Defensive Carry banner

Why Is the .40 S&W So Beat Up On These Days?

110K views 546 replies 178 participants last post by  Struckat 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#62 ·
I like my XD40sc. I shoot it well. Recoil between it and my 9mms (3 of them, small, medium, and large) is negligible, and so is the cost difference. Capacity is 9+1, so with several mags, capacity isn't a concern. I've had several 45s, and currently have a G36. I can't shoot it or the other 45s I've had worth squat. To me, it is a good tweener round...that said, I have no concerns or issues with 9mm either. I wanted to like 45, I just couldn't get my performance where I felt it needed to be with it. All things considered, if I didn't already have one I wouldn't feel the need to go out and get one. But since I bought one out of curiosity and found I am very proficient with it, I guess I'll hang on to it.
 
#64 ·
I don't see where the .40 is really getting "beat up on". It just isn't the be-all and end-all cartridge that some made it out to be.

Performance-wise, it doesn't have that much of an edge over a 9mm, but it is harder to manage, particularly in a small-frame gun. I think it's a great round for a service weapon, but for CC, not so much. In a compact gun, the recoil is noticeably worse than either a 9 or a .45, and for a given size gun, you're going to give up a round or 2 in capacity compared to a 9mm, for an only marginally more effective bullet. If the 9 is not adequate for the job at hand, most people would probably be better off with a .45.

Regards,
Jim
 
#65 ·
"The 180 weight bullet takes up alot of case capacity. I think the 150-165 is a safer bet for the handloader, giving some room for error, and is more efficient."


See, I would have bought a box of 180 grain component bullets first thing after acquisition of a .40 S&W pistol and some loading dies. Cautionary stuff like this is good for filing away in the brain for future use. I'd still probably dabble with 180 grain bullets too but would do so carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric357
#66 ·
Bryon, I dont have any proof of this, its just my opinion based on the operating pressure of the cartridge. It is very possible that if one reloaded 180 weights from a gun such as the BH, or other with tighter dimensions that the brass weakening would not be such an issue. The 40 brass fired from a Glock leaves a well known and documented bulge at the bottom, that regular dies do not remove. This concerns me.
They do make special sizing dies that will remove this, but its just an added expense. Additionally, the 180 weight bullet, that might be seated too deeply, and combined with the bulge, in already weakened brass is in my opinion, just more risk than I want. Of course, if you used virgin brass, in another gun, and watched your seating depth, you may be ok.
It just seems like every kaboom reported is with the 180 weight bullet. I could be wrong here, but I think its worth looking into.
 
#67 ·
It is sort of like politics; if you are middle of the road, you get beaten on from both sides.

I like the 40 S&W as a carry option. I normally carry a Glock 27. When I do not need to conceal as much I switch to my Glock 20.

The thing that makes the 9mm look good is that it is available all over. Also, it is good enough. The evidence seems to show that premium defense ammo gets roughly the same results whether it us 9mm, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. In those cases, personal preference is the major factor.

If premium ammo is not available, I think the larger bullets look better. It may not be true, but it seems to be logical.

I think we have learned that pistol rounds do not hit hard and blood pressure loss is the key element. No caliber will make up for bad bullet placement and multiple may be needed. The ability to lay down effective fire is easy to measure. The stopwatch seems to make the 9mm look good despite our liking something bigger.
 
#71 ·
My shooting & reading on handguns tends to be focused on revolvers, but I have indeed noticed many gun forum posts referring snidely to the ".40 Short & Weak." Personally, I'm a big fan of the much smaller ".38 Short & Weak," so that moniker applied to the .40 doesn't worry me unduly. :)

In the 1970's the gunzines were full of plaintive cries with people wanting something bigger than a 9mm but smaller than a .45ACP, and it seems to me that the .40 S&W has done a pretty good job of filling that niche. By its nature, however, any compromise often meets a cool reception from the opponents on either side of an argument.

I've also seen so many references to the "Glock bulge" that I think the cartridge itself has suffered guilt by association. Kinda like the .38 Long Colt's storied difficulties stopping Moros--it's easy to load the cartridge to a very wide range of power levels and bullet types, but nobody would ever do it because of its rep. Even more so for the 38 Short Colt! Similar also to the mythology that engulfed & largely discredited the old .38-200 aka .38 Super Police in British service.

