that by now. The .40 is definitely a combat-worthy round, but remember that it's a new round and loaded to absolute maximum safe pressure so the comparison isn't necessarily fair. Much of the "data" on the 9mm and .45ACP is with older rounds, as well as newer ones that typically are loaded at reduced presure so that somebody shooting grandpa's old war trophy doesn't blow himself up. I tried to get on the .40 bandwagon not once but twice, first by purchasing a HK USPc then later a Glock 23. I disliked the caliber enough that I sold off both weapons. The recoil was too sharp, the accuracy mediocre, and with the Glock the empty cases were so badly bulged it made me feel really nervous.

If you really want a powerful semi-auto handgun, get a 10mm (the REAL .40 caliber). If a 10mm is too hot a .45 will do all you need to do. If you absolutely have to have a high-capacity handgun, get a 9mm and load it with competitive ammo like Cor-Bon or Golden Saber +P. I have no use for the the .40 S&W, just as I have no need for the .357 SIG, .400 Cor-Bon, .45GAP, and all the other modern-day wonder rounds.

 

[Kurt]

Chaim, I agree with your assessments.

I'm a forever .45 fan, but when you look at 40's numbers (velocity / caliber / bullet weight) with an open mind ........

 

[Joe D]

I carried a Series 70 LWT Commander for years until I discovered the Glock 23. I can afford any gun I choose. 14 rounds of 180 gr Ranger Talon works for me just fine.

 

[StrikeEagle]

.40 cal is the top for one shot stopping power right now, especially if using the 135 gr JHP. The 155 gr JHPs are also good.

I don't trust Marshall and Sanow...

Do you have another source for this?

Thanks!
StrikeEagle

 

[JDGray]

When comparing same grain hollow points in .40 & .45, the .45 comes out on top in muzzle velocity. I'll take the bigger hole maker, with the bigger hollow point. With all the high cap .45s today, who needs a .40?

 

[355sigfan]

The 9mm will pretty much do anything the 40 will do. Yet it costs less, recoils less, holds more ammo and does not explode in your hand like the 40 sw. In my informal expansion tests teh 40 only bested the 9mm by a small margin usually .05 caliber with simular penetration. The best 45 loads bested the 40 by as much as .10 caliber with simular penetration.

The 40 gives you the recoil of a 45 (some feel its more than a 45) with the ballistics of a 9mm. Sorry not my cup of tea and thats why I sold mine.
Pat

 

[355sigfan]

I feel very sorry for our guys in the military who must rely on 9mm ball ammo. A friend of mine is shipping out soon and he brought this to my attention. He's very worried about it because it typically take 2 or 3 center mass hits of 9mm ball ammo to put down a hashish cranked up nutcake. Likewise with the M16. The .223 is great with hollow points like my cousin uses on deer, but it wouldn't be sporting to use a hollow point on a terrorist. Our guys have to use full metal jacket in the M16s too. My friend is not happy about this. I can see why. Foreign terrorists have more rights than American deer.
END QUOTE

Rifle FMJ loads are pretty good unlike pistol FMJ loads. 223 ball ammo will fragment and still leave a nasty wound.
Pat

 

[Old Dog]

I'm on DSK's side on this one; I too tried to like the .40. I've had a Star Firestar in .40, a Glock 23, both gone, and the SIG P226. IMO, the SIG 226 is a superior platform for the .40, but for some reason, I still much prefer shooting .45 or 9mm.

355sigfan stated

I feel very sorry for our guys in the military who must rely on 9mm ball ammo. A friend of mine is shipping out soon and he brought this to my attention. He's very worried about it because it typically take 2 or 3 center mass hits of 9mm ball ammo to put down a hashish cranked up nutcake.

Umm ... I have to say that your friend doesn't have to worry a whole lot if he's going to Iraq as (1) in the current war situation, most in the military rely on their rifles - the pistol is a last resort, if you have to use it, you're just glad you've got a pistol, and (2) I didn't encounter any "hashish cranked up nutcakes" when I was there. I was quite comfortable for many years carrying the M-9 with 15 rounds of NATO ball.

 

[Euclidean]

I just love how people are constantly trashing the .40 S&W when in any gel test or whatever test, it always performs better than 9mm and almost always identical to .45 ACP.

.40 S&W is .45 ACP in a 9x19 frame from a terminal ballistics standpoint.

We should be happy it exists, some people are never going to like .45 ACP for various reasons (such as the width of the grip) and they are entitled to a handgun caliber that starts with "4" as much as anybody.

All service calibers suck and lack adequate power for consistent stops. If you want to stop somebody consistently use a rifle or a shotgun.

.40 S&W sucks no worse than 9x19, .45 ACP, or .357 Sig.

 

[355sigfan]

355sigfan stated

Quote:
I feel very sorry for our guys in the military who must rely on 9mm ball ammo. A friend of mine is shipping out soon and he brought this to my attention. He's very worried about it because it typically take 2 or 3 center mass hits of 9mm ball ammo to put down a hashish cranked up nutcake.

Umm ... I have to say that your friend doesn't have to worry a whole lot if he's going to Iraq as (1) in the current war situation, most in the military rely on their rifles - the pistol is a last resort, if you have to use it, you're just glad you've got a pistol, and (2) I didn't encounter any "hashish cranked up nutcakes" when I was there. I was quite comfortable for many years carrying the M-9 with 15 rounds of NATO ball.

END QUOTE

That was not my quote but rather me quoting someone else. I hate the 40 and prefer the 9mm and 45.
Pat

 

[wally]

I think .40 S&W has a lot going for in sub-compact carry guns where the short barrels might have problems getting enough velocity to insure adaquate penetration. This line of thought probably has me staying with my Kahr P40 instead of switching to new P45. The equal sectional density issue nails it as the .40 will have a higher velocity and thus better penetration from the sub compact barrels.

In full sized pistols where velocity loss isn't an issue, I don't have much use for it as I'd rather a .45 for defense or a 9mm for cheap shooting. If forced to use a 9mm I'd go with the 147 gr loadings unless the gun is not reliable with it (not all 9mm can handle these) as its got a bit better sectional density to start then the .40 180 gr and .45 230 gr.

I place my bets on inadaquate penetration being a bigger bullet performance problem than inadaquate expansion -- as the cliche goes, a 9mm may expand but a .45 sure won't shrink!

--wally.

 

[Ala Dan]

Yes, you need to seek the help of a good ole' .45 ACP doctor immediately,
for your health is failing~! Perhaps he can prescribe a remedy that
will put you back on the right track, and rid you of those evil thoughts.

 

[zahc]

.45 is a really big bullet. Really big, heavy, wide, long bullet.

That's all I have to add.

 

[RFM]

Come on people, we're talking about handgun ammo here
not a 12 gauge shotgun. With the right loads and barrel
lengths, 9mm, .40 SW and the .45 ACP pretty much perform
the same way. Just remember the smaller bullet you choose,
the higher the velocity you want. The 9mm is most effective
with +P ammo and shot from barrels longer than 4 inches.

I especially like the .45 ACP, because I can load .45 Supers
when I go camping. 200 grain bullet at 1300-1400 fps - ouch.

 

[mattw]

sorry, double post

 

[mattw]

you all keep talking about numbers.. numbers are just numbers. I trust someone who has real-world experience with these matters making an educated guess on how they think the .40 would stack up against the 9mm and the .45 that they have used. So has anyone shot somebody with the calibers in question? My father was Marine Recon, some times that hauge convention stuff is overlooked when there are only 3 or 4 of you in the middle of a hostile country miles away from somebody who would not shoot you and no help coming at all if you get in a tight spot. He has shot people with 45 ball, 9mm ball, 45 JHP and 9mm JHP.. he says piss on everything else and give him a 45.

would you rather have something small and light or something slow and heavy?

I would rather be able to swing a baseball bat slowly than shoot a sling shot quickly at someone trying to attack me.

 

[355sigfan]

QUOTE
Come on people, we're talking about handgun ammo here
not a 12 gauge shotgun. With the right loads and barrel
lengths, 9mm, .40 SW and the .45 ACP pretty much perform
the same way. J

ust remember the smaller bullet you choose,
the higher the velocity you want. The 9mm is most effective
with +P ammo and shot from barrels longer than 4 inches.

END QUOTE

I agree with the first paragraph and not the second. Short barrle 9mm loads do fine as do many standard pressure rounds. I would not feel the least bit bad if saddled with 147 grain Ranger T loads instead of my preferred +p+ 127 grain loads in my Glock 26. Expansion and penetration is simular with both loads.
Pat

 

[PO2Hammer]

Really big, heavy, wide, long bullet.

It is heavy and wide, but it is not long relative to its caliber (low sectional density) The .40 has better sectional density.

.40 S&W is stupid.

I don't think that one needs a reply. One year as a member and almost 900 posts, hmmm.
It took me a decade before I even fired a .40. I didn't actually like it untill last year when I got a conversion barrel for a Glock 20.
Now I have a Sig P226ST in .40 that is smooth as silk and very accurate.
If I could have just one auto caliber, it would be a .40.

 

[SDGlock23]

The .40 is an excellent cartridge. In some situations, it may not be "better" than a 45 acp or 9mm since that depends on the shooter, but it certainly isn't any worse. The 9mm and 45 acp have been around a hell of a lot longer than the .40, but the .40 is very respectable in itself. My Glock 23 is loaded with 14 rds of 165 gr. Winchester Rangers...that's a lot of firepower for the size.

 

[355sigfan]

It is heavy and wide, but it is not long relative to its caliber (low sectional density) The .40 has better sectional density
END QUOTE

The 230 grain 45 acp and the 180 Grain 40sw and the 147 grain 9mm all share approximately the same sectional density.

Not that that matters all that much. You can make a light fast bullet with a low sectional density penetrate and expand well with proper bullet construction.

There is not much to argue about here. The 40 expands a bit more than the 9mm (about .05 on average) the 45 expands a bit more than the 40sw (.05 to .10 caliber)

The 40 is fine. The 9mm is fine. The 45 is fine. The real question is do you have what it takes to deliver good shotplacement with lead heading your way.
Pat