40 S&W-135 or 180 grain
- Thread starter jadams951
- Start date
Right now my Steyr M-40 is loaded up with 135gr Corbon JHPs.
I read an interesting article on why NOT to use the 180gr .40S&W
http://greent.com/40Page/ammo/40/180gr.htm
here's the rest of his page (other useful info)
http://greent.com/40Page/
I read an interesting article on why NOT to use the 180gr .40S&W
http://greent.com/40Page/ammo/40/180gr.htm
here's the rest of his page (other useful info)
http://greent.com/40Page/
BrokenArrow
New member
Here's the info on why that article on avoiding the 180s is a dud itself IMO. Let's not forget that was the site that trumpeted the reduction of the pressure limit for the 40S&W to 33,000 psi from 35,000 psi (they were wrong, there was no such reduction).
From Charles E. Petty, the handloading editor whose table was misused out of context for the chicken little article (the sky is not falling w the 180s folks). The table was meant to show why you should avoid _damaged_ ammo in any weight, not just the 180s.
"There is a little to it, but much less than the post would suggest.
It is true that the 180 gr. bullet occupies a lot of the case but the
table he took from my article is certainly not limited to the 180 gr.
in the 40. Similar results would be found when you increase the
seating depth of any bullet.
The statement that Glock kBs happen with the 180 probably proves that more are used than any real risk associated with the weight.
My work suggests that the 165 is probably a better choice, but the goal of the development was to duplicate the FBI 10mm. The earliest ammo was safe, but not necessarily the "right" powder. They had to get something on the market in a hurry. Now things are much better across the board.
My table was taken somewhat out of context and none of the
accompanying information was shown. The table was based on computer calculations and there to illustrate the point of why it's a good idea to avoid using damaged ammo."
The sheriffs here have "blown up" several guns (Glock, USP, KelTec) all w factory 165 ammo. The Federal 155 HS was blowing up guns, not the 180 HS. I just picked up three cases of 180s.
From Charles E. Petty, the handloading editor whose table was misused out of context for the chicken little article (the sky is not falling w the 180s folks). The table was meant to show why you should avoid _damaged_ ammo in any weight, not just the 180s.
"There is a little to it, but much less than the post would suggest.
It is true that the 180 gr. bullet occupies a lot of the case but the
table he took from my article is certainly not limited to the 180 gr.
in the 40. Similar results would be found when you increase the
seating depth of any bullet.
The statement that Glock kBs happen with the 180 probably proves that more are used than any real risk associated with the weight.
My work suggests that the 165 is probably a better choice, but the goal of the development was to duplicate the FBI 10mm. The earliest ammo was safe, but not necessarily the "right" powder. They had to get something on the market in a hurry. Now things are much better across the board.
My table was taken somewhat out of context and none of the
accompanying information was shown. The table was based on computer calculations and there to illustrate the point of why it's a good idea to avoid using damaged ammo."
The sheriffs here have "blown up" several guns (Glock, USP, KelTec) all w factory 165 ammo. The Federal 155 HS was blowing up guns, not the 180 HS. I just picked up three cases of 180s.