You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
45acp vs 40S&W
- Thread starter house
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
House,
Please tell us more about your situation. What sort of application do you have in mind? Concealed carry, home defense, police duty? Do you favor a particular brand of pistol, such as Glock or Ruger? Do you handload? Will your pistol be used for any sort of competition in addition to defensive duties?
I shoot both .40s and .45s. IMHO, either caliber will get the job done in most situations but each one has its strengths and weaknesses as well.
Please tell us more about your situation. What sort of application do you have in mind? Concealed carry, home defense, police duty? Do you favor a particular brand of pistol, such as Glock or Ruger? Do you handload? Will your pistol be used for any sort of competition in addition to defensive duties?
I shoot both .40s and .45s. IMHO, either caliber will get the job done in most situations but each one has its strengths and weaknesses as well.
Stephen A. Camp
Staff In Memoriam
Hello all. I believe that there is much overlap in effectiveness in these two calibers. Forced to use ball, I'd go with the .45acp. Beyond that, and though I personally much prefer the .45 to the .40, I'd suggest that you go with the gun and caliber that pleases YOU and that you can accurately hit with. Best.
I have both the .40 and .45 and believe they both will do their job if I do mine. It does seem that as time goes by the cartridges that are offered (such as the .357 Sig and .40 S&W) are higher pressure and more 'efficient' out of shorter barrels. While the .45 ACP is no slouch compared to any modern defensive caliber out of most pistols, it is still more at home in a longer barrel. I doubt that if anyone shot with the .40 and .45 could tell you the difference, and truth be told, with same shot placement, it wouldn't matter.
------------------
THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB
------------------
THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB
For a Glock that won't be carried concealed, I'd go with the Glock 35 (full size .40 S&W, 5.1" barrel, "Practical/Tactical" features) unless you have large hands, in which case you might prefer the Glock 21 (full size .45 ACP). The grips of the large frame Glocks (.45 and 10mm) really are rather blocky, so be sure that you can hold one comfortably before buying one.
For a concealed carry weapon, the Glock 23 (compact .40 S&W) would be my first choice with the Glock 30 (compact .45 ACP) a good second choice, although the 30 is a bit chunky and it does present the same grip challenge that the 21 does.
For a concealed carry weapon, the Glock 23 (compact .40 S&W) would be my first choice with the Glock 30 (compact .45 ACP) a good second choice, although the 30 is a bit chunky and it does present the same grip challenge that the 21 does.
I shoot both the .45 ACP (Sig P-220 and Kimber Custom/Classic full-size 1911A1-type) and the .40 S&W (Glock 23C and Sig P-226). Both are fine defensive rounds, although I strongly prefer the .45 ACP. I find it to be somewhat more accurate when using highly comparable semiautomatics (e. g., P-220 versus P-226) -- and ACCURACY IS THE CRUCIAL VARIABLE. In addition, I believe in the momentum of big (230 grain), slower (~900 FPS) loads.
This said, one has to wonder why so many law enforcement agencies (including the FBI, although not its HRT) have adopted the .40 S&W as their "standard round"?
[This message has been edited by RWK (edited February 15, 2000).]
This said, one has to wonder why so many law enforcement agencies (including the FBI, although not its HRT) have adopted the .40 S&W as their "standard round"?
[This message has been edited by RWK (edited February 15, 2000).]
RKW,
I believe the .40's popularity with law enforcement agencies has to do with marketing. It was sold as a round between the "anemic" 9mm and the "bohemouth" .45, in felt recoil and performance. The capacity of .40s sounds good to many agencies, as well.
Before everyone reads this and starts to type furiously, I don't believe the above, but have seen in used in ads and heard it passed around in LEO circles.
Erik
I believe the .40's popularity with law enforcement agencies has to do with marketing. It was sold as a round between the "anemic" 9mm and the "bohemouth" .45, in felt recoil and performance. The capacity of .40s sounds good to many agencies, as well.
Before everyone reads this and starts to type furiously, I don't believe the above, but have seen in used in ads and heard it passed around in LEO circles.
Erik
tackdriver
New member
I'm really surprised that no one has brought this up, but I guess there's nothing but really manly men who can carry two 1911s on each hip and whatnot who post here.
Personally, I have girly-man wrists and odds are I'm going to jerk the hell out of the first shot because even a full sized .45 makes me flinch. Then the gun's going to jam and the whole time I would have been better off trying to clobber the BG with the gun rather than shooting.
