Why no revolvers in .40 S&W?

[Zerstoerer]

What I should have mentioned in my original post is, that there are plenty of new defense loads available in .40S&W, it is a relatively inexpensive round and some of us have tons of it from the duty weapon...

Plus how many people have been shot with a .44 Spl? I am sure there is more statistical data out on the .40 S&W.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Plus how many people have been shot with a .44 Spl? I am sure there is more statistical data out on the .40 S&W.

while there might be more available data on people shot with the .40, don't for a moment believe that fewer people have been shot with the .44 spl. remember that the .44 has been around since the days of the Colt SAA

 

[MCgunner]

I have a ruger old model Vaquero in 38-40 which also has a .40 S&W cylinder as well as a 10mm cylinder. Shoots very well

I'm always a sucker for Ruger SAs. That's the old model, it'd be strong enough for 10. I think I'd have a smith turn that .40 into a 10 and keep the .38-40 for light loads, myself. That'd be an awesome carry for the woods. Of course, so would a .41 or my .45 Colt version, but just sayin'.

 

[Zerstoerer]

I don't doubt that. Can't think of any PD that had the .44 SPL as a duty weapon.
Modern day shootings with the .40S&W are statistically recorded, the .44 Spl might have some wild west tales of taking out an Indian on a galloping horse at 300 yards...
Data not stories.