Hello all, I'm posting this because it seems an increasing number of people are posting of their dislike for this caliber, just curious as to the reasons why?
It seems recoil & accuracy are two of the main reasons, and I'd like to address those issues as follows:
Many who say the .40's recoil is to sharp & snappy, carry 9mm+p+, 357 Sig, .45+p, 10mm, 357 Mag ect. Even the 9mm in lightweight guns w/ +p+ or +p ammo such as 115gr Corbon, can produce a decent snap, & the others produce similar, & in many cases more recoil than the .40.
Many have commented on the lack of training given to LE officers/agents, yet so many carry the .40, & are required to atleast qualify w/ it every year. It would seem that if the .40 had such snappy recoil & was that innacurate that LEA would have to make a switch just to qualify their people. Granted, many carry the 180gr jhp, which to me produces a more ".45 like" recoil sensation, being heavy & subsonic.
The FBI had legal action taken against them upon their adoption of the 10mm. Some small statured male & some female agent trainees simply could not handle these weapons, & felt it unfair the be disqualified from the academy for this reason. I have yet to hear of this w/ regards to the .40
I do favor the 180gr loads, reason being is that I can utilize a heavier bullet out of a shorter bbl. & still maintain a level of good performance. From tests I've seen, the 180gr .40 performs better than the 230gr .45 from say a 4in bbl., as it was designed for this, & both share the same sectional density.
However, I also from time to time practice w/ & carry the full pwr. 155/165gr loads, & while they produce more recoil, to me they are no worse than the others listed above w/ the exception of the 9. To me it serves a shooter well to find a gun that fits well w/ a given caliber or load within one's chosen caliber. For instance I don't care for the 357 Sig in a G-33, but it's not to bad in a P226/229, just as a 155gr Win. ST might prove to stout out of a G-27 or Kahr K40, but is more managable/comfortable in a Beretta Brigadier/ Sig P226/ *&* 4006 ect.
I normally carry a G-23, being a midsized lightweight pistol, I found the 180gr loads perform best for me w/ this particular weapon. It's not rocket science, couple a small/ lightweight gun w/ a high energy/ high pressure cartridge & recoil will be stout. When people state they've tried the .40 & found it's recoil to snappy, I often have to wonder what gun/load combination they used, as many times it's never mentioned. However, I realize it's not the caliber for everyone, nor does everyone like the same thing's I do Well, wait a minute, I also like the 9/45/357 Sig, so maybe others do like the same things I do I do
As far as accuracy, it seems combat is often confused w/ target. When TSHTF, is what's more accurate at 25 yds. in a controlled range envornment going to come into play in a life or death lethal force encounter? The .40 might not be the best choice for target/competition shooting, but IMO it is combat accurate.
All opinions are appreciated!
Best, {long shot}
It seems recoil & accuracy are two of the main reasons, and I'd like to address those issues as follows:
Many who say the .40's recoil is to sharp & snappy, carry 9mm+p+, 357 Sig, .45+p, 10mm, 357 Mag ect. Even the 9mm in lightweight guns w/ +p+ or +p ammo such as 115gr Corbon, can produce a decent snap, & the others produce similar, & in many cases more recoil than the .40.
Many have commented on the lack of training given to LE officers/agents, yet so many carry the .40, & are required to atleast qualify w/ it every year. It would seem that if the .40 had such snappy recoil & was that innacurate that LEA would have to make a switch just to qualify their people. Granted, many carry the 180gr jhp, which to me produces a more ".45 like" recoil sensation, being heavy & subsonic.
The FBI had legal action taken against them upon their adoption of the 10mm. Some small statured male & some female agent trainees simply could not handle these weapons, & felt it unfair the be disqualified from the academy for this reason. I have yet to hear of this w/ regards to the .40
I do favor the 180gr loads, reason being is that I can utilize a heavier bullet out of a shorter bbl. & still maintain a level of good performance. From tests I've seen, the 180gr .40 performs better than the 230gr .45 from say a 4in bbl., as it was designed for this, & both share the same sectional density.
However, I also from time to time practice w/ & carry the full pwr. 155/165gr loads, & while they produce more recoil, to me they are no worse than the others listed above w/ the exception of the 9. To me it serves a shooter well to find a gun that fits well w/ a given caliber or load within one's chosen caliber. For instance I don't care for the 357 Sig in a G-33, but it's not to bad in a P226/229, just as a 155gr Win. ST might prove to stout out of a G-27 or Kahr K40, but is more managable/comfortable in a Beretta Brigadier/ Sig P226/ *&* 4006 ect.
I normally carry a G-23, being a midsized lightweight pistol, I found the 180gr loads perform best for me w/ this particular weapon. It's not rocket science, couple a small/ lightweight gun w/ a high energy/ high pressure cartridge & recoil will be stout. When people state they've tried the .40 & found it's recoil to snappy, I often have to wonder what gun/load combination they used, as many times it's never mentioned. However, I realize it's not the caliber for everyone, nor does everyone like the same thing's I do Well, wait a minute, I also like the 9/45/357 Sig, so maybe others do like the same things I do I do
As far as accuracy, it seems combat is often confused w/ target. When TSHTF, is what's more accurate at 25 yds. in a controlled range envornment going to come into play in a life or death lethal force encounter? The .40 might not be the best choice for target/competition shooting, but IMO it is combat accurate.
All opinions are appreciated!
Best, {long shot}