View Full Version : Do you shoot the 40 S&W?
I'm curious as to how many people do/would buy and shoot firearms chambered for the 40 Smith & Wesson. This is not, I repeat, this is not a 40 vs. 9mm or a 40 vs. 45 debate!
I'm simply asking: do you currently own/would you be open to owning a handgun chambered in 40 S&W or do you consistently avoid anything chambered in the caliber?
Although I currently own or have owned 9's/45's, usually I buy 40. Yeah, the recoil can be a bitch but with a little practice it's negligible. I see so many people just ragging on the the 40 S&W as if it insulted their mother. The 40 is weak, the 40 is inaccurate, the 40 will destroy your gun, the 40 is expensive, etc, etc. I understand everyone has preferences but it's still a very viable round and should not be written off. I'm a firm believer that all three of the mainstream rounds have their place.
I think it boils down to the 9mm and 45 being around for a century meanwhile the 40 has been around a mere 22 years so many people enjoy picking on it. The fact that law enforcement and government agencies eat it up should be a clue that it's not as useless as many people say. Maybe the extra penetration isn't important to everybody, but that's a very important factor to me.
Some of the arguments people use to declare the 40 S&W as useless and a round without its own identity:
Arguement #1: The 40 S&W hits barely any harder than the 9mm and about the same with a good, modern 9mm load.
I don't buy into this. Not one bit. When I'm shooting my 9mm it's basically punching clean holes through whatever I'm using as a target. I switch over to my 40 and the difference is night and day. Depending on the target, I can clearly see the knock down power (I know...;)) of the 40 over smaller rounds. Debris flying, pieces of the target(s) are flying around and the exit wounds created by a 40 are more intense. All in all, my guns chambered in 40 obliterate the same targets my 9mm punches relatively clean holes through.
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 ****ing 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.
Argument #2: The 40 S&W is inaccurate and/or the recoil is just oh-so-bad and I cannot handle it!
I laugh every time somebody trys to say that somehow the 40 is not as accurate as [insert other caliber here]. Newsflash: It's either you or the weapon you're shooting - not the round. I will admit that it's a bit harder to learn because of the snappy recoil. The 45 is a push back recoil while the 40 is a snap which can bring you off target, I get it. The key to this is practice. It's not a perfect round and this is the proof - it's not the easiest cartridge to learn with. I think that it's also a disadvantage of the 45 ACP but yet that cartridge gets a pass because .. well.. "The 45 ACP has knock down power and is a real mans round!" ... At least, that seems to be most peoples thinking. In reality, they are both equally potent rounds, each with their own set of advantages/disadvantages.
Argument #3: Guns chambered for the 40 S&W don't last!
This basically comes from guns that are designed around the 9mm and then the manufacturer suddenly starts producing a version that will accept a 40 caliber bullet just as a quick cash out. Guns that are designed around the 40 such as the USP have not been proven to wear out quicker than say, the USP9. In fact, one would think that your 9mm will wear out just as quickly if you're shooting +P rounds.
That's basically my reasoning for buying into the caliber, just as quickly as I will buy into a 9mm or .45 ACP. It may not be the best caliber for your needs or requirements, but it's not fair to say that such a well rounded caliber is useless.
So, without trying to tell me that one caliber is better than the other, are you open to weapons chambered in 40 Smith & Wesson or do you avoid them?
......This is not, I repeat, this is not a 40 vs. 9mm or a 40 vs. 45 debate!
I'm simply asking: do you currently own/would you be open to owning a handgun chambered in 40 S&W or do you consistently avoid anything chambered in the caliber?Not a caliber debate? See below...
Arguement #1: The 40 S&W hits barely any harder than the 9mm and about the same with a good, modern 9mm load.
I don't buy into this. Not one bit. When I'm shooting my 9mm it's basically punching clean holes through whatever I'm using as a target. I switch over to my 40 and the difference is night and day. Depending on the target, I can clearly see the knock down power of the 40 over smaller rounds. Debris flying, pieces of the target(s) are flying around and the exit wounds created by a 40 are more intense. All in all, my guns chambered in 40 obliterate the same targets my 9mm punches relatively clean holes through.
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 advantage vs even some of the best 9mm loads that you'll pay top dollar for.
I get it - you're going to be carrying the +P+ 9mm rounds, not plinking and ****ing 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.
Argument #2: The 40 S&W is inaccurate and/or the recoil is just oh-so-bad and I cannot handle it!
I laugh every time somebody trys to say that somehow the 40 is not as accurate as [insert other caliber here]. Newsflash: It's either you or the weapon you're shooting - not the round. I will admit that it's a bit harder to learn because of the snappy recoil. The 45 is a push back recoil while the 40 is a snap which can bring you off target, I get it. The key to this is practice. It's not a perfect round and this is the proof - it's not the easiest cartridge to learn with. I think that it's also a disadvantage of the 45 ACP but yet that cartridge gets a pass because .. well.. "The 45 ACP has knock down power and is a real mans round!" ... At least, that seems to be most peoples thinking. In reality, they are both equally potent rounds, each with their own set of advantages/disadvantages.
Argument #3: Guns chambered for the 40 S&W don't last!
This basically comes from guns that are designed around the 9mm and then the manufacturer suddenly starts producing a version that will accept a 40 caliber bullet just as a quick cash out. Guns that are designed around the 40 such as the USP have not been proven to wear out quicker than say, the USP9. In fact, one would think that your 9mm will wear out just as quickly if you're shooting +P rounds.
Looks like you made it into a debate to me?
varoadking
04-01-12, 12:53
Do you shoot the 40 S&W?
Yes, and all the various arguments one way or the other are silly and a complete waste of time, IMHO...
Not a caliber debate? See below...
Looks like you made it into a debate to me?
Understood why you might have read it that way but I didn't mean it as that. I'm simply stating I see the 40 as an equal to the 9mm/45 with its own respective strengths and weakness. Nowhere do I say that it's better than either of the other mainstream calibers or that it somehow does everything better. I had the "Argument" because these are the arguments that people use when they say that the 40 is not a viable option. I'm not looking for direct debate on which one is BETTER, I'm looking for input on whether or not you buy into the caliber or if it's avoided. There is bound to be comparison to other calibers but again, I did not say anywhere that any of them are my 'favorite' caliber or that one is somehow better. Yes, I buy mostly 40's because of the reasons I posted above but it's not my so called favorite caliber.
JeepDriver
04-01-12, 13:10
Yes.
While I prefer 9mm, I keep a Glock 22 in my bag. I figured if I had to grab and go, it's one of the most common LE firearms and I would say is the most common LE caliber.
Most of my other shooting is done with 9mm's.
Robb Jensen
04-01-12, 13:25
Yes I own a S&W M&P40 Pro, Glock 22 Gen 4, Glock 23 Gen 4, & a Glock 35 Gen 4. My wife also owns a genuine Glock 23 .40 barrel for her .357SIG Glock 32.
I have a HKP30L , m&P pro 5 inch and 4.25? , XD's. I understand the logic in most police using 40 with capacity and power equation.
In the larger length muzzle guns I feel very little difference in recoil, in a snubby I do notice.
The gun by my bed is a 40. However, like many I shoot more 9 and 45.
No. 9's for somewhat greater volume of practice for equal cost, 45's for if I need to feel manly (sarcasm), and I have no interest in adding a third "platform".
Not sure I understand though. Is this just a poll or are we changing minds? The OP sorta laid it all out for everyone already. Confused.
I have a USP 40c. It was my first pistol and I still have it. I currently shoot my Glock 17 way more primarily because it's my competition gun and 9 mm ammo is about 1/3 less than the 40 S&W. When I was looking for my first pistol, I bought into the idea/theory of the 40 S&W being the "best of both worlds". However, since then I've come to believe that any of the service cailbers with a decent load will be adequate.
I've thought about getting a Glock 22 to go along with the USP 40c and complement my Glock 17 since i could use the same holster, mag pouches, etc. But I will likely stick with 9 mm for now.
Not sure I understand though. Is this just a poll or are we changing minds? The OP sorta laid it all out for everyone already. Confused.
I'm just interested in seeing what ratio of people are willing to own a 40 S&W chambered handgun. I see alot of people ragging on it as if they are not worth anything. I think perhaps alot of people do shoot/own them but the 40 just isn't their main platform/caliber.... or so it seems...
Gen3 G23 and Sig P229 in .40. The G23 is probably my favorite pistol to shoot and one of my EDC pistols (along with my G26).
The .40 has been my main platform for about 10 years now. I used to be a .45 1911 guy. When I changed over to a Glock 23 I changed over to .40. Now I still shoot the .40 but in a PPQ and looking to get an M&P 40 soon.
I'm just interested in seeing what ratio of people are willing to own a 40 S&W chambered handgun. I see alot of people ragging on it as if they are not worth anything. I think perhaps alot of people do shoot/own them but the 40 just isn't their main platform/caliber.... or so it seems...
Gotcha. So your initial post was just to head off the usual arguments at the pass, I think? Understood. Then my reasoning for NOT shooting 40 isn't based on any 40-bashing emotional argument... simply cost, on the assumption that # of rounds fired in training and practice is more important than the relative effectiveness of 9 compared to the other calibers for my CCW and HD needs.
madisonsfinest
04-01-12, 14:32
Started with A Glock 17 13 years ago. Switched to the Glock 22 and Glock 27 about 6 years ago. Picked up my Glock 17 again and love it. Switching back to the Glock 17 and trading in my Glock 27 for a Glock 19. I'm simply faster and more accurate with the 9mm over the .40
If I'm carrying more than a pocket sized gun, I'm carrying a Glock 23 .40 cal. Otherwise I practice more, and shoot many more rounds with my Glock 9mms, and others.
As soon as someone uses the term "knockdown power" I tune out. But I will play along.
I have a .40 I happen to like it. It shoots accurately and the recoil is no big deal to me.
There is a noticeable difference in recoil between a .40 and a 9mm. I took a two day class with a woman (tough lady) that went through the first day with a .40 Glock and then switched to a borrowed 9mm Glock the second day. Her speed and accuracy went way up and I bet she now owns the 9mm. I know my daughter went through the same thing. I bet some of the smaller stature guys I am friends with would probably benefit as well.
With a 9mm you can afford to train 30% cheaper (actually about 38% cheaper from my sources). I don't know about you, but in my family situation at the moment, 30% is a lot of money. Since I don't believe a 40FMJ will be more effective than a 9mm quality defensive round, I don't buy that it's overall cheaper to own a .40. With the same type of hollow point I believe that .40 probably holds an advantage over the 9mm, but it's slight.
I have three kids to teach defensive shooting to, plus my wife and I. The 9mm is an adequate round for self defense, with a huge advantage in cost and availability of FMJ for training. It makes sense for my family.
I carry one of two HKs daily in .40, USPc LEM or a P2000SK. Ammo is 155gr Remington R40SW1. I also have a P229 in .40 and just picked up a M&P .40 slide for my 9mm M&P. I work in a barrier environment so .40 works for me. That said, my training/class pistol is 9mm (I like to mix things up).
Me edc is a glock 23. When it comes to a le/defensive round the 40 is the best bet imo. However when I am doing matches or very high round count training its hard to shoot economically with the 40 vs the 9. To me the 45 has been outdated and I have no place for one except for the nostalgia of owning a 1911 chambered in 45acp. I do not believe in the stopping power theory, either way with a handgun you are at a disadvantage verses a rifle.
Handguns poke holes, Rifles destroy shit.
I have three kids to teach defensive shooting to, plus my wife and I. The 9mm is an adequate round for self defense, with a huge advantage in cost and availability of FMJ for training. It makes sense for my family.
+1 This is also part of my equation. With 4 daughters and my wife the 9 just works out a little better for all.
I own an XDm 40, but I currently do not shoot it. I currently use a G19.
When 40SW ammunition is no longer provided free, the only 40s I own will be those of sentimental value.
Good 9mm / 40SW thread here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=87176
I’ve shot a few .40's, and to be honest, the only reason I’m holding off on getting one is that I currently own 9 different caliber guns, both handguns and long guns. I own 9mm’s and a .45, so it’s more of a want than a need for me.
F-Trooper05
04-01-12, 15:35
Never been a fan of .40. I don't like the recoil and I shoot 9 better. Call me a pussy if you want. My response is "blow me."
I own multiple calibers, and recently decided its time to lose one, which will be my xd40. Not because of any caliber debate, but because i edc my .45 and I love my 10mm too much to get rid of lol.
Never been a fan of .40. I don't like the recoil and I shoot 9 better. Call me a pussy if you want. My response is "blow me."
:confused: :confused:
Carried a Glock 22 for years. I have always found the 40S&W round works for me.
Add in the fact that defensive ammo has improved so much in recent years you really do have more viable options.
I don't see the old 9mm vs .45acp vs .40 going away anytime soon though.
Never been a fan of .40. I don't like the recoil and I shoot 9 better. Call me a pussy if you want. My response is "blow me."
I’ve shot the same guns side by side in 9mm and .40. G17 and G22. G19 and G23. I could not tell much of a difference in recoil. I was shooting 180 grain loads in .40. If you shoot hotter loads in .40, such as the 155 or 165 grain loads, then you will fee more recoil. Then again, recoil is subjective.
Pistol Shooter
04-01-12, 16:00
My working handguns are all 9x19mm or .45 ACP. I've never felt the need to split the difference with .40 S&W.
I've got other pistols chambered in .45 Colt and .357 Magnum but they see very little range time.
Beat Trash
04-01-12, 16:11
I have nothing against the .40 cartridge. It just doesn't do anything for me that I can't do with a 9mm. Up until recently I could shoot 9mm for free at my agencies range (we're a 9mm deprtment). Due to budget cuts that is no longer the case.
Someday I may buy a M&P40, just because. But the realistic differences between the calibers is slight when looking at the modern bullet designs.
D.S. Brown
04-01-12, 16:17
Shot Glock .40's for the better part of 12 years. Up until this time last year I had 4 G23's, a G27 , and a G35. Loved them and shot them quite well. About 2 years ago I noticed that the tendon in my right elbow would be sore for several hours after shooting one of my .40's but I chose to ignore it.
Around mid March of last year I was shooting my G23 RTF2 with the gills. Loved that gun. Went and ate dinner right afterwards, and was able to observe the fork doing some trembling in my right hand. Left hand was perfectly steady.
