What good is a .40S&W round for? compromise caliber?

[Harold Mayo]

Still not a matter of popularity, though you do bring up something.

Curry is just one spice. There are MANY spices and many have different tastes so, of course, everyone should use what they prefer.

But a spice is just a spice.

The .40 S&W was designed as a compromise between high capacity and large caliber. It's neither better nor worse than other handgun calibers. If a .39 caliber or .42 caliber or something like that was devised, then what would people say...?

"My .39 *** is better than your .45 ACP or your .40 S&W because it has more velocity and has slightly higher magazine capacity, even though it weighs just a little less. What's the difference between a .39" hole and a .40" hole, anyway?"

OR

"My .42 LMAO is better than your .45 ACP because it has higher velocity and more magazine capacity. What about the .40 S&W? My .42 LMAO is 0.02" bigger in diameter, of course. It makes a bigger hole, hence it is more effective, even if the velocity is lower."

I carry either a 9mm or a .45 ACP, depending on what I feel like on a particular day. I am pretty much neutral about which is better. I control the 9mm (a BHP) better with multiple shots and I feel better with high capacity but I shoot the .45 ACP (a 1911) more accurately, though slightly slower, and I definitely feel like I need more rounds. The .40 caliber pistols that I've owned (a Sig P229, a Glock 22, and a .40 BHP) have been fine but I really only liked the P229.

 

[Mairsil]

I'd like a gun in .42 LMAO alright...

Though a 13mm **** would of course be the ultimate stopper.

 

[gulogulo1970]

Its just that 9mm in its military FMJ form is a lackluster performer. That has cast a bad image on the round, even though the 9mm JHPs do quite well. 45ACP did well in its FMJ form in WWII so the bigger is better has stuck around. So the reasoning (in America) is 40 has to be better than a 9, whether its true or not.

 

[Moonclips]

Carry what you can shoot well and you would not feel undergunned with any of the popular rounds. With new bullet developments, even a .38 Sp+ out a 6-shot is a viable SD round.

 

[Harold Mayo]

But that's a myth. The .45 ACP in FMJ performs no better than any other FMJ round.

It's the difference between being stabbed with a .36" rod and a .45" rod. It isn't even a matter of cutting a hole that diameter but of forcing one through.

 

[Moonclips]

Hold the mayo

***!? A 45ACP FMJ is no better than a 9mm FMJ? ROTFLMAO

 

[Harold Mayo]

***!? A 45ACP FMJ is no better than a 9mm FMJ? ROTFLMAO

I'd say that you need to do a little research on ballistics before ROTFLYAO. It's pretty much a given to those who have done so that FMJ rounds (in handguns) all suck at about the same level.



Of course, there are always going to be those who believe that .45 ACP ball is a 95% stopper 'cause their grandpa told them so. These are, of course, the same people who believe that a .45 ACP round will lift you up off the ground and carry you several feet.

 

[gp59]

Now see Harold we can all get along. and your right, when you come down to it a spice is just a spice, just like a bullet is a bullet, weather its a .380 or a 44 magnum, they all do the same thing, put a hole through something. I like many calibers and own and shoot several different ones at the moment. my carry gun is a S&W m457 .45acp and I like the way it shots and feels. my favorite gun that i will pass down to my grandson or granddaughter, depending on which one gets there dads gun, is a sig229.40. it is the most accurate and comfortable gun to shoot i have ever owned. I've had several full size 9mm that were great but not as compact as the sig .40 is. so i will keep it and buy more guns in other cal. including 9mm because I can. thats what so great about the US, free will and freedom to do what you what, with in reason.

 

[Harold Mayo]

I really liked the P229, actually. Compact, accurate, decent capacity. It also somehow tamed the impulse generated by the .40 to levels that were not really bad at all. It's the softest-shooting .40 that I've ever fired. The .40 in really small guns, like the G27, just plain sucks to shoot.

Though off-topic, I'm actually considering trying out a Sig P225 as a carry gun. I've sorta fallen in love with the ergonomics of it and it fits my hand better than almost any other handgun.

 

[gp59]

Harold I to have tried the glock sub compacts and found them to be a hand full. the G26 I had was fitted with a extended ported barrel and was some what manageable, but the G27 was more then my hands could take. the best shooting glocks I had and shot were the G17,G20,G21 and the G22. all the rest just did'nt fit my hand very well. the worst .40 i have ever shot was a .40 G23, the best being my sig229.40. the best 9mm I owned and shoot was a baby desert eagle full size. the worst being the G26. best .45 so far has been the compact S&W, worst a full size 1911 that was really wore out. go figure. some guns and cal. just fit people diff. the main thing is to get one that you can hit with all the time. the rest will take care of its self.

 

[bradvanhorn]

Wow Harold, these guys have really been trying to work you over! Sorry I wasn't around to give you some back up; been down at Camp Lejeune the last few days.

What always entertains me most about stopping power debates are the stories. "45 is more effective, because John Doe told me how he launched some guy across the parking lot when he hit him with a 45." and "9mm sucks, because I heard someone say they fired a full mag at a bad guy and it didn't even phase him." I used to hear even more interesting garbage when I worked part time in a gun store.

I remember one time a guy was telling me he'd shot a North Vietnamese soldier with 5.56 from his M-16, and the soldier went flying backwards from the impact. At first I tried to talk common sense to the guy. Bullets don't cause people to fly anywhere, because it's a little piece of metal, and it can't possibly carry enough kinetic energy to knock down, let alone make fly, a human being. Most rounds won't even send old soda cans flying ten feet, how the heck are they going to make a grown human fly ten feet?! But he wouldn't have any of that - by God he saw that guy fly backwards, and it was the hit from his M-16 that did it! o.k. buddy, it must be time for your medication.

I now think it's funny to read stories from Iraq where guys are saying they hit with 5.56 and it didn't do anything at all - including stop the opposition from shooting back. o.k., so which is it, they fly backwards or it has no effect?

BTW, I was in the Persian Gulf for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I was in Somalia twice, I was in Iraq - mostly Baghdad - for Iraqi Freedom; I've been in/around combat.

Most of the time when someone says they emptied a mag into a guy and it didn't do anything - you know what happened? They missed.

Handgun rounds are ballistically weak. Velocity is irrelevent; energy is irrelevent. Penetration is the critical factor, and expansion - if you get any - is a bonus. The only thing that matters is if the round penetrates and connects with critical tissues. Larger caliber - or more expansion - gets you a wider hole, and thus an increased chance of connecting with critical tissue. However, I say once again, put it in perspective - make a 9mm hole, and make a 10mm (40S&W) hole. How much extra do you think you get with the one mm?

At the lowest common denominator most everyone can shoot 9mm faster and more accurately than any other common fighting caliber. If you want to train to handle the increased recoil of a larger caliber - which usually carries with it the slower recovery time between shots - to get that one mm difference, then go for it. But don't be fooled into thinking it's the one mm that's making the difference - it's the time you invest in learning to hit your target that will make the difference.

 

[Scoob]

I like the .40 cal. It is my favorite round overall.

Lots of people want to see it go away. They hate this inanimate peice of metal...I don't get it

 

[PM9]

I like the .40 cal for several reasons.

But the one rule for a handgun I live by is: regardless of make, system or caliber, I shoot the biggest & most powerful handgun round that I can comfortably & accurately.

because....

#1. Bigger bullets need less fudge factor, given equal construction,( I.E. quality hollowpoints ) & velocity.

#2. To quote someone else, " you can't miss fast enough to win ".

If the recoil & muzzle blast of a particular round is causing you to miss or shoot poorly, PLEASE do me & yourself a favor by using a smaller caliber.

This is so you will have a much better chance of hitting what you're aiming at & that's the most important thing in this equation. In a gunfight, hits mean everything & misses only endanger innocent people.


Doug

 

[cheapsk8]

First, I am NOT anti 9mm.
Second, I LOVE .45.


Quote
"Greatly increases hitting power"? Based on WHAT, exactly?

Winchester Ranger-T 9mm 127gr +P+ @ 1,250 ft/sec = 450 ft-lbs.


FACT:
155gr @ 1330fps in a 4" bbl http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/longshot/40sw.htm
This load =608 ft-lbs

I have tried these loads and they do as advertised. And this IS NOT above standard levels.

As soon as ammo manufacturers pick this up we will see some pretty decent loads.

And if this isn`t greatly increreased power, what is?
Hmmm, more velocity...more bullet mass...., nahh, can`t be more powerful.

Other claims
"The .40 has a more brutal recoil than the .45"

OK,
shove a .45 into a 9mm frame gun and try the recoil.
And if we take a .45 230gr @ 950fps(a warm load), it only has 460ft-lbs of energy. Newtons law, action equals reaction. More energy going out, more energy coming back.

C`mon guys. Like it or not, the .40 is good.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Handgun rounds are handgun rounds, regardless of how many ft-lbs of energy are generated.

