.40S&W Why the haters?

The .40 has it's place, that place just isn't in my safe. In all seriousness, the main advantages that I see the .40 having mainly apply to LE. Many police want something that can through medium to heavy weight bullets (150grn+) at more useful velocities that what the 9mm is capable of in that weight class. This is desired because of superior penetration characteristics in certain materials (auto glass in particular) While cartridges such as the .45ACP and 10mm auto can certainly do this, they require a larger frame and generally don't provide the capacity that is desired without an overly large and often heavy gun. So, the .40 S&W can drive 155-180grn bullets at higher velocities than a 9mm but can fit in a smaller, lighter, higher capacity gun than a .45 or 10mm.

Really, it fills much the same niche that the .357 Magnum used to when revolvers were still the preferred weapon of police. While the .38 Spl came in an easily carried packager, it couldn't drive heavy enough bullets fast enough to meet many LE's needs (back then, not only did it have problems with auto-glass penetration but also reliable expansion at it's relatively sedate velocities due to primative JHP designs). While larger calibers such as .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt certainly gave the ballistic performance that LE wanted, These were only commonly available in larger, heavier revolvers than what most cops wanted to carry (also, increased recoil could often be a factor). The .357 Magnum was just right because it could deliver superior ballistics to the .38 Spl, but could do it in a more easily carried gun than the big bores.

Personally, I have no need for a .40S&W because 1) I'm not a cop and 2) I already have other handguns that can do the same thing just as well if not better. If I want a smaller-framed high capacity gun I'd feel fine with my 9mm (a CZ-75) since I'm not likely to have to shoot through barriers such as a windshield. Likewise, if I want a larger gun I'll be fine with either my .45 or 10mm (a S&W 1911 and S&W 1076 respectively) as the larger gun doesn't bother me and I don't feel that I need more than the 9-10 rounds of capacity that these gun provide.
 
Webleymkv, I'm a .40 shooter, for the traditional reasons you and others stated-- "better" than 9, smaller/more (#) than .45 etc--but yours is one of the better posts I've read on this thread or subject matter. I'm sure others have said the same, and perhaps as eloquently, but you're the most recent...so get the kudos nod!
 
Myself...Not hatin. Just don't need to add another caliber. Means I gotta buy more dies, store and sort more brass, buy more bullets and for what? Does the .40 do something that can't be done with other calibers? Not that I've seen. Course if I come across just a crazy deal on a .40 or got one as a gift or a raffle....guess I'd be drinking the Kool Aid same as everyone else.
 
Once you learn what a pistol can and can't do, and what a person needs for self/home defense, you answer you're own question. "Knock Down Power"??? No such thing. Once you learn that, you realize that what a 40sw can do, is no different than just about any other caliber. I feel equally as confident with a 32acp, 380, or my 9mm makarov, as I do with my 45acp. Knowing how to shoot and hit what you aim at is the answer. Not the caliber. The only advantage one caliber truly has over another is; which one will make a bigger hole. Obviously, that would be the 45acp. The 40sw evolved not because of any other reason than because certain people didn't know how to shoot their gun, so they blamed the caliber. And because it was law enforcement, they had a legitimate reason to have more rounds in the gun. If the number of rounds wasn't an issue; (Meaning law enforcement); then the 45acp is most definitely agreed as the better caliber. So, they wanted the magazine capacity of the 9mm (Which they were blaming instead of their own capabilities); combined with the diameter of the 45acp. Hence, the 40sw.

So, if you don't trust your capabilities at shooting; or you believe in zombies; then you probably need a gun with a 15 round capacity. If you trust your shooting capabilities and shot placement, then the 40sw/10mm isn't needed.

The only advantage one round has over the other is bullet diameter. But, the large bullet diameter isn't always the most practical. The 45acp is the preferred, but sometimes it just isn't the right gun. That's why I some times carry a 32acp. It's easier to carry under certain circumstances. Sometimes I carry and shoot the 9mm makarov because it's much less expensive than any of the other calibers, and allows me more opportunity to practice, plink, and have fun. And sometimes I shoot the 45acp because it is the best at making the largest hole. And those 3 are for my carrying. For the house, which has to include my wife and daughter, it's different. They don't practice as often. They aren't into the hobby side of guns that I am into. So, for them, the 357 magnum revolver is the right answer. THat's because it's the simplest. Point and click. No magazines to deal with; less physical intervention. And the caliber is the most flexible. It can be loaded with the lowest recoil, equal to a 380acp. It can also equal everything in between all the way up to some of the highest velocity if that's whats needed.

