Over past year have read many articles,opinions,etc about the .40 going down popularity tube.I have to agree,to me it's neither fish nor fowl-you get a lot of recoil,mid weight bullet,etc.A .45 makes a bigger hole with (IMO)less recoil or the same and a 9 holds a more capacity(with modern bullet technology a 9mm works for me).I have a custom Grock23 that in 5000rds-50 of those were .40,all the rest cast or factory 9 with about 30 being .357SIG(another ??? caliber).I carry the Grock instead of one of my beloved 1911s(after 30 yrs,yeah,yeah,yeah)because I have 18 rds in hand,with 34rds back in 2 mags,a good thing in Obamas America.What are your thoughts?
I have been advocating it for new buyers, as the prices for both guns and ammo are lower than others. I have only one .40 caliber pistol, but have been wanting more. Seems like the Govt. agents are selling off their used pistols cheaply, and buying either 9mm or .45 ACP.
When FBI agents carried 38 Special revolvers years ago there was a shootout (Florida?) where the agent suffered from a lack of fire power. The FBI needed a solution.
In the mean time the perfect pistol (Bren Ten...CZ ergonomics, Magnum performance ) was being developed. The cartridge was the 10mm with a 200 gr bullet at 1200FPS. The Bren ten failed but Colt brought out a 1911 version 10mm , the Colt Delta Elite.
The FBI decided the 10mm was the gun for them but the recoil was so intense that the smaller agents and woman could not handle the recoil. The FBI specified a down load for their ammunition to what is today's 40S&W levels. But the large frame guns were too big, again, so S&W and others put the 40S&W in a 9mm sized frame. PERFECT. Big power, smaller gun, less recoil, big effect.
So tell me how things have changed in recent times such that we don't need a 9mm framed gun with big heavy bullets at higher velocities? 40S&W should not die, if it was a perfect world.
I have 9mm guns, a 10mm gun, several 45ACP guns, and a 40S&W gun. Admittedly I like 45ACP guns but I am NOT small or a woman. There is a place for 40S&W. 9mm is fine but 40S&W is better with heavier bullets to do more knock down damage. 9mm guns are very active when shot whereas 40S&W is just a bigger push which I think easier to control.
But we all get to choose. If "WE" are not choosing 40S&W or 10mm then they will eventually go away but it may take decades or even generations. We still shoot 38-40, 32-20, 30-30, and bunches of other cartridges that are not all that popular.
I don't believe that the 40 is a passing fad. I enjoy mine and so does my SIL. Heck, the city council just approved the purchase of new Glocks in 40 s&w for our police department. Hopefully there will be some good deals on police trade-ins shortly.
If you read my response you can see that is not the case.
"Big power, smaller gun, less recoil, big effect."
It was invented to allow police and government enforcement officer of smaller stature, including women, to carry a powerful gun of less than mammoth dimensions or mammoth recoil. If the general public desires a similar gun, it is there for the taking. The history of the development of 10mm and 40S&W shows the "question and answer".
We all get to make a choice, based on what we like. Some of us carry mouse guns, while others carry 1911's. So why is the .40 not a favorite? Just ask yourself which hand gun caliber is the most popular today. Do a little research, and I think you will find that the .40 is holding it's own. Most folks are looking for higher-capacity pistols or small-frame guns for concealed carry. Take a look at Glock sales in 9mm, and .40 caliber.
I own one .40 and two .45 ACP. I like them both. If I could find the right CC gun in .45 I probably wouldn't carry the .40. But that hasn't happened yet. The 9mm has it's merits, such as larger capacity. I don't care for it but that's why we have choices. Lots of other people carry them.
I don't see the .40 going away for quite a while. And, like has already been mentioned, I don't really want to start reloading another caliber when I'm happy with what I have.
The 40 was nothing new in ballistics. Colt did it with the 38-40 a good while before any of the modern 10mm's/40 cal. were a gleam in someone's eye. The old 38-40 had a good reputation and also one for "shooting hard". Obviously the handguns are light years apart but the ballistics aren't.
Does it have a place in today's world. I think so. I believe it's a good cartridge but I don't own one and odds are I never will. That only because it does not fall within my field of interest. I'd be more likely to own a 38-40. I would take a 40 over the 9mm every time. I am not so enamored of the 9 as the rest of the world. It's a good cartridge, obviously pretty well proven since its introduction over 100 years ago.....but it doesn't pique my interest.
