Game over for the 40 S&W. Say it ain't so!
- Thread starter Wethepeople01
- Start date
Kilibreaux
New member
IF the .40 S&W is in decline it's the fault of consumers to recognize a great "upgrade" to the 9mm!
I admit I was slow to warm up to the .40 S&W, figuring like most that whatEVER the .40 could do, so too could the 9mm. That isn't factual. Mil-spec .40 is vastly downloaded which puts it in the same kinetic energy realm as the 9mm and .45 ACP, YET, the .40 S&W is capable of kinetic energies above 600 lb-ft., which is nearly double that of it's police-spec competition!
The .40 S&W is actually a great improvement over the 9mm.
I admit I was slow to warm up to the .40 S&W, figuring like most that whatEVER the .40 could do, so too could the 9mm. That isn't factual. Mil-spec .40 is vastly downloaded which puts it in the same kinetic energy realm as the 9mm and .45 ACP, YET, the .40 S&W is capable of kinetic energies above 600 lb-ft., which is nearly double that of it's police-spec competition!
The .40 S&W is actually a great improvement over the 9mm.
Okay, now I'm stumped.
Can you cite to a reliable source (and link) that defines the specific ballistic parameters of the "mil-spec" .40 load versus the "police-spec" .40 load?
Sounds like internet fiction at its best.
Just get a 10mm and suddenly you're back to reality.
Last edited:
Underwood Ammo makes a variety of +P loads and identifies them as such. Of course, there is no SAAMI standard for +P for the .40 S&W cartridge, but some boutique ammo manufacturer's have sold over-pressured .40 S&W ammo labelled
"+P". I very much doubt that Underwood would be selling .40 S&W ammunition loaded above the SAAMI standard for .40 S&W (35,000 psi) without some notification. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.
That 135 grain, .40 S&W Underwood load comes close to the muzzle velocity, and exceeds the muzzle energy of Underwood's 357 SIG load which also uses a Nosler projectile, while providing a heavier projectile of greater diameter. I have generally stuck to 180 grain loads with .40 S&W and have found the lighter projectiles to have less pleasant recoil characteristics. Is anyone here familiar with that Underwood 135 grain load and how it compares to 180 grain loads?
"+P". I very much doubt that Underwood would be selling .40 S&W ammunition loaded above the SAAMI standard for .40 S&W (35,000 psi) without some notification. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.
That 135 grain, .40 S&W Underwood load comes close to the muzzle velocity, and exceeds the muzzle energy of Underwood's 357 SIG load which also uses a Nosler projectile, while providing a heavier projectile of greater diameter. I have generally stuck to 180 grain loads with .40 S&W and have found the lighter projectiles to have less pleasant recoil characteristics. Is anyone here familiar with that Underwood 135 grain load and how it compares to 180 grain loads?
Last edited:
The 40 was a solution in search of a problem, an answer to a question no one asked......................
I own over 50 guns and only one in 40, which is a pistol I was issued by an agency that let me buy it when I left. I ONLY bought it because it was stamped with the agency logo and my badge number was the serial number. Figured one of my kids might want it.
If I want to sling a .40 caliber bullet with some effect, I reach for my 10mm Auto. I never bought into the 40 as something that was "needed".
I own over 50 guns and only one in 40, which is a pistol I was issued by an agency that let me buy it when I left. I ONLY bought it because it was stamped with the agency logo and my badge number was the serial number. Figured one of my kids might want it.
If I want to sling a .40 caliber bullet with some effect, I reach for my 10mm Auto. I never bought into the 40 as something that was "needed".
I disagree. Though I personally have not shot any .40 I really liked enough to continue owning I also have not shot dedicated .40 platforms.
Col Cooper was asked to put together his thoughts on the pinnacle of a fighting handgun. Col. Cooper had earlier opined that a 200 grain .40 caliber bullet (one centimeter) travelling at about 1,000FPS was the "sweet spot" in regards to a fighting caliber.
