Are 40 cal's all marketing?
- Thread starter The grons
- Start date
- Status
Shadow 7D
Member
I Think that every caliber has a gun, and some guns have a caliber
Big 1911 type guns are cool cause you can put almost anything in it as long as you do the basic engineering.
BUT, I must say, there have been some bad performers, a large size .32 (cz83??) isn't competitive in the US market, maybe somewhere with caliber restrictions, but not in the USA. The Keltec P-40, classic failure, yet a P11 is great, and while you can shoot +p in it, I would stick to a nice dependable PD round. A number of LIGHTER, smaller .40 (kahr etc.) are 'specialty' or maybe better said, specialist guns. Like 2" airweight .357's and .480 snubby revolvers...
Just cause you can pack the power in it, don't mean it works for most people.
The .40 tamed the 10mm down to non-frame cracking levels (funny how none of the 10mm lovers have mentioned that little problem) that can be put into a 9mm frame gun, and now you can sell it to the 9mm haters, and it is a decent comprise between the volume of 9mm and the size of .45
Big 1911 type guns are cool cause you can put almost anything in it as long as you do the basic engineering.
BUT, I must say, there have been some bad performers, a large size .32 (cz83??) isn't competitive in the US market, maybe somewhere with caliber restrictions, but not in the USA. The Keltec P-40, classic failure, yet a P11 is great, and while you can shoot +p in it, I would stick to a nice dependable PD round. A number of LIGHTER, smaller .40 (kahr etc.) are 'specialty' or maybe better said, specialist guns. Like 2" airweight .357's and .480 snubby revolvers...
Just cause you can pack the power in it, don't mean it works for most people.
The .40 tamed the 10mm down to non-frame cracking levels (funny how none of the 10mm lovers have mentioned that little problem) that can be put into a 9mm frame gun, and now you can sell it to the 9mm haters, and it is a decent comprise between the volume of 9mm and the size of .45
Full Metal Jacket
member
that's because it's not an issue. show me a glock 10mm with a cracked frame...
I carry the .40 at work (In a S&W M&P) I've been paid to shoot thousands of them down range. 
It’s a good round, but I do like the .45 better if only due to the felt recoil… the push vs snap(I like the real heavy .45 bullet too.)
But I have to agree with M&PVolk with the .40 probably being the perfect auto round and if not perfect then the very best compromise, for who it was targeted for which is law enforcement.
Yes the .40 gives almost identical ballistics to a .45 BUT it can be put into a smaller package with more ammo. For LEO's this IS a real world consideration and enough to swing the vote from a .45 to the .40.
So what they made was a new round that had a bullet with a pretty good weight with ballistics of a .45 which could be used in a gun of a size that most people could grip well AND it could still hold 12 to 16 rounds .
Pretty much a no brainer choice for law enforcement.
For civilian use though, the .40 probably is somewhat redundant.
It’s a good round, but I do like the .45 better if only due to the felt recoil… the push vs snap(I like the real heavy .45 bullet too.)But I have to agree with M&PVolk with the .40 probably being the perfect auto round and if not perfect then the very best compromise, for who it was targeted for which is law enforcement.
Yes the .40 gives almost identical ballistics to a .45 BUT it can be put into a smaller package with more ammo. For LEO's this IS a real world consideration and enough to swing the vote from a .45 to the .40.
So what they made was a new round that had a bullet with a pretty good weight with ballistics of a .45 which could be used in a gun of a size that most people could grip well AND it could still hold 12 to 16 rounds .
Pretty much a no brainer choice for law enforcement.
For civilian use though, the .40 probably is somewhat redundant.
Shadow 7D
Member
I was speaking of the development of the .40, look at the number of 1st gen 10mm that had issues, hell the Tanfogio EEA witness 10mm had issues after they changed the slide. I admit that most of it came from shoehorning 10mm into already designed full size guns, but, I will even admit that you have that problem with .40, look at your beloved glocks...
REAPER4206969
Member
There is nothing wrong with .40 Glock's.
Say what you want about the 9/40/45/10 argument, this was the most incorrect thing written in the WHOLE thread. I could expand but this is just the dumbest thing I have read today. It's like saying, "the market was saturated with carburated vehicles so they started installing MPI injection", or "the market was flooded with all those arrows so Browning built a lever action repeater".
