.40S&W Why the haters?
- Thread starter XpatBubba
- Start date
SwampYankee
New member
Oh God, not another thread degenerating into bashing the .40 S&W.
Yeah, the recoil is snappy. It's not my favorite cartridge. But I'm pretty sure a well aimed shot kills pretty effectively. It's funny that no one who has ever claimed it was useless has ever stepped up to take one for the team and prove their point. Funny, eh?
Yawn.
Last edited:
Father Time
New member
One of the "haters" has posted some "information" on several threads without offering where he got this gem of "information".
I have been to shootings with the .40 s&w (I'm a firefighter/emt and my local police caliber is the .40) and in one of the shootings the bullet shattered the sternum and tore the heart apart. This was a prime example of the fabled "one shot stop"
You would be surprised the affect that this round can have on human flesh and bone. Really, it was enough to convince me to switch to the .40
The sad truth is that placment is EVERYTHING. There have been cases of people taking rifle rounds to the chest and surviving. Nothing is 100%
If you want to PM me. I can tell you a few stories of survival that could easly trump this "shot in the leg" stuff.
I have been to shootings with the .40 s&w (I'm a firefighter/emt and my local police caliber is the .40) and in one of the shootings the bullet shattered the sternum and tore the heart apart. This was a prime example of the fabled "one shot stop"
You would be surprised the affect that this round can have on human flesh and bone. Really, it was enough to convince me to switch to the .40
The sad truth is that placment is EVERYTHING. There have been cases of people taking rifle rounds to the chest and surviving. Nothing is 100%
If you want to PM me. I can tell you a few stories of survival that could easly trump this "shot in the leg" stuff.
Last edited:
Stevie-Ray
New member
SwampYankee
New member
Yeah, you are right, it is silly to think that anyone would volunteer to take a .40 S&W. However, the comments I constantly hear about its limitations are just as silly. Despite this, the people spewing this drivel seem so intent upon its uselessness that it wouldn't surprise me if they offered to prove how useless the cartridge is.
Once again, its not my favorite cartridge. But I do not doubt its ability to stop an assailant when an appropriate defense load is used.
Once again, its not my favorite cartridge. But I do not doubt its ability to stop an assailant when an appropriate defense load is used.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Swamp Yankee said:
I agree completely.
The part I don't understand about so many people who contribute to these threads is why *it* (whatever *it* happens to be) is so personal to them. Many people act like they invented this or that caliber or brand of firearm and that their own personal judgement or wisdom is being questioned if someone else doesn't like their pet caliber/gun.
I've always told people why I do or don't like any particular caliber but I really couldn't care less if someone else likes what I like or doesn't. It perplexes me why it's so personal to some people.
SwampYankee
New member
I'm reading the book Band of Brothers right now. I saw the miniseries and wanted to know if it stood up to the original work.
One of the things that surprises me is how many soldiers didn't actually die after being shot or having artillery dropped on them. And most of the wounded were shot with K98's or some other high powered rifle round.
So is the 7.92 and ineffective caliber? Certainly not. But the statistical likelihood of being killed from a bullet wound seems to be a lot lower than actually being just wounded. If you look at any war, this bares out. A colleague of mine was a combat medic in Vietnam and he claims that from his experience, there are usually 10X as many wounded than dead. And this seems to be the case in Iraq too.
Furthermore, I would suppose that in most wars, once the killing really gets going, veteran soldiers are pretty good at killing. They have their wits about them and are relying on training.
Cops, on the other hand, get into very few firefights and are not trained to kill people as a rule. So if a gun battle does ensue and the cops are using .40 S&W's, I would not be surprised if the majority of bad guys are not killed but only wounded. It's not what cops do and its not what they are good at. And if one considers that most PD's are using .40 S&W, the statistical probability that you will hear of people not dying from this caliber are much larger than people not dying from .357 Magnum/.38 special, which has not been in general use for at least a decade.
My grandfather fought in Italy with the 91st Infantry. He was shot 3 times. And each time they patched him back up and threw him back into the fight. That seems to be pretty good proof to me that being wounded is more likely than being killed by any caliber.
