Does the .40 S&W Just Need More Time?

[tipoc]

I say something I said elsewhere...

Back in the 80s the Border Patrol approved 4 rounds for use by their agents. These were the .357 Magnum with a 110 gr. jhp and a 145 gr. jhp (used by those that did not care for the muzzle blast and recoil of the former). They also approved the .38 Super with a 125 gr. or 130 gr. jhp and the .45 acp with a 185 gr. load. These loads they tested and found to give them adequate penetration and expansion for the conditions they faced.

A few years later they added a 9mm+P+ 115 gr. jhp once that load became available to them.

Four different loads that would all do what they wanted them to do given proper shot placement.

Several years after this as the size of the BP expanded they went to standardize their guns and ammo. They went with a 155 gr. jhp 40S&W. This round gave them what they had in the others.

All the rounds had about 400 ft. pds of energy at the muzzle more or less. All could penetrate barriers. All expanded as they wanted them to and all performed as desired with proper shot placement. They were careful in their selection of what ammo they recommended for the .40 as some works better than others and there are a lot of .40 loads out there.

Take your pick. What works for you in a gun that works for you. Concern yourself more with shot placement.

tipoc

 

[wnycollector]

But with the .40 I can have .45ACP equivalent performance AND have a higher magazine capacity AND have it all in a pistol that I can get my hand around.

Well put!

 

[edrice]

But with the .40 I can have .45ACP equivalent performance AND have a higher magazine capacity AND have it all in a pistol that I can get my hand around.

This may be somewhat true but the difference is not vast.

My Smith .40 has 11-round mags and my Springfield Armory 1911 .45 has a McCormick 10-round Power mag stuck up it with others in reserve.

The one round difference per magazine doesn't sway me much and the 1911 grip is easier to grasp.

Ed

 

[easyg]

This may be somewhat true but the difference is not vast.

My Smith .40 has 11-round mags and my Springfield Armory 1911 .45 has a McCormick 10-round Power mag stuck up it with others in reserve.

The one round difference per magazine doesn't sway me much and the 1911 grip is easier to grasp.

I guess it just depends upon your choice in handguns....

My .40 Glock G22 has a 15-round magazine, giving me a total of 16 rounds on hand without a reload....and the grip is comfortable too!

AND the Glock 22 has an optional magazine that will give me 17 rounds (+1 in the chamber)....18 rounds of .40 without a reload!

Why would I trade that for 11 rounds and no appreciable gain in performance?

 

[Doogy]

I had the Beretta 96: very snappy to me, especially with 155g ammo.

Bought the FNP-40. Much less snappy and a joy to shoot. It made me laugh that the boat anchor Beretta with the longer barrel was more snappy. oh well.....

 

[VegasOPM]

Well, apparently it is settled... the .40 is/isn't a fantastic/lousy caliber that does/doesn't have merit.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that if a round doesn't appeal to me, I don't buy a firearm chambered in it.

It's okay 9mm, .40 and .45, you're all pretty.

 

[papajohn]

For me, it was more about the gun than the caliber. I already had 38/357 revolvers, so I wanted something different, no 9mm, too much the same. Smaller? Nah. Okay, bigger. Got my hands around an EAA Witness (CZ-75 clone) and loved it, but it was a 9. The next time I saw one, it was a 40, so I snagged it. That was in 1991, and I still have it. I have about 36K rounds through it, and it has yet to bother me with "snappiness" or bad manners. It's not a 45, I have those too, but they just don't hold much. 12 rounds is enough, the gun feels good, and the ammo is easy to load.

Papajohn

 

[BoilerUP]

I too have shot the Beretta 40SW based on the 92 frame and found it less than enjoyable.

I had a SigPRO 2340 that I learned to shoot exceedingly well, and balanced the lighter weight of a polymer frame with SIG accuracy and feel. I recently traded it for a straight P229 in .40 and though it weighs a little more is even more balanced and accurate IMO.