Nothing wrong with GLOCK 40's either
I'd like to have 40 Glocks.I agree with you also in having issues with his comment.
Forgive my geekyness a moment.
Xp as a whole could no longer let hardware grow as it had many limitations to it.
Vista was meant to fix this and did, But it was slow and bloated.
Windows 7 came out so fast to be a leaner and meaner version of Vista that worked.
I beta tested Windows 7 for 1 year prior to its release so i could skip the whole Vista experience except a few months i had to endure it and i hated it with a passion. But it was needed to advance computers as a whole to grow and was just a stepping stone since Microsoft should have never let it out their doors in the condition it was released.
Now try and compare the real reason Windows 7 came out with the .40 and i don't think it could even make sense.
Are you referring to maximum-performance loads or off-the-shelf factory loads? Among the latter, performance seems pretty similar to me.
On the average, .45 ACP might have a slight edge, but keep in mind that loads in this caliber are typically measured with a 5" barrel, whereas .40 S&W loads are measured with a 4" barrel. More than a few handguns in both calibers have barrels with lengths somewhere in between, which probably gives an edge to .40 S&W overall, actually.Perceived recoil seems to depend more on the force curve than anything else, including the total amount of recoil. I bet that .40 S&W has a higher and steeper peak in the amount of force applied to the shooter's hand, and that's what people perceive as "snappiness." Personally, I like snappy recoil (9mm is pretty snappy, too, just lighter) because I tend to recover more quickly from it (although the opposite is true for many people).
Huh. All these posts about bad guys, police forces, this and that.
What about what we actually use our guns for? Fun, entertainment, competition, training?
What about.. reasons like .... Most of the .40 brass on my range is glocked, and a pain to reload, so I shoot 9mm which most people leave behind during a match, IDPA has a 10 round ESP limit, no reason not to shoot a 9mm 1911..., I shoot 40 to make major power factor...
Sheesh people. You make it sound like all there is to gunnery is shooting bad guys, or preparing for shooting a badguy, sometime, someday, somehow, and the .40 will do better than your 9mm will.
There are WORLDS of handgun experiances that bring reasons to the table to own a .40, and none of them have anything to do with a life or death experiance that probably will never happen anyway, and if it DOES, the caliber wouldnt make a difference one way or the other.
What about what we actually use our guns for? Fun, entertainment, competition, training?
What about.. reasons like .... Most of the .40 brass on my range is glocked, and a pain to reload, so I shoot 9mm which most people leave behind during a match, IDPA has a 10 round ESP limit, no reason not to shoot a 9mm 1911..., I shoot 40 to make major power factor...
Sheesh people. You make it sound like all there is to gunnery is shooting bad guys, or preparing for shooting a badguy, sometime, someday, somehow, and the .40 will do better than your 9mm will.
There are WORLDS of handgun experiances that bring reasons to the table to own a .40, and none of them have anything to do with a life or death experiance that probably will never happen anyway, and if it DOES, the caliber wouldnt make a difference one way or the other.
Rail Driver
Member
If that's the case, how come the M9 (Beretta 92) replaced the 1911 as standard issue sidearm?
FWIW, anything .38 or better should do the job as long as you do yours (putting the bullet where it needs to go). I carry a .40 and I like it. I'm comfortable with it. I'm not comfortable carrying anything smaller than 9mm for defense, personally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uOJ4RMW_U <--- Proof that even a .45 is fallible.
Since the .40 more closely mimics the .45 and 9mm has to be loaded in +p+ to achieve .40 performance, I think the question of whether or not the .40 is more effective should be rather obvious. As to your second point, the .40 IS supplanting the 9mm in LE agencies all across the US. If that is your measuring stick for whether or not the 9mm is obsolete, than you are fighting a losing battle.
I believe the 9mm still has some legitimate uses, like in competition as mentioned above and in very small frame guns, but I believe it's time as a premier cartridge for self defense is starting to diminish. It will always be there because there is a huge installed base for it and an international market, but at least in the US, I see it eventually becoming a more niche cartridge in the future, much like the aforementioned .38 special has essentially become a j-frame round.
