Why does 40 suck?

Mr. Hill,

Yea but .357SIG! just sounds a whole lot "COOLER" doesn't it!!

I mean listen to it. THREE FIFTY SEVEN S-I-G...

It just rolls off my tongue so smooth.

That sounds a lot better than .40 S&W. People think you are talking about a brand of "MALT LIQUOR" when they hear it.

But in all seriousness both are good cartridges IMHO. I still shoot the .357SIG with more accuracy than the .40S&W; but I would not hesitate to carry either in a self defense package.

Will they replace my opinion of the .45ACP as being the ideal semi-auto cartridge? NEVER!
 
Why is the .40S&W a loose shooter?

Well, if you look at the *mathematics* of the round. . . it is not a .400" caliber. It is actually a .4005" caliber. The case taper is .424" down to .423", that equates out to .4005".

If you look at the 10mm Auto, the case taper is .425" down to .423", that equates out to .400".

Sure it *works out* mathematically but is it really a big problem with a .400" bullet for a .4005" bore? And are the bores on the .40S&W pistols cut to .4005 or higher? I can't answer those questions. Well I could, but at that point I'd be full of more bull$h** then good ole Bill Clinon and Al Gore combined!! :D

My P99 .40S&W is accurate as my G29 10mm. With the better trigger on the P99, it will shoot tighter then my G32 .357 Sig. My P229 in .357 Sig shoots like a dream, in .40S&W it is accurate enough for me to carry and have faith that the rounds are going where they are *supposed* to, but not quite as accurate as the .357 Sig barrel.

I am not worrying about the slightly larger groups of the .40S&W, but then again I usually carry my 10mms or .357 Sigs.

Derek
 
I too disliked the 40 at first. But the concept behind it is sound. It does "somewhat" fill the 9mm-45 gap nicely, if you agree with this type of thinking. I "assume" most people who dislike this caliber is due to the type of recoil and accuracy issues. I agree. But "IMO" this can be solved with the type of handgun to be used. For example, the Glock 23 I owned printed all over the place, and recoil was stout. My brothers Kahr MK40 is a recoil nightmare period :eek:. The HK USP he owns is far better than my old G23. And the SigPro I own is "slightly" better both ways, even he agrees :). But heres the clincher: A Beretta 96 Brigadier Border Marshall my sisters fiancee purchased was awesome. The grips were a tad bulky, and the trigger was so-so but the rest of the package was fantastic. "Maybe" it's due to the 4.9" bbl, or the large grips, or the hefty Brigadier slide, or just a combination of all but it tamed the hot 40 loads like a 9mm :confused:. I was impressed, never even considered this gun. I own most handgun calibers, and love them all. But choose the right gun for the caliber.

BTW, my last purchase (end of 2000 in PRK) and holiday gift my wife approved funds for... A Beretta 96G Brigadier Elite II. Buttery trigger & factory 2mm grip reduction solved both my grips :D. I'm now a certified 40 caliber fan. Cheers.
 
40S&W is far from inaccurate. Anyone that cannot get accuracy out of a quality firearm in this caliber using quality factory ammo either cannot handle it, or as Quantum Singularity said above, "it is not for them." 40S&W is not a 9mm, it is not a 357sig, and it is not a 45ACP. It is a 40S&W and it is one heck of a round.
 
9mm, 40SW and 45 ACP are all good self defense rounds.

BUT why carry the 40 short and weak when you can drive tacks with 10mm performance. The 40 SW is just a chopped 10mm case.

You just have to reload 10mm. $15.99 a box is steep.

But if you're a good shooter, the rule I've always stated was, any gun, anytime, you can hit the mark. Because then you have mastered the basics.

It's not the round, its the shooter!
 
With the nasty 10rd mag ban, I'll stick with the trusty ol
.45acp. As mentioned earlier , the .40SW is an emasculated 10mm. If 10mm is too hot, then why cut it down when you have
the proven .45acp and all the different models that fire it?
 
I second BobCA, the gun your shooting a given caliber in makes a BIG difference.

One of the rare times I've agreed w/ Ed Sanow was in an article he wrote on the 155/165gr .40 defense loads. He stated that recoil in pistols such as the small hideouts like a Kahr or a light polymer framed gun like a Glock w/ full power 155/165gr .40 ammo can be a bit much for some, but shouldn't pose to much of a problem in hefty guns like the Border Marshall/ Brigadier or others like *&* 4006.

