40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

Generally speaking, a rimmed revolver cartridge of equal or lower pressure and with other compatible dimensions (bullet diameter, case diameter, etc.) can be fired in a revolver in a more powerful chambering without any issues.

It gets trickier when the cartridges are rimless, even in revolvers. It has to do with how the chamber is cut. Rimmed revolver cartridges are held in place by the rim so there's no need to cut a "step" in the forward part of the chamber to headspace off the case mouth. But a rimless cartridge has to headspace on the case mouth unless the revolver is to be shot exclusively with moonclips.

That step will collect fouling and possibly even bullet material when shot with a shorter cartridge. That could cause malfunctions if it's too difficult to chamber a round, but it could also result in a pressure increase when shot with the nominal chambering for the gun if the material interferes with the bullet and case. In an autopistol for example, the slide rams the cartridge into place. If it wedges the case mouth into a bunch of shaved bullet material and fouling that prevents the case from releasing the bullet normally, or if some of the material partially obstructs things, there can be a pressure spike. This isn't all that likely, but it is possible.

Anyway, all that to say, unless a manufacturer specifically states that the practice is safe it's not a good idea to ever fire any rimless round in a chamber that's too long for it. As far as I know, there are no manufacturers allowing/recommending any rimless cartridge, other than the nominal chambering, to be fired in any autopistol.

S&W does state it's fine to shoot .40S&W in their 10mm revolvers. Ruger does not, although they don't cite safety concerns--they indicate it could result in misfires.
 
My 625 chambers are machined like an auto pistols chamber, they will allow 45ACP to be fired without moon clips.
I would imagine that a quantity of 45 GAP would leave unwanted deposits in the headspace area of the cylinder.
All this, along with mechanical failures, as noted previously should give pause to firing the wrong (short) cartridge in a semiauto.
A better alternative would be to take up handloading.
 
bamaranger said:
I can't let that go.

Yes indeed, the extractor will serve to hold the cartridge sufficiently on the breech fact for a pin strike to ignite the cartridge. It works, and in a very desperate pinch could be done if no other options. But it is not recommended for several reasons:

-comparison with a revolver is not a valid argument, two entirely different
systems. A second trigger pull delivers the next shot with a wheel gun, regardless of how much carbon has built up in the chambers, provided the round has seated all the way to the rim. Not so with an auto. A carbon ring in an auto may prevent the correct round from chambering at the onset and tie up the gun, as cycling is dependent on that cartridge going fully into battery and firing to effect cycling.

-there is a difference between a auto barrel with a headspace "shoulder" and a revolver cylinder with has no such machining. As such, it will theoretically not clean as easily and I suspect possibly even erode with heavy use, much as a rifle leade. Note I said "suspect" as I am not certain at all about that. But it stands to reason that the "shoulder" in an auto chamber was not intended to be exposed to the amount of gas delivered by a ctg drastically shorter that does not nest with the ctg mouth..

-broken extractors may be cheap, but suffering one with a pistol that one my use for SD, or hunt with could be very detrimental. Also, we have seen supply chains disrupted before and said extractor may not be as easily obtained as one thinks, so best to have one on hand if you intend on breaking it. On just a range gun, it's an inconvenience, but I have to ask why bother with a 10mm and just simply acquire a .40?

-with that point, why not acquire a conversion barrel if available? I threatened for a long time to buy a Lone Wolf .40 barrel to run in my G20, as I had access to issue .40 and lots of brass, but I never made the switch.

-firing a a cartridge that the gun is not marked for is a bad practice. Because
internet folks are doing so does not make it valid. Yes, we do so with
.38/.357 and some other ctgs that have label criss cross (30-30 and .30 WCF come to mind) but as a rule it is not done nor recommended. Didn't
your mama tell you about the other kids playing with dynamite?:D
Click to expand...
I will agree with u that a .40 conversion barrel is a good idea, but it's an added expense that IDK how many will bother doing. My point remains that 10mm pistols being capable of shooting cheap, easy to buy .40 with a conversion barrel or not is a plus that will keep the .40 going for a long time.

The cartridge isn't going anywhere and neither are the cheap pistols. The focus on here is the costs of the ammo eating up the initial savings quickly, but most people are not going to shoot their pistols enough to see that loss. These pistols will see a box or two put theu them, then be stuck in a nightstand for the next 30 yrs.
 
The cost of reloading .40 is about the same as for 9mm, so the cost of ammo is a moot point in my view.
.40 has the capabilities of being a woods gun, whereas a 9mm is just under the edge.
 
It is unequivocally NOT coming back. It will never be, "can't find it on the shelves" but it absolutely will not come back.

A recreational 40 shooter isn't building capacity, it's just maintaining the decline life cycle that can last indefinitely. At some point 40 can't be at nearly dollar away from 9mm forever and people not question why 9mm remains higher when production is all 9mm and materially 40 should cost more. If you catch my drift, 40 shouldn't currently be the pricing it is now while 9mm remains "stuck."