I am a Glock fan and have owned 9's, 40's and .45's. I felt the Glock 36 recoil was too much. I could not shoot the Glock 17 very well, but shot the Glock 19 great. I then went to the Glock 23 and shot it ok, but the recoil was.......unpleasant, it was close to what the G36 was.
So, in an effort to consolidate and reduce the variety of ammo, I gave up on the snappy .40 and now only have my Glock 21, and a S&W model 10.
I rented a Taurus 92 in .40 and found it to have the snappy recoil as well, but it's the only non-Glock .40 I've ever fired but it re-inforced my perception that the .40 is a snappy recoiling round and hard to get used to and be accurate with because of that.
Has marketing been a factor in it's popularity? I'm sure, every new product needs some marketing to have a chance. I don't believe it's popular only because of marketing, its marketing has mainly made more people aware of it than if it hadn't been marketed as aggressively. The more people know of it, the more try it, some like it, some don't, but the word getting out has attracted many to it which wouldn't have been otherwise.
So, in an effort to consolidate and reduce the variety of ammo, I gave up on the snappy .40 and now only have my Glock 21, and a S&W model 10.
I rented a Taurus 92 in .40 and found it to have the snappy recoil as well, but it's the only non-Glock .40 I've ever fired but it re-inforced my perception that the .40 is a snappy recoiling round and hard to get used to and be accurate with because of that.
Has marketing been a factor in it's popularity? I'm sure, every new product needs some marketing to have a chance. I don't believe it's popular only because of marketing, its marketing has mainly made more people aware of it than if it hadn't been marketed as aggressively. The more people know of it, the more try it, some like it, some don't, but the word getting out has attracted many to it which wouldn't have been otherwise.
jad0110
Member
Landric,
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts, you expressed my own thoughts far better than I could.
That, and keeping your head on under pressure. It's really more about picking the platform the provides the optimal blend (for you) of carry-ability, shoot-ability and reliability. Caliber choice becomes secondary, at least IMO.
I always get a kick out of seeing folks agonize over a few ft-lbs of energy, or a round or three of capacity difference. I recall several years ago seeing a young guy at the range trying 2 different rented pistols, a G19 and a G22. He was an okay shot with the 9mm for a beginner, but produced shotgun sized patterns with the G22. I'm fuzzy on it now, but I think he was shooting 5-6" groups at 7 yards with the 9mm and 12-15" groups with the .40. Flinch city with that .40. He went with the .40 because "everyone knows if you shoot a criminal with a 9, it will only make him mad." Yeap, the classic, oft repeated myth of shooting the baddy in the head with 9 and nothing will happen, but shoot him in the thumb with a caliber starting in "4" and it will rip the baddy's arm off and throw him back 10 feet. :banghead:
Marketing works both ways, and in a day when ft-lbs/kenetic energy and energy transfer are all the rage, cartridges like .38 Special are frequently underestimated.
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts, you expressed my own thoughts far better than I could.
That, and keeping your head on under pressure. It's really more about picking the platform the provides the optimal blend (for you) of carry-ability, shoot-ability and reliability. Caliber choice becomes secondary, at least IMO.
I always get a kick out of seeing folks agonize over a few ft-lbs of energy, or a round or three of capacity difference. I recall several years ago seeing a young guy at the range trying 2 different rented pistols, a G19 and a G22. He was an okay shot with the 9mm for a beginner, but produced shotgun sized patterns with the G22. I'm fuzzy on it now, but I think he was shooting 5-6" groups at 7 yards with the 9mm and 12-15" groups with the .40. Flinch city with that .40. He went with the .40 because "everyone knows if you shoot a criminal with a 9, it will only make him mad."
Yeap, the classic, oft repeated myth of shooting the baddy in the head with 9 and nothing will happen, but shoot him in the thumb with a caliber starting in "4" and it will rip the baddy's arm off and throw him back 10 feet. :banghead:Marketing works both ways, and in a day when ft-lbs/kenetic energy and energy transfer are all the rage, cartridges like .38 Special are frequently underestimated.
