Are 40 cal's all marketing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that is my case too. + P 9 mm is way more expensive than .40 JHPs. As a result, I shoot/practice with my SD loads more often in .40 than 9 mm.
 
ranger335v said:
Auto loading handguns are defence tools. If you need a defence tool you need it bad. Why anyone would even consider anything less than the 1911/.45ACP for defence is beyond my comprehension. The various 9mm handguns are target guns for combat game players, not combat. You won't need a "double tap" head shot with a .45.
Click to expand...


Funny.......I see many auto-loading handguns used for recreation, hunting and competition. Guess those folks are uninformed as are all the branches of military and LEO around the world that use the 9mmm and .40 platforms.
 
Each of these calibers have merit for the users who choose them. A 12 Gauge is more effective than any of the pistols.
 
Are 40 cal's all marketing?
Click to expand...

No.

A couple of decades of LE/Gov service have demonstrated the cartridge to be a very viable defensive caliber.

Not everyone "likes" it.

I have 5 pistols chambered in it, myself (I've kept looking for the "right" one) and I've carried a couple more as issued weapons over the years. When it comes to personal preference I tend to choose a 9mm or .45 ACP, but I still have the .40's.

It's still just a handgun chambered in one of the commonly used defensive/service calibers ...
 
The .40 recoils MORE than comparable guns in .45 ACP. It's a much higher-pressure cartridge. Try some. The 10mm might well be magical, but when you have to engineer completely new guns to shoot it at all, it will always struggle to keep mainstream relevance.

The .40 is relevant because it's a step up in energy and trauma from 9mm, but can be chambered in guns of the same size. When you have designed a new gun in 9mm, you can release a model in .40 at the same time. The new 10mm version comes after the .45 and compact models, if ever.

As for whether or not other loads, like 147 gr 9mm are close enough that it doesn't matter, you must realize that pretty much ALL pistol cartridges offer marginal real-world difference in stopping power. To really see a difference in stopping power in pistol cartridges, you need to compare the very top of the scale (something like a 230 gr HST) to the very bottom. (115 gr 9mm FMJ.) ALL pistol cartridges suck.
Click to expand...
This.

the great thing about .40 is its cheap to shoot, compared to .45 and 10mm, so you can practice shot placement which is what really matters. A .22 in the thoracic cavity will probably do more damage than a .44 in the gut
 
Full disclosure, I've got three .40 cal pistols, two 10mms, one 9mm. I'm thinking of selling the 9 as it is superfluous for me. I was talking with a West Palm Beach captain in the Sheriff's Department about the .40 a few years back. I asked him how he liked the round. He said," The forty, I like it, I've shot guys with the .40 and it put them right down." All I've ever shot with the .40 is paper and I hope that is all I ever have to shoot with one. I have a Kahr MK40 on my hip, in my trusty Beltster, right now and it is my default ccw. For this month anyway. :)
 
What people want to carry is a gun that is as small as a Glock 26 only thinner shooting 15 rounds of .45 size and power.
Since that gun doesn't exist compromises get made. The compromises people make will be different with different people. I'm a guy who likes having a lot of bullets and carry a 9mm. I've owned a .40 and did not like it. Shame, I really wanted to but I just did not shoot it as well as a 9mm if I did I'd carry it.
I can shoot a .45 about as well but I want more than 7 rounds in something compact. I do think of the big 3 rounds, the 9mm is a little worse performer but not a lot. Generally on a given size pistol you are giving up about 30 to 33% of round capacity with a .45 vs 9mm and I don't think 7 is enough.
.40 is out of the question for me, I'm not carrying something I don't shoot well no matter the math. If we still had 10 round magazine caps any full size pistol i owned would be .45 and I'd still carry a Glock 26. Others are free to make other choices and compromises. After all, this is America.
 
I like my .40.

Most of my pistol use before it was between .38's and .45 acp. I hit 6' and kept going from age 12, and larger guns, and recoil weren't really an issue for me. Tiny guns are my weakness.

