I am legally allowed to carry a higher capacity firearm but choose to stick with my 1911 in .45 ACP. I have too many years with her - I know every square inch, quirk, feel and touch. Muscle memory (and confidence) is on my side. I could learn a different platform, but why? :image035:
Yes, if you mean comfortable with terminal performance. I doubt there is any difference in terminal effectiveness between the .45 ACP and .40 S&W cartridges, especially with today's premium controlled-expansion JHP ammo. I work for a PD which had a largely wide-open weapon policy until 1997, with .45 ACP being a popular choice, then we went to .40 as standard for duty pistols. We collectively shoot quite a few bad guys each year, and if hit well, bad guys fall to .40 well enough. What matters is where we hit them.
I am probably going to switch to a 9mm duty pistol if/when, as expected, the chief signs off on a policy change allowing specified 9mm duty pistols. (We buy our own firearms, within guidelines.) Why switch? Well, I am getting old, and .40 is harsh on the old wrists, cumulatively. Something about .40 recoil dynamics in a P229 makes it an instrument of torture, much worse than .45 ACP from an all-steel 1911. Will I lose sleep, worrying about 9mm effectiveness? Nope. I don't think the .40 is more of a "stopper" than a good premium 9mm controlled-expansion JHP.
I prefer .45 ACP to .40 S&W for the milder flash and blast, and the slower-accelerating recoil impulse.
While I'm a .45acp guy I'd rather pack a 9mm for the extra mag capacity over the .40
Perfect summary of my feelings on the .40S&W.
Originally Posted by Mike1956
These guys do a pretty good job, I think. .45ACP The computer I'm using at the moment won't let me look at the PDF without going through a lot of work, but I think one of their tests they use a 'synthetic bone' to replicate shooting center-mass. You might have to search a bit on the site, but I think it's there somewhere.
Originally Posted by DMan
I think the .40S&W fits the middle-ground perfectly; it's a 'large(er) caliber', has a rather large magazine capacity (averages 3-4 rounds more than a .45ACP in the same frame weapon), and isn't too unpleasant to load a magazine with it. (Unlike .22s, or 9mms- I have relatively large hands)
Originally Posted by sgb
The other week I got to shoot my buddy's Sig 250C, and it was pretty nice. My first time with a Sig, AND .40S&W. I have to say, it's a pretty impressive round. My grouping was better than his at 7yds- I might be able to put a picture up later.
I had heard that the .40S&W was some kind of 'monster' round- terrible recoil, and difficult to shoot. But, I have to say that I was let down. Even in the compact pistol that I used, it was less recoil than my 1911 in .45ACP. :blink: Figure that one out. If ammo was more easily found (SHTF, you'll find 9mm & .45ACP more often, I think), I might look into picking something up in .40. I had a high capacity .45ACP, but sold it the other week because I carry a 1911, and my wife didn't like that particular gun anymore.
When it comes down to it, if you're torn between high capacity and 'big holes', the .40S&W fills that void. It's a niche gun- sort of like a derringer, only a smaller niche.
Personally? I prefer the .45ACP as my semi-auto SD round- but I wouldn't turn my nose up at a .40S&W.
Before the existence of reliably-expanding JHP ammo that would also feed reliably in auto-pistols, I believe The .40 S&W was a valid concept. That was not so long ago! Now that good controlled-expansion ammo exists, the need for a middle-bore is largely a thing of the past, as I see it. The .40 S&W came along at about the time bullet technology made its bore size and bullet weight irrelevant. Not that there is anything wrong with the .40 S&W; it may not be my cup of tea, but it certainly performs well in the real world. The .40 S&W cartridge case gave rise to the 357 SIG, a concept which I happen to really like.