bihj
Member
EASY! You want it!
Here's Tom Givens take on .40S&W guns, he was a fan, but not in little guns.
https://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2017-01_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf
What happened with the gun? Was it a loss or just the barrel? (The g23)I’ve read that before, and I really like Tom Givens perspectives. My first Glock was a G23 and after a few thousand rounds and a couple Gunsite classes, I was hooked on both Glock and the G19/23 size frame. I put a lot of rounds through that gun. Only one round was bad...a Freedom Munitions reman round that went KABOOM! Gave the reman ammo away to a reloader buddy with a rundown of what happened. I also bought a KKM barrel for the gun. At least 3K rounds later, still going strong.
But after running a G19 and a G23 back to back up in several drills one afternoon, I set aside the G23 and as I said, it’s a boonies gun now. It generally lives up by my front door with a WML and a G22 magazine. After many thousand rounds, it has a wonderful trigger!!!
The only .40 I’ve shot that was smaller was the G27. I personally do not like that gun. I’ve shot G22’s and they are a good gun as well.
YMMV.
I have a couple of "carry size" (IWB) pistols in .45 -- a Shield, a S&W 4513TSW that's been smoothed out, and a Sig 245. I also have a couple of 9mm for IWB carry -- S&W CS9, S&W 6906, and a Beretta PX4
...
Many thanks to all who answered my query. Your opinions helped me to decide I'm not buying a .40 for carry; I'm sticking with my 9s and 45s (and a Smith 642 in +p .38 'cause everyone needs a J-frame).
I did come across, however, a Browning HiPower in .40 in a LGS.
Actually, no part of the gun was damaged, including the barrel. Only thing that was damaged was my right hand suffered powder burns.What happened with the gun? Was it a loss or just the barrel? (The g23)
Thanks for that.Actually, no part of the gun was damaged, including the barrel. Only thing that was damaged was my right hand suffered powder burns.
.40 S&W less reliable? I dunno about that. The military is a poor reason for handguns. Almost no one carry’s in the military sidearms. And if they do chamber empty. Yes some are well trained in handguns but most aren’t. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If you don’t like 40 that’s fine. A lot of choices out there.I've really never considered. 40 much at all.
9 is almost as good and you get a bjt more...and its more comfortable and accurate to shoot.
45 is a litt.le better for one shot stops and is also more comfortable and accurate to shoot, not to mention easier to reload.
Many 40 guns are built on 9mm frames...making them less reliable.
As many have stated before, I believe its a solution in search of a problem.
If the FBI had simply invested money in improving existing calibers instead of inventing a whole new genre, it would have been much less complicated....and a whole universe of server space would not have been wasted on these debates over the last 30 years as it has been.
Notice how the military has always been either 9mm, 45...or both...but never 40. Even the FBI went back to 9mm after improvements were made.
40 S&W is the result of an experiment in eugenics gone wrong, producing a mutant which is neither here nor there, whose father the 10mm doesnt even want to acknowledge its existence.
They should have simply built more guns in .38 Super and improved the bullets instead of embarking on that ridiculous odyssey which became the 40 S&W. There would never be anything else neccessary for a LE handgun, ever.
9 is almost as good and you get a bjt more...and its more comfortable and accurate to shoot.
45 is a litt.le better for one shot stops and is also more comfortable and accurate to shoot, not to mention easier to reload.
Many 40 guns are built on 9mm frames...making them less reliable.
As many have stated before, I believe its a solution in search of a problem.
If the FBI had simply invested money in improving existing calibers instead of inventing a whole new genre, it would have been much less complicated....and a whole universe of server space would not have been wasted on these debates over the last 30 years as it has been.
Notice how the military has always been either 9mm, 45...or both...but never 40. Even the FBI went back to 9mm after improvements were made.
40 S&W is the result of an experiment in eugenics gone wrong, producing a mutant which is neither here nor there, whose father the 10mm doesnt even want to acknowledge its existence.
They should have simply built more guns in .38 Super and improved the bullets instead of embarking on that ridiculous odyssey which became the 40 S&W. There would never be anything else neccessary for a LE handgun, ever.
Yeah, I think it's a farce to believe every pistol chambered in .40 the past 30 years has been built up solely for 9mm and .40 was an afterthought for all those decades. One of the majors reasons Glock made the Gen 4 series was to increase reliability with the .40 caliber.
I've really never considered. 40 much at all.
Many 40 guns are built on 9mm frames...making them less reliable.
Based on your information, you could go with something in .40S&W about the size and weight of the 4513 but that holds more rounds.So where does a .40 fit into a carry rotation? If I want pocket carry I can use the .45 Shield and for a bit bigger but still handy the 4513.
Accepting, for the sake of argument, your belief that a bigger bullet has "more 'stopping power'", then the .40S&W would be superior to the 9mm (in the same way you believe the .45ACP is) but would hold more rounds than a similar-sized gun in .45ACP....but I can't seem to justify spending money on a gun I probably won't carry as the .45 is bigger bullet (more "stopping power?") and the 9s can carry more rounds.