What kind of scientific testing have you done that can back this statement up? From what I've seen and read over at brass fetcher, gel tests show that both cartridges perform identically for the most part, that is in bare gel and with denim.
What this pretty much all boils down to is carry whatever you are comforatable with. Face it, all handgun cartridges are going to be a comprimise, carry what you like so long as you are comfortable with it. But any way back to the topic of the post is are the 40 cals all marketing?
IMHO yes and here is why I feel the way I do. The whole reason that the .40 S&W really came onto the scene was the infamous and tragic Miami shootout the FBI had. Face it folks at that time handgun bullet technology was nothing compared to what it is today. It wouldn't have made one iota worth of difference what handgun cartridge (except maybe for the 125gr .357 mag) those agents had at the time with handgun bullet technology being what it was.
Fact of the matter is those guys were as wrong as a football bat as they tried engaging known dangerous felons with handguns
who were armed with rifles a huge no no. The outcome turned into a tragedy and the "FBI" pointed their fingers at the 9mm hence the 9mm bashing. When the problem was the agents had handguns and shotguns pitted against rifles. The FBI had to have something or someone as the scapegoat and it turned out to be the 9mm. When in reality it was bad tactics, and they should have had a "patrol carbine". Had they had a rifle I'm sure the out come would have been much much different.This failure to have a "patrol carbine" available to LEO would rear it's ugly head again later down the road in North Hollywood IIRC. Once again it wouldn't have mattered what handgun cartridge those LEO had. What they needed to have was a "patrol carbine" it's sad that it took basicaly these two instances for the LE community as a whole to open thier eyes to the concept of a patrol rifle, and start employing the carbine.
As the ol' saying goes "Pi$$ poor Planning don't make for Pi$$ poor excuses". But that is exactly what happened in both cases, and it was the first scenerio that really caused the .40S&W to come on the scene. So what we got was a cartridge that was born out of Pi$$ poor planning and Pi$$ poor tactics. BTW the ballistics offered by the .40 S&W are nothing new at all, it was available well over 100 years ago and in the form of the .38/40.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
A few early serial numbered Colt Delta's had a frame problem which was corrected and the impacted frames replaced.
A few EAA Witnesses had problems too but let's be honest about that one, the ammo wasn't to blame.
You think that's some kind of major problem and a defect in the 10mm round? Too funny....
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
No. The .40 S&W is a good cartridge that pretty much splits the difference between the 9mm and the .45 ACP...with a slight bias toward the bigger cartridge. Whether it really addresses a question that hasn't already been answered is another matter. If business can't be taken care of with a 9mm or a .45 pistol, it's not likely that the .40 can do any better...or any worse.
Personally, I never saw the need for another .40 caliber when the 10mm was already there. It's a simple matter to download to .40 S&W ballistics if that's the desideratum...but that's just me. I'm sure there were some other considerations that justified it...the main oe being the overall length of the grip frame for those with smaller hands...which is a reasonable justification.
It's a little like the 7-08 appearing when the 7X57 Mauser cartridge was already there and had been for decades. The two are so similar in performance that a Whitetail would be hard pressed to tell the difference if solidly struck with either. Handloaded, the gap gets even narrower. The same could apply to the .270 and the .280 cartridges.
Personally, I never saw the need for another .40 caliber when the 10mm was already there. It's a simple matter to download to .40 S&W ballistics if that's the desideratum...but that's just me. I'm sure there were some other considerations that justified it...the main oe being the overall length of the grip frame for those with smaller hands...which is a reasonable justification.
It's a little like the 7-08 appearing when the 7X57 Mauser cartridge was already there and had been for decades. The two are so similar in performance that a Whitetail would be hard pressed to tell the difference if solidly struck with either. Handloaded, the gap gets even narrower. The same could apply to the .270 and the .280 cartridges.