Within a week all six of my .40's had been sold and replaced with two Gen 4 G19's, a Gen 4 G26, and a Gen 4 G17. I'm very confident with my carry load of Speer 147 Grain Gold Dots. I shoot these guns faster and more accurately than my .40's, and as stated I was quite accurate with the latter. My only regret is that I hadn't done the caliber switch years ago.
Now one of the mitigating circumstances that caused the pain I experienced was probably over use of shooting from Chapman, with my right arm locked out, and my left elbow bent, creating a lot of dynamic tension. Knowing that my technique may have been instrumental in my making the switch means nothing to me, because as fantastic as .40 S&W is I've no desire to shoot it anymore, and feel very well protected with 9mm.
All this from the guy that started shooting .45's almost 24 years ago.
Best,
Dave
I have standardized on 9mm for all of my defensive handguns. Prior to that, I had a mix of .45 and 9mm. I have just never been a fan of the .40 as I shoot it with less accuracy than other rounds.
I still have 1911s, but all of my "go to" handguns are 9mm. Most of those are S&W M&Ps.
I'm curious as to how many people do/would buy and shoot firearms chambered for the 40 Smith & Wesson. This is not, I repeat, this is not a 40 vs. 9mm or a 40 vs. 45 debate!
I'm simply asking: do you currently own/would you be open to owning a handgun chambered in 40 S&W or do you consistently avoid anything chambered in the caliber?
Although I currently own or have owned 9's/45's, usually I buy 40. Yeah, the recoil can be a bitch but with a little practice it's negligible. I see so many people just ragging on the the 40 S&W as if it insulted their mother. The 40 is weak, the 40 is inaccurate, the 40 will destroy your gun, the 40 is expensive, etc, etc. I understand everyone has preferences but it's still a very viable round and should not be written off. I'm a firm believer that all three of the mainstream rounds have their place.
I think it boils down to the 9mm and 45 being around for a century meanwhile the 40 has been around a mere 22 years so many people enjoy picking on it. The fact that law enforcement and government agencies eat it up should be a clue that it's not as useless as many people say. Maybe the extra penetration isn't important to everybody, but that's a very important factor to me.
Some of the arguments people use to declare the 40 S&W as useless and a round without its own identity:
Arguement #1: The 40 S&W hits barely any harder than the 9mm and about the same with a good, modern 9mm load.
I don't buy into this. Not one bit. When I'm shooting my 9mm it's basically punching clean holes through whatever I'm using as a target. I switch over to my 40 and the difference is night and day. Depending on the target, I can clearly see the knock down power (I know...;)) of the 40 over smaller rounds. Debris flying, pieces of the target(s) are flying around and the exit wounds created by a 40 are more intense. All in all, my guns chambered in 40 obliterate the same targets my 9mm punches relatively clean holes through.
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 ****ing 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.
Argument #2: The 40 S&W is inaccurate and/or the recoil is just oh-so-bad and I cannot handle it!
I laugh every time somebody trys to say that somehow the 40 is not as accurate as [insert other caliber here]. Newsflash: It's either you or the weapon you're shooting - not the round. I will admit that it's a bit harder to learn because of the snappy recoil. The 45 is a push back recoil while the 40 is a snap which can bring you off target, I get it. The key to this is practice. It's not a perfect round and this is the proof - it's not the easiest cartridge to learn with. I think that it's also a disadvantage of the 45 ACP but yet that cartridge gets a pass because .. well.. "The 45 ACP has knock down power and is a real mans round!" ... At least, that seems to be most peoples thinking. In reality, they are both equally potent rounds, each with their own set of advantages/disadvantages.
Argument #3: Guns chambered for the 40 S&W don't last!
This basically comes from guns that are designed around the 9mm and then the manufacturer suddenly starts producing a version that will accept a 40 caliber bullet just as a quick cash out. Guns that are designed around the 40 such as the USP have not been proven to wear out quicker than say, the USP9. In fact, one would think that your 9mm will wear out just as quickly if you're shooting +P rounds.
That's basically my reasoning for buying into the caliber, just as quickly as I will buy into a 9mm or .45 ACP. It may not be the best caliber for your needs or requirements, but it's not fair to say that such a well rounded caliber is useless.
So, without trying to tell me that one caliber is better than the other, are you open to weapons chambered in 40 Smith & Wesson or do you avoid them?
Ok, you like .40; great. Your post reads like here is the argument against .40 and here is my counter to that. Other parts read that you know for sure, based on your own observations that .40 will out perform 9mm. I don't have anything against .40. If it works for you, knock yourself out, but it doesn't work for everyone. If I think I'm going to need to shoot against medium barricades, and I don't know why I would, I'll carry a .45 or I'll stack my 9mm mags. Why? Because I'm more accurate with them.
Simply put, shoot what you shoot best. None of those rounds are great man stoppers, so make good, accurate shots and shoot as many rounds as you need. If that's .40 for you, cool. But in a real life situation, I would rather have someone on my side that shoots a 9mm well versus one who shoots a .40 badly and I wouldn't care why as long as he stays with what works for him.
While your reasons for liking/shooting/carrying 40 are valid, they are not enough to make me switch over from 9mm. At the end of the day we are talking about pistol rounds (Which suck in the big picture of ballistics) and shot placement will always trump minute differences in similar calibers. Add in the increased magazine size of 9mm and 40 begins to look like (To me at least) a over-hyped solution to the 9mm vs 45 debat (If you can even claim there is one :rolleyes:).
If 40 fulfills your needs then by all means go out and shoot till you can swim through the pill of empty brass. My pile will just be made up of smaller casings ;).
i have no desire for one, but i would not be opposed to owning an HK in 40 cal.
Ok, you like .40; great. Your post reads like here is the argument against .40 and here is my counter to that. Other parts read that you know for sure, based on your own observations that .40 will out perform 9mm.
Well I think it's pretty pretty common knowledge that a .40 will generally out perform a 9mm; it just comes down to whether or not it's a significant enough of a difference for you to use it in place of say, the 9mm, especially when considering the *potential* downsides of the 40... (recoil is subjective, after all)
My point is I like the .40 for what it is, never mind the whole 'compromise' business. I shoot the 9mm, it's a great round but I'm no fool; I can see which one is hitting harder.
So, yes, it's enough of a difference for me to invest into it, but that does not mean I think it's better than the other cartridges. I just believe it has its place just as the 45 does. In a self defense situation, most shooters should be able to shoot the 40 with at least 'combat accuracy' even if they aren't use to the snap reaction of the cartridge.
When 40SW ammunition is no longer provided free, the only 40s I own will be those of sentimental value.
I own two M&P .40s, both of which are department issue. I have tried several other .40s, notably a HK USPc and a Sig P239. I liked the pistols, never liked the caliber.
To me the snappier recoil is not worth the extra power present over the 9mm in a higher capacity pistol such as a G19, and in lower capacity single stacks I prefer the .45.
I can shoot the .40 acceptably well, I would estimate I am in the top 5 to 10% of my department if you look at qual scores. But I am more comfortable with the 9mm or the .45, and I feel I have better control with follow on shots.
I own a Beretta 96D Centurion, that I never shoot due to the super long trigger pull. I prefer my 9mm Glocks. I tried to sell it, but it's worth next to nothing, so I guess it serves as my backup to my backup's backup. :jester:
They are all service caliber handguns--who cares which one, they all just poke holes. Pick what you shoot best based on objective measurements, not vague subjective feelings. If I am given unlimited free ammo to practice with, I'll happily shoot any of the common service calibers: 9 mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP.
