40S&W…Have you seen the deals?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
The Verminator
Moderator
Glock 19 or Glock 30 or S&W 60 Three Inch .38 Special.......
I do have a single action........but it's a 1911.
When new calibers come out and soon fade like the .40 S&W..........it's a good clue they were never needed in the first place.
The Verminator
Moderator
I know the 10mm is quite popular in grizzly bear country........Nine pages for a dead round?
All the while its parent cartridge, the 10mm AUTO, and especially in real 10mm loadings, is more resurgent than ever …. not to mention all the new and different guns - full-size to compact.
But griz country is not heavily populated...
So why the resurgence? Just curious. Don't want to start a new debate.
Maybe you should start a new thread?
The Verminator
Moderator
My question, I guess, would be........how can the 10mm have a RE-surgence when it never had a "surgence" in the first place?Is this a “bear gun” thread? Or are you trying to suggest the 10mm is useful only for bear “protection”?
Well, maybe you should do some research.
The 10mm’s been in resurgence since the early 2000s. So like, 20+years.
But you don't have to start a new thread.
There's one been done already. It was closed when nobody could show a resurgence and the thread devolved into a few fan-boys shouting about the wonders of the 10mm.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=603988
So it goes. Some things never change.
If you look at the performance envelope of the 10mm, it's a very good match for the .357Mag. It has remained on the market but has never gained tremendous popularity for the same reasons that the .357Mag has remained on the market but never topped the charts. With the added disadvantage, I suppose, that shooting .40S&W in a 10mm autopistol with the manufacturer's blessing requires the added expense of a conversion barrel unlike a .357Mag revolver that can take .38Spl just as it is.
I like 10mm and own a couple of them, but it's never going to enjoy the popularity that the .40S&W did or the 9mm does.
I like 10mm and own a couple of them, but it's never going to enjoy the popularity that the .40S&W did or the 9mm does.
The Verminator
Moderator
The Verminator
Moderator
Lest anyone should conclude that I'm a hater of the .40 S&W or its big brother 10mm.......I regard the .40 as an excellent cartridge.
In point of fact--the first handgun I ever shot was from another brother of the .40 family......the good old 38-40 Winchester.
The ballistic twin of the .40 S&W.
When I was five my dad put a Colt Single Action Army in my little hands and drew the hammer back and said, "Now hang tight to it when you shoot."
I tried, but he was ready and caught it just above my forehead as it almost escaped my grasp. The blast started me on a lifetime of hearing loss that continues to this day.
"I want to shoot it again," I said immediately.
However, he declined. He did, however, give me the empty 38-40 shell casing and said, "Keep that to remember this day."
I still have that old bottle-necked empty.
I did get to shoot it again, but that was a few years later.
So I have a sentimental attachment to the .40 caliber.
In point of fact--the first handgun I ever shot was from another brother of the .40 family......the good old 38-40 Winchester.
The ballistic twin of the .40 S&W.
When I was five my dad put a Colt Single Action Army in my little hands and drew the hammer back and said, "Now hang tight to it when you shoot."
I tried, but he was ready and caught it just above my forehead as it almost escaped my grasp. The blast started me on a lifetime of hearing loss that continues to this day.
"I want to shoot it again," I said immediately.
However, he declined. He did, however, give me the empty 38-40 shell casing and said, "Keep that to remember this day."
I still have that old bottle-necked empty.
I did get to shoot it again, but that was a few years later.
So I have a sentimental attachment to the .40 caliber.
I'm a big fan of the .40 and have been since I bought my first one back in the early 2000's. I looked on the website of my local gun shop recently and they had listed a new S&W M&P Shield 2.0 in .40 for a good price and went the next day and bought it, got it for $325 and it came with night sights and 3 mags, apparently it's a discontinued model. It shoots great!
I've picked up other .40's (and 10mm's) recently as well, including a Beretta 96A1 and a CZ TS2 Orange...although that one was quite a bit more pricey. Really wishing they release the DWX in .40, which was initially going to happen, but I've seen nothing come of it.
