Longevity of .40 vs. 9mm pistols

[peacebutready]

I saw the below quote on a recent thread. I always wondered how much longevity a person looses with the .40 vs. the 9mm. 25%? 50%? Any opinions?


"I would not expect a 40S&W P226 to last as long as 9mm P226. Same goes for Glock 22 vs. Glock 17. So, I would not expect a 40S&W SP-01 to last as long as a 9mm SP-01."

 

[itchy1]

It's an interesting question but I highly doubt that many shooters will ever put enough rounds through a given handgun of any caliber to determine a difference. The cost of ammo to "wear out" a gun would far exceed the cost of the gun itself. I remember having read somewhere that the PSI generated by both rounds is very similar, +/- 35000 PSI. Many offerings in .40 have beefed up slides to boot. For anyone losing sleep over the matter, pistols such as the HK USP, Sig P229, S&W 4006 were designed specifically for the .40S&W. I personally own both a P229 and 4006. Both of these pistols have beefier slides than their 9mm counterparts(P226 and 5906 respectively). Is it overkill? Who knows? I seriously doubt that I will ever be able to fire enough rounds to find out. Replacing recoil springs regularly is probably more of a factor than caliber choice when it comes to longevity. Just my .02.

 

[Bamashooter]

+1 for that answer

 

[Thermactor]

You may get fewer miles out of a P226 that originally came in 22LR configuration, then converted to 40 S&W.

 

[jhb]

going by memory here, so correct me if i am wrong....but the s&w m&p was designed around the .40, and the steyr m as well. so shouldn't be an issue with life expectancy with those either.

 

[Fiv3r]

I think it depends on if the gun was designed around the particular round. I've heard that the fnh pistols are built around the .40 as they were designed to be heavily marketed toward current LE/Military applications. The result is a solid pistol, but the 9mm versions seem a little blocky as they have to mill off extra slide weight to make them light enough.

I think Glock is at its best when it's chambered in 9mm as Gaston designed the gun around that particular round. That's not a knock against Glock. I think SIG 226s and the 92fs are 9mm guns, not .40s as well. While it will take me a lifetime of shooting to wear them out, I always feel that (right or wrong) that the .40 is going to wear out my aluminum frame guns a bit faster.

I've been dabbling with the idea of SIGs modular 250/320 trigger system, and I would assume that it's built around .40 or .357SIG, but I dunno about that. It doesn't seem fragile to me, but I think I'm going to stick with 9mm primarily and maybe only switch to a .357 or .40 if we find ourselves in another ammo drought. Even then, I have an FNS-40 for .40. The Sig 250 and 320 might get more trigger time in .357.

Anyway, back on topic, I think pistol wear is probably a moot point. It'll take years and years of hard shooting to wear one out over the other.

 

[Zerodefect]

If you can shoot a .40 Glock as well as a 9mm, then get the .40 Glock.

You'll spend at least $4000 on ammo before you even need to think about wear and tear on the larger parts. Doesn't matter if the pistol was designed to stir cotton candy or fly to the moon. If it shoots 10,000+ rounds of .40 without a large part failure, it's good to go. Don't worry about it.

 

[M1key]

MarkCo is a forensic engineer and Glocktalk moderator who shoots Glocks competitively in 40 caliber and claims 80,000-100,000 rounds through several of his pistols with only routine maintenance and some small parts replacement. Could you afford the cost of ammo to wear out a 40?


M

 

[Zerodefect]

I don't expect to exceed 20,000 rounds in any of my Glocks. If they handle that and keep on going, then I'm not the least bit worried.

 

[Wishoot]

I'm not sure it's possible to kill my S&W 4006.

 

[dakota1911]

It is sort of if you can afford enough ammo to wear out one then the cost of another pistol is not a major factor.

 

[Mike J]

I have an old Ruger P series pistol chambered for .40. I remember reading posts by a former Ruger employee that said .40 was harder on those pistols than the 9mm. That was why Ruger went from using a swinging link system to a camblock. Since then I have another .40 that gets used more now but I agree with most of the other posters. If I shoot enough .40 to wear a gun out I will have more than gotten my moneys worth out of it.

 

[John C]

The .40 has more energy than the 9mm, so I have no doubt that 9mm pistols would last a bit longer. As other posters mentioned, if you buy a $500 pistol, and shoot $10,000 of ammo through it, does it really matter? You'd shoot $10,000's worth either way, since 9mm is a bit cheaper than .40.

I'd love to have the time and money to shoot out any one of my pistols, much less all of them.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I saw the below quote on a recent thread. I always wondered how much longevity a person looses with the .40 vs. the 9mm. 25%? 50%? Any opinions?

Sort of depends on what you mean by, how you measure, comparative longevity

If you mean, "until the gun won't work any longer"...I don't know anyone who has shot a quality service pistol enough to break it. I have an old Israeli SIG 228 which rattles as badly as any military 1911 I've ever handled...and it was still functional and reliable.

If you mean, "until you see a decrease in accuracy"...that is a completely different matter. I've shot a SIG 226 which had in excess of 65k practice rounds through it, in a couple of years, in training for competition and it was on it's 3rd barrel. It is pretty common to change 9mm barrels annually...so 30k rounds. Those who shoot full house .40 in competition usually go a lot fewer rounds...maybe 20-25k

"I would not expect a 40S&W P226 to last as long as 9mm P226. Same goes for Glock 22 vs. Glock 17. So, I would not expect a 40S&W SP-01 to last as long as a 9mm SP-01."

A Gen4 G22 might outlast the G17; I'd be very surprised if any .40 CZ would outlast a 9mm one

 

[tarosean]

As other posters mentioned, if you buy a $500 pistol, and shoot $10,000 of ammo through it, does it really matter?

Its a rather funny notion isn't it?

 

[Mauserguy]

Itchy is right, the 9MM and 40 are both spec.d at 35K PSI, exactly the same. The 9MM+p rounds would actually have higher chamber pressures than the 40S&W and thus beat the gun even harder.

If the gun is engineered with a heftier slide and frame, it should mitigate the extra energy of the 40S&W round. Basically that comes down to a gun by gun discussion. If the guns are identical except for the chambering, then yes, the 9MM would outlast the 40, but most manufacturers adjust the guns to the caliber.

In sum, mostly no difference.
Mauserguy

 

[JTQ]

...but most manufacturers adjust the guns to the caliber.

Usually they do, but some take some time to get around to it. For instance Glock waited until Gen 4 to do it.

9mmepiphany wrote,
A Gen4 G22 might outlast the G17

CZ is still thinking about it

9mmepiphany wrote,
I'd be very surprised if any .40 CZ would outlast a 9mm one

 

[peacebutready]

I remember having read somewhere that the PSI generated by both rounds is very similar, +/- 35000 PSI.

Would that mean more pressure overall because PSI is pressure per square inch and the .40 is a wider casing compared to the 9mm?

...the s&w m&p was designed around the .40...

Yeppers

If you mean, "until the gun won't work any longer"...I don't know anyone who has shot a quality service pistol enough to break it.

When the .40 first came out, there were a number of pistols that crapped out with not more than a few thousand rounds through them. I haven't heard of this recently, though.

I'd be very surprised if any .40 CZ would outlast a 9mm one

The slide of the CZ 75b in .40 has more metal to it than the 9mm version. I read claims of it being very durable.

 

[Mauserguy]

Oh, one other thing- many chest thumpers out there say that the modern 9MM is just as good as the 40S&W, but they are mostly speaking of +P loads. +P loads run hotter than 40S&W, with higher chamber pressures (38.5k PSI).

A steady diet of +Ps will beat the heck out of a pistol, so you would probably get much better longevity out of a 40.

Okay, I'll say it. If you are trying to get the same performance out of a 9MM as you would a 40S&W, the 9MM won't last as long.
Mauserguy

 

[9mmepiphany]

The slide of the CZ 75b in .40 has more metal to it than the 9mm version. I read claims of it being very durable.

The question would then be, did they add support for the barrel lockup?

Guys who used to load the CZ clones, when that platform ruled USPSA, to 9mm Major know what I'm talking about

 

[Cee Zee]

You'll spend at least $4000 on ammo before you even need to think about wear and tear on the larger parts.

10X the price for ammo is a starting point on how much you will spend if you actually practice IMO. I bought a Sig P220 a long time ago. I put about 15000 rounds through it before I bought a smaller gun because I could legally carried concealed (finally). I did have to replace a recoil spring on that Sig which is nothing. The rest of the parts could pass for brand new. I don't think I could wear it out if I shot it every minute of every day for the rest of my life. I might lost the lands and grooves but they still shoot after that. Just not accurately. But even that has now signs of wear on my Sig.

Think about this. I bought a lot of WWB ammo for practice with that Sig (back when it was all made in the USA). Even at $20 a box for 50 I still spent $6000 just on ammo plus tax. And I have no doubt I actually spent way north of that amount. For one thing I bought quite a bit of carry ammo to make sure it all worked well. I've never found any ammo that didn't work well in that pistol BTW although Magtech wasn't exactly great. It would cycle but I couldn't hit anything with it.

It will take a lot of time and money to wear out a good pistol. If you think you may want to actually shoot that much you should probably buy the best gun you possibly can because it will save you from having to buy another pistol down the road because it will still be shooting when lesser guns are dead. I own some guns I think are decent that I don't think will last as long as my Sig. Few things will IMO. But I haven't come anywhere near close to wearing that gun out. Again I don't think I can wear it out even if I could afford to try.

 

[d'zaster]

If you shoot enough rounds to wear out the gun then just get another one - it's great excuse! I assume the top brands will last a good long time.

 

[AustinTX]

Itchy is right, the 9MM and 40 are both spec.d at 35K PSI, exactly the same. The 9MM+p rounds would actually have higher chamber pressures than the 40S&W and thus beat the gun even harder.

If the gun is engineered with a heftier slide and frame, it should mitigate the extra energy of the 40S&W round. Basically that comes down to a gun by gun discussion. If the guns are identical except for the chambering, then yes, the 9MM would outlast the 40, but most manufacturers adjust the guns to the caliber.

In sum, mostly no difference.
Mauserguy

That's not at all how it works. Peak chamber pressure is not the only part of the equation.

 

[rskent]

AustinTX said

That's not at all how it works.

An explanation would be nice.
Its my understanding that the force of the round (35K Psi) acting on the area of the round (.355 / .40) is what is cycling my gun. And if you increase the force
cycling the gun without making design changes to the gun it will wear out faster. If as you, say peak chamber pressure is not the only part or the equation, what is?

 

[mavracer]

Peak pressure really has little to do with it. pressure doesn't wear out a gun, friction and impact wear do. Momentum of the bullet is imparted on the slide. 40 S&W has higher momentum in most cases so it's going to cause more wear. How fast it wears out a gun has to do with how heavily the gun is designed. Guns that were designed around the 40 will last a long time, some guns that were designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40 have a shorter life span. Not going to be much difference between a G22 and G17 but BHP 40s are notorious for battering themselves.