Do You Guys like 40 S&W as a caliber?

[dreadpirate]

I was reading a recent thread in I forum I belong to and those folks are saying 40 S&W is on its way out. IDK - I think it's an OK caliber, it's just that I have 9mm and 45 ACP so a 40 S&W doesn't get me anything. Do you guys shoot 40 S&W?

 

[DesertIguana]

I never was a 40 S & W Fan, 9mm is fine, and the New Rounds are very effective. Would ratter have a Glock 19 load with 9mm, v/s Glock 23 same size firearm loaded in .40. More recoil, marvel nuzzle flips, and last more time to get back on target. 9mm is fine.

 

[ColtRevolver]

Don't care for it.

 

[jar_]

No.

 

[OkieStubble]

I am very partial and biased when it comes to my view on the .40 S&W, for very sentimental reasons. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm or .45 ACP. While the 9mm is small, it's terminal effectiveness relies on how fast it is, not how big it is. While the terminal effectiveness of the .45, relies on how big it is, not how slow it is. But what would happen, if you took the terminal speed of a 9mm and matched it with the terminal size and weight of a .45?

I give you, the .40 S&W. Something comforting, about a 165 gr Speer Gold Dot moving at 1200 fps. The .45 hits hard. The 9mm hits fast. The .40? Hits hard & fast. I love the 9mm and .45, absolutely viable calibers. I owe my life to the .40 S&W.

There will always be a Glock chambered for it, in my safe.

 

[Kentos]

The .40 has better terminal ballistics than the 9mm according to Google. .40 also has more recoil, and less capacity in some firearms. So better ballistics vs less recoil/more capacity.

Personally, my home defense is a shot gun and a Glock 22. Carry will be a 9mm.

 

[borwish]

I didn't care for the snappy recoil of .40. 9mm or .45 is easier for me to shoot well. Easier recoil, lighter weight, and cheaper cost make the 9mm the winner to me.

 

[nortac]

I have two .40 S&W pistols, a SIG P229 and a Glock 27. I rarely shoot them. While a very capable cartridge, not really suited to smaller CC pistols due to capacity and recoil as previously mentioned. But in larger pistols, I don't find it that much of a problem, despite it's "snappy-ness". The .40 S&W has gained some traction in competition tactical shooting as it easily makes Major power factor.

 

[Rob72]

Not a fan. I have medium-sized hands & average length fingers, so most grips on .40 platforms are overly blocky for me, with the increased muzzle rise and recoil, "it's a bit much". Add to that slower recovery time, and it's a generally unrewarding shooting experience for me.

I say that a bit tongue in cheek as it isn't "the experience" in the same context as driving a nice luxury sedan, or trying the newest premium razor, I simply will never shoot a .40 as well as I do 9mms or .45s, without a *major* customization investment in the platform that I'm not up for making.

All that to say, I can shoot full power .357 mag and +P .38 Spl, but most of my revolver ammo consist of reliably expanding ~900-1000 fps loads, not the 1250+.

 

[jkingrph]

No real opinion. A range officer had me shoot his CZ in .40 several years back, and that one time was my one and only exposure. I have small carry guns in 9mm, as well as a large Browning HP, some 1911's in .45 and one in 10mm so the bottom line is no need, or desire for another cartridge.

 

[OkieStubble]

The .40 has better terminal ballistics than the 9mm according to Google. .40 also has more recoil, and less capacity in some firearms. So better ballistics vs less recoil/more capacity.

Personally, my home defense is a shot gun and a Glock 22. Carry will be a 9mm.

Absolutely agree. My R870 and G23 would be the first ones I reach for in my home.

The .40 does have more recoil than the 9mm. But the 9mm has more recoil than the .22. And the 10mm, .357 and .44 have more recoil then the .40.

So on and so on….

 

[OkieStubble]

The .40 needs a bit of perspective.

It’s not as easy to shoot as the 9mm or the .45, but the 9mm and .45 are not as easy to shoot as the .22? Why not just use .22?

