40S&W not so popular?
- Thread starter t45
- Start date
Old Bill Dibble
New member
With the 10mm I feel like I am shooting a real man's not some sissy gun. Like a Dirty Harry of the 21 Century.
10mm loaded with stout loads definitely does get your attention. It's really too bad that there aren't more pistols chambered in it. I'm not totally in love with the grip feel of the G20 and the Delta Elite is limited in both capacity and ability to handle hot loads. I doubt SIG will do it, but a P320 chambered in 10mm would be a real winner.
For the most part, 10mm is a special application caliber for me, not an every day caliber. .40S&W is the sweet spot, all around, for me.
SIG P320 40 Full Size 14+1=15 rounds
For the most part, 10mm is a special application caliber for me, not an every day caliber. .40S&W is the sweet spot, all around, for me.
SIG P320 40 Full Size 14+1=15 rounds
Last edited:
ligonierbill
New member
I really shouldn't read these threads. 9mm vs 40? I have and like both, so I don't care. But, you know, I'm reminded that I DON'T HAVE A 10mm! Dang, every caliber war costs me money.
Rangerrich99
New member
Not that I really care what others shoot, but I agree with some that have already said here that platform can make a big difference. I had a couple .40s I didn't like that much, and for a time I thought I was through with the .40 S&W.
Then I shot a Beretta PX4 Storm and realized that the gun itself can make a big difference in felt recoil. The Storm in .40 feels like it has less recoil than most 9 mm handguns, at least for me.
Another gun that seems to greatly reduce felt recoil in .40 is the Sig P229. even with hot SD loads it's a pussycat; in fact, I'm faster and more accurate with the P229 than I am with any of my 9s, including my 19.
And as for capacity, well, the Sig mags hold 12 and the Storm mags hold 14. Doubtful one or two rounds is going to be the difference maker most of the time.
IMO, the biggest advantage 9 m has over .40, is cost. .40 is just more expensive to buy or reload than 9. Other than that, people should shoot what they like.
Then I shot a Beretta PX4 Storm and realized that the gun itself can make a big difference in felt recoil. The Storm in .40 feels like it has less recoil than most 9 mm handguns, at least for me.
Another gun that seems to greatly reduce felt recoil in .40 is the Sig P229. even with hot SD loads it's a pussycat; in fact, I'm faster and more accurate with the P229 than I am with any of my 9s, including my 19.
And as for capacity, well, the Sig mags hold 12 and the Storm mags hold 14. Doubtful one or two rounds is going to be the difference maker most of the time.
IMO, the biggest advantage 9 m has over .40, is cost. .40 is just more expensive to buy or reload than 9. Other than that, people should shoot what they like.
Last edited:
The other day i was at the range shooting my G23 with 180 and 165 grain and the shield 9mm with 125 and 115 grain side by side, i realize the shield is smaller but weighs about the same, i think the g23 felt a little tamer than the shield did.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
One of the reasons I like .40 is because of a bit of analysis I did a while back. I calculated the volumetric wound capacity of a bunch of different bullets and calibers to see what the physical capacity to damage of each round was. I calculated it based on a 3 round defensive string as well as a full mag dump. The .45 was very strong in the 3 round category with the .40 nudging very close to it. 9mm was way behind and even 9mm +P lagged significantly. When you looked at the full mag dump capacity to wound, the .45 fell behind and the 9mm improved a bunch. But, the .40 still was way ahead of both in the full mag capacity to wound. For instance, a 3 round return string of fire from a 230g Golden Saber in .45 had approximately a 15 cubic inch capacity to damage. 185g dropped to 14.5 and a 180g .40 came in at 13.5 for 3 rounds. Standard pressure 9mms came in somewhere between 6 to 8 cubic inches of damage with the best +P coming up to 11.7 cubic inches.
Given the evidence that the vast majority of civilian SD shootings are done in 3 rounds (after 3 rounds, folks are either running, calling 911 or bleeding out), I moved more in the direction of the .45. It's still my favorite carry caliber, but I do appreciate the ability of the .40 to provide almost as much capacity to damage per round, yet still push close to the capacity of the 9mm.
The thing most guys leave out of the conversation is that for 9mm to even approach a .40 capacity to wound, you need to run a stout +P round and by doing that, you introduce just as much snappiness to the round as you had in the .40. Most folks compare standard pressure 9mm to .40 when shooting and come away thinking that they don't like .40, but then they load their SD guns with 9mm +P ammo. How many 9mm carriers practice with the same level of power that they carry with? There are some, but they are a small minority among 9mm carriers. The beauty of .40 is that it's always .40. You don't practice with a light round and then carry the full .40. You always have the .40 round when practicing. Or, at least it's very close.
Given the evidence that the vast majority of civilian SD shootings are done in 3 rounds (after 3 rounds, folks are either running, calling 911 or bleeding out), I moved more in the direction of the .45. It's still my favorite carry caliber, but I do appreciate the ability of the .40 to provide almost as much capacity to damage per round, yet still push close to the capacity of the 9mm.
The thing most guys leave out of the conversation is that for 9mm to even approach a .40 capacity to wound, you need to run a stout +P round and by doing that, you introduce just as much snappiness to the round as you had in the .40. Most folks compare standard pressure 9mm to .40 when shooting and come away thinking that they don't like .40, but then they load their SD guns with 9mm +P ammo. How many 9mm carriers practice with the same level of power that they carry with? There are some, but they are a small minority among 9mm carriers. The beauty of .40 is that it's always .40. You don't practice with a light round and then carry the full .40. You always have the .40 round when practicing. Or, at least it's very close.
In terms of penetration depth and expansion there are standard pressure loadings in 9mm these days, such as Federal HST, that don't show much of a difference in those categories as compared to +P so I would argue +P isn't as essential for some ammo manufacturers. IMO wound volume isn't the critical factor. The ability to penetrate to the depth of the CNS or key vessels/organs that cause sudden and dramatic blood loss and with enough mass to disable or injure those organs is to me the most important aspect. All three calibers you mention can do this. Bleed out, which I associate with the wound channels themselves, from a person can be rather slow and leave your opponent time to kill or hurt you before unconsciousness or death occurs on his/her part. The common phrase of "timers vs. switches" is brought up. The goal isn't to just be poking holes, but rather hit a switch. A reasonable counter to that argument, however, is that sometimes the critical shot doesn't connect so a bigger hole in that case might be important. I still think wound volume is worth talking about, just to me it's a secondary concern.
As to why I quoted the above, I do think the comment about +P 9mm, or even +P+ 9mm, versus 40SW is a valid one. For a period of time I owned both an HK P2000 in 9mm and one in 40SW. I did the same with the SIG P229 in those calibers, basically as a sort of caliber bake off. I did find that stout 9mm versus say 180 gr 40SW wasn't nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be. You're also right that if you're practicing with mouse fart loads and then carrying the hottest 9mm available you might be doing yourself a disservice. Now I carry 124 gr +P Gold Dots and compared to the 124 gr Blazer Brass or 124 gr Speer Lawman I make an effort to buy I don't find the difference in recoil that dramatic to the point where I've seen a significant impact in my times/accuracy with the hotter ammo, but I can still notice the difference. Some people mention to watch for POI shifts with defensive as opposed to range ammo, but I never really noticed that with 9mm unless I went to 147 gr ammo and that's not something I typically shoot. I do agree that comparing what is typically rather weak 115 gr 9mm range ammo to 180 gr 40SW isn't getting the full picture.
Indy_Tim with no disrespect for your analysis, there has been much written about this subject. The empirical evidence suggests there is little difference between the 9 mm, .40 S&W, and the .45 acp in human targets. This assumes a good expanding bullet, but does not require +P loading. This subject also stirs great passion in those who believe in one of the three. I prefer 9mm. I shoot it better, and that is by far the most important factor in a gunfight.
Good post, Tim.
There are, no doubt, a bunch of sheep who will follow wherever they think the crowd is moving - toward .40S&W, toward 9mm, toward .45auto, whatever. At present, the trend of the crowd is toward 9mm. That said, there are plenty of people who continue to prefer .40S&W or .45auto over 9mm, but they're not getting the "press" like the 9mm flockers are getting.
.40S&W is a great defense caliber which, as you discuss, offers very near the performance of .45auto along with nearly the capacity of 9mm. And with well-chosen pistols, does so with ease of shooting and rapid follow-up shots. A lot of us understand this. But there are plenty of folks out there who don't yet understand this. Some will pay attention to this and benefit from it. Some will just follow wherever the apparent populist movement leads them.
I'm not implying that choosing 9mm is bad. I've got plenty of 9mm pistols myself. They're ok choices. And 9mm is especially suitable in subcompact pistols. But most of the time, I can easily carry and conceal mid-size and full-size pistols - and in such platforms, .40S&W really shines in performance, capacity, and ease of handling.
