Objectively speaking, why the 40 S&W hate / decline?

Most states allow concealed carry so the emphasis is on small, concealable guns. The 9mm excels in this area. So the general consensus is that the 9mm with modern ammunition is fine for most applications where a automatic handgun makes sense. If you want more power than the 9mm, the .40 doesn't make much sense, because it is such a marginal step. Arguably the .45 is just the same. Not everyone is enamored by the .45 these days either. Neither the .40 nor the .45 offer enough of an increase in performance over the 9mm for me to consider them worth the decrease in capacity and the increase in weapon size and ammunition cost. So the .40 is taking a hit in popularity because a lot of people are asking what some of us have been asking since its inception, which is "meh, why bother?" Meanwhile the 10mm is enjoying a, increase in popularity because it represents an appreciable increase in performance over the traditional auto pistol cartridges. If you want real performance from your automatic handgun, you get a 10mm Auto, otherwise, The Nine is fine.

 

I love my .40. I believe it is a step up from the 9mm but that's just my .02. I like the bigger hole and heavier faster bullet. How can that be a bad thing????

 

The 9 is fine as long as your bullets expand.

 

and IF they don't, the difference between .355" and .400" or .045" is going to save the day???

Chuck

 

That's the argument. 'Cause bigger bullets make bigger holes.

I can only imagine if this argument took place back in the day of bayonets. I can just imagine a bunch of generals sitting around debating whether they should use 9 or 10 mm bayonets, pouring over bayonet reports trying to find that one case where a bayonet that was 1mm bigger would have made all the difference.

 

The answer is, it depends. The cross sectional area of 45 ACP is 50% greater than the cross sectional area of 9mm. If a large blood vessel is hit, you will have faster blood loss through the bigger hole, in this case up to 50% faster. That could make a difference. In any case, I can envision no scenario where I would prefer a smaller hole over a larger hole, assuming all other things equal.

 

All of the current service calibers are pretty even in performance. Velocity, projectile mass, sectional density, all of that varies. But results in calibrated ballistic gel are very similar. So if you like the .40, you're not giving up anything. If you don't like the .40, you're not giving up anything. Personally, I don't care for the recoil impulse of the .40. Others don't have my issue with it. More power to them. In my opinion, there's no reason to knock the .40, but it's not a barn-burner with obvious advantage, either. I wonder if some of the haters just can't get past the fact that it's not a 10mm.

 

Its also interesting to note that some people who say they love the 10mm say they don't like the recoil of the 40. I wonder how much 10mm they really have shot. If your wrists are outmatched by the 40 S&W, you will surely break them off with 10mm.

 

Objectively, I don't think it's hate at all. It just lacks an identity, as just about every pistol chambered for it also has a 9mm counterpart.

I have a 1911 in .45 acp. That's iconic. I have a Hi Power, a Beretta 92, Sig P226, and CZ 75 in 9mm. They are iconic. I can't think of a single pistol that invokes "40 cal"; if there was one I probably would hunt it down.

 

Well, many of the generation of striker-fired pistols that came after the Glock were designed around 40 and then had 9mm barrels and breechfaces dropped in for the 9mm variant. The S&W M&P for example. I don't know what the iconography analysis of this would be, but there are many extant pistols that were built around the .40. Usually as a way to chase LE contracts.

 

Pretty sure HK USP was first introduced in .40sw. That would be iconic in my book

 

S&W 4006

 

Sig P229 was designed for .40 as was I believe the M&P. I don't own a Sig & have never shot one but they seem to call for me. I may have to get one eventually. Of course I seem to get sidetracked at times.

 

S&W 411. Took mine to the mountains for plinking and had fun, love the .40!

 

I'm very fond of my P229 in .40
https://photos.app.goo.gl/39K7HiZapZWNJ53z1

 

I love my 229 .40 also...

It's one of those firearms that I consider a perfect fusion of platform to caliber...

.

 

If I was going to buy I handgun in caliber 40 Smith & Wesson I think I'd get a CZ 75b. The gun is heavy enough to mitigate The Recoil almost entirely. It has an excellent single action trigger and gives you the option of carrying the hammer down for double action/ single action or carrying cocked and locked.

I haven't found any hard evidence that this is true but it's rumored that the CZ 75 in 9mm was one of the very few Wonder nines that Jeff Cooper had any use for.

 

While this is true, it should be noted that the Sig P229 is virtually identical to the Sig P228 dimensionally. The Sig P228 was designed for the 9mm and the slide was upgraded to support the .40 S&W and .357 SIG. When the slide was upgraded, SIG designated the pistol the Sig P229.

 

I've never been much of a 9 mm fan but it's winning me over. It certainly has a place when it comes to compact single stack pistols. I have one and and find it the perfect carry. It's the only 9 mm I have though. Most of my range time is spent shooting 45 ACP.

I was shooting with a friend a few days ago and I tried his mid sized P229 (think Glock 19). What an absolute pleasure that gun is to shoot. I was amazed at how easy it is to be accurate with that pistol. I fully understand now why most agencies are moving back to 9 mm. 40 has to be harder to shoot accurately for most people and 45 is just out of the question for the rank and file.

 

"Glocked" brass from their unsupported chambers.

 

I agree with what you said. I just wanted to note that the 228 slide was made from two mated pieces of sheet metal stampings. The 229 is machined from a single piece of stouter stainless steel -- so the update was quite significant.

.

 

I can say I'm one of those and the reason is expectations. I run my 10mm hot and expect it to recoil like a magnum.

The .40 is closer to the 9mm and .45 and I expect to be similar to my 9mms and faster than my .45s. Sadly, it just was not for me, too much flip slowing me down at speed.

Great round, just not for me. I like my .45s and 9s

 

Agreed. I DO tend to prefer the 9x19 with at least a 124 grain loaded on the warm side of standard to hot. Of course, I ALSO prefer steel framed guns as well(even CC guns).

 

It can be a very unpleasant round to fire in the wrong gun.

I hated to shoot my 2nd Gen Glock 22 until I switched to a 22lb recoil spring. It went from being nasty to being like an M1911 with normal defense loads.

 

I carry a Glock 22 in .40 S&W as a duty gun (department issue). Previously I was issued a Sig 226R-DAK in .40. (I have one of my own). I also own a Glock 35 and a Smith & Wesson M&P in .40.

One advantage of the .40 over the 9mm is that it creates a little bit bigger hole and because the projectiles are heavier, it might have better penetration against intermediate barriers like heavy winter clothing or laminated auto glass. A disadvantage is that it does have a snappy recoil impulse and it can be hard on guns if you don't replace the recoil springs on a regular basis.

Some smaller statured shooters just do better with the 9mm because it doesn't recoil as much. I have fairly big hands and I'm not recoil sensitive and I find .40 to be unpleasant when launched from a small platform like a Glock 27.

Some police agencies issue sidearms and in some places you buy a gun off the approved list (which is most common around here). Agencies that issue guns often have a 7 or 10 or 12 year replacement cycle, and some of them have replaced .40 cal gun with 9mm guns for a variety of reasons -- less recoil, cheaper ammunition, etc.

(I buy much of my practice ammo from Freedom Munitions and a case of 9mm costs me about $200 and a case of .40 costs me $225-240 so the cost differential for practice ammo is not particularly significant)