The .40, on the other hand, has comparable stopping power and recoil I can tolerate. THAT's the difference.
All the advice I've been given is to carry something you can control, something that you have faith in, and something that's going to be easily concealed/comfortable to wear all day. That's just not the a .45 for me.
Personally, I have girly-man wrists and odds are I'm going to jerk the hell out of the first shot because even a full sized .45 makes me flinch. Then the gun's going to jam and the whole time I would have been better off trying to clobber the BG with the gun rather than shooting.
The .40, on the other hand, has comparable stopping power and recoil I can tolerate. THAT's the difference.
All the advice I've been given is to carry something you can control, something that you have faith in, and something that's going to be easily concealed/comfortable to wear all day. That's just not the a .45 for me.
David Berkowitz
New member
Not all Glocks have unsupported chambers. The 9mm does, but the 40 & 45 do not. However, the real problem is with the 40 due in part to the unsupported chamber, but also to the type of rifling. If you use new factory ammo or FMJ reloads, you should be fine. Lead reloads cause to build up on the rifling, which causes excessive pressure, whichin turn causes big holes in the firearm and your hands. To my knowledge, the 45 is unsupported, but also has much lower chamber pressure.
tackdriver,
You are correct in that a person should get the biggest gun that they can shoot well. When I use to carry a gun for a living (I worked in the private sector so we didn't have to "qualify" like the police do and this was before the .40S&W began to make it's mark), I carried a 9mm and I was able to hit the bullseye at 75 feet pretty regularily. I was once partnered with a gentleman who carried a .50 caliber pistol and he couldn't even hit the target (never mind the bullseye) at 21 feet. Under those circumstances, I would like to think that I would have been more effective with my 9mm than he would have been with his .50!
I may be mistaken, but I don't think that was the question being asked. My understanding was that "if all things are equal", which is the better caliber ... the 40 or the 45 and I have to go with what I originally said -- the 45 comes out on top!
This is not to say that the .40 is bad. On the contrary. My current carry gun is a .40S&W (depending on the weather, it's either a Kahr MK40 or a S&W 4013). But when I hear something in the middle of the night, it's a .45 that I reach for. Each person has to pick what is best for them. As it is so often said, it is better to hit someone with a .25 than miss then with a .45! But if someone can handle both, than they should go with the better stopper ... the 45!
(excuse the rambling, but I've been up for over 36 hours without any sleep)
You are correct in that a person should get the biggest gun that they can shoot well. When I use to carry a gun for a living (I worked in the private sector so we didn't have to "qualify" like the police do and this was before the .40S&W began to make it's mark), I carried a 9mm and I was able to hit the bullseye at 75 feet pretty regularily. I was once partnered with a gentleman who carried a .50 caliber pistol and he couldn't even hit the target (never mind the bullseye) at 21 feet. Under those circumstances, I would like to think that I would have been more effective with my 9mm than he would have been with his .50!
I may be mistaken, but I don't think that was the question being asked. My understanding was that "if all things are equal", which is the better caliber ... the 40 or the 45 and I have to go with what I originally said -- the 45 comes out on top!
This is not to say that the .40 is bad. On the contrary. My current carry gun is a .40S&W (depending on the weather, it's either a Kahr MK40 or a S&W 4013). But when I hear something in the middle of the night, it's a .45 that I reach for. Each person has to pick what is best for them. As it is so often said, it is better to hit someone with a .25 than miss then with a .45! But if someone can handle both, than they should go with the better stopper ... the 45!
(excuse the rambling, but I've been up for over 36 hours without any sleep)
Just been through this evaluation process myself, and what I ended up buying might surprise you.
I carried a .45 in the military and loved it, so my initial choice of civilian defensive pistol was a Colt Commander. I tricked it out a little at a time over the years and now it's the finest-shooting firearm I've ever had: compensator, Bomar sights, etc. But it's too big and sharp to carry any more.
I've had many other calibers, and have had quite a good time with the Makarov - not a bad pistol at all, and quite a bargain. But the time was ripe to upgrade, and I wanted something more than a 9mm. I knew about the 45, enough to know that it has three problems: magazine capacity, weight, and stopping power.
What! you exclaim - stopping power?? Well, in a word ... yes. It's a really good round, but it moves pretty slowly. And while the 45 is a very good stopper, it's not the best stopper. That's why many law-enforcement types who had the choice refused to surrender their .357 magnum revolvers. Year after year, day in and day out, a 125-grain JHP at 1400-1500 fps outstops every other round.