9mm HST/Gold Dot outperformed some aspect in all materials from 40 in a single load according to Federal, so it's done deal for 40 on agencies seeking out 40. Just won't happen. I mean, my goodness, 40 Gold Dot only went 11" past a steel barrier and 9mm went 28".

The Vista link doesn't show Micro HST 150gr which at less than 900 appears to best all 9mm loads but Ranger.

While some 40 results are "better" than 9mm, you have to realize the package deal isn't overwhelming better. Some aren't even better.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to baffle me how certain folks insist upon a cartridge being "dead" simply because it has become less popular, despite the abundance of examples of cartridges which had become unpopular for a time yet remained common indefinitely or otherwise eventually made a comeback.

Most of the arguments used against the .40 S&W claiming that it was dead and gone, never to return have also been said of .38 Special. After police dropped .38 Revolvers in favor of 9mm Pistols and later .40 S&W Pistols, folks would argue that the .38 Special cartridge — and by extension Revolvers — were dead. Meanwhile, .38 Special Revolvers are still in production, folks still buy/carry them, and despite there being a lull in popularity once Law Enforcement had phased them out across the USA, there being an abundance of cheap police trade-in .38 Special Revolvers on the market for a time, and the ongoing arguments that Revolvers are inferior to Pistols, they remain a common carry option.
So if .38 Special — a less powerful cartridge fired from a firearm with much lower capacity — could endure actual, legitimate technological advancements which arguably rendered it practically obsolete, then it seems completely absurd to assume that .40 S&W — a more powerful cartridge fired from Pistols of similar size/weight with a negligible difference in capacity — couldn't endure the minor JHP bullet design modifications which only occured out of necessity because previously 9mm couldn't compete with .40 S&W at all.

Honestly, it's almost comical listening to folks talking about the advancements in bullet design, referring to them as "technological advancements" even though it was just a redesign of existing JHP technology, and acting as if they're universally beneficial yet only exclusive to 9mm because it's the most popular, when in reality they only ever came into being because 9mm was deficient and couldn't consistently meet FBI Specifications. The reason why these "advancements" weren't applied to .40 S&W is because it didn't need them because .40 S&W was developed to meet FBI Specifications by default, it already consistently penetrates between 12"-18" in Ballistics Gel through 4 layers of Heavy Denim and therefore any of these so-called "advancements" which enabled 9mm to penetrate adequately would only result in .40 S&W overpenetrating, thus making it a liability to Law Enforcement.

There's absolutely no logical reason to expect that once sales of cheap police trade-in .40 S&W Pistols have dried up, that there won't be a market for a cartridge which offers higher muzzle energy and straight-line penetration without deviation through hard barriers over 9mm in exchange for slightly lower magazine capacity and slightly more recoil.

As for .40 S&W not offering the same advantages as 10mm Auto, that's true, on the low end it cannot serve as the ultimate placebo for recoil sensitive men to shoot 180gr @ 1000fps FBI Loads out of to feel tough because the case is longer than .40 S&W and is fired from a larger pistol, and on the high end it cannot offer real, full-power 200gr @ 1200fps performance, but that's completely irrelevant, because obviously .40 S&W was never in competition with 10mm Auto to begin with. .40 S&W was in competition with 9mm Parabellum, which it dominated in terms of performance and continues to do so to this day, but fell short of 9mm in terms of cost, training, and outfitting Law Enforcement officers of all shapes, sizes, and skill levels with a pistol that each individual officer could handle with relative ease.

Fortunately, that obviously isn't an issue on the civilian side because anyone can purchase a single firearm tailored specifically to their tastes without having to worry about bureaucratic bean-counters keeping track of how much they're spending on ammo and coming to the decision that it's more cost-effective to save up to 5¢ a round on a cartridge which offers adequate performance over a cartridge which offers excellent performance.
 
No one is saying it's dead. It won't be dead.

Someone said it will come back. That isn't going to happen. Current prices seem to indicate there will be increasing less new 40 guns designed. Look at the 20mm Sig X-Ten. Still no true compact built frame. Number 1 gun P365 still no 40.

For about 2 years, Vista CEO that is almost all US ammo said they were only making 9mm during the pandemic buying.

That's the popularity contest. 9mm is king. That's all. This isn't saying 357mag is dead either.

Problem with this idea is it's not got a defined outcome. There aren't many calibers you can't buy, 38 Super from a previous thread where there aren't many guns, ammoseek has a ton of ammo.
 
I’m waiting for the day that the FBI adopts a new cartridge that offers similar ballistics and increased capacity with less recoil.
It will happen one day and it will be interesting to see if the King survives.
Oh, and I don’t have or need such a cartridge. I have plenty of obsolete ones already.
 
After the pandemic Vista 9mm only production, I don't see that ever happening for a caliber that serves a war purpose with allies too.

