Is the .40 S&W REALLY dying?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Never owned a .40 S&W anything. When I was a Board Member of IALEFI, I was the first to bring a 9mm into the group. "If you cannot do it with 6?" crowd, spoke out. I even coined a phrase. "More is better, always" In 1984, my Glock 17 was an oddity.

With the many different bullet types, weights, velocities in the defensive calibres, any of them work. Placement is king, 9mm is cheapest. Nuff said.
 
JohnKSa said:
I believe that this is what Lohman446 is referring to.

He stated that the "functional difference" between the two "is virtually none". Your restatement of his claim was: "the difference between the two is virtually none".
Click to expand...
Ah. Got it. I meant "difference" in the same vein as he. I guess it was a mistake to leave out the word "functional."

So let me clarify: I disagree with his assertion there is virtually no functional difference between the 9mm and .40 S&W.
 
Ah. Got it. I meant "difference" in the same vein as he. I guess it was a mistake to leave out the word "functional."

So let me clarify: I disagree with his assertion there is virtually no functional difference between the 9mm and .40 S&W.
Click to expand...

That we can disagree on. And yes JohnKSa was right in my objection to the original wording of the disagreement. Thank you. Because I am worried about a functional difference we really should define what function we are discussing as well. For me its as a defensive firearm. If the function you intend to discuss is mathematical than the physics become central to it.

With that portion said, and considering functional as a defensive firearm, what situation do you intend to assert where a .40 would be functionally different than a 9MM (assuming both using high quality ammunition)?

Remember also that my assertion that there was virtually no functional difference between a .40 and a 9MM was a premise in an argument that the .40 would never die. Being functional similar to the long standing most popular handgun cartridge in the world does not seem like it would be a negative thing :) .
 
Given two projectiles a different diameter, or different expanded diameter, assuming all else is equal (entry wound position, projectile path, depth of penetration) the wounding potential of the larger projectile will be greater in cases in which the smaller projectile just barely missed a critical structure.

How often will this happen? Probably quite few to very few instances, but if you think it never happens you are wrong. I have seen gunshot wounds in the operating room in which the projectile just barely missed a major pulmonary artery, or the descending aorta, in which the wall of the vessel was nicked but the lumen was not penetrated. In such instances, the wound from a projectile of slightly greater diameter would have produced a dramatically different outcome.

Projectile momentum also comes into play. Larger projectiles typically have greater momentum than smaller ones. Projectiles with greater momentum are more likely to continue on course without deviating when they encounter interfaces of greater density, especially when the encounter those interfaces at an angle. Human tissue consists of structures of vastly different density and are also highly anisotropic, completely unlike ballistic gelatin. So the advantage of greater projectile momentum is virtually never brought out in ballistic gelatin tests/
 
Last edited:
assuming all else is equal
Click to expand...

While your statement holds truth to it there is a significant caveat in the above. Controlling for all confounding variables is done through the above in discussion or in careful experimental design because, as you know, it simply doesn't happen in the real world. It is unlikely that two projectiles of different diameter actually do follow the exact same path due to forces that work against them differently due to that difference.

Its an easy, and accurate, premise as long as your caveat holds but I don't think its actually that simple when we are discussing what happens in the case of the "real" world (I can't come up with a better term and that is not meant to be derisive).

In the end the .40 is NOT dying anytime in my generation or that of my children. If you believe it is a better round for you, for whatever reason, you are welcome to it. I still think your grasping at straws to differentiate it from a 9MM (or a 9MM from it) but its really not any harm done for you to carry whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
I shoot 9mm more than 40 due to cost of ammo. That's the main reason 9mm beats 40 in places like California where 10 rounds for civilians is the law. In addition, the 40 is a bit harsh on small autos that are becoming more popular for CCW where the 9mm does a great job. I bought a K9 rather than a K40 for CCW because it's more controllable and easier on the gun. In a full size gun 40 has an edge over 9 using comparable ammo and is greatly superior to 9 in many cases nearing 357 magnum in effectiveness. Gun sales are in a slump with Trump but the sky is not falling and we will continue to see 40 caliber autos roll off the assembly line. I'm sure 9 out sells most other pistol calibers.
 
Lohman446 said:
With that portion said, and considering functional as a defensive firearm, what situation do you intend to assert where a .40 would be functionally different than a 9MM (assuming both using high quality ammunition)?
Click to expand...
My argument is essentially addressed by pblanc, with your caveats noted and conceded.
 
I am sure it will never completely die, but it is dead with me. I converted my Glock 23 to a 9mm and sold off my remaining .40 ammo. Happy with my decision and never looking back.
 
abarhorst said:
It's more the 9mm growing due to the price of ammo. At ~ $.05 a shot difference many chose to save.
Click to expand...
The cost difference is less than it was years ago (noticeably IMO) and yet 40SW had more market share back then. I don't think you can credit the current situation solely to economics.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
TunnelRat I think you can credit the current situation to perception. Many perceive (rightly so IMO)that 9 mm offers nearly identical wound characteristics for less money, more capacity, smaller platforms and faster shots on target. Of course I could be wrong, your mileage may vary, etc.
 
