.40 recoil?

.40 was designed for use by the FBI after it was discovered that most women and a few weak men couldn't handle the recoil of 10mm.

Are you a woman or a weak man?

If not, then .40 should be fine.

If so, then you probably don't want to go above 9mm in a full size gun. You might not be able to handle it.
 
Last edited:
.40 is a lot of fun to shoot IMHO. Sig P226R-EQ is my baby. I don't know if it is my most accurate gun, or just the most shootable. Works for me..:)
 
.40 was designed for use by the FBI after it was discovered that most women and a few weak men couldn't handle the recoil of 10mm.

Are you a woman or a weak man?

If not, then .40 should be fine.

If so, then you probably don't want to go above 9mm in a full size gun. You might not be able to handle it.

I'm a .40 fan, but the caliber wars will continue in perpetuity until they are no longer associated with masculinity.

The best round the shooter can handle with skill. The only consideration worth a thing.
 
that is insulting and uncalled for

quote : ".40 was designed for use by the FBI after it was discovered that most women and a few weak men couldn't handle the recoil of 10mm.

Are you a woman or a weak man?

If not, then .40 should be fine.

If so, then you probably don't want to go above 9mm in a full size gun. You might not be able to handle it."


Not counting rude and demeaning.:cool:



steve
 
The best round the shooter can handle with skill. The only consideration worth a thing.

Hear Hear!

I was at a range in Southern California in 2005, or late 2004. It is actually in the hills in San Bernardino county. I really enjoyed that range, even if it was 4 miles after the road turned to rough gravel. When it rained hard the road became difficult for a car to travel.

Anyway I remember being there when 3 vehicles pulled up and parked. About 12 people got out: 8 male and 4 female. The trucks and cars had THIN tires [series 40 or thinner?] on oversized wheels for the vehicles. I mean the tires were so thin they looked like they wouldn't hold air but be solid rubber. And all three vehicles where lowered and chromed. The people who got out looked like gang-bangers. Hip-hop pants, tats, bling-bling, and ATTITUDE!

They had 'manly' guns. Big 1911s, glocks, SKS rifles, Mini-14 and some other things that looked like they might have been completely illegal. They were all shooting 'gansta style' and laughing: having a good time.

This was an outdoor range. Their targets were at 20 yards away, human-sized cardboard cut-outs.

I remember thinking: Well, if I ever face them all I have to do is hit the ground and aim, because they generally missed the target high. I swear most of them would have 3 out of 10 or more shots on the top of the target and the rest hit the hill behind.

I wasn't as good as I am now, but I at least hit the target SOMEWHERE in the central mass area 8 out of 10 times, and most were between the sternum and the crotch. They hit shoulder/head high, when they hit.


This taught me that shot placement is probably the most important thing and people who buy a large caliber due to issues of masculinity and self-image don't necessarily have an advantage.

If I can put 8 out of my 10 9mm cartridges into the bad guys chest while he grazes my shoulder, I'll be able to walk home and he will call a 6 foot deep plot home.

IF I can control a larger caliber, great. But my grandmother never felt the need for anything larger than a .380 for her personal use. She was a moonshiner's daughter who had to use guns to save her and her sisters from rape or death at least three times. She used to deliver the payroll to logging company camps in the hills in the 30s. My grandfather told me of the time some guys tried to run her off the road and steal the payroll. Wrong choice.

When she got to camp and someone asked about the bullet hole and the dented fenders she said something like 'oh yeah. I forgot. About 45 minutes back some guys tried to steal the payroll. I didn't like that.'

That spot had a 300 foot drop into the river. No one ever messed with her again.

She taught me to shoot a pistol when I was 8. She'd probably want to horsewhip anyone for belittling a woman's ability to shoot. And her mother was the best hunter in the county, of any gender.

Be careful who you rile up when you make derogatory statements about women. They might not like it and some are VERY VERY VERY good.
 
Yes, too many need to tie the recoil factor to the ego. I like powerful guns, and I like my 22"s. As I get older, I tend to lighten my loads more often than before. I can shoot anything out there, but some I just don't want to. Am I a girlie man because I don't want a .577? Think what you will.
 
Love the .40 cal. and I don't mind the recoil of it. My shooting hand has a screw in it holding two bones together that I cannot afford to have stripped out. The .40 has not really made me nervous about that unless it is a small pistol with really hot ammo. No more .357 or .44 Magnum for me. I'll shoot a hundred rounds of the .40 at the range and then the 9mm seems like a .22. I am much more accurate with a .40 than any 9mm I have. Go figure. Right now, I have the Sig P226 TacOps and the Beretta PX-4 in .40 and love them both.
 
I still hate the 40 but

I took my 44 Ruger SBH out today and shot some rounds through her.. I love that gun.

I got it from my dad about 5 years ago. Shoots like a dream.

I love big bore guns. I just hate the 40... I can't make any since out of it.


steve:D
 
Top Shelf family therejmstr,thanks for telling us about them.

I think the issue with the 40 recoil is how fast it occurs.

With the 9mm the amount of recoil is usually encountered and absorbed through the gun itself and the wrist.

Keeping your arm tight just stabilizes the whole process.

Larger handguns like the 45 acp, have a slow recoil moment that is not really absorbed by the gun as much but the time it takes to cycle is well within the physical reaction time of most shooters.

The 40 S&W on the other hand has this wild recoil moment in some shooters hands.

I have encountered it too.

The gun is fired.

It cycles back and spits out the round .

The gun moves up in recoil and it just hangs there as the human body tries to fight the shockwave the just ran straight down the arm to the shoulder and is now moving back up the arm to where you are holding the pistol.

When both shock waves meet and cancel,you can move the gun downward to fire it again.,

It was funny to me because I could literally time when that shock wave would come back down my arm to my wrist and the gun and allow me to move the gun back down again.

I am also at a loss to expain why the 40 Smith's recoil is'nt straight up and down but up and to the right most of the time and not consistent.

Maybe the heavy round moving out the barrel so fast,as it leaves the rifling ,it pitches the gun up to the right?

But like most semi auto rounds,the 40 Smith requires training and with training,many people shoot this round very well and like it.

But the person that buys a small light 40 Smith semi auto as their first handgun is going to need to really train alot to get past that ultrafast recoil moment .

Makes me wonder if a M&P 9c would be a better gun then a M&P40c for me.

I'll find both on a range somewhere and shoot both before I invest in either.

That's a long way off anyway.
 
This is pretty fascinating that half the people say their .357 kicks more and the other half says .40. My wife feels the same way though that my 357 kicks more than my father's 40. I've been thinking about it though and I think the 40 may kick more but it's much smoother so the 357 feels harsher. Just my .02
 
This is pretty fascinating that half the people say their .357 kicks more and the other half says .40. My wife feels the same way though that my 357 kicks more than my father's 40. I've been thinking about it though and I think the 40 may kick more but it's much smoother so the 357 feels harsher. Just my .02

It's interesting to me as well, I find a .357 revolver a MUCH harder kicker than any .40 I've shot. Just goes to prove that recoil subjectivity!
 
Or they have arthritis in their hands...

Or they have other strength related issues...

Or they haven't found a gun that fits them properly...

Or they simply shoot a different caliber much more effectively, and realize that accurate shot placement with rapid follow-up trumps the slight power advantage .40 might bring them.

OTOH, anybody who thinks an ability to handle higher levels of recoil is what defines manliness, really needs to grow up as he is displaying the maturity level of a 13 year old.
 
MLeake hit it on the head.

Quote "Or they simply shoot a different caliber much more effectively, and realize that accurate shot placement with rapid follow-up trumps the slight power advantage .40 might bring them."

OTOH, anybody who thinks an ability to handle higher levels of recoil is what defines manliness, really needs to grow up as he is displaying the maturity level of a 13 year old. Qoute:

I just don't like the 40. It is not because I think it is too harsh, it is because I can shoot my 357 better and faster. As will as other caliber platforms. I can double tap or triple tap any my 357 or my 45's but not the 40's at all.

Plus the 40 has no power advantage over either of the calibers listed above. So I find no use for the 40 what so ever.:)


steve
 
OTOH, anybody who thinks an ability to handle higher levels of recoil is what defines manliness, really needs to grow up as he is displaying the maturity level of a 13 year old.

This.

I just don't like the 40. It is not because I think it is too harsh, it is because I can shoot my [.45] better, faster [and more comfortably].

Plus the 40 has no power advantage over [.45 ACP]. So I find no use for the 40 what so ever.

And this. [With Minor Edits]
 
Stolivar, I can think of two advantages to the .40 off the top of my head:

1) Almost always will have higher capacity than .357 or .45 platforms of similar type. (The S&W 610, Kahr PM40, etc won't... And the .357 might be in a DE or Coonan... but generally the .40 will be available in guns that hold more rounds);

2) If one does not reload, .40 costs less than .357 or .45, so practice ammo is both less expensive, and, often, easier to find. (This isn't as much a factor at present, but 2008-2009 .40 was much, much easier to find at my local stores.)

But those advantages don't mean much if one doesn't shoot a .40 all that well.

I'm not saying you should switch, by any means, just saying that everything becomes a trade-off between a wide variety of factors.
 
84c.jpg


This is my only handgun in 40 S&W SIG Pro..super nice pistol...I like 180 gr. bullets seem less snappy than 155 gr. but recoil is quite manageable....

I think of the 40 S&W as a 180 gr 44 spl.. for a Semi
 
"Anyone who thinks the .40 has too much recoil needs to surrender their man card."

Hhmmm....I favor 10mm over .40s&w. I hope that doesn't mean I have to apply for one???--Patrice :cool:

[As far as the thread is concerned....I don't think .40 has too much recoil; to me it just seems different from 10mm & .45acp...or, .357mag (fired from a Ladysmith--in which there is something of an ouch-factor after 4 or 5 rounds).]
 
I find the .40 very easy on recoil,having both .357 and .40 cal there is no comparison at all.

I don't understand what all the hype about how savage the recoil is in .40 cal.I carry at least 4 different .40 cal handguns and my wife carries a Glock 23 that she shoots really well and loves.

I found more discomfort in shooting the Ruger lcp and Glock 29 than i do anything else.

I have become a .40 cal junkie for 2 reasons.

1)Ammo is more plentiful
2).40 cal handguns are generally a better deal

Sig pro .40,S&W 410 .40,H&K usp .40,Glock 22 .40
105_0181.jpg
 
Back
Top