It's energetic, a bit moreso than my heavy .45 colt and it's metal frame. but it's been nowhere near punishing for me even pushing out a few hundred rounds in fairly rapid order while trying to "figure out" my first DAO guns.

I don't really need 15+1, but life is about balancing needs and wants.
 
The .40 recoils MORE than comparable guns in .45 ACP. It's a much higher-pressure cartridge.
Click to expand...
There is no direct relationship between pressure and recoil. The formula for recoil velocity is M1 X V1 = M2 X V2, where M1 is the mass of the ejecta (bullet and powder), V1 is the velocity of the ejecta, M2 is the mass of the gun, and V2 (which we're trying to calculate) is the recoil velocity of the gun.

Now,a .45 ACP will drive bullets of the same weight some 50 to 100 fps faster than the .40 S&W. In fact, a .45 +P will drive them almost 175 fps faster. So in identical guns, the .45 ACP will have more recoil.
 
Its really all about marketing. The .40 S&W just happens to be a recent entry. The 357 SIG is so named because of marketing, the 327 Federal as well (and 327 doesn't make any sense outside of marketing because .32 cal revolvers use .312-.314 bullets). That doesn't make either of those cartridges, or the .40 S&W, bad. However there is a whole "tacticool culture" that revolves around the latest and greatest. New is almost always equal to better in the culture (the exception being the 1911).
Click to expand...

Nonsense! It isn't about "tacticool" or marketing. It is about the state of the 9mm when the .40 was created. LE realized they needed more than what the 9mm had to offer at the time, and the .40 was adopted from the 10mm. Since that time, 9mm ammo has made great strides, but only because the .40 became a near immediate threat to the 9mm's long term health.

As to the "new" argument, well, sometimes "new" actually IS better! Shocking, I know.

Ironically, the .40 being compared to the 9mm is a false comparison, when it really should be compared to the .45, since that is what real world performance mimics. It offers VERY similar performance to the .45 in smaller frame guns with greater capacity. The 9mm's only advantage over the .40 is slightly less recoil (in normal loads, not in +p+) and maybe 1 to 2 additional rounds.

Truth be told, the .40 is probably the perfect semiautomatic handgun round. The only thing keeping it from becoming king of the hill is that people love the 1911 platform and those who bought a ton of "wundernines" and can't stand that the 9mm has essentially been rendered the odd man out.
 
Truth be told, the .40 is probably the perfect semiautomatic handgun round. The only thing keeping it from becoming king of the hill is that people love the 1911 platform
Click to expand...
I admit to being one of those troglodytes who loves the M1911. But I believe ParaOrdnance offers a wide-body high capacity M1911 in .40 S&W, so you can have the best of both worlds.
 
If people like .40 that's great. I never saw much use for the round. People harp on the ballistics etc etc. But the question I come back to is, is the round really more effective than 9mm? If it were, it would have supplanted 9mm in the same way the .38spc supplanted the 32-20.
Someone around here said it best: Shot placement is king. Bullet penetration is queen. Everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin.
 
You won't need a "double tap" head shot with a .45.
Click to expand...
you just cant know that.
keep shooting till the assailant drops or runs away, if you empty the mag before that happens throw the gun at their head.
 
Nonsense! It isn't about "tacticool" or marketing. It is about the state of the 9mm when the .40 was created. LE realized they needed more than what the 9mm had to offer at the time, and the .40 was adopted from the 10mm. Since that time, 9mm ammo has made great strides, but only because the .40 became a near immediate threat to the 9mm's long term health.

As to the "new" argument, well, sometimes "new" actually IS better! Shocking, I know.

Ironically, the .40 being compared to the 9mm is a false comparison, when it really should be compared to the .45, since that is what real world performance mimics. It offers VERY similar performance to the .45 in smaller frame guns with greater capacity. The 9mm's only advantage over the .40 is slightly less recoil (in normal loads, not in +p+) and maybe 1 to 2 additional rounds.