If I have to purchase my ammo, then 9 mm is very attractive. In addition, for CCW and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a 1911...
While I am not a big fan of the .357 Sig, if I was issued one and had lots of free ammunition available, I would have no issues about carrying one on a daily basis.
If I was in a department that issued .40 or was doing a lot of LE work around vehicles, I'd be strongly tempted to carry a .40--lots of 180 gr JHP's that do well against intermediate barriers is a good thing.
The nice aspects of .45 ACP are that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, and offers good penetration of some intermediate barriers. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9 mm. A .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions, in departments that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo, or in situations where modern expanding ammunition is restricted due to asinine, illogical regulations.
How a handgun feels or looks is utterly irrelevant. What truly matters is to carefully assess what your service pistol and handgun caliber needs are, based on potential engagement scenarios, objective measurements of skill including scores and times, and ancillary factors such as armorer support and accessory availability (sights, mags, holsters, parts, etc...).
I carried primarily .45 ACP handguns from 1986-2011. If I went back on uniformed patrol duties, I'd likely carry an M&P40 w/ambi safety. For what I am doing now, 9 mm makes the most sense. I used the following matrix to choose my current pistol:
-- I currently shoot 9 mm better than .45 ACP; as a result, I will be phasing out my .45 ACP usage and concentrating on 9 mm.
-- I currently shoot an RDS better than iron sights; as a result, all my pistols will be equipped with RMR02's.
-- I shoot an M&P9 better than a G17/G19; however I live in CA and have over 100 pre-ban Glock mags, a large supply of Glock accessories and spare parts, and for my current non-uniformed pistol needs find the G19 to be a perfect handgun for daily carry, so I will be focusing on 9 mm Glock use for 2012.
After having gone through the juvenile collector stage of idiotically wasting money by purchasing one or two of every type of service pistol ever produced, I finally grew-up and realized it is far better to strive to master one quality pistol type, then be perpetually mediocre with many. I strongly recommend purchasing two or three identical pistols once you have decided upon the model that you plan to use, carry, and train with. I dedicate one pistol for carry after thoroughly vetting function with 1000 or so rounds through it. Another identical pistol is solely used for training--it is shot till it breaks with minimal cleaning or babying during its service life. If I am able to afford a third pistol, it serves as a back-up to the other two and usually sits in an easily accessible safe as a readily available personal defense weapon mounting an x300 light.
Doc Safari
04-02-12, 00:21
I own a Gen 3 Glock 17 in 9mm and a Gen 4 Glock 22 in 40. I think the 40 caliber was my excuse to finally get a Gen 4 Glock since the consensus seems to be that they "broke the nines to fix the forties".
Still, my desert island gun would have to be the Gen 3 Glock 17.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. :D:D:D
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
04-02-12, 09:51
Own but do not shoot an M&P40. Recoil is just a tetch too much for a badly-broken and never-quite-healed wrist.
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
04-02-12, 10:21
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
04-02-12, 10:40
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.
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....
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
04-02-12, 10:50
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.
I shoot the .40 the 9mm and the 357sig. I like them all.
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.
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
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
04-02-12, 16:28
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 ****ing 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
04-02-12, 16:58
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.:haha:
Meta-Prometheus
04-02-12, 22:49
I'm open to trying out a 40SW pistol but I currently don't have the time or money at the moment to pick up another caliber.
I have considered a future MP5/40 build of some sort. The 40SW seems like a great round for the sub-gun role.
Never been a fan of .40. I don't like the recoil and I shoot 9 better. Call me a pussy if you want. My response is "blow me."
;) Sometimes, it's for the best if you don't reply at all, especially if all you've got to offer is silly, testosterone laced, adolescent silliness...:rolleyes:
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.
What defines a "specialty load" ? Technically, anything but a FMJ could be called a "specialty load" so why are you trying to harp on that? Nowhere did I state that a standard .40 FMJ is a "better" self defense round than a good 9mm defensive load. The ballistics and purpose of the round are obviously going to differ from a regular FMJ to a JHP. I understand they are two different animals. I do, however, believe that my standard JHP .40 rounds will perform just as well as my more expensive HP 9mm defensive loads. I understand I was saying standard FMJ and so perhaps I didn't clarify that enough but I'm referring to any standard JHP as well such as UMC or WWB. Does that clarify it for you?
You get my point, but you're trying to pick me apart for perhaps not wording it 100% as I should have? My bad, next time I'll make it a little more clear for people such as yourself since I can see how much it pisses you off.
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.:haha:
Do you honestly believe that I don't know the purpose of a HP? Newsflash: The .40 has hollow point rounds too. "mighty 40" in the poll was sarcasm - glad you caught that. :rolleyes:
I'm amazed by how many people will get pissed off and essentially try to start an argument over stupid things - just because we have different opinions. You know what they say about opinions..........
Not interested, for the same reason I don't want a gun in .357 SIG or .45 GAP.
There are several excellent handgun calibers, but I don't feel like buying 31 flavors of ammo.
I have probably 20 guns in .40. Mostly glock, HK, and Sig. Of course I have more in 9mm and almost as many in .45
The 40 is an interesting cartridge, but that's about it.
Pretty soon, I'll probably stumble into a cheap G22, buy it, shoot it long enough to remember why I quit using the 40 the first time, and sell it at a loss.
Okie John
shutup&shoot
04-03-12, 11:20
I have owned three guns in 40. I have sold them and only have 9mm now.
brickboy240
04-03-12, 11:28
I remember back when the 2008 post election ammo scare came around. I could hardly ever find 9mm or 45 around here but never had to search for 40SW at all.
For that reason alone...I will always keep at least one autopistol in 40SW.
10mm, 45GAP and 357SIG I'll skip on but I think for emergency purposes....keeping one 40 around is not a bad idea. Especially since police trade autos in 40SW are everywhere and so cheap.
- brickboy240
...You're going to be paying far more buying good 9mm loads than you would buying standard 40 FMJ.
Yes, and a good 9mm load blows fmj 40 out of the water.
This is just to match the ballistics of the 40, not exceed them!
No, top of the line in both rounds are very similar. A 147gr rangerT/hst/gold dot offers WAY better terminal ballistics than the .40sw in fmj.
In fact, the 40 still has the slight ballistics advantage over some of the best 9mm loads you pay top dollar for.
Given fmj:fmj or top quality jhp to equal jhp, maybe. There are some 9mm jhp that offer better ballistics than some 40 jhp.
...
I own a .40. I can shoot it pretty well. Shot for shot, comparing top of the line rounds, yes, the .40 offers an advantage. However, its so small it doesnt matter. My next gun will be 9mm so I can carry more rounds per mag, and shoot more for the same price.
Also, in general, .40 guns do have reliability and lifespan issues, an exception being the M&P.
I do, however, believe that my standard JHP .40 rounds will perform just as well as my more expensive HP 9mm defensive loads.
No, there are bad jhps and good jhps, a bad jhp, no matter what caliber, will suck, compared to a good jhp, irrelevent of caliber, given we are talking about the big 3 calibers. You can believe what you want, but people have done more scientific work than shooting dirt to determine this, and there are loads of info regarding this in the terminal ballistics forum. I suggest you go read all the stickies, TONS of info.
