.40S&W Why the haters?
- Thread starter XpatBubba
- Start date
got_the_itch
New member
lol@ the physics thread Hi-Jacking.
Digging into the mathematical aspect of the caliber is going above and beyond the sport of shooting for me. If I have to research things this critically, I should choose another sport for me personally. I enjoy all sorts of shooting activities, mostly sporting related. (not a big hunter, nor am i opposed to) I also enjoy my 2nd amendment rights. But if you have to pull out your TI XXXX, to determine which sidearm you're supposed to carry. Your taking it to a whole different level.
Digging into the mathematical aspect of the caliber is going above and beyond the sport of shooting for me. If I have to research things this critically, I should choose another sport for me personally. I enjoy all sorts of shooting activities, mostly sporting related. (not a big hunter, nor am i opposed to) I also enjoy my 2nd amendment rights. But if you have to pull out your TI XXXX, to determine which sidearm you're supposed to carry. Your taking it to a whole different level.
Last edited:
Dallas Jack
New member
Back in the 80's there was an attempt to fit a .41 caliber into a 9mm sized gun. That attempt created the .41 AE (200 gr, .41 bullet with a rebated rim the size of a 9mm) I thought it was a great idea, .41 caliber cartridge, 9mm size gun. There were some conversion barrels and magazines produced but alas the cartridge had feeding problems and died a slow death. If I remember correctly the specs for the .41 AE were the same as the 10mm, 200 gr bullet at 1000 fps. They were both trying to emulate the .41 Magnum. The 10mm succeded where the .41 AE fell a little short.
I wanted one of the conversions for a TA90 I had but never got one so when the .40 S&W came out I couldn't get one quick enough. I ended up with an EAA Witness in .40 and it was a great shooting gun. Being an all steel gun recoil was not snappy or even very heavy. I also had an EAA Witness in .45 and I couldn't tell any difference in the recoil between the two.
Something that many forget is the .40 S&W is usually built on a 9mm sized gun while the .45 ACP is built on a large frame same as the 10 mm. Some manufacturers have started designing around the .40 and it does make a difference.
Just a side note I have a M&P 40c and I bought a 9mm barrel and mag for it. I hope it works. The only problem I may have is the extracter not catching the 9mm rim.
Sorry to get a little OT.
Dallas Jack
I wanted one of the conversions for a TA90 I had but never got one so when the .40 S&W came out I couldn't get one quick enough. I ended up with an EAA Witness in .40 and it was a great shooting gun. Being an all steel gun recoil was not snappy or even very heavy. I also had an EAA Witness in .45 and I couldn't tell any difference in the recoil between the two.
Something that many forget is the .40 S&W is usually built on a 9mm sized gun while the .45 ACP is built on a large frame same as the 10 mm. Some manufacturers have started designing around the .40 and it does make a difference.
Just a side note I have a M&P 40c and I bought a 9mm barrel and mag for it. I hope it works. The only problem I may have is the extracter not catching the 9mm rim.
Sorry to get a little OT.
Dallas Jack
No .40 for me. No need, and damn little use.
Let me state from the beginning I am a .45 guy when it comes to duty size autopistols. When I started shooting autopistol ammo came in one flavor, and one only, FMJ. If you wanted hollowpoints, you had to load them yourself. Super Vel was the new kid on the block, and wasn't widely available.
The only reason I dislike (not hate) the .40 is that to make it work, to get the results people want, the pressure is jacked up, quite a bit. They did this with the 9mm, to get acceptable performance from it. And with todays bullets, and +p+ it performs. But, I won't shoot +p+ ammo in my 9mms, as they are both made before the end of WWII (1936 P.08 & ac42 P.38).
I've gota Colt Government Model .45ACP (1911A1), and a Browning BDA .45. Either one works just fine for me. Also have .357Magnum revolvers. and .44s. No need or use for a .40.
I may be the odd man out here, but I don't have (or need) a "compact" or "subcompact" pistol, so the "advantage" of the .40 does not apply for me.
Just one more cartridge I would have to tool up to load, and since I am loading over 30 different rifle and pistol rounds already, I just can't see the sense. I also avoid the .50 cals, for the same reason. No utility for me, just added expense. If you can't do it with a .44Mag, .44AMP,.45WinMag or heavy loaded .45 Colt, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
But thats just my opinion. If you want it, buy it. Its all good, and the more spent, the better off our industry is.
Let me state from the beginning I am a .45 guy when it comes to duty size autopistols. When I started shooting autopistol ammo came in one flavor, and one only, FMJ. If you wanted hollowpoints, you had to load them yourself. Super Vel was the new kid on the block, and wasn't widely available.
The only reason I dislike (not hate) the .40 is that to make it work, to get the results people want, the pressure is jacked up, quite a bit. They did this with the 9mm, to get acceptable performance from it. And with todays bullets, and +p+ it performs. But, I won't shoot +p+ ammo in my 9mms, as they are both made before the end of WWII (1936 P.08 & ac42 P.38).
