michiganfan
Member
G23 to me its the perfect carry gun
Do I need a .40 S&W?
- Thread starter hoek48
- Start date
- Status
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
.357SIG-.40S&W
If you just collect handguns you can find many good .40S&W pistols out there. The Glock 23/22/27 series, the SIGarms P-229, the Browning/FH high power, the S&W M&P or SW99.
I like the .357sig over the .40S&W for duty/protection use. They are on nearly the same level for power/speed but the .357sig feeds a lot better and has a better record in documented street use.
The website; www.gunsamerica.com has a sweet little SIGarms SAS-DAK pistol in .40S&W that would be a great buy.
You'd better snatch it up before I get it, .
RS
If you just collect handguns you can find many good .40S&W pistols out there. The Glock 23/22/27 series, the SIGarms P-229, the Browning/FH high power, the S&W M&P or SW99.
I like the .357sig over the .40S&W for duty/protection use. They are on nearly the same level for power/speed but the .357sig feeds a lot better and has a better record in documented street use.
The website; www.gunsamerica.com has a sweet little SIGarms SAS-DAK pistol in .40S&W that would be a great buy.
You'd better snatch it up before I get it,
.RS
Question?
Why do the 10mm fans point to the "superior" ballistics of the 10mm vs. the 40S&W, and then ignore the ballistics when saying a 40S&W is no better than a 9mm?
Question?
Why are 10mm ballistic tests done with the advantage of a 5" barrel, while the 40S&W & 9mm are done with a shorter (4") barrel?
Just wondering.
Flame suit on.
Why do the 10mm fans point to the "superior" ballistics of the 10mm vs. the 40S&W, and then ignore the ballistics when saying a 40S&W is no better than a 9mm?
Question?
Why are 10mm ballistic tests done with the advantage of a 5" barrel, while the 40S&W & 9mm are done with a shorter (4") barrel?
Just wondering.
Flame suit on.
TheotherMikeG
Member
I've been indifferent to the .40s&w for a long while now, however...
NEED is irrelevant. All that matters is if you want it and can afford it. So often it seemes that people take it as a personal affront if ones choice of gun/caliber is different from their own (.45 vs 9mm, for example).
I'm secure enough in my choice of weapons that I will not berate you for buying a .40.
NEED is irrelevant. All that matters is if you want it and can afford it. So often it seemes that people take it as a personal affront if ones choice of gun/caliber is different from their own (.45 vs 9mm, for example).
I'm secure enough in my choice of weapons that I will not berate you for buying a .40.
MD_Willington
Member
Kind of wrestling with this myself, I'd like to get a Stoeger Cougar... but should I get one in 9mm or one in .40
hmm...
hmm...
MCgunner
Member
If you want it, get it. Life's too short to worry about NEEDS.
Glockfan.45
member
as far as handguns go my safe now contains the following calibers.
.45auto Glock 21,Glock 30, Kimber II Target
.40S&W Glock 22, S&W Sigma
9mm will be added as soon as the stupid waiting period is over will be a Glock 19
.38spcl/.357mag Taurus 65
.22lr Ruger Mark III
After the nine takes up residence I believe my handgun purchases are done (unless I find a good deal on something in 10mm or .357sig). I like to have at least one example of pistol in each major caliber. Get the .40S&W remember diversity is a good thing. Oh and the .40 is a nice snappy little round thats fun to shoot .
.45auto Glock 21,Glock 30, Kimber II Target
.40S&W Glock 22, S&W Sigma
9mm will be added as soon as the stupid waiting period is over will be a Glock 19
.38spcl/.357mag Taurus 65
.22lr Ruger Mark III
After the nine takes up residence I believe my handgun purchases are done (unless I find a good deal on something in 10mm or .357sig). I like to have at least one example of pistol in each major caliber. Get the .40S&W remember diversity is a good thing. Oh and the .40 is a nice snappy little round thats fun to shoot
.MCgunner
Member
Terribly incomplete collection, no .44 mag or .45 Colt, no J frame .38, no single action revolvers, and some would point out the lack of a 1911, though I don't fault you for that.