Remember too that a block of ballistic jello gives a uniform media to compare different bullet performance, but it is no-where near representative of the human body. And that in a defensive scenario, where an assailant's arms are likely held out between his body and yours, your bullets will likely need to bust through hand, wrist, forearm, upper arm bones, several layers of clothing, then sternum or rib cage, then continue on without being deflected to penetrate deeply and, hopefully, expand. Heavier weight bullets tend to bust through barriers and penetrate more deeply (bullet design held constant) without deflecting or fragmenting than lighter weight bullets. They have more momentum. This factor is NOT represented in ballistic jello tests.
While penetration and expansion measurements can be somewhat close between some .45, some .40, and some 9mm loads in the consistent media of gelatin, there clearly are differences in these performances. And there are differences in how these different bullets penetrate barriers such as glass, wallboard, human bones, etc. - differences which are not reflected in ballistic jello samples.
One can minimize these differences if one chooses to. Or one can recognize the differences and the potential to have to bust through hard bone or other barriers.
All things considered, if I have the choice between the best loadings in .45auto, .40S&W, or 9mm, my choice is for the best loading in .40S&W because it does demonstrate a better performance than 9mm does, closer to that of .45auto, and the capacity remains very close to 9mm. Others may choose .45auto or 9mm for reasons that make sense to them.
There are, no doubt, a bunch of sheep who will follow wherever they think the crowd is moving - toward .40S&W, toward 9mm, toward .45auto, whatever. At present, the trend of the crowd is toward 9mm. That said, there are plenty of people who continue to prefer .40S&W or .45auto over 9mm, but they're not getting the "press" like the 9mm flockers are getting.
.40S&W is a great defense caliber which, as you discuss, offers very near the performance of .45auto along with nearly the capacity of 9mm. And with well-chosen pistols, does so with ease of shooting and rapid follow-up shots. A lot of us understand this. But there are plenty of folks out there who don't yet understand this. Some will pay attention to this and benefit from it. Some will just follow wherever the apparent populist movement leads them.
I'm not implying that choosing 9mm is bad. I've got plenty of 9mm pistols myself. They're ok choices. And 9mm is especially suitable in subcompact pistols. But most of the time, I can easily carry and conceal mid-size and full-size pistols - and in such platforms, .40S&W really shines in performance, capacity, and ease of handling.
Remember too that a block of ballistic jello gives a uniform media to compare different bullet performance, but it is no-where near representative of the human body. And that in a defensive scenario, where an assailant's arms are likely held out between his body and yours, your bullets will likely need to bust through hand, wrist, forearm, upper arm bones, several layers of clothing, then sternum or rib cage, then continue on without being deflected to penetrate deeply and, hopefully, expand. Heavier weight bullets tend to bust through barriers and penetrate more deeply (bullet design held constant) without deflecting or fragmenting than lighter weight bullets. They have more momentum. This factor is NOT represented in ballistic jello tests.
While penetration and expansion measurements can be somewhat close between some .45, some .40, and some 9mm loads in the consistent media of gelatin, there clearly are differences in these performances. And there are differences in how these different bullets penetrate barriers such as glass, wallboard, human bones, etc. - differences which are not reflected in ballistic jello samples.
One can minimize these differences if one chooses to. Or one can recognize the differences and the potential to have to bust through hard bone or other barriers.
All things considered, if I have the choice between the best loadings in .45auto, .40S&W, or 9mm, my choice is for the best loading in .40S&W because it does demonstrate a better performance than 9mm does, closer to that of .45auto, and the capacity remains very close to 9mm. Others may choose .45auto or 9mm for reasons that make sense to them.
Last edited:
The only .40 I've ever shot was a G27. The thing kicked the crap out of my hand so bad I didn't want to go more than 10 rounds. I am absolutely not a believer in the "carry a lot, shoot seldom" school. If I can't shoot at least 100 rounds with it, I won't carry it. But that's just me.
Pistolay... there you go! I don't blame you for feeling that way. That's the reason that my G23 and G22 have been converted to 9mm for the long haul.
Glock forty caliber pistols are especially poor representations of what forty caliber is like in different pistols which were specifically designed for .40S&W.
You happened to have picked one of the least comfortable possible platforms to experience .40S&W with.
If you allow that experience to establish your view of .40S&W in general, you are doing yourself a significant disservice and moving forward, will likely be missing out on enjoying an especially great choice among the service calibers, .40S&W.