So, it's not a matter of hating the 40sw. It has to do with that it's not needed. There is nothing that the 40sw can do that my 45acp, 9mm makarov, or 32acp can't do. I have absolutely no need for a 15 round magazine. I can/will hit what I aim at. But I feel the same about the 10mm, 357 sig, 327 mag, 45gap, and all the other "marketing hype" calibers. They exist because they play off of people's ignorance. And it's good marketing. The 45acp, 9mm luger, 9mm makarov, 32acp, 357/38spl are all military/police rounds that have proven themselves over and over. The only reason for any of the others, is usually marketing hype and larger magazine capacity. For law enforcement, there is some validity for the magazine capacity. For others, it's good for those who can't hit what they aim at. But hey; this is America. You're free to buy whatever you want. And you're free to follow any of the other trends, such as ammo staggering. It's fun to listen to and watch at the range. But I'm not the one who's going to pop someone's bubble.
 
DiscoRacing:
I load my own tho... so my 40s do hit a bit harder than factory. ....

Hey man, I'm not sure what state you live in. But I have heard from a few different sources that carrying self-loaders in your CCW can potentially be used against you in a court of law. It's something about trying to swing a "pre-meditated" action against you because you take the time to make ammo to your specifications. I may not have the details right. But I do believe that is the meat and potatoes of why nobody (in my state anyway [MI]) recommends us to do that.

I know you even said that you just plan to subdue them until the police can take over. But that might not always be the case (you may end up killing them in the process, or find that your only action is to kill them for yours or others safety). I'd look in to this. And if anybody reading can give a better explanation, then please feel free.
 
"There's nothing the .40 can do that my (fill in the blank) can't do better."

I will say that 'better' is not well defined in any of the above posts. So I would tend to say

"There's nothing the (fill in the blank) can do that my .40 can't do better."

I have and had .38, .357, .44 mag, .32 acp, 9mm(.36cal), .22 etc. etc. ad nauseum

Everyone of these can do some things better than all the rest..... if I get to define 'better'.

The Honda Hybrid is better because it's cheap on gas and easy on the environment.

The Dodge Viper is better because it will scream past anything else on the road.

The F150 is better because it will last 30 years and anyone can fix it.

The .45 is better because it makes bigger holes and it has lots of tradition.

The 9mm is better because you can carry 17 rds.

The .40 is better because
-you never have to buy brass if you go to the range after the LEO's have had their practice round
-with a 200gr bullet in a full frame platform it will outperform most of the ammo usually used by folks who don't reload shooting a .45
--it will have a better chance of knocking down a BG than a 9mm
--you'll have anywhere from 4 to 9 extra rounds over any six shooter

Point is any technology even firearms technology has improved over the years by developing new platforms and different ammo. Heck without this process we'd still be squirrel hunting with musket.

So to say the .40 is not needed because the _______ is 'better' is just silly.
 
I enjoy your enthusiasm. But I don't that it will knock down any bad guy. Not even better than a 9mm. This isn't a "Die Hard" movie. If there was enough energy to "Knock" down someone, it would EXACTLY the same amount of energy in reverse, and knock you on your [sic]. When it comes to handguns, there are only 3 things you can hope for. 1) Largest hole possible to cause more blood loss..... 2) Hit a vital organ or part of the central nervous system for an immediate shut down...... or 3) Expansion of the bullet to create a "Virtual" larger hole, while tearing/cutting/etc... and again creating more blood loss. It's the blood loss in pressure that will stop the individual. There's the psychological shock that will also create a partial shut down of functions. And just about any caliber can do #2 above. And #1 depends on the bullet, expansion and velocity. I.e. a 9mm 147 grain HP will probably cause more damage than a 45acp FMJ or even a 357 magnum wadcutter.

