Who has gotten away from the 40?

[PAPACHUCK]

Through the years, I've bought many handguns, and in many different calibers. I thought, why not have at least one gun in each caliber, so I bought one of each in the most popular calibers. then I realized it is hard to keep stocked with all those different rounds, and keeping them organized is a task, so I started thinking which calibers I could do without. I really like the 45ACP, and the 9mm is much more cost effective, and the 40 is harder to shoot well, so I sold my 40's and am replacing them with 45's and 9's.

Any of you doing the same?

 

[MacTech]

Any time I want to give the .40 a try, after all, there's a reason it's so popular, right?, I shoot a mag or so through one of the other shooter's guns at my local pistol range, there's always at least one person there with a .40 semiauto, and we all enjoy trying each other's firearms....

(so far, everyone loves my CZ-75B 9mm, even those shooters with "bigger" or "better" guns, the CZ-75B should star in it's own sitcom, "Everybody Loves CZ", would certainly be a lot more watchable than that insipid Raymond crap, dunno about you, but *I* don't even LIKE Raymond....)

But I digress....

Anyway, the times I have shot the .40, it's impressed me with it's nice, heavy projectile, but I don't like the shockwave from the muzzle, or the very "snappy" recoil, it actually seems snappier than the 10mm off which it's based, given a choice between .40 and 10mm, I'd go with a 10mm, which even though it's more powerful, is quicker for me to get back on target

Since I have a 9mm and a .45 ACP, I have no need for a .40, to me, the .40 is a compromise round, the "all season tires" of handgun cartridges, trying to blend "High Speed performance" (9mm) with "Snow and Ice performance" (.45 ACP), and like with all season tires, the .40 tries to be a "Jack of all trades" and ends up being a "Master of None"

It's not a bad round, in fact, it's pretty darned good, I just don't feel the need to own one, even though I could get a lot of spare .40 brass at the range, it's the most common case found scattered on the ground in the pistol hut (some shooters *really* need to clean up after themselves....)

 

[Deanimator]

Anyway, the times I have shot the .40, it's impressed me with it's nice, heavy projectile, but I don't like the shockwave from the muzzle, or the very "snappy" recoil, it actually seems snappier than the 10mm off which it's based, given a choice between .40 and 10mm, I'd go with a 10mm, which even though it's more powerful, is quicker for me to get back on target

It's not the "snappy" recoil, that bothers me, but the muzzle flip which is quite unlike any other gun I own, including my Model 29 Smiths. Being mostly a bullseye shooter, I'm not used to having to have a death grip on a gun just to shoot it normally. I find the Glock harder to control than a 4" Model 29 with Winchester White Box. The .44 is far more unpleasant to shoot, but is easier to control.

I shoot .40S&W out of a Glock 22 and that's very light for the caliber. I've thought about getting a .40S&W CZ75B, but I have trigger reach issues with the CZs, and don't want to drop that much money on a gun that'll need a replacement trigger (IF that'll fix the problem) before I even shoot it.

 

[JR47]

My collection includes a CZ40P, a S&W Model 4006, a Taurus PT101, and several other large, duty-size weapons. I find the recoil of the .40 to be no more objectionable than the +P and +P+ loadings recommended for self-defense.

As the 9x19, and the .45 ACP have been in existence far longer than the 40 S&W, there are more pistols chambered for them in existence. That, alone, will give them a certain allure. As well, the 9x19 is the NATO standard round, insuring a large production of ammunition, and the prices accompanying that.

The Police, on the other hand, seem to love the combination of power, and accuracy, available in the 40. It also avoids the political stigma that +P and +P+ can cause.

For civilians, it's a simple matter of opinion. You like it? Buy it. You don't, then leave it alone. There's no really significant reason, one way or another.

 

[amprecon]

I found myself staying away from the .40 because of all the negative things said of it. But after I tried it from a friends' G23, I discovered that all the negative things said were objectionable and relative and they weren't so negative to me. The increase in power and hi-cap magazine capacities made it worth selling both of my G19's for a G23. I haven't looked back since. Not that I don't like the 9mm cartridge, it still has a place in my collection in the Bersa Thunder UC9 as my alternate CCW. But I have no reservations about the power and abilities of the .40s&w cartridge.

 

[mljdeckard]

I carried a G-22 for years, but I was just missing a 1911. If the whole idea is supposed to be getting a more powerful cartridge in a 9mm size frame, that's fine, but if I can use a full-size frame easily, why bother?

 

[MMCSRET]

I traded away my 40 because it was not as pleasant to use as my 45 ACP. Sharper recoil in identical weight guns, harder to get back on target.

 

[kamagong]

It depends on the gun. I favor .45 myself, but I don't mind the .40 in a 1911 or BHP. I don't like polymer .40s though.

 

[browningguy]

I've been migrating toward the .40 over the past 8-10 years. Now have 2 BHP's in .40 and a Witness Elite Match, I like them. Sure, more recoil than a 9mm, bacause the old F=MA and equal and opposite reaction laws still apply.

 

[CountGlockula]

Any of you doing the same?