I never really understood the dislike for the .40, but I've come to the conclusion that people by and large defend what they're invested in. The 9mm is cheap and a lot of people have them, they're probably not going to admit another caliber is better, just the way it is. Mindset plays a role too, many think that all handguns are equally ineffective, so caliber matters not to them, which is a poor mindset but even still, people think this way. Bullet tech has helped the 9mm for sure, but it needed the most help. People who think the 9mm is better always claim that it's easier to shoot, that it's more user friendly, and there is truth to this. But on the other hand, other calibers are more effective at actually stopping the threat. Which one is the correct reasoning?
I've picked up other .40's (and 10mm's) recently as well, including a Beretta 96A1 and a CZ TS2 Orange...although that one was quite a bit more pricey. Really wishing they release the DWX in .40, which was initially going to happen, but I've seen nothing come of it.
I never really understood the dislike for the .40, but I've come to the conclusion that people by and large defend what they're invested in. The 9mm is cheap and a lot of people have them, they're probably not going to admit another caliber is better, just the way it is. Mindset plays a role too, many think that all handguns are equally ineffective, so caliber matters not to them, which is a poor mindset but even still, people think this way. Bullet tech has helped the 9mm for sure, but it needed the most help. People who think the 9mm is better always claim that it's easier to shoot, that it's more user friendly, and there is truth to this. But on the other hand, other calibers are more effective at actually stopping the threat. Which one is the correct reasoning?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Facts are irrelevant."
Given that many of the "facts" that you've provided in this thread have been, well, to put it politely... NON-facts, I'd really have to ask if you'd recognize and actual fact it if bit you.
Given that many of the "facts" that you've provided in this thread have been, well, to put it politely... NON-facts, I'd really have to ask if you'd recognize and actual fact it if bit you.
The Verminator
Moderator
The FBI concluded that the 9mm is correct reasoning.
Why?
Because the "One Shot Stop" is a myth.
The FBI used science instead of popular wisdom and thus concluded that stopping a man was usually a matter of several shots no matter what handgun.
That is simply a fact based on the intrinsic weakness of the handgun.
Thus faster repeat shots were essential and the 9mm was seen as the best compromise.
Once there were 9mm loadings that passed their testing protocol, there were several reasons they might want to choose 9mm as an issue cartridge.
1. Gun longevity.
2. Ammo cost.
3. Lighter recoil. (Which also speaks to the rapidity and accuracy of follow-up shots.)
They may have focused on one of those, or, more likely, taken all of them into account in their decision.
1. Gun longevity.
2. Ammo cost.
3. Lighter recoil. (Which also speaks to the rapidity and accuracy of follow-up shots.)
They may have focused on one of those, or, more likely, taken all of them into account in their decision.
1972RedNeck
New member
How can anything compare to the 9mm lung blower?
"A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body."
I'm an avid .40 fan but even my best .40 (or 454 for that matter) can't "blow the lung out of the body".
"A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body."
I'm an avid .40 fan but even my best .40 (or 454 for that matter) can't "blow the lung out of the body".
This line of reasoning has several issues. First and foremost, repeat shots is not the only or even primary consideration of the FBI in choosing a handgun caliber or ammunition. The FBI's standards call for a minimum degree of expansion and penetration to be deemed acceptable for duty use. If ease of follow-up shots was the only criteria for the FBI, then calibers like .32 ACP and .380 ACP should be preferred as they offer less recoil than 9mm, equal or greater capacity in similar guns, and, if loaded with FMJ, still offer adequate penetration. Even when penetration and expansion are factored into the equation, if getting more rounds on target were the FBI's primary consideration then they should be falling all over themselves for .30 Super Carry as it offers near 9mm terminal performance with the same or less recoil and higher capacity.
Secondly, do not assume that everyone agrees with the FBI's criteria as to what makes an effective handgun cartridge. "One shot stops" are certainly not a "myth" as there have been many, many people who were stopped by a single shot for a variety of reasons. The FBI has chosen to believe that the only important characteristics in handgun wounding are penetration and bullet diameter and eschews factors such as kinetic energy and temporary stretch cavity as irrelevant or non-contributory. This is based heavily on the work of Dr. Martin Fackler, which is itself imperfect, but grossly oversimplified from even Dr. Fackler's findings.