One of the things that surprises me is how many soldiers didn't actually die after being shot or having artillery dropped on them. And most of the wounded were shot with K98's or some other high powered rifle round.
So is the 7.92 and ineffective caliber? Certainly not. But the statistical likelihood of being killed from a bullet wound seems to be a lot lower than actually being just wounded. If you look at any war, this bares out. A colleague of mine was a combat medic in Vietnam and he claims that from his experience, there are usually 10X as many wounded than dead. And this seems to be the case in Iraq too.
Furthermore, I would suppose that in most wars, once the killing really gets going, veteran soldiers are pretty good at killing. They have their wits about them and are relying on training.
Cops, on the other hand, get into very few firefights and are not trained to kill people as a rule. So if a gun battle does ensue and the cops are using .40 S&W's, I would not be surprised if the majority of bad guys are not killed but only wounded. It's not what cops do and its not what they are good at. And if one considers that most PD's are using .40 S&W, the statistical probability that you will hear of people not dying from this caliber are much larger than people not dying from .357 Magnum/.38 special, which has not been in general use for at least a decade.
My grandfather fought in Italy with the 91st Infantry. He was shot 3 times. And each time they patched him back up and threw him back into the fight. That seems to be pretty good proof to me that being wounded is more likely than being killed by any caliber.
I think in my case, and I see this posted a lot, it's a recoil issue. I think a lot of people like myself first try the .40s&w in a polymer framed pistol. I had only fired metal framed 9mm and .45acp prior so the .40s&w Glock 23 seemed to snap hard and I couldn't hit my point of aim. I owned that gun for all of a month before I traded it off. A cop buddy of mine has a .40 Sig226 as his duty gun and swears it's very mild so I'm wanting to try it for comparison. I'd like to try the .40 again in a Sig 229 if it truly is easier for me to control than the G23.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I think the recoil issue is the problem of the shooter sometimes. I personally like the perceived "snappy" recoil. Not that I have that much muzzle flip anyway, I still use it to its advantage. I like the fact that the muzzle settles back down on target faster than a push back/upward motion my other guns chambered in .45ACP.
I just don't see THAT much difference in recoil or the type thereof in comparison of the other major cartridges. Too many people try to fight the gun from movement. As Randy Cain states in his training, "Folks, all guns are going to recoil. It's a matter of physics. There is absolutely NO NEED to fight it." He had us holding our guns with only our thumb and middle finger. He instructed us to fire away. That was enough convincing that recoil is extremely overrated.
My own personal opinion is people really go out of their way to try and make excuses to hate a cartridge. I really do. I happen to embrace the growing number of cartridges that has been developing. But hey, to each his/her own I guess...
I just don't see THAT much difference in recoil or the type thereof in comparison of the other major cartridges. Too many people try to fight the gun from movement. As Randy Cain states in his training, "Folks, all guns are going to recoil. It's a matter of physics. There is absolutely NO NEED to fight it." He had us holding our guns with only our thumb and middle finger. He instructed us to fire away. That was enough convincing that recoil is extremely overrated.
My own personal opinion is people really go out of their way to try and make excuses to hate a cartridge. I really do. I happen to embrace the growing number of cartridges that has been developing. But hey, to each his/her own I guess...
Mark Milton
Moderator
>>>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 weren't paying attention. It wasn't "one dude". There have been multiple shootings in the county I live in and NOT ONE was a one shot stop.
As for documentation, I might be able to get you a copy of the newspaper account of the dude who shot himself in the leg with his .40 and drove himself to the hospital as that was only a few years ago. But I will charge you for postage and time it takes to go to the paper and dig up a back issue, if that will make you happy.
The reality is what it is - The .40 S&W was a COMPROMISE round. And as any married man can explain when you COMPROMISE, that means you give up more than the other guy can take from you.
I don't know why the .40 is so innefective. I just know it is.
Maybe the snappy recoil and muzzle blast keep people from having good shot placement. Maybe the frontal displacement isn't enough and it goes through and through without the target soaking up the energy.
All I know is that it's not as effective on the street as the .38 special or the 9mm.
