What's up with all the .40S&W ragging?

[GLOOB]

9mm started the whole double-column mag thing, and the guns that initially made 9mm popular are relatively enormous and/or heavy - Hi Power and Beretta 92. Eventually it ended up being very popular in lightweight and very small polymer guns, including some intended for pocket carry.

40SW busted onto the scene amidst a trend for smaller guns. It was introduced first on the Glock platform, which is one of the lighter (and it wasn't even optimized for the gun with so much as a spring change). It quickly became chambered in several CCW style guns, as well. It's an exaggeration, but imagine if 357 magnum was introduced on a J frame, only, but with no option to shoot 38 wadcutters for practice. Or in a 9mm/45ACP analog, it's like having only +P ammo available from the factory. There's no step down for the non-reloader. Most people don't shoot piles of +P ammo at the range, but that's essentially what regular 40SW is. 40SW doesn't have a lower pressure standard that's safe for older guns. But in 9mm/45ACP, that lower power ammo is considered the standard, even by people who own modern guns fully capable of shooting a 100% +P diet.

40SW is very tame out of the right platform, even including some very light polymer guns with less grip angle than the Glock. But to this day, people think 45 is a gentle hug, and 40SW is a harsh snap with too much muzzle lift. (Personally, I think these guys spend too much time shooting 700fps plinking bullets out of 3 lb 1911's with crazy long 5" barrels - but of course, this is considered a standard, because that's how 45ACP was introduced to the shooting world). I've even heard people complain that shooting 40SW out of a 10mm handgun is snappy compared to 10mm. "Snappy" is a stigma that will stay with the round, forever, because it was snappy in the platform it was introduced on.

 

[el Godfather]

I DO NOT hate 40SW. I have recently ordered a 229 Elite in 40SW.

That said, I do think it is an over rated caliber. That does not mean it has no purpose. There is a segment of users that like it for its power & capacity combination. Such as people who want out of the box slightly more power than 9mm, but do not want to give up on capacity that much.

I do also believe that 10mm is best caliber there is. You dont lose on relative capacity and power is just amazing; especially when it comes out on top of 357 Magnum. Unfortunately, and it makes me sick, that there arent much decent choices available in 10mm. Thus, I believe that if variety of guns available in 40 were available in 10mm, it would drive 40 up against the wall in market.

 

[Zoogster]

The .40S&W is a fine round and was all the rage when the economy was strong.
After about 2008-2009 there was a jump in people switching who were full of justification along the lines of 9mm being just as good or good enough.
However that shows what is likely the real reason: cost.
As the economy got worse and spending money got lower people opted for a less expensive round, and then justified it as being just as good as what they had previously been content with so they wouldn't lose any piece of mind.


Really I think everyone should have a .40S&W. It is only through the popularity of .40S&W that 10mm projectiles remain inexpensive.

 

[Skribs]

Not true with properly executed technique.

Yes, David, but there are situations where people cannot handle the higher recoil, and shoot less accurately. Regardless, it is easier to control a 9, even with proper technique. I didn't say you can control it better, but it is easier.

As to comparing it to .45...I think its worth it to compare, but RW is right - the platforms are slightly different. The G21 is more different from G22 than G22 is to the G17. The platform itself is bigger, which many people don't like (its why a lot of people consider double-stack 9/40 or single-stack .45). So in that respect, especially if you have a capacity limit, then .40 has an advantage.

This line of reasoning is interesting. Modern technology is touted to bring up the 9mm to "nearly the same level as the .40!" (prior to the .40, the same was said comparing the 9mm to the .45, specifically during the military handgun trials of the early 80's)

This assumes the .40 stays the same, inexplicably not utilizing the same "modern technology" that improved the 9mm performance enough to make the statement plausible in the first place.

I used to think like this, until I started looking at what it meant when people say the 9mm was brought up. The issue with the 9mm JHP rounds during the FBI study was a lack of penetration. Now, you take 9mm or .45, and you're going to have a hole within 0.1-0.15" diameter expanded, and within about 1" of penetration (assuming similar loads, i.e. 147-gr 9mm and 230-gr .45 with similar style of bullets). So they really do bring the 9 almost on par with the .45, and the miniscule differences are not really going to make-or-break stopping the attacker.
I compare 9 to .45, because .40 is going to be a smaller difference compared to each of them.

Like I said, I started off on .40, but only because I wasn't sure whether I wanted 9 or .45. At this point, I'll take a 9.

 

[beeb173]

i would think many people had the same experience i had with it. i found it much more difficult to shoot well than a 9mm. i believe that i could get better with practice but it cost (especially 15 years ago) considerably more to practice w/ a .40 than a 9mm. i came to the conclusion that accuracy and more practice are more important than 1mm.

as far as "the ragging" it's the internet, man!

 

[sargents1]

OK, this gets covered peripherally in many threads but maybe it's a good idea to bring it out into the open. It's not intended to be cartridge war, but a rational discussion focused on why the .40 cal is so maligned. Of course, some comparison to the 9mmx19 is inevitable.
....

