The .40 Glock Model 22 is the official handgun of the corrections agency I work for. I qualify with it once a year and don't touch one for another 12 months. I only get issued one if a felon escapes. I don't own a personal .40S&W. I own .45's 9mm's. .22's. .38's .32's and .380's. I conceal carry the .32's and .380's. I use the .38's for home defense and I shoot mostly 9mm. If I had the money I would buy a cheap .40 for fun and practice.
How many here have shifted to 40sw?
- Thread starter el Godfather
- Start date
- Status
armsmaster270
Member
I have 2 9mm's a S&W 6906and a Sig228, 2 .40's,S&W Sigma & a Sig 226 The Sig I converted to 357Sig & 3 .45's A Colt 1911 made in 1918, a Taurus a PT145 Millenium & a Sig 220. The 357Sig is my carry gun.
Last edited:
Kayaker 1960
Member
Reason for a .40
I live in California so with a 10 round magazine limit I figure why would I want to shoot a smaller, less powerful 9mm cartridge in the same size gun? A few years back I bought a Colt Commander .45 because some of you guys were and are still saying that a .45 is easier to shoot than the "flippy' .40 "short and weak". I found that the .45 was heavier than my Glock mod. 22 .40 yet the recoil was at least as bad, possibly worse and the ammo cost was considerably more. The Colt was very slightly more accurate, no doubt due to the single action trigger but the difference was pretty small. I tried to like the Colt, it was pretty and the 1911 platform has a cool factor but it just didn't do anything the Glock .40 wouldn't do. I sold the Colt and bought an M&P40c. I really like the M&P. 11 rounds (10+1) in a small but powerful package. My most recent purchase is a Ruger LC-9. Now this is what the 9mm is good for, a nice small and thin pistol with good power for it's size.
Hey .40 haters, How can the .40 be "Short and weak" yet have too much recoil? Why would one caliber be more "flippy' than another?
I've shot steel in competition, .40 and .45 knock stuff down with very similar authority, 9mm often struggles to knock over the same targets, often the targets have to hit near the top with a 9mm where .40 or .45 will knock them over easily by hitting the target anywhere.
9mm and .40 shoot similar velocity but .40 is moving a bigger, heavier projectile. It makes a bigger hole and in most cases penetrates further yet can be fired from a gun of the same weight and dimensions as a 9mm. I've found that a full sized 1911 is a sweet shooting gun, the reason isn't the cartridge, it's because it's a big, heavy gun with a single action trigger ( though still with limited capacity )
Here's a recoil demonstration by Hickok 45. 9mm, .40. 10mm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxT53-Ukig
I live in California so with a 10 round magazine limit I figure why would I want to shoot a smaller, less powerful 9mm cartridge in the same size gun? A few years back I bought a Colt Commander .45 because some of you guys were and are still saying that a .45 is easier to shoot than the "flippy' .40 "short and weak". I found that the .45 was heavier than my Glock mod. 22 .40 yet the recoil was at least as bad, possibly worse and the ammo cost was considerably more. The Colt was very slightly more accurate, no doubt due to the single action trigger but the difference was pretty small. I tried to like the Colt, it was pretty and the 1911 platform has a cool factor but it just didn't do anything the Glock .40 wouldn't do. I sold the Colt and bought an M&P40c. I really like the M&P. 11 rounds (10+1) in a small but powerful package. My most recent purchase is a Ruger LC-9. Now this is what the 9mm is good for, a nice small and thin pistol with good power for it's size.
Hey .40 haters, How can the .40 be "Short and weak" yet have too much recoil? Why would one caliber be more "flippy' than another?
I've shot steel in competition, .40 and .45 knock stuff down with very similar authority, 9mm often struggles to knock over the same targets, often the targets have to hit near the top with a 9mm where .40 or .45 will knock them over easily by hitting the target anywhere.
9mm and .40 shoot similar velocity but .40 is moving a bigger, heavier projectile. It makes a bigger hole and in most cases penetrates further yet can be fired from a gun of the same weight and dimensions as a 9mm. I've found that a full sized 1911 is a sweet shooting gun, the reason isn't the cartridge, it's because it's a big, heavy gun with a single action trigger ( though still with limited capacity )
Here's a recoil demonstration by Hickok 45. 9mm, .40. 10mm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxT53-Ukig
Last edited:
Magnuumpwr
Member
No reason for me to shift from one caliber to another. I own several guns in each caliber and shoot them all to keep myself familiar with them.
Rasp
Member
I sold my last 9mm last week. I started shooting USPSA last year with a Glock 35 which was my first exposure to the 40S&W. I have amassed a large stock of reloading components because of this. I find it to be the perfect comprise btw the 9 & 45.
My CCW weapon was a G26 which I enjoyed, but never started reloading due to low round cost and ready availability... until the current ammo drought. I've not had any issues finding .40 ammo in my area since, but it's been many months since I've seen 9mm on shelves.
I sold my 6yr old G26 and purchaced a G27. With the G27 I also gain added versatility with conversion kits, and don't find the .40 recoil as brutal as most do. The 155gr Remington hollow points however, can be distracting.
My CCW weapon was a G26 which I enjoyed, but never started reloading due to low round cost and ready availability... until the current ammo drought. I've not had any issues finding .40 ammo in my area since, but it's been many months since I've seen 9mm on shelves.
I sold my 6yr old G26 and purchaced a G27. With the G27 I also gain added versatility with conversion kits, and don't find the .40 recoil as brutal as most do. The 155gr Remington hollow points however, can be distracting.
Last edited:
bobandmikako
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 9
I was shooting a lot of .40 for a while when ammo was scarce. I also starting reloading for .40 and found brass and bullets easier to find than some other calibers. I still prefer 9mm but I like to have other options, including .40, .357Sig, and .45ACP.
OilyPablo
Member
Clicked the link to post this. Seemed like .40S&W was pretty much available during the last banic. Plus I have a decent stash, because it's not my usual plinking caliber. I have always said keeps guns in multiple calibers (across the spectrum if possible) is a good strategy. Guns with swappable barrels (10mm, .40S&W, .357Sig) work well for me.
I have a Gen4 Glock 22 that I can shoot good target groups with, the "snappy" recoil isn't bad with that one. I'm told that the dual recoil spring on the Gen4 helps to counter the snappy recoil. Some of the factory .40 S&W ammo that is out there is pretty marginal; if I could stick to Federal and Remington and avoid Win White Box, I'd be better off. My P226-40 has trouble with WWB, I had the same problem with a CZ 75B-40. The Glock cycles just about everything, although I did get an FTF on a round yesterday, it happened to be WWB.
I have Gen 3 .40 cal as well as a Gen 4 .40 cal and I really haven't been able to feel a difference. I know they claim the recoil reduction but I just can't feel it. They both shoot well and the rough texture on the Gen 4 is nice but not much difference to me otherwise.
Am I the only one that has shot both Gen 3's and 4's back to back and not noticed a big difference?
Am I the only one that has shot both Gen 3's and 4's back to back and not noticed a big difference?
I don't have a Gen3 G-22 to compare to the Gen4, I have a Gen3 Glock 17 that I could not tell the difference in recoil when I shot that alongside a Gen4 17. But I do have the P226-40 and an H&K USP 40; the Gen4 G-22 handles recoil better than the Sig with identical ammo, but this might be due to the Sig's higher bore axis. And I can't tell the difference in recoil between the Gen4 and the USP, which is a much more expensive gun! Big tip of the hat to the Glock!
Moved from 9mm to 40S&W.
Reason: More powerful.
There is an energy gain. This is visible in any ammunition manufacturer data.
However, there is no method of measuring how much increase in effectiveness it would bring.
Of course there are many who would say "It penetrates the same in gel, so it's the same as 9mm, blah blah..."
The problem is that there are factors a gel cannot measure.
Reason: More powerful.
There is an energy gain. This is visible in any ammunition manufacturer data.
However, there is no method of measuring how much increase in effectiveness it would bring.
Of course there are many who would say "It penetrates the same in gel, so it's the same as 9mm, blah blah..."
The problem is that there are factors a gel cannot measure.
This is a reasoning I don't understand.
1. Chamber pressure is NOT a decicive factor in level of recoil. If it is, then 9mm should have more recoil than a 45ACP.
2. Sure, 45ACP has less chamber pressure. But,recoil force itself is still large, meaning if fired from same model of guns, like M&P40 vs. M&P 45, it's not as if 45ACP version of the similar model pistols have a longer service life. Of course, some love to say "45 is more of a push than a snap," which is totally subjective and not in any means universal. Sure, recoil from a 40oz all steel 1911 felt okay, but 45ACP Glock felt plenty snappy to me. But, 40S&W SIG P229 felt even milder than either of my full steel 45ACP 1911 to me. That does not mean I go around spreading "45ACP is snappy while 40S&W is more of a push than a snap" nonsense.
3. 40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm, but a lot of them loves to make an exception to 45ACP which is even more expensive and even less capacity.
Also, there really is no technology that can measure the power benefit from 40S&W or 45ACP over a 9mm. But, the critics just love to change "benefit cannot be measured" to "there is no benefit."
They just cite the gel tests, but ignore that more powerful bullets tend to crush through bone and get deflected less.
Last edited:
No use for the 40, have tried it with half a dozen guns over 20+ yrs, and shoot the 9 and 45 much better. IMO very hard to shoot accurate follow up shots. I am shooting over 50 years and carrying 44, and it is the one round that I really cannot shoot properly no matter what gun it's coming out of. My groups are twice the size of other calibers.
Kayaker 1960
Member
Gym,
You've seen Hickok 45 shoot his little Glock 27 at 230 yards right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEg4y54Dk
There is nothing wrong with the .40 as far as accuracy is concerned. I've shot a lot of different cartridges, the only one that I find to be more accurate than others is .22 L.R. , all others seem to be pretty equal accuracy wise.
You've seen Hickok 45 shoot his little Glock 27 at 230 yards right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEg4y54Dk
There is nothing wrong with the .40 as far as accuracy is concerned. I've shot a lot of different cartridges, the only one that I find to be more accurate than others is .22 L.R. , all others seem to be pretty equal accuracy wise.
Last edited:
Hangingrock
Member
It is not my intent to be argumentative. There is an apparent move from the 40 S&W to the 9mm-Luger by certain law enforcement agencies. This trend has been noted by I believe at least two shooting publications recently. Just an observation. It appears that ammunition technology has evolved to the point there is little difference between the either cartridges terminal results.
That really have more to do with training and cost than anything else.
40S&W do take more discipline to control, especially in rapid firing multiple shots. Think about 38 Special and 357 Magnum. I prefer 357 Magnum in a revolver, but it also takes more training. Same with 40S&W.
New revelation is not about whether if 40S&W or 9mm is equal or not. It's more of a revelation that most law enforcement agencies were not able or willing to train more when they went to 40S&W. They barely train enough when they have a 9mm. This is the likely reason many agencies kept their 38 Special revolvers when some agencies went to 357 Magnum in the revolver era. But, that does not mean 38 Special and 357 Magnum are equal, altough I do not think the dispairity between 9mm and 40S&W is as great as between 38 Special and 357 Magnum,
I would recommend 9mm as a general issue. However, I would be opposed to removing 40S&W as an option in any agency.
Last edited:
Hickok, is not your normal shooter. I invited him to join here several years ago, never checked to see if he did. Comparing oneself to him is a stretch of the imagination.
On top of which, he shoots more guns and more calibers than just about anyone on earth.
The consensus of opinion of the average guy who carries, for self defense, is that they shoot 9mm better.
Now I could tell you I shoot snub nose revolvers better than 90% of shooters do, because I carried them for 25 years, and competed with 2 and 3 inch snubbys on combat courses against the NYPD and FBI, but who cares. The average guy can't hit anything past 15 feet with one. The 40 is a viable caliber, I don't shoot it as well as either the 9 or 45, or 38, 32,22 357 and on and on, it's like Tom Selleck said in Quigley down under, I don't like it, I didn't say I couldn't shoot it. I am used to tight groups, and I can't get them with 40 cal. offhand. Nor do I shoot any handgun at 230 yards, just because a Gentleman who shoots all day can.
On top of which, he shoots more guns and more calibers than just about anyone on earth.
The consensus of opinion of the average guy who carries, for self defense, is that they shoot 9mm better.
Now I could tell you I shoot snub nose revolvers better than 90% of shooters do, because I carried them for 25 years, and competed with 2 and 3 inch snubbys on combat courses against the NYPD and FBI, but who cares. The average guy can't hit anything past 15 feet with one. The 40 is a viable caliber, I don't shoot it as well as either the 9 or 45, or 38, 32,22 357 and on and on, it's like Tom Selleck said in Quigley down under, I don't like it, I didn't say I couldn't shoot it. I am used to tight groups, and I can't get them with 40 cal. offhand. Nor do I shoot any handgun at 230 yards, just because a Gentleman who shoots all day can.
ScarLata
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
- Messages
- 101
40S&W critics just love to say "9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, they're all the same." If that's true, then the only sane choice is a 9mm, but a lot of them loves to make an exception to 45ACP which is even more expensive and even less capacity.
I totally agree with TestPilot
I totally agree with TestPilot
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
It'd be smart to buy your own Glock 22 and shoot it regularly. Touching/firing one ONCE A YEAR is totally unacceptable. Since this gun model and caliber could keep you alive in a bad situation, you owe it to yourself, family and the public to be as proficient as you can be with one.
The bureaucrat(s) that made that decision won't even feel a twinge of guilt as they hand your casket flag to your widowed wife.
Don't let their incompetence impact you when you can avoid it.
Just sayin'
.
Last edited:
kennedy
Member
I reload for .40, I like rainier 155gr with universal, so far have a smith and a witness silver team with a red dot. looking for a sig 226. my brother has a Hi-power in .40 and I tried it and liked it so decided to switch from 9mm to 40.
wow6599
Member
Correct. At least for protection from 2 legged varmints.
- Status
