No love for .40 S&W...?

I have owned and shoot .45 ACP, 9MM Luger and .40 S&W and I have settled on the .40 S&W in a Glock 22 as my primary handgun. I like it over the 9MM because it gives me a little more pop and over the .45 ACP because it gives a higher capacity in a smaller frame.
In my own, very unscientific, tests, I found the .40 S&W HP to expand every time and the .45 ACP HP marginal and often failing to expand at all and the 9MM to lack the penetration of either. I realize my findings are mine and mine alone, but that is why I picked the 40 S&W. The platform being a Glock needs no explanation.
 
I don't understand the "snappy recoil" arguement against the 40. I think it's blown out of proportion. Maybe it's just interweb G.I.G.O. (garbage in, garbage out)
Shoot a Glock 17 with 9mm +P, and a Glock 22 in .40. IMO the difference is negligible.

Just my 2 pennies...
 
Jo6pak said:
I don't understand the "snappy recoil" arguement against the 40. I think it's blown out of proportion. Maybe it's just interweb G.I.G.O. (garbage in, garbage out)
Shoot a Glock 17 with 9mm +P, and a Glock 22 in .40. IMO the difference is negligible.

Just my 2 pennies...
Click to expand...

+1 for me, I think felt recoil is very shooter dependent and subjective.
 
i hate the words snap and gums in the weapons worlds. the 40sw to me has a push type recoil. no stupid snap. SNAP SNAP

yes 40 owner.
 
+1 for Guardjim.
I've owned a couple but didn't feel the need to stock up to reload for it. Gave my last G23 to my son and never looked back.
I must admit that if I were limited to only one handgun the 40 would be the logical choice.
 
i have a cougar 8040 and i personally love the 40 s&w round. i have really good accuracy with it and it packs a punch moves my gong alot more than the 9mm ammo.
 
Trey45, that is a nice revolver. I guess I have your cousin here, it's a S&W 610. I use it for a lot of shooting competitions mainly because the .40 round is cheaper than the .45ACP and I can use moon clips with the .40 which makes reloading easy. I also have a Beretta 96FS but I prefer the revolver.

I have plenty of rounds to choose from, 9mm is cheap but not always good for knockdown steel. The .40 and .45 never have an issue with steel.
 
I forgot to add that I had a HK USPc in .40 that I hated. Loved the USPc in .45 but hated it in the .40.

Follow up shots with that gun were difficult for me in the .40. Don't know why.
 
IMHO, there's not a significant difference between modern 9mm JHPs and .40 JHPs. Six of one, half dozen of the other, whether slightly more poop per pop is better than having one or two extra shots in the same sized weapon.

When I got my Walther PPS, it was in .40 S&W, primarily because I got a smokin' deal on a slightly used one in that caliber. I've never been sorry -- shoots like a dream, very little muzzle-flip with 165 gr WWB at the range, or with 140-gr Cor-Bon DPXs for carry. It just disappears under even a polo or T-shirt in a tuckable IWB holster at 10:00.

My preferred "serious social occasion" piece is my Taurus PT-145 Millennium Pro, but the additional bulk and weight with 11 rds of 230-gr Tactical Bonded is enough that it is pretty much restricted to OWB carry under a jacket or vest, IMHO. YMMV.

In short, the .40 fills a niche. My first choice would be .45 ACP, and I wouldn't feel under-gunned with a 9mm, but my .40 PPS gives me almost-.45 power in a 9mm-sized weapon, at the sacrifice of only 1 round of magazine capacity. I'm content with it. :cool:
 
I wish I could say that after hours of pouring over ballistic charts and magazine articles I chose the .40 S&W. It was much simpler than that. I had just sold a S&W 681 to a friend and decided to get a semi auto for CCW. The .40 S&W had been out for a few months and the reports were good. I had owned quite a few "wonder nines" and liked the 9mm sized frame. It seemed like a good idea to have a cartridge that split the difference between the 9mm and the .45 ACP. In my mind if the 9mm in +P was a good performer and the .45 ACP was a good cartridge, then a cartridge in the middle both size wise and performance wise should do the job.

Despite the nay sayers the .40 S&W has earned its place in the gun world and in the holsters of law enforcement and civilian CCW holders. It does the job and does it well. In the many years since I first picked up a .40 pistol I have tested the .40 in a variety of formats such as gelatin, water jugs, wet paper ect. I have also killed game animals with it and it did the job.

I still have a G23 that will not leave me any time soon. My testimony to the .40 S&W.
 
Ive always wanted a 1911 just for because my dad had one. Most likely if I get one it'll be a "display" gun in the case with his flag and awards taken out for "ceremonial" duty. For carry, I am looking at getting a .40, to me it is a good balance between 9mm and .45 at least in my price point. I currently carry a wheel gun but want an auto. I want higher capacity, which is one reason I won't get a 1911 for carry (the other being I sometimes shoot southpaw and don't wanna have to do the funky "off safe" fingering that a 1911 "cocked & locked" would require to go lefty). I am looking at a Sigma 40 because in my price range it seems to be the best balance of capacity/punch/ease of carry. I want something I can carry everyday fairly easily either OC or CC as needed without altering my style of dress much. Something that is easy and SAFE to carry and use in left or right hands. Something that offers at least 10+1 rounds (more being better). A weapon that I can purchase multiple holsters reasonably priced is a plus too, my current carry is limited in the carry options.

The Sigma 40 fits all those needs/ desires.
 
YES I like the 40

Yes the 40 is a nice round it is the alternative for both the 9m and 45 ACP.

You get the mag capacity of a 9m but with a larger round without going to a 45 ACP with fewer rounds.

I personally have two 40s Glock 22 and 27 and I love to shoot the 27. However I do own more 45 ACPs than any other caliber.

Three 1911 style autos and two Glocks 30 and 36. My CCW is the 36 just feels better on me meat and potatoes.

There needs to be more data on the 40s before I make the 27 my everyday CCW in another 5 years there should be enough data.

Joe
 
I've owned 2 pistols in 40S&W and sold them both. its a good compromise round between the 9mm and 45ACP, but personally I feel just as confident with a good 9mm defensive round and shoot it better too. I figured I'd stick with 9mm for cheaper shooting and 45ACP if I really wanted a larger caliber.
 
What I'd like to know is do you like .40 S&W? And specifically why or why not?
Click to expand...

No.

Why compromise?

If you want a small handgun, 9mm+p will do that, and practice is cheaper.

If you want a large handgun, .45 ACP+p, or 10mm will do what .40 Short and Weak will not.
 
I never seen the point of the .40 we all know the flawed thinking in why it came about. If someone wants a larger caliber than the 9mm then their is the .45 a double stack .45 will hold the same number of rounds as the .40.
Click to expand...

I see the point of the .40 caliber in this sense: you can have a larger bullet in a smaller frame. .40s fit 9mm size frames; .45s don't. For some (me for sure), the .40 represents the perfect compromise between a relatively compact pistol frame, offering more round capacity than a .45 though less than a 9mm, yet houses a cartridge known for its "stopping" power (the "Goldilocks" paradigm Jo6pak compared it to); for others, the .40 is "neither fish nor fowl", a "jack of all trades but master of none".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top