The bullet selection in 9mm will change. XTP Duty shouldn't have been picked. I bet Hornady was selected for anti trust reason of Vista owning darn near everything.

I bet Gold Dot G2 2020 updated 147gr. will become the FBI load whenever something changes.
 
I beg to differ. Wait until sales of used .40 S&W pistols dry up and eventually firearms manufacturers with start chambering pistols in .40 S&W again.

Production of pistols chambered in .40 S&W has stopped due to the market being flooded with used pistols offered at prices they cannot possibly hope to match, so obviously they're not going to waste money trying to sell a new .40 S&W pistol for $600 when they can readily be had for half that price.
It's really no different when the market was flooded with used police trade-in .38 Special Revolvers in decades passed, nobody was turning out new .38 Revolvers then either, but once the sales finally dried up, production resumed, some new designs were introduced, and here we are in 2024, yet .38 Special Revolvers are still offered by Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Charter Arms, Taurus, and many more. Even Colt recently got back into the game. So it's foolish to assume that just because nobody is making any new pistols chambered in .40 S&W right now while the market is still filled with all sorts of them offered at extremely prices, especially when there really isn't anything new or exciting to take their place. Glock hasn't replaced the G22/23, nor has Smith & Wesson replaced the M&P40, so they really don't have anything new to offer to begin with. What are they going to do, offer an M&P40 Shield PLUS that holds one extra round in the magazine over the standard Shield?

Give it a few years. Once the market has dried up and the companies actually have something new and compelling to offer chambered in .40 S&W, we'll see firearms being chambered in .40 S&W again.
Will it ever be as popular as it was in the 90s-00s, not likely, but it will remain a mainstay on the market for those who desire something with more oomph that 9mm without having to sacrifice 5+ rounds of magazine capacity.

Oh, and if you think that's crazy, then listen to this because I'm calling it right now... .357 SIG will one day make a comeback of 10mm Auto proportions! I've already seen multiple YouTubers singing its praises, and that's generally all it takes to rekindle interest in a cartridge. Just look at 10mm Auto, it was a flash in the pan, but it had a devoted cult following and lots of juicy lore to keep circulating over the years, drawing people in, getting articles every few years written about it, then eventually once the demand was high enough, companies started turning out 10mm pistols again and they've been reasonably popular ever since. The same will happen for .357 SIG as well because its essentially the same exact story all over again, the grandchild of 10mm, offering the power of a .357 Magnum Revolver in a semiautomatic pistol with substantially higher magazine capacity, but shunned by the law enforcement offers who couldn't handle it's awesome power. What? That's not accurate, you say? Well neither is the lore behind 10mm that everyone repeats ad nauseam, yet it certainly helped get people excited for 10mm Auto now didn't it?
 
Here I just got a sig 229r trade in for $361 that has less use then most of my babied guns here. Go price a new sig P299 what ever cal and get back to me on a better deal. Plus $145 bucks for a new barrel and its a .357 sig too.
 
Pumpkin said:
My 625 chambers are machined like an auto pistols chamber, they will allow 45ACP to be fired without moon clips.
I would imagine that a quantity of 45 GAP would leave unwanted deposits in the headspace area of the cylinder.
All this, along with mechanical failures, as noted previously should give pause to firing the wrong (short) cartridge in a semiauto.
A better alternative would be to take up handloading.
Click to expand...
I shoot .45 GAP out of my 625. Just clean the cylinder.
 
A Sig P229 Elite in 9mm starts at $900. Sig no longer does 40.

If Sig still made the P229 40, which they don't, you not only got a rare gun, but you got a rare gun for greater than a 50% loss to the original buyer.

I think that's the point of the "giving" them away comment. No one is saying 0 dollars. But it does appear universally it's no longer manufacture that hurts resell the most (Taurus, SKYY, Kel TeC or something), it's caliber (40). Buy any gun in 40 for new price, you can expect to lose more money in resell than any other 9mm option as a percentage.
 
Personally. I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase something as expensive as a firearm if they weren't sure that they were going to keep it indefinitely and frankly feel that anyone who buys a firearm — presumably on impulse — then sells it later at a substantial loss has nobody but themselves to blame.
 
40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

Forte S+W said:
Personally. I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase something as expensive as a firearm if they weren't sure that they were going to keep it indefinitely and frankly feel that anyone who buys a firearm — presumably on impulse — then sells it later at a substantial loss has nobody but themselves to blame.
Click to expand...


I’ve owned many firearms, a number of which I have since sold or traded. I have the disposable income to do so, and for me getting to use and learn about those different firearms is worth any money I lose on the sale. I don’t “blame” anyone for what is a willful decision on my part. I have found that what people “get out of” owning a firearm is as varied as the people themselves.
 
I stopped getting rid of guns because of waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweats.
If I want something today, I just add rather than sell or trade to finance the new one.
I miss some of my old guns much more than any girlfriends I had.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top