Also, obviously the load one chooses makes a diff. IMO, the 180gr loads recoil quite a bit less in pretty much any .40 pistol when compared w/ the hot 135/155/165gr loads.

As far as the 357 Sig replacing the .40 or having an accuracy advantage, if snappy recoil & blast hinder accuracy by causing bad habits such as flinching & jerking on the trigger, I don't see how one is better off w/ the 357 over the .40, as to me, the 357 Sig produces more of both.

Sanow also stated that the 357 Sig has far less recoil than a 155gr .40 or a 230gr .45, having pretty much the same power factor as a 180gr .40 load. He cited the Texas DPS improved scores using the Sig P226 in 357 Sig as opposed to the P 220 w/ 230gr loads, saying the recoil of the .45 proved more of a problem than the blast of the 357 Sig. This is one of the many times I've disagreed w/ one of his statements, it might have the same PF, but recoil I would say is atleast on par w/ the 155gr .40, & the blast is greater. Better for some/ not for others as Quantum said.

From all indications the 357 Sig is more inherently accurate than the .40. However, IMO combat accuracy will be more than acceptable in either caliber providing one practices w/ the weapon. If the .40's recoil proves objectionable to a shooter, it would seem the 357's would to, as they both are high pressure, & produce a sharp snap in their hot loads.

When I shoot or carry a .40, I normally have 180gr loads in gun, and the recoil & blast to me atleast is not bad at all. I hope to soon try Hornady's 147gr 357 Sig load at 1200fps, in hopes that the heavier bullet coupled w/ less velocity will somewhat tame the blast of the 357, as I do like it as well. IMO, it's all about finding the right gun/ammo combination, followed by diligent practice w/ both.

Do I think the .40 sucks, no. I like the 9/.40/357 Sig/.45, all have their strong & weak points. What works for one will not work for all.

Best! long shot
 
I don't hate the .40 S&W round, it hates me. Keep in mind the .40 S&W's recoil is not more severe than the .45ACP in +P configuration. The .40 S&W is also milder in recoil than a .357mag (not the SIG variety). I shoot both .357 mag revolvers and .45 ACP pistols using +P loads far better than I can 40 S&W pistol. This is not to say that the .40 S&W is by design less accurate. However, in my hands a pistol in .40 S&W is less accurate than even a harder recoiling .45 ACP or .357 mag. In a worst case scenario, make mine a forty-five.

JJCII
 
Why does the .40 S&W Suck?

because it's not a .45:)

No I'am just kidding I own a .40 Sig 229 and it's a nice gun. I just find it a bit snappy so I don't shoot it much. Maybe I'll give it to my brother for his birthday,he's been wanting a Sig for a while now.
I'am just a nice guy I tell ya;)
45automan
 
The .40 is great in my Sig P226. I don't have any accuracy problems. The 226 is a decent size so recoil is no big deal. I wouldn't trust my life to a 9mm, and (in real life) the .40 is on par or exceeds other calibers for effectiveness. I've heard the "capacity" arguement (.40 vs .45)...this does not matter with Sigs. My 226 holds 10 rounds...the P220 (.45) holds seven. I'll take the three extra rounds, thanks.
 
I have two .40 cal's and I can't find anything wrong with the round or the guns I shoot it out of. I am not a ballistics expert or even a reloader, I'm judging solely by the fact that I shoot plenty well enough to qualify with either of my .40's, and plenty good enough to hit a homicidal assailant trying to take my life. I do find that the round makes me flinch a little, so I have to practice to break that habit. I had the same thing after shooting a combat course with a friend's .44 magnum. It made me flinch for a month. There is a caliber I just don't feel comfortable with, because the recoil and muzzle flash is distracting to me (there is nothing wrong with the .44 mag, I just don't prefer it for me). I also like 9x19, .38, .357, and .45. I think they each have some good points. I bought the .40 because there were guns chambered in that caliber which I could afford, and I thought I would be gaining a little punch over the 9x19. I'd really like to have a good .45ACP, but I never seem to have the kind of money it takes to get a good reliable 1911 style .45. The smaller guns in .45 mostly seem too chunky for my tastes. I have a 9x18 Mak that I like, even though it would not be my first choice of a carry caliber. The most important thing to me is that the gun and ammo I'm carrying is reliable, safe to carry, and I can hit the target with it. Any of the accepted self-defense calibers are o.k. with me if it meets this criteria. Maybe I'm just not critical enough.

