What's the deal with the .40 S&W lately? Are shooters a fickle lot or what? The .40 S&W can't seem to get any love on the forums and this after a time not so long past when all and sundry embraced it as the next great thing. It's obvious that it is currently trendy to bash the .40 S&W on several of the forums. It's: "too weak," "kicks too hard," "is too expensive," "doesn't do anything the 9mm can't do," doesn't do anything the .45 ACP can't do," and "no one apparently ever asked a question" that the .40 S&W answers, to hear hear the many detractors of late tell it.
I don't have a .40 S&W but have long thought I'd like one. Just to play with, handload for, and learn about. One of the original .40 Smith & Wesson all-steel automatics or else a Browning Hi-Power in .40 would do for me. Even back before 10mm or .40 S&W came out I used to handload .38-40 ammunition while thinking how keen it would be to have a modern pistol chambered for a .40 bullet. I've shot other folks' .40 S&W pistols over the years and it's a great round. I'm still going to get a "round tuit" one of these days and add a .40 S&W to the handguns around here.
With the .40, the bullet diameter looks good, the bullet weight range has appeal, and velocities across that weight range appear effective. I have several 9mm pistols and while that cartridge is fully adequate, given a good load, it is mundane and ho-hum in my opinion.
Some answers the .40 S&W could be said to have regarding the claims made against it.
-It'll never be weaker than the 9mm.
-It doesn't kick too hard unless one is awfully recoil sensitive or else is a disciple of "spray&pray." .40 shot recovery time is overstressed.
-Cost is relative. There's not much difference in the overall scheme of things, and the handloader easily circumvents the cost factor.
-It slings heavier, larger diameter bullets than the 9mm for a start.
-Pistols can be had with a higher ammo capacity in .40 than may be stuffed in most .45s.
-I for one, asked the question of "why not a .40" back in the 1970s so "the answer to the question that no one asked" doesn't cut it.
It's certain that I'm not the only one who thought it'd be just a pretty good idea. In fact, I think the 9mm ought to suffer a bit from competition with the .40 S&W in the marketplace. A .40 appears to be a thoughtful choice rather than just jumping on the bandwagon with the crowd. If I had to be shut up in a darkened room with a mad gorilla I know which one I'd pick and "9" would be conspicuous by its absence from the caliber designation.
Anyway, the .40 S&W looks like it might just be the best pistol cartridge I never had.
Yesterday I went to the range with my 9mm and my 40sw. That day was the first that I shot a tighter group than the 9mm with my 40sw. My 9mm always shot the best groups over my 40sw. I did so well with the 40sw that I wished I'd brought my camera. As it happened I finally found a good handholds that kept the gun more steady. It took me a few trips to do it and I already had my trigger control.
I feel really good about it and I like the 40sw better. :danceban:
I went to the range today to put some.40 cal and .380 cal. down range.
I shot my Taurus TCP with some 90 grn Aguilar and it was barking like a mad dog!
I then used my SR40 and it felt as though it kicked LESS than the tiny .380!
I found the .40 cal to be totally manageable in spite of not shooting the .40 caliber in over twenty years!
I still have my 9mm and plan on holding onto it but I'm loving the .40 caliber all over once more!
I have always found the .40 very manageable and accurate. For some reason I consistently shoot my G23 better than my G19. I can't explain it since both are exactly the same except for cal.
Big fast moving bullets will always out perform small fast moving bullets. This is a law of physics given that the speed is constant between the two or nearly so. A BG shot with a big fast moving bullet as opposed to a small fast moving bullet will stop more readily because more damage is being done, bottom line.
On the other hand, it's obvious that shot placement is very important. You are more likely to stop someone by shooting them in the head than shooting them in the big toe. Even here though the big fast bullet still beats the small fast bullet. In short if you were going to be shot in the head & there was no way to avoid it, would you rather get shot with a 9mm or a .40 cal.? In either case chances of survival are slim but they are still better if you got shot with the 9 as opposed to the .40 & even less so if you got shot by a fast moving .45 (185 gr. +p is a good example)
Im a fan of the .40 I've shot steel with a 9mm and the plates wouldn't fall down, .40 has no problem with them so I switched and didn't look back. I do enjoy the .45 as well but if I had to pick one it would definitely be the .40 for all of the same reasons mentioned by guys in other posts.
I got a G23 because if I'm firing at somebody wearing Kevlar, I want to be able to knock him down or at least way back to give me time to either set up a face shot or run. I think cop shops that go .40 over 9mm (and that's a lot of them) are thinking about the same thing.
