44caliberkid
New member
Why not just post a link to the other 3 or 4 threads asking, "Is the 40 dead?" The only thing dead is this horse.
40 caliber?
- Thread starter ragwd
- Start date
I personally, have no interest in, or qualms about the .40S&W being "dead".
It was never "alive" to me, anyway. It's a caliber I've avoided because I have it thoroughly covered above and below, and it offers me no advantages, and is simply a waste of my time and money.
The .40 only exists because S&W figured out a way to make some serious $$$ from the fact that the FBI could not and would not admit they had been wrong, and that their agents were humans who made mistakes.
It was never "alive" to me, anyway. It's a caliber I've avoided because I have it thoroughly covered above and below, and it offers me no advantages, and is simply a waste of my time and money.
The .40 only exists because S&W figured out a way to make some serious $$$ from the fact that the FBI could not and would not admit they had been wrong, and that their agents were humans who made mistakes.
I don't the 40 is dying, people seem to love it or hate. There is sure plenty of it still being sold. When the world went sideways and ammo got short 40 was one of the rounds I could get my hands on. As far as the 229 goes, that is a great gun. Several years ago I ran up on a similar situation, my local gun store had a 229 elite scorpion in 40 cal. that no one seemed interested in. I jumped on it. It is now one of favorite all time pistols
The one good thing about the persistent sentiment that .40 S&W is dying as perpetuated by its legions of irrational dedicated haters who are so upset by its very existence that they wish for its demise, it drives down prices.
Over the past few years I bought three fantastic .40cal pistols and subsequently fell in love with the cartridge because so many law enforcement agencies and civilians alike all traded in their .40s at once, flooding the market with outstanding values on pistols the same size/weight as their 9mm counterparts, but chambered in a more powerful cartridge.
As dumb as it seems to me that so many folks blindly followed a trend set by a bureaucratic bean-counters and dumped what were otherwise perfectly good firearms, I'm grateful that they did, because otherwise I would have never bought a .40cal pistol and would have kept on ignorantly believing all the hype about the "snappy recoil" of the .40 S&W cartridge.
Over the past few years I bought three fantastic .40cal pistols and subsequently fell in love with the cartridge because so many law enforcement agencies and civilians alike all traded in their .40s at once, flooding the market with outstanding values on pistols the same size/weight as their 9mm counterparts, but chambered in a more powerful cartridge.
As dumb as it seems to me that so many folks blindly followed a trend set by a bureaucratic bean-counters and dumped what were otherwise perfectly good firearms, I'm grateful that they did, because otherwise I would have never bought a .40cal pistol and would have kept on ignorantly believing all the hype about the "snappy recoil" of the .40 S&W cartridge.
Great post, Forte...I'll chime in with some add'l comments...
No...it's not dead. Ammunition companies will continue to supply the needs of the literally millions of .40 cal. pistols that have been produced to fill the police and SD markets.
I think the .40's a great compromise between 9mm and the .45 ACP. I have 4 guns in .40 S&W, & multiples in the other two calibers, but find that the .40 offers far more choices in loads than either of the others. Good JHPs are offered from 135 gr to 180 gr that should satisfy most any realistic short gun need. I personally like the 155 gr JHPs and load Hornady, Montana Gold and Missouri Bullet Co. offerings in that weight. And Nosler makes a dandy JHP in 135 gr too, that all of my guns shoot well.
For the one gun CC buyer, or as a night stand gun, a .40 would be a great choice. Locally here in KY, it was the last caliber to disappear off the gun shop shelves when the current panic started, as it was during the previous insanity. And while it is a bit more expensive to shoot vs. the cheap, bulk-buy 9mm's available before the election, the .40 was available long after the 9's had disappeared.
In my guns: (a Colt Elite Gold Cup, Glock 23, Sig P226, and a Browning HP), I find the .40 S&W cartridge a bit more accurate than my 9's, but not quite as tight shooting as my .45's. All of the above .40's will put five shots in to less than 3" all day long at 25 yds from a rest, and better that by an inch with carefully tweaked hand loads.
From a reloading standpoint, it's as easy to turn out quality .40's on my Dillon as either of the others. And I've amassed a a 5 gallon bucket-full of once-fired .40's from my LEO friends who practice here on the farm.
So..for a shooter that can get a good deal on one, I'd say heck yeah...it's a great choice. HTH's Rod
No...it's not dead. Ammunition companies will continue to supply the needs of the literally millions of .40 cal. pistols that have been produced to fill the police and SD markets.