I have no desire to buy a 40 cal handgun. I shoot both the 9mm and 40 about equal when I'm standing with both hands on the gun. However If I am doing any movement or shooting with either the left or right hand only, I shoot the 9mm much more accurately and with better speed.
maddawg5777
04-03-12, 14:10
Djmorris,
I said some smart ass shit because of the way one of your posts were written. Talking big about FMJ is a joke and maybe that's what you were doing. Sorry if i took your post wrong I was just being a smart ass in response.
I have one 40 and never warmed up to the cartridge enough to consider getting another one.
packinaglock
04-03-12, 18:47
G27, G23, M&P .40c
I don't like .40 cal or houses decorated in all blue Christmas lights.
Can't explain it. They're just not for me.
I have a .380, three 9s, a .40, a .45, and a .357 mag. I shoot the 9s the most. The .40 is a CZ SP-01 Tactical. I like it as it is a heavy steel gun and handles the recoil quite well. I would not want a small polimer gun in a .40.
Phillygunguy
04-04-12, 13:18
I owned a few 40 my first was a god awful s&w sigma, Then owned a Beretta px4 storm and actually was pretty smooth, but then I went to the 45 and ultimately 1911 now Im back to the 9mm I shoot mostly 45 and 9mm the later being even more so, mostly glock 19 17 and M&P I really don't see the need for the 40
CCW in .40 is not a bad choice. Big power in a small package if you rock a compact pistol.
Like everything in LIFE, .40 has pros and cons! Higher capacity than .45 and more damage than a 9mm is what I look at. Ammo isn't that bad. With quite of few PDs using it and now SF picking it up, it will go down! Now this is my view and I'm not debating just stating what I think is good for myself.
CCW in .40 is not a bad choice. Big power in a small package if you rock a compact pistol.
Like everything in LIFE, .40 has pros and cons! Higher capacity than .45 and more damage than a 9mm is what I look at. Ammo isn't that bad. With quite of few PDs using it and now SF picking it up, it will go down! Now this is my view and I'm not debating just stating what I think is good for myself.
interesting. have more info?
back to the op, i had a few .40 pistols back in the day along with 9mm and .45. consolidated to 9mm and .45, i decided that, for me, .40 was a compromise between the two and that the other calibers were better choices for competition and carry.
I follow a different argument than a lot of people. The video in this link matches up perfectly with my take on the 9, 40, 45 argument.
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/video-how-tos-tutorials/32458-wound-ballistics-overview.html#post398221
A pistol is simply a hole puncher, stoping power is irrelivent I don't believe any of the three have a notable difference in "knock down power". You can choose to punch larger hole with something like a 45 or more holes with something like a 9mm.
As far as the 40 debate goes, I am much more proficient with a 9mm than I am a 40. I've done blind tests(pickup and shoot) with both on courses without knowing which caliber I was grabbing and each time I did better with a 9 over a 40.
Haven't tried the same test with a 9/45 but would like to.
Mike from Texas
04-04-12, 19:45
Nope.
I have .380, 9mm, 10mm and 45ACP.
The 40 S&W has never interested me at all.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
warpedcamshaft
04-04-12, 20:04
I will probably always keep at lest one 40 S&W chambered firearm in my inventory. I have at several points in the past, been able to purchase large quantities of reputable defensive loads for significantly less than other calibers via police surplus or contract overruns.
I also enjoy shooting the 40 S&W for training, as 180 GR target loads have similar recoil and point of impact to defensive loads at a somewhat reasonable price.
I find most of the cheaper 115gr 9mm loads people show up at the range with to be somewhat unrealistic in recoil compared to the defensive-class 9mm loads in my experience. Also, I prefer 124 or 147 grain bullets for training due to the point of impact differences at 25+ yards I have experienced with the lighter bullets in the weapon systems I choose. For this reason, I began loading my own 9mm ammunition for practice at 25+ yards. It seems most 40 S&W practice ammo I run across is 180 gr, and often very consistent in recoil and point of aim (However, accuracy at 25+ yards can be a big variable among loadings).
EDIT: I will also add that I do frequent timed 'reality checks' with higher power-factor 9mm loads to keep my recoil control skills up and not get comfortable with the lighter/cheaper loads I enjoy shooting for practice and fun.
So, in short... I shoot 40 S&W quite often and will always keep one around if possible. I would not hesitate for an instant to use it defensively, as I would use any of the standard service calibers in a proven load recommended by the honorable 'Doc'.
i have glock 19 22 23 i like the 40cal, i can make accurate follow shots. Recoil isn't as bad as some make it out to be. 9mm is cheaper for plinking, but when CCW its 40s&w hands down
Devildawg2531
04-04-12, 22:21
I own a G22, G24 and G27 and carry the G22 or G27. The G24 is the house pistol with an X400. I'm heavily vested in Glock 40 with LOT's of mags and a good bit of ammo. I don't own a 9 but am interested in a Glock 17 to get me in 9 and to save a little on amo vs the 40 for practice. I've been calculating how much 9 I need to shoot to pay for the G17 in savings with the cost difference in 9 vs 40. I shoot a lot but the payback is lengthy. Also curious if IDPA scores would improve with a G17 vs G22. In summary long time 40 owner and vey happy with it; but also would not feel undergunned with a 9 and with good 147 gr HP. Any great deals out there on a Gen 3 Glock 17?
I was issued a .40 (Glock 22)when I got into LE, and subsequently bought a 35 "just because" and it quickly replace the 22 as my duty gun for patrol and eventually tac purposes. 99% of our department shoot/ carries a .40 (because that is what they're issued... Who would dare spend their time and/ or money seeing if there was something better or that they could shoot better) so I stuck with it to. But now there is a decent sized contingency of us who are switching over to 9mm's, as we've "think tanked" and we all decided that the pro's of the 9mm out weigh the cons between the two.
With that said, my G35 reigns supreme when it comes to a shooting match, we know each other well. But I suspect my new 34 will overtake that position once we have more time to get acquainted.
digitalid99
04-06-12, 17:27
Glock 23 and 27 are my daily carry. Carry time is probably about 50/50, but I generally prefer the 27.
That being said, I just bought a used 2008 model gen 3 G19 and have had a Gen 4 26 for a while. I only have about 1100 rounds through the 26 and already prefer it over the 27. No reliability issues so far.
Once I test fire the 19/26 package together for a few months, I'm planning to make the switch.
I have a glock 22, why? free ammo for training.
charmcitycop
04-07-12, 18:57
......
Issued a G22 and own a G27. Before joining this agency I had everything in 9 and 45. I personally see no need for the 40.
- 40 is more expensive than 9mm.
- 40 has a snappier recoil than 9 or 45.
- 40 does nothing better than the other major calibers.
- The agency that downloaded the 10mm and helped create the 40 downloaded the 40 to make it easier for personnel to qualify.
Can a shooter master the 40? Of course. I did so myself. But anything I can do with a 40 I can do better with a 9 or 45. When all handguns are poor people stoppers, why choose the one with the most muzzle flip?
I have never understood the hype the 40 gets. I only bought my G27 because I had to carry a G22 on duty. Now that I have a G21 for duty use, my 27 will get traded for a 26 (the G30 is not permitted).
The 40 does the same thing the other major calibers do - it just forces shooters to pay a higher price. Not just in ammo cost, but in spending more time with the weapon to reach the same level of mastery. And that translates into even more of the already more expensive ammo.
