Why does 40 suck?

G

Greg Bell

New member
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
 
Flinching with .40?

The snappy recoil makes me flinch (which turns my groups to hell). Combine that with the already (inconsistent) inherent accuracy of the .40 and it equals horrible groups. I shoot the larger caliber .45 ACP with great accuracy and the recoil of the .45 goes unnoticed--the .45's heavy push doesn't cause me to flinch. I think .40 is just not made for everyone...some like snappy recoil others like the "push" type of recoil. I prefer the push which is why 75 percent of my semi-auto shooting is with .45 ACPs. I also shoot 9mm and .22 LR but to a far lesser extent. I have just about given up shooting the .40!

I cannot explain WHY the .40 does not group as well as .45 or 9mm....I'll leave that to the resident TFL cartridge experts! :)
 
Sometimes my groups are "slightly" wider when I shoot a .40 over a 9mm or the .357 Sig. And sometimes they're about the same. Maybe it just isn't for you but don't #%!$ all over a caliber just because you didn't like it. There are lots of LEOs and everyday Joes like me who shoot just fine with it.
 
"I think that the .40 is an overall good defense round."

However I shoot .45ACP, 9MM, and .357SIG groups a "LOT" tighter. I don't think it is the recoil; because when I had a SIG P229 in .40/.357 the recoil felt identical in both calibers. The .357SIG shot a whole lot tighter for me.

I have also handled (read "used")HK and GLOCK .40s. I was not impressed by the cartridge in these designs either. The GLOCKs "seem" to be best in 9mm. And the HK USPs are hands down better in the .45ACP variety.

At present I own only one .40S&W caliber pistol. It never leaves my safe. Don't have any intensions of buying another in the near future either. I don't hate the round, I just figure... What's the point?

I find the .45ACP the best caliber to shoot. Explaining why most of my guns are in that caliber. For me it is perhaps the only semi-automatic caliber thats counts. It cost about the same and is sometimes cheaper to shoot than the .40, and the .45 is MUCH more FUN to shoot!

If economics is a factor then 9MM beats them both, and is also fairly fun to shoot. I love buying 1k rounds of 9MM and just unloading at the range. That wouldn't be very economical with the .40.

I think that the .40 has its place in LE circles, and that is perhaps where its future lies.

As a civilian RANGE weapon it just is not practical when you consider the cost, availability, and performance of the perinnial favorites .45ACP & 9MM.
 
I also think it's flinching, have someone load a clip for you with a dummy round. See how much you move when it comes up.
The 40 sw seems fairly snappy. I own a couple and I like em'. 15 rds plus one in the pipe gives me a warm feeling.
I shoot my 40's better than my 9's but not as good as my 45's. That's just the way it is.
 
Why use .40 Slow & Weak when 10mm is availible?
40S&W is an answer in search of a question.
 
.40

The .40 rocks! The Glock 35 rocks.
Reloading my rounds I was running 1280 out of my 35 and I wasn't overloading. Using 155g westcoast bullets and unique powder. I was shooting these in matches(IPSC) These will knock pepper poppers down in a hurry. :)
 
Download .40 for range work?

I also shoot .45 amd 9MM (as well as .38, .22, etc)and agree on the accuracy potential of these rounds. I am considering getting a Sig 229 in .40 so I can get the .357 Sig barrel and have a two caliber gun. Believe me, I'd just rather get it in 9MM and be done with it, but for self defense, I'm hearing 9MM is a bit light in a mid size gun like the 229.

One option for all us reloaders is to download the .40 round to give less recoil when practicing and work your way up to stronger .40 loads. I've done this with the .45 with great success. A friend does this and is very happy with the accuracy of his .40 caliber pistols. (Glock, BHP) Does anyone reload .40 and do this?

Pilot
 
The 40 doesn't suck.

It's only been around for 10 years and has taken over LE. EVERY manufacturer has jumped in with both feet, I don't think that has ever happened with with any other round in history. IMHO, it happened too fast with the 40. Most manufacturers just dropped a chopped 10mm barrel into their 9mm gun with only minimal testing to see if it would work, rather than testing to see what would be the best configuration.

