.40 recoil?

"I suspect the .40 wouldn't feel like anything unusual from a 1911."

I have 1911s in both 40 and 45 and don't see much difference in recoil between them. Had a SP 101 2.25" and it was not fun to shoot with full power 357 loads. :D
 
I'll shoot my Ruger Blackhawk .357 with HOT handloads, my .45 XD, and my son's .40 Sigma and recoil doesn't enter my mind with any of them. The only pistol that I shoot that I notice the recoil with is my .38 S&W airweight.
 
id say its some where between the 38 special or the 357 magnum. Of course the size of the gun will make a lot of difference.
 
IMHO, .40 in a small pistol only rises to the level of tiresome. I don't really enjoy shooting more than about 50 in my XD40SC. But it's not horrible or unbearable. In a full sized 1911, it has a bit of a different feel from the .45, but that's about it. It's by no means unpleasant. How you feel about it will depend on what your shooting it in. Ammo choice matters a lot too. But that applies to most cartridges.
Full tilt .357 is a different animal. I don't find it bad though.
 
I didn't call you a liar, chief. I made a tongue and cheek reference to a 5 year old shooting double taps and accurately (nailed it actually) calculated your age based on your statement. I also referenced your young age as being part of the reason that you might discount the recoil, just as I would have at a young age. Don't be so quick to take offense, bro.
 
Last edited:
I believe the kinetic energy of an average .357mag round is quite a bit greater than the the average S&W 40. I've got a CZ SP-01 Tactical in .40 and am very happy with it's performance overall. The gun is all steel and is quite heavy...which I believe tames the recoil of the .40 very well.
 
I have a glock with two barrels, 357 sig and 40S&W. According to a couple of charts I've seen the 357 sig has less recoil. I find the 40S&W much more pleasant to shoot. It may be that the muzzle blast and and noise of the 357 sig make it seem like more recoil but regardless the 40S&W is more pleasant to shoot with 180 & 165 grain bullets.
 
"You can't fire a .40 without a gun. Perhaps you could be kind enough to tell us what .40 cal. pistol is harder to shoot than Ruger's small frame revolver using .357 Mag. ammo all day long."

I have shot the 40 in an XD, Glock, and Taurus 405 revolver. I found the recoil much worse than anything I fire out of my SP101. (period) Or my Security 6.

The Ruger is 25 oz's and the the Security 6 is 35 oz's. no light weights.

Even with the hottest rounds in my 101. I find the Ruger very manageable to shoot. I shoot 45's and 9 also.

On the other hand I can not stand to shoot the 40 in any platform I have tried.

I would rather shoot my Super blackhawk in 44 mag than any 40 out there.


steve
 
In the heavier loadings, say 165 to 180 grain bullets at factory velocities, I find no appreciable difference between the .45 ACP and the .40 S&W in a pistol of the same weight and grip size. Rod
 
I have read other posts on .40 cal and the recoil. I had a cz .40 ipsc. and a 9mm cz 75 and didn't notice much difference in recoil between the two.
 
I have a dozen .357 mag revolvers. I also have (or had) half a dozen .40 S&W pistols. I would shoot a .357 magnum revolver over a .40 S&W any day of the week. The two .40's I have that I like are the Ruger SR40c and the CZ 40B. Even still, I'm more accurate with a DA revolver than any SA pistol. Perhaps if I applied myself to becoming good with the .40 S&W I could, but I am just not interested. It's not that the recoil from the .40 is worse, it's how the pistol moves in my hand... Revolvers just tend to be easier for me to keep on target.
 
I agree with a previous poster that the .40 is a BREEZE. I am far more accurate with a .40 (and a 9x18) than with any other pistol caliber. .357 is brutal and that's the only time I break out the eyes (I've been powder blasted with these in the face, it's not cool). I discern that my 1911 shoves me around way more than any .40 ever did. I would NOT, however, shoot this in anything but a full size gun.
 