Truth be told, the .40 is probably the perfect semiautomatic handgun round. The only thing keeping it from becoming king of the hill is that people love the 1911 platform and those who bought a ton of "wundernines" and can't stand that the 9mm has essentially been rendered the odd man out.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the whole culture, not the .40 S&W specifically, and it isn't nonsense. I have a whole other post on the reasons the .40 S&W came to be, but it really is simply reinvented .45 ACP ballistics. The idea its self isn't a bad one, and in fact had been tried at least once before with the .41 AE, but its not earth shattering. The performance of the .40 S&W was available for ~80+ years in a semi-automatic handgun before the .40 came on the scene, we just called it the .45 ACP.

Yes, the .40 S&W fits into 9mm pistols in theory, but in my experience pistols that were not designed from the ground up to be .40s tend to have problems. I'm also not sure that a double stack .40 S&W pistol is any easier to handle for anyone than a single stack .45 ACP pistol. That is where the capacity argument tends to come in, and despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary from real gun fights, a lot of folks seem convinced that they need a huge number of rounds in gun. All things being equal more ammunition is never a bad thing, but rarely are all things equal.

As I see it the .40 S&W is a hardware solution to a software problem. What people really need, LEO and citizen carry alike, is more training and better shooting skills. Instead, because of the gear oriented culture we often buy the latest and greatest and figure we are set.

I agree that sometimes new is better, but the .40 S&W isn't really new, its just a re-tread .45 ACP. It works just fine, no argument there, but IMO it wasn't a necessary "development" and that makes it primarily a marketing gimmick despite the fact that its effective.
 
I really like the .40 and see no reason to own any other auto-pistol caliber. The only marketing that attracted me to it was the fact that most LEO agencies seem to use it in their issued weapons.
 
I've got a bunch of 9mm handguns and used to carry them a lot but I'm carrying 40 caliber now. I switched because it's more powerful than 9mm. It might never make a difference to me in a defensive encounter but then again I want the best odds I can get.

I reload and use Hornady XTP's or Speer Gold Dot hollow points and have very high confidence in their performance. I know they will outperform ANY 9mm round regardless of which 9mm bullet or bullet weight is used.

Of course, if you want the absolute best terminal performance of any semi auto round go with a 357 sig.
 
After what im about to say 90% of you will say i have my head up my XXX.

I just erased a half book sized wall of text which confused even me.


.45acp- Carry it and love it.
10mm- Love it and cant afford it, Practice wise for ccw.
.40- Does everything right but that nasty snappy recoil i have to practice with alot to overcome.
9mm- Imagine if you will that a person despises the 9mm cartridge, Well thats me.
.380- With modern ammo advancements its my small gun of choice as it gets closer and closer to 9mm performance but in a much smaller package.

My liking of the .40 comes from my dislike of the 9mm.
It does all the things a 9mm fails at, plus all the things it does right.

When the 10mm ammo prices get too .45acp prices which is possible if the world was a fair place, Which it isn't. Then i will go back to the 10mm and drop the .40
Until then the .40 is my mid size caliber of choice. And coming from a guy who is in love with the .45acp that says alot.

Just so you know i carry a 5" 1911 80% of the time and an XD SC .40 the rest of the time when the .45 is too large or heavy.
 
I have 9mm's, .40's and .45's. It's all semantics, any of them will shoot a BG dead in the end. I shoot the 9mm a lot because it's cheaper to do so. I LIKE shooting the .40 more than either of them, I think the main reason I have a couple of .45's is I carried one for a while in the military.

Managing recoil is about managing ammo. I prefer the heavier 180 grain bullets in the .40, and shoot the same weight target shooting as I carry in it for an HD load.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
173
Views
23K
ElPasoWrangler
E
N
  • Locked
.40 not so popular?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
skipjack_1st
S
4
  • Locked
Spent $350 at range today testing handguns.. NOW I MUST DECIDE WHICH
Replies
18
Views
1K
ohiobowhunter78
O
CZF
  • Locked
Take a look: Some New Ammo From DOUBLE TAP.
Replies
23
Views
2K
19-3Ben
1
P
  • Locked
Quantifiable Criteria for a "Woods" gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
13K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top