I think the .40's a great compromise between 9mm and the .45 ACP. I have 4 guns in .40 S&W, & multiples in the other two calibers, but find that the .40 offers far more choices in loads than either of the others. Good JHPs are offered from 135 gr to 180 gr that should satisfy most any realistic short gun need. I personally like the 155 gr JHPs and load Hornady, Montana Gold and Missouri Bullet Co. offerings in that weight. And Nosler makes a dandy JHP in 135 gr too, that all of my guns shoot well.
For the one gun CC buyer, or as a night stand gun, a .40 would be a great choice. Locally here in KY, it was the last caliber to disappear off the gun shop shelves when the current panic started, as it was during the previous insanity. And while it is a bit more expensive to shoot vs. the cheap, bulk-buy 9mm's available before the election, the .40 was available long after the 9's had disappeared.
In my guns: (a Colt Elite Gold Cup, Glock 23, Sig P226, and a Browning HP), I find the .40 S&W cartridge a bit more accurate than my 9's, but not quite as tight shooting as my .45's. All of the above .40's will put five shots in to less than 3" all day long at 25 yds from a rest, and better that by an inch with carefully tweaked hand loads.
From a reloading standpoint, it's as easy to turn out quality .40's on my Dillon as either of the others. And I've amassed a a 5 gallon bucket-full of once-fired .40's from my LEO friends who practice here on the farm.
So..for a shooter that can get a good deal on one, I'd say heck yeah...it's a great choice. HTH's Rod
Last edited:
There's nothing new to add to this topic. Every time it comes up the discussion just devolves into people justifying their choice.
Sydney Vail, Martin Fackler and Gary Roberts all agree that there's no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers.
If any one of the three was clearly and consistently stopping more bad guys than the other two then every Police Department in America would be carrying it and everyone else would be buying it.
Here is a very good article that addresses this issue
http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm
From the article:
Sydney Vail, Martin Fackler and Gary Roberts all agree that there's no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers.
If any one of the three was clearly and consistently stopping more bad guys than the other two then every Police Department in America would be carrying it and everyone else would be buying it.
Here is a very good article that addresses this issue
http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm
From the article:
@Moonglum
I don't think that anyone debates the effectiveness of 9mm Luger these days. Like practically every cartridge in current production, it is potentially lethal. However, the main objective of self-defense isn't to kill your attacker, it's to incapacitate them. Any hunter can tell you that bigger, heavier bullets have more dramatic effects on bone, and it really ought to be common sense that a larger diameter wound cavity is going to bleed worse. A shattered bone anywhere below the waistline is going to bring any attacker down, providing the defender with an avenue for retreat/escape.
If you must argue against that, then so be it, but speaking of folks making arguments to backup their choice, why is it that folks who carry 9mm Luger absolutely cannot admit to other cartridges having any advantage whatsoever, even if it's a trade-off which hardly makes it superior?
Honestly, folks who carry .40/.45 will at least admit that 9mm Luger has higher velocity, higher magazine capacity, and less recoil. Whereas 9mm must always be just as good at every little thing, and any tangible advantage such has larger diameter wounds conveniently doesn't matter?
I don't think that anyone debates the effectiveness of 9mm Luger these days. Like practically every cartridge in current production, it is potentially lethal. However, the main objective of self-defense isn't to kill your attacker, it's to incapacitate them. Any hunter can tell you that bigger, heavier bullets have more dramatic effects on bone, and it really ought to be common sense that a larger diameter wound cavity is going to bleed worse. A shattered bone anywhere below the waistline is going to bring any attacker down, providing the defender with an avenue for retreat/escape.
If you must argue against that, then so be it, but speaking of folks making arguments to backup their choice, why is it that folks who carry 9mm Luger absolutely cannot admit to other cartridges having any advantage whatsoever, even if it's a trade-off which hardly makes it superior?
Honestly, folks who carry .40/.45 will at least admit that 9mm Luger has higher velocity, higher magazine capacity, and less recoil. Whereas 9mm must always be just as good at every little thing, and any tangible advantage such has larger diameter wounds conveniently doesn't matter?
It is somewhat interesting to follow the history , and noting how much has changed, and what hasn't.
where were all the "9mm rules them all" advocates 50+ years ago? I think most probably hadn't been born yet...
You can find written articles (not sure if any are online, so for some of you they don't exist...