If you like your 40sw, more power to you. As long as you're an accurate shot with it, it doesn't matter what you shoot. And I feel totally comfortable carrying my 32acp. I prefer the 45acp so I can create the largest hole possible, but for the times where my P220 isn't practical, my 32acp or 9mm mak is quite fine. I definitely don't need 15-18 rounds. I have no reservations that 7 rounds is more than enough. But for some people, they like having 15 rounds. And there are some where the 40sw is not comfortable shooting. For them, the 9mm seems to be a better choice. Me, I've been around guns my who life. And then after 21 years in the military, I've come to not only respect guns but to really enjoy them. I shoot an average of a couple hundred rounds every week. I will shoot any gun and be accurate with it. I prefer military rounds; thus why I carry the 45acp, 32acp, 357/38 S&W revolver or 9mm makarov. And I have no problem with SWC or WC in the revolver. Nor do I mind HP or full lead from the 45acp. And I'm even comfortable with FMJ in the 32acp. But I can understand those who might not be as comfortable. To each their own. There's no hate here for the 40sw. Not from me. I just have no use for it at all. If I'm going for a 40sw, I might as well go for the bigger hole and more blood loss and go for the 45acp. If that's not practical, then I'll go for shot placement and go for the 32acp or 9mm makarov. Whatever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hhmmm...well, I'm not a "hater," and not that own any firearms or ammunition; however, my preference lies with the 10mm cartridge with it's .40/10mm bullet.--Patrice
 
I don't hate on the .40 I have three of them.

Why?
1. Because it has a few more foot pounds of energy than a 9mm, good for knocking over steel.

2. It is a little wider than 9mm, good for cutting lines on a target giving me a higher score.

3. The frame is the same size as a 9mm's, most double stacked .45s are to wide for me.

It is a compromise round that gives me just what I want. Hey, look! A happy customer. :)
 
Hey man, I'm not sure what state you live in. But I have heard from a few different sources that carrying self-loaders in your CCW can potentially be used against you in a court of law. It's something about trying to swing a "pre-meditated" action against you because you take the time to make ammo to your specifications. I may not have the details right. But I do believe that is the meat and potatoes of why nobody (in my state anyway [MI]) recommends us to do that.
Click to expand...
The idea is that most people are not going to have an expert on the subject, like Mas Ayoob for example, that are going to convince a jury that the cartridge was loaded expressly for a quick stop with minimal chance of collateral damage, and was thus a responsible move, while the DA is going to be arguing "super-powered killer rounds" or some such nonsense. There's a far better chance the jury will believe the DA if you don't have that expert. Factory loadings, then, take away a lot of the argument. Actually I believe Mas also recommends factory loadings for this reason. Maybe he'll weigh in on this.
 
Myself I am not a 9mm fan. I have owned a HP and an SP101 in 9mm. The HP did not shoot well, and the SP101 Moon Clips would not retain the cartridges in your pocket very well. Pull out the moon cliop and 1 or 2 shells were loose in your pocket. In the old days ammo for the 9mm was junk also. This has been cured now, but I still have the mind set that I do not need a 9mm. Not a good reason!

I have owned several 40's over the years an EAA Witness Great Gun. A Glock 23. I have owned 3 Glocks and never liked any of them. A S&W 4046 I shot the highest score in my academy class with it. And last and best a Springfield XDm.
I do not like a Glock for several reasons. One I like to shoot economical Lead Reloads. Two the Grip Angle sucks. Three I do not like the way it feels in my hand.
The XDm shoots lead bullets just fine. It holds 16 +1. It points great. It is reasonably accurate. Not quite as good as my 1911 Colt Custom Shop pistol, but good enough for a defense and Combat Match pistol. Expense of ammo. I reload for most of my practice shooting. I have enough 40 S&W brass to last me forever all range pick up brass all FREE.

I shoot in our Defensive Pistol Matches. I shoot a MK III Ruger in rimfire. A J-Frame S&W Airweight in CCW Division in 38. I shoot a 10mm and 45 acp in Revolver Division. In Semi Auto Division I shoot both my 1911 and XDm. I normally shoot the 1911 just a little better, but not much. I have owned a 1911 since around 1976, so I am a 45 acp fan also.

The 40 S&W is a great round. It is easy to reload for, accurate, and powerful enough to get the job done. If I had something going on where I thought I might need to use my handgun for defense, I would take the XDm.
If I have any time I will have my AR15 or 870 in hand and leave the handgun in the holster.

My 2 Cents

Bob
 
The .40 S&W is just too snappy for me. Nothing against it, it just doesn't lend well to me having quick follow ups and as enjoyable range sessions as with my .45's and 9mm's. My HK USPc .40 was a great gun, but I sold it because I just didn't shoot it that well. Maybe me, maybe the gun, maybe the round...(probably me). To each his own.
 
Using the right defensive ammo, the .40 is a very effective round. It has the accuracy of the 9mm, about the same drift and drop rate, but adds quite a bit more energy. Yes, the recoil is greater, but with training that can be overcome.

I carry either a 9mm or a .40, and feel safe with either load. When I was still working, we used to be issued 9mm, but later, we switched to .40.