I also have a G19. Its smaller, lighter, cheaper to shoot and practice with, and with next to no recoil my follow-up shot accuracy is vastly improved (although pure accuracy still lacks the SIG). Owning the 229 I wouldn't have gone out and bought it (especially since I used to HATE the feel of a Glock) but the old man gave it to me so I owe it to him to get proficient with it

I shoot the 9mm more purely because of economics, but between the two of them I definitely prefer the 40...I figure if its good enough for the FBI, FAMs, and most law enforcement its good enough for my purposes.

 

[wnycollector]

I carry a revolver ~75% of the time so mag high capacity is a luxury for me. I will say though that my CZ 40B (12+1) bridges the gap between my SIG P226 (15+1) and my P220 (8+1) very nicely. All three autos are ~ the same size (they share the same holsters) and I carry premium (gold dots) HP ammo in all of them. I think if push came to shove ALL of them would do the job they were asked to do.

 

[kenjs1]

keep your nines ! !

Fanning the flames and in your face opinion: the 9mm should be relegated to target practice. There - I said it . It is perfect for that but nothing else. Dissecting the arguments as follows, ahem:
A) Pistol itself : If using a pistol for defense, and you can have that same pistol in a 40, where is the debate??? You may argue a 9 is as good but can never argue it is better.
B) concealabilty : for ease of conceal it loses to the Makarov \380 types. For a truck pistol I prefer a skinny Tokarev. Don't tell me you can go 9mm compact because - again, it'll be there in a 40.
C) -magazine capacity (home defense): is high capacity (>than 8) really an issue for a personal defense weapon?? Two reasons for a hi cap magazine in my book. You can't hit what you shoot at or the round you are using is won't stop em in their tracks. Maybe I am just biased towards sleek single stacks because I have small hands but clunky double stack grips are what I abhor most about 9's. BTW- Didn't the qualifying scores of LEO's go down when switching from revolver to semi-auto? I believe that first shot hits were much higher in the days of the revolver. Might be a lesson for a lot of us there.
D) the 40 is a "tweener" - BS!!! Tweener usually means just right - like in the story of 3 bears. You gotchyer too little, too big and just rights. A 40, as a defense round is just right. Who complains the 270 is wrong for deer because it is neither a 243 or a 30-06?? I will go so far as to say the 9mm is the true tweener smack between a 380 and a 40. What is its use here? So, unless I want to have fun and punch paper why bother with it??? Glad to put this to rest.

 

[M14/11B]

Rented a .40 at the range one time and wasn't that impressed with it(a Glock). When I found out the price of ammo I figgered "fahgeddaboutit".

M14

 

[edrice]

This may be somewhat true but the difference is not vast.

My Smith .40 has 11-round mags and my Springfield Armory 1911 .45 has a McCormick 10-round Power mag stuck up it with others in reserve.

The one round difference per magazine doesn't sway me much and the 1911 grip is easier to grasp.

I guess it just depends upon your choice in handguns....

You nailed it. And fortunately we're not all confined to one-size-fits-all.

My .40 Glock G22 has a 15-round magazine, giving me a total of 16 rounds on hand without a reload....and the grip is comfortable too!

AND the Glock 22 has an optional magazine that will give me 17 rounds (+1 in the chamber)....18 rounds of .40 without a reload!

Why would I trade that for 11 rounds and no appreciable gain in performance?

During one phase, I was into the hi-cap craze of the early 80s. Seemed like a good idea at the time, and I had up to 15-rounders, but I eventually realized that it caused me more confusion as to how much ammo remained. I've always had this silly habit of knowing exactly how many shots I had fired (from my revolver days) and how many were left. I found I lost track easier with hi-cap magazines and many times during rapid fire found myself clicking on a locked slide with no resulting loudness. I decided that this could be embarrassing in time of need and then I remembered the purpose of spare backup magazines and that even a lowly 8-rounder can be quickly replaced with another full 8-rounder and you're more aware of when you're firing that last round, or can replace it while a few rounds are left during a convenient interval.

So, eventually some of the hi-cap glow cooled off and my mags range from 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. And my revolvers still range between 5 and 6, with no resulting lack of confidence.