) from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, where all the experts rated the .38 Special as superior to the 9mm Luger.
Why?
Because it used a heavier bullet and a lead bullet which, sometimes, would expand somewhat. 9mm used a FMJ bullet that never expanded. And while there were a plethora of revolvers in .38 Special (and better yet, .357 Magnum) the choices for 9mm Lugers were limited to Lugers, the Browning Hi Power, Colt Govt model was listed in 9mm but no one ever seemed to have seen any...and the S&W M39 along with foreign made (mostly Spanish) guns of questionable quality.
Come the 80s and the 9mm makes its bid for world domination. AND SUCCEEDS, ..."officially". Bucketloads of new gun designs for 9mm and finally, reliable JHP ammo. Life is good, the 9 does it all, we don't need that oversize overweight slowpoke .45 and the .40/,41 cal pistol is a pipedream of a few gun cranks....
Then comes the 1986 Miami shootout, and the 9mm that met ALL the FBI requirement was ruled to have failed. So, the FBI decided that the 9mm wasn't good enough...... (and they also changed their required performance specs, too)
End result, (skipping a LOT of details), the FBI adopted the .40S&W, and many police agencies around the country followed their example.
The .40 does work, and now after years of tinkering, has most of the bugs out. And while its popularity as a duty cartridge has faded with a number of law enforcement groups, its not dead or dying.
Why is it that whenever something falls from the #1 spot on someone OPINION poll, people begin claiming its dead, or dying, or on its way down the drain, etc?
Its a popularity game, not an effectiveness, or even a practicality game. Though effectiveness and practicality do enter into it the dominating factor seems to be just popular opinion, and not real facts.
Cowboy action shooting games have brought back some very "dead" rounds, rounds for which no factory ammo has been made for nearly a century are being made again today, (or were before the virus pandemic panic), though no where near mainstream, or cheap they were being made, so one can't say they are dead, though for a long time that was the general opinion.
Rating a firearm or cartridge by its sales is an economic thing, not a gun thing. Too many people can't seem to recognize that difference.
where were all the "9mm rules them all" advocates 50+ years ago? I think most probably hadn't been born yet...
You can find written articles (not sure if any are online, so for some of you they don't exist...
) from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, where all the experts rated the .38 Special as superior to the 9mm Luger.Why?
Because it used a heavier bullet and a lead bullet which, sometimes, would expand somewhat. 9mm used a FMJ bullet that never expanded. And while there were a plethora of revolvers in .38 Special (and better yet, .357 Magnum) the choices for 9mm Lugers were limited to Lugers, the Browning Hi Power, Colt Govt model was listed in 9mm but no one ever seemed to have seen any...and the S&W M39 along with foreign made (mostly Spanish) guns of questionable quality.
Come the 80s and the 9mm makes its bid for world domination. AND SUCCEEDS, ..."officially". Bucketloads of new gun designs for 9mm and finally, reliable JHP ammo. Life is good, the 9 does it all, we don't need that oversize overweight slowpoke .45 and the .40/,41 cal pistol is a pipedream of a few gun cranks....
Then comes the 1986 Miami shootout, and the 9mm that met ALL the FBI requirement was ruled to have failed. So, the FBI decided that the 9mm wasn't good enough...... (and they also changed their required performance specs, too)
End result, (skipping a LOT of details), the FBI adopted the .40S&W, and many police agencies around the country followed their example.
The .40 does work, and now after years of tinkering, has most of the bugs out. And while its popularity as a duty cartridge has faded with a number of law enforcement groups, its not dead or dying.
Why is it that whenever something falls from the #1 spot on someone OPINION poll, people begin claiming its dead, or dying, or on its way down the drain, etc?
Its a popularity game, not an effectiveness, or even a practicality game. Though effectiveness and practicality do enter into it the dominating factor seems to be just popular opinion, and not real facts.
Cowboy action shooting games have brought back some very "dead" rounds, rounds for which no factory ammo has been made for nearly a century are being made again today, (or were before the virus pandemic panic), though no where near mainstream, or cheap they were being made, so one can't say they are dead, though for a long time that was the general opinion.
Rating a firearm or cartridge by its sales is an economic thing, not a gun thing. Too many people can't seem to recognize that difference.