I should note that Glock has, with massive incentives, deeply infiltrated the LE community with their .40S&W pistols. It is little wonder that agencies are, over time, migrating to 9mm.... Glocks! Rather than change caliber, those agencies would be wise to simply change pistol brands and keep on with .40S&W. Unfortunately, however, financial considerations are a major driver, including even more incentives received from Glock to keep with Glock, will keep those agencies shooting Glock pistols, but now in 9mm.
Glock forty caliber pistols are especially poor representations of what forty caliber is like in different pistols which were specifically designed for .40S&W.
You happened to have picked one of the least comfortable possible platforms to experience .40S&W with.
If you allow that experience to establish your view of .40S&W in general, you are doing yourself a significant disservice and moving forward, will likely be missing out on enjoying an especially great choice among the service calibers, .40S&W.
I should note that Glock has, with massive incentives, deeply infiltrated the LE community with their .40S&W pistols. It is little wonder that agencies are, over time, migrating to 9mm.... Glocks! Rather than change caliber, those agencies would be wise to simply change pistol brands and keep on with .40S&W. Unfortunately, however, financial considerations are a major driver, including even more incentives received from Glock to keep with Glock, will keep those agencies shooting Glock pistols, but now in 9mm.
Last edited:
Can I get 4 pages of my TFL life back since that it the amount of time I spent reading this thread.
If you like the 40 S&W keep buying it. Shoot it. Enjoy it. Tell your story and maybe you will get others to like it too but please stop taking it personally that others don't feel the same way about the caliber.
If you are on the other side and believe that the 40 S&W does nothing special compared to other calibers like 9mm or 45 ACP shoot those. Tell your story.... and stop taking it personally that others don't feel the same way about your caliber of choice.
This thread has run its course. If you really want to talk about the economics of cheap 40 S&W guns it all comes down to the LEO market. They are moving away from it. Production was slow to react to the change and they now have to move the metal/plastic inventory and absorb the large number or trade ins coming from the LEO market at the same time.
If you like the caliber there has never been a better time to buy 40 S&W guns. So stop typing and go buy some guns.
If you like the 40 S&W keep buying it. Shoot it. Enjoy it. Tell your story and maybe you will get others to like it too but please stop taking it personally that others don't feel the same way about the caliber.
If you are on the other side and believe that the 40 S&W does nothing special compared to other calibers like 9mm or 45 ACP shoot those. Tell your story.... and stop taking it personally that others don't feel the same way about your caliber of choice.
This thread has run its course. If you really want to talk about the economics of cheap 40 S&W guns it all comes down to the LEO market. They are moving away from it. Production was slow to react to the change and they now have to move the metal/plastic inventory and absorb the large number or trade ins coming from the LEO market at the same time.
If you like the caliber there has never been a better time to buy 40 S&W guns. So stop typing and go buy some guns.
Get yourself a 10mm, whether a Glock or an Old School S&W 10XX-series. These guns can handle it anywhere from mild, wild, up to nuclear.
Also remember, with 10mm pistols (specifically Glocks and 1911s), you can quickly be shooting the 40S&W cartridge with just the swap of a barrel.
S&W 1006
Last edited:
WVsig
You can stop reading this thread any time you wish to.
. No one is forcing you to open it, read it, continue to read it, or to comment.
People who believe in .40S&W are telling their stories about it. People who prefer 9mm and doing the same about 9mm.
Clearly there are misconceptions held by some people about .40S&W. I held some myself when my .40S&W experience was formed with Glock pistols (as most in LE did, as well.) Those misconceptions can begin to be eroded with increased knowledge and experience with the caliber in pistols which were designed specifically for it (M&P40, SIG 229, SIG P320, HK VP40, PPQ 40, Browning HiPower 40, etc.). And unfortunately, I think the majority of those people who have formed opinions about .40S&W caliber have done so by shooting Glock pistols!
I like Glock 9mm and .45auto pistols, but their .40S&W pistols really SUCK when compared to any of those I listed in the previous paragraph.
You can stop reading this thread any time you wish to.
. No one is forcing you to open it, read it, continue to read it, or to comment.People who believe in .40S&W are telling their stories about it. People who prefer 9mm and doing the same about 9mm.
Clearly there are misconceptions held by some people about .40S&W. I held some myself when my .40S&W experience was formed with Glock pistols (as most in LE did, as well.) Those misconceptions can begin to be eroded with increased knowledge and experience with the caliber in pistols which were designed specifically for it (M&P40, SIG 229, SIG P320, HK VP40, PPQ 40, Browning HiPower 40, etc.). And unfortunately, I think the majority of those people who have formed opinions about .40S&W caliber have done so by shooting Glock pistols!