Exactly! While Gun guru magazine writers will say these three popular self defense calibers are so close and comparable on paper ballistics, many of them have never eye witnessed the actual real time results and effectiveness of these same three calibers.

It’s my personal belief the .40 was only compared closely to these other two by so called “experts” in the first place is only because of their already popular following long before the .40 came to be.

While I do believe the newer HP designs and metallurgies in SD ammunition does close the gaps between the 9mm and .45 and makes them very equally comparable to each other, why? Because at one time before the modern ammo design, the .45’s size and weight was superior to the 9mm.

The newer designs and effectiveness of modern ammo, is what helped the 9mm catch up to the .45 in being just as effective? Modern hollow point design helps the speed of the smaller 9mm, much more than it does the slow moving .45 ACP.

Anyone here, would prefer full metal jacket in 9mm in a self defense situation instead of full metal jacket in .45 ACP?

Without the newer ammunition technology which uses the 1100 fps of the fast 9mm to open up and expand, the 9mm would be inferior to the big, heavy, slow moving, 800 fps of the .45 without that new technology?

However, the .40, has speed and size, along with the newer HP designs. So the .40’s speed is expanding that modern ammo just like the 9mm, but it is also putting a whopping thump into its target from size and weight just like the .45. It’s truly the best of both worlds.

People can say they are all three comparable, but I disagree and personally think the .40 is superior over the other two. Why? Simple math. The choice of speed & size is always going to be superior over just the choice of speed alone or just the choice of size alone. Plain & simple.

This doesn’t mean I don’t think the 9mm or .45 is inferior or isn’t enough bullet for self defense, or that they aren’t viable self defense calibers.

All I’m saying is, I can tow a heavy load up a hill with a Toyota Tacoma and probably should make it up the hill. But I will have more confidence towing that same load up the hill in a Ford Super Duty.

Yes, the Tacoma is lighter and more agile and easier to drive than the Super Duty. But is it that much easier to drive? Really? Is the Super Duty really all that much more difficult to drive? To have the extra power and confidence to get up that hill? A Yaris is easier to drive than a Tacoma? But we all no better than to try and pull a load behind a Yaris? or think defending ourselves with a .22 is ok just because it’s easier?

The 9mm and .45 are easier. But really? Is the .40 really that hard? Really? Is it that much harder? I personally, have a hard time noticing the differences even if they are there? But the difference in power, velocity, knock down and terminal effectiveness is definitely different when comparing the .40 to the other two.

 

[shave/brush]

I like the .40 because it has the best of both worlds. More power than a 9mm and faster than a .45.
I own a S&W pistol model 410 in a .40 and a Rugar pistol model SR40c in a .40 and a Rugar Carbine in in a .40. I think it's a great round.

 

[jar_]

The big issue for me is that I had experience and handguns in a whole herd of different calibers and enough ammo to cover my range time with each platform. Why add yet another caliber that doesn't really offer any significant advantages over what I already owned rather than simply stockpiling a few more cartridges to cover the lean years?

The same argument explains why I haven't been tempted to adopt things like 32HR Magnum, .327, 22 Magnum, 10mm or any of the other exotics and "Oh New, Shinny!".

 

[snowman]

A common argument against the .40 SW is that it has more recoil than a 9mm so it takes longer to reacquire the target, and, its physically larger size means fewer rounds than a 9mm. I've heard many 9mm fans use that same argument in the reverse direction against carrying a .380APC. Does the extra 1/2 second to get back on target really matter? How many shots do you need?

I carry a Ruger LCR in .38 Special. I load it with +P HP's. I practice with it extensively. Thousands of rounds. I'm confident I will not need more than 5 rounds to hit the target. If I'm assaulted by 14 heavily armed combatants then I'm finished, but its likely my fault for getting into whatever mischeif led me down the path of 14 heavily armed combatants.

All joking aside, everyone has thier reason for carrying their chosen weapon / caliber. 9mm, .45ACP are proven, excellent calibers as is the .40SW. I have owned .40SW in the past, and the only reason I do not currently is that I reload for all of my weapons but I never picked up a set of dies, nor accumulated enough brass to make the .40SW economical, but it is a fine round and one I may have to revisit some day.

