I'm just gonna say it... .40 recoil isn't bad at all.

M

Malcolm Reynolds

New member
I hesitated on buying my first .40 because everyone said "it's not that much better than the 9mm" and "the recoil is horrible, worse than a .45" and "you'll have less capacity and you'll have a terrible time reacquiring your target."

At the risk of sounding like a moron, I just don't get it. In most cases, a gun chambered in .40 loses one whole round to it's 9mm counterpart. And it may not be a HUGE improvement over the best 9mm ammo, but it's a pretty heavy-hitting caliber. But the argument that really baffles me is the one about recoil.

I fired a Glock 19 and then went straight to a Glock 22. I mean... yeah? A little snappier, maybe? Hardly noticeable. I ended up buying a Smith SD40 VE because this isn't my carry gun and I wanted something that was quality but inexpensive for camping. I love it. The recoil is no problem.

If you prefer 9mm, that's awesome. It's got like a century of proof behind it. It's not wimpy. But is anyone else tired of people coming at you with this weak "recoil" argument? It's a weapon, not a remote control.
 
Last edited:
I can shoot full house .357s in K, L & N framed Smiths or Ruger GP 100s and
even do it in J frames.

I can shoot full house .44 Mags in a Smith 29 and Ruger Redhawk.

I can shoot .45 ACPs in a variety of pistols.

I can shoot .40 S&W in a variety of pistols.

But I choose the 9 mm. Despite its "bark" I know it can
get the job done. But that's just me and I've been shooting
for a lot of years. Except for the .45, I find the 9 mm easy on me.
And my hit potential is much higher.

The .40 is a good cartridge and I'm happy for those who choose it.
 
Felt recoil is very much a subjective thing. Personally, I find little objectionable recoil with most everything that I read complaints on. The "snappyness" of the LCP, or the increased recoil of the 40 S&W aren't really that noticeable to me. I don't find it problematic to control the recoil of those, and 45ACP, or even 10MM in my Glock 20SF.
Not only until I get to heavy loads in 44 Magnum in my Super Blackhawk, or rifle rounds like 35 Remington and 45-70 in my Contender handgun do I really notice recoil to the point I have to think about it, and concentrate on compensating for it.
 
I agree. What's more, I believe that unless you are somehow incapacitated, that even the 40's big brother 10mm can be handled nearly as well with sufficient practice.
 
UncleEd,
Yeah, that's the bottom line right there--You gotta shoot whatever works best for you. No disrespect. I definitely DON'T assume that if someone shoots 9mm they aren't able to handle a bigger caliber.

"Some of my best friends" shoot 9mm. :) Actually, all of them do.
 
The recoil of the 40 and even the 10mm is greatly over exaggerated. Go shoot a S&W 460 or 500 and get some perspective of what recoil actually feels like.
 
I have a 96 and 92 Beretta and unless it's a light bullet 40 S&W load don't notice allot of difference in recoil.The light bullet higher velocity loads seem to have more snap to them but not nearly enough to bother me. Now my friends 7.5" SRH 454 is a nasty Bugger, makes my 10" 357Max T/C feel like a Teddy Bear.
 
I think a lot of folks just simply don’t like the .40S&W because they see it as a compromise round. They feel like the 10mm was downloaded to a “short & weak” cartridge that they feel offers no real benefit over the 9mm or .45acp. This in turn influences how they feel about the performance of the round and the recoil. I personally see little difference in recoil be between my 9mms, .45acps or the .40S&W handguns. At the end of the day it’s good to have choices.
 
I shoot a Sig P229 and P239 in .40 and don't really perceive any objectionable recoil. It's just a non-issue. What I don't care for is the recoil of my 642 with +P loads. So much depends on the platform a cartridge is being shot from.
 
Good comments. Yeah, I'm not criticizing any caliber. 9, 40 and 45 all seem comparable to me for most situations. I guess I just get tired of what seems like recoil whining to me.

Guv: I keep waiting for a chance to try out the 454. From what I've heard and seen online it lives up to the painful hype. Still sounds like fun.
 
Try full bore .454 Casull out of a Ruger Alaskan. You'll be happy to pick up a .40 s&w in any platform! All things are relative.
 
Just a word of caution regarding the really heavy magnums, even starting with the .44 S&W Magnum:

Too much of them, and each person is probably different, and you'll suffer
injuries to wrist, elbow.

Case in point: Big bore shooter and gun writer John Taffin had to have his right wrist fused (doesn't flex any more) because constant magnum shooting literally wore the bones.

Another case in point: At one time I did a lot of .41 S&W Magnum combat shooting, all double action and fast. Then my elbow started hurting and continued to do so for a month after I quit such a foolish practice. A case of "tennis/magnum" elbow.
 
One of our forum brothers said his 454 Alaskan was like holding a firecracker in his hand and letting it blow! I believe it, also knew of a doctor with a 375JDJ T/C that broke some small bones in his wrist after a pre-hunt range session.
 
It's not a weak argument by any means. Less recoil equates to flatter shooting, which means more rounds on target faster and with better accuracy. I don't find the .40 recoil a problem, but I still shoot 9mm that much better where 9mm just makes more sense.
 
The .40's recoil is not bad, but it will still be measurably larger than a 9x19 in an equal platform.

124 grain @ 1250fps produces roughly 10.43ft-lbs of recoil energy in a 1lb weapon, with a recoil velocity of 26fps.

150grain @ 1245fps produces roughly 15.16ft-lbs free recoil energy in a 1lb weapon with a recoil velocity of 31.25fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top