The 40S&W is a great round which is about the equal of the 45 in stopping power, with the added benefit of being able to fit more of them in the magazine. Not many agencies are switching to the 45 these days, and I don't know of a single one who has switched from 40S&W to 45. (If you do, please tell me!)
If those were the choices, I think I would have gone with the 40S&W. No reason not to: same results, more rounds, what's there to choose between?
But then I started looking at the 357 SIG, an auto caliber that is designed to duplicate .357 Magnum results in an auto case. It's made to be a plug-in replacement for the 40 - you use the same magazines, and switch barrels, and you're converted. But it turns out that that isn't quite all the story because of the extra pressure that's generated to get the velocity. You really have to redesign the gun to handle the 357 SIG from the ground up.
When I got this far, I was pretty discouraged. Having owned one, I'm not impressed at all with Smith&Wesson autos. I wanted to buy a Glock, but there are persistent stories about them not being able to quite handle the cartridge. H&K has a USP that might be able to handle it. I looked into that, and kept studying.
In the end it was simple. Having decided that 357 SIG was the caliber that I wanted to carry, I bit the bullet (so to speak) and bought the flagship pistol from SIG themselves - the P-229. They were late coming to market with this model because they had to completely re-engineer the slide, carving it out of single piece of steel instead of forming sheet metal over a die (as with the P-228). They got the recoil absorption right, too: it shoots like a dream. And with the replaceable barrel for 40 S&W, I can practice without it costing me a fortune.
So that's my answer to your question: C) None of the above. It's the P-229 for me. An added bonus: the thing is made like a Porsche. No tool marks, out-of-the-box dream trigger, beautiful worksmanship.
Guess I'm in love. <smile>
Dwight
I carried a .45 in the military and loved it, so my initial choice of civilian defensive pistol was a Colt Commander. I tricked it out a little at a time over the years and now it's the finest-shooting firearm I've ever had: compensator, Bomar sights, etc. But it's too big and sharp to carry any more.
I've had many other calibers, and have had quite a good time with the Makarov - not a bad pistol at all, and quite a bargain. But the time was ripe to upgrade, and I wanted something more than a 9mm. I knew about the 45, enough to know that it has three problems: magazine capacity, weight, and stopping power.
What! you exclaim - stopping power?? Well, in a word ... yes. It's a really good round, but it moves pretty slowly. And while the 45 is a very good stopper, it's not the best stopper. That's why many law-enforcement types who had the choice refused to surrender their .357 magnum revolvers. Year after year, day in and day out, a 125-grain JHP at 1400-1500 fps outstops every other round.
The 40S&W is a great round which is about the equal of the 45 in stopping power, with the added benefit of being able to fit more of them in the magazine. Not many agencies are switching to the 45 these days, and I don't know of a single one who has switched from 40S&W to 45. (If you do, please tell me!)
If those were the choices, I think I would have gone with the 40S&W. No reason not to: same results, more rounds, what's there to choose between?
But then I started looking at the 357 SIG, an auto caliber that is designed to duplicate .357 Magnum results in an auto case. It's made to be a plug-in replacement for the 40 - you use the same magazines, and switch barrels, and you're converted. But it turns out that that isn't quite all the story because of the extra pressure that's generated to get the velocity. You really have to redesign the gun to handle the 357 SIG from the ground up.
When I got this far, I was pretty discouraged. Having owned one, I'm not impressed at all with Smith&Wesson autos. I wanted to buy a Glock, but there are persistent stories about them not being able to quite handle the cartridge. H&K has a USP that might be able to handle it. I looked into that, and kept studying.
In the end it was simple. Having decided that 357 SIG was the caliber that I wanted to carry, I bit the bullet (so to speak) and bought the flagship pistol from SIG themselves - the P-229. They were late coming to market with this model because they had to completely re-engineer the slide, carving it out of single piece of steel instead of forming sheet metal over a die (as with the P-228). They got the recoil absorption right, too: it shoots like a dream. And with the replaceable barrel for 40 S&W, I can practice without it costing me a fortune.
So that's my answer to your question: C) None of the above. It's the P-229 for me. An added bonus: the thing is made like a Porsche. No tool marks, out-of-the-box dream trigger, beautiful worksmanship.
