Feel the same about the 40S&W as you use to?

kraigwy said:
Most accurate statement I've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...
If that is true, a new shooter would have no harder time learning to shoot a Glock 23 than a Glock 19? If the end result at the target is the same, felt delivery is also the same?

Yes, it is all a matter of nuances sometimes, however, every action every change is measurable and sometimes a little thing is the difference between loss and victory.
 
Much bigger fan today than when introduced. Always have thought the old 10 round mag limit helped it gain a foot hold. In the end to me though, a pretty efficient useful cartridge much like the 9mm, 308, 223.
 
Used to carry a S&W 4053
Sold my guns off 5 years ago except for a 65-5 3" 357

Started back in 4 months ago

After seeing the comparisons of 9-40- 45 and 357Sig on You Tube
My semi is now a S&W MP9C
 
I traded my 229 for a 220 back in the spring, so I'm back in the hunt for something that can shoot 40, so my factory ammo has a mate.

I'm kinda leaning more toward a G20 with a conversion barrel. (spent lots of time behind one this summer)

My next question about the 40 is....do they all require the "bulge buster" treatment before reloading? My RCBS carbide dies just don't seem to get the job done at the base.
 
During the last (current?) ammo crisis I couldn't find much of anything but .40 range ammo. Good enough reason to have one. :D
 
10 years ago I was in high school so I didn't have much of an opinion on the .40 at the time. But I have always felt the same about the .40 as I do now. My 9mm does everything the .40 does with less recoil while allowing me to carry more rounds. I can put more shots on target quicker and with better accuracy with a 9mm than a .40 in the same platform. On paper the .40 may look better, in the real world as far as stopping threats it's simply not.
 
Just because the difference between 9mm, .40, .45, .357 are small, it doesn't mean there is no difference.

.40 is a more lethal round. There is no scientific way of saying if that small increase is a good or bad bargain for a small decrease in capacity. For police, it is probably worthwhile. For people who buy their own pistols and bullets, maybe not.
 
I agree with the many posts who say repeatedly and somewhat emphatically that the "extra" difference a .40 S&W may provide over the current top-tier 9mm loads is of very little consequence, if anything at all.

However, if we set the way back machine's dial to 1990, it is certainly true that the track record of the 9mm was quite spotty.

Back then, things were a little different.
We did not have NEARLY the bullet technology we have today.
We definitely did not have the propellant technology, either.

We also did not have nearly as many well done studies on handguns and their use in stopping people in the act of evil. We most certainly did not have nearly the level of training in 1990, and that goes for civilians even more than for LE, but it is true for both.

I firmly believe the gap between 9mm and .40 S&W was larger in 1990 than it is now. And you also have to wonder if .45 might not be quite as popular these days if the '94-'04 AWB didn't limit 9mm and .40cal handguns to 10-rounds. That certainly boosted the popularity of the .45 in this role.

There was a time in the late 80s/early 90s when my face would curl up at even the mention of the 9mm, and this was due to the fact that all of the "gun talk" there was in my world was gun magazines and the chatter I would hear in the skeet house, rifle range or over the pancake breakfast at the Sportsman's Club.

Some of the folks posting now that champion the current ability of the 9mm (and I'm with you) may not have lived through the era where anyone who knew ANYTHING believed that the 9mm was nothing more than a liability with a whole heap of ammo on board. It seemed to not only be a "bad stopper" but it almost seemed to reinforce REALLY bad shooting by not being near good enough, but by throwing a helluva lot more lead at the problem.

The 9mm that we know as capable today...
did not have that reputation for a long stretch there a couple decades back. And that era and those ideas SPAWNED the .40 S&W.
 
I see this stuff about how good 9mm is now, and I don't understand it.

Which amazing bullets or powders do we have now that were't around 25 years ago?

For instance, Black Talon/Ranger SXT goes back to 1991. I believe Gold Dots are from 1995. Which rounds are night and day better than these?
 
Those loads came well after all the hoopla surrounding the failures of the 9mm which was -THE- hot topic in the late 80s. The Miami FBI event was one of the big events that got the subject really rolling hot and that was in 1986.

The story of the 10mm and the .40 S&W and the 9mm's role which helped precipitate their use in LE is well documented. Much of it STILL littered far more with opinion than measurable fact, just as it was back in the 1980s.
 
RX-79G said:
Just because the difference between 9mm, .40, .45, .357 are small, it doesn't mean there is no difference.

.40 is a more lethal round. There is no scientific way of saying if that small increase is a good or bad bargain for a small decrease in capacity. For police, it is probably worthwhile. For people who buy their own pistols and bullets, maybe not.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between those rounds, but in the real world that marginal difference means absolutely nothing. The .40 is not a more lethal round as studies have shown, as far as stopping threats the .40 is no better than 9mm.

RX-79G said:
I see this stuff about how good 9mm is now, and I don't understand it.

Which amazing bullets or powders do we have now that were't around 25 years ago?
Click to expand...

