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.
Advantages of .40 S&W caliber?
- Thread starter TCW
- Start date
The .40 S&W is a product of marketing. Gun companies need something to keep the people buying new guns, so they develope a new calibre and market it. Another license to print money has been issued.
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
David Scott
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FUD:
While the .357SIG has show good initial performance which may rival, or even surpass, the .40S&W; it has not been around long enough to establish a proven track record. Remember, two decades ago the 9mm was being billed as superior to the .45ACP -- time has proven this claim to be false. The same thing might happen with the .357SIG. Presently, it shows great promise. Time will tell the story.
[/quote]
The .357 SIG's terminal ballistics were designed to equal or exceed the .357 Magnum, and they do. The .357 Mag has a long history of effectiveness. If a 125-grain Speer Gold Dot is coming in at over 1300 fps, what does it matter whether it came out of a revolver or autopistol?
While the .357SIG has show good initial performance which may rival, or even surpass, the .40S&W; it has not been around long enough to establish a proven track record. Remember, two decades ago the 9mm was being billed as superior to the .45ACP -- time has proven this claim to be false. The same thing might happen with the .357SIG. Presently, it shows great promise. Time will tell the story.
[/quote]
The .357 SIG's terminal ballistics were designed to equal or exceed the .357 Magnum, and they do. The .357 Mag has a long history of effectiveness. If a 125-grain Speer Gold Dot is coming in at over 1300 fps, what does it matter whether it came out of a revolver or autopistol?
Someone said long ago that the reason the 9mm remains so popular is because of the guns it is offered in.
9mm guns are extremely ergonomic, compact etc.
It was stated and argued that the .45 was possibly a better cartridge, but people picked the 9mm for the gun.
So, someone had the bright idea to stuff a larger bore bullet in the 9mm, and it has proven to be very popular.
Is it really better? I don't know, is 50 or so foot pounds of energy and 1mm of diameter really going to make the difference? I doubt it. I have a 9mm on my hip right now and I can shoot it extremely well.
As has been said before, so far no study has ever proven that any of the rounds above 9mm are any more effective. Look at the sites linked above and you will find not a bit of evidence to show that there is any distinct advantage to using anything over a 9mm. There is a little advantage, and I will argue all day long that the .357 Sig is an outstanding round and that nothing compares to a full sized 10mm, but what do I have on my hip? A 9mm right now and I feel very well armed.
Any doubts about the 9mm being effective have been aleviated by current designs.
But, the .40 is a great round! In compact guns it has been well established to outperform the .45, which for some reason just does not fare very well in compact guns. Probably because .40 loads are designed for a 4 inch barrel and .45 loads are designed for a 5 inch barrel (look at manufacturer data). So, with the compact .40 you are keeping within the limits of it's design and it still performs like it is suppoed to ballistically. Shoot a .45 out of a 3.5 inch barrel and it is not designed for that range and it does not perform. Look at Shawn Dodson's site that is linked and you see that the subcompact .40 performs beautifully in gelatin and the subcompact .45 fails.
Not meaning to start arguments with the .45 lovers. Just realize thatin a compact .45 you are probably shooting what is effectively ball ammo because it will not expand. On the other hand, the .40 will perform extremely well.
So, the advantages of the .40 over the .45 show up when you are picking compact guns.
The more I study though, the less I am convinced that anything really works much better than a well designed 124 gr +p 9mm.
All the defensive calibers penetrate, and expand about the same and they all rate about the same in the M&S OSS charts.
9mm guns are extremely ergonomic, compact etc.
It was stated and argued that the .45 was possibly a better cartridge, but people picked the 9mm for the gun.
So, someone had the bright idea to stuff a larger bore bullet in the 9mm, and it has proven to be very popular.
Is it really better? I don't know, is 50 or so foot pounds of energy and 1mm of diameter really going to make the difference? I doubt it. I have a 9mm on my hip right now and I can shoot it extremely well.
As has been said before, so far no study has ever proven that any of the rounds above 9mm are any more effective. Look at the sites linked above and you will find not a bit of evidence to show that there is any distinct advantage to using anything over a 9mm. There is a little advantage, and I will argue all day long that the .357 Sig is an outstanding round and that nothing compares to a full sized 10mm, but what do I have on my hip? A 9mm right now and I feel very well armed.
Any doubts about the 9mm being effective have been aleviated by current designs.
But, the .40 is a great round! In compact guns it has been well established to outperform the .45, which for some reason just does not fare very well in compact guns. Probably because .40 loads are designed for a 4 inch barrel and .45 loads are designed for a 5 inch barrel (look at manufacturer data). So, with the compact .40 you are keeping within the limits of it's design and it still performs like it is suppoed to ballistically. Shoot a .45 out of a 3.5 inch barrel and it is not designed for that range and it does not perform. Look at Shawn Dodson's site that is linked and you see that the subcompact .40 performs beautifully in gelatin and the subcompact .45 fails.
Not meaning to start arguments with the .45 lovers. Just realize thatin a compact .45 you are probably shooting what is effectively ball ammo because it will not expand. On the other hand, the .40 will perform extremely well.
So, the advantages of the .40 over the .45 show up when you are picking compact guns.
The more I study though, the less I am convinced that anything really works much better than a well designed 124 gr +p 9mm.
All the defensive calibers penetrate, and expand about the same and they all rate about the same in the M&S OSS charts.