Be safe.

-10CFR
 
40 accuracy

The 357 sig is often more accurate than the 40 because it is usually fired in a match quality aftermarket barrel. I have upgraded the barrels on my g22 and g23 with high end 40 cal barrels and also upped the spring rate significantly. The groups are now about 1/3 the size of the stock setup. The brass does not bulge anymore and feeding and chambering is no less reliable. A 357 sig or 9 mm barrel is also much thicker and therefor stiffer than a 40 cal barrel.

Compare the groups of a factory stock 1911 45 ACP with a pistol equipped with a Barstow or Jarvis barrel. A huge difference!

A know it all,
Jeff
 
I own a sigpro SP-2340 in .357 SIG and purchased a .40 cal barrel through SIG. It is a tack driver in .357 SIG, every bit as accurate as my other SIG's. But as soon as I threw in the .40 barrel it started lobbing rounds all over the place, until I stumbled onto the right load.

Recently I purchased a case of 1,000 rds of Fiocchi's 170 gr. truncated cone FMJ rated at 1,050 fps. Now my .40 shoots as well as the other SIG's. My first group off the bench put 5 rounds into less than 1.5" at 25m. Yesterday I put 5 off hand at 25m into 1.5". The best part is that the ammo is cheap. $185 per 1,000 rds DELIVERED through http://www.summitammo.com. Can't beat that for good quality.

Mechanically speaking, that .40 barrel mates to my sigpro's slide just as tightly as the .357 SIG barrel, it's just far more finicky in declaring the loads that it likes.

SS
 
I think that most of these posts have missed one of the most important points. I carry a .40 auto for one main reason. with it, I can carry a gun the size and weight of a compact 9mm or .380 yet I get performance that eclipses a .45 ACP with the same barrel length. That is it. End of argument

and here are a couple of other points.

1. Most shooters i know don't shoot well enough in any situation other than bullseye/target shooting to tell the difference between one load and another. much less one caliber and another. group to group variation!!! almost any quality load/pistol combo shoots "minute of chest" in a fast paced combat/defensive situation if you do your part.

2. The .40 auto or 9mm does not lose velocity as fast from cutting back the barrel length as the .45 does.

3. I have said before, and will say again, there is no principal of internal or external ballistics that you can quote to prove to me that a basically straight wall case of .40 caliber is any less accurate than an identical one in 9mm or .45. I have T/C contender barrels in every pistol caliber i load for (9mm, .40 auto, 10mm, .45ACP ect.) to test HP bullet performance. in identical barrels i see no REAL difference between any of the cartridges designed for semiauto pistols. loads yes, calibers no. What your semiauto pistol does with the .40 auto is more of a reflection of the manufacturers engineering prowess and your shooting than the .40's accuracy.

this entire boondoggle reminds me of the problems with the .45 Colt. for years i heard that it was inherently inaccurate. that the .44/.41 magnum was the only real high power revolver hunting cartridge.
BULL BAGELS.
the main problem was that the .45 Colt has over 100 years of manufacturing variation in guns and bullets to contend with. all things equal and sized properly my .45 Colt Blackhawk with shoot .5 MOA groups or less from a rest!!!
i had a P229 Sig i let slip away that would shoot Hornady 155 grain hollowpoints like a rifle. I tested it on competion type pistol rests and sand bags and was getting MOA groups and sub MOA groups out of the box!!!! what cartridge or pistol or even rifle will do much better?

no i can not say what has happened to you. but when you talk absolutes about a fine cartridge like the .40 auto, talk to me about facts not opinions.
 
riddleofsteel,

Yes, I too like hard facts that prove things, unfortunately we seem to be slim on those lately. Personally, I've read a lot of interesting material on the .40 accuracy phenomenon over the last decade and I have yet to see a gun mag do a definitive article on comparing the .40's accuracy out of similar guns, twist rates, bullet weights, and similar calibers in the same guns. Personally, I'm a statistician and the times have been few and far between when I've seen accuracy evaluations on .40 cal pistols and revolvers that exhibited exceptional accuracy on par with their 9mm and .45 counterparts. I remember one article some many years ago in G&A where the author was disappointed with the accuracy of his .40 cal Smith and Wesson pistol so he invested in a Bar-Sto barrel and had Irv Stone fit it to the pistol (If I recall correctly). And the pistol hardly shot any better. He was averaging just under 3 in. at 25 yards from a Ransom rest at its best. Talk about disappointing.

