Do you shoot the 40 S&W?

[dstocum]

I own a single 40 S&W pistol (SVI commander) because it is the proper cartridge choice for USPSA limited. I don't think I even have any loaded 40 ammo right now, since I'm not actively competing these days. I just have a big box of empty cases.

When I switched away from the 1911 platform for general use (too frigging maintenance intensive) to Glocks, my decision to go with 9mm mostly hinged upon the fact that I already had a decent stockpile of 9mm components and had a few other 9mm pistols already (1911 9mm, Hi Power and Kahr P9). Also I already had defensive load data worked up and well tested. It didn't make sense to complicate things by adding a defense oriented 40 to my collection.

I have nothing against 40 S&W. It just doesn't really fit my needs outside of competition. I'll probably buy a Glock 22 or 35 for when I start competing again, but it won't get carried.

[kmrtnsn]

Originally Posted by slimmpd

My first handgun that I bought for myself was a Colt Delta. Loved that thing, I rarely shoot factory ammo but that Delta liked 175 Silver Tips as good as my best hand load. On my dads Ohler 3P, that gun would chrony 1250 to 1275 FPS, on average. Big, heavy but easy to carry 1911 and I won a lot of steel and pin matches with it but it found a new home and the guy won't sell it back.
About 4 years ago I went to a vest shoot (LE0) and the vender would put up one of their cheapest vests over a clay and wood backer. The vender had an array of diff guns to demo the vest. He started with a .22 and went to 12ga slug. The vest was shot over 40 times and was only touched when it would start to slip off the frame or get chewed up and needed to get flattened out. Nothing made it through, impressive. The vender would take two rounds, fire one through an Ohler 3p and fire the other into the vest. What impressed me most was his use of a Glock 35, shooting 165gr Gold Dots. That combo produced 1220 to 1240 fps over that chrony.
I liked my Delta 10 but 8+1 -v-15 or now 22 +1 less 10 grains of bullet and 30 or 40 fps does not seem like much of a diff so i go buy me a Glock 35. I don't think anything I might shoot at would be able to tell the diff between my old 10 or that bullet and a G-35. Intresting fact read up on history of the 40s&w and it's push by the FBI and load data for the old 38/40 black powder round.
FBI keeps data on each and every LE shooting and lots of non LE shoots and after the Miami shootout it went to a 10 platform, that platform was naturaly larger and did jump around some and made it hard to qual some agents.
It's ironic that they went to a cartridge that equaled a round invented over a hundred years ago, 180gr bullet, 1000 fps; 38/40.
Most LE guns (Glock), I think Glock has about 65% of the market, a Glock 22 will clock about 1000 to a 1050 FPS with Speer loads, 950 to 1000 with most others. Just my .02 on the .40.
It's getting late so please excuse any spelling errors, goodnight and all stay safe.

Slimmpd,

You might re-compare some of the .40 out there. The .40 that I prefer, the R40SW1, with a 155gr. bullet is 1205 fps at the muzzle and 499 ftlbs/ft energy out of a 4".

K

[M4arc]

I wouldn't say that I'm a "fan" of the 40 S&W but I do own a G23, a Gen4 G22 and an M&P40. I've shot the M&P and G23 occasionally over the years and even carried the G23 from time to time but it wasn't until I bought the Gen4 G22 that I really took an interest in the caliber. It's probably due to the G22 but I love shooting it and am now looking to buy a Gen4 G23 for some CCW duty. Either way, caliber or gun, I've been shooting the 40 S&W a lot lately.

[Arik]

No. Dont realy care for it. The last 40 I owned was a G22 that had nothing but problems. Sold it off a few years ago and just stuck with 9 and 45. Now I have more 9s then 45s and Im about to sell off 2 more 1911s. I figure Im going to keep one 1911 and slowly customize it and keep my M&P45 and thats it.

I do have one 10mm that is my fun gun/woods gun.

[Abraxas]

I have no emotional feelings for or against the .40. When I worked for an agency that issued it, then I carried 40, now the agency I am with issues 9, so now I use it. I see no reason to buy a 40.

[MrMiller]

Do you shoot the 40 S&W?

Yes, because when I put 9mm through my G22's it makes the brass look funny and I get malfunctions.

[glocktogo]

I've gone in and out with the .40. About two years ago, I sold off all my .40 guns and equipment. There was nothing the .40 did that my 9's and .45's can't do. It was more a logistical decision than anything else. I'm not down on the .40 in any way, it just wasn't necessary for me anymore.

[TriumphRat675]

Own but do not shoot an M&P40. Recoil is just a tetch too much for a badly-broken and never-quite-healed wrist.

[loupav]

I have a P2000 in 9mm and .40. I enjoy shooting the 9mm much more but I shoot the .40 sometimes. I also have a USP Compact stainless in 40, but that was because I wanted a USP Compact in Stainless and that's what they had.

[brickboy240]

I currently own a 2nd gen Glock 22 and a Beretta 96F in 40SW. I also borrow on long terms an earlier XD-40.

Bought the G22 and 96F as police trades. Got both for about 325 bucks apiece. A steal for reliable service pistols that are GTG for home defense.

The 96F is a soft recoiling 40 but a tad chunky. I love the G22 and it is my daily carry piece.

I don't plan on going farther with the 40SW round but the 96F and G22 are two pistols I am keeping. For the 10 years I have owned them...they have literally been no trouble at all.