Seriously? Lol... (don't gauge a bullet for the vest knock down capability, that's not why departments go for .40... they go for it because it's the medium between .45 and 9. And has very good barrier penetration.
I get a g22 for issue. I'm not happy about it. The 9mm does the job, carries more ammo, and allows for faster follow ups.
But I don't get to decide for on duty. My off duty is a mp9c or a five seven.
That being said,I can shoot any given gun with the same reasonable accuracy and efficiency due to my years of experience and training, so it doesn't bother me much. And with the 15+2 mags for the g22,I don't feel under-gunned in capacity.
I was thinking the same thing. When I first saw the title of this thread I remember thinking "what does he mean, the .40 getting beat up on?" I have rarely seen or heard the .40 being maligned. People have preferences regarding caliber and they give reasons why they feel the way they do, but I don't see the .40 being "beat up on." Most people, even those who choose a different caliber, at least acknowledge it's effectiveness as a defense round.
I believe that every forum has has threads that bash every caliber. Everyone has a bias 'cause they wanna believe that what they've chosen is the best.
If you draw your conclusion(s) based on your own research/thinking- the "bash" threads become meaningless.
Currently carrying an S&W M&P 40c. In S&W .40cal. Which since they were both created by S&W just seems to make sense to me.
Took my CPL class in MI with my trusty PPK/s .380acp. Which I've had when we moved here, but didn't need to take a class in Indiana.
The .380 left a small mark, almost a bruise in the web of my hand after a days shooting. Then I shot an instructors XD45. And was shocked that it kicked so much less than my .380. And I shot it better too. Then I shot another instructors M&P. Every thing else faded at that point. Now I primarily carry my own S&W M&P. I had been looking for a fullsize .45 even though it had a reduced ammo capacity. Of course after Newton things started to get scarce and I found a M&P40c for a good price. Its a beaut!
I think part of the thing was that I wanted a .45, but wasn't against the .40, and having a couple of .380s, I already had a 9mm of sorts. (.380ACP = 9x17mm) I knew I wanted a little bigger and someday plan on having a .45 anyhow.
Took my time looking at rigs.
Best setup I've ever seen is Nate Squared Tacticals holster. I've worn it all day everyday since it arrived. Well almost all day everyday. Near as makes no difference. Most comfortable IWB I've ever seen. Almost forget its there even with a chunky .40 in it.
The holster came from n82tactical.com Best IWB around.
This is an old thread that has been bumped, but I thought this tidbit was interesting. In today's market, unless you are lucky, 40 S&W is EASIER to find and CHEAPER than 9mm. I just found an academy that had 9mm monarch (blah) for $12.99 per 50 (one box limit) and they had 40 WWB for $17.99 per 50. At the local shops and ranges (and armslist) you will find 9mm going for between $22 and $30 per 50. What a difference 9 months makes huh.
I also would like to point out that the 40 throws a 165gr bullet the same speed as a 9mm throws a 124 gr load (in +P which has substantial recoil as well). Pure physics dictate that it would hit harder. You can argue what you "FEEL" about a given bullet, but you can't argue with Sir Isaac Newton (especially since he's dead).
My only issue with them is I already have to many calibers as is. For someone starting out though I would mention that I have seen .40's cheaper than .45's and during all this ammo frenzy .40's are one thing I have still seen some of.
Oh no, it's a zombie thread come back to life. Someone find the Hornady Zombie Killer (in 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45) quick. We may have found a use for it by determining which kills the thread. I've always wondered what it would be good for anyway.
my first handgun i bought when i turned 21 last december was a glock 23 in 40 S&W and i love it. it was between a 40 and 45 in glock or m&p. 9mm wasn't even in the equation. its fast but doesnt seem powerful enough for what i need a handgun caliber for. 40 seemed just right for me my size and my needs. i do have a 9mm and a 45 but my 9 is just for a plinking round cause bullets are cheap or use to be. i want more people to hate 40 and not buy one cause that means i can find and get more 40 cal ammo!
I am not sure why it gets beat up or why any body would have anything against this round. The ballistics look really good. I would consider buying a handgun that took this round if it was not for the fact I have a 9mm and a 10mm so I would probably stick with one of those 2 rounds again. If I wanted more power than the 9mm I would buy another 10mm.
Cheaper than .45, more powerful than a 9mm. It's a good medium. I practice with a 9mm conversion(conversion barrel, guide rod spring assembly, 9mm mags). Sometimes I practice with 165g FMJ, but mostly practice with the 115g 9mm. I can't tell the difference between either round.