Well, first--I am not going to flame anybody, so take off the suits when you're around me. So, now:
I was one who argued that the 10mm was more versatile than the .40 S&W. The reason? The 10mm appears to be capable of being loaded to duplicate and even exceed the ballistics (meaning bullet velocities) of the .40 S&W. Yes, out of a 5" barrel, I suppose, because that is the configuration in which most 10mms have been available up until recently. But with a 200 grain bullet, the 10mm can be loaded to around 1200 fps or better, if I am not mistaken, which puts it a notch above the .40. This appears to make the 10mm capable of taking deer, something which probably would not be recommendable for the .40 S&W. Can a .40 S&W be loaded with 200 grain bullets? Well, I don't know. Someone who plays around with handloads could enlighten us.
As to the superiority of the 40 S&W over the 9mm, or vice versa. I have never said one was "superior" to the other. I just question whether there was any significant difference, if any at all, in their terminal performance. And I say this, not because I am completely ignorant of ballistics, but because I like to study results from real world shootings. Also, while I don't believe they are gospel, I do like to see the results from ballistic gelatin shootings. And the conclusion that I, MCCALL911, have come to is that there is little significant difference in terminal performance between the 9mm and the .40 S&W. In some cases, the 9mm seems to expand to a larger diameter than the .40, but this is probably not because of superiority of caliber but of bullet construction.
Now, I do agree that the .40 S&W has more power "on paper" than the 9mm. And I do agree that the velocities of both cartridges can be similar, but the .40 S&W has a bullet which weighs up to .41 ounces (180 grains), as opposed to .33 ounces (147 grains) for one of the heaviest 9mm bullets. Also, the .40 S&W clearly has a larger bullet: A not-so-gaping difference of 0.045 inches! How significant could any of that be?
But this is not intended to be a put-down of the .40 S&W at all. It's been proven and it works well. If you like it and want it, then buy it!
However, I do find it interesting and not a little ironic that some law enforcement personnel have begun to see the edge of another 9mm (the .357 Sig) over the parent round, the .40 S&W (which, itself, supposedly held an "edge" over the 9mm Luger!) :banghead:
P.S. And as to "what I'm smoking," I don't do anything stronger than Camel nonfilters!
So, now:I was one who argued that the 10mm was more versatile than the .40 S&W. The reason? The 10mm appears to be capable of being loaded to duplicate and even exceed the ballistics (meaning bullet velocities) of the .40 S&W. Yes, out of a 5" barrel, I suppose, because that is the configuration in which most 10mms have been available up until recently. But with a 200 grain bullet, the 10mm can be loaded to around 1200 fps or better, if I am not mistaken, which puts it a notch above the .40. This appears to make the 10mm capable of taking deer, something which probably would not be recommendable for the .40 S&W. Can a .40 S&W be loaded with 200 grain bullets? Well, I don't know. Someone who plays around with handloads could enlighten us.
As to the superiority of the 40 S&W over the 9mm, or vice versa. I have never said one was "superior" to the other. I just question whether there was any significant difference, if any at all, in their terminal performance. And I say this, not because I am completely ignorant of ballistics, but because I like to study results from real world shootings. Also, while I don't believe they are gospel, I do like to see the results from ballistic gelatin shootings. And the conclusion that I, MCCALL911, have come to is that there is little significant difference in terminal performance between the 9mm and the .40 S&W. In some cases, the 9mm seems to expand to a larger diameter than the .40, but this is probably not because of superiority of caliber but of bullet construction.
Now, I do agree that the .40 S&W has more power "on paper" than the 9mm. And I do agree that the velocities of both cartridges can be similar, but the .40 S&W has a bullet which weighs up to .41 ounces (180 grains), as opposed to .33 ounces (147 grains) for one of the heaviest 9mm bullets. Also, the .40 S&W clearly has a larger bullet: A not-so-gaping difference of 0.045 inches! How significant could any of that be?
But this is not intended to be a put-down of the .40 S&W at all. It's been proven and it works well. If you like it and want it, then buy it!
However, I do find it interesting and not a little ironic that some law enforcement personnel have begun to see the edge of another 9mm (the .357 Sig) over the parent round, the .40 S&W (which, itself, supposedly held an "edge" over the 9mm Luger!) :banghead:
P.S. And as to "what I'm smoking," I don't do anything stronger than Camel nonfilters!
Last edited:
the pistolero
Member
I could be way off here, but...I think the reason is 9mm and .40S&W were meant to be chambered for smaller-framed pistols (with concomitantly shorter barrel lengths)...whereas the 10mm, again, if I remember correctly, was designed for larger-framed pistols that might also be chambered for the .45, like the 1911, thus the ballistic tests with the 5" barrel.
As for 9mm vs. .40S&W vs. 10mm...I'd take a .40 over a 9mm, but a 10mm over a .40. But then, I'm a power junkie.
Glockfan.45
member
MCGunner I will asume that was directed at the OP. I have a 1911 listed
. Actually I have two of them but one was my Grandpas service pistol a Savage M1911 that isnt a shooter so it rarely gets mention.
As far as the lack of wheel guns goes they just dont catch my fancy. I only have the one because it was a freebie <shrugs>.
The Pistolero the .40S&W came about when the FBI decided that 10mm was too much for some agents. They wanted a auto loading pistol with a higher capacity than a .45, more power than a 9mm, and less kick than a 10mm thus the .40S&W came about.
seeker_two
Member
If you really need the step-up in power, you'd be best to go to a .454....
If not, I'd put at least one .22lr on your list...
If not, I'd put at least one .22lr on your list...
You absolutely need a .40. I will not tell you which one. That is where you are on your own. I have an XD SC which I really like and I just got an EAA Witness Elite Match which is quite a nice gun. I am a long time .45 ACP fan and shooter, but the .40 is a real nice cartridge.
Last edited:
daysleeprx
Member
I don't know about the .40 being a "staple round"...personally I'd get something in .22 before .40 (assuming you have no guns in either caliber).
the pistolero
Member
Yep, I remember reading that...hence the names, "10mm Short" and ".40 Short&Weak."
I wouldn't want to get shot with a .40, don't get me wrong, but still between the two I'd rather have the 10mm due to its versatility. You can load the 10mm down to .40S&W levels, but if you want or need more oomph for whatever reason, you have room to do it.busy_squirrel
Member
I got a .40 that is dimensionally smaller than most 9mms. Makes for an excellent CCW weapon. It's a 3 1/2" barrel and made to fit on a 9mm frame.
So for it's size, it's a matter of .40 vs. 9mm. Put that way, and it wasn't a hard decision. But I do enjoy shooting my S&W4013 (.40) better than a G17 (9mm) because with the short barrel, it's very snappy. Not outta control, but not the comparatively slow slide of the 9mm.
The Glock was tame enough that I could shoot it offhandedly while riding my motorcycle down a gravel road. Of course, most people don't want to do that, and I don't expect to again, but I know I couldn't hit anything doing that with the S&W.
Yes, the 10mm is more powerful than a .40. It's my understanding that it's a longer round too. So a 10mm would definately not fit the size requirements for me to hide (I'm a medium-slender guy). I bought it with concealability in mind, willing to sacrifice a few other characteristics, and have been pleasantly surprised.
So for it's size, it's a matter of .40 vs. 9mm. Put that way, and it wasn't a hard decision. But I do enjoy shooting my S&W4013 (.40) better than a G17 (9mm) because with the short barrel, it's very snappy. Not outta control, but not the comparatively slow slide of the 9mm.
The Glock was tame enough that I could shoot it offhandedly while riding my motorcycle down a gravel road. Of course, most people don't want to do that, and I don't expect to again, but I know I couldn't hit anything doing that with the S&W.
Yes, the 10mm is more powerful than a .40. It's my understanding that it's a longer round too. So a 10mm would definately not fit the size requirements for me to hide (I'm a medium-slender guy). I bought it with concealability in mind, willing to sacrifice a few other characteristics, and have been pleasantly surprised.
- Status
Similar threads