The problem is that sometimes people realize that the target is not only doable but can be exceeded. Norma and the makers of the Bren Ten were pushing this round to 1200FPS rather than the original target. The 10MM was found, by many, to be too recoil heavy to be the "ideal" handgun round and the .40 (much closer to Col Coopers original thoughts) was born
So while I do not like it the .40 to me was the answer to Col Cooper's thoughts on the "ideal" fighting handgun caliber. Now one has to wonder with Col Cooper's wonderful round figures how much science was behind it but the question that was being asked was not really a question - it was a design spec the .40 filled.
It was just that, an opinion. It would not be out of the realm of reality to push a 200 grain .45ACP near that speed with regularity and great effect.
Anyway, we have been effectively killing each other with bigger/slower and smaller faster bullets for hundreds of years before the 40 came along. I, personally of course, think it was worthless venture.
Last edited:
In dedicated platforms .40S&W is a great upgrade from 9mm. For those people who don't like 9mm very much and for whom .45auto is a bit more than they like to shoot (recoil-wise) forty very nicely bridges those two calibers.
For me, the little 9mm rounds are fiddly to handle and no fun to reload. And while 9mm can be an effective defense load, it does fall short of .40S&W, just as it falls short of .45auto. The many claims that 9mm is the EQUAL of .40 and .45 are false claims. No two calibers are "equal", as they each have qualities that differentiate them.
Even using the very imperfect model of gelatin block testing (which does not resemble the human body very well at all - it has NO BONES, for one difference) the different calibers behave differently - not identically.
Heavier weight projectiles of larger diameter can bust through obstacles (like heavy bone) more easily than light weight projectiles. This is one distinction that differentiates .45 from .40 and .40 from 9mm and 9mm from .380 and .380 from .32.
If 9mm is "just as effective" as .40S&W, then .40 is just as effective as .45. And .380 is just as effective as 9mm. And .32auto is just as effective as .380. No, it isn't so.
Please, 9mm fanboys need not get defensive, nor feel threatened by calibers such as .40S&W nor by .357Sig, .45auto, or 10mm, etc. But for some reason, many who have ingested the 9mm cool-aid deeply behave very defensively (sometimes offensively) when discussions of .40S&W and .357Sig and .45auto take place. They don't seem quite as defensive in the face of .45auto discussions, but seem to take great defense/offense when it comes to .40S&W. I guess forty gets just a little too close to 9mm (relatively high capacity) for their comfort. But no reason for that, as they're both good calibers, each with their own particular benefits.
All calibers are excellent calibers in their own ways, but none of them are "identical" to any of the others. They each offer a particular set of qualities that have different benefits making each better suited to different platforms and applications.
Personally, I don't like 9mm very much, except when I need to step down to small platforms like the PM9 or P938. I enjoy .40S&W much more when using mid-size and full-size platforms. But I don't deny that others may enjoy 9mm for what they carry and what they shoot.
Generally speaking, I find the smaller calibers (like 9mm) more suitable and enjoyable than the larger calibers when shooting small pistols. And when shooting larger pistols, I like the larger calibers better.
For me, the little 9mm rounds are fiddly to handle and no fun to reload. And while 9mm can be an effective defense load, it does fall short of .40S&W, just as it falls short of .45auto. The many claims that 9mm is the EQUAL of .40 and .45 are false claims. No two calibers are "equal", as they each have qualities that differentiate them.
Even using the very imperfect model of gelatin block testing (which does not resemble the human body very well at all - it has NO BONES, for one difference) the different calibers behave differently - not identically.
Heavier weight projectiles of larger diameter can bust through obstacles (like heavy bone) more easily than light weight projectiles. This is one distinction that differentiates .45 from .40 and .40 from 9mm and 9mm from .380 and .380 from .32.
If 9mm is "just as effective" as .40S&W, then .40 is just as effective as .45. And .380 is just as effective as 9mm. And .32auto is just as effective as .380. No, it isn't so.
Please, 9mm fanboys need not get defensive, nor feel threatened by calibers such as .40S&W nor by .357Sig, .45auto, or 10mm, etc. But for some reason, many who have ingested the 9mm cool-aid deeply behave very defensively (sometimes offensively) when discussions of .40S&W and .357Sig and .45auto take place. They don't seem quite as defensive in the face of .45auto discussions, but seem to take great defense/offense when it comes to .40S&W. I guess forty gets just a little too close to 9mm (relatively high capacity) for their comfort. But no reason for that, as they're both good calibers, each with their own particular benefits.