The "inherent accuracy problem" that is so commonly talked about comes from a lack of rotational inertia in the bullet, it's not stable. The manufacturers should change the twist rate from 1 in 16 to 1 in 14, or even 1 in 12 for shorter barrels. The 10mm works well with the 1 in 16 precicly because of the higher velocity.

Also, Most people that I have talked with that complain about the 40's accuracy problems have used 180 gr loads almost exclusively (many departments will only supply 180's to officers). Lighter rounds (150-155gr) almost always group tighter due to a smaller moment of inertia of the bullet and higher velocity (=faster spin). With 135's, the bullet is almost too short to be stable leaving the barrel, kinda like throwing a frisbee face first.

If bullet weight doesn't seem to make a difference in your particular gun, slug the barrel. I have seen many barrels that were .402"-.403". That doesn't work when you are shooting .400" bullets.

FWIW, I have probably loaded more 40s&w than all other calibers put together the last few years. My Beretta 96 Elite will print groups just inside 1.5"@25yds with moly coated Nosler 150gr JHP's on Blue Dot at 1250fps.
 
You know I have read alot of BS on this board and yes I have posted more than my share too but this beats all. I had a Sig 239 .40 that was a tack driver and I have a Glock 23 that is quite accurate. I have had not nor do I have any problems shooting a .40.What's more, in confined areas you don't have to worry about broken glass or burst ear drums from the sonic boom of a .45ACP or .357Sig.

Granted my fav. is the .45 but I have no problems with the .40 and neither does the vast majority of the LEO community in the U.S.In a combat zone, I want good accuracy but I will not split hairs. I believe the size to capacity of the .40 is exceptional blending the 9mm quantity with a stronger cartridge.
 
The .40 is a serious working round.
I dont recomend it for novice gunslingers. Defensive loads in .40 are very high pressure and result in sharp and snappy recoil pulses just not found in 9MM or .45ACP.
There are milder loads you can get for range work but over all .40 is best served hot.
Hot and spicy can be a turn off or can be a barrier to good shooting.
The accuracy in a .40 can be just as good in the other calibers.


When going to college I managed a used car lot. I got to drive everything I wanted. Spend quality time with all the cars. I had one car... A Conquest TSI, very fast. Turbo charged. Nice and fast. It started out easy and then built up to super fast, real fast. No problem at all.
Then I had another hot car... a Mustang Cobra, Super Charged. Dyno Certified 600 horses. This car was BRUTAL from idle. It actually wasnt any faster top end wise... its power was just less friendly (Man, this was one evil car) and harder to control.

Same thing for the .40
 
While I don't own a .40, I think it's a fine round. What makes the .40 difficult is that the rim is so small (9mm) and the mouth is substantially larger. The difficulty for the designer is to ensure reliable feeding. Think about it. The feed rib of the slide engages the rim of the cartridge and strips the cartridge off the magazine. The angle the feed rib approaches must be just right lest it strikes the body of the cartridge instead of the rim. Now you've got a reversed taper plug jumping out trying to find the chamber of the gun. Everything has to be tweaked ever so carefully in the design for the gun to work and the engineers are to be given credit for it.
 
What's more, in confined areas you don't have to worry about broken glass or burst ear drums from the sonic boom of a .45ACP or .357Sig.
Click to expand...

Most all 200+ grain 45ACP is subsonic.
Most all 40S&W ammo is supersonic.
 
Greg, I find that I can shoot my Glock 27 far better than I
could my Glock 23 or Sig P229. Ended up selling the latter
two; but I still have the G-27!!!:D:) The G-27 is an amazing
little firearm, often shooting really tight group's. And the
recoil is controllable.:eek::rolleyes: I've owned it since July of 96; and I guess I'll keep it much longer.:)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
I think that the .40 should be replaced with the .357SIG. On paper, the .357SIG is very impressive. The only drawback seems to be the muzzle blast. Now if only .357SIG cartridges were as cheap as 9mm... :)
 
.357 Sig replace the .40? Rhino Hockey I say! Great that way we can all get stressed about bullet setback and have our eardrums burst. It will never happen. I would be wary of the .357 Sig in house to house take-downs or close quarters fighting with numerous bystanders due to it's propensity for over penetration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top