Why does .40 S&W suck?

[Captain America]

I am aware that much of the replies to this thread will be opinion, but I would like to hear about it anyway. I see alot of vehemence towards the .40 S&W caliber. Why is this? Surely there are reasons behind experienced shooters having such hatred towards it. Please elaborate. This should be fun.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I'll bite...

Why does .40 S&W suck?
Same reason 9mm sucks, .357Sig sucks, 10mm and any other pistol caliber sucks.

Because it's not a .45ACP

Sorry, I just had to be the first one to say it...

 

[270Win]

Nah, .45 ACP sucks too...

 

[gudel]

i think this is gonna get locked.

 

[Brian Williams]

Because no one has really looked at the cartridge as a medium load defense round, It can be loaded to have a good downrange ballistics and punch. It has a signifancant snap to the recoil but with a good load, it can be hendled well.

Oh, and just like the 9mm and the 45 it is a pistol round. adequate for what it is, but can be surpassed with a rifle or shotgun.

 

[Mooseman]

Personally I don't care for it because it's more snappy with less power than the .45. I understand it lends itself better to concealment. To each his or her own.

 

[C-grunt]

9mm fanatics have more rounds.

.45 fanatics have bigger bullets.

everyone thinks it has to much recoil.

I personaly like them all.

 

[Cousin Mike]

As you can clearly see...

...from the assortment of pistols I own, I also like variety in my sucky ammunition choices.

I see it like this Cap'n A., 9 times out of 10, the presence of a gun is going to solve the conflict. Then you got that one out of 10 idiots thats going to make you fire on him.

9 out of 10
of those guys are going to drop, even if you hit them in the finger with a .22 - then there's that other guy that's going to require a double-tap to get the point. So far we're at 1/1000 shootings that will actually require a 2nd shot to stop the bad guy (using the SWAG method, of course)...

If it takes more than 2 good shots to the chest, with something .355" or larger, luck just isn't on your side... Time to start planning an escape. Mr. Williams said it best so far - a pistol is something you use to fight your way to your rifle/shotgun. Although if 10-12 rounds of .40 wont do it, a shotgun probably won't either.

 

[trickyasafox]

i just bought a 40 that should be in this week i hope it doesnt suck

my choice for choosing it was a heavier bullet weight than 9 mm with potential for a greater wound cavity, that had higher initial velocity. in my mind those pieces just fit together to add up to something
what that something is i dont know
but its something alright

 

[Ron Brooks]

Because who wants to use a round called 40 Slow & Weak?

 

[Captain America]

I think that a handgun is a handgun. I'm not too wild about 9mm but that's a personal belief and I acknowledge that I'm no pistol expert. But when you have to shoot a Fedayeen soldier more than twice with a 9mm beretta and its doesn't stop him until the 3rd shot, I stopped trusting the round. All of the shots were center mass. And.. true... the Fedayeen were steroid freaks... but a round needs to have some punch.

 

[coma]

Well maybe the people who say ".40 S&W sucks" have not shot it out of a SIG P229,P226 or a P239.

I really like the round and i think it does not get a fair shake when it comes to the "45 ACP" gang.

But hey what do i know I "like" the .40

 

[Fed168]

.40 is a good round. But it is a pistol round, just like the rest. It works or it doesn't.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I never said it sucked. I just am not a fan of it because it reminds me of the government's tendency to bow out to the lowest common denominator. I am a 10mm Auto fan. I hate seeing the .40 get a lot of the popularity the 10mm Auto should have. I've seen a 16 year old girl rock a Coke bottle with a Glock 20 loaded with Double Taps. I know that controlling the 10mm Auto isn't that big of a deal.

Call it jealousy. I don't care. I am and shall probably always remain a 10mm Auto/.45 ACP guy. You can have your .40. In the end, we both know it means you're a wuss

 

[allen268]

I think the hatred is mostly unwarranted, maybe due to the fact that the .40 hasn’t been around as long as either the nine or .45, or maybe some get offended by the comparison with the two most popular defense rounds (their round of choice) such as magazine capacity close to the nine and ballistics comparable to the .45, whatever the reasons, I own and shoot guns in all three calibers and shoot as accurately with my .40 as the others, my carry preference is my Sig229 in .40, however I feel no need in knocking other peoples choices since one gun or caliber does not suit everyone’s personal preference/needs.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Why does .40 S&W suck?

Same reason .45 GAP sucks; Because it is the bastardized abominiation of a good cartridge that a few weenies couldn't handle.

The .40 is an exception to a common pattern, though-typically, short cartridges that come after the original have less of a following and are dismissed (often with merit) by shooters familiar with the old version that performs better.

