Anyone else not not like the 40S&W?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The .45 is my favorite because it is a substantial caliber that is very easy to shoot. I like the 9mm because it is inexpensive (lots of practice), effective, and available in a host of small, concealable guns.

The .40 is a compromise; I have nothing against it, but it does not do anything special for me. That being said, I dislike the .40's snappy recoil in many guns, but in the right gun it is pleasant to shoot.
 
Well the .40 was a compromise from day one so it's no surprise it has plenty of detractors.

You couldn't get a 10mm in the smaller framed autos of the day, so shorten it, call it .40, and you're in business. That was pretty much the whole concept of the .40.

I carried a Sig 239 in .40 for years and years but recently switched over to .357 Sig and couldn't be happier.

So I'm not necessarily in the dislike camp, but I can't think of a reason to actually choose .40 over other things unless it's all I could get in a particular gun I wanted.
 
My dislike of the 40 comes from the way that recoil is transmitted to the shooter. This may be anywhere from a little subjective, all the way up to totally mental on my part, but the 40’s recoil is as I stated before, abrupt. When compared to the 9mm’s light “pop” or the 45’s rear-ward shove, the 40 feels like it wants to jump almost vertically, right out of my hand.
Click to expand...

Aaahhhh... That's very helpful :)

First, knoxx45 - I'd like to say my comment on the .40 being the answer to a question "whether or not you are the person who asked..." was not directed at you, or anyone in particular. The .40S&W and .357Sig are often referred to as "the answer to an unasked question" - and while that's a cute little saying, it's a pretty ficticious and silly one as well.

The .40S&W, IMHO, is not the wonder cartridge some people like to promote it as. It's a nasty little bullet - I definitely wouldn't want to get hit with one... but I prefer the .357Sig, actually. A lot of people dislike the .357Sig or prefer the .40 - but it's all preference.

In comparing the two from the exact same gun, I find that I like the .357Sig better for similar reasons.

Sound: Both are loud as hell, but the .357Sig has more bass to it, ironically - so even though they're both obnoxiously loud, the .357Sig makes a more pleasant sound, if you want to call it that.

Recoil: For me, the .357Sig and the .40 took some getting used to at first. The .40S&W seems to torque my wrist backwards, and up - making follow-up shots and sight realignment a little slower. The .357Sig snaps straight back at you - with a little authority - but the cycle seems quicker and returns my sights right to the target. The .357Sig is actually more comfortable to shoot one-handed for me than two-handed, and probably most comfortable to point-shoot from the hip. The .40 doesn't do so well for me when it comes to rapid point shooting.

Flash depends on load... Both can be pretty flashy, but the .357Sig wins the flash contest hands down.

I like the .357Sig better, it's easier to shoot for me, and the sound doesn't bother me as much as the sound from the .40 does. Flash doesn't bother me much anyway - to be honest, I think it's cool. Preference is a wonderful thing - and there are enough choices out there that no one should feel they have to choose or get used to something they don't like. You're also not unique in finding the .40 a little harsh. The 9mm and .45ACP have been putting bad guys (and unfortunately, some good ones as well) in the dirt for a long time... Long before new JHP and defense ammo technology became available, anyways. IMO, the selection of defense ammo available today has leveled the playing field to the extent that almost anything can be effective.

IMHO though, if someone can shoot a .357 magnum well, a .40 or .357Sig should be child's play in comparison. I'd like to know if anyone disagrees with that - based on recoil/noise more than a revolver vs. auto bias.
 
I, too, agree that the .40's recoil is too snappy compared to the 9's "pop" and the .45's slow push. I've yet to fire it in a platform that felt comfortable.
 
Wes Janson: "I, too, agree that the .40's recoil is too snappy compared to the 9's "pop" and the .45's slow push. I've yet to fire it in a platform that felt comfortable."

Try it in a Browning HP .40. :D You'll be a convert. Otherwise, I'm in total agreement with your statement.
 
I like the .40S&W.

I use the .40S&W in IDPA(G23) ,USPSA/IPSC(G35) and CCW(G23,G27).
I find the the .40S&W to be just as accurate as the 9mm and .45ACP rounds.
I feel that the recoil is nill, with very quick follow up shots.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Being a devout 10mm follower, I've got to check the "Me No Likey" box on the .40 S&W ballot. . .

To my mind, of all the .40 caliber pistol rounds out there, the 10mm (and even the .400 Corbon) is getting the max out of the .40 diameter. Check Double Tap for further proof on the 10 and Corbon for the .400. I firmly believe that .40 S&W could be better. It is more limited than 10mm and .400 CB because of its size, but IMO no major ammo manufacturer has tried to develop a maxxed out .40 S&W round. If you can find it, Winchester Ranger SXT might be the best available. The one true .40 S&W round I've come across is Georgia Arms' 155-gr. +P+ Gold Dot loading - 1300FPS/581 ft. lbs.
 
To each his own.

A well placed .22 rim fire will terminate the threat.
With that said, power still is best. But, there are other factors I considered when I chose my model and caliber. I backed into the model by first aligning my shopping list with those models that could be outfitted with a Crimson Trace laser grips. 80% of all self defense situations are low light or night conditions. Next, my hand is below average in size. So a full sized auto was a real handful. I “tried on” Glocks, Sigs, and just about all others at several large dealers to find what felt right. I settled on the Sig 229 because it felt good and my research comforted me to know this is a robust and dependable choice. My three caliber choices were 9x19, 357 Sig, and 40 S&W. Then I went to the ammo manufacturer’s websites and compared the three. Also, a trip to my local store to check out prices of ammo ruled out the 357 Sig because even though it is a good caliber and performs well it is not as readily available locally and it cost about 40% more than 9 or 40. Now, I am not going to get real emotional about the merits of which floats my boat the most between 9 and 40, but the 40 does pack more punch. 45 ACP is not a choice with a Sig 229.
My ready ammo in my nightstand for my Sig 229 40 S&W with the Crimson Trace Laser grips is Glaser Silver Safety Slugs. I live in a densely populated development so in keeping with the rule of knowing your target and beyond, any bullet that could end up in my neighbor’s house was not a good choice and the Glaser probably won’t get there. The Glaser has excellent velocity, penetration is adequate and the energy release is just about unsurpassed compared to just about any other bullet. Any bullet that passes through the target is leaving energy get away that could have produced damage. Glaser rounds expend all their energy and the chance of them exiting is pretty remote.
This combination works for me and I like it and I am sure when the time comes to launch an assault to defend myself I will be the last one standing.
 
Grasping at the graph

I believe it say's it all :uhoh: or not.

The 10 pounds was just a small example, Geez:rolleyes: Prime or Choice etc. etc. it was for the use in the military and the needing of the lighter and better for logistics. IMHO
If you like it in the 5.56 as an arguement you still have to accept it in the idea of the 9mm and NATO is going to go for the thought also. Many other things to consider. 9mm is the favorite of the world and so it is the most used.

I think the black of the graph is the real teller of truth in the graph. The black I would think is the explosive energy transfer being shown, red is fine but black is brutal! :p I actually feel the graph is the true answer for the reason it has become so popular with LEO and the FBI test's proved that.

I do like my 9mm 17L though.;)

HQ:D
 
Thats a neat chart. I would like to see the 10mm on there too. It does however show the 9mm to be the poorest round by far. The rest look to be a toss up. And I now have some interest in the .357 sig ( I used to think it was just plain silly :neener: ).
 
I can't think of a reason to actually choose .40 over other things unless it's all I could get in a particular gun I wanted.
Click to expand...
Which is how I wound up with a 40S&W - because there was this pretty satin nickel CZ75 sitting in the case that I just couldn't resist, and I happened to have a wad of cash in my pocket at the time.... :)

The .40S&W seems to torque my wrist backwards, and up - making follow-up shots and sight realignment a little slower.
Click to expand...
Funny - I disliked my Glock 22 due to the snappy nature of the recoil, but the recoil in my 40S&W CZ75 seems no different than my 9mm CZs.

This afternoon, I shot a CZ85 and a CZ75 semicompact in 9mm (using 115gr Blazer) and a CZ75 in 40S&W (using 180gr Prvi), and the recoil difference between them was negligible. Maybe it's the high-thumb grip that I've started using, maybe it's the mass of the pistols, maybe the Prvi stuff is just wimpy stuff - I dunno. But my CZ75 in 40S&W shooting the 180gr Prvi fodder isn't nearly as snappy as my CZ97 shooting Remington GS 185g +Ps....
 
The other part of that same chart...

handgunexpandedjhpwm6.jpg
 
I personally want a self defense gun with a big slow bullet. I only want the bullet to hit what I am pointing at, not the people in the house next door.
Being responsible for the bullet and where it ends up is a big consideration for me when choosing a caliber for self defense.
The .45 was made for self defense.
I'm not sure why the .40 was ever made really.
Perhaps to fill a niche?
 
The 40 story is interesting.

Smith and Wesson is to be commended for it.

In days of old when 10mm was the big thing and the FBI were shooting it and they discovered there men could not shoot it well ( similar to another tragic story and the CHP with 357 Mag). Several men (Officers) died because of the over power of the bullet and so it was with the Newhall shooting in the CHP.

FBI came up with the FBI 10 mm, it was 10mm with less power. Smith and Wesson realized the casings were full of air and decided to make the 40 S&W to the FBI 10mm specs, shorter cartridge (case)/ bullet over all, and not quite as bulky of a gun.
The reason the FBI went with special ammo was they had bought a large amount of guns to shoot the 10mm and didn't have the budget for another gun and round, so they had a company make up the FBI special 10mm. Pretty much what the 40 S&W is today.

So they had a 10mm in hot loads and a 10 mm in lighter loads. Sort of like the 38 and 357 but the case was the same in all of the 10mm's.

That is the basic story give or take a few words. It is a good round and a smaller and lighter gun.

Many of you don't like the snap? Come on, you can always add some weight in the magazine remover well, of the Glock and it will help. They make one in brass or lead. I think??? You can fill the mag full and only shoot the first 3 and reload till you grow up to the load.

So that is the story as close as I can recall, off the top of my head:p

HQ:)
 
Never saw the need for a 40 until my state passed a CCW law .

When I started considering the fact that if I were going to be carrying a weapon for self defense I wanted one that would hold as many rounds as possible , not being a LEO I don't have the comfort of calling in the troops to bail me out in a moments notice .

Started looking at options other then the 9 and found a Taurus PT940 and bought it because it fit my hand so well and I liked the looks of it .

If the gun could talk at the end of a days shooting it would look at me and say "Is that all ?" .

After 600-700 rounds this thing has yet to stop untill the last round is fired .

Factory FMJ's , holow points , and reloads of different bullet designs it doesn't matter it just keeps going , I wish I could say the same for any 1911 I have owned as I realy do love the 1911 in 45 acp .

Reliability combined with a proven combat caliber is a comfort when your life might depend on your gun at a moments notice and hey 11 rounds "10+1" beats 9 "8+1 in a 1911" the say the fastest reload is no reload , hopefully 11 rounds will get the job done if it ever comes to it .

Yes the recoil can be a bit snappy depending on the load , but I doubt I will ever notice it when doing a double tap on some guy at 6 feet who is trying to do the same to me .
 
It is not that I don't like it, but don't know if it likes me.

Arthritis is killing me. My shoulders and elbows.

The snappiness of the .40 makes shooting a lot less fun.

Am thinking of going with 9, or a wheelie .357 shooting .38.
 
off topic

Hey Tex, 99 out of 100 posters will disagree with my stance on this, but just thought I'd give you my perspective (as always, ymmv).