But looking back, I think one of the worst things I ever did was sell my Browning Hi-Power. I could almost shoot flies out of the air with that pistol and so, I guess, technically and logically, that's what I ought to be shooting defensively today. But .40s and .45s are it right now (and sometimes .45 Colt or .357). In the back of mind I tell myself I'll get another Browning some day. I've never shot any other auto-pistol that was quite like that one. Seller's remorse 20 years later...

Ed

 

[edrice]

Fanning the flames and in your face opinion: the 9mm should be relegated to target practice. There - I said it . It is perfect for that but nothing else. Dissecting the arguments as follows, ahem:
A) Pistol itself : If using a pistol for defense, and you can have that same pistol in a 40, where is the debate??? You may argue a 9 is as good but can never argue it is better.
B) concealabilty : for ease of conceal it loses to the Makarov \380 types. For a truck pistol I prefer a skinny Tokarev. Don't tell me you can go 9mm compact because - again, it'll be there in a 40.
C) -magazine capacity (home defense): is high capacity (>than 8) really an issue for a personal defense weapon?? Two reasons for a hi cap magazine in my book. You can't hit what you shoot at or the round you are using is won't stop em in their tracks. Maybe I am just biased towards sleek single stacks because I have small hands but clunky double stack grips are what I abhor most about 9's. BTW- Didn't the qualifying scores of LEO's go down when switching from revolver to semi-auto? I believe that first shot hits were much higher in the days of the revolver. Might be a lesson for a lot of us there.
D) the 40 is a "tweener" - BS!!! Tweener usually means just right - like in the story of 3 bears. You gotchyer too little, too big and just rights. A 40, as a defense round is just right. Who complains the 270 is wrong for deer because it is neither a 243 or a 30-06?? I will go so far as to say the 9mm is the true tweener smack between a 380 and a 40. What is its use here? So, unless I want to have fun and punch paper why bother with it??? Glad to put this to rest.

LOL! Some excellent points in that.

BTW, the good-shot-9mm/bad-shot-10mm question has yet to be broached!

Ed

 

[CYANIDEGENOCIDE]

there i fixed it for ya!!

Fanning the flames and in your face opinion: the .40 should be relegated to target practice. There - I said it . It is perfect for that but nothing else. Dissecting the arguments as follows, ahem:
A) Pistol itself : If using a pistol for defense, and you can have that same pistol in a .45, where is the debate??? You may argue a .40 is as good but can never argue it is better.
B) concealabilty : for ease of conceal it loses to the Makarov \380 types. For a truck pistol I prefer a skinny Tokarev. Don't tell me you can go 40 compact because - again, it'll be there in a 45.
C) -magazine capacity (home defense): is high capacity (>than 8) really an issue for a personal defense weapon?? Two reasons for a hi cap magazine in my book. You can't hit what you shoot at or the round you are using is won't stop em in their tracks. Maybe I am just biased towards sleek single stacks because I have small hands but clunky double stack grips are what I abhor most about 40's. BTW- Didn't the qualifying scores of LEO's go down when switching from revolver to semi-auto? I believe that first shot hits were much higher in the days of the revolver. Might be a lesson for a lot of us there.
D) the 40 is a "tweener" - BS!!! Tweener usually means just right - like in the story of 3 bears. You gotchyer too little, too big and just rights. A 45, as a defense round is just right. Who complains the 270 is wrong for deer because it is neither a 243 or a 30-06?? I will go so far as to say the 40 is the true tweener smack between a 9mm and a 45. What is its use here? So, unless I want to have fun and punch paper why bother with it??? Glad to put this to rest.

just kidding

 

[edrice]

there i fixed it for ya!!