All calibers are excellent calibers in their own ways, but none of them are "identical" to any of the others. They each offer a particular set of qualities that have different benefits making each better suited to different platforms and applications.
Personally, I don't like 9mm very much, except when I need to step down to small platforms like the PM9 or P938. I enjoy .40S&W much more when using mid-size and full-size platforms. But I don't deny that others may enjoy 9mm for what they carry and what they shoot.
Generally speaking, I find the smaller calibers (like 9mm) more suitable and enjoyable than the larger calibers when shooting small pistols. And when shooting larger pistols, I like the larger calibers better.
Last edited:
I understand you are berating another poster. And I did read you entire post before posting this. I am just espousing certain ideas.
Well, if the last two comparisons are valid in your mind, that is truly a stretch, even if you are trying to possibly make a point.
(You seem to have skipped the .32 caliber autos in your comparison.)
You are comparing apples and oranges here with bullet diameter, and that simply cannot be done.
I would rather feel better armed with my 1911 .22LR 15-round mag with HV soft lead rounds (roundnose or HP) than any .25 ACP pistol or even a 6-7 round .32 ACP pistol as both of the latter calibers are/were FMJ rounds with no chance of expansion, nor much penetration. And that slim 1911 .22 is fairly concealable considering how slim it is.
My major choice is what I have: a 1911 stainless steel clone, well-massaged, in .45 ACP with well-appointed HP cartridges. It runs great.
Do I think it is the best HD/SD handgun available? No. It is second to this:
If I had the money, my first choice would be a Coonan .357 auto. Those guys have got it down to a veritable science and it runs very good even for a rimmed cartridge in a semi-auto.
I know they are spendy, but the ballistics of a .357 outshine anything other than a true 10mm. The 10mm on a basic 1911 platform beats the pistol to death after not many rounds. The .357 Mag, not so much with the heavier Coonan.
The Coonan .357 is built much more robust than the standard 1911 and I think it would stand up to much more rigorous use than a 1911 10mm.
I am taking donations in order to purchase a Coonan.
PM me if you are willing to contribute.
Last edited:
AKexpat... yes, I was definitely being a bit "tongue-in-cheek" in some of the ammo comparisons. And, you're right... in my attempt at jest, I forgot all about the wonderful .32 auto!
Lastly, I'm not attempting to berate anyone. I just feel that there is a particular nasty animosity directed toward .40S&W from some users of 9mm. And it is unwarranted. .40S&W may not be a favorite caliber of theirs, but it remains a very viable and effective caliber which brings some benefits to the table that neither nine, nor 45 bring. Though each of them bring their own particular set of benefits. I have and I use all of these calibers and more. It just so happens that the blend of power and capacity that comes with .40S&W pleases me enough to have that as my primary carry caliber.
Forty-five, forty, and nine can all happily live and get along well together. They do at my place, that's for sure.
Lastly, I'm not attempting to berate anyone. I just feel that there is a particular nasty animosity directed toward .40S&W from some users of 9mm. And it is unwarranted. .40S&W may not be a favorite caliber of theirs, but it remains a very viable and effective caliber which brings some benefits to the table that neither nine, nor 45 bring. Though each of them bring their own particular set of benefits. I have and I use all of these calibers and more. It just so happens that the blend of power and capacity that comes with .40S&W pleases me enough to have that as my primary carry caliber.
Forty-five, forty, and nine can all happily live and get along well together. They do at my place, that's for sure.
Wethepeople01
New member
Great conversation here! 
SDF880... thanks. I hadn't heard that before, but that is about how I feel. G21SF .45 on the nightstand and .40 for carry, most of the time. Every once in a while I'll pop off some 10mm and some 9mm, but they're not my favorites.
Eenie, Meanie, Miney, Mo...
I keep these rounds as "desk decor" under my computer monitor. They're enjoyable to look at.
Eenie, Meanie, Miney, Mo...
I keep these rounds as "desk decor" under my computer monitor. They're enjoyable to look at.
Last edited: