Should I dump the .40S&W?

lee n. field said:
I happen to live in the same "city" as History Junky. I know of no place around at any reasonable distance that rents guns.
Click to expand...
Haha thanks Lee. Yes Freeport being a city is a stretch.

What it came down to is that the M&P .40 fit my hands well, and I picked it up at a REALLY good price.

If I had the resources available to me to shoot one before I bought it, I definitely would have. As Lee mentioned, there is no shooting range in probably a 2 hour vicinity that rents guns.
 
I would keep the full size .40, but the shield .40 may be too much recoil. I have shot a shield 9mm and it for me was impossible to shoot well I don't know if it was the trigger or what but I shot it terribly. I had a full size M&P40 and shot it not so good either, I didn't like the trigger on it. It was very gritty and nasty.

I would say maybe try some Talon grips (rubber) or shoot with gloves or both. A grip sleeve may help absorb some of the shock, and the thin layer of gloves should also pad your hands a bit. I have a Walther PPQ .40 and have noticed that full power 180gr loads recoil more so than wimpy Winchester white box 165gr. I believe heavy bullets will recoil more although I have not shot hot 165s or hot 155s. I have shot a ruger SR40c, and with the dual recoil spring, it had the least recoil of any .40 I have ever fired. Felt like shooting a glock 19 honestly.

I like the power advantage of the .40, and if you decide the shield just isn't for you, before going to 9mm maybe try a heavier compact .40 or one with a dual recoil spring. The SR40C I gauruntee will have less recoil, but so will any 9mm. The gen4 glock 23 has a dual recoil spring and to me glocks (gen3) have less recoil anyways than a comparable gun. I don't know if the 23 is compact enough for you to carry though. I myself carry full size .40 walther
 
If the gun is just plain uncomfortable for you to shoot do to its snappiness or painful recoil, then I'd swap it for a 9mm.

It makes no sense keeping a firearm that you intend to use regularly when shooting it is an unpleasant experience. It's much better to have a handgun that you truly enjoy shooting. More practice = better proficiency and this is what you should really be striving for.
 
When you get right down to it, I don't find much difference id the recoil of .40 versus 9mm. My only .40 is a Sig Elite P226 and it is a heavy gun. When I first shot it, the recoil did bother me. I then started taking a .45, a .40 and a 9mm to the range. I would shoot the .45 first and follow with the 9mm and lastly the .40.

What surprised me was the similarity in felt recoil between the 9mm and the .40.

In a heavy gun like the Sig, you could tell a difference between the lighter .40 bullets and the 180 gr. I liked the heavier bullets best and don't shoot the lighter ones.

It may be just a mental issue. If you shoot the .40 by itself, the apparent recoil can feel substantial. . .especially with lighter bullets.

With today's loadings in 9mm, the power is up and recoil is mild and the .40 with heavier bullets feels about the same. I shoot 9mm mostly in a P229 or a 1911. Recoil is not a problem and they both compare favorably with the P226 in .40.

YMMV
 
Skans said:
If the gun is just plain uncomfortable for you to shoot do to its snappiness or painful recoil, then I'd swap it for a 9mm.

It makes no sense keeping a firearm that you intend to use regularly when shooting it is an unpleasant experience. It's much better to have a handgun that you truly enjoy shooting. More practice = better proficiency and this is what you should really be striving for.
Click to expand...
Yes I am quite sure I need to get rid of the Shield at least. Like I said, I shot a few magazines through it and didn't pick it up for the rest of the range trip. I would like to be able to practice a reasonable amount with my carry gun without my hand feeling like hamburger.
 
Genitron.com reports the free recoil energy for the .40 Shield to be 10.83 ft·lb, while that for the 9 Shield to be 6.95 ft·lb. The exact recoil energy depends on the round used, but the nominal difference is subtantial.

We know that increased recoil typically translates into reduced speed and accuracy. A big hole is nice, but does you no good unless you can hit the target in a spot of vulnerability.

And, with the 9 you get an additional round in the mag.

A 9 Shield will not likely be a range toy, but it won't be a punisher. You can keep the .40 and be very careful about using only light loads, or you can get the right tool for the job.
 
I don't know that I would dump the pistol based on shooting it only a couple of times, but I certainly wouldn't start off with stout loads. My personal choice in a small, single-stack, easily concealed pistol like the Shield would always be 9mm Para, not only for the recoil characteristics but also for the greater magazine capacity. But you already have the pistol so I think you should give it a fair chance. I know that my perception of the recoil of the .40 S&W has changed very substantially with greater experience. But I am shooting it out of larger, heavier pistols with thicker grips.

As for 9x19mm vs. .40 S&W perceived recoil, there seems to be a lot of variance in opinion. Although 9mm Para and .40 S&W are loaded to the same maximum pressure by SAMMI specs, the pressure curve of the .40 is much steeper and as a result the slide recoil velocity is considerably greater than for 9mm in a pistol of similar size and weight. In my personal experience, the majority of people find the recoil characteristics of .40 S&W less pleasant than that of 9mm Para and often less pleasant than even .45 ACP, at least initially.