Nope, the only ones I shoot are in .40S&W. I'm accurate with it, easy to control and leaves a good hole.

 

[Myles]

I've never sipped that koolaid.

I'm a big fan of classic calibers, and military issue (past and present.) The .40 always seemed to me to be a poor compromise cartridge. An invented niche.

 

[jdc1244]

The only .40 I’ve used and own is a .40S&W CZ75B

As noted the platform plays a big role. I love it and shoot it extremely well; definitely a keeper.

 

[357wheelgunner]

My first carry gun was a Glock 31 in .357sig. I thought I was awesome for having a gun with such impressive numbers (15 rounds, 500 ftlbs, etc.). Then I grew a little and realized that I was paying waaaay too much to shoot, and I traded it for my first 3" S&W Model 65. It was one of the best trades I ever made.

Now I have a great collection of K-frames, as well as a few 9mm Sigs. I will be buying a Sig P220 soon, I see no reason for the .40 at all.

 

[Ala Dan]

Been There & Done That-

I got shed of all my .40 S&W caliber weapons (SIG P229, G-23, and G-27)
many, many moons ago; as I never did see a need for that particular
caliber to begin with~!

McCain-Palin On Nov. 4th~!

 

[SAWBONES]

"Got away", as in owned no more .40 S&Ws, period, within a year of their original introduction in the early '90s.
I owned a couple .40 semiautos and shot all the then-available factory loads, and decided that the caliber/platform offered nothing I didn't have already, in better guns and with better loads, in 9mm and .45ACP.

 

[metallic]

Got rid of my G-27 and replaced it with a Sig Sauer P226 in 9mm. Cheaper ammo means more shooting for me.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Gotten RID of?

Heck, I NEVER HAD ONE, nor did I not miss NOT HAVING ONE!

 

[michiganfan]

G23 was my everyday cary for years. But when you take classes 500 or a 1000 rounds of 40 is expensive. got a G19 .

 

[Peter M. Eick]

My first new centerfire after getting a real job was a couple of 40's. That was the new cartridge back then and I shot them a lot. Nearly 10,000 rnds out of one and about 8000 out of the other. Finally I wised up that what I really wanted was a 10mm so after getting 5 10mm's, then a 357 sig, then a 45 acp and a whole slug of 357 magnums and 38/44's along with a few 380's and a 357 Maximum I recently realized I had not shot my 40 in many years.

I pulled it out a few weekends back, cleaned it up and lubed it. Maybe next week I will blast with it for a bit.

Yes, count me as one that does not shoot the 40 any more.

 

[CountGlockula]

It just makes you wonder why it's still issued to most law enforcement and why civilians dislike it.

 

[Prepster]

For me .40 Short n' Weak was the answer to a problem I've never had. Come to think of it, I don't own anything chambered in any cartridge that's less than 100 years old.

 

[meef]

Reasonable fellow that I am (ask those who know [tolerate?] me) I gave it a shot, so to speak.

Tried it in three different size and brands of pistol including Glock, Kahr and Taurus.

Tried hard to love it, really did.

Didn't.

Got rid of all of them and went back to (actually, stayed with) .45acp and 9mm in my semi-autos. No need to fix a problem that ain't there.

 

[Oncefiredbrass.net]

I have been slowly weeding off the
.40 for the last year now. Most my weapons are 9mm now. I did this not just because of price but the availability of brass for the 9mm.

 

[skwab]

Not going to get rid of the 2 .40s I have because I like them both, esp my Sig, but future purchases will probablly be 9mm because of the expense.

 

[fastbolt]

I came to the .40 S&W a bit late in the grand scheme of things. The caliber had already been out for about 10 years before I owned my first pistol chambered in it. I'd handled and fired a number of them over the years, sure, but hadn't really felt inclined to own one.

That changed several years ago after helping with some T&E which involved a .40 S&W pistol. I eventually decided to try one of my own and ordered a SW99 chambered in .40 S&W. Soon afterward I found myself carrying an issued .40 S&W for a few years.

Now, several years later, I find myself owning 4 pistols chambered in that caliber. I don't often carry one as an off-duty weapon, although once in a while I'll carry my G27 instead of my G26 ... when I carry a pistol instead of a revolver ... but for the most part I tend to lean toward either a 9mm, .45 ACP or .38 Spl for my off-duty needs.

I probably won't be getting rid of any of my .40's in the near future. They're all fine models and offer me fine performance. I may even add a M&P 40 compact to my collection. Maybe. Dunno. If I do it'll likely retire the other .40's to the safe on a more or less 'permanent' basis (4013TSW, G27, SW99 & 4040PD). Depends.

The caliber itself has ably demonstrated its capabilities and performance characteristics in the general LE field, although it does often require 'more' of the shooter/user in the way of skills.

I could understand someone not being interested in the .40 S&W because they're content with another caliber (or calibers) and comfortable with their skills and abilities with whatever platform they've selected to use with that other caliber. I have no interest or desire to ever own a 357SIG, for example. No big deal.

I'll say one thing for shooting a lot of .40 S&W, though, and that is that it seems to help improve my skills (or at least stop them from totally rusting away) when shooting 9mm & .45 ACP.