Better hollowpoint designs, it's as simple as that. Hollowpoint bullets of today are able to expand more reliably while penetrating deeper than those of the past.
 
If Ranger is as old as .40, what happened more recently that makes 9mm as good as .40?

Which loads are we talking about?
 
If Ranger is as old as .40, what happened more recently that makes 9mm as good as .40?
Click to expand...

Besides the major improvements in hollowpoint designs, as more people were shot with the .40, more statistics were available. As people compiled these statistics, and compared them to other calibers, they came to the conclusion that when stopping threats, 9mm, .40, and .45 for example are all pretty much equal.

.308 and 30-06 are both great rounds for hunting deer. While the 30-06 may be more "powerful", it doesn't make the deer any deader, and doesn't drop it any faster. It's the same with 9mm, .40, and .45. They all kill 2 legged predators just as well as the next.
 
I keep seeing how bullet tech and powder tech has made the 9mm the equal of the .40,.45 and .357. but every bit of that same tech is used in the .40, .45, and .357 so that tells me all those calibers are still that much better than the 9mm and all that really matters in the end is placement, yeah the 9mm does the job but i feel the rest each do it a bit better and as far as recoil goes if you cant handle it go smaller until you can. I own and shoot all of them but my .40 goes everywhere I do
 
I keep seeing how bullet tech and powder tech has made the 9mm the equal of the .40,.45 and .357. but every bit of that same tech is used in the .40, .45, and .357 so that tells me all those calibers are still that much better than the 9mm and all that really matters in the end is placement, yeah the 9mm does the job but i feel the rest each do it a bit better and as far as recoil goes if you cant handle it go smaller until you can. I own and shoot all of them but my .40 goes everywhere I do
Click to expand...

It's real easy to look on paper and say, "oh this round must be better than this". It's this amount heavier, this much faster, and this much larger. All that doesn't mean a thing until it is put to test in the real world, and real world results show that when stopping threats, the 9mm, .40, and .45 work equally as well and achieve the same end result.
 
That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?

It appears to be more of the latter.
 
I believe you, not arguing that point but my disdain for the 9mm will not change, it is the last gun i will carry, on the other hand my wife carries and loves 9mm and looks at my guns like they are nasty spiders but I'm confident that her 9mm Shield will get the job done if she has to use it and may god have mercy on anybody she has to draw on because she can shoot
 
That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?
Click to expand...

I would say a little of both. As bullet technology improved, and as more studies have been done, more people are adopting the 9mm. I know far more people dropping down from .40 to 9mm because of this, and it is also becoming a trend for many PD's and agencies as well.
 
That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?

It appears to be more of the latter.
Click to expand...
I definitely would not argue against the quoted text. At the same time I will freely admit that I simply don't have the certain answers. And I'm suspect of folks who believe that they do.

When I was in my formative shooting years (late 80s), the 9mm was compared most often to the .38 Special, just about as "effective" but with twice or 3x the ammo on board. Where does .38 Special sit these days?

And where does the .380 Auto fall in place in the discussion?

It seems to me that every single different round out there falls in a different place according to whomever happens to be discussing it at that moment.
 
Handguns & cartridges for self-defense often come down to preference, sometimes subjective.

When the .40 S&W was introduced, I had no opinion of it. Around 1997 I bought a P-229 in .40 S&W. It is the most reliable handgun I own, and that includes revolvers. I have come to believe that the .40 S&W is the second best self-defense handgun cartridge. I'd rather have a .40 S&W than a .357 Mag. If fact, for many reasons, I do not consider the .357 Mag a good self-defense choice. Besides it being a revolver with limited capacity and time-consuming to reload only six more rounds, its muzzle blast is disorienting, its muzzle flash blinding, and its recoil, especially with light guns, excessive. All of these factors cause sight picture retention -a potentially life saving criterion extremely crucial were a bad guy shooting at a good guy- dicey at best.

For self-defense, I prefer heavy for caliber bullets. I am not if the light & fast corner. I want a bullet that will penetrate, preferably through-and-through. I'd much rather have through-and-through penetration than a bullet that's supposed to expand. I will go with an expanding bullet as long as I don't have to compromise what I consider more crucial criteria. I do not like frangible bullets. I want a self-defense bullet to retain its original weight.

Since .40 caliber self-defense projectiles are optimized at 180 grains at a nominal 1000 FPS, I see no benefit of the 10MM for that application. I'll take more .40 S&W rounds than less of the more powerful 10MM rounds. The 10MM would be superior for trail use.

I've remained of the opinion that the 1911A1 in .45 ACP is the best self-defense handgun. However, a P-229 with 13 180 grain rounds is a very close second.

I would definitely recommend the .40 S&W for self-defense. And I consider the P-229 one of the best handguns made.

For those who prefer the 9MM, .357 Sig, 10MM, etc, I'm good. After all, your choices will have to be what's right for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top