Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Ballistics, Nov 18, 2017.
Why did you loose 1 round?
I started out shooting USPSA matches with 45ACP and 9mm. I switched to 40S&W to better meet major power factor and when local PD and SD switched to 40S&W from 9mm (officers/EMTs I talked to and shot with gave me real life convincing difference between 9mm vs 40S&W performance on actual shootings - More people shot with 9mm survived), I also switched from Glock 17/19/26 to Glock 22/23/27.
Best of both worlds. Using 40-9 conversion barrels, I was able to practice with cheaper 9mm but used 40S&W for SD/HD.
As to 40S&W being snappy, my sister who is small framed with small hands competes with M&P40 and when male shooters are surprised that she is shooting 40S&W (and outshooting them) and asks about the snappy recoil, she smiles and says, "What snappy recoil?"
My wife practiced with 9mm for G22/23/27 and now comfortably shoots them without complaint of snappy recoil. If you have not replaced your recoil spring assembly since you bought your 40S&W Glocks and have shot several thousand rounds, try replacing RSA and you will notice marked improvement in "snappy recoil".
As to LE trade-ins, I tell people to snatch up those Glock 22s/23s and use 40-9 conversion barrels to shoot 9mm for cheaper practice. Everyone I suggested who bought Glock 22/23 with conversion barrels are very happy.
As to "modern" 9mm being "good enough", I have no issues and bought a M&P Shield in 9mm and very happy with accuracy.
Didn't we just do this like a week ago?
First of all this is not happening in a vacuum. There are a lot of us who tried the .40 and just flat did not like it.
Paul Harell's video was a nice video, he always does a good job on them which is why I subscribe to him. But the way he shoots and I shoot is not the same thing. I decided not to own a .40 again after I sold my pretty new Gen 2 G17 to buy a new Gen 2 G23. After shooting it for a year and several thousands of rounds, I traded it for a new Gen 2 G17, still have that gun. It was the last .40 I bought. And that is the problem, this is not some wrong think happening on the internet. Its decisions being made by individuals over decades who decided its not the greatest thing since sliced bread despite what the gun writers said. It started happening before the internet. Its police academies determining by studying scores that people don't shoot it as well. Its a grass roots thing not something being imposed on high by the powers that be. The simple inescapable fact is an awful lot of people don't like it and never will no matter how often people post about it on gun forums.
Bullet technology was my reason to stay with 9MM. Many options for what ever your need. Practice is much cheaper, as we all know lead is the highest cost in handloading.
My first .40 was a Glock 27 still have it and shoot it, my second was my Beretta Cougar 8040.
I like the .40 round and it shoots well for me! I was never a big fan of the 9 mm. even though I do own a few.
I am so tired of the description of "snappy" recoil of the 40... Maybe the users of that descriptor just don't like or shoot as well with 40. That's ok. Maybe it has greater recoil that the 9mm. That makes sense. Maybe the recoil of the (sloooow) .45 out of a steel 1911 is easier to manage... But to me the description of snappy recoil always sounds like a crutch excuse made in lieu of of a good argument against the 40.
9mm offers increased capacity and less recoil. No argument there. But it also has a smaller diameter and decreased penetration potential. Improvements to bullet technology that "made the 9mm more effective" were also applied to 40, making it more effective.
I like both and shoot them equally well. In a full sized service weapon I prefer the 40. In a smaller/ccw pistol I prefer the 9. They're different - not better or worse than each other.
HK P2000, 13+1 in 9mm, 12+1 in .40 or 357S.
There's 2 different thoughts; headspaces on case mouth VS headspaces on shoulder. I believe it headspaces on the shoulder, I think that's the consensus now anyway.
IF you spend the money up front (Dillon Carbide dies) I've found the 357S to be no more difficult to reload than any other caliber. Pay attention to the bullet profile; long bearing surface, flat nose and use a slower case filling powder and you won't have issues.
Lots of guys size first using a .40/10mm die, then size the neck using a 357S die. To me it adds an extra step, so I pried open my wallet and bought the Dillon carbide dies. I just make sure the cases have a good polish, and run them into the sizer as step 1 on my Dilloon 550. Other than that, it might as well be a 9mm, as a matter of fact I reload 357S cheaper than I can .40 due to the 124 or 125 grain cost VS 165s......
Objectively speaking, it is still people jumping on and off the bandwagon which is being driven by the carious law enforcement agencies.
I'm enjoying buying LEO trade-in .40s at a steep discount, just like I've previously done with wheel guns during the wonder-nine revolution in the 80s and with 9x19s when the .40 became the new sexy in the late 90s/00s.
I'm anticipating being able to buy inexpensive surplus 9x19s again here in another decade when the FBI and police agencies go with a different cartridge.
If you read almost any reloading manual published at the time the round was introduced in the mid-90s it would have told you the round headspaces on the case mouth. If, however you believe your own eyes just do an image search for a 357 Sig headspace gauge: it has a shoulder but no mouth!
Bottom line is that rounds that are too short headspace on the extractor (like most auto pistol rounds actually do) and rounds that are too long probably headspace on the shoulder. My first set of dies were RCBS and I had a real problem with the slide not closing on loaded rounds. I ground off some of the bottom of the die so it would push the shoulder back farther and the problem went away.
My experience has been that you can massively over crimp a 357 Sig bullet to a ridiculous degree and it will chamber and fire just fine. So IMO the round doesn't headspace on the case mouth.
My LnL has five dies stations so I have a 40 S&W carbide die followed by the 357 die. The main advantage that gives is that you don't have to lube the cases if you do the body with the carbide die first.
I am with @bds in that I need something to shoot Major Power Factor in USPSA tournaments, and .40 S&W loads fit that bill.
I have never been a fan of the .40, and in fact have always claimed how "snappy" they are compared to 9mm and .45, but sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do.
I am in the process of putting together a new gun for next season's USPSA matches, and it looks like it is going to be a .40 whether I like it or not.
Thought you meant you lost a round going from 40 to 357 sig
I do feel that there have been improvements in 9mm ammo. But ultimately, any projectile that relies on expansion has the potential to fail. It may take 10 years or longer to happen, but we will one day see a case where a high profile law enforcement agency experiences a catastrophic failure of the new and improved 9mm ammo. They will decide to move back to a larger caliber. When that happens, the gun buying public will shift also. The gun buying public tends to like whatever law enforcement likes.
I carry 9mm more often than any other caliber, primarily because I can carry a small 9mm like a S&W Shield much easier than a larger caliber handgun such as a 1911 or Sig 220. Sometimes I carry a larger 9mm because I like a higher capacity. But I do not have any doubts that 40 and 45 are more trustworthy rounds in a gun fight. I have operated on many patients shot with various calibers of handguns, and I believe larger holes cause bigger problems more quickly.
The 9mm is a trade off round. A 40 or 45 not carried because it is too big is worthless. 9mm has reasonable enough stopping power in guns that are conveniently sized enough that they can always be carried.
If I knew I was going to a gun fight, though, I would not take the 9mm.
The better 9mm hollow points have improved to where their performance is sufficient. (sufficient =/= the same)
Many want the most capacity they can get in a certain size pistol: Glock 19 vs 23
9mm advocates cite speed of follow up shots, important consideration but difference in my hands is hundredths of a second.
Bigger bullets cost more as they require more lead, copper to produce. 40 ammo cost more than 9mm, cost frequently cited as a factor.
Just a theory (opinion):
If the anti gunners are ever successful at passing another AWB including an arbitrary 10 round mag limit, 40 and 45 will be more popular.
Enhanced 9mm bullets might be less appealing if limited to basically the same number as enhanced 40 & 45 bullets.
Glock 19 (I've got one) would have zero appeal to me if I had to carry it with an artificially restricted 10 round mag, just sickening.
(Same ^ applies to any Glock designed to hold more than 10)
Glock 19 or 26 either with 10 rounds versus a Glock 27 or 30SF with 10 rounds, IMO the larger calibers would be more popular given equal capacity.
I like and own pistols in 9mm, 40 S&W and 10mm. 40 S*W is my favorite. Capacity is nearly as good as 9mm and the round definitely surpasses it in size and ballistics. I find no issue with 40 S&W and recoil, of course I also shoot 357s and 44 magnums...
As you know, the 40 S&W was an outgrowth of the Miami-Dade shootout by the FBI. They incorrectly concluded that the failure of that gunfight was underpowered handgun rounds on the part of the agents. Head shots in law enforcement were not widely taught then. It is an intense round, with more blast and recoil than the 9mm, and sharper recoil than most 45 rounds. Line of sight penetration on auto bodies and windshield glass is very good. For our department guns, the over riding reason for going to Hydra Shok, and HST for duty rounds, was that FMJ penetrated the body armor our officers were using. The round demands training for proficiency. People with smaller stature/hands, and casual shooters, might find it somewhat fatiguing to shoot. I think it's a great round, but with the advancement of outstanding premium rounds/bullets in 9mm, a lot of departments, and shooters are going with either 9mm or 45.