 

[Jens]

.300 Win Mag for me

 

[dojpros]

Ramble follows:

I own 40s because my client agencies pivoted to it from 9 in the early 2000s.

As such, I have more 40 downrange than 9 or 45. I have more of it in the bunker than any other caliber. I wore a G22 with an Aimpoint P2 today to work.

Both the 165g and 185g Gold Dot has done well on the street with multiple fed/state agencies in my area.

BUT-If I was feeding and watering my own gun without agency support and I lived in a state where I could have std capacity magazine and latest gen defensive 9 mm ammo, and I would carry an G19 and drive on.

If I lived in a state where mag capacity was 10 or less, I would go back to a 1911 or buy a SW M&P in .45.

I will say this: my std cold drill forever has been a draw(from concealment/hands at side at the beep) and big step off line at 5 yrds shooting at an 8 inch plate.

5 rds of 40 is a 2.65 to 2.85 exercise. 5 rds of 9 is a 2.35 to 2.65 exercise. Lower end of those time ranges when I have been dry/live firing.

In short, on the whole, one more round of 9mm v 40 in the same sub 3 sec time frame.

 

[Rob72]

Absolutely agree. My R870 and G23 would be the first ones I reach for in my home.

The .40 does have more recoil than the 9mm. But the 9mm has more recoil than the .22. And the 10mm, .357 and .44 have more recoil then the .40.

So on and so on….

I'm going to challenge you on that statement- it's a straw-man argument.

"Carry the most gun you can handle" is considered a rule of thumb.

Unless you're shooting Grandmaster level, statistically, all shooters (so all but a fraction of 1%) will shoot 9mm with better shot-placement and faster shot-to-shot times than the same shooter with .40.

And, at 80, most of us will probably be faster & more accurate with the . 38Spl low-power, .380, or... .22LR.

 

[OkieStubble]

I'm going to challenge you on that statement-

Sounds good my friend.

it's a straw-man argument.

What specifically are you referring to as a ‘straw man’?

The part you bolded? The 9mm does have more recoil then the .22? So on and so on?

"Carry the most gun you can handle" is considered a rule of thumb.

I absolutely agree with this and don’t see anywhere I have suggested differently? In fact, I’m sure there is a post of mine in the what weapon in an intrusion thread that even mentions don’t choose a shotgun if you can’t handle it and pick the right weapon for exactly how one plans on handling the specific situation?

I would even go further in saying, If you can’t handle a 9mm, then get a .22? Isn’t a .22 in the hands of someone better than nothing?

It wasn’t too long back the President of my HOA approached me and told me he was thinking about getting an AR for home defense and could I take him to the range to try out and shoot an AR?

I did that very thing. However, even though he is 80 years old, there are many kinds and types of 80 year olds? While this particular 80 year old is very small in height and weight, he is also very thin and frail. While he is in good health and walks his dog a couple of miles every day, I could tell he is very weak in his legs, upper torso with out much muscle mass.

He also owns a S&W M&P compact, so I asked him to bring it along. Before I even put the AR in his hands, I had him shoot his 9mm.

After about an half hour, I realized his lack of coordination, lack of grip strength, lack of finger strength for proper trigger control even with the striker fired trigger wasn’t good. I even had to repeatedly charge the pistol as he didn’t have the strength to manipulate the slide.

He showed these same discrepancies with the AR. He shot the AR fine from a rest. But he could not shoulder it, hold it there with any firm foundation of self support. He had a very hard time working the controls or reloading or even charging the rifle while supporting it under his own power.

Well, guess what? Because I was already a bit doubtful and pessimistic before we even got to the range, I also brought with me my Ruger MKIV and my Ruger 10/22 with the Ruger BX-25 magazines.

We spent a couple of hours with those Rugers, me showing him and his wife, how to shoot, operate, manipulate, carry, load and reload those two Ruger .22’s.

He and his wife, live in a very safe gated community, in a very safe neighborhood in a very safe suburb of the city.