I like Glock 9mm and .45auto pistols, but their .40S&W pistols really SUCK when compared to any of those I listed in the previous paragraph.
WVsig
I'm enthusiastic about the caliber because I've been having such a great time with it and own a nice variety of great pistols chambered in it. I know the caliber quite well at this point. The caliber has proven itself to me through a lot of experience with it.
I know that a lot of people who have very little experience with the caliber dismiss it before they really know it. Some of these folks may have only shot .40S&W with a G27 or a G23 and decided from limited experience that the caliber was "snappy" or it just wasn't "for them". Those impressions may likely have led to an erroneous conclusion about the caliber.
My posts are directed primarily to those folks. I happen to have a lot of time on my hands, at present, and I enjoy sharing my experience and my enthusiasm. That's all.
. I'm sure I'll tire of discussing it soon now and will be on to other things.
I'm enthusiastic about the caliber because I've been having such a great time with it and own a nice variety of great pistols chambered in it. I know the caliber quite well at this point. The caliber has proven itself to me through a lot of experience with it.
I know that a lot of people who have very little experience with the caliber dismiss it before they really know it. Some of these folks may have only shot .40S&W with a G27 or a G23 and decided from limited experience that the caliber was "snappy" or it just wasn't "for them". Those impressions may likely have led to an erroneous conclusion about the caliber.
My posts are directed primarily to those folks. I happen to have a lot of time on my hands, at present, and I enjoy sharing my experience and my enthusiasm. That's all.
. I'm sure I'll tire of discussing it soon now and will be on to other things.
Last edited:
I really dig that ten o six!Get yourself a 10mm, whether a Glock or an Old School S&W 10XX-series. These guns can handle it anywhere from mild, wild, up to nuclear.
Also remember, with 10mm pistols (specifically Glocks and 1911s), you can quickly be shooting . 40S&W with just the swap of a barrel.
S&W 1006
The main thing I have realized from this thread is that I need to try out a 10mm someday.
Ballistic gel is an averaged medium for a reason. There are areas of the human body that are very dense and there are cavities that are quite hollow. The averaged medium is just as its name implies. It's meant to gauge an estimate of average performance across the human body. The penetration measured by many ballistic gel tests is often deeper than the human being is from front to back because of the uncertainty of the density at different spots of the body. For that matter many ballistic gel tests also include measure through layers of clothing because of the concern. Often the clothing can cause deeper penetration because the fibers clog the cavity and the hollowpoint can fail to expand and acts like FMJs. This isn't always the case, however. People have done tests with animal carcasses as opposed to ballistic gel but you run into the issue of the performance varying dramatically on what exactly was hit, whereas proper ballistic gel is consistent and makes it easier to measure relative performance.
101 is more than 100. It is. Therefore 101 is better than 100 in sheer magnitude. Beyond finding a difference though is also measuring relative difference. Is 1% more really substantial? Maybe, and all else being equal more "performance" is better. But all else isn't equal. Capacity, ease of shooting (which I agree varies by pistol choice), affordability of training to build the skill needed to make these critical shots, these all come into play. Now the relative difference in performance is likely more than 1%, this I agree and we can all find ballistic testing to support our points of view as the performance between calibers does vary by manufacturer and the specific test. But the question becomes whether the relative difference is great enough to offset other factors. That can be debated until the end of time.
As to your last statement, that becomes a matter of perspective:
One can exaggerate these differences if one chooses to. Or one can recognize the differences and the potential to have quick follow up shots and perhaps more controllability to make the critical shot sooner.
This isn't me mocking you, this is me trying to demonstrate how subjective this all is.
I imagine some may well look at these comments and call me a horse's butt, a weakling who can't handle the 40SW, or some blind disciple unwilling to see the wisdom of another"religion" as opposed to my own (because we've seen some examples of religious like zeal on both sides of this in this thread, IMO). I have a degree in Applied Mathematics: Statistics and I work at a research lab. This doesn't make me special, but it does give me what can be a different perspective. What I see in these threads over and over again are debates about "statistics" often derived and chosen specifically for one side of the argument or another when I can just as easily interpret these statistics another way or generate some of my own that tell a different story. This happens all over other topics of debate as well. I am far from innocent myself. My point is acting like there is one penultimate anything is unnecessary and often creates a mentality where you can't consider opposite points of view.
It's time for me to bow out of this thread. I wish all of you the best.
Last edited: