Paging Stephen Camp: Questions about the .40S&W

[Quartus]

I have always stood in bemusement whenever states that the .40 is more a handful to manage than the .45ACP

I've always stood in bemusement whenever someone states that the .45 a is handful to manage!


I dunno, mebbe I'm just wierd. I don't find a .454 to be a bit obnoxious. No, follow up shots are NOT quick. But it's fun to shoot.

Maybe that is why a friend just gave me 200 rounds of 40 S&W this weekend....

Uh oh! Sounds like a crack dealer's trick! He's trying to suck you in!

SPEAKING OF KNOCKDOWN POWER:

Well, the short answer to that is this: There ain't no such thing. The long answer involves a discussion of physics, and that's another thread. Do a search on those terms, and maybe throw "shotgun" into the search. Preacherman started a good thread on the subject a few weeks back.

 

[GooseGestapo]

As others have stated, this is a particularily good thread on the .40 S&W. I second the worst of both regarding recoil,-stiff and snappy, but is largely due to all my .40's being of the "Tupperware" variety.

My experience with the .40 very much parallels that of Mr. Camps. As we're at roughly the same point in our careers and similar backgrounds.
(Should I mention I'm the cause/source of the "clueless emeritus" title ?)

I've unlike many, had a lot of experience "using" the .40 on man-sized wildlife and observed it's results, and have a considerable personal data base to compare it against.

I've shot approximately a dozen whitetail deer with the .40, as well as roughly three times that with .38/.357, and three with the 10mm. Only deer shot with .45 has been with .45 pistol bullets w/sabots from muzzle loader, and none with 9mm (unless you consider that many of the .38/.357 loads essentially duplicate the 9's) note: many of the deer were dispatched after vehicle collisions while "ON DUTY", but all with 10's were during "hunting" with a S&W 1006 personally owned firearm.

My observations are essentially those well documented by Mr. Camp. See his article on his STI Trojan 6" in 9mm. That is essentially the performance I've seen with all the above mentioned cartridges/loads/calibers. As he observed on the injured officer, performance with "best" 9mm, "MOST" 155gr-180gr JHP .40's, and "BETTER" .45acp is essentially the same now.
Neither are tossing "Nerf balls", and none are equivalent to high-powered rifles or 12ga shotgun.
As regarding the 9mm, I do intend to use it on some does this year from a S&W Super-9, as I have a few Speer Gold-Dots, Hornady XTP's and ZERO hp's left over from the PPC season.

There is seldom anything new under the Sun !!

Just "marketing" to convince you there IS.

FWIW, I really can't see a material difference between the .40 and the 10mm. I think that the FBI and Dr. Fackler actually were onto something when they set forth the criteria that led to the .40 S&W. I haven't seen a discernable difference on the performance of .40 vs 10mm using the exact same bullets/weights on game. However, I do recommend the 155gr JHP's over the 180's in .40, and the 180's in 10mm over 200gr; ie approx. 1200fps works better than 950-1,000fps, IMO.

I know that now that our agency has been carrying the .40 Glocks for 7 years, we have no reason to change, and don't plan to for the forseeable future.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, GooseGestapo. It's nice to see similar observations from an independent source. I'd feared seeing this thread degenerate into name-calling as is sometimes the case and unfortunate, in my view. You summed up my views to the "T" in what I consider one of best posts I've seen in a good while.

That different folks perceive felt recoil differently just flat seems to be true. I'm not sure why, but have noticed it in 11 years as a police firearms instructor and continue to see it as a CHL instructor. Could it be that some of us are not so sensitive to say muzzle flip as we are to the total "shove" while exactly the reverse is true in others? In other words perhaps our individual senses hone in on one aspect of recoil more than another? IF that is the case, then the fellow saying that the forty's kick is "sharper" than the forty-five's" and the guy saying that the forty kicks less than the forty-five and so forth, are both telling the truth, honestly reporting what they observed. Perhaps this is a possible source of divergence in descriptions of recoil, etc.

Best.

 

[GooseGestapo]

YEP ! THAT TOO !

Also consider that different "launchers":Sigs, Glocks, 1911's, S&W's, Hi-Power's, all have different ergonomics. ie:grip angles, weights, height of axis of bore above point of grip, ect.

Different loads have different energy impulses. ie: 90gr bullet @ 1400fps vs 230gr @ 800fps.

Also factor in the difference in "torque" due to different velocities, bullet weights, and rifling twist rates and directions (cw vs ccw).

(BTW, it's the barrel torque factor that I believe the 9mm is favored in PPC over the .45 as the .45 "torques" you away from the baricade, making the .45 harder to "shoot" than the 9mm.)

No wonder we have different "EXPERIENCES".

 

[Blueduck]

In other words perhaps our individual senses hone in on one aspect of recoil more than another?

One thing I think might contribute to this is muzzel blast. While not really an aspect of recoil, some people are more sensitive than others to it and measure "recoil" or "kick" in terms of "pleasant to shoot", or it just frankly scares people into thinking the gun kicked harder than it really did. See the Blackhawk in 30 carbine for a gun that does not "kick" bad, but tends to induce flinch in some shooters.

40 has a higher pressure level than the 45, and often shorter bbls as well, doubling up the blast effect on people.

 

[Quartus]

Add the last three posts together, add it different hand sizes and shapes, and I think we've come as close as we ever will to nailing this to the wall.

 

[bountyhunter]

That different folks perceive felt recoil differently just flat seems to be true. I'm not sure why, but have noticed it in 11 years as a police firearms instructor and continue to see it as a CHL instructor. Could it be that some of us are not so sensitive to say muzzle flip as we are to the total "shove" while exactly the reverse is true in others?

Yes, and that is my main gripe with the .45 when I shoot the heavy factory loads: it is a long, slow push that makes me wait on the gun before I can start driving it again. The .40 has a quick "pop" recoil that just seems mesh with what I am trying to do when I am shooting.

As to muzzle blast: it can be disconcerting. I ordered some .38 reloads and when I first shot them I saw flames about 18 inches long shooting out of the barrel/cylinder gap on each side.... slightly hotter than the target loads I had been shooting. This stuff must be +p. Once I got used to it, I just ignored the flamethrower effect.

 

[J.Bourne]

I don't find muzzle blast to be a problem with .40 S&W or .45 ACP.

Now, my Sig 239 in .357 SIG is a fire breathing dragon.

I get back on target faster with my .40s than I can with any of my .45s, with the possible exception of my Sig P220 Stainless. I think it's heft really helps to dampen felt recoil for me.

 

[Stealthfixr]

If the 40S&W is so good, then why is the 10mm generally disliked?

First off--great discussion here! No name calling or anything. Very welcome!

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm? It seems to me, and I am NOT an expert--just an average reloader, the larger case size with a slower (relative) burning powder would yield greater power, the same/similar accuracy with less felt recoil. Gun mags from the 10mm creation time-frame seemed to criticize the round and call it too powerful and inaccurate. So, where is my non-experience based assumption off target (so to speak)? Can't a 10mm be downloaded to 40S&W power levels and provide a lot more headroom for case pressure issues?

I've shot a buddy's SA XD40, and I too felt it was a little snappy. I must admit to never having shot a 10mm ... hence the question. I do not have a 10mm pistol, but I am considering buying the Dan Wesson Razorback. Comments much appreciated!

 

[Zak Smith]

Stealthfixr,

My take is this: If you don't mind full-power 230gr in a steel 1911, then 10mm or 9x23 in 1911 will be a pleasure to shoot.

-z

 

[bountyhunter]

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm?

I am not sure exactly why the 10mm got a bad rep out of the gate. I do know that some of the first 10mm ammo built up was not good and that pissed off some people. The other problem is that it may have been perceived as too powerful for LE use because of the risk of "over penetration", similar to the rap put on the full-power .357 magnum today. I suspect that the .40 was seen as hitting the right blend of power, penetration and recoil for LE. It's true a 10mm could be downloaded to match the .40 ballistics, but the user would probably ask: 'Then why do I need the larger 10mm cartridge?" Peak pressure is higher in the .40, but not dangerously high. From what I've seen, case blowouts resulted from brass reloaded too many times or poorly designed guns (9mm guns "beefed up" to launch the .40). IMO, a well designed .40 shooting decent ammo has no higher danger of a failure than any other gun.

 

[Sean Smith]

If the 40S&W is just a cut down 10mm round, then why do some still refer to "undesirable" characteristics of the 10mm?

Because they are idiots.

Though in truth, the .40 S&W isn't just a cut down 10mm. If it was, we probably wouldn't be reading about .40 S&W blow-ups with regularity. This is because the .40 S&W case is actually a different, substantially weaker design than the 10mm case. Combined with its near-10mm pressures (35,000 psi vs 37,500 psi), the generally faster powders used to load .40 S&W and the drastic reduction in internal volume (about 50% less than 10mm when both are loaded with 180gr bullets), and you get a cartridge that isn't real tolerant of loading errors, bullet setback, or anything else that could contribute to a case failure.

Hence 10mm guns are not famous for blowing up, while .40 S&W guns are, even though 10mm loads can deliver vastly superior ballistics. I wouldn't say the .40 S&W design is unsafe per se (never had a problem with mine), but it clearly has a smaller margin of safety by design than many other cartridges.

 

[agtman]

"***but it clearly has a smaller margin of safety by design than many other cartridges."


Bingo.

Not only a shorter case, but the .40 has thinner case walls than its parent cartridge - especially in the critical web area. This is also why bullet-weights in factory .40 ammo come to a screeching halt at 180gns (and at slo-pokin' velocities), whereas the 10mm keeps right on going with the 190gn, 200gn and 220gn bullets and can do so at speeds that would KABOOM! a .40 pistol into the next dimension.

Not surprisingly, the higher internal pressure generated by the .40's cramped case using 180gn bullets have caused many LEAs, looking for higher velocity without risking KABOOMS!, to consider .40 loads using the lighter bullets, either a 165gn HP or a 155gn HP.

A lighter .40 bullet has the twin virtues of reducing pressure somewhat, while still allowing for decent velocities to get penetration into the target.

The 165gn .40 loads (e.g., Remington's Golden Saber HP load in .40S&W) are, generally speaking, about 150fps faster than their 180gn counterparts (somewhat more for the 155gn .40s, depending on the ammo-maker).

 

[jedi]

I recently shot a Beretta 92fs and a Sig P226 in .40 back to back. I noticed know difference in recoil between the two...they were both quite pleasant. The 9mm round was 115 grain +P and the .40 was 155 grain. FWIW.