The 40 just doesn't have a marked advantage in performance over a 9mm. Add to that reduced capacity, higher cost, and more recoil and you can see why LE is going back to 9mm. Here is a chart where four 40 S&W LE rounds are compared to a 9mm non-plus P 147HP, the one the FBI is going to. Just not a big difference and even if you add the 357 Sig to the chart, still not a big difference in performance. YMMV
Many LE agencies are run by bean counters, not actual officers working the streets who have to neutralize threatening targets. Ask any military personnel who have close quarter combat experience whether they prefer 17 rounds of 9mm or 15 rounds of 40S&W or even 8 rounds of 45ACP. Their answers may surprise you on the "modern" performance of 9mm. My wife's cousins are police sergeant and sheriff's deputy and I have shot with many seasoned LEOs who have firsthand gunfight experience - most were happy to transition from 9mm to 40S&W.
I have a feeling decisions to switch from 40S&W to 9mm is not always because of round's performance on target but a compromise in ammunition cost, shootability by female/smaller framed officers, cost of training ammunition, etc.
Since I am not a LE agency that has financial issues, I choose both. 40S&W Glocks with 40-9 conversion barrels so I have the option of shooting cheaper 9mm ammunition or 40S&W 165/180 gr JHP of my choice depending on the time of the year and layers of clothing I need to shoot through.
Mind you, I started shooting 9mm/45ACP before 40S&W and I like 9mm. For many shooters wanting a small CCW pistol, I often recommend M&P Shield in 9mm and personally carry one as I like the size/thinness and accuracy. But I like having options in life and also have Glock 22/23/27 available along with Sig 1911 for SD/HD.
I wasn't going to go there, but you are right.
Saleen, you are right SHOT PLACEMENT is everything!
I like handguns. They go boom and make holes in things. I have never shot a caliber that wasn't fun. So I enjoy 40 S&W, just like I enjoy all the others.
I prefer big steel service type pistols. In pistols like that, none of the three (9mm, 40 s&w, 45acp) feels "snappier" than the others. I like having more bullets in the magazine, and I also like making bigger holes in things, so it seems like each of those calibers is a "win" for one reason or another. I would feel fine using any of the three for SD. IMHO, any of them would hurt a lot. I would not be eager to be shot by any of them.
I honestly don’t know why they make anything other than .45 acp for semi-autos.
In all seriousness, if you want to know what is happening to the 40 study what happened to the 16ga... some people want more, some want less. Not that I think the 40 is going the way of the 16ga, but it’s the same mindset that many, if not most, people have.
Like myself for example, I have several 45’s, a few 40’s and no 9’s. Others will be the exact opposite, few people just load up on 40’s.
It is easy to draw the wrong conclusion about why law enforcement agencies use the 40. Around here is a case of human see, human do (Planet of the Apes fans will understand that line).
A large nearby city police department issues 40 caliber Glocks. The Chiefs of the surrounding bedroom communities are retired top P.D. brass. As they are not "gun guys" they are happy with what is used by the Department they just left.
The Training Department and Range Officers want to go to 9mm. It is easier to train and qualify new officers, with requalifications, ammunition is cheaper and there is less wear and tear on the pistols. However the top brass has chose to equip the Officers with body cameras so the 40 remains good enough.
If 9mm was not easier to shoot why would competitions put penalties on it for not making major?
The .40 did not get as much improvement from ammo manufacturers as 9mm did. Put that myth to bed. The FBI protocols gave the manufacturers goals. Essentially 12 to 18 inches of penetration. .40 and .45 did not need to increase penetration so no one worried about it. 9mm got increased penetration.
We had magazine limitations from 1994 to 2004. What we got was the Glock 26, a small 10 round Glock in 9mm. G27 a small 9 round .40 and a 10 shot 10mm and .45 G29 and G30. What people are carrying for the most part are small 9mms. If you wanted a large pistol in an environment like that a lot of .45s would get made not .40s. Why would anyone make a compromise when capacity is no longer in the equation?
Ahh, finally somebody made a thread on this subject. Next, we need people to break the silence on some of the other rarely-discussed subjects here, such as 1911s vs. Glocks, ARs vs. shotguns for home defense, open-carry pros and cons, rifle barrel break-in, and whether it’s OK to keep mags loaded for a long time.
Interesting video on what the pros are carrying.
Separate names with a comma.