Finally found a reason to own a 40 S&W

[SleazyRider]

I am selfishly suggesting you purchase the new SIG P320. Please get the "safety tab trigger" system and all three grip sizes. Please shoot 1000 rounds through it and then tell everyone on THR what you think. Thank you in advance.

Thanks for the suggestion, Nom, and I'd love to accomodate you. But even if it were available, in the Evil Empire State of New York the subjects cannot be trusted with more than ten rounds (for a while there it was seven!). Looks like the Sig 320 has a capacity of 15 or 13.

It's the price I pay for living in such a safe and secure environment!

 

[SDGlock23]

There's a lot of good reason to have a .40, if I had to just have one cartridge between the 9, 40, 10mm, 45 I'd choose the .40 in a heartbeat. As others have said, there is no compromise with the .40 S&W, it's pretty much all improvement.

The .40 does better than the .45 from short barrels, even my 3" Kahr CM40 with factory loads isn't much slower than from a 4" barrel. Besides it being an outstanding and effective self defense option, what most don't realize is that from longer barrels, say 5-6" the .40 with the right slower burning powder can achieve 10mm like ballistics.

From my G35 using Longshot and a 180gr bullet I was hovering right around 1,275 fps, and with a 6" barrel, it's not hard to get 1,350 fps. That's 10mm ballistics (and uses less powder to do it) without the fuss and muss of dealing with a nearly dead cartridge like the 10mm and you still get all the perks of owning something that's actually popular.

 

[hardluk1]

I running underwoods 155gr gd ammo for carry in a kahr tp40. That ammo chronied at 1302fps for a 4" barrel. Tried it in a smaller cw40 but it over randthe springs and would not chamber another round reliably. But still chronied at 1297fps. Fast ammo. I like having the shorter grip with a 40 over a 45acp type frame the 10mm needs .

 

[mesinge2]

I actually purchased my first 40 during in 2009 when the last ammo shortage happened and 40 S&W was the only ammo on the shelves. I have come to really like the caliber and I have a growing collection of 40s now.

 

[Elkins45]

+1

I don't know for how long we have to keep repeating this nonsense...the 40 S&W is not a compromise between a 9 and a 45

It exceeds the energy level of a 45 ACP and it does penetrates barriers better.

You may not like it for a lot of reasons but a 40, again, is not a compromise in terms of power or capabilities.....

Hmmm.....there's a lot of logic here. I probably was imprecise in my language by using the term compromise, but its technically accurate in the sense that you lose some mag capacity as compared to a 9 and lose some bullet diameter as compared to a 45. In terms of KE you make a good point, but the calculation depends of the particular factors being compared. It all depends on how you set up the comparison. Compare a 40 Glock 22 to a 9mm Glock 19 and you have equal mag capacity, but in a gun with a bigger butt. Compare the 22 to a Glock 20 in 10mm and the G22 gives you less KE in exchange for smaller grip diameter.

That was my point...that the cartridge was a compromise in terms of the gun/cartridge combinations I already own. I can beat it for KE, I can beat it for mag capacity, I can beat it for bullet size and weight. That doesn't mean it isn't a good cartridge, because clearly the market has spoken in that regard. What I'm saying is that I couldn't see why I NEEDED a 40 when considered in light of the guns I have already bought and am set up to reload. Now I can see it, and since I have the dies and brass maybe I just might buy a gun that was actually originally chambered for it.

Maybe "balanced" is the right term? It's well-balanced in terms of the factors people consider when choosing a defensive gun/ammo combination. I just didn't see a need for balanced option because I had the luxury of choosing from multiple options.

 

[mesinge2]

It could also be considered a compromise in bullet weight

 

[Janos Dracwlya]

I've been wanting to get a .40 for a long time, but I want it to be some type of gun that I don't already own in 9mm, just to keep down mistakes.

 

[mesinge2]

I've been wanting to get a .40 for a long time, but I want it to be some type of gun that I don't already own in 9mm, just to keep down mistakes.

That's funny. I do the exact opposite. By getting the 40 in the same platform (i.e. a G17 and a G22) of gun as the 9mm you have to practice the same muscle memory for both guns.

 

[Old Dog]

Back on topic, I too have actually considered getting back into the .40 S&W game due to the fact that I'm seeing far more stock, and far more variety, of .40 offerings in the retail outlets. The other day I passed on a CPO SIG P-229 in .40 that looked brand-new (no rail either) at a great price ... now I feel a little regret there.

I never thought of the forty as a compromise myself, I've just never enjoyed shooting it much.

 

[Janos Dracwlya]

That's funny. I do the exact opposite. By getting the 40 in the same platform (i.e. a G17 and a G22) of gun as the 9mm you have to practice the same muscle memory for both guns.

That's a good point, but I shoot a fair number of quite different handguns, so I'm already working with a bunch of different muscle memories.

 

[Fiv3r]

I picked up an FNS-40 due to the ammo shortage, and I love it. I still keep a 9mm around and my 1911 will always be a true love when it comes to semiautos. However, the FNS is a soft shooting, reliable, comfortable, handsome pistol with a lot going for it.

If you twisted my arm and made me choose, I would probably pick it over my 1911 in a SHTF situation simply because I can carry 2:1 more ammo per magazine, it hits pretty hard, and it hasn't shown to be fickle in any possible way. In short, I find the .40 a good fit for my needs, and the FNS has inspired me to shelve my Glocks out of sheer personal preference regarding performance and comfort.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Back on topic, I too have actually considered getting back into the .40 S&W game due to the fact that I'm seeing far more stock, and far more variety, of .40 offerings in the retail outlets. The other day I passed on a CPO SIG P-229 in .40 that looked brand-new (no rail either) at a great price ... now I feel a little regret there.

I never thought of the forty as a compromise myself, I've just never enjoyed shooting it much.

Just curious, why have you never enjoyed shooting the .40 much?

I have seen people complain about the .40 having too much recoil and it being snappy. I have never really understood how this could be a problem for anyone reasonably comfortable with shooting a .45ACP or a standard pressure 9mm. I don't think it should be much of a problem except for persons who have very small and/or weak hands, or arthritis. Recoil poundage and impulse are not that high in comparison to 9mm and .45. From what I have seen, inexperienced small statured persons do quite well with a pistol as light as a Glock 22 shooting .40. I don't think the Glock's design characteristics are making that much difference in comparison to other designs. I have to wonder if many of the comments about snappiness are disingenuous.

 

[W.E.G.]

G22 for EDC and some training with premium ammo.

G17 for training and plinking with cheapest junk ammo I can find.

I won't reload for semiauto pistol.

 

[decoy562]

I like the round. My first gun (I still have it) was a Gen 3 G23.

 

[Old Dog]

Just curious, why have you never enjoyed shooting the .40 much?

Eh, at the time I was issued the Glock 22/23 (my first Glock experience after years of 1911s/M9s), I found it to be (yes, felt recoil is often an entirely subjective phenomena) a bit snappier than 9mm, unfriendlier than the .45's gentle "push" ... and during that period, the .40's reputation for mediocre accuracy was deserved. Most likely, though, the facts that my hands hate the Glock and at the time, .40 was substantially more expensive than 9mm and even .45 ACP.

Some of us simply never acquired the taste for shooting .40. I never shared the view that .40 was a compromise or unnecessary, but like most, I suspect that more guns I like were offered in 9mm and .45 ACP. There are simply far more "traditional" guns that came into being as the dedicated platform for these two calibers, whereas, with the .40 S&W, nothing new or groundbreaking was offered up that became the iconic pistol for the caliber.

For many, I suspect that price was a factor, but that's sure a moot point now given the paucity of 9mm on the shelves and the price increases of both 9mm and .45 ACP offerings.

 

[JDR]

By getting the 40 in the same platform (i.e. a G17 and a G22) of gun as the 9mm you have to practice the same muscle memory for both guns

I got my Glock 22 before I got the Glock 21, and practiced with the .40 to develop a tight grip and good muscle memory to control the recoil. By the time I got my Glock 21 it was easier to control and it didn't take long before I could shoot it better than the 22. I find that it is easier to shoot all my .45s, after having practiced with my .40 caliber guns.

 

[Wildbillz]

I recently picked up a used G 35 (40s&w long slide). Cool thing I found was that a barrel swap and I could shoot 9mm or 357sig out of it. Swap the top end off a G22 on to it and I could use it as an EDC. Swap out a different top end and I could use it to shoot 22lr (if I could find them). So its a pretty versatile gun for the $400. that it cost me.

Still waiting to pickup the conversion barrels and 22lr kit.

WB

 

[jawman]

I never wanted a 40 because the only 40's I ever shot were very snappy and had harsh recoil. They were not enjoyable at all to shoot. So I always stuck to 9's and 45's and avoided 40's. I thought that the only reason people owned 40's was because they were under the thought of 'well that's what the cops use, so it must be the best, so that's what I'll get'. Then I started noticing how 40 ammo was always plentiful on the shelves. And people are always saying that when the commies come and there is war on the streets, all the dead cops will be leaving 40 ammo lying around for people to pick up. Or when the cops and DHS start targeting civilians and putting us in FEMA camps, they'll all be using 40 mostly. Whatever the reason you believe, 40 will always be plentiful and popular. So because of this I got a full size S&W M&P 40. I was quite hesitant since I never shot a 40 that I liked, so it was a big risk for me. But the first time I shot it, I was amazed at how little the recoil was compared to the other 40's I had shot. Recoil was nothing! I shoot it better than my M&P 9C. My girl also shoots it better than the M&P 9C, and likes it more than the P226 9mm. And she is tiny, so if she can handle a 40, anyone can. And the fact that she even prefers it over two other 9mm handguns really says a lot. We both love it and it's our favorite by far. Get a S&W M&P 40 and you'll be very glad you did.

 

[Skribs]

I started off with .40 S&W because I couldn't decide between 9mm and .45 ACP.
I finally decided on 9mm, so swore never to get a .40 S&W again.
Then we started getting a lot of political turmoil and ammo prices skyrocketed while availability decreased. When I can afford it, I want to at least have the option to use many common and semi-common calibers, so that no matter what type is available, I've got something that can use it.

This is my reason for keeping my .40 S&W.

I also think any time I buy a popular handgun (such as a Glock) that has many aftermarket barrels, I would rather buy .40 S&W than 9mm. Reason being it's easier to convert from .40 S&W to 9mm than the other way around.