I have a .40 and I can honestly say that it was AT LEAST 1.5x the recoil of a 357 Magnum. I probably has to do with it being polymer and the 357 being under loaded and a steel frame, but it is what it is. I would suggest sticking to the 9mm if you might run into barriers and the .45 if your shooting at bad guys only and no doors, windshields, etc. I love my .40 but it is a handful and took some getting used to. The ballistics are impressive though if you can deal with it. It has high capacity, good penetration, good stopping power and ammo isn't much more then 9mm. If the FBI uses it, it must be for a reason.
 
well said but

I have no problems with shooting any weapon platform. I just hate the recoil of the 40. I love my 45's, 9's and 357's. I also love shooting 44 mag.

steve:D
 
I had the same concern to up my caliber from my 9mm 90-TWO. The Beretta answer to this is the PX4 Storm with a rotating barrel that reduces the recoil.
 
As has already been observed, felt recoil is subjective. Personally, I look at it thus: If the .40 is a "bridge" between the 9mm and the .45, why not just stick with the .45? What it lacks in magazine capacity [Glocks and Para Ords excluded], it makes up for in fight-stopping power. Not saying the .40 is no good by any stretch; I'm just giving one of the reasons why I'll go with the .45 ACP every time.
 
I have yet to shoot a full-size .40 that gives me perceived recoil comparable to a K-frame or comparable revolver, let alone an SP101 or J frame/LCR, shooting .357 magnum.

I didn't care for .357 out of the SP101, at least not in any sort of round count.

I'll shoot 200-250 rounds of .40 at a go, from my PX4, and think nothing of it (other than cost). I might shoot 50, or at most 100, .357 from the SP101 when I owned one.

I have not shot .40 and .45 from truly similar platforms, and since the .40 platforms have been lighter (PX4 or P229 compared to a 1911 or full-size M&P), it's hard to say how much the perceived recoil of the .40 was created by pressure, and how much was created by the lesser mass (or higher bore axis in the case of the P229) of the .40 platforms.

I used to have a S&W 28-2; .357 from that was a pussycat. For the most part, .357 from my GP100 wasn't a big deal.

I have blistered and torn my skin shooting full-power .357 from K and L frames, over time; less time was needed to blister or tear shooting full-power .44 magnum from a N-frame Mountain Gun. I have not blistered or torn up my hand shooting .40 autos.

Bleeding will also affect perceived recoil...
 
The first handgun I purchased was a .40S&W. It was the S&W model 410. I couldn't hit ANYTHING with it. I developed a bad case of the flinches from firing it as well. I hadn't shot a handgun in 15 years but bought it as the best compromise in power and capacity for SD.

I sold it and bought a Ruger P97 [.45acp]. Then I bought a Baby Eagle 9mm.

I now own a lot of calibers, in different makes.

I recently bought a .40S&W for the first time in 10 years. After a long time off from shooting again, and then a year of focused shooting with .22lr, 9mm and .45acp [and some .38/.357Mag and .44mag], I bought a .40S&W again.

It is bearable and not too bad to my now educated tastes. It doesn't feel like any revolver really, so a comparison to the .357mag isn't right [as others have said]. It feels the MOST uncomfortable of any semi-auto I own, but is reliable and accurate. It is manageable, but I prefer 9mm or .45acp.

However, my recollection of firing my grandmothers' Walther PPK .380acp last year with my dad is that the Walther felt even worse in my hand on recoil.

The way it feels in your hand IS subjective. I like the recoil impulse of almost any other 'large [over .357] caliber' better than the recoil of the .40S&W out of my Glock G22. BUT, I can use the .40s&w and hit what I aim at now. I couldn't in 2001 with the S&W Model 410. I probably could now if I stil had it.


I have a glock with two barrels, 357 sig and 40S&W. According to a couple of charts I've seen the 357 sig has less recoil. I find the 40S&W much more pleasant to shoot. It may be that the muzzle blast and and noise of the 357 sig make it seem like more recoil but regardless the 40S&W is more pleasant to shoot with 180 & 165 grain bullets.
Click to expand...

Noreaster, I am curious: what brand of .357sig ammo did you fire? I am setting my G22 up with a G31 barrel and want to do what you are. However, I bought S&B 140gr .357Sig ammo, which is rated for 563 ft/lb of muzzle energy. I haven't fired the combo yet. My .40S&W ammo is rated in the 390-430 ft/lb of muzzle energy category. I am expecting the Sig barrel to recoil more due to the 30% extra power. It will be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top