LE agencies might issue a handgun chambered for a specific cartridge; however, LE agencies generally allow their cops to carry approved handguns and cartridges.

I've read the FBI is going with the 9MM, but we don't know handgun and cartridges its cops will carry.

The .40 S&W is here to stay. It's efficacy has been demonstrated.
 
A new generation of LE firearms trainers - and shooters - are finding it easier and faster to create practical and competent skillsets using 9mm than .40, .45 or .357SIG.

It doesn't hurt that the recoil forces developed by the 9mm is often considered easier on guns (maintenance-wise) than the heavier recoiling calibers, too (according to gun makers who teach armorer classes for LE).

Nor does it hurt that the folks who prefer slightly higher magazine capacity can realize a slight gain when changing from .40 to 9mm.

Depending on how LE/Gov ammunition contracts or individual agency purchases may be done, it's not uncommon for 9mm to cost a bit less than .40 or .45, too.

This is just one of those "swings" of caliber preference that occurs now and again in LE/Gov circles.

No biggie. Caliber diversification for the private owner and shooting enthusiast can help make it easier to find ammo when one or another caliber may become less easily found, too.
 
Personly, my thoughts on 40 Vs 9mm, it is the ability to get back on the sights!
So more hits, quicker, all things being equal, so to speak.

Having the same gun, in the same place, always, is a bonus.
 
I understand the logic behind faster follow up shots, but most of this is done at the range using basic 115gr or 124gr FMJ, then usually when people carry a JHP for defense, which is what we train for, it's mostly a +P or +P+ variant which kinda brings the faster follow up shots argument into question. The two don't have the same recoil characteristic.

At least with the .40, the recoil signature of what you practice with is going to be identical to what you carry, not so much with 9mm unless you carry standard pressure 115gr or 124gr, which not many do (exception being the 147gr). Everyone is different, but I could only tell a slight difference between shooting a G19 and G23 side by side (115/124gr vs. 180gr), so slight that there's no way the added recoil of the .40 would hinder my shot placement or drive me to accept a smaller caliber, lower powered 9mm. I've legitimately tried to switch from .40 to 9mm on three occasions and I can't do it. The .40 has much more potential in it than the 9mm does.

J2b2igP.jpg
 
Last edited:
The .40 has much more potential in it than the 9mm does
Click to expand...

So why not 10MM, 357 Sig, 40 Super, 45 Super, 45 or the myriad of choices with far more potential than the .40? Before we get too excited about capacity arguments note the 357 Sig on the list
 
This argument has been around for years. Basically to each his own.
My longtime favourite carry pistol, the Gen 4 Glock 19, just seems to be the perfect weapon, to carry concealed. 16 rounds of controllable 147g Ranger T.
Ready to go. In a medium weight pistol.

After years of this carry, just bought a blue box Glock 43X. Love it, not even fired it yet. I have two holsters for it, a Bravo Kydex pancake, and a Safariland lock type, off and on a type that slips into the pants. Not keen on either.

Feels great in the quick pointing Dept. Expecting Glock to come out any time soon with my favourite carry holster, the $13.00 belt slide for the 43 series?
Suitably chopped up, for my G19, and now for my 43X? Not so much.
The night sights are the ones fitted at the factory? Have a big red circle around the front green Trigiden front sight. Real quick to spot. Glock have a mag pouch for the 43 series.
My first new pistol in years, love it. 11 and not 16? Jury is out on that question.
 
Last edited:
TruthTellers: said:
I don't see .45 ACP sticking around. It costs significantly more than .40 and 9mm, it's less powerful than 10mm, it's the lowest capacity. The largest reason 9mm is favored over .40 is the price, the lower recoil is secondary as most who own a 9mm immediately go for +P as their defense ammo.
Click to expand...

As long as the most of the gun manufacturers keep cranking out new 1911 models, I definitely do see .45 ACP caliber handguns and ammo sticking around. I don’t know where you buy your ammo but .40 S&W & .45 ACP factory ammo in my experience is close enough in price so that I can shoot my .45 ACP caliber guns while my lone remaining .40S&W a Sig P226 doesn’t get much range time these days.

For me, it hasn’t been a 9mm vs. .40 S&W debate, it’s been a .40 S&W vs. .45 ACP debate, and in that case, I’m choosing .45 ACP just about every time. I like my 1911’s, always have & always will. My Gen4 Glock 21 replaced a Gen4 Glock 22, no regrets there. My HK45 replaced an HK USP40, although I wouldn’t mind getting another USP40 / Compact if I come across a nice one. As far as getting other .40 S&W caliber handguns, I can see me with a Beretta 96FS at some point.

And if Glock releases the Gen 5 22/23/27 then that tells me that the .40 S&W has a good future. You may or may not like their product but Glock is a bellweather for the firearms industry and their market research is top notch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top