I don't think you can compare the perceived recoil of the .40 S&W in a larger, all-metal pistol like the SIG Sauer P226 or even the SIG P229 to that of an M&P Shield. The SIGs have nice, full grips that distribute the recoil energy over a much greater surface area of the hand than a much smaller, single-stack pistol with a narrow grip like that of the Shield. I think with those larger, heavier pistols most shooters can expect to become accustomed to the recoil characteristics of the .40 over time. With a pistol like the Shield, perhaps not.
 
Limnophile said:
Genitron.com reports the free recoil energy for the .40 Shield to be 10.83 ft·lb, while that for the 9 Shield to be 6.95 ft·lb. The exact recoil energy depends on the round used, but the nominal difference is subtantial.

We know that increased recoil typically translates into reduced speed and accuracy. A big hole is nice, but does you no good unless you can hit the target in a spot of vulnerability.

And, with the 9 you get an additional round in the mag.

A 9 Shield will not likely be a range toy, but it won't be a punisher. You can keep the .40 and be very careful about using only light loads, or you can get the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the idea. I would like a gun that I can shoot without a ton of discomfort. Doesn't have to be fun
 
Believe me, I know when a gun hurts my hand and it is a problem for extended practice sessions. When I owned an AMT 45 Backup and put 200 rounds through it in one training session, my right hand hurt so bad that I had to switch hands. The recoil was just too harsh (combined with the heavy trigger) and I got rid of the gun.
 
Haha thanks Lee. Yes Freeport being a city is a stretch.

What it came down to is that the M&P .40 fit my hands well, and I picked it up at a REALLY good price.
Click to expand...

Any chance you looked at an XD? Those fit my hands really well.

I could have told you a Shield in .40 would be a handful.

BTW, I do have an XD .40 subcompact. It's heavy for its size (typical of the XD series guns) and kind of fat in the grip, both of which help moderate the .40. It's not my usual carry at this time, being quite unpocketable.

If I had the resources available to me to shoot one before I bought it, I definitely would have. As Lee mentioned, there is no shooting range in probably a 2 hour vicinity that rents guns.
Click to expand...

It's possible KAP Guns in Loves Park rents. I don't know for certain. Certainly no one else I know of.
 
I just went to KAP yesterday actually. I actually forgot to ask them if they rent guns. I would have thought that I would've noticed by now if they did. My wife likes the way the XD feels in the hands, but I hate the grip safety. Never actually shot one though. Heard a lot of good about them.

That was why I ended up with the Shield, because in a pinch I can pocket it. But I wouldn't mind having a decent double stack subcompact.
 
Should I dump the .40S&W?
Click to expand...

I probably will end up going back to 9. Just on the premise that I want to shoot the same caliber in my carry gun and range gun. In my shield the .4o is too much.
Click to expand...

Dude, absolutely dump it.

But don't go squishy, when you can go real. :cool:

 
Do yourself a favor and shoot some .40 S&W with a 180 grain rated at 950 fps. Then decide how much it hurts. If it is still nasty with the "FBI light" loads, then sell it.

It's up to you.
 
A one gun friend of mine traded in his 40 for a 9 last week and sold me all his 40 ammo for $50.

At one time he could bench press 550 pounds. He is not doing well now.
 

Attachments

  • some 40sw ammo b 2-24-2016.jpg
    some 40sw ammo b 2-24-2016.jpg
    69.3 KB · Views: 34
The load that I was shooting, without a chronograph was listed at around 1000 fps with a 180 grain projectile. Is that a lot for that weight or no?
 
To me it seems like a gun design issue, I find too many companies try to use the same slide profile for 9mm and 40 and use recoil spring stiffness to control slide speed, this makes some 40s have much harsher recoil than their 9mm counter parts.
While some Ruger SR series and FN FNS have slightly different profiles on the 40 slides adding a little weight to the slide and they are almost universally considered soft recoiling.
I'd say trade off the 40 Shield and get a 9 the full size gun is your call.
 
I have decided to just go to 9 across the board. I still have my dies for loading 9mm and I don't have more than 50 dollars in components for .40.

I can probably get 350 or so for my M&P and just trade the Shield for a 9mm version.

I already have some full size 9's in mind like a 9mm 1911, BHP, or CZ-85.
 
Could it be that you just need to dump the M&P in favor of a full size CZ75! Dumping the M&P 40 in favor of the 9 doesn't really seem like much of a change. The weight of the gun has a big effect on the felt recoil. I have a Hi Power and CZ in 40 and love them both with a slight nod to the CZ. Why get rid of 40 altogether before you've given a different model a try. I prefer to get guns in different calibers so ammo is never a problem. If you limit yourself to 1 caliber you don't have the flexibility in loads and finding ammo during a shortage that you do owning multiple calibers. During the worst days of ammo shortage 9mm seemed in shorter supply than 40. I think this was due to the number of 9mm guns out there compared with 40. Just something else to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top