I neither carry nor own a 40SW anymore. That said I have owned a SIG P229, a SIG SP2022, a HK P2000, a FN FNS or FNX (I can’t remember which), and a Glock 23 all in 40SW (obviously in the case of the Glock 23). I hated the Glock in 40SW, certainly compared to the Glock 19. IMO if the only experience people have with the 40SW is in Glocks then I’m not surprised at some of the complaints. I know we have a number of members on this forum that carry and like Glocks in 40SW and more power to you. For me the other pistols I mentioned were much more pleasant to shoot. One might assume that for the SIG with it being heavier, but even the HK P2000 was notably more pleasant.
One concession I will make is that I think when people compare the recoil of 9mm to 40SW they often do so in a manner that is artificial. Back in the day when you could buy 100 rd packs of Federal Champion from Wal Mart that ammunition was loaded to be rather anemic in terms of its velocity. The jump from that to standard pressure 9mm duty ammunition or more so +P 9mm was quite noticeable. Even the jump to other FMJ was noticeable. It was in part why at the time I stopped shooting that ammunition as it was giving me a false idea of the cadence I could maintain while shooting. I switched to other 124 gr ammunition (back when we could choose which 9mm we bought rather than being excited to get a box of whatever).
Meanwhile I found the “plinking” ammunition for 40SW was much closer to the recoil of the duty ammunition in the same cartridge. It would be easy for someone to think the recoil between the two cartridges was dramatically different depending on which range ammunition he or she used. Once you got into the duty ammunition it was less so, at least to me. Now I think 9mm still has the benefit of choosing if you want +P or +P+, but if a person was shooting lower velocity 115 gr 9mm and saying 40SW was too much while at the same time carrying say 127 gr Ranger +P+, then to me that person wasn’t being fully honest with himself or herself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One concession I will make is that I think when people compare the recoil of 9mm to 40SW they often do so in a manner that is artificial. Back in the day when you could buy 100 rd packs of Federal Champion from Wal Mart that ammunition was loaded to be rather anemic in terms of its velocity. The jump from that to standard pressure 9mm duty ammunition or more so +P 9mm was quite noticeable. Even the jump to other FMJ was noticeable. It was in part why at the time I stopped shooting that ammunition as it was giving me a false idea of the cadence I could maintain while shooting. I switched to other 124 gr ammunition (back when we could choose which 9mm we bought rather than being excited to get a box of whatever).
Meanwhile I found the “plinking” ammunition for 40SW was much closer to the recoil of the duty ammunition in the same cartridge. It would be easy for someone to think the recoil between the two cartridges was dramatically different depending on which range ammunition he or she used. Once you got into the duty ammunition it was less so, at least to me. Now I think 9mm still has the benefit of choosing if you want +P or +P+, but if a person was shooting lower velocity 115 gr 9mm and saying 40SW was too much while at the same time carrying say 127 gr Ranger +P+, then to me that person wasn’t being fully honest with himself or herself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wild cat mccane
New member
44, the "9mm rules them all" people proved the point when Gold Dot is now on version 4 since 1991 and HST began in 2002.
HST 9mm 147gr +P is awesome, 150gr "Micro" even rocks more. New Federal Syntech Solid Core (hard cast without wax ring/check) is advertised for bear hunting.
All low pressured, low FPS.
Less effort, more capacity, shape to expand...cheapest option. Simple nothing to hate on 9mm right now. Since 40 can fall below 9mm HST, yeah...I think it's in product life cycle of decline to whatever level of dead it will be.
HST 9mm 147gr +P is awesome, 150gr "Micro" even rocks more. New Federal Syntech Solid Core (hard cast without wax ring/check) is advertised for bear hunting.
All low pressured, low FPS.
Less effort, more capacity, shape to expand...cheapest option. Simple nothing to hate on 9mm right now. Since 40 can fall below 9mm HST, yeah...I think it's in product life cycle of decline to whatever level of dead it will be.
Except it apparently doesn't. There is no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers. No one has been able to document that getting hit by a .40 has a greater effect than getting hit by 9 millimeter or has a greater effect than getting hit by a .45.
Pistol calibers just aren't all that. You're really not looking for which performs the best you're looking for which sucks the least.
There've been documented cases of people being hit in the heart and still being able to stay on their feet and return fire at least for a couple of minutes.
If you want to impact somebody hit them with a baseball bat
I won't bother arguing on the subject any further, but needless to say, I disagree.
If pistol cartridges were as ineffective as certain folks assert thatthey are, then neither the Military nor Law Enforcement would even bother to carry conventional handguns anymore and would have transitioned to compact PDWs a long time ago.
You can carry a bat if you want to, I'll stick with a .40cal pistol.
If pistol cartridges were as ineffective as certain folks assert thatthey are, then neither the Military nor Law Enforcement would even bother to carry conventional handguns anymore and would have transitioned to compact PDWs a long time ago.
You can carry a bat if you want to, I'll stick with a .40cal pistol.
Public perception is a thing dude. Do you really think certain elements of the general public wouldn't be up in arms (figuratively speaking) if the cops started carrying rifles? Do you think there might be a reason most cop cars have a RIFLE in them These days?
I carry a 9mm Glock because Doctors Sydney Vail, Martin Fackler and Gary Roberts (the holy trinity of terminal ballistics research) all agree that there's no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers. Assuming modern defensive ammunition they all perform adequately and NONE of them perform exceptionally.
Last edited:
Cosmodragoon
New member
I've shot a lot of stuff over the years with all sorts of calibers. Paper is boring to me and I feel like I'm helping the environment by aerating the contents of my recycling bin. =P
There is definitely a difference between main defensive calibers in terms of damage to containers of water, bricks, random items, etc. I'd definitely choose .40 S&W over 9mm in circumstances where it makes sense. For instance, if I am carrying a full-sized gun or one of the more comfortable compacts. However, there are lots of smaller guns where 9mm offers a decent shooting experience but .40 S&W is a little much. There are circumstances where the smaller gun makes more sense for carry. So I carry 9mm.
An important question is whether the difference I see on inanimate objects (or varmints) translates to a difference on dangerous humans. I think it might, under certain circumstances. It could make a bigger difference for marginal hits, like from an entangled position where you are putting one into a leg. Will it be a deciding factor? It's so hard to know. Comparing the subset of all possible realities where one was 9mm and one was .40 S&W, there might be a few where it does. This is the same argument in favor of slightly higher capacity in a carry gun. If it makes sense, go for it.
There is definitely a difference between main defensive calibers in terms of damage to containers of water, bricks, random items, etc. I'd definitely choose .40 S&W over 9mm in circumstances where it makes sense. For instance, if I am carrying a full-sized gun or one of the more comfortable compacts. However, there are lots of smaller guns where 9mm offers a decent shooting experience but .40 S&W is a little much. There are circumstances where the smaller gun makes more sense for carry. So I carry 9mm.
An important question is whether the difference I see on inanimate objects (or varmints) translates to a difference on dangerous humans. I think it might, under certain circumstances. It could make a bigger difference for marginal hits, like from an entangled position where you are putting one into a leg. Will it be a deciding factor? It's so hard to know. Comparing the subset of all possible realities where one was 9mm and one was .40 S&W, there might be a few where it does. This is the same argument in favor of slightly higher capacity in a carry gun. If it makes sense, go for it.
It's hugely popular, so no it's not dead. In another hundred years? Maybe but we won't know about it. For carry and home defense pistols I have both .40 and 9mm, but I do prefer the .40 because it does hit harder, no question about it. One reason also for it's current lack of popularity, or should I say why it's not as popular as 9mm, is because gun makers seem to almost make everything new exclusively in 9mm and in addition, many "voices" out there advocate rather hard in favor of the 9mm, which is fine, but it has clouded out what is otherwise a very good cartridge, the .40 S&W.
Now I don't feel under gunned when carrying 9mm, I feel like if I do my part the 9mm will likely do its part. Admittedly I've been a .40 fan as long as I was old enough to buy my first handgun, nearly 20 years ago, so maybe I'm a bit biased but I've had all the cartridges and from what I've seen, the best combination of size, capacity and power lies with the .40. You can load it up cheap enough, carry it for personal defense or home defense and it's got enough steam to be effective on most animals anyone would choose to hunt with a handgun. A lot of the dislike for the .40 is misplaced, but it's far from dead.
Now I don't feel under gunned when carrying 9mm, I feel like if I do my part the 9mm will likely do its part. Admittedly I've been a .40 fan as long as I was old enough to buy my first handgun, nearly 20 years ago, so maybe I'm a bit biased but I've had all the cartridges and from what I've seen, the best combination of size, capacity and power lies with the .40. You can load it up cheap enough, carry it for personal defense or home defense and it's got enough steam to be effective on most animals anyone would choose to hunt with a handgun. A lot of the dislike for the .40 is misplaced, but it's far from dead.