The genesis of the FBI's current ideas on handgun effectiveness lies in the 1986 Miami-Dade Shootout and the perceived "failure" of a single round of 9mm 115 gr Winchester Silvertip to adequately penetrate. The notion that that one bullet could have dramatically improved the outcome of such a complicated situation, in which many, many mistakes were made, is to put it politely extremely optimistic. Instead, I personally think that the FBI chose to focus in on the ammunition at least in part to divert attention away from the many failures of tactics, training, preparedness, judgement, and marksmanship that contributed to what took place in that particular incident.
As I've said before, I personally find the notion that the FBI is an authority on pretty much anything to to with gunfighting to be, at best, ironic. The FBI has, historically, made several very, very bad decisions regarding firearms and ammunition so I really don't see why their current choices should be accepted without due skepticism. The 115 gr Silvertip that "failed" so famously in 1986 actually penetrated and expanded exactly as designed and advertised, so apparently the FBI either didn't know what they needed or paid no attention to the performance of the ammunition they were buying. After the '86 Miami incident, the FBI adopted the Winchester 147 gr subsonic 9mm JHP which, while apparently good in their laboratory testing, quickly gained a reputation for failing to expand when used in the field.
Next, they adopted the S&W 1076 in 10mm which was famously a debacle in and of itself as rather than the 1006 and 1066 which used the well proven slide-mounted decocker/safety that S&W had been producing since the Model 39 in the late 40's (as well as the 469's the FBI had previously issued), the FBI insisted on a new Sig-style frame-mounted decocker which took a while to work the bugs out of. Also the FBI insisted on special palm-swell grips that, if dropped on the butt, could break and tie up the mainspring (the standard straight-back and curved-back S&W grips didn't have this issue). The biggest problem with the 1076, however, was that it was a big, heavy gun that, when combined with the issued holsters and 1 1/4" dress belts worn by many agents was cumbersome to carry and thus disliked by many field agents accustomed to smaller, lighter weapons like the previously issued S&W 469 or Model 13. I have heard and read many anecdotes from retired FBI agents about some of their colleagues who held on to their revolvers and 9mm's for as long as they could, carried their 1076 in their briefcase, or went unarmed entirely due to the 1076 being so cumbersome to carry in their normal attire.
After briefly returning to 9mm, the FBI ultimately adopted the .40 S&W in the Glock 22 and 23 pistols as it offered roughly the same terminal performance as the 10mm "FBI Lite" loadings without the big, heavy, cumbersome gun that the 10mm required. What's curious, however, is that the FBI chose to stick with .40 S&W for many years even after "modern" bullets which supposedly make the 9mm so much better became available. If we look as when just a few of the "modern" JHP designs became available, we find that Speer introduced the Gold Dot in 1991, Winchester introduced the Black Talon in 1991, it's updated LE-only successor the T-Series in 2007 and their bonded PDX1 in 2009 (the PDX1 was the last .40 S&W loading adopted by the FBI). Even the Federal HST, which many consider to be the state-of-the-art JHP bullet design, has been available to law enforcement since 2002. Despite all of this, the FBI chose to stay with the, in their own opinion, too-difficult to shoot .40 S&W until 2017.
When these numerous questionable decisions are combined with the fact that the FBI isn't the largest LE agency in the country (that's NYPD), the oldest Federal LE agency (that's the U.S. Marshalls), or the one which experiences the most shootings (that's the Border Patrol), I fail to understand why their opinion on defensive handguns is so revered.
dogtown tom
New member
I asked a good friend who is Secret Service why they went with the FBI results. He said because the FBI has the technical staff at the FBI Laboratory and most importantly is budgeted to perform such testing.
He loved the .357 Sig cartridge and his 229, but wasn't upset in the least with the decision to switch to the Glock 19.
And for what its worth, DHS believes its the largest LE agency in the country