If the 40 disappeared from the planet tomorrow, we would not be any less safe than we are today.
I carry both 9 and 40. Although i train with more 9mm than i do 40 for the simple fact that i'm a tightwad. I am even really considering a 22 lr kit for my G17 just so i can get more range time, and more trigger time. I hardly think caliber trained with matters as much as time behind the sights and trigger, driving the gun through realistic courses of action.
RogerinTPA
04-08-12, 06:34
My M&P40 is by far,my most favorite handgun to shoot. Having said that, I used to shoot 10-12K rounds of pistol in any given year, my M&P9 and 9c get shot the most. The 40 and M&P45, the least (1K or a little more) each a year.
I'm no longer intrested in the .40 S&W. I had a Glock 22 for a while and I sold it when I consolidated all my semi-auto pistols to either 9mm or .45 ACP.
I agree with what El Cid posted above, between the 9mm and .45 I have no need for the .40.
StrikerFired
04-08-12, 11:06
I love my M&P 40 after I had Doug at ATEi do some of his magic on the trigger and slide. For me, the .40 S&W is a caliber that I still shoot well and I can drive this pistol faster and better shot placement then I can a 45 ACP. So its a personal choice for me, and that's the great thing about choices in personal defense handguns pick the one that works best for you!
- 40 has a snappier recoil than 9 or 45.
That's a very broad statement with no qualifiers.....
I could see it being true in some specific cases with extreme differences in loadings or pistols.
But my direct experiences is that for identical pistol/weight/configuration the .45 has more "rise" than even full 10mm loadings, and .40 is no where close in terms of felt recoil or pistol rise.
Yes, in identical configurations: 1911 for .45/10mm/.40 and for Kahr carry pistols in .40/.45 (P40 & P45).
This is especially true with typical 230g .45 loadings compared to "heavy" .40 loadings (180g). 165g hot loadings are no where close in terms of pistol rise.
Most of this is physics F=MA largely dominates for identical pistol configs. (Yes, springs can make a difference, but not much)
I do think the recoil pulse is sharper in lighter hot bullet loadings, and that may be what people are reacting to, especially if they've mostly shot 9mm. If you grew up on .357's & .45's, you just recognise they are different, but both recoil.
I'll buy that specific individuals may shoot one faster than the other. But a definitive statement that implies (all) .40's recoil more than (all) .45's??? No data to support that.
I switched from .45 to 10mm in 1911's after lot's of experimentation in the late 80's. Both are fine up close. But at 15-25+ yards the differences become much more apparent.
Which was important to me at the time as I was hunting with the 1911 platform. (and occasionally still do). I was competing in IHMSA at the time and spent lot's of time shooting metal chickens at 25m with a 1911 for fun. And iron pigs at 50m.
Since I handloaded I sidestepped the wimpy 10mm loadings of the day, but there are many loadings available now that duplicate or exceed the original Norma loadings with even better bullets.
The only time I step down to 40 is for CCW, the P40 is just much easier for me to shoot fast and accurately than the P45. Most of the people I know carrying the P45 use the lighter combat loads to try to tame the recoil. 230g grain is shootable, but just lot's of flip.
I'm long past trying to advocate calibers to others, if you are comfortable with .380 (the current pocket pistol fad), then use it. Same for 9mm, .45, whatever. I know why I shoot what I shoot. I'll always like .45, and consider a LW commander in .45 an ideal pistol. But there are many good options. Choice is good!
Maverick07
04-08-12, 13:48
Every caliber/weapon platform is a compromise. There is no perfect combination. If there were everyone would be carrying it. What the .40 does do is sucessfully bridge the power gap between the 9mm and .45. Most LE agencies carry the .40 because it does work and is a very good fight stopper. Nearlly all our local PD's issue the Glock 22 and are quite satisfied with the equipment. It has been close to 15 years since that platform has been in use and is going strong.
Remember when the "wonder 9's" first came out? Many agencies transitioned from the .38 to the 9mm in the early 90's because of the capacity and efficiency of the pistols offered. Then came the stories of the 9's lack of power and the much discussed FBI Miami shootout. The FBI dropped the 9mm for the 10mm due to their concerns over the lack of the 9's stopping power (the ammo then was not up the to standards of today). The eventual end result is the .40. When I shoot the .40 I find the recoil more substantial than the 9 but less then the .45. It has a snappy recoil but remember that is in the light frame Glock. Recoil is still quite manageable for the increased ballistic advantage. However, I do recall the Remington 155 JHP issued to the USBP just sucked to shoot and left me concussed! If tomorrow my agency went with the .40 I would have no problem with it. One thing I have yet hear is the .40 loaded with good JHP ammo is a not an excellent stopping caliber.
I have a few guns in 40 and I like it. My USPc has 5,000 thru it, my Steyr M40A1 has 4,000 thru it, and my 229 has 2,000 thru it. The Sig is currently my HD gun, with a MecGar 14 round mag and TLR2.
i don't know if i would pay to shoot .40.
i started on .40 and i believe it was the best possible situation. it was difficult to manage and it made me focus on things that were important.
now that i have a choice, i have consolidated. i've mostly consolidated away from .45 because it's so expensive. if i'm not going to train in a caliber, i might as well not own anything in it...
if someone paid me to shoot .40, hail yeah. and when i ran out of that i'd buy my own 9mm.
I never considered myself in the "not interested" category until I saw this poll and actually thought about it.
I am satisfied with 9mm for plinking and general carry, and I have a .45ACP as well if I want to step up to something more potent (which is usually relegated to home defense).
I've shot my share of .40 S&W and found that, if i'm going to step up from 9mm, I like the "feel" of .45 ACP recoil better
That's a very broad statement with no qualifiers.....
You are absolutely correct. I have no scientific data to support my theory. And even if someone had the time and energy to do it properly, you would need Donald Trump's checkbook to fund all the various types of ammo, handguns, etc.
What can be measured is the pressures to which each caliber are loaded. 40 is notably higher than 9mm or 45. As for the impact that has on a shooter... again - so many variables. I can say that having shot for close to 28 years, and spending almost 6 years shooting 99% 40 caliber, it would be VERY difficult to convince me that the "snappy" recoil of 40 is easier to manage and master than 9mm or even 45ACP.
Where I really found myself believing was when I started serving as RO for local steel matches. Standing next to shooters who used proper technique, and seeing the differences in a G19 v. a G23. We have even used video to improve shooter performance and you can see the flip of the 40 clearly compared to other calibers in the same platform. Can 40 be mastered? Of course. Is it worth the extra cost and time? Not for me. Especially when it doesn't do anything magically different terminally.
plouffedaddy
04-10-12, 17:12
I have handguns chambered in 380, 9, 40, 45, and 10mm. Each has their purpose, pros and cons, ect... But, I think the 40 is the hardest caliber to learn to shoot well.
Over the last few years, I've been trending back to 9mm for economy and speed. During this same time-frame 9mm defensive ammo has been much improved.
I think we will look back on this period as the beginning of a significant decline in the popularity of .40. I predict a gradual movement back to 9mm by LE, followed - as usual - by the civilian market. New mag-capacity laws would hasten this evolution.
i carry a g23 everyday on and off the job.
Dos Cylindros
04-11-12, 12:04
The .40 S&W is my primary platform and has been for about the last 13 years. This is due mainly to the fact that it is my department issue gun, and it just makes thing simpler as opposed to it being my favorite round. My HD gun though is an M&P45, I don't currently own a 9mm.