JohnBiltz
Member
Its sort of been hinted at by several posters but terminal ballistics are not everything. How you shoot is more important than what you shoot. I'd rather shoot a standard 9mm round than a 10mm I'm flinching with. In fact that is what I choose to shoot. I don't care what the ballistics are with a .40. I can't place my second shot with anything close to what I can with a 9mm in terms of speed. The lower the recoil the faster and better you will shoot. This is true of anyone including competition shooters, if it was not no one would be worrying about whether or not you make major because it would not affect the competition and no one would care. What can be said is it affects people differently, some less, some more. The first pistol I ever shot was in the Army and it was a .45. The first I ever bought was .357 4 inch S&W. I've owned .41 Magnum. I did not consider myself recoil averse. I don't like shooting .40. Just something about it really throws me off my game. 9mms shoot smooth for me, smooth = good, fighting the gun = bad. Find the biggest best caliber that you shoot well and go with that.
Carter
Member
Words of wisdom.
I used to be all hardcore .40 before I had a pistol and my ruger carbine shot it. My gf's brother let me shoot his 1911 and I loved it. I began to borrow is subcompact XD .40 and was amazed by the snapiness. My groups weren't that good at all. I thought it was the pistol, but then I realized it was partly my trigger control and partly the snapiness of the .40 in such a small frame. Thats why I chose a 9mm for conceal carry. I can shoot it very accurately even with +p+. My gf's brother calls my 9mm cute and small, but my 9 places more shots more accurately than his 1911 when we shoot. Therefore you tell me which round is more effective?
I'm still a fan of the .40 though, but just for full sized handguns, SMGs, or carbines.
As far as marketing...I've noticed that gold dots are very popular, and they are a very popular LEO round. Everyone wants what the LEO's are carrying because the LEO's want the best because their life depends on it more so than a civlians would. In my opinion, the marketing department of all firearms and bullets are the Law Enforcement agencies. Every time I've talked to them about what caliber they carry the LEO responds by saying .40 in a tone that makes it sound like it could take down the Hulk.
No matter what you carry, no matter how popular it is, no matter how much internet debate goes on...the bad guy or the paper is going to be hurting when it gets hit.
wow6599
Member
Carter, this should be a sticky.......very well said.
Carter
Member
Thank you sir.
The .40 S&W does indeed reinvent .45 ACP ballistics, in particular the 185-grain standard-pressure .45 ACP loads. This was a stated goal when the round was being developed.
The .40 S&W also reinvents .38-40, a.k.a. .38 WCF ballistics, from the 19th Century, even more closely. The .38 WCF is actually a .40, and fires a 180-grain bullet at similar velocity as the .40 S&W, though it does so with a overall cartridge length the same as the rather huge .45 Colt.
There were previous projects with similar ballistics, such as the .40 G&A, which shoehorned a .40 cartridge into a Browning Hi-Power, and the .41 Action Express, which used a .41 bullet in a 9mm-length case with a rebated rim, in a CZ-75 clone. The .41 AE was commercially available on a small scale for a while.
The .40 S&W also reinvents .38-40, a.k.a. .38 WCF ballistics, from the 19th Century, even more closely. The .38 WCF is actually a .40, and fires a 180-grain bullet at similar velocity as the .40 S&W, though it does so with a overall cartridge length the same as the rather huge .45 Colt.
There were previous projects with similar ballistics, such as the .40 G&A, which shoehorned a .40 cartridge into a Browning Hi-Power, and the .41 Action Express, which used a .41 bullet in a 9mm-length case with a rebated rim, in a CZ-75 clone. The .41 AE was commercially available on a small scale for a while.
Ive already posted my feelings on the .40 and about every other caliber in this thread also.
But id like to make a statement which shows alot of hard hardheadedness on my end.
ATM i have 3 guns at my disposal for ccw and range duty.
5" 1911 .45
XD SC .40
Walther PPS 9mm
Out of those three only one i can get back on target almost immediately, The 1911.
I put a 22lb recoil spring in it by chance and my gun loves it and it shoots so flat its scary.
Next is the PPS 9mm, Im a bit slower getting back on target. The light weight makes recoil similar too .40 aspects but only half as bad.
XD SC .40 while i feel is heavy for such a smallish gun with a tank like slide, Good for a .40 to help recoil. But i have a very hard time getting back on target.
I just bought a few hundred rounds of ammo to practice and try and overcome this issue.
I also add a Hogue Handall and Peirce pinky extension both of which I cut down alot for concealability and ccw. This will keep more grip on the pistol and hopefully not snap my wrist back.
