Guys,
I have been pleased to notice talk on this forum about how a lot of shooters dislike the 40. I have never been able to get much out of this round. My first 40 was a USP compact--QUICKLY sold it because I couldn't hit Sh*T with it. Later, in a $$$ fit, I bought two brand new 40 229s at once. Once again, sh$t. I got a 357 Sig barrel and suddenly the guns were tackdrivers. This was a relief because I was wondering if years of shooting 9mm had turned me into a wimp. To this day, when I go to the range and decide to save a $ or two on ammo I'll plug in the old 40 barrel--and it is a waste of my money. I would say that my 40 groups are 50-100% bigger than my 357 groups--which are only slightly larger than my 9mm groups(HK P7). Glock 40s are the same. I know it's not me (dang it I know it!). I have since learned that it has always been the conventional wisdom that the 40 was less accurate. Why is this?
GHB
I have been pleased to notice talk on this forum about how a lot of shooters dislike the 40. I have never been able to get much out of this round. My first 40 was a USP compact--QUICKLY sold it because I couldn't hit Sh*T with it. Later, in a $$$ fit, I bought two brand new 40 229s at once. Once again, sh$t. I got a 357 Sig barrel and suddenly the guns were tackdrivers. This was a relief because I was wondering if years of shooting 9mm had turned me into a wimp. To this day, when I go to the range and decide to save a $ or two on ammo I'll plug in the old 40 barrel--and it is a waste of my money. I would say that my 40 groups are 50-100% bigger than my 357 groups--which are only slightly larger than my 9mm groups(HK P7). Glock 40s are the same. I know it's not me (dang it I know it!). I have since learned that it has always been the conventional wisdom that the 40 was less accurate. Why is this?
GHB