Last October I picked up a lightly used HK USPc in .40. I had been interested in an HK for some time, and this particular pistol came with 11 magazines and three holsters...nice little package deal. I was attracted to the .40 S&W because 1) there was a period of time recently when .40 ammo was easier to find, and 2) I had 9mm and .45 pistols but no .40.
The HK has become my primary EDC (partially because my wife is too fond of my G19 to let it leave the house.) I seem to shoot the .40 as well as either of the other calibers, and I don't find the recoil objectionable at all.
Despite this, I think my next purchases are more likely to be 9mm or .45 rather than .40. I just don't find the round to have a significant edge over either of the other two, and like one as well as the other.
Hogsgunwild
04-28-12, 13:04
I have owned .40 S&Ws since the late '80s. My first was a Star, Firestar. It was an accurate and dependable gun. It was a heavy little which is part of why I shot it well.
I have always thought that the .40 S&W was an excellent choice, in theory. My actual experience with the round and the guns manufactured for it was not always as rosy as I had hoped. One example is my first Glock 23. I purchased it in the late '90s and now, looking back, I recall periods of time where I just couldn't shoot it worth a damn and I really didn't know why at the time. Self induced accuracy issues from one that had no formal handgun training other than my first concealed carry permit in '97 (whoopie, I know).
Looking back I wish I had stayed with a G19 and the 9MM round in that lightweight platform. I wasted a ton of .40 caliber ammo trying to understand what I was doing wrong with that gun and never really understood how anticipation of the shot and flinching was affecting me. I had owned .357s, 10MMs and .44 Magnums that I shot so much better than the G23, so it didn't make sense why I was frustrated with the G23.
During the first half of last year I was shooting the best 25 yard groups that I ever had but picked a bad time to switch my carry gun over to a HK P2000 in .40 S&W with a light LEM trigger. Although some excellent formal training had me squared away, an inability to get to the range much over about a three month period (due to illness and work schedule) took its toll. When I started shooting the P2000, I was completely enamored with it's accuracy. Similar to my 1911s in a smaller package with a higher capacity. Using the relatively snappy .40 cal in a relatively light platform and my not getting enough range time was enough to totally screw up my ability to shoot accurately. I started anticipating the shots, flinching and then my trigger control went downhill so bad that I ended up with bad habits that made it so that I could not even shoot my most accurate and easiest to shoot guns accurately. I ended up getting back on track (using a 1911 for awhile helped me to break the cycle) and now I have learned enough that those issues are well behind me and the P2000 is an old friend again (although I'm carrying my M&Ps in 9MM and .45 now).
I have come to the conclusion that I love how the .45ACP shoots and the platforms that it tends to be offered in and also that the 9MM is more practical for me than the .40 S&W is.
I recently thought that I had given myself a case of arthritis from my .40 cals. I took a course that included a lot of ground fighting and then
shot my Glock 23 and P2000 a lot the week afterward. My arms hurt for weeks. Another reason I am backing off on using the .40 S&W so much.
I own 2 Glock 22s (one issued) and a Glock 23. I generally shoot 9mm.
NitroDave08
05-01-12, 14:42
No intentions: Have had the G26, G27, and G36. Ditched the G27 because of the "snappy" recoil. Weak azz wrists could not stand up to even finishing a box of ammo. With the 9 and 45 I can shoot all day.
Buckshot TX
05-01-12, 21:00
I don't own a .40 for a few reasons:
1) I don't believe the likely advantages of .40 S&W (stopping power & barrier penetration) over the advantages of the 9mm (greater # of rounds in the training & storage budget, easier caliber to mantain proficiency with) are of small consequence to me & can be largely ameliorated by careful ammo choice (purely subjective & opinion based, but since I no longer owe any allegiance to any sort of agency, my informed opinion carries the day in my universe).
2) As a full-time gunsmith, I've found most of the .40 S&W platforms to have a MUCH higher likelihood of malfunctions & profound failures than their equivalent models in 9mm. It has the same high pressure as 9mm, but is a short, fat, stubby round that doesn't mix well with the amount of unsupported chamber area required to make it feed into the chamber of firearms that were optimally designed to feed a 9mm diameter round.
I believe the caliber is a very good choice for a defensive use & if conditions required, I'd happily use it. I'd just be very picky about what pistol I shot it out of.
I have 9mm and a 40 S@W and a 45 ACP pistols. I like the feel of the 45 ACP best. But about the 40S@W over a 9mm and a 45ACP, There is always better deals on some contract over runs as well as the not as good Winchester White box types that make the 40S@W to me a good deal. I really don't care what caliber as long as it goes bang. I am sure that there are as many advantages as disadvantages with any caliber choice.
I have a 40 xdm, beretta 9mm, and a ruger sr1911. still deciding which i can shoot the best. would like to think that any of them could get the job done if need be. but the xdm 40 with tac light stays in my night stand.
Recently got first 40 s&w (have 9mms and lov'em) and am in process of getting familiar with gun. It's nice (likn it), but have no doubt at short/med. range either/or would be just as effective with the improvments/variety in bullets now-a-days and my little part (mainly the new latest/greatest self defence ammo):haha:
I own a .40 (Sig P226) but it is not my prefered caliber. Most of my guns I use are 9mms and a few .45s.
-- I shoot an M&P9 better than a G17/G19; however I live in CA and have over 100 pre-ban Glock mags...
That is a lot of Glock mags.
doubleajaybrock
05-02-12, 08:38
M&P 40 for me!
I went through the academy with a Glock 22 and have carried a few different variations of them on duty, and never anything else. I started with a gen 2, traded it and moved up to gen 3, and now have an issued RTF.
I feel "at home" with the 40 and don't feel the recoil is much different than 9mm or 45ACP. I really enjoy it with my gen 4 27 and the 9 round mags.
Of course I get free 40 ammo to practice with, so that certainly doesn't hurt. I reload 9mm, 45ACP, and 10mm, so I'm really not picky, and I would carry any of them without a second thought.
Not interested in 40 S&W. It's certainly an effective round, but in tests in ballistic gelatin and in pigs (NOT ferral) I've shot myself using defensive loads, the 40 isn't enough of a difference from my 9's to warrant the caliber change. So I'll just stick to 9 and 45; but I won't fault anyone for carrying 40. It's all just personal preference.
gunrunner505
05-08-12, 22:15
I shoot an M&P40 full size. I have no issue at all with the recoil. It's not snappy or anything, to me it's just recoil. Last pistol class my groups were tighter then a lot of the 9MM guys but that night be shooter and I am no super star.
The extra 2 rounds you get in a 9MM magazine, to me, are no big deal. 15 rds of 40 to 17 of 9MM.
Personally I like the 40 better but I am not opposed to the 9. Someday I might even buy one just to flesh out the collection. An M&P of course....:smile:
At the end of the day, you really can't go wrong with either one.
plouffedaddy
05-09-12, 20:41
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/tiffani33/Guns/IMAG0887.jpg
I've owned 40s by multiple manufacturers over the years; the only ones I still have are my Glocks. The low bore axis and aggressive grip angle seem like they were designed to handle the 'snappy' 40 recoil.
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/tiffani33/Guns/DSC01396.jpg
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/tiffani33/Guns/IMAG1041.jpg
Psalms144.1
05-10-12, 07:02
My agency issues .40 S&W handguns, but has a very liberal personal weapons policy, so I don't carry one.