The odds of them having to use a couple of .22’s is hopefully close to nil. However, you should have seen their eyes light up and the smiles and glow of confidence on their faces and the relief I could see in their expressions when they learned to use and consistently operate those .22’s and that even at 80 and quite frail, they felt the feeling of independence again with the ability to possibly be able to protect themselves real or imagined.
They now are the proud owners of their own Ruger MK IV and 10/22. .

There are many who get this with 9mm, .45, .357, .40 and yes, even .22.

Unless you're shooting Grandmaster level, statistically, all shooters (so all but a fraction of 1%) will shoot 9mm with better shot-placement and faster shot-to-shot times than the same shooter with .40.

I agree sir. But do you also agree they will also do it better and faster than .357? .44? 10mm? What about .380? Or .22?

I think a healthy viably stronger person can learn to shoot most caliber’s without ‘Grandmaster skills’? Where does it begin on the caliber size scale for the need of Grandmaster skills? Talk about your ‘straw-man’s?

I spent 10 years successfully teaching young adult males & females to use Glock 22’s & 23’s chambered in .40 S&W. There were always a few here, or one or two there, who I sent home and ended their LE careers because they couldn’t learn the proficiency it takes to carry and use a .40 caliber Glock. We didn’t bounce them down to a 9mm, we bounced them out.

But the majority of participating cadets did make it and became or are police officers as I type this. In saying this, this same department’s policies now only train cadets in the academy with 9mm instead of .40. How times change. But are they doing this because 9mm “ is just as good” as .40? Or because it’s cheaper to purchase a 1,000 rounds per cadet? Along with it being easier? They also allow the choice of 9mm .40 and .45 for officers after the academy as long as they qualify with their preferred choice.

But let’s not get reality twisted. Just because 9mm is easier, that doesn’t make it better or just as good? IMO, the best skills learned are sometimes, the harder to obtain? But always well worth the time & trouble put into in order to obtain them.

And, at 80, most of us will probably be faster & more accurate with the . 38Spl low-power, .380, or... .22LR.

I personally think there is a huge learning curve between a .22 and a .44 Magnum. But .22 to .32? Not so much? .41 Magnum to .44 Magnum? Not so much. .40 S&W to 10mm? Not so much.

9mm to .40? Barely noticeable at all if we are simply speaking in terms of combat pistols at combat ranges when it comes to recoil, muzzle rise, follow up and shots on targets. If a person is viable enough physically to learn the skill of controlling 9mm, .40 isn’t that different? It just takes the time, desire and commitment to do so. It absolutely amazes me, that the same people who suggest that the .40 is somehow WAY more difficult to shoot over the 9mm, these same people want us to believe that 9mm round is comparable to the .40 in terminal ballistics and the gap between them is so small and insignificant?

Really? Can’t have it both ways? It’s much harder to control because of its increased power? But the 9mm is just as capable? Confusingly interesting to me.

If you want to talk 4 leaf clovers in competition? Ok, but that’s a straw man because those guys are looking for the smallest groups in order to win they’re not looking to end a fight fast.

If you want to talk about wet behind the ear non shooters who have never touched a gun? That’s a straw man also, because if you argue 9mm, I would say a .22 is the first gun they should touch.

Even my G23 holds 13 rounds in the magazine with a 14th in the pipe.

No one is arguing here that everyone should carry and use a .40. I carry a 9mm 99% of the time in my retired civilian life and feel efficiently armed.

I have clearly stated only two things. One is personal preference of the .40 either as a duty caliber or if/when you absolutely know you will be going into harms way.

The second is fact.

The 9mm gets it done only by speed.

The .45 gets it done only by size.

The .40 gets it done by speed & size. Which is a superior option if we are just strictly comparing the calibers and not any of the many other intricacies or straw man’s into the equation or debate.

Speaking on just the calibers, do you disagree?

I missed my calling as a defense attorney….

 

[jkingrph]

.300 Win Mag for me

45-70 with some of my long range target loads, a 535 gr bullet at about 1300fps.