So, what's your take? Why do so many label the .40S&W an unnecessary duplication of existing capability, a round looking for a purpose? And is it a fair assessment?

I think most people rag on the .40 for the same reason some baseball fans hate the Yankees. Because they're pretty much the best team in baseball. When you are on top, everyone wants to bring you down. Likewise, the .40 is the perfect balance of power, mag capacity and handling dynamics. In many ways, it is the ideal pistol cartridge for a combat handgun.

That said, I dont think I will ever own a dedicated .40S&W pistol. If I want a soft shooting gun for plinking, my 9mm will serve. If I want something more serious (in terms of power) I will use my 10mm. I might be convinced to get a .40 barrel for my 10mm for the convenience of being able to get ammo anywhere.

 

[Hunter125]

I look for 40's future to somewhere mirror that of 38acp/super. Its popularity will never be greater than it was in the past but it'll always be around as a enthusiasts niche caliber.

I'm no psychic, but regardless of what you think of it I hardly doubt the .40 S&W is going to go the way of .38 acp / Super. Enough LE agencies have been using .40 for so long it is pretty well ingrained in the gun culture.

I have no stats, but my guess is that there are way more guns in .40 out there than there ever were in .38 acp/super.

 

[Skribs]

I'm no psychic, but regardless of what you think of it I hardly doubt the .40 S&W is going to go the way of .38 acp / Super. Enough LE agencies have been using .40 for so long it is pretty well ingrained in the gun culture.

I have no stats, but my guess is that there are way more guns in .40 out there than there ever were in .38 acp/super.

No, but I think a good chunk of .40 users are going back to the 9.

 

[glenns]

I love the sound and feel of a 40S&W leaving the barrel. It gets the wrath of being a 'middle child.'

 

[HOOfan_1]

I'm no psychic, but regardless of what you think of it I hardly doubt the .40 S&W is going to go the way of .38 acp / Super. Enough LE agencies have been using .40 for so long it is pretty well ingrained in the gun culture.

.

I pick up more .40 S&W brass at my range than I pick up .45 ACP. I pick up about as much .40 S&W as I pick up 9mm actually. Unless .40 users are less likely to reload than .45ACP and 9mm users, then that pretty much tells me the .40 is pretty darn popular

 

[Skribs]

I'm not saying it's not popular HOO, but I think it's going to go down in popularity over the next few years, at least based on the trend I'm seeing on this forum.

Then again, they try to stamp out fanboi-ism on this forum, and the .40 probably has the die-hardest fanbois around (followed by .45, then 9, IMO).

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not saying it's not popular HOO, but I think it's going to go down in popularity over the next few years, at least based on the trend I'm seeing on this forum.

I'd take a BIG chunk of that action. Lots of talk about how so and so is "going back to the 9mm" but .40 S&W ammo is often as cheap or cheaper than 9mm, and certainly can be loaded for practically the same price, and there are BILLIONS of free .40 cases lying around almost every range in the country and millions of guns chambered to shoot them.

It takes a special genius to figure the economics of buying a new 9mm to save the ammo costs of shooting a .40 you've already got.

.40 will die off just like the plastic guns did.

 

[GLOOB]

40 S&W ammo is often as cheap or cheaper than 9mm, and certainly can be loaded for practically the same price

I disagree a bit. And this is the weird thing about 40. Top end defensive ammo can usually be found for the same or cheaper. Regular plinking ammo is significantly more expensive. And reloading jacketed or plated bullets is also significantly more expensive. (Even cast bullets are noticeably more expensive, but at least they're both cheap, making the cost of the bullet a smaller fraction of the total cost!) So the cost I'm seeing is only similar when you look at the cheapest cast reloads or the more pricey top end SD factory ammo.

I suppose if you have to pay a lot more for 9mm brass than this plentiful, free 40 brass I keep hearing about, then that might make up the difference. I get a lot more 9mm pickups where I shoot (10-1), and I've never been offered O.F.'d 40 brass for less than 9mm.

All this said, my main gripe with 40 is that you can't blindly throw it in the tumbler with 223. I have solved that problem by buying a 308. When I shoot the 223, I bring the 9mm or 357. When I shoot the 308, I can bring along any of my pistols.

 

[JDGray]

I love the 40S&W, I got back into the caliber because I had to. I bought a CZ40B, and found it to be the best shooting gun I own. I now added a G35 into the mix

For all out performance, you still cant beat a 357 Magnum... It out performs every caliber, and only is equaled by the 10mm, but only when shooting very heavy bullets. It really puts to shame the 357Sig, which is really a cartridge looking for some love

 

[checkmyswag]

40 is great. Enjoy.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

If you have a .45, a 10mm, and a 9mm, do you really NEED a .40? That is my simple explanation. I think the .40 is just fine. I just don't NEED one.

 

[mooner]

If I have a 9mm, a 45, a 38 spec, and a 44 mag, do I need a 40??? I think I might...

I have been going back an forth on this for awhile. I think the next handgun that I may buy will be a M&P compact - still not sure on caliber. One benefit to some 40 S&W guns is that you can buy a 9mm conversion barrel and have both.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I must have missed all those ".40 S&W sucks" threads.