>>>
You weren't paying attention. It wasn't "one dude". There have been multiple shootings in the county I live in and NOT ONE was a one shot stop.
As for documentation, I might be able to get you a copy of the newspaper account of the dude who shot himself in the leg with his .40 and drove himself to the hospital as that was only a few years ago. But I will charge you for postage and time it takes to go to the paper and dig up a back issue, if that will make you happy.
The reality is what it is - The .40 S&W was a COMPROMISE round. And as any married man can explain when you COMPROMISE, that means you give up more than the other guy can take from you.
I don't know why the .40 is so innefective. I just know it is.
Maybe the snappy recoil and muzzle blast keep people from having good shot placement. Maybe the frontal displacement isn't enough and it goes through and through without the target soaking up the energy.
All I know is that it's not as effective on the street as the .38 special or the 9mm.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"You weren't paying attention. It wasn't "one dude". There have been multiple shootings in the county I live in and NOT ONE was a one shot stop."
So, what can we draw from that?
Anything concrete?
Nope.
What we can SPECULATE, however, is broad and diverse.
Speculation 1.
The .40 is fine. It's the cops in your county who can't shoot worth a damn.
Speculation 2.
Instead of every shot from ever cop in your county being either center of mass/center of central nervous system hits, it could be that those hits are, at best, marginal (stomach), or at best, peripheral (legs, hands). See Speculation 1.
Speculation 3.
The ammunition being provided to the cops in your county isn't optimal, and thus is handicapping the officers during shootings.
Those are three possible specualtions. There are a lot more. But since your messages are pretty devoid of actal facts, there's not much more to go on other than speculation.
But, now for some facts.
Fact 1.
The results obtained by the officers in your county are but a small fraction of shooting incidents involving the .40 S&W.
Fact 2.
The .40, with well designed ammunition and being fired by well trained individuals who obtain solid hits, has developed a very solid reputation as an effective handgun round.
Fact 3.
Lacking any more facts, the ONLY, and I mean ONLY, conclusions you can draw from your county's experience is... nothing conclusive.
Fact 5.
Dismissing the .40 S&W based solely on the experience of your county's officers and ignoring the bulk of the information that is readily available is silly.
So, what can we draw from that?
Anything concrete?
Nope.
What we can SPECULATE, however, is broad and diverse.
Speculation 1.
The .40 is fine. It's the cops in your county who can't shoot worth a damn.
Speculation 2.
Instead of every shot from ever cop in your county being either center of mass/center of central nervous system hits, it could be that those hits are, at best, marginal (stomach), or at best, peripheral (legs, hands). See Speculation 1.
Speculation 3.
The ammunition being provided to the cops in your county isn't optimal, and thus is handicapping the officers during shootings.
Those are three possible specualtions. There are a lot more. But since your messages are pretty devoid of actal facts, there's not much more to go on other than speculation.
But, now for some facts.
Fact 1.
The results obtained by the officers in your county are but a small fraction of shooting incidents involving the .40 S&W.
Fact 2.
The .40, with well designed ammunition and being fired by well trained individuals who obtain solid hits, has developed a very solid reputation as an effective handgun round.
Fact 3.
Lacking any more facts, the ONLY, and I mean ONLY, conclusions you can draw from your county's experience is... nothing conclusive.
Fact 5.
Dismissing the .40 S&W based solely on the experience of your county's officers and ignoring the bulk of the information that is readily available is silly.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Mark Milton said:
Yet, for every guy with your opinion there is a guy like this:
Father Time said:
In other words, in the grand scheme, your personal experience (and his) are meaningless. Statistically insignificant. Anecdotes, not data. 50, 60 even 200 shootings are not large enough samples to eliminate the variables. Shot placement, distance, ammunition choice, size of person being shot, and untold numbers of unknown variables all effect the outcome.
I know people who don't wear a seatbelt because they (or someone they know) was "saved" by not having one on. Does that mean that seatbelts are not safe? I think not, but try convincing THOSE people.
We all tend to be influenced, and convinced, by our own personal experience. Problem is that experience isn't the same as truth. Wisdom dictates that we look beyond our own extremely limited perspective.
