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

A 40 has to have more recoil than a 9, it also delivers a larger/heavier bullet on target at higher velocity. To some that is important, others not so, make your choice.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not

In one sense, that's correct, in that the more powerful load will produce more "recoil", but what matters is "FELT recoil" so the weight of the gun becomes part of the formula

It's very possible for a lightweight 9mm weapon to have more "felt recoil" than a heavier 40 cal.

There is really very little difference in comparable loads, and what one "feels" is very subjective, with lots of variables besides the pure physics
 
Talking about similar guns. As for the 40 I have noticed more recoil difference between light bullet and heavy bullet loads than between heavy bullet 40's and all 9mm loads.
 
I completely agree with the original poster. It baffles me that .357 Magnum in revolvers is such a beloved caliber and .40 is so reviled when .357 is less pleasant to shoot.

I choose .40 and will continue to choose .40. Like many, many debates over things on the Internet, small differences are repeated ad nauseum until they only roughly reflect reality.

I think platform matters a lot. As a previous poster noted, "recoil" in pure physics terms is not the same as felt recoil, which varies widely by shooter and platform. My brother's Kahr PM9 is much, MUCH nicer to shoot than my LCP .380, despite being more powerful and not much bigger.
 
LockedBreech said:
I completely agree with the original poster. It baffles me that .357 Magnum in revolvers is such a beloved caliber and .40 is so reviled when .357 is less pleasant to shoot.
Click to expand...

But in smaller revolvers you will find just as many people recommending dropping down to .38 special over the .357 for many of the same reasons you see people recommending the 9mm over the .40.

Personally I am not a fan of the .357 no matter what size gun. If I am going to carry a snub it will be a .38, if I am going for a full size revolver I see no reason not to go large bore, especially with the option of .44 special if you don't want full tilt magnum loads.
 
Get a shot timer and get back with us.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem. The guys playing the shooting games are influencing decisions made about guns used for self defense. Many of the games rules have no real relationship to real world shooting needs.

In some of range games being able to shoot 5 rounds .5 seconds faster and hit tiny targets can mean the difference between winning and 2nd place. Not sure that is relevant in the real world.

In other games being able to knock a bowling pin or steel plate over is deemed important. Being able to do that has no correlation to how effective the bullet is when it hits a human or animal.

I also believe we all reach a level of tolerance when it comes to recoil. With me it is 357 magnum. Anything with less recoil such as 38, 9mm, 40, 45 or 10mm all feel about the same to me. I notice 357 as being a step up, but from standard size revolvers don't find it objectionable. I could see where many others could see 9mm as their upper limit of comfort and 40 being just too much.
 
In other games being able to knock a bowling pin or steel plate over is deemed important. Being able to do that has no correlation to how effective the bullet is when it hits a human or animal.
Click to expand...

Spot on, I can throw grapefruits at steel plates and bowling pins and knock them over easier than most handgun rounds, that doesn't make a grapefruit lethal.
 
Obviously there are many factors to perceived recoil such as caliber, mechanism, grip design, report level, subjective conditions and perception, etc.

For me, 40S&W in a similar gun seems to recoil only marginally more than 9mm Luger, which is to say, it is a pleasant amount of recoil - enough to know that the gun fired, but not punishing even after a couple of hundreds of rounds. I shoot 9mm more only because the ammo is cheaper and more plentiful.

I feel the 45 ACP recoil much more. It has a noticeably greater muzzle jump and the report seems to have more oomph. I'm somewhat noise-sensitive, so perhaps that affects my perception. Also, I've only shot 45 ACPs in a 1911 design and the grip just doesn't work for me. I've been told that a curved mainspring housing and a shorter trigger might change my view (and perhaps a flatter, more recessed grip safety; all the guns that fit me well have smooth curved back straps and a short trigger reach).

In terms of physical discomfort, worse than shooting 9mmP/40S&W/45ACP for me is shooting a fixed barrel/straight blowback .380 ACP. Very snappy on the palm (starts to wear me down after a couple of hundreds of rounds). I've never shot a locked breach .380 ACP, so I am hoping to find a Glock 42 soon to find out. I've been told that it's pretty mild and enjoyable even compared to full size 9mm Luger guns like Browning High Power/CZ-75/Glock 19/Sig P226.
 
I had an 84 Beretta (380) that seemed to recoil more than my 92 Beretta. Also try an AMT backup in 380, no fun at all!
 
In some of range games being able to shoot 5 rounds .5 seconds faster and hit tiny targets can mean the difference between winning and 2nd place. Not sure that is relevant in the real world.
Click to expand...
Well you may not be sure what's relevant, I can tell you that shooting slower and less accurate isn't a good thing.
Anything with less recoil such as 38, 9mm, 40, 45 or 10mm all feel about the same to me.
Click to expand...
Of course you refuse to actually quantify this :confused:

Spot on, I can throw grapefruits at steel plates and bowling pins and knock them over easier than most handgun rounds, that doesn't make a grapefruit lethal.
Click to expand...