- brickboy240

[Lightninrod]

Have had my Glock 23 for over 10 years and it's always been reliable.

Just got a 9mm PPQ and I like it better due to its ergos, trigger, and its accuracy.

[1st MAW]

I own (4) Sig 229's in .40, but changed them all to .357Sig which I prefer to the .40....and my favorite carry calibre....

[B52U]

I sold my .40 to fund a new 9mm. It has proven to be a good decision since I shoot it (9) more and enjoy it more.

[maddawg5777]

I used to own a 40 (XDM), while it was ok it just didnt seem to make a difference other than slower follow up shots than 9mm or 45. Now that could be because I didnt have the same number of rounds down range in 40 as the other service calibers at the time so ymmv. Having 3 kids, a wife and a house payment really limits my funds so I dedicated my pistol to being 9mm just for the sake of being able to afford to shoot it and my rifle.

[Olaf]

I shoot the .40 the 9mm and the 357sig. I like them all.

[OldState]

I just bought a FS M&P 45 to use primarily in IDPA. I bought 45 only because I shoot 1911's and reload for it. Plus I want to shoot CDP.

If I like the platform I will go with a FS M&P 40 and a M&P 40c for my new CCW only because of the 9mm issues and the fact that you can drop a 9mm barrel in it when they get this crap corrected.

So for me its more of a platform based decision. If I liked Glocks I would not even consider anything but a 9mm.....but I don't like them no mater how much I try.

[JonInWA]

I've reduced my .40 armory to just one gun-my Mk III FN Hi Power. I like having the caliber covered, and the Hi Power is a good platform for the .40 for me. That way I've got a pistol in the event that there's another 9mm or .45 ACP ammunition shortage (in the last go-around, I never observed any difficulties whatsoever in obtaining .40 ammunition).

For IDPA, the .40 Hi Power suffices me well whenever I get a wild hair to shoot ESP (of course, that requires somewhat of a suspension of logic-there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that I couldn't shoot any of my OTHER SSP pistols in ESP-but that's my rationale and I'm sticking with it...)

Quite simply, as others have well stated, with the increases in modern bullet/cartridge technology, there really doesn't seem to be much that the .40 does that can't be done with a more user-friendly, less expensive 9mm, or a more user-friendly, only slightly more expensive .45 ACP. Additionally, both cartridges seem to be less stressful to their platforms (increasing overall longevity and decreasing small parts breakage/forcasted replacement intervals) than the .40.

I strongly suspect that if the infamous Miami FBI shootout (and it's subsequent fall-out) had not occurred, the .40 would be at best a boutique cartridge, as it seemed to be a sort of a politically acceptable solution to the 10mm vs. 9mm vs. .45 ACP factions within the FBI (and to the agencies caught in the crossfire seeking a viable duty cartridge with a platform amenable to a variety of hand sizes). Going the .40 route provided an organization with a 9mm sized platform in a less (at the time, anyhow) controversial cartridge, especially given the FBI's vacillation from 9mm to 10mm to 9mm 147 gr subsonic to .40....

Best, Jon

[Jellybean]

I recently switched out from .40 to 9mm. After thinking (probably a little to much) about it, and going through a couple different handguns, here's the way I figure it.

With 9 vs .40, there's a big jump in cost, but not a proportionately huge jump in performance. In other words, yes, I realize there is some performance difference but not enough (imho) to warrant the added cost.
With 9 vs. .45, there is still a huge jump in cost, but it seems the jump in performance is more on par with the added cost. So if I'm going to pay out for .40, I might as well spend a small bit more and go with .45.
Currently I cannot afford to shoot .45, so this is a moot point, and coupled with the fact that with proper ammo 9mm is perfectly effective, 9mm it is for me. Someday when I have money, I will own a set of pistols in .45, but till then...

Also, I detest caliber debates- a lot of folks complain about the 5.56, and yet here we are on a forum for rifles in said caliber....

[vicious_cb]

Originally Posted by djmorris

Yes, you can get some real nice 9mm loads now days that shorten the gap between 9/40 but something that nobody mentions is the fact that these are specialty rounds and cost alot more. Who buys just strictly $1.25 a pop defensive rounds? This is such a moot point. You're going to be paying far more buying good 9mm loads than you would buying standard 40 FMJ. This is just to match the ballistics of the 40, not exceed them! In fact, the 40 still has the slight ballistics advantage over some of the best 9mm loads you pay top dollar for. I would, however, like to see an accurate comparison of all kinds of different 9mm loads vs a typical 40 FMJ so if anyone has some good comparison pics feel free to post.

I get it - you're going to be carrying the +P+ 9mm rounds, not plinking and fucking around with them. Well, I like the fact that all my 40 rounds are potent. I can stockpile regular FMJ and feel good about it! With ammo prices going up and the future of our 2nd amendment rights in question, most people just cannot stockpile thousands, or even hundreds of defensive 9mm.

First of all JHPs arent "specialy loads." So you're telling me that your argument is that .40 cal FMJs are better or equal to premium 9mm JHPs? I suggest you take a look at the terminal ballistic forums because your choosing of the .40 cal because it "blows shit up better" clearly shows you don't really understand what makes a good performing load.

[maddawg5777]

And when he has to use his fmj's and they zip straight through and none of the energy from the "mighty" 40 is retained in his target and the bad guy doesn't go down he will learn.... the hard way.