I've gota Colt Government Model .45ACP (1911A1), and a Browning BDA .45. Either one works just fine for me. Also have .357Magnum revolvers. and .44s. No need or use for a .40.
Buddy, I don't know where you are shopping, but its the wrong places. two weeks ago, 50rnd Rem 230gr FMJ, just over $20 plus tax, at my local Bi-Mart (not Walmart).
I may be the odd man out here, but I don't have (or need) a "compact" or "subcompact" pistol, so the "advantage" of the .40 does not apply for me.
Just one more cartridge I would have to tool up to load, and since I am loading over 30 different rifle and pistol rounds already, I just can't see the sense. I also avoid the .50 cals, for the same reason. No utility for me, just added expense. If you can't do it with a .44Mag, .44AMP,.45WinMag or heavy loaded .45 Colt, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
But thats just my opinion. If you want it, buy it. Its all good, and the more spent, the better off our industry is.
Dragon55 --
I think the formula you found is simplistic. There's an article on it here. Frankly, the math is beyond me. However, the beginning of the article illustrates my point:
"Felt recoil" is another thing altogether since you also have to take into account the ergonomics of the gun, etc.
I think the formula you found is simplistic. There's an article on it here. Frankly, the math is beyond me. However, the beginning of the article illustrates my point:
Again, the kinetic energy or "free recoil" uses time as one of it's components. When we talk about simple "recoil" this refers to momentum which only has mass and velocity as it's components.
"Felt recoil" is another thing altogether since you also have to take into account the ergonomics of the gun, etc.
If you shoot both the 9 and the .45, you don't need the .40 S&W.
If you opt for .40, it can just as esily be argued that you need neither the 9 or .45
Folks like me who shoot either the 20 ga. or 12, and own no 16 ga., could just as easily use the 16 ga. exclusively and never look back.
The 16 ga. didn't catch on, but the .40 has nudged the others aside enough to make room for itself, and it isn't leaving.
Some argue away as if they have to make a choice to the exclusion of the others. I carry the P220 Carry, the 9mm in more than one platform, and the .40 cal. in P229--depending on which mood strikes me.The mechanical operation of all guns are very similar--- except when I carry my Colt Commander or Kimber CDP2.
If you opt for .40, it can just as esily be argued that you need neither the 9 or .45
Folks like me who shoot either the 20 ga. or 12, and own no 16 ga., could just as easily use the 16 ga. exclusively and never look back.
The 16 ga. didn't catch on, but the .40 has nudged the others aside enough to make room for itself, and it isn't leaving.
Some argue away as if they have to make a choice to the exclusion of the others. I carry the P220 Carry, the 9mm in more than one platform, and the .40 cal. in P229--depending on which mood strikes me.The mechanical operation of all guns are very similar--- except when I carry my Colt Commander or Kimber CDP2.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Felt recoil" is another thing altogether since you also have to take into account the ergonomics of the gun, etc."
You must also take into account what can be rather dramatic differences in how two people perceive the felt recoil.
What one individual finds to be highly objectionable recoil may seem to be very mild and very controllable to another individual.
You must also take into account what can be rather dramatic differences in how two people perceive the felt recoil.
What one individual finds to be highly objectionable recoil may seem to be very mild and very controllable to another individual.
BusGunner007
New member
I shoot the .40 because I LIKE IT.
I.
LIKE.
IT.
I don't care what YOU like.
I LIKE the .40...
.40 Smith & Wesson.
.40 Sheetmetal & Windshield.
10mm Special.
What-EVER.
I just LIKE IT!
I.
LIKE.
IT.
I don't care what YOU like.
I LIKE the .40...
.40 Smith & Wesson.
.40 Sheetmetal & Windshield.
10mm Special.
What-EVER.
I just LIKE IT!
Last edited:
You've got a point there 44AMP. I've been using the .40 on varmints & such with a SWC at about 840 fps, and I'm thinking that other 150 fps is more a selling point than anything else- particularly in view of the fact that bullet design has evolved to the point that any number of them will work perfectly at .45 ACP velocities.
My thoughts on this are that an expanding 200 grain .40, at about 950 fps, could be worth exploring.
BusGunner007
New member
200-gr. .40 is a good idea.
I asked about this on the Beretta Forum quite awhile back.
There are/have been loads like this.
Might've been Hornady that made it - XTP?
The lightweight .40's are a screamer.
I prefer the 180-gr., as it was designed for this, I beleive ( 1:16" twist? ).
200's.
Hmmmmmm...
I asked about this on the Beretta Forum quite awhile back.
There are/have been loads like this.
Might've been Hornady that made it - XTP?
The lightweight .40's are a screamer.
I prefer the 180-gr., as it was designed for this, I beleive ( 1:16" twist? ).
200's.
Hmmmmmm...