I've shot the .40 very little--just my brother's Glock 22 and 23, but liked the cartridge fine. I just wish somebody would make a ".40 Auto-Rim" in a suitable revolver :)
 
#74 ·
Bryan, I just noticed your thread, and have not read any replies, but rather just your original question/post. Here are my semi-random thoughts: First, I own several .40s of various designs and makes, including Glocks and 1911-types, both carry-worthy and match-only in design. Ballistically on paper, it's a great cartridge, though valid arguments can be made that it never beats 9x19 as a practical matter when both are loaded to their optimums. I am comfortable carrying either, though my preferences run to .357 Sig, 9x23 and 10mm Norma. As to bullet diameter, the difference between .40 and 9x19 is much less than between .45 and .40, and with modern, expanding bullets, it can be reasonably argued that there are no significant differences between any of them. Those who are married to the idea that heavy bullets are always better will not be convinced, but actual shooting stats show that it is the 135-165 gr. loads in .40 that work best, and that overall, no .40s work as stoppers any better than hot 115-127gr. loads in 9x19.

For me, the valid argument against .40 S&W is that it is a high-pressure round with low case volume, susceptible to massive pressure spikes if one chambers a round with bullet setback due to repeated rechamberings. Some folks are careless about this, and all the Glocks I've ever seen blown up, save two (one .45 and one .357 Sig), have been .40s with a history of use of reloads of unknown origin, almost certainly with bullet setback issues. While 9x19 is also a relatively high-pressure round, most .40s are built on "bored-out" 9x19 platforms, so there is much less margin of error in chamber wall thickness and other areas. I think it unlikely that we will ever see .40 S&W as a military service cartridge for this reason. A 9x19 with setback may gen up serious pressures, but the thicker walled chamber and barrel in a 9x19 is much more likely to contain the pressure without damage.

Bottom line for me is that, while I like .40 S&W just fine, its primary function in the real world is the psychological advantage it provides those who just can't fathom anything that doesn't begin with a "4" being fit to carry. If one has that particular mental malady, and the only cure (like more cowbells) is a .40, I'd say, "Go for it!" Otherwise, I think the one or two extra rounds a 9x19 gives us in the same package has more real-world value. FWIW, at one time, I would not have dreamed of making the previous statement, but then, we were in a different world of defensive ammo quality and effectiveness.
 
#76 ·
As to bullet diameter, the difference between .40 and 9x19 is much less than between .45 and .40.
Not so. Let's do some math. 9mm = .354 cal. Going from .354 to .40 is an increase of 13%. Going from .40 to .45 is an increase of 12 1/2%. So change "much less" to "slightly more" and I'll leave you alone.

This is to all .40S&W bashers: I've had my G23 (compact) for a few months and have gotten better at the range as you would expect but I'm still no Top Shot. In fact, I pretty much suck in terms of where I want to be. I was starting to think maybe all the .40-bashers were right, that I'd made a poor handgun decision. Then a friend of the family who happens to be a very experienced, competitive shooter (of rifles, but still) wanted to try my gun, saying he always wanted to shoot the .40 but never had. On his first rack of 13 rounds, he ripped the center out of a paper plate (we have a home range) from 30'. First try. 30-40 mags later I've only matched that performance once or twice, but at least I know that as with any other skilled pursuit, it ain't the gun. It's the gunner.
 
#75 ·
yea well i read half the thread. i carry a g23 everyday. i used to use a hk usp 45. i am more accurate with a 40. i may be even more so with a 9mm or a 380, never tried them. i can control the .40 well enough to shoot center mass if the need were ever to arise.
 
#80 ·
I could have told you it didn't exist. What was posted by LouisianaMan and myself was basically thinking out loud.

As far as problems with the CA, a female officer I work with purchased one. Loading it is somewhat difficult due to spring tensions, also extraction is not clean.

I don't think there are that many being sold as to really have enough intel about issues on the net.
But it just being a CA turns off alot of revolver guys anyway.
 
#81 ·
I jumped into this late, and have not read much of the thread, but...I didn't know the .40 was being beat up on. I shoot the 9mm just because it's a little bit cheaper, I don't carry it and shoot it because I think it's the end all man stopper. If I was a law enforcement officer and actively putting myself in dangerous situations, as our excellent LEO's do, I would carry the .40. That said, for my purposes I am content with my 9mm's.
 