Being a former LEO I think one thing those of us who are firearms aficionados often fail to remember is that the vast majority of today's LEO's are not firearms enthusiasts. Truth be told they weren't 40 years ago when I was a LEO. What we perceive as not much recoil they may believe is tearing the skin from their hands. Qualifying 2 or 3 times a year, maybe, does not familiarize one with their firearm, not in my opinion.
Will the 40 die? I don't know. It shouldn't but only time will tell.
I guess I went to the same school you went to! Don't own a 9, or a .40, and probably never will. I have actually seen a 9mm bullet wound. The round did not expand, and the wound looked like the guy had been stabbed with a pencil. The exit wound wasn't any better than the entrance wound.
Could be carver. I've noticed a similarity among many of our posts. I think perhaps we took a few different classes. I'll take penetration over expansion every time....but I don't want that penetration with a round nose. I like a meplat of a minimum of 50% of the caliber. No hollow points for me.
Expansion of a hollow point in pistol rounds is sketchy at best. Even the Hornady Critical Defense round fails some of the time. There are always going to be failures with hollow point bullets in handguns, they may expand, and then again, they may not! I want penetration too, but I want it in a large caliber bullet, .44, or .45. Both of these rounds will give adequate penetration, without to much over penetration if they don't expand. If they do expand they will probably leave a .75 caliber hole! If they don't expand, they still leave a .44, or .45 caliber hole!
For decades our state Dept. of Corrections used S&W 686's in .357 mag. Training and yearly qualification was done with .38 spc. About 10 years ago the dept. finally switched over to semi-auto, Glocks in .40 S&W. Our officers hated it. Mainly due to the fear that the Glock trained instructors instilled (Oh my God there's NO SAFETY!!) But these were people who usually only touched a firearm once a year. Or the know-it-all who thinks he can impress the women folk. Things got so bad that only our emergency squad (CERT) qualifies with it now. State claimed they couldn't afford the .40 ammo for everyone. I'm not a Glock fan, but the .40 is a good caliber. The .357 was alright, but the .40 was just presented the wrong way.
I have fired a Glock 22 a LEO friend of mine has. I like it, it handled well. The availability of the .40 is an issue for me. In a SHTF situation, I have subscribed to the "pick it up on the field of battle theory." I have equipped our bug out bags with 9mm and .556 Nato equipment.
I see the .40, 10MM & 357 Sig going the way of the 41 mag & 38 super. All good calibers with little market share compared to 45 acp, 9mm, 38/357 mag, 44 mag ect. due to the fact that these older calibers are just as capable ammo is less expensive and always available.
One point we are all overlooking, is the round count. A sweet 1911 has, at best, 8 rounds in the magazine unless you have it sticking out like a sore thumb, which makes it hard to CC. A 9mm has as many as 16 rounds in a double stack magazine, making it a favorite of people like me who can't hit the broad side of a barn. A .40 caliber seems to end up right in the middle, bigger carry capacity than a 1911 and more knock down power than a 9mm, middle of the road!
One point we are all overlooking, is the round count. A sweet 1911 has, at best, 8 rounds in the magazine unless you have it sticking out like a sore thumb, which makes it hard to CC. A 9mm has as many as 16 rounds in a double stack magazine, making it a favorite of people like me who can't hit the broad side of a barn. A .40 caliber seems to end up right in the middle, bigger carry capacity than a 1911 and more knock down power than a 9mm, middle of the road!
The only rounds that count are the ones that hit center mass. That being said, all calibers work well with proper shot placement. However, from every thing I've read, or heard, about gun fights is that proper round placement is very hard to come by when someone else is shooting at you! Ducking, juking, and jiving, to keep from being shot, just don't tend to help with shot placement!
I have to disagree. a shot right in the running lights drops them fast.
Remember Ferguson?
The shot that stopped the gentle giant was right in the forehead.