Between the practice and add-ons i think i can take this pistol enough it wont bother me.
This imo is the .40's only downfall, The wrist snapping skyward.
As i said before i even put a .40 conversion barrel in my G20 and it also did the same thing even when 10mm wouldn't and those acted like the .45 and gave more of a push.
But id like to make a statement which shows alot of hard hardheadedness on my end.
ATM i have 3 guns at my disposal for ccw and range duty.
5" 1911 .45
XD SC .40
Walther PPS 9mm
Out of those three only one i can get back on target almost immediately, The 1911.
I put a 22lb recoil spring in it by chance and my gun loves it and it shoots so flat its scary.
Next is the PPS 9mm, Im a bit slower getting back on target. The light weight makes recoil similar too .40 aspects but only half as bad.
XD SC .40 while i feel is heavy for such a smallish gun with a tank like slide, Good for a .40 to help recoil. But i have a very hard time getting back on target.
I just bought a few hundred rounds of ammo to practice and try and overcome this issue.
I also add a Hogue Handall and Peirce pinky extension both of which I cut down alot for concealability and ccw. This will keep more grip on the pistol and hopefully not snap my wrist back.
Between the practice and add-ons i think i can take this pistol enough it wont bother me.
This imo is the .40's only downfall, The wrist snapping skyward.
As i said before i even put a .40 conversion barrel in my G20 and it also did the same thing even when 10mm wouldn't and those acted like the .45 and gave more of a push.
The fact that shot placement is the most critical element isn't really what is on the table for debate. That is a given. Even the vaunted .45 and 10mm have failed to take down BG's before.
What is at issue here is whether or not the .40 is a legitimate round or just a ploy. In that regard, I seem to be hearing a lot of excuses for why the .40 isn't a good round and "shouldn't exist". Here's how it seems to have boiled down so far:
1. The .40 is too snappy and I can't shoot it well
2. The 9mm in +p+ is just as effective
3. You don't need that many rounds anyway
4. The .40 is a new round and we don't like or need change
So, for rebuttal purposes, my response would be:
1. Get training and practice. Saying that you can shoot a smaller caliber better isn't really a legitimate argument against the quality of a round. I can shoot a .22 better than any other firearm out there, but certainly would not advocate it as a primary CCW selection. Ironically, when someone requests info on a CCW selection and has something smaller than 9mm in mind, the vast majority of posters on this site will refer them to get AT LEAST a 9mm and tell them that "you can shoot it fine with practice". Somehow this is forgotten when it comes to the .40.
2. When you get into hotter loads with a 9mm that push performance to .40 levels, you are giving up the softer recoil and accuracy that you feel makes it a better choice over the .40 to begin with. I won't even go into the drawbacks of shooting an overpressure load regularly through your gun and it's potential to break things, or the practice with a light load and carry a hot one problem. This has to be the worst of the 9mm is just as good as the .40 arguments out there.
3. This one comes from our .45 owners. Newsflash: The .45 is not MJolner, the legendary hammer of Thor. You may actually have to pull the trigger more than once to prevent yourself from being killed. You may have multiple people trying to kill you at the same time! Can anyone actually make a legitimate case that having less rounds to defend yourself with is a good thing and preferable to having more??? I don't think so.
4. Finally, it's the new thing. A new cartridge that we don't need. I will grant that gun owners are truly creatures of habit, but this argument doesn't pass the sniff test. In reality, there just seems to be a lot of 9mm owners that are threatened by the popularity of the .40. We see threads like this a lot on THR, usually labeled "Is this caliber enough for x". In reality, there is no reason to get bent out of shape over it. Is your 9mm good for SD? Yes. Is it better than the .40? No. Is the .40 a better performer than the .45? No. Does it perform almost as well? Yes, in fact VERY close. It really is as simple as that.
I like the .40 because it gives me nearly all the benefits of the 9mm in a package that has performance nearly equivalent to a .45. That is a win win in my book. I shoot it well and it is readily available for practice. I have run my own informal tests on it and preferred its performance over the .45 even.
