Future of the .40 cal in Law Enforcement

I personally do not have much preference of 9mm versus .45 ACP and in fact, have one of each. But because I have a fair supply of ammunition in those calibers and none at all in .40, I haven't seriously considered anything in .40 auto. But since one pistol I've been thinking about doesn't seem to ever show up in 9mm but does in .40, I have been thinking about it.

Another thing, however, that has kept me away is the thought about a high pressure round like the .40. A .45 ACP is anything but high pressure but I discover that a 9mm has a higher pressure limit than a .40 (and a .357 is even higher). So maybe I was worried about nothing after all. So how is it that a .40 can be "snappy" in recoil?
 
I personally do not have much preference of 9mm versus .45 ACP and in fact, have one of each. But because I have a fair supply of ammunition in those calibers and none at all in .40, I haven't seriously considered anything in .40 auto. But since one pistol I've been thinking about doesn't seem to ever show up in 9mm but does in .40, I have been thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much the opposite. I grew up shooting .38's, .357's, and .22 pistols back in the 1980's. Since I mostly hunted with them, and they could easily double for self-defense, I didn't have much reason to shoot much in the way of semi-auto cartridges. In fact, the first semi-auto centerfire handgun I can remember shooting was a series 70 Colt 1911 in .38 Super. Then in the early or mid-1990's, a buddy let me try a Ruger P-91 in .40 S&W, and I was quite pleased with it. I've been a .40 S&W fan since, and though I've shot a few 9mm's and .45's, I've never been totally convinced on them. the .40 just seems to fit my preferences right, and I've stuck with it.

Another thing, however, that has kept me away is the thought about a high pressure round like the .40. A .45 ACP is anything but high pressure but I discover that a 9mm has a higher pressure limit than a .40 (and a .357 is even higher). So maybe I was worried about nothing after all. So how is it that a .40 can be "snappy" in recoil?
Click to expand...

Pressure isn't of primary concern in recoil. Recoil is a product of bullet velocity and weight. Having shot all three cartridges mentioned (9mm, .40, and .45 ACP), the .40 S&W does have a quicker, sharper recoil than the others in the firearms I've shot them in.

The .45 ACP shoots a heavy bullet at relatively low velocity. It's also often shot in heavier firearms that tend to dampen recoil.

The 9mm shoots a lighter bullet at similar velocity to heavier bullets in the .40 S&W. It's a pleasant cartridge to shoot, no doubt.

A lot of folks say that the .40 is "snappy". I don't know that I agree, completely. It is what it is, and I don't find the recoil offensive at all.

I know several people who shoot the .40 S&W regularly, and the only place I've ever heard of "snappy recoil" is on internet boards. Those I know who shoot the .40 wouldn't think of trading them off for a 9mm, and they don't complain about the recoil. Perhaps this is just a term, sorta like those who call it "short & weak", used to bring the cartridge into a negative light?

Whether folks like it or leave it, it is what it is. For some of us, it's just right for self-defense purposes.

Daryl
 
Another thing, however, that has kept me away is the thought about a high pressure round like the .40. A .45 ACP is anything but high pressure but I discover that a 9mm has a higher pressure limit than a .40 (and a .357 is even higher). So maybe I was worried about nothing after all. So how is it that a .40 can be "snappy" in recoil?
Click to expand...

Lack of shooter experience--ie, no time on handguns that really have some recoil--and preconditioning to the concept via regurgitated tales of the .40 being a hard kicker.

I have taught more than a few petite females to shoot this cartridge and they manage it just fine.
 
+1 Sarge. My girlfriend can shoot my .40 with one hand without trouble. The "snap" of the .40 is 90% internet wisdom. With some range time, .40 follow up shots are just as fast as 9. I am actually faster following up with .40 than high pressure 9 rounds.
 
Lack of shooter experience--ie, no time on handguns that really have some recoil
Click to expand...

Yup. My dad is a die hard revolver guy. With the exception of a .22, the smallest handgun he owns is a .357 magnum.