For decades our state Dept. of Corrections used S&W 686's in .357 mag. Training and yearly qualification was done with .38 spc. About 10 years ago the dept. finally switched over to semi-auto, Glocks in .40 S&W. Our officers hated it. Mainly due to the fear that the Glock trained instructors instilled (Oh my God there's NO SAFETY!!) But these were people who usually only touched a firearm once a year. Or the know-it-all who thinks he can impress the women folk. Things got so bad that only our emergency squad (CERT) qualifies with it now. State claimed they couldn't afford the .40 ammo for everyone. I'm not a Glock fan, but the .40 is a good caliber. The .357 was alright, but the .40 was just presented the wrong way.
Don't know if your time and your location offered enough shoot data to determine if the 40 was better than the 9 or 357. I've read various articles that seem to echo Greg Ellifritz, but that sometimes mean they are talking the same stuff using each others punch line and the evidence gets contaminated. What do you think since you have lived the life so to speak and have real life experience if you don't mind the asking?
In our particular case, It wasn't so much that the .40 was better or worse than .357. Switching from revolver to semi-auto was the big thing. Plus we had a bad accident using reloaded ammo in a Glock. Weapon blew up in the officer's hand. Lucky the officer wasn't seriously injured. The Dept was warned by Glock not to use reloads. They ignored it because they used reloaded .357 ammo for years. It was horrible ammo. Lots of squibs and you could watch the bullets go down range. But every thing comes from the lowest bidder. When they were forced to use new ammo in .40 the accountants pulled the plug. Better ammo and not having to instill an unwarranted fear of the weapon would have solved the problem. Politics killed it.
I like to shoot a lot and the 40 ammo just cost to much. 9 mil is very inexpensive. My nephew had a 40 XD. It was a good shooting gun. I guess I am just to cheap.
Jeff Cooper, the inventor of some of the tactical gun games was one of the pushers for the 10mm Bren Ten. I believe he had technical input to the design. That was back in the early 1980's (??) to shortly before. Bullet designs and performance has changed since then. If Jeff were alive today he too might say there is no reason for 40 caliber anything because the bullets you can get today work so much better than the FMJ bullets used in the original 10mm and 9mm guns of his day. They were after a couple things: CZ75 ergonomics, more bullet performance than 9mm but less recoil than 45ACP. The Bren Ten failed because of the lack of magazines. They delivered guns without magazines and only a promise of them. Colt and Norma picked up the banner and ran with it with ammo and the Colt Delta Elite. The FBI was the force behind the adoption of the 40 S&W which is nothing more than a 10mm Short. The FBI tried down loaded 10mm but the guns were too heavy for the women so they went to S&W who gave them a 9mm frame with a shortened 10 mm case, the 40S&W.
As for the 38-40, it is indeed a 40 caliber cartridge but it is rimmed and shouldered like a rifle round. Those two features do not work all that well in a semi-auto pistols for feeding. Yes, there are semi-autos that use one or both of those features but it is so much easier for feeding if the case is not rimmed or shouldered. That is why they invented 10mm in a straight walled case.
The forehead Ziva shot isn't necessarily the best place. There are reports of 40 bouncing off the forhead (mostly from long term married males). That two inch strip that runs from ear to ear across the nose is the better. Not sure if that 2" band applies to the full circumference.
My grandson, Brandon, put a .40 S&W through his head, and is still here to talk about it. Sure it did some damage, but not what you would think a .40 should have done.
What is it about the 9 vs. 40 vs. 45 debate? I love my 9mms. Got 3 of them, 2 practical for CC. Love my 40's, got 2 of them, one is my EDC. Love my 45's, have 2, have holsters for them, have carried them. I have even occasionally carried a .380, or a 9mm Mak. They can all be effective carry calibers, but you do need to hit what you aim for. Training is more important than caliber choice. Stop debating and hit the range.
Just gonna say it, I carry my 40. Plenty of punch to it, and the recoil is manageable enough I can hit fairly decently with one hand. I'm not ambidextrous, but I while back my right hand was in a cast, so I shot with my left and it wasn't easy but still has rounds on paper.
I don't see the .40 S&W caliber going away at all. It's been with us for almost 30 years now and has established both a good reputation as a fight stopper and there's probably at least half a million pistols, and probably far north of that, in the US in that caliber.
I have an old taurus PT something (101 I think?) in .40. I don't notice much difference in recoil between it and the 9's. I like the 40. Seems like it will out last the 10MM, as it overlaps the .45, whereas the 40 is between the 9 and the 45.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
The Firearms Forum
2.2M posts
71K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!