Tell me why the .40 is not the best all around defensive round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
After 4 years of carrying a .40 cal. as a carry weapon and before that 9mm and .45 I say yes the .40 is the best all around carry weapon. Why, because it has good penatration, good energy dispersment, and makes a good size hole and you don't have to look for or load hot +p+ to get good performance. what you buy off the shelf works great right out of the box. as far as guns chambered in .40, some are easy to shoot and handle and some are brutal just to hang on to when you do shoot them. not every brand or cal. is going to work for everyone, I was lucky I got a sig 229.40cal. and put houge grips on it and it has been one of the best guns i have ever shoot. my backup to it is a S&W 457 .45 compact that is also easy to shoot. good luck

:cool: :cool: :cool:
 
I've heard a couple people mention .45 being more powerful, but I'm not sure where you get that. Looking over the published data of various manufactures I see that in the weight/velocity/energy realm they are nearly equal with .40 getting a bit of penetration and velocity retention on account of better SD/BC at a given weight. .45 gets the lean on diameter. Gell and animal tests I've seen/read about bear out that there is little difference as well.

I used to be very much against .40, I don't know why, maybe I just didn't like the name. But when I couldn't deiced between 9mm and .45 I realized .40 was right up my alley. Since the difference is so small I think .40 gets boosted over the top on 2 factors, slightly better penetration potential and cheaper winchester white boxes.
 
I think the question is one of power vs rate of accurate fire. I have chosen 9x19 because I can put more holes in the target faster with it than I can with a .40. I am also cheap and of all the respectable defensive calibers, 9x19 allows me to shoot for less ammo cost. You cannot pick your best caliber without considering stopping power, your ability to handle recoil and ammo cost.
Mine is 9x19, most shooters at the local range seem to prefer the 40, but I don't think many people consider rate of accurate fire when selecting a caliber.
 
Went looking for a .45, brought home a .40

I was after a 45 in Springer or Sig. Looked at a Springer Compact (1911) side by side with the CZ Rami. Ten minutes later, the Rami followed me out the door.

My thoughts were to have .357 magnum power plus, with very good carry and accuracy. The idea of 8+1 with 8 more in the spare clip seems good if you wish to hike with bruin, or might tend to miss in defense from BGs. It's a LOT of fire power in a very small package.

Tried it a the range, and found it most accurate. I limp wristed it, and had some feed problems since I am soo use to revolvers. Heard since that Ramis like winchester ammo.

I couldn't be happier. I traded away a SW 459 9mm about a month ago, and there is NO comparison in accuracy. Hi cap of 13+1 weak rounds v.s. 8+1 well placed high energy (and in a little ERGONOMIC package).:evil:

Though I do think a p-38 will follow me home soon.:D :D :D :D
 
.40: more power, bigger holes than 9mm, and more capacity and better penetration than .45. Whats not to love? Absolutely, I think its the best of all worlds in a self defense handgun round, especially when used with a fully supported gun (P226, P229) and with medium weight bullets. Its hard to argue with a 155 grain .40 gold dot at 1200 or 1300 fps.

10mm is a nice cartridge, and if there were a 10mm platform in existance that I liked, I'd be all over it. But, 10mm goes well above and beyond the 9/40/45 scene in terms of top end ballistics, IMO. Its in a different power envelope entirely.
 
Tell me why the .40 is not the best all around defensive

Folks like me gripe about sorting the .40 brass out to get the .45ACP and 9mm brass. :p

I never warmed up to the .40 personally. Fine for folks that do. I prefer certain platforms and have used the same platforms for a l-o-n-g time. I prefer the 1911 style in 45 and the BHP in 9mm. I prefer the SA platform. Yeah I know the BHP can be had in .40...not the same to me...for too many years that BHP was , as designed, a 9mm, and will always be that way to me.

Just a young fuddy duddy myself.
 
Out of 9, .40, .45, using premium JHPs, you get pretty much the same expansion, penetration, etc. between the different calibers. There is only a slight give either way. Power wise, the 9mm is good, .40 is better, .45 is best.
 
it's not the best, because everyone makes double stack horse pistols (CZ75, glock, ruger, et al) in .40 and hardly anyone makes a thin, svelte pistol of similar thickness to a 1911.
 
Hi, I was looking for more power than my 9X18mm Bulgy Makarov . I had already owned a Ruger KP89 and found it chunky in my hands . But damn 19 rds whewwww. Then I went with a Colt Series 80 .45 , for Me i didn't like the recoil , pretty hefty weapon. Then I started reading about the CZ40B , $249.95 from CDNN . For that price I decided to give the .40 S&W a try . Me and the CZ40B were a fit . Readily available practice ammo from Wally-world cheap .Rides nice in a JIT Hume Holster on My hip and I have the confidence in both the round and the weapon now that I fired 700 rds. thru it . Adding a 18lb Wolf spring fine tuned that fit ! I am sure this wouldn't work for everyone , but thats why they sell so many different designs in weaponry ! All that said , I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of ANY firearm from .22lr all the way to .45acp . All this 1 shot stop and ballistics info is meaningless to Me because once you add a crackhead to the mix you throw numbers to the wind ! Good enough for my cop friends in those situations daily adds to my confidence also ! WVleo
 
Well, a lot of folks label the 40 as a compromise round and they intend it as an insult which I don't completely get. Handguns are a compromise so it makes no sense why a compromise cartridge would not make sense.

My personal belief is that assuming Winchester Ranger Ts or relatively hot loaded Gold Dots are gonna do some damage regardless of if they are in the form of 124-127 Gr 9mms, 125 Gr 357 SIGs, 165 Gr 40s or 10mms or 230 Gr 45ACPs. I just don't believe that most people firing several rounds directly into soft tissue are going to see much of a difference between them. I guess you should want every possible advantage on your side which makes sense. At this point, you have to ask yourself if a larger number of smaller rounds makes more sense to you than fewer rounds of a larger round. Or you could just bite the bullet and carry a Para 14/45 with 15 rounds of 45ACP.

Personally, as long as I can consistantly hit the target with it and it is completely reliable, I would feel - and have felt - very well armed with 7 rounds of 9mm.
 
it's not the best, because everyone makes double stack horse pistols (CZ75, glock, ruger, et al) in .40 and hardly anyone makes a thin, svelte pistol of similar thickness to a 1911.

Actually, the S&W 4003 TSW isn't bad. With the aluminum frame it weighs just 28 oz., and shoots pretty good. This is my everyday duty weapon.
 

Attachments

  • 4003 tsw.jpg
    4003 tsw.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 29
it's not the best, because everyone makes double stack horse pistols (CZ75, glock, ruger, et al) in .40 and hardly anyone makes a thin, svelte pistol of similar thickness to a 1911.
Click to expand...

This is a problem with all calibers ... other then the 1911 there aren't many thin, svelte pistols period.

Glock, Beretta, CZ, Sig, HK ... all a bunch of bricks.
 
Hmm...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not the best, because everyone makes double stack horse pistols (CZ75, glock, ruger, et al) in .40 and hardly anyone makes a thin, svelte pistol of similar thickness to a 1911.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well,

I've tried the .40 in a SIG. And I was going to try a CZ40. (I think it was a CZ40, that an actual model?)

Anyway, too much snap on the SIG, went back to my Hi Powers. The CZ just didn't fit my hand, it.

Now I own four, 1911's in various flavers. And have held onto one of the Hi Powers for old time's sake. These seem to just "fit" me.

If I expected trouble though, and really wanted to get serious with a handgun I wouldn't grab one of my .45's. Nope, it would be my CZ52. Now let's talk thin and svelte. And if 8 rounds isn't enough for me I'm screwed already. Anyway you should be using cover when reloading.
I know, kind of eastern bloc, looking like something Ivan Drago packs. But it'll punch a hole through anything a pistol round can. Especially if they are handloads. Some of the guys out there are approaching 2000fps out of a handgun.

7.62x25, loaded hot at about 1600fps, JHP with a steel tip. That would be my compromise round.
Either way you cut it, just plain scary.
 
Nice round to be sure...

...awkward platform.

7.62x25, loaded hot at about 1600fps, JHP with a steel tip. That would be my compromise round.
Click to expand...

I love my CZ52 (hence the screen name).

However it has some downsides:
- 12lb trigger
- over penetration in tight circumstances is a real risk
- fragile firing pin (although it can be replaced with one that is less so)
- Not a smooth shooter (although decent groups can be achieved with practice)...I've found decent follow-ups to be awkward to achieve.

Back on topic...I'm with those that say there is no "best defensive round".

I was watching a video the other day and two points that are often made were reiterated:
1) To be in a gunfight, you need a gun (avoid if you can, but make sure you have one if you must)
2) The best weapon is (or should be) the matter between your ears

Objectively/scientifically, I'm not sure there is a "best defensive round".

Subjectively, the one you can effectively use and do effectively use if needs be, that's the one you want to utilize with that matter between your ears.

My 2 cents...safe shooting,

CZ52'
 
Yeah I ditto that, the CZ52 certainly does have some downsides. That firing pin has got to be the worst by far. Lower capacity, and they aren't exactly the easiest to shoot. At least not without a lot of practice. Heh, which I can't walk around the house dry firing it like my 1911's, thanks to that stupid firing pin.

As for over penetration, I see that as a feature. And the capacity has the limiting effect there.

Anyway, I'm for whatever works for YOU...if you haven't shot the .40 you better before you buy.
 
re: Overpenetration feature

As for over penetration, I see that as a feature. And the capacity has the limiting effect there.
Click to expand...


As long as the feature is applied consistently with this element of the four rules (as presented by IDPA's site):


The 3rd Law of Gun Safety - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!
Bullets can penetrate lots of things, many of which may surprise you. Identify your target before firing - even before dry-firing. If you are not sure, DON'T FIRE! Just as important, make sure there's a safe impact area behind your target. For home dry-fire practice, find and aim only at a BULLET PROOF BACKSTOP. Even though you have checked and double-checked your gun, you should still treat your gun as though it's loaded and functional. Plasterboard walls and outer walls are not bulletproof. A handgun bullet can easily travel through several rooms before stopping. Who is in these rooms? If you're not sure, and you still aimed in that direction, SHAME ON YOU!
Click to expand...

we can agree :) .

Best wishes,

CZ52'
 
I'm not sure how people justify the ".45 is more powerful" comments. It's bigger sure, but a dodge caravan is bigger than a corvette too. Let's look at the numbers from some manufacturers:


Winchester Silvertip Series

.40 S&W = 155 grains at 1205 fps for 500 ft-lbs
.45 Auto = 185 grains at 1000 fps for 411 ft-lbs

I'd say that's pretty close to a toss up, I certainly wouldn't call the .45 more powerful. Also keep in mind that the .45 numbers are from a 5 inch barrel and the .40 numbers are from a 4 inch barrel. Also Winchester Silvertip:

.357 mag = 145 grains at 1290 fps for 535 ft-lbs

This is from a 4 inch vented barrel. Very similar to the .40 numbers no? nobody things .357 is a slouch.

Not a Winchester fan? How about hyrdashocks?

.40 S&W = 135 grains at 1190 fps for 420 ft-lbs
.357 mag = 130 grains at 1300 fps for 490 ft-lbs

.40 S&W = 165 grains at 980 fps for 350 ft-lbs
.45 Auto = 165 grains at 1060 for 410 ft-lbs

They're all pretty close. Keep in mind that 4" vs 5" barrel thing (still in effect here), .40's superior sectional density vs. .45 at 165 grains and that federal is a bit of a ninny when it comes to velocity.


I don't really like hydrashocks as much as Gold-Dots

.40 S&W = 155 grains at 1200 fps for 496 ft-lbs
.357 Mag = 158 grains at 1235 fps for 535 ft-lbs

.40 S&W = 180 grains at 1025 fps for 420 ft-lbs
.45 Auto = 185 grains at 1050 fps for 435 ft-lbs

Once again .40 approximates .357 performance for similar bullet weights. At around 180 grains the .45 barely edges out the .40 but keep in mind that at that weight the .40 will have better sectional density (not given) and there's still the 4" v 5" test barrel issue.

Golden Sabers anybody?

.40 S&W = 180 grains at 1015 fps for 412 ft-lbs
.45 Auto = 185 grains at 1015 fps for 423 ft-lbs
.45 Auto +P = 185 grains at 1140 fps for 534 ft-lbs

It's not until you move to +P that you start to make any gains (although that's still out of a 5" barrel vs 4" for the .40). Plus not every .45 is rated for +P's

I looked at the number for a couple other manufacturers and they're falling out in a similar fashion.


Considering the above and what can be done with the .40 and longshot powder I don't see how anyone can claim that the .45 is categorically "more powerful"
 
I don't know about more powerful or not. I'll take your word for it. But all I know is that snap of the .40 SIG I shot just wrenched my wrist. I've got a bad wrist, and the other one isn't in great condition. So the .40 just isn't an option for me. At least not the configs I've seen. I suppose some of it is the gun design. I don't know. I know a couple other guns I've shot do the same thing, the Bersa in .380 I absolutely can not shoot. Some of the lightweight guns, and I probably won't shoot a magnum again (okay I've got a soft spot for the .357, it's about like the 7.62x25)

Personally my take is whatever fits you, especially when it comes to handguns. It does me no good to carry a .40. If I can only get a couple shots off, and by then it probably looks like Ray Charles is shooting the gun. As it stands now I am confident I'll keep all my shots on COM at 10 yds or less as fast as I can pull the trigger. Maybe a few fliers. That's with one of my .45's I shoot frequently. My Hi-power about the same. Personally I'll stick with that. I know what you are saying though. The unreasonable self willed opinion is a hard thing to get over. It's like the old Ford vs. Chevy days.
 
I absolutely agree Risasi that the platform and your ability with it is far far more important than the cartdrige, I just think there is a general misconception about the "power" of the .40 and I was trying to point it out.

Of course weight and velocity are not all the factors in the equation, certainly SD, diameter and bullet shape and construction play a major role as well, it's not a simple subject.
 
Yuppers...more than enough to keep us amused trying new things for the rest our days. That's for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top