Who really cares if someone does not like the .40. I personally do not like the .45 or the 357 SIG, but I sure as heck do not condemn any of my friends who carry either round, and they do not condemn my preferences for a 9 or a .40. We all seem to understand it is not necessarily the round, it is the person who is doing the shooting that counts.

If the .40 has too much 'snap' for someone, then drop to a 9 or up to a .45.
 
I really like the .40 S&W round. Currently it is my only self defense round, (b/c i only have one pistol for self defense, a M&P 40). My best friend also likes the round and carries his Glock 23. This helps because we can share ammo at the range etc...
 
1. I believe a .40 diameter bullet moving faster makes a hole equally as large in human tissue as a .45 bullet moving slower.

2. The concern about the difference in felt or measured recoil is very nearly the same between a .40 and a .45 when the platform size and weight are the same.
 
People who are easily impressed by the .40 Short and Wimpy tend to be gunshop commandoes, chairborn rangers and internet experts who have never seen it in action.

If it was effective, it might well be worth putting up with the accellerated wear and tear on the guns and the shooters nerves from the snappy recoil, extreme muzzle blast and the lack of accuracy.

But it doesn't work that well on targets that breath.

The .40 is common where I live and there have been a LOT of shootings with it. Not one has been a one shot stop. In fact, one shooting a fleeing felon with a .357 soaked up over a half a dozen .40 hollowpoints before his magnum clicked on empty. Whereupon he charged the officers who had to beat him into submissiion with ASP batons and flashlights.

Mind you, this guy was not hopped up on anything either.

The officers who were there were visibly shaken over it and went back to their department and inquired about the possibility of transitioning back to the .357 revolver.

Then there was the guy who shot himself in the leg at WallyWorld and DROVE HIMSELF to the hospital and walked into the emergency room looking for treatment.

On the other hand, I can think of two incidents where the lowly .38 special had one shot stops. And more than one incident where the 9mm had a one shot stop.

The .40 looks good in theory on ballistics charts but on the street it just don't perform.
Which should not have surprised me, but it did. Instead of viewing it with wishful thinking, I should have viewed it from realism.
The reality is it was a compromise. It was designed for the guy who wanted more energy than a 9mm and more ammo capacity than a .45.

What we got was a gun that had less stopping power than a .45 and less magazine capacity than a nine.

My advice is that if you want stopping power buy a .45. If you want magazine capacity buy a 9.
The only real reason to buy a .40 is to mooch ammo off your cop buddies.
 
And lord knows that NO other handgun cartridge has ever failed to stop a well motivated individual.

The Lazer Beem of Ghod, the .45 ACP?

Even a near miss doesn't leave enough of the bad guy to fill a pony beer bottle...

:rolleyes:
 
I don't hate any caliber of gun. I just like some better than others. The place I go to on the internet to get a rough idea of what a particular gun/load will do is to a website called "the box of truth". The guy on this website has set up a "box" in which he encloses a certain number of boards or sheetrock slabs and or water bottles, bricks, etc. He fires a few rounds at the materials he has put in this box and videotapes the test, and basically gives you an idea of the relative penetration and/or expansion of various types of ammo in various calibers. There's nothing super scientific about it, it's just the same kind of practical, common sense test that you and I might have done on our own if we'd thought to do it. Anyway, as I recall, his .40 cal. results were pretty dismal. That's about all I know about the caliber other than its apparently the new "go to" gun for LE. You can see the box of truth 40 cal results for yourself by searching for the pistol tests on the websites index page.
 
The .40 is common where I live and there have been a LOT of shootings with it. Not one has been a one shot stop. In fact, one shooting a fleeing felon with a .357 soaked up over a half a dozen .40 hollowpoints before his magnum clicked on empty. Whereupon he charged the officers who had to beat him into submissiion with ASP batons and flashlights.

Mind you, this guy was not hopped up on anything either.

The officers who were there were visibly shaken over it and went back to their department and inquired about the possibility of transitioning back to the .357 revolver.
Click to expand...


Indeed.
Then there's the well documented story of the officer who emptied his 357mag revolver into the bad guy and was subsequently killed by a single 22LR bullet from the BGs gun.... apparently, the 22LR is a much better defensive round than the 357 magnum.:rolleyes:

Mind you, I'm not a fan of the 40, except in the form of the 10mm, but to claim that it *is* ineffective as a defensive round because one dude that got shot didn't drop like a bomb hit him, or that it's inaccurate which is not even relevant at self defense distances, is just silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top