If we're going to say that the effectiveness of a handgun round is dictated entirely by the energy generated, then we need to go with a 10mm, a .41 Remington Magnum, or a 9x23. The latter actually gives more rounds in the magazine than any of the rest, too. So...why isn't everyone flocking to the 9x23? Why did the .41 AE die out? Why isn't everyone using a full-house 10mm?

Handgun rounds all suck. The .40 S&W is and was a compromise round because the powers that be thought that they could solve a non-existent problem by making a round that was bigger than a 9x19 but faster than a .45 ACP. There's nothing wrong with the round at all and it's now mainstream but the fact is that it was conceived as a compromise.

 

[juggler]

Could care less what other people use, just like the spirited debate and the information provided. I do have a rebuttal that I want to address to Harold Mayo

.40 in really small guns, like the G27, just plain sucks to shoot.

My carry/IDPA/ConTact all-around most-used firearm is the 27 with the extension on the mags...to me that made all the difference. Traded my 23 in for what I consider to be an upgrade, since now I have something that is with me at all times.
Easy to conceal, comfortable to carry, accurate, and every single time I pull the trigger it goes 'BANG'. No cocked and locked to worry about (another debate, I know ) and I have absolutely no trouble handling it.
Granted my Glock 34 has a smoother trigger (and cheaper ammo, I don’t even reload that one), my Springfield sends larger rounds down-range, and the 625 and 686 are more fun to play with.......but c'mon, SUCKS? Sounds like someone had a bad experience.

 

[gp59]

Lets sum this up, as far as some of you are concerned, Its a compromise rd., size doesn't matter, all pistol Rd's are weak, ect. ect. so what are we disagreeing about. why don't we all go get .22s and be done with it, because it makes a hole also when you shoot someone with it. so hay lets all get .22s and really be able to shoot cheap and carry cheap ammo. the fact is if you like a particular rd and and shoot it and hit what your aiming at then thats what you should carry. just because you don't like a particular rd and don't understand what and why it was developed doesn't mean its a bad cal. It just means you don't like it and some people do. I like all cal. except .25cal. and i would not feel under gunned so to speak carrying a 9mm or a .380 or even a .32cal. but i chose a .40 cal and .45 cal. because thats what I like and feel comfortable shooting and I can hit consistently with them. I can hit with the smaller cal. even better. so lets all agree to disagree and respect each others ideas of what they feel is the best cal. for them.

 

[Moonclips]

Handgun rounds all suck.

If you're shooting an elephant, well, then yes. Doh!

But for general SD, any of the newly developed and proven rounds 9mm or larger should be good enough. Not talking "wonder" round here. Nor any anecdotal one-shot stops. Just common sense and general knowledge. Whew!

 

[Heraclitus]

.45 ACP is the best bullet in its category.

9mm is the best bullet in its category.

"Compromise" is only a word. If the .40 S&W does it for you, then that's the caliber you want.

 

[JohnBT]

Harold - I don't want to be seen as piling on, but curry is not a spice. Curry is a mixture of spices, and styles of cooking, and there are many, many different kinds.

That stuff we get in the can at the grocer in the U.S. is a sorry excuse and poor, worthless imitation.

I now return you to your normally scheduled bickering. I mean debate.

John

 

[Harold Mayo]

Oh, God, JohnBT! It isn't piling on. I didn't realize that curry was a mixture of spices.

I am, for the first time in this thread, proven wrong.

 

[SteelyDan]

Well, Harold, at least you've demonstrated you have a sense of humor, and I always respect that. Plus you started a good thread. And I'll leave it at that.

 

[IndridCold]

Ok, right off the top I am a .40 advocate. The Speer Gold Dot 165 grain +P is a bada$$ round, penetrates very well, and dumps a bunch of energy into the target. Now I dont really believe there is much of a difference between all 3 loads. Some people seem to beleve the .45 has the stopping power of a tac-nuke, and the 9mm is marginally better than a .22 short. All handgun loads are inherently weak and unless you're packing a .454 or the .500 hand howitzer, you can be easily outgunned. Back to the subject, I love love love the .45, however its just not logical TO ME to carry it concealed. The .40 is the optimum round to carry for concealed purposes. As a LEO duty sidearm, I'd love a .40. It all eventually boils down to whatever fits the shooter best.
Ah what the heck, 9mm truly is for pansies and old women.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Ah what the heck, 9mm truly is for pansies and old women.

Then call me granny, 'cause I use a 9mm more than half the time.

But, then again, I also use one hell of a nice custom .45 ACP the other 49% of the time, too.

Super Granny? You decide.

 

[Moonclips]

Super Granny it is!

Take care and be well.