I dislike its bark and bite in small guns, but I hardly "rag" on it.

 

[GLOOB]

^Yup. I dislike the bark and bite of 357 magnum in a tiny revolver, too. Doesn't make 357 a bad round. 357 and 40SW momentum/speed/power are actually fairly similar out of a service size handgun (4" auto, 2 1/2 - 3" revolver) or smaller using 130-165ish bullet weights. Which reminds me, I have a weird fascination with the Charter Arms Pitbull. I like the idea of shooting a more efficiently sized cartridge without moon clips. Something about having a pocketful of stubby semiauto rounds vs overlong 357s, and just having fun. I just wish it were a full sized 6 shot range gun, rather than a lightweight SD gun!

 

[beatledog7]

Great points from all. Looks like I'm going to have to launch a similar thread in rifle country dealing with cartridges that once had a purpose but have been "superseded" or "made redundant" by newer ones.

But back to the .40 cal. A concept of particular interest to me is:

...I think a good chunk of .40 users are going back to the 9.

That would mean they are either selling those .40 cal guns, or the guns are languishing in the backs of a lot of safes. If they're selling, somebody has to be buying. Which do you think it is?

And allow me (it started out as my thread, after all) to toss in another concept. If ammo and/or component supplies are bound to periodically grow thin, or if certain cartridges at times become hard to find, wouldn't it make sense to diversify into the .40 even if you're not a real fan? If you reload, this would seem especially fruitful, since a couple of posters have noted the glut of .40 brass that can be had for the cost of bending over. (It's gotta be coming from somewhere.)

Sure, people stock up, but even our mountainous supplies can't last forever. I like being able to shoot any of the most popular and therefore most readily available handgun rounds at any time. That's why I diversified into .44 Mag, .45ACP, and .380 (my first semi-auto was a .40S&W) when a lot of folks are getting away from them. For me, buying the first 9mm was diversifying!

If you have nothing in your safe that can shoot .40S&W, and all you can get hold of anywhere is .40S&W, you're kind of caught short, right? The same concept would apply to many other rounds, of course, but it's doubtful we'll get to a time when all we can find are .38 Super and .41 Mag. Of the most available cartridges, .40S&W seems to be the one that gets the least love.

 

[GLOOB]

Sure, people stock up, but even our mountainous supplies can't last forever. I like being able to shoot any of the most popular and therefore most readily available handgun rounds at any time.

You might want to look into reloading and casting! It's quite liberating. I am now thinking about ditching some of my calibers.

 

[Hangingrock]

I have absolutely no experience what so ever with the 40S&W. Most likely that’s the way it’s going to be. Most of my shooting experience over the last four plus decades is with the 45ACP & 9mm Luger. I’ll allow if I were younger I’d be inclined to investigate the 40S&W. At this point if it can’t be done with the 45ACP or 9mm Luger I’m not interested in doing it.

 

[beatledog7]

Gloob, I do reload, more .40S&W than anything else.

 

[David E]

If you have a .45, a 10mm, and a 9mm, do you really NEED a .40?

Yes, actually, I do!

 

[Detritus]

This line of reasoning is interesting. Modern technology is touted to bring up the 9mm to "nearly the same level as the .40!"

This assumes the .40 stays the same, inexplicably not utilizing the same "modern technology" that improved the 9mm performance enough to make the statement plausible in the first place

that's because most of the folks making the "9mm is now (almost) equal to .40" statements only care that 9mm has finally reached or exceeded the performance plateau that caused the creation of the .40S&W

Back in the "bad old days" when .40 was first released and touted as the best chambering on the market for SD, 9mm even in it's best loadings could not reliably meet the performance criteria set forth by the FBI (discussion of those criteria, and their applicability to civilian SD belongs elsewhere). Now factory 9mm loads are on the market that meet or exceed part or all of the FBI criteria. So 9mm fans and those looking for seemingly objective reasons not to get .40, have latched on to the idea of "See you don't need a .40 anymore, 9mm will do it.."

In other words those making the "9mm is as good as.." argument either are unaware that they're latching on to the round finally passing a minimal benchmark, or they see is as a case of a pass/fail criteria, and anything beyond what's called for to get a "pass" is overkill.

as for my take on the .40, I have nothing against it but i'm not very likely to ever own one. .40 is perfectly viable and If it works for you, it works for you. that said I do think that the next 10-15 years are going to see a decline in the popularity of the .40. I feel that due to technology bringing the 9mm up to and somewhat past the FBI criteria, as time goes on fewer and fewer LE agencies are going to issue/mandate .40 in duty weapons. as the LE use of .40 declines there will be a similar if not steeper decline in new shooters/owners buying .40. let's face it many folks view "what the cops carry" as the be all end all of SD guns and calibers.

I'm a .45 guy, but that's mainly because I'm most comfortable with 1911s, nothing else i've had my hands on felt as good in my hands or shot as well for me. and if you're going to carry/shoot a 1911 .45acp is a good choice.