I own a .40, but use it only for competition (USPSA Limited).  .40 is the way to go for making major with irons in the shooting sports.

I used to own a Glock 23 and a Kahr P40, but between the sharp recoil impulse and the trigger pull, I came to hate range sessions with them.  In my heart I'm a 1911 guy, but I've also come to love the CZ75.  I normally carry a 1911, but there are times when I think additional ammunition capacity would be a good thing.  At that point, if I'm going for capacity, I don't see a reason not to carry a 9.

I choose to carry a 9.



A like framed 40 has less capacity, a bit more recoil, and no better terminal ballistics in the real world.



It is a fine round. It just doesn't have enough (any?) upside for me to jump off the 9mm ship.

.40 is the bees knees, I still believe it is a better combat round then 9. My FS and compact carry guns are chambered in .40, but my BUGs are 9mm.
I'll take these over their 9mm counterparