Normally, I would rather not wade into the murky waters of the opinionated when it comes to caliber decisions. However, as soon as I saw the phrase "stopping power" I realized the waters were now sufficiently deep enough to take any plunge without fear of ridicule.
It has been said before by more profound observers and even once in this very thread. The statement that sums up the entire debate of the .40 caliber:
".40 S&W is an answer for which there was no question."
Is .40 S&W a potentially better caliber choice than 9mm? Quite possibly. It seems to be compiling good statistics in police shootings for the most part, save some poor ammunition choices by some departments. Still, the additional muzzle velocity and weight do not come without some compromise in the areas of controllability, recoil, re-acquisition of the sight picture after each shot...all of which is quite dependent on the launch platform and the shooters skill level. I have shot the .40 S&W from various platforms. For me, it would be a question of investing the time and money into learning the nuances of controllability due to the increased recoil over 9mm or the familiar thumping recoil of the 45 ACP to which I am accustomed. I shoot the .40's quite adequately. However, with the 9mm and 45 ACP I am (own horn toot to follow) quite good. For the time being, the .40 S&W is just not worth the time and expense to get involved with for any claimed added benefit. 10mm offers wonderful possibilities, but the logistics end always has me rolling up short as do many other promising handgun calibers. It is why a 4" bbl .357 completes my handgun calibers list and a .40 S&W is absent. "Approaching" .357 velocities is not achieving .357 velocities.
Those agencies "jumping on the wonder-nines" did so from the .357 Magnum in most cases. A serious degradation in per shot performance with an increase in overall firepower. The one shot stops declined. They simply opted for capacity. It was natural that they become disillusioned with the 9mm in time. Thus, the call for something a tad more powerful in an automatic. They simply had grown accustomed to having the additional rounds. 45 ACP was almost exclusively being held in 1911's in those days and cocked and locked was not an option for most officers. The race was on. The 10mm came, got the short shrift, and the .40 S&W was born. One must also note that, with the present availability of DA .45 ACP autos, more departments are permitting the 45 ACP that would not consider it in a 1911. Even that has changed in a few departments.
Just where is the threshold of the "minimum" defense caliber? It differs so widely among shooters that it is purely subjective. After all, shot placement has been and always will be the paramount factor with either of these rounds with all other considerations forming lines to the rear. Some people won't carry a 9mm stating they think it insufficient for their potential requirements. Others will say that the .40 S&W will not accomplish anything their .45 ACP won't do (I am one of the latter).
9mm or .40 S&W? You have to make that decision. I chuckle at the prospect of the next debate: .40 S&W versus .357 SIG. I have already decided that one, too. The criteria doesn't change much, if at all. Just the approach or marketing.
Still, I see .40 S&W as a heavy contender the more time wears on due to the 10 round magazine limit. It is, sadly, the caliber of the immediate future. Still, I do not see 9mm or 45 ACP ever being dominated by the contemptuous .40 S&W. 9mm is simply too inexpensive while 45 ACP shooters know the truth as it is written.
And 10mm owners are the scribes of that truth.
Poor b*stards that they are.