Yes but if your gonna say you can knock them over just as fast with grapefruit as you can with watermelon but don't actually know how fast you can do it with either, is still suspect to me.
 
jmr40 said:
My Glock 20 loaded with hot Double Tap 10mm ammo is more comfortable to shoot than my 1911's with standard 230 gr hardball
Click to expand...

jmr40 said:
Anything with less recoil such as 38, 9mm, 40, 45 or 10mm all feel about the same to me.
Click to expand...

What made you change your mind between those two posts?
 
It has a noticeably greater muzzle jump and the report seems to have more oomph. I'm somewhat noise-sensitive, so perhaps that affects my perception.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation. .45 ACP is a low(ish) pressure round and should have a lower dB value than a 9mm and (I think) a .40. To my (admittedly a bit damaged) ears, .45 ACP seems MUCH quieter (with protection on, I don't shoot w/out it) than my 9mm or .40.

Its amazing how perception can differ between different people.
 
That's an excellent point about sound difference. I hadn't considered that but I'm sure it makes a big difference.

I'll never forget the first time I shot a .22 pistol. I had shot a .22 rifle before and I wasn't expecting much noise. That was when my naive self started to learn how much difference a long barrel makes. I'll bet my flinch was hilarious when that pistol fired the first time.
 
That's an interesting observation. .45 ACP is a low(ish) pressure round and should have a lower dB value than a 9mm and (I think) a .40.
Click to expand...
I know it. I know the .45 ACP is a lower pressure round and should be quieter, but it sounds a lot louder to me. To clarify, I feel more of a sonic blast with the 45 - it's like the 9s and 40s are a gentle breeze, but 45 sends stronger winds to my body. And the muzzle rise is definitely much higher for me with the 45 than with 9/40.

I also think the grip design plays a strong role. Most 9/40s I shoot easily have smooth curved back straps that minimize discomfort (and smooth surfaces everywhere). Even though 1911 is a heavy gun, there are protrusions that create discomfort during recoiling such as the raised bumper pad of the grip safety and the flat/sharp mainspring housing.

I am actually thinking about replacing the flat MSH and skeletonized long trigger on my 1911 with a curved MSH and a short trigger and get a "melt" job done on it as well to make the gun curvy and soap-like.

I can't believe some people get sharp checkering on their 1911s - maybe they have big, meaty hands. I have more skeletal, thin hands and that kind of checkering would shred my palms in no time.
 
Malcolm Reynolds said:
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.
Click to expand...
Try same size handguns. A glock 23 can have a little snap, but honestly not much more than a 124 +p which is what most are going to want for SD. I think that gets lost for a lot of people and they compare 115 standard pressure weak target loads to the 40s&w. When using defensive loads in each the difference isn't huge IMO.

In a full size handgun the 40s&w recoil is light, but I can see where some will claim snappy in compact or subcompacts.

Speaking to capacity there is more than a 1 round count difference in metal framed firearm most times. In polymer guns the count is usually 2 rounds less. So depends on the gun. Example, my preference the 96a1 comes from the factory with 12 round mags. Mec Gar mags are available flush fitting in 13 round mags while +2 extended in 15 vs the 92a1 17 round flush mag. So it depends largely on the weapon being metal framed or poly.

I think the 40s&w is a superior cartridge, but that may not be the case for everyone.
 
Dragline45 said:
But in smaller revolvers you will find just as many people recommending dropping down to .38 special over the .357 for many of the same reasons you see people recommending the 9mm over the .40.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree. .40 S&W is my favorite cartridge in service-sized firearms (no particular criteria, just a rough mental picture that, for me, applies to guns with 3.5 to 5.5 inch barrels, 10+ round magazines, designed primarily for unconcealed belt/service carry). That said, I much prefer 9mm for compact and subcompact autos. The rounds feel the same to me in medium-large guns, but in the small ones you can definitely feel more snarl in the .40
 
I had a glock 22 briefly and didn't find it particularly snappy.
I didn't time myself, but it didn't seem all that different than my other pistols.
If practice rounds were as inexpensive as 9, or if it had had a rail (for use as a dedicated, and light equipped "night stand gun") I very well might still have it.
As it was, I wound up buying a 19 and then trading the 22 for something or other.

At this point, every time I consider a 40 I just think about how much easier it is to run one caliber (9mm/.357).
Of i got another, I'd need another bore snake, new mags, new ammo boxes..... Probably some other stuff....
But recoil isn't high on the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top