#82 ·
I'm not convinced that there is any practical difference in the 40 over the 9mm for real world self defense.
If one wants reduced capacity and to pay more for ammo - go ahead. Its America and we have many choices, which I support.
 
#83 ·
Pretty much agree with that.
The 40 was rolled out as the greatest thing sense the .45 when compared to the 9mm. 9mm had a poor prep for some time mostly because of the rounds Police were using in them and poor marksmanship. Some how the 40 was suppose to drop in over night and cure that. Did not happen. After the hype is over and a products does not take off what happens, people fall back to other things that worked well and/or cost them less. In this case the 9mm, the rounds got better the choices in rounds got smarter and the weapons got better.
Nothing wrong with a 40. Just never was the block buster it was billed as.
 
#84 ·
Oldrwizr, not to quibble, but using actual bore diameters, .40-.355=.045. .452-.40=.052 "Much" vs. "slightly" is probably irrelevant here, I concede, but so especially are percentages, and last I checked, 52 is more than 45. :wink:

And I hope I didn't impress anyone as a ".40 basher." I think it's a grand cartridge, but it has its own little flaws, as do most other rounds.
 
#86 ·
I have been seeing Law Enforcement agencies moving towards the 357 Sig. It may well be that the 357 Sig is what the 40 should have been. Texas DPS is VERY happy with the 357 Sig.
 
#88 ·
I was just reading some different interpretations of the FBI terminal ballistics testing data posted at Interpretation of FBI gelatin tests .

The page has some links to the data sorted for different criteria, including: kinetic energy, momentum, penetration depth, and wound volume.

Sorted by ke: The top .40 load comes in at 7th place, The top 9mm comes in at 17th place.
Sorted by momentum: The top .40 caliber comes in at 23rd place, while the top 9mm load is at 61st place.
Sorted by average wound volume in clothed and bare gelatin: The top .40 comes in at 5th place, the top 9mm round comes in at 31st place.

Of course the 10mm and .45, (and occasionally the .357 Sig) beat both the .40 S&W and 9mm in every category.

For the 9mm crowd:
An individual has to choose the most effective defense package, taking into account both the expected terminal ballistics of the round and caliber he chooses and how well he shoots that pistol and ammunition combination. For example, if a person were trying to decide between shooting 9x19 or .40SW, he might:

from a holster, at 7 yards,
shoot ten rounds into an NRA-type pistol target as quickly as possible,
do this for both pistols, and
score the targets, scale the score to percent,
multiply the FBI wound volume for each round by the target's score, and
divide that by the time it took to shoot the rounds, starting from the holster.
This kind of a calculation is going to yield something like total wound volume (in cubic inches) per second. It will take into account if a person is slower and less accurate with a certain pistol and caliber, and it will take into account the terminal ballistics of the round.

The pistol and caliber with the highest score wins.
IMO, I would rather practice with a larger caliber to get faster times and more accurate than to downgrade so far down in the rankings because of recoil.
 
#89 ·
I was just reading some different interpretations of the FBI terminal ballistics testing data posted at Interpretation of FBI gelatin tests .

The page has some links to the data sorted for different criteria, including: kinetic energy, momentum, penetration depth, and wound volume.

Sorted by ke: The top .40 load comes in at 7th place, The top 9mm comes in at 17th place.
Sorted by momentum: The top .40 caliber comes in at 23rd place, while the top 9mm load is at 61st place.
Sorted by average wound volume in clothed and bare gelatin: The top .40 comes in at 5th place, the top 9mm round comes in at 31st place.

Of course the 10mm and .45, (and occasionally the .357 Sig) beat both the .40 S&W and 9mm in every category.

For the 9mm crowd:


IMO, I would rather practice with a larger caliber to get faster times and more accurate than to downgrade so far down in the rankings because of recoil.
Nothing wrong with using bigger caliber, I like them. However, I dont put much into lab test. Apparently the flesh of this deer didnt get the memo that a single 9mm bullet wasnt adequate.


Or this one didnt know an FMJ 230 weight 45 wasnt supposed to do so much damage



So much for the FBI conclusive jello testing.:yup:
 
#91 ·
True, but likewise, it doesn't exactly back up the fact of needing x bullet at y diameter and z penetration test either.

Penetration is the king, and the 9, 40 and 45 are all more than up to the task at hand. No right or wrong, just whatever your own perception of necessary is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric357
#92 ·
I have never had a .40 but from what I have read it does fill a need solely because of the fact it is used in an autoloader. My reasoning is that with semi-autos it is hard to go very far in adjusting a load to fit a particular need. To much tinkering and the platform it is shot out of will cease to function. This forces a person to have to change cartridges instead of altering the load. This creates an opening for similar but slightly different cartridges for the semi-auto platform.

In revolvers we do not have that limitation and can make our cartridges perform in a wider range. For instance I never understood a need for the .41 magnum. I could make my 44 mags do anything a 41 mag could do and more. Thats not so easy to do when limited by the semi-auto platform. You need more different auto cartridges to match what a single cartridge in a revolver can do.

Michael
 
#93 ·
True, but likewise, it doesn't exactly back up the fact of needing x bullet at y diameter and z penetration test either.
That is the basis for my distrust of jello testing. First of all anything that cannot be recreated in the lab the will not use, like psychological reasons for ending the fight, "Oh man this hurts".

The loads with a proven record on the street for being the best fight stoppers do poorly in jello testing. The FBI protocols were developed with the aid of Fackler and the IWBA, who sought to make themselves the underwriters Lab of ballistics and cash in. This did not do well with people in the know who looked at their data and disagreed, that is why the IWBA is no more, no funding. Even the medical community cannot agree on these factors that the IWBA state are fact.

Doctor Gary Roberts claims to know how jello testing equate to field studies, I am sorry but Doctor Roberts medical background is as a dentist. Anyone who knows anything about scientific research will tell you the best laboratory is field study ie; how does our theory work in the real world.

Sorry to have strayed, but, every time jello testing comes up to "prove" anything but a pretty mushroom my BS meter pegs out.
 
#94 ·
Dr. Roberts doesn't claim anything based upon his medical background.

All reports that I've read are based on his extensive personal research.

I'm not saying that his research is conclusive, but we cannot discredit him based on his professional experience when it's irrelevant to his research.

ETA: I may be wrong about Dr. Roberts' professional research. I'm gonna do a bit of reading about the subject.

Sent from my Galaxy S2
 
#96 ·
I like to keep my mental paradigms simple.

Snappy recoil = more oomph going downrange.

More oomph going downrange = a sufficiently good thing in my estimation.

In any event, I love all these stopping power threads we have in which we all talk about stopping power as if we have ever personally shot anybody, when the reality of it is very few of us have ever shot anybody, much less with a handgun.
 
#100 ·
I like to keep my mental paradigms simple.

Snappy recoil = more oomph going downrange.

More oomph going downrange = a sufficiently good thing in my estimation...
By this simple paradigm, a 2" Airweight .38 Special has more "oomph going downrange" than a 6" Trooper shooting full-house .357's, and my 2-3/4" .357 Security-Six has more "oomph going downrange" than my 8" Dan Wesson .44 Mag.

It would also suggest that a compact .40 has more "oomph going downrange" than a similarly-sized .45ACP.

It's not that simple.

Regards,
Jim
 
#103 ·
I don't typically give a rat's hole what anybody has to say about caliber. I shoot what I like to shoot and let the haters hate. 40 works well for me and I own 45s and 9ers also. Currently, I have a want for 10mm so I can get more use from my 40 dies.
 
#105 ·
I don't think the .40 gets beat up on. Anyone who does talk crap about it is probably insecure about their own caliber of choice. :rolleyes:

I don't discriminate. I love 9mm, .40 and someday I'll own a .45. All three are equally capable of performing whatever task you need if you use quality defense ammo.

Shooting .380 Gold Dots out of my LCP felt much snappier than shooting .40 180gr Blazer from my M&P.
 
#108 ·
I have a 9mm with a 4" barrel and a 40sw with a 3.9" barrel. Since they're both high pressure rounds they got some kick to 'em but the 40 is more so and not too much. Both of mine are loaded with PDX1s and this is from Ballistic 101 site. Pretty close in velocity but 80 lbs difference.

9mm PDX1 124+P 396 1180

40 SW PDX1 165 476 1140

I like the 40.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top