Guess I'm in love. <smile>
Dwight
dwightvdb:
You may want to give S&W pistols (the traditional ones -- not the Sigmas) a second look if you haven't tried them recently.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tecolote:
I've shot SW 3rd Gen autos side by side with SIG Sauers, Berettas and Glocks, and I can tell you that the SW hold their own. They're fine pistols. [/quote] With regard to the .45 vs .40 debate, someone correct me if I'm wrong (which may very well be the case) but I believe that the FBI's elite hostage rescue team did switch to a 45 when they were previously using the 40.
The reason that so many law enforcement agencies are going to the .40 is because they are trying to get the best of both worlds -- the better stopping power associated with a large caliber (the .45) and being able to carry more rounds (like they were able to do with the 9mm). The .40 puts them some place in the middle with a slight edge toward the .45 side.
This same discussion happened two decades ago when our military switch to the 9mm from the .45 ACP. Everyone said that if the .45 was better, then our military wouldn't be leaving it behind. When tons of law enforcement agencies switched to the 9mm as well (following our military), the added arguement was used that if the .45 was better than our men (and women) in blue would be switching to a .45 instead of the 9mm.
Now, with a new player (the .40) in the park, the 9mm is being left behind for the 40. I personally do not think that the .40 will fall out of favor the way the 9mm did (although some are already leaving the .40 behind for the .357Sig). I think the .40 is an excellent round. I own a few of them and only one 45.
Unless you shoot it a lot, the .45 can be difficult to shot accurately (at least as far as I'm concerned). There are some .40 rounds which equal, or even exceed, the stopping power of some 45's. (see The Stopping Power Home Page) But overall, the .45 comes out on top.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited February 17, 2000).]
You may want to give S&W pistols (the traditional ones -- not the Sigmas) a second look if you haven't tried them recently.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tecolote:
I've shot SW 3rd Gen autos side by side with SIG Sauers, Berettas and Glocks, and I can tell you that the SW hold their own. They're fine pistols. [/quote] With regard to the .45 vs .40 debate, someone correct me if I'm wrong (which may very well be the case) but I believe that the FBI's elite hostage rescue team did switch to a 45 when they were previously using the 40.
The reason that so many law enforcement agencies are going to the .40 is because they are trying to get the best of both worlds -- the better stopping power associated with a large caliber (the .45) and being able to carry more rounds (like they were able to do with the 9mm). The .40 puts them some place in the middle with a slight edge toward the .45 side.
This same discussion happened two decades ago when our military switch to the 9mm from the .45 ACP. Everyone said that if the .45 was better, then our military wouldn't be leaving it behind. When tons of law enforcement agencies switched to the 9mm as well (following our military), the added arguement was used that if the .45 was better than our men (and women) in blue would be switching to a .45 instead of the 9mm.
Now, with a new player (the .40) in the park, the 9mm is being left behind for the 40. I personally do not think that the .40 will fall out of favor the way the 9mm did (although some are already leaving the .40 behind for the .357Sig). I think the .40 is an excellent round. I own a few of them and only one 45.
Unless you shoot it a lot, the .45 can be difficult to shot accurately (at least as far as I'm concerned). There are some .40 rounds which equal, or even exceed, the stopping power of some 45's. (see The Stopping Power Home Page) But overall, the .45 comes out on top.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited February 17, 2000).]
David Scott
New member
The stopping power studies I've seen appear to suggest that with the calibers that make major power factors, including the .40 and .45, bullet design makes a big difference. Hydra-Shoks and Gold Dots seem to whack the hardest.
The ultimate difference is in placement. A .380 through the eye socket and into the brain works better than a .45 in the butt cheek.
Personally, I think the .357 SIG rocks!
------------------
Dave
Deep in the Florida Swamps
The ultimate difference is in placement. A .380 through the eye socket and into the brain works better than a .45 in the butt cheek.
Personally, I think the .357 SIG rocks!
------------------
Dave
Deep in the Florida Swamps
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Scott:
... Deep in the Florida Swamps[/quote]
Dave,
I agree that bullet placement is the number one factor. Just curious how you would rate the .357Sig against the .40S&W (I'm thinking about converting one of my .40's).
Ed (also from the Florida swamps)
... Deep in the Florida Swamps[/quote]
Dave,
I agree that bullet placement is the number one factor. Just curious how you would rate the .357Sig against the .40S&W (I'm thinking about converting one of my .40's).
Ed (also from the Florida swamps)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.