I see the .40 in its best loadings having advantages over 9mm in tactical barrier penetration, so if I were a uniformed officer working the road, I'd be tempted to use it just to get an edge on penetrating auto glass/body parts.
I'm not, so I don't see any real advantage for a plain clothes guy like me, or, for that matter, for the majority of civilian CCWers. In Glocks, I find that the muzzle flip and cumulative recoil of the .40 is significantly worse than the 9mm versions. For instance, for a while I was shooting and carrying a G23, loaded with our agency's 155 JHP. Shooting it side-by-side with my G19 loaded with NATO 124 ball (+P+ equivalent), my accuracy was similar, but shooting at speed showed a measurable, if not necessarily significant speed reduction with the .40. What really told the tale for me was the volume of training I could do. Our typical range session is 300-500 rounds of pistol shooting. With 9mm, I could do that all day, every day, with no issue. With the .40, out of the G23, my hands got tired at the 200 round mark, and by the end of the day my wrists and elbows were singing.
When all is said and done, the .40 is a great compromise round, and, if you like it and shoot it well - great! For a lot of folks, though, there's no REAL up side to the increased recoil, blast, and reduced magazine capacity. When I feel like I need "more" than a 9mm (which is almost never), I want a .45 ACP or a round gun in a hunting caliber.
Regards,
Kevin
gunrunner505
05-10-12, 10:11
I see a lot of guys are running +P and +P+ loads in the 9mm. Wouldn't that still result in an increase in felt recoil? Force is equal to mass X acceleration so a bigger bang equals more recoil. I'm curious if anyone has mounted a 40 cal and a 9 with similar performing rounds into a jig with a force meter and measured actual recoil at the weapon. I see a lot of posts from some really technical guys here. I might have to look for that.
Psalms144.1
05-10-12, 10:31
I see a lot of guys are running +P and +P+ loads in the 9mm. Wouldn't that still result in an increase in felt recoil? Force is equal to mass X acceleration so a bigger bang equals more recoil. I'm curious if anyone has mounted a 40 cal and a 9 with similar performing rounds into a jig with a force meter and measured actual recoil at the weapon. I see a lot of posts from some really technical guys here. I might have to look for that.For me, I find the G19 with +P+ to still be significantly easier to control and easier on the joints than the G23 with hot JHP loads. Our issued JHP load for 9mm is a 147gr JHP, so the recoil with that is a whole different ballgame than the .40...
Regards,
Kevin
gunrunner505
05-10-12, 14:02
I guess this is where being 6' 4" and 285 pounds helps out. I really don't find the 40 S&W recoil to be all that bad at all....
Mighty fourty my ass. 10mm here girls. :big_boss:
Never understood the 40 Short & Weak. If I want smaller than a 10mm, I go 9mm. Always saw the caliber as a result of slight framed, limp wristed FBI gals who couldn't handle real 10mm loads back in the Norma days.
I do, however, have 2 10mm that will fire 40 Short & Whimpy - S&W 610 (super accurate) and a Colt Double Eagle with both barrels. Just because I CAN doesn't mean that I ever DO either.
I have no problem with the idea of using the .40 against drug-addled thugs.
But I prefer the 1911 form for use against said thugs. I had a Colt Defender in .40. It was awful. Multiple types of jams and failures. Finally a Colt person admitted (via telephone) that the "slide goes too fast" with the higher-pressure .40 cartridge. Made sense because SAAMI spec on the .40 is around double that of the .45.
So I'm still with the 1911 in .45.
Mighty fourty my ass. 10mm here girls. :big_boss:
Never understood the 40 Short & Weak. If I want smaller than a 10mm, I go 9mm. Always saw the caliber as a result of slight framed, limp wristed FBI gals who couldn't handle real 10mm loads back in the Norma days.
I do, however, have 2 10mm that will fire 40 Short & Whimpy - S&W 610 (super accurate) and a Colt Double Eagle with both barrels. Just because I CAN doesn't mean that I ever DO either.
Considering how much time Federal agencies and the military spend on teaching people how to fire pistols, I doubt it was just the ladies that couldn't handle the Mighty 10.
I like the 10mm, it's a really cool round, but it's a niche round. I think, and most would agree, that it's overpowered for personal protection and the muzzle flash and blast are more than most would want to deal with.
However, if I lived in bear country and for some reason couldn't carry a shotgun full of slugs, a Glock 20 is a great trail gun. I'd much rather have a G20 on my hip than a double action revolver.
ffhounddog
05-11-12, 07:17
I shoot 40 now. I started with a Walther P99 and then went HK USPc then traded the wather for a Glock 23 gen4. Also have Sig P229s in 40. Recently picked up a HK P2000 LEM that is great at the 40 round as well as the Glock 23 gen4.
When I was looking at shooting 40 over the 9mm was mainly because I could get 180 grain Rangers for the same price or shoot 180 grain 40 fmj which is my prefered grain limit. 180 grain Rangers and 180 grain Winchester, Federal, Remington, and Wolf (Tula) shoot to the same spot. Also reloading 40 is a tad easier.
40SW is not going anywhere in my inventory my 45ACP did (1911) because the Fiance only shoots 40 because it is her duty round.
Myself I would go back to 9mm due to cost but I seem to shoot more and more 40 since I go shooting with my Fiance more.
Considering how much time Federal agencies and the military spend on teaching people how to fire pistols, I doubt it was just the ladies that couldn't handle the Mighty 10.
I like the 10mm, it's a really cool round, but it's a niche round. I think, and most would agree, that it's overpowered for personal protection and the muzzle flash and blast are more than most would want to deal with.
However, if I lived in bear country and for some reason couldn't carry a shotgun full of slugs, a Glock 20 is a great trail gun. I'd much rather have a G20 on my hip than a double action revolver.
10mm is a great round. I'd take 10mm over 40 S&W any day except the price point... that's the deal killer for me.. It's a round that I'd want to get a decent amount of training with but at the end of the day it's too costly for extensive training.
10mm is a great round. I'd take 10mm over 40 S&W any day except the price point... that's the deal killer for me.. It's a round that I'd want to get a decent amount of training with but at the end of the day it's too costly for extensive training.
This is why i sold all of my. Had a G20 and a Smith 1006. Nice guns, great round, too expansive to be anything but an occasional range to for me.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I fail to see what advantage the 10mm has over the .40 when dealing with humans. Bears/cougers/etc I get, but I'd take any of the 3 service calibers over a 10mm for self defense(and I'd imagine offense but I dont have to worry about that).
Take into account the fact that true 10mm rounds with ammo made to work at 10mm velocities is scarce and expensive, then the fact that its pretty much terminally identical to .40sw but with more flash, recoil, noise(havnt shot 10mm but critical thinking leads me to believe it would have all the above). I'll take followups over "power" when dealing with pistols.
Lastly, as said - price.
I had to vote "Not Interested". It´s a fairly uncommon caliber where I live, and basically everywhere else outside of America. Also I personally think the 9mm is a pretty good self-defense caliber and if I wanted a bigger round for some reason I think I would rather have a .45 ACP. I don´t know why but the .40 never appealed that much to me.
gatorfan605
05-13-12, 09:36
No .40's for me. Can't say I've never owned one. Just not my favorite caliber.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.