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I'm a big proponent of the .40S&W. However, if you're wanting to jack up the grains to 200, I'm reaching for my firearms chambered in .45ACP...
Blue Grass
New member
I have a CZ-75BD in 9mm, a CZ-75B in .40 S&W, and a Kimber Custom Defender II in .45 ACP. All three are full sized auto's. Can't tell much difference in recoil and all three are a ball to shoot. I had a CZ RAMI in .40 S&W. It had a very sharp felt recoil and pronounced muzzle flip. It wasn't (to me) much fun to shoot so I traded it. I don't understand why people hate certain rounds. Just because I don't want or need a certain calibre doesn't mean it won't work for you. I personally have no use for .357 SIG, .500 S&W mag, .32 ACP, or .22 short but if they work for you, then press on.
Master Blaster
New member
It doesn't do anything that 9mm and .45acp can't do better.
I owned one for a while 8 years ago and I sold it, not as accurate as .45 acp.
Not as fast as 9mm.
I understand its purpose and agree with its usefulness for LEO, but it doesn't do anything for me except get stuck in the .45 acp cases, and make it harder to scrounge for brass at the range.
I owned one for a while 8 years ago and I sold it, not as accurate as .45 acp.
Not as fast as 9mm.
I understand its purpose and agree with its usefulness for LEO, but it doesn't do anything for me except get stuck in the .45 acp cases, and make it harder to scrounge for brass at the range.
I shoot frequently and i mean twice a week. For me knock down power, penetration..etc is not an issue. I shoot at paper and various other targets.
Its the price that turns me off the .40 rd. Around these parts its the same price as a .45 per box. Since i find the .45 is a better cartridge overall, but, its costly. I shoot 9mm more than anything making shooting centre fire pistol ammo more economically viable.
However, since the Police in my region use .40, there has been an abundance of nickel brass left at my range. I pick it all up and reload it.
For carry purposes it really doesn't matter what calibre your using. What matters is your proficiency with that pistol that you're packing.
For Us Canadians we can only get a Wilderness Carry Permit for handguns if its a magnum revolver. The smaller standard issue pistol calibres are all equally useless if you find a grizzly pulling you out of your sleeping bag.
Its the price that turns me off the .40 rd. Around these parts its the same price as a .45 per box. Since i find the .45 is a better cartridge overall, but, its costly. I shoot 9mm more than anything making shooting centre fire pistol ammo more economically viable.
However, since the Police in my region use .40, there has been an abundance of nickel brass left at my range. I pick it all up and reload it.
For carry purposes it really doesn't matter what calibre your using. What matters is your proficiency with that pistol that you're packing.
For Us Canadians we can only get a Wilderness Carry Permit for handguns if its a magnum revolver. The smaller standard issue pistol calibres are all equally useless if you find a grizzly pulling you out of your sleeping bag.
Stevie-Ray
New member
I'm not seeing it, nor have I ever seen it. If you do I suggest you buy up all you can because something's not right and somebody will likely come to their senses. At present, Natchez is $28.65/20 for .45ACP, $28.04/20 for .40....certainly not worth mentioning in difference. Ammoman is $35/50 with a minimum of 5 boxes for .40/.45ACP/9mm for no difference at all. There was never more than 3 bucks difference between all 3 at any gun show I've ever attended, and that's where I get most of my ammo. Local gun shops are much the same, except they charge much higher prices.
I'll admit to being a .45 fanboi. If they cost the same as .22, I probably wouldn't shoot anything except .45 Colt and .45acp.
I don't hate the .40, I just think it fills a niche I don't see a need to fill.
But as i like to point out, the gun is more important than the caliber. A crappy gun loaded with your favorite round isn't as a good as a quality handgun loaded with a round you don't like.
Well unless it's .22 shorts.
I don't hate the .40, I just think it fills a niche I don't see a need to fill.
But as i like to point out, the gun is more important than the caliber. A crappy gun loaded with your favorite round isn't as a good as a quality handgun loaded with a round you don't like.
Well unless it's .22 shorts.
sidewinderam9m
Inactive
I have always felt like arguing that a certain caliber is better because it has more stopping power is like arguing a certain whiskey is better because it gets you more drunk. Almost all are about 80 proof. When it comes down to it, they taste quite different, so there is plenty of room for preference, and the great thing about whiskey (IMO) is that you can choose which brand is the best to buy according to how you feel that day, and how much money you have. If you don't have guns in different calibers you don't really get that kind of choice. All common handgun calibers are fairly equal in their crappy stopping power capabilities, but having more calibers is like having more brands of whiskey, you can't go wrong. That being said my first semi was a .40, and I like it a lot, but I can't wait until I get a 9mm, a .45 1911, a .357 sig, a 44 magnum, and many other tasty "whiskeys" with which to indulge myself. I think people just tend to just get attached to one particular flavor, so much so that the rest just don't seem to add up. There is nothing wrong with having only one or two flavors either, they all get you drunk after all....