40S&W Accuracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PreserveFreedom
  • Start date Start date
Compared to 45ACP, the 40 cal has lesser "free space" within the brass. In other words, the OAL of the cartridge directly affects this free space which in turn affects gas pressure which translates into bullet velocity/accuracy.
One can say that the 40 cal is less forgiving than the 9mm and the 45ACP when it comes to meeting the ammo specification, and this makes it harder to perform consistently.


[This message has been edited by CZphile (edited September 27, 2000).]
 
I shoot 45 & 9mm pistols far more than 40.
However, I was under the impression that the 180gr 40's were the most "sedate" of the bunch, w/ the hot 155gr loads such as the Gold Dot producing the most recoil.
I was looking at adding another 40 to my collection(probably a G23), but am wondering if it's worth it. I had two 40's when I first got into guns awhile back, a G23 & Beretta Centurion, but sold both as I was in the experimental phase of both calibers & guns.
Currently I have a G19 & G21, and can shoot both well, and am wondering if it would be worth it to buy another 40. I usually shot 180gr loads in both, never really evaluating the 135,155 or 165gr loads as far as recoil & accuracy. From what I remember recoil was stiffer in the 23 when compared to the Beretta, but I now also understand that alot of 40cal pistols are undersprung for this higher pressure cartridge.
I've shot some of the hotter/higher pressure 9mm loads like Fed. 115+p+(9BPLE)& 115 corbon in my G-19, how do the 155/165gr 40 loads compare to these as far as recoil & muzzle flip?
One last question, if recoil & muzzle flip effect accuracy in 40cal pistols, shouldn't this hold true w/ the 357 sig as well? I usually hear this caliber being described as even "snappier" than the 40.

Best,
long shot!
 
The ammo and reloading components manufacturers, who shoot probably 10s of thousands of rounds out of many many different guns (including universal receivers) each year have noted a trend that the .40 is somewhat less accurate than many other cartridges.

Sorry to say, guys, but the performance of a single Glock or Beretta doesn't mean much at all.

I used to have a cheap .22 pistol that wouldn't hit the size of a barn at 10 feet. Does that single example mean that the .22 cartridge is inaccurate?

Nope. It means that the gun's problematic.

Until one of us can do the kind of volumn testing that the manufacturers do...

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Ye gads! We can't have a rational discussion of this topic unless there is some mention of the measurements!

Accuracy (from an engineering standpoint, "precision" is a better term) is the central grouping tendency--the ability of the cartridge/firearm combination to put successive shots on top of each other, or very close to each other.

My two-inch groups with a .357 Mag revolver are better than those "one-hole" groups mentioned above because mine are done at 25 YARDS, while some "defensive distance" afficianados fire their one-hole groups at 7 yards.

My experience, and that of published and methodical experimenters, is that the dispersion is linear between 15 yards/50 feet out to at least 50 yards (at rifle distances, it often ain't so--your 1 MOA rifle at 100 yards usually goes up to 1.5 MOA between 300 and 600 yards...usually).

So, your two-inch groups at 50 feet are only three inches at 75 feet/25 yards. One inch at 7 yards is three and a half inches at 25 yards.

Number of shots per group can make a BIG difference, too. One source puts 10-shot groups at 1.6 times the diameter of 5-shot groups, on average. I've seen some exceptions...

So, YES, there tend to be differences in what some writers (sometimes sneeringly) call "inherent accuracy."

Sounds like the original post is directed more towards an idea that the target is so big, the human factor ("in the shooter's hands," or similar language) becomes the overwhelming consideration in finding an accurate gun/ammo combo.

Yeah, and I can get more miles to the gallon in my Cadillac than you do in your Yugo. Possible with the human factor (easy on the throttle for me and you gun it everywhere), but the equipment *will* have a large influence!

So, maybe one grip shape and trigger action (combo "A")lets you introduce only 24 MOA of shooter error when shooting fast and furious. If another combo "B" opens you up to 27 MOA of shooter error, your could conceivably shoot smaller groups with it than with "A", if the the "B" gun/CARTRIDGE combo shoots 8 MOA like almost ANY .45 ACP in a decent gun, as compared to the "A" combo's typical 16 MOA performance like maybe one-third or more of the .40 S&W gun/cartridge combos I've seen reported.

My experience after testing hundreds of rounds of handloads off of sandbags: .40 S&W is HARD to make accurate with any bullet weight. .357 Mag. and 9mm can be done with a bit of load development. .45 ACP is EASY to get accurate loads!

Maybe the difference between a 4-inch group and a 2-inch group capability at 25 yards will be of no significance in most defensive shootings. But what about the one time it does?

That's why I wear a seat belt. The one time is makes a difference can be a life or death matter.
 
Fact The 40 is not as accurate as the 9mm or 357 sig in the same launching platforms (compare Glock 22,31 and 17 sig 229 in 9mm 40 and 357) I have and many other guns the 40 is not inaccurate but it is not as accurate as other main stream caliber. My sig 229 in 40 would shoot 3.5 inches at 25 yard with ammo it liked with ammo it did not it would do as poorly as 6 inches. The same gun with a stock sig 357 sig would average 2.0 and its worst groups were 3 inches. These are just two examples of what I have found with several guns where I have had 357 sig and 40 barrels. IN the sig 229 I also had a barsto 9mm barrel and it shoot as well as the 357 sig. Fact the 45 acp is faster than the 40 short and weak with equal bullet weights. The 40 will push a 165 grain bullet at 1150 where a 45 acp can be had with the same bullet weight at 1250. The 40 can push 180 grain loads at 950 while the 45 will puch a 185 grain bullet at 1160.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
Now I do not purport to be a marksman. I do not own a bench rest. The other day while anticipating recoil on the last magazine(shooting low but no longer right :cool: )
all of my shots (10) ended up exactly 2" low in an area the size of a soup can- I know because that was the thing I was tracing my circles- cheap targets- with. It gives me hope of being respectable someday. I know some cartridges "snap" more than others and thus I am more inaccurate with them, but it is me snapping.

If the cartridge is so hurtful to shoot for most, than I would put the blame on the round, but there are alternatives.
 
brianidaho,


My 40 S&W Witness is a full-size steel gun; carried regularly in other-than-40 caliber and also a different-framed same thing.
(If I want to carry a "40" Witness I swap in my 41AE parts.)

IMO a full-size metal 40S&W Witness is an excellent choice; ergonomic, accurate (generally), inexpensive, and (possibly) extremely reliable.
Can't comment on the compact.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
OK-heres another question from the newbe... Is the sharp recoil and (from the above posts) somewhat poorer accuracy of the .40 due to the inherent design of the cartridge, or the loadings it is commonly sold in? Looking at some of the published data, most 40 loads seem "hot", high velocity and energy. Is that due to the manufacturers trying to get 45 cal performance out of a case with much less powder capacity? Is this case really stuffed with powder? If so it would seem that a small change in bullet seating or powder charge size would have a larger impact on pressure, and therefor accuracy than a larger cap round. In 9mm, are the +p and +p+ rounds typically less accurate (due to the round or the recoil/muzzle blast effect on the shooter) than standard loads. Do any manufacturers make a less-hot .40 load, especially for range work? Only speculation due to lack of experience.

[This message has been edited by brianidaho (edited September 28, 2000).]
 
brianidaho, manufacturers are not trying to get 45ACP performance out of a 40S&W. The 45ACP is a very slow moving round with mild recoil whereas a 40S&W is fast with a snappy recoil. IMHO, 45ACP is in its own class.
 
I would have to disagree about the 40 having a sharp recoil. I shoot a para-ordnance p16-40 in ipsc matches and it is very accurate. All of the top limited shooters shoot a 40 and never hear anything about the recoil being sharp or the guns being inaccurate. You can load the 40 with 200 grain bullets and approximate the feel of a 45. Most people are using the 180 grain bullets and seat them a little longer with an oal of around 1.2".
When shooting double taps I can get 2 a-zone hits in .23 seconds, I would not say there is a problem with the cartridge.
 
Nacho beat me too it. Maybe it has something to do with the amount I shoot but I find 40 to be less tiring over a 100rd match than 45. My loads are quite accurate, so I can't complian there. Now, my ammo IS loaded way out of spec OAL wise(1.180) to make it feed more reliably in a 1911 style gun(P16). These loads will not fit in a 9mm sized gun. Perhaps this is a contributor?
 
I have a Glock 27. Some say it is one of the more difficult .40's to fire. All I know is, it was the first pistol I ever bought, and I can empty a magazine into the center of mass rapid fire, point shooting, every time, at defensive ranges out to 10 yards. If I take my time and go slow, I can make those cool one hole groups.

What I'm trying to get at is, that's fine for me. I don't shoot competetion. If I did, and I felt the .40 was not good enough for me, I would USE SOMETHING ELSE.

You don't use a sledgehammer to drive tacks in a wall. You don't use a peen hammer to break a sidewalk. Different tools, different uses folks.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quantum Singularity:
I agree the .40 does have a nasty "snappy bite" of recoil. It is not a fun cartridge to shoot for target work IMO. Maybe I am not a good shot with a .40 due to its recoil (lets assume that for a minute). [/quote]

I don't agree with your statement at all.
In my experience, it's far more of an issue of the actual load used, the gun it's in and how it's tuned for the load that make a bigger difference than if it's a 9mm, 40, or 45. I agree that ususally a .40 is sharper than a .45 but not always. My .40 load with 200 gr. bullets is far softer and not nearly as sharp as a 45 load of 200 gr SWC and WIn 231. 45s with 230 RN and IMR 4756 are always nasty as are my 40s with 200 gr bullets and VV N330. My current IPSC load of 200 gr bullets and Alliant American Select or IMR 7625 are very soft. Right now I'm trying some 165 gr bullets with the 7625 that are absolutly plush.

I have a Kahr MK40 that's stiff with wimp loads and downright wicked with full power self defense loads but they're not for fun, are they. My 1911/2011 frames 40s are totally differet, especially after matching the gun with the appropriate recoil spring for a given load.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quantum Singularity:
Explain why many "Master" and "Grandmaster" class competitors in my IPSC club refuse to use the .40 because of "inaccurate factory loads". In other words, it isn't just me and a few others who don't get good groups with .40's.[/quote]]

(not trying to pick on you here Quantum, just adding my $.02...)

I don't know about the Ms and GMs in your area but here in the Mid-Atlantic parts, I know of only 1 master class shooter not shooting a .40 and his next gun will be a .40. All the GMs regionally are shooting .40s. I don't recall that there were more than one or two non-40 shooters in the top 25 of the last 3, 4, maybe 5 USPSA Limited Nationals. Clearly people are wining with the .40.

I think most of the accuracy issues and the subsequent legends the writers cling to were based on the early 40 offerings by the gun mfgs which were based on 9mm frames which were down a little in accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top