Anyhow, if we didn't generously offer our opinions then thefiringline forum would be out of business. They seem to be doing well however. Grin.

SS
 
Well here's my 2 cents worth, when I go shooting be it target or plinking, if I'm shooting something other than my Ruger p94/40 and I'm not shooting well, I pick it up and run a mag or two thru it to see if it's me or the gun I was shooting. Of all my handguns I'm most accurate with my 40. Now I just bought a Kimber and I hope that ends up being better, but IMHO there's nothing wrong with a 40. It is a higher velocity round than a 45 so there is a noticable crack in the recoil and it's something to be aware of, I do know people that love 45's that don't like a 40's recoil. If you shoot 40's and flinch from the recoil don't blame the round, and as far as accuracy goes I doubt the average shooter can shoot well enough to see the supposed inaccuracy of the round, now if you're testing from a ransom rest that's a different matter.

Now if you want to talk about rounds that suck the 9mm is pretty much at the top of my list. Why anyone in the military thought changing to a 9mm from a .45 was a good idea is beyond me, and who cares what the rest of NATO shoots, maybe they're the ones who should be changing rounds anyway.
 
Rivrrat,

The 9mm cartridge as selected by NATO is a far better military cartridge than the ubiquitous .45 ACP. Remember, the military defines bullet performance much differently than what you put in your carry gun. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them so long to dump the .45 acp. With the 9mm a soldier can carry more than twice the ammo with significantly less recoil, in a more reliable weapon, with greater muzzle energy, flatter trajectory, and superior penetration, particularly when compared against soldiers wearing body armor. Running an SRT team several months ago we had the opportunity to test some outdated bodyarmor. Out of our M9's we shot a flak jacket, a kevlar vest and PASGT kevlar helmet. The wimpy 9mm NATO penetrated them all. It barely penetrated the helmet at point blank range and not every time, either. The flak jacket faired the worst with all rounds blasting through both sides doubled up on every attempt as too did the kevlar vest (IIA). Interestingly enough we weren't able to stop the NATO round until we doubled up both the flak jacket and the kevlar vest on each other, and even then we had penetration through both sides of each vest on top of each other about 30% of the time (the 70% were stopped by the kevlar vest). Although not scientific, those familiar with the penetration of .45 recognize that its slow velocity and broad caliber would fair less so in a similar test. Incidentally, our physical security folks did some testing of bullet proof glass against the likes of .45 ball, 9mm NATO, .38 super ball, and .38 special ball. Neither the .38 special nor the .45 left more than a scuff mark on the glass. Only the 9 NATO and the .38 super left indentations and damage to the glass, with 9 leaving the deepest strike.

No, the NATO fodder doesn't leave a massive wound channel but it will put a hole in you, which is first thing that must be accomplished before an adversary can be anchored. Sanow and Marshall will also demonstrate that 9mm hardball performs similarly to .45 hardball in street shootings where no armor is involved. All being said, I'll take the 9 NATO, the extra bullets, and perfect my marksmanship on the range.

SS
 
Here we go again. I too have seen and posted some BS on here, but I as well have to say this is comical.

What happens when you don't like something? Don't use it.

I know, .40 sucks, Glock sucks, S&W sucks. I think it's amazing how many Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies use Glocks, and .40's.

Semper Fi-
JJC
 
Hmm...

What bothers me is how I can shoot better with 357 Sig from the same guns. 357 SIG, the same round that 40-O-Philes claim recoils too heavily and flashes too brightly. It is probably some personal reaction to different types of recoil. But I wonder.

GHB
 
Having owned a 10mm Delta Elite for some years now, I still ask myself the same question about the .40 Short & Weak - Why?

And, of course, the standard, obvious reply would be - Why Not?

I bought my 10mm to bridge the caliber gap between my 9mm's and .45 ACP's, it also made for a nice IPSC hicap race gun. Then the FBI comes out and says their agents can't handle the full power 10mm loads. So the 10mm Lite load appears, followed by the .40. And the Jello-O Junkies and Morgue Monsters are still going at it, which is at least entertaining, if anything else.

I look at the .40 S&W as the lesser half of the parent 10mm round, much like the .38 Special/.357 Magnum and .44 Special/.44 Magnum combinations.

I just wish Kahr would come out with a Kahr10, like Glock did with their pocket rocket 10mm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top