Do you shoot the 40 S&W?

[djmorris]

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?

[Surf]

......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]

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...

[djmorris]

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]

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]

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.

[Pappabear]

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.

[rackham1]

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.

[drck1000]

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.

[djmorris]

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...