Fanning the flames and in your face opinion: the .40 should be relegated to target practice. There - I said it . It is perfect for that but nothing else. Dissecting the arguments as follows, ahem:
A) Pistol itself : If using a pistol for defense, and you can have that same pistol in a .45, where is the debate??? You may argue a .40 is as good but can never argue it is better.
B) concealabilty : for ease of conceal it loses to the Makarov \380 types. For a truck pistol I prefer a skinny Tokarev. Don't tell me you can go 40 compact because - again, it'll be there in a 45.
C) -magazine capacity (home defense): is high capacity (>than 8) really an issue for a personal defense weapon?? Two reasons for a hi cap magazine in my book. You can't hit what you shoot at or the round you are using is won't stop em in their tracks. Maybe I am just biased towards sleek single stacks because I have small hands but clunky double stack grips are what I abhor most about 40's. BTW- Didn't the qualifying scores of LEO's go down when switching from revolver to semi-auto? I believe that first shot hits were much higher in the days of the revolver. Might be a lesson for a lot of us there.
D) the 40 is a "tweener" - BS!!! Tweener usually means just right - like in the story of 3 bears. You gotchyer too little, too big and just rights. A 45, as a defense round is just right. Who complains the 270 is wrong for deer because it is neither a 243 or a 30-06?? I will go so far as to say the 40 is the true tweener smack between a 9mm and a 45. What is its use here? So, unless I want to have fun and punch paper why bother with it??? Glad to put this to rest.

just kidding

LOL! Some excellent points in that.

BTW, the good-shot-9mm/bad-shot-10mm question has yet to be broached!

Ed

 

[DKA]

Have a S&W in 40 S&W and love it. Sure it has some recoil, but it must to have the penetrating power that it has.

 

[OregonJohnny]

Excellent points all around. This is a good discussion. But it's slowly creeping back into the 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45 area. Let's just all agree that all 3 of those rounds have a place in this world. They are all great calibers and each of them have great firearms that chamber them.

OK, now back to it. Will the .40 ever get a shot at vast military acceptance? And will this make the 9mm obsolete? Will the .40 continue to grow exponentially popular with law enforcement and government agencies? And will this make the .40 the overall MOST popular semi-auto handgun caliber in another 40 or 50 years? Or even sooner? Or will the top 3 continue to be divided more or less equally between the 9, 40, and 45? Thoughts on this without arguing which caliber is BETTER?

 

[Knotthead]

I've read much of this thread and skimmed the rest, so I might have missed it, but has anyone addressed the effect of the ten round magazine limits of the 1994 AWB on the acceptance of the .40 cal.? It would seem that the magazine limitation might have encouraged people to jump to a .40 cal. or on up to a .45. Also, might it suffer going forward now with the availability of full capacity magazines and better bullet construction?

For what it's worth, my .40 is a Sig P239, and I am very pleased with it.

 

[clang]

I'm not a reloader, so someone is going to have to help me here, but I think I've read in a few places that a careless person can get into trouble more quickly reloading a .40S&W than other calibers. If this is true, I would consider it the only real detriment to this caliber. Can one of you .40 cal reloaders comment on this?


Remember when the patent answer in these types of threads was:
"Use any caliber that starts with a 4"

 

[lee n. field]

I'm not a reloader, so someone is going to have to help me here, but I think I've read in a few places that a careless person can get into trouble more quickly reloading a .40S&W than other calibers. If this is true, I would consider it the only real detriment to this caliber. Can one of you .40 cal reloaders comment on this?

Every time you see .40 load data published, there's always a warning about being careful about bullet seating depth, etc. You don't see these warnings on data for other cartridges (not that you don't have to be careful with them too). You're closer to the edge with .40 than with older, lower pressure cartridges like, say, .45 ACP.

 

[shadowalker]

I'm not a reloader, so someone is going to have to help me here, but I think I've read in a few places that a careless person can get into trouble more quickly reloading a .40S&W than other calibers. If this is true, I would consider it the only real detriment to this caliber. Can one of you .40 cal reloaders comment on this?

40 S&W and 9mm Luger are pretty close pressure wise, Hodgdon's max loads for both are around 33,500 PSI. The 357 Sig is higher than either 9mm or 40 S&W, I don't consider 40 S&W high pressure so much as 45 ACP low pressure. Compared to rifles they are all low pressure, the 308 is at about 56K psi. Max loads in any caliber are something to approach carefully.