Arguing that it shouldn't exist or is just "hype" is rather childish to me. I like .38+p, but I don't argue that .357 is just hype because .38 +p can do the job "just as well". I don't whine that .44 Mag has been largely supplanted by bigger, newer rounds...I accept it and continue to love the .44 Mag. If you like 9mm, than shoot it and become proficient with it. You don't have to make up arguments to defend what you like.
What is at issue here is whether or not the .40 is a legitimate round or just a ploy. In that regard, I seem to be hearing a lot of excuses for why the .40 isn't a good round and "shouldn't exist". Here's how it seems to have boiled down so far:
1. The .40 is too snappy and I can't shoot it well
2. The 9mm in +p+ is just as effective
3. You don't need that many rounds anyway
4. The .40 is a new round and we don't like or need change
So, for rebuttal purposes, my response would be:
1. Get training and practice. Saying that you can shoot a smaller caliber better isn't really a legitimate argument against the quality of a round. I can shoot a .22 better than any other firearm out there, but certainly would not advocate it as a primary CCW selection. Ironically, when someone requests info on a CCW selection and has something smaller than 9mm in mind, the vast majority of posters on this site will refer them to get AT LEAST a 9mm and tell them that "you can shoot it fine with practice". Somehow this is forgotten when it comes to the .40.
2. When you get into hotter loads with a 9mm that push performance to .40 levels, you are giving up the softer recoil and accuracy that you feel makes it a better choice over the .40 to begin with. I won't even go into the drawbacks of shooting an overpressure load regularly through your gun and it's potential to break things, or the practice with a light load and carry a hot one problem. This has to be the worst of the 9mm is just as good as the .40 arguments out there.
3. This one comes from our .45 owners. Newsflash: The .45 is not MJolner, the legendary hammer of Thor. You may actually have to pull the trigger more than once to prevent yourself from being killed. You may have multiple people trying to kill you at the same time! Can anyone actually make a legitimate case that having less rounds to defend yourself with is a good thing and preferable to having more??? I don't think so.
4. Finally, it's the new thing. A new cartridge that we don't need. I will grant that gun owners are truly creatures of habit, but this argument doesn't pass the sniff test. In reality, there just seems to be a lot of 9mm owners that are threatened by the popularity of the .40. We see threads like this a lot on THR, usually labeled "Is this caliber enough for x". In reality, there is no reason to get bent out of shape over it. Is your 9mm good for SD? Yes. Is it better than the .40? No. Is the .40 a better performer than the .45? No. Does it perform almost as well? Yes, in fact VERY close. It really is as simple as that.
I like the .40 because it gives me nearly all the benefits of the 9mm in a package that has performance nearly equivalent to a .45. That is a win win in my book. I shoot it well and it is readily available for practice. I have run my own informal tests on it and preferred its performance over the .45 even.
Arguing that it shouldn't exist or is just "hype" is rather childish to me. I like .38+p, but I don't argue that .357 is just hype because .38 +p can do the job "just as well". I don't whine that .44 Mag has been largely supplanted by bigger, newer rounds...I accept it and continue to love the .44 Mag. If you like 9mm, than shoot it and become proficient with it. You don't have to make up arguments to defend what you like.
wvshooter
Member
Well said. I would never tell my wife to carry a 40 because she can't handle it. If a 9mm is the biggest round you can shoot, well then that or something similar is what you should be carrying but the jury is in on which round has more terminal performance.
The typical 9mm JHP defensive bullet weighs 124 grains while the typical 40 caliber JHP defensive bullet is 155 to 165 grains weight.
Hornady's 124 gr 9mm jhp can be loaded to 1,150 fps using 7.9 grains of AA #7 powder. That's Hornady's maximum published load and can only be worked up to by trying lower powder charges to be sure your gun can handle it. Hornady's 155 grain 40 caliber jhp bullet's published maximum is 1200 fps using 10.0 grains of the same powder. That's a 25% heavier bullet traveling 50 fps faster.
A 165 grain 40 caliber Sierra jhp will travel at the same 1,150 fps as the 124 grain 9mm but the bullet is now 33% heavier than the 9mm. Just hold the bullets, not the loaded ammo, in your hand and you won't need ballistic gelatin to tell you which works better.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