One of the reasons that the .40 became so popular is the sheer number of different guns that could be eaily adapted to accept it. The .45 ACP and 10mm require a large frame, and in many cases a double column version does not fit smallish hands. The .40 can be chambered in nearly any 9mm platform, and since wonder-nines were all the rage preceeding the introduction of the .40 Short&Weak, manufacturers capitalized on this advantage and flooded the market with 9mm-esque guns that had more power. Then enter the 1994 ban when people could no longer have 15 round 9mms, but most .45's only hold 7 or 8. At the time, the 10mm had become known as a gun destroyer because manufacturers kept trying to rechamber .45 pistols in this much more violent cartridge, thus there were only a couple choices in 10mm, and they had limited appeal.

The .40's popularity is attributable to many factors, but it's merits in and of itself are less than spectacular when compared with many other handgun cartridges. If one thinks about it, it truly is a compromise in every aspect; it takes the desirable qualities of other gun/cartridge combinations and sacrifices a bit of each to gain some of another.

The .40 also exhibits more uniformity from load-to-load, maker-to-maker; they all tend to be in the mid-400 ft/lb arena. 9mm and .45 come in low power (target) standard, +P and +P+. For 10mm, there is lite (.40-ish), average (.45 +p-ish), heavy (.357 mag-ish) and nuclear (just shy of .41 mag).

I've had 6 .40's. I have 1, and that is only because it is part of my S&W xx06 collection.

 

[Alan Fud]

Remember this ... the .40S&W is larger than a 9mm and has greater velocity than the .45ACP ... on the other hand, it's smaller than a .45ACP and has less velocity than the 9mm

 

[allen268]

At 25yrds I group as close with my .40 as my 9 (Sig228) and tear up the target as well as my .45, with 12+1 rounds in my 229 I don’t feel I’ve compromised anything.

 

[MidnightRambler]

I prefer the .40 because most non-1911s that are .45s are too big for my hands. And I have no time for 1911s. I think they're overhyped and I definitely would never trust my life to one.

I've owned a Colt Government, Colt Commander, SA Loaded, SA Milspec, SA GI, Kimber Ultra Carry, Kimber UCII, one with internal extractor and one with external extractor, a couple of S&W 1911PDs.

None of them were reliable. None.

So I'd pick .40 over a .45

 

[JMag]

It can't help it. It was created as a compromise caliber...compromise can sometimes suck.

 

[Logan5]

Nothing pisses rival camps off more than proposing a reasonable compromise.

 

[bad LT]

40 S&W sucks because it is a pistol round...

All pistol rounds suck in terminal performance when compared to virtually any common centerfire rifle or shotgun calliber.

 

[Mike_in_OC]

I am partial to the 9mm cause I like to shoot my guns often. To me the 9mm has more options. I can take my family out and shoot easy target loads or kick it up with +p+. 9mm is also cheaper.

 

[jeepmor]

It is what it is

If the gov't didn't kill the original intent of the design, the 10mm Auto, we woudn't be having this conversation.

However, being a 10mm Auto owner and a reloader, I only need .40 brass and a .40 pistol and I'm set up for economical plinking. I may swap it out for my wife's 9mm simply because I don't see relaoading 9mm as needed, ammo still cheaper than 45, .40 and of course, the 10mm. That 10 can really stick it to the wallet if you want to send 100 downrange at a whack with any sort of JHP factory ammo, even non JHP can get premium price tags on ammo with brass worthy of reloading.

In defense of the .40 though, my brother in the Coast Guard did some LE work and when I showed him my 45 and 10mm guns, his comment was. "At least you're not wasting your money on 9mm." The coast guard issues .40 for sidearms IIRC. His was an HK in .40. Didn't shoot it, we were rifle hunting that weekend.

Also in the defense of the .40, there is a thread on this forum related to feral dogs, the faster bullets of the 10mm did not prove more effective than it's slower offspring the .40. Good real world data, not gonna rehash here, but it's worth a look if you're making a decision on a new pistol.

jeepmor

 

[MachIVshooter]

I've owned a Colt Government, Colt Commander, SA Loaded, SA Milspec, SA GI, Kimber Ultra Carry, Kimber UCII, one with internal extractor and one with external extractor, a couple of S&W 1911PDs.

None of them were reliable. None.

Sounds like the problem may be something other than a design that has endured 95 years.

1911's start to have reliability issues when people try to make them something they are not by tightening tolerances and F*$%ing with the angles that JMB designed for good reasons. But none of the ones you have listed fall into that category. I'll acknowledge that the Colt commander and external extractor Kimbers are known to have issues, but the others are good guns. I own some on you list, my friends have the others and they all run fine. The only improvements the 1911 ever needed over it's original configuration were better sights and longer triggers.

On that note, *** is with Nighthawk, Wilson, etc. making match-grade 3 INCH (or officer-size) 1911's??? What is the point? They are CCW guns and need to be reliable, not shoot 1.4" 25 yard groups. If you have a slightly deformed round fail to go into a match grade chamber in an armed confrontation, you might die. You put 3 bullets in a knife-weilding thugs peanut at 25 yards and you are going to prison!