I like the 40 quite a bit and carry Sig P229, I do not find it to be snappy or hard to control.

The 40 S&W is pretty popular and doing pretty well. You see a lot of posts on THR among educated people and enthusiasts that don't like it but the average person doesn't know what snap or recoil is.

The majority of casual shooters seem to lean towards 40 S&W, I've found several reasons

#1 40 S&W is stocked more than 9mm around here, I could not find a Sig P229 in 9mm, plenty in 40, same in other guns, I have seen a lot of 9mm XDs but only because dealers stock all 3 primary calibers.

#2 They don't know anything about calibers and buy what the "expert" salesman hands them.

#3 They are intimidated by the 45 ACP

#4 The 40 S&W is widely adopted by police departments

#5 Better ballistics than the 9mm but perceived as less scary / snappy / recoil than the 45 ACP

 

[NG VI]

I am starting to be ruled by .40 caliber pistols. I have three 9x19mm, but one is headed for the chopping block through no fault of its own other than the fact that I like all of my other guns better, and I have to pay for all that .40 HST I just bought somehow.

That said I just bought both a 9mm and a .40, and I feel that they will both be occupying holsters a near equal amount of the time.

 

[papajohn]

" You don't see these warnings on data for other cartridges......."

Well, that's not exactly true, the seating depth for the 9mm is extremely critical, and the warnings to reloaders have been out there for MANY years. The NRA published data in the late 60's or early 70's, stating that their tests showed an increase in seating depth of 0.03" nearly DOUBLED the pressure, which was already close to maximum. In other words, seat it short, and you just made a proof load for your gun, which hopefully isn't a rare Artillery Luger or a P-38 with Nazi markings.

Nearly every manual I have mentions the need for caution with the 9, both as to seating depth and the type of crimp used. The crimp issue is the same with any round that headspaces on the case mouth, be it 380, 9, 40, 45, or 38 Super. But an overpressure load in an old bottom-feeder can do a lot more damage than a hot revolver load!

As to the 9mm fading away in a few years........I SERIOUSLY doubt it. It's been around for 104 years, there are a zillion guns chambered for it, and with modern bullets, it's still a very viable round. And if we still have cartridges like the 32 S&W Long and 25ACP hanging on, I think the 9mm is pretty safe!

PJ

 

[BlindJustice]

Tah Dah....

From the same maker, and comparing the
range of bullet weights for

Double Tap Ammo offeringss
.45 ACP ----------------- .40 S&W -----

185 gr Speer Gold Dot JHP 155 gr. SPeer Gold Dot JHP
1225 fps 616 ft lbs 1,275 FPS 560 ft. lbs
200 gr. Speer Gold DOt JHP 165 gr. Speer Gold Dot JHP
1125 FPS 562 Ft lbs 1,200 FPS 528 fl lbs
230 gr. Speer Gold DOt JHP 180 gr. Speer Gold DOt JHP
1,010 FPS 521 FPS 1,100 FPS @ 484 ft lbs l


I've only tried the .45 ACP 200 gr. GDs - DT says they
are just under +P. All I know is at the range shooting
Speer 230 gr. GD +P and the DT 200 gr. GDs the
latter had less recoil/muzzle flash. I like em.

From the numbers DT publishes I'd say the case
capacity for the .40 S&W is a bit lacking.

Not that a BG hit with any of the above examples
of DT ammo would notice any difference, eh?

Randall

 

[orionengnr]

Nothing to do with recoil

Well, you asked, so...

I have owned a least a half-dozen .40 pistols since 1992. When ammo was "cheap" I wanted one of everything...and had most of them, although in more of a serial fashion (sell one, buy one), seldom owning more than 15-20 pistols at any given time.

About two years ago, I started to re-evaluate my modest collection. Ammo prices were going up, I had recently acquired my CHL and needed to concentrate on proficiency. I was also considering starting to reload.

I started reloading, and purged several entire calibers and a number of handguns. Those that remain either get carried or taken to the range (or both) regularly.

The .40 no longer has a place in this man's safe or reloading bench. Nothing personal, but I don't miss them.