#18indycolts
Moderator
and how might you have come across said info? I've seen bullet wounds up close and personal, from all types of calibers (including rifles and shotguns) and in hits across the entire body from foot to head. I've seen many deaths from .380's,9's, .40's, .45's. I've also seen my share of 9mm shots and the majority of those lived, even with shots to the chest. I've seen .22's hit the leg and the person dies from a hit to the femoral artery. I've seen belly shots with .40's and .45's that walked away. I've seen many many different scenarios, and many many deaths from bullets. I don't get my info from articles or hearing about it from other people, I get my info from personal experience. Lastly I also know that larger calibers do more damage, and the shootings I've been on have been both police and civilian shooters.
L_Killkenny
New member
IMO, Arguing the effectiveness between the 9mm, the .40 and the .45 is a waste of time. No one is gonna convince me that a good hit, at SD ranges, with any of the 3 is worse than a good hit with the other 2. Compared to rifle rounds and shotguns all would be considered weak. Even so, bad hits with a rifle don't result in one shot stops either.
All that being said I'm an equal opportunity "hater". I hate all semi-auto calibers cept the .45. And I won't own one of those either.
LK
All that being said I'm an equal opportunity "hater". I hate all semi-auto calibers cept the .45. And I won't own one of those either.
LK
This is kinda like my buddy with the 1100 Honda Magna saying he could outrun me on my 900 Ninja because he had 200 more cc's.
As I have stated before marginal bullets in all calibers will fail you more often than premium bullets in the same guns.
My Agency, the US Border Patrol uses .40 with a 155grn bullet at 1250fps. It works very good for us as long as the monkey on the trigger does his part.
Cops are not taught to "shoot to kill" but "shoot to stop". When I was in the Army we were taught to "Shoot to wound" , yea, aim for his leg......based on the logic of the wars we had been in historically. There are a lot of cops that are prior military.
I like the 40 because I carry it at work, I have no choice. I was won over very fast when we transitioned from 357's 13 years ago.
I was perfectly happy with my 357 because I shoot them GOOD.
Most people diss the cops because they hit 40% or less of the shots fired in a shootout. Try hitting the X ring with your prizewinning barbecue gun after you have been, shot, shot at, are diving for cover or been hit by a car, in the dark.
As I have stated before marginal bullets in all calibers will fail you more often than premium bullets in the same guns.
My Agency, the US Border Patrol uses .40 with a 155grn bullet at 1250fps. It works very good for us as long as the monkey on the trigger does his part.
Cops are not taught to "shoot to kill" but "shoot to stop". When I was in the Army we were taught to "Shoot to wound" , yea, aim for his leg......based on the logic of the wars we had been in historically. There are a lot of cops that are prior military.
I like the 40 because I carry it at work, I have no choice. I was won over very fast when we transitioned from 357's 13 years ago.
I was perfectly happy with my 357 because I shoot them GOOD.
Most people diss the cops because they hit 40% or less of the shots fired in a shootout. Try hitting the X ring with your prizewinning barbecue gun after you have been, shot, shot at, are diving for cover or been hit by a car, in the dark.
Case capacities (per Wikipedia):
9mm Para 0.860 cm^3
.40 S&W 1.255 cm^3
.45 ACP 1.625 cm^3
The .40 has 46% greater case volume than the 9mm, and the .45 has 29% more case volume than the .40. I have to think that the extra capacity for powder (and bullet back-ends) would count for something in stopping power, no matter how it is measured or how stochastic the effects may be.
You don't get to back up time, un-hit the BG, and then shoot him again with identical shot placement in another caliber to compare the effects.
9mm Para 0.860 cm^3
.40 S&W 1.255 cm^3
.45 ACP 1.625 cm^3
The .40 has 46% greater case volume than the 9mm, and the .45 has 29% more case volume than the .40. I have to think that the extra capacity for powder (and bullet back-ends) would count for something in stopping power, no matter how it is measured or how stochastic the effects may be.
You don't get to back up time, un-hit the BG, and then shoot him again with identical shot placement in another caliber to compare the effects.