I bought a .357mag for just that purpose; shooting .38spl through it exclusively. Even so, it still seemed like the obvious choice to go .357mag, because you always have that option you otherwise would not in a dedicated .38spl revolver. But if I was to do it over again, I would have done just that. The rings a .38spl deposits in .357mag chambers are just nasty. I might be spoiled to near maintenance free glocks now (34 is pretty freaking soft shooting btw re:arthritis nice extended controls), but I remember my dad's .38spl chambers didn't get those rings like that. Of course maybe if I'd have been cleaning it more often (was cleaning every two to three hundred rounds or so), it wouldn't have been so bad; or maybe just use cleaner ammo. But I used every kind of the stinkiest solvents, the most aggressive brushes, never actually completely get it off.

Anyways, the versatility of the .357mag is great, but if I knew I'd be shooting nothing but .38spl, I'd buy a .38spl (and wish I would have). Sorry to veer.

And yes, I know I'm wrong.
 
Well the .40 was a compromise from day one so it's no surprise it has plenty of detractors.

You couldn't get a 10mm in the smaller framed autos of the day, so shorten it, call it .40, and you're in business. That was pretty much the whole concept of the .40.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.........I thought it was that the FBI guys needed a 10 "lite" or a 10 "wimp.":D (10 special?)

No like.
 
Since the .40 comes in a variety of loads, I think it is very important to specify the load when speaking about the .40. Are we speaking about full power 165/155 gr. loads or at the opposite end 180 gr. loads at 950 to 975 f.p.s.?
 
FBI came up with the FBI 10 mm, it was 10mm with less power. Smith and Wesson realized the casings were full of air and decided to make the 40 S&W to the FBI 10mm specs, shorter cartridge (case)/ bullet over all, and not quite as bulky of a gun.
The reason the FBI went with special ammo was they had bought a large amount of guns to shoot the 10mm and didn't have the budget for another gun and round, so they had a company make up the FBI special 10mm. Pretty much what the 40 S&W is today.

So they had a 10mm in hot loads and a 10 mm in lighter loads. Sort of like the 38 and 357 but the case was the same in all of the 10mm's.
Click to expand...

So, as the new owner of a 10mm, how do I distinguish, when going by a gun shop, which are the "real" 10mm loads and those that are "10mm lite" loaded to 40S&W specs?
 
Hmmm.........I thought it was that the FBI guys needed a 10 "lite" or a 10 "wimp." (10 special?)
Click to expand...

That was what started the 10 lite, yes. As Harley Quinn posts above, after the 10 "lite" the reasoning went why not go ahead and make it shorter.

The .40 didn't come because the FBI weenies couldn't shoot 10, the 10 "lite" came from that. After that, it was a no brainer to shorten the case since it wasn't doing anything anyway.

End result was an answer without a question :D

Although, to be honest, it made a big difference in gun design and manufacturer thinking. Being able to put more power into a smaller frame has been nothing but good. The .40 started it, and the .357 Sig continues that direction.


As for 10mm and the weak stuff out there today, very few loadings are up there with the original Norma specs. Originally, NORMA loaded their 200gr.(grain) bullet at 1200fps (feet per second) and the 170gr. bullet at 1400fps.

I remember shooting a couple of boxes of that stuff when the Delta Elite came out. That was some serious stuff.
 
Serious is correct

Friend of mine ask me while I was shooting my 44 mag Super Blackhawk, how is that to shoot? Sounds loud???
Here shoot it, Boom:eek: , F#@$ that! One shot thats all he would shoot it.:D When you are not use to it, they get you.

That was how those Norma 10mm's were, definitly got your attention. :uhoh:
Especially if you were use to a 45ACP LOL...
If you were a 357 guy in revolver then it was just, OK:p

HQ:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
.40S&W: Compromise in Cost/Effectiveness
Replies
6
Views
507
wally
wally
J
  • Locked
9mm is cheaper & performs well, 45 is more proven, why all the agencies going 40S&W??
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
7K
Socrates
S
O
  • Locked
Anyone standardize on one caliber?
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
TomJones
T
M
  • Locked
I'm not so sure about the .45 ACP anymore
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
BevrFevr
B
D
  • Locked
Does .40S&W seem really loud to anyone else?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Mike86
M
Back
Top