I think you have put your finger on the vital issue, Wreckr. Add to it, would you want to be shot by a 22 long rifle?
I read an article by a policeman a while back. He spent a large part of his career investigating shootings. He kept extensive statistics on outcomes. His conclusions were that any calibers equal to or greater than .380 were equally effective at stopping an attack. The key is the criteria used for the analysis. Stopping an attack is a specific goal in a specific situation. It is not the Green Lantern taking on an evil gang or a SEAL team attacking an Army base.
A large percentage of attacks were stopped without firing the weapon. The caliber used had no effect.
Any injury to the assailant stopped most of the remaining attacks.
Failure to stop a determined attacker then occurred when the defensive shot missed. A .380 in the arm was just as successful as a .45 in the torso.
Number 1 strategy: carry the weapon and be willing to use it.
Number 2 strategy: be able to get the weapon on target and fire quickly.
Three shots were enough to stop almost all attackers. The first shot to hit was probably all that mattered.
1) I have an HK .45 full size. With 10 rounds in the mag, I couldn’t possibly carry routinely. It is way too heavy.
2) The grip is large enough that it restricts my access to the mag release and since I am no longer young and strong it takes longer to swing into position and get on target.
I can hit a torso target 19 out of 20 at 80 feet and it probably could kill with one shot after penetrating a windshield, but would I get the first hit? Since I would not have the gun with me, I couldn’t use it.
1) I have a Sig P238 stainless .380. With 6 rounds in the mag, it is uncomfortable and difficult to keep concealed without constantly thinking about it.
2) I can swing it into position and get on target faster.
I can hit a torso target 16 out of 20 at 30 feet. Would I get the first hit? If a determined assailant was attacking with a knife, I would have a chance? … with a gun? I could not have stopped the Joker in the Co. Theater (too far to hit and not enough to penetrate his vest). I might have surprised the Newton shooter and stopped him. I might stop a mugger, but only if I was operating in condition yellow. (See post on eliminating PESTS)
I recommend people objectivly analyze their situation and their goals. Choose an appropriate weapon. Practice regularly with that weapon. And above all, get practical training in more than how to accurately shoot the weapon.
I really like .40. Gives long deep wound channels with great penetration and a good sized bore. It's equipped in great sized carry pistols and with relatively high magazine capacity. I certainly prefer .357sig, but otherwise it would be .40. 9mm is great too, it is more than capable, but .40 does offer better performance than 9mm. .40 really shines over 9mm if you need barrier penetration. It's not a night and day difference, but it can potentially make all the difference needed. .357sig is simply the best pistol caliber currently available. It's has plenty of drawbacks such as it's noise level, flash, stout recoil, price, availability, potential bullet setback, and it's fairly hard on pistols with proper loads. However all that is negated by it's superior performance imo.
.40 S&W great round doesn't feel much more kick than my Shield 9mm. For Defense .40 S&W all day, I've carried the 9mm Shield and the Glock 23 Gen4, both feel good. Most gun battles are at 3-8ft. If you cant hit an attacker in the chest from that range with either weapon, you shouldn't be carrying either one anyway-Amen? When the wife and I go to the range I give her my S&W M&P Shield 9mm- I shoot my Glock 23. Both fantastic weapons- both will take a bad guy out!
I read an article about how the 40 made it into the hands of so many Leo's. Gun manufactures offered a sweetheart deal to police departments for 40's in exchange for 9mm' s so they could capitalize on the demand for high capacity guns to the general public.gun manufacturers made a fortune selling the traded 9's to the public.
I have no problem finding 40 cal range ammo, it's just a dollar or two more per box of 50 than 9mm (which is still a lot less than 380 or 45), and to me the recoil is no different than my 9mms. I also shoot my XD40sc more accurately than anything else. I'm happy with 40. Thinking about picking up a few more models in 40.
Going to admit I didn't read all the post, just the first one and the one above this one.
I love my .40 S&W I lost off the surf board accident last summer. I agree with the OP that they do not kick that bad, heck the .38 S&W bodyguard revolver (also lost on the surf board accident) I think kicked harder. .40 ammo is running a dollar a bullet at the LGS here but I have always seen some on the shelf. Only trouble I had with it could easily be fixed with a good belt, it got so heavy when full loaded it pulled my britches down. It's a girl thing probably, I don't like to wear belts.
You got my vote for a .40 S&W, go ahead and get one...after all you don't have one yet! :yup:
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!