Well arthritis finally caught up to him and he bought a Stoeger Cougar .40 which affectionately calls his "cap gun". He often jokes that he prefers shooting it at night, the muzzle flash lets him know the gun actually fired.

Recoil is relative. My wife shoots a .380 and loves it, and she calls my Beretta 96 the "jackass" because to her it kicks that hard. My dad on the other hand only considers a pistol to be a gun if there is a real risk of catching a hammer in your forehead.
 
My Lady Friend handles a Glock 26 and a Ruger SR9 no problem, and has shot a buddy's Glock 27 with no complaint. If a shooter approaches a new weapon with no preconcieved notion, other than her comment of ".40? Isn't that what you call short and weak all the time, Mack?" and has good instruction, they can handle anything with in reason.

I would say the danger to the .40 S&W in law enforcement lays not from the .357 Sig or the .45 ACP but with ever tightening budgets and ammunition advancements, but from super-duper wonder nines.
 
There is a zone at around 180-185 grains, which the FBI liked most in the 10mm and subsequently the forty where the 40 and 45 GAP provide similar ballistics at slightly over 1,000fps. The GAP loads in that performance range using less charge and develops lower pressure. Consequently a similar weight 45 GAP round should be softer shooting than a 40 S&W from the same platform. Love it how virtually everybody is completely taken with his guns, yet somehow think Gaston Block made a horrible mistake with the 45 GAP. It is smaller and lighter than the 45 ACP, with proven ballistics. Since it's introduction, the 45 GAP has been sort of a sleeper on the market. But I suspect it will gather stream with law enforcement, and very possibly the Armed Forces.
 
Recoil is a funny thing, isn't it? For my money one of the harshest kicking handguns is a Makarov. I'd call that snappy. A .38 Super in a full size Colt is a little snappier than a .45 auto in the same size frame but neither are particularly harsh. A Colt Government Model in .45 even seems to kick in both directions. For a while I had a Colt lightweight Officer's ACP, which I often mention, that had something of a kick but although it recoiled a little more than a Makarov, it wasn't really harsh.

Likewise, a K-frame .357 magnum with 125-grain bullets has recoil, no doubt, but you notice the blast even more.

Much ado about nothing.
 
forty where the 40 and 45 GAP provide similar ballistics at slightly over 1,000fps.
Click to expand...

180 gr .40 and .45 GAP rounds driven at the same velocity will not have the same terminal performance.

When comparing bullets of the same weight, the .40 round will be narrower, denser, and have a lower coefficient of drag. That will result in the .40 having better penetration and a flatter trajectory than the .45 GAP.

As mentioned earlier, the big advantage of the .40 for law enforcement is its performance against "soft" barriers like car doors and windshields. The .40 is superior to every caliber smaller than it in this regard, and as good or better than the calibers larger than it .45 ACP, .45 GAP.

A 180 grain 10 mm bullet driven at 1000 FPS seems to be a sweet spot for barrier penetration with the resulting combination of kinetic energy, sectional density, and inertia.
 
I have a 1911 .45 and it does snap a little and friend has a .40 and didnt notice much when I shot his pistol. My dad has a .45 cowboy and it has less snap than my 1911 but will stay with the 1911 anyday
 
Your point is well taken, Falcon. Perhaps the only surefire way to solve this between is to take some of each round and shoot a whole lot of goats and observe the effects of each caliber. Cows, maybe? It's been done before, but long before the days of animal rights.

It's interesting the Texas DPS supposedly passed on the 40 and went to 357 SIG for barrier penetration. They also had some feeding problems with 45 ACP. Could be the SIG round took market share that may have otherwise gone to the 45 GAP.
 
The 40 is a great in between from the 9mm and 45 acp . With that said I hardly doubt we will see the caliber removed from agencies. If we could only convince the US Military to switch from that junk pistol (M9) to the XD-M 40, or Glock 22 we'd be in business.
 
The 40 is a great in between from the 9mm and 45 acp . With that said I hardly doubt we will see the caliber removed from agencies. If we could only convince the US Military to switch from that junk pistol (M9) to the XD-M 40, or Glock 22 we'd be in business.
Click to expand...

Berettas are hardly "junk." That being said, the U.S. military has rejected striker-fired pistols in the past for firing pin energy requirements, and only one NATO military (Norway) makes the Glock available as a general issue item.

.40 S&W isn't a bad round, especially considering barrier penetration requirements (which matter a lot more for police than military (who use ball anyways) or civilians (who, if the bad guy is behind a barrier, should be exercising their legal duty of flight)).
 
Brandon, spend a few minutes on Google to learn about how much the Beretta M9 being "junk" is internet armchair soldier nonsense. Issues with the locking block happened a very long time ago and were very limited, and jamming issues have been traced to the military buying low-quality magazines, and poor magazines will make ANY gun, from Hi-Point to Wilson Combat, seem like junk.

If you don't LIKE the M9 because of caliber, size, aesthetics, etc., that is fine, but they are objectively and factually NOT "junk"
 
The 40 is a great in between from the 9mm and 45 acp . With that said I hardly doubt we will see the caliber removed from agencies. If we could only convince the US Military to switch from that junk pistol (M9) to the XD-M 40, or Glock 22 we'd be in business.
Click to expand...


don't know about M9's being junk, don't own one, personally.


however, i do agree 100% that the military should use a good 40cal like the glock 22 if our government is going to force our soldiers to use FMJ bullets in order to adhere to the Hague convention, which we were not a part of, for the sake of international political correctness.
 
+1 Don.

Of course, I'd advocate M&P40 rather than Glock, but same idea. :)

Nothing against Glock, I love the darn things, just American-made if possible.
 
M9 service life; wear & tear...

Another big problem with the M9s are junk remarks is that the Beretta 92F/M9 series has been on active duty/DoD contract since the mid 1980s.
A lot of the M9s are "worn out". They need new parts, springs, barrels, etc.
Logistics and ordnance problems are a big concern now.
Beretta USA is authorized to replace many M9s to around 2016.

Why the US Army picked the M9 over the newer M9a1 upgrade(like the USMC chose to do about 4 years ago) is what I don't get.
 
yep, dr. roberts and dr. fackler have written countless reports to the dept of defense about how it's nonsense that LE in america can use the best jhp's available, yet our soldiers are subjugated to using fmj for an international agreement that we were not a part of.
 
It frustrates me the most that poor logistical decisions are leading to the tarnishing of the brand reputation of my personal favorite make of handgun and a damn fine one regardless of my opinion. Any gun subjected to the neglect the U.S. Army foists upon its sidearms would experience failures, even the supposedly invincible Glock. Then those failures get touted by 'net commandos as well as soldiers who know of no other Beretta experience than their poor one as evidence of Beretta's poor quality, and since Beretta has the contract it fails to effectively contest these false assertions due to a sometimes Colt-like complacency.

/rant

Agreed with both of you about JHP's and Hague. Being polite is not worth the lives of soldiers. Give them the deadliest man-eating bullet designed.
 
In an ideal world, logistics and costs wouldn't be a problem. In case we haven't noticed, the world is, at best, quirky, and logistics and costs matter.

Going to a larger caliber means adding weight to the carry ammo, which means carrying fewer rounds on an individual level, and which means carrying a lot fewer rounds on the transport aircraft level. Reducing round counts is generally not preferred.

Going to a caliber other than 9mm would mean having to keep separate stockpiles for allies (in my experience, we provide almost all ammunition for training exercises; my guess would be we provide a good chunk of it for actual operations where allies support us, too). It would also negate the ability of our guys to give spare ammunition to allies, or take spare ammunition from them, during engagements.

Changing calibers would require start-up costs; larger caliber ammunition costs more; pistols that handle larger caliber ammunition often cost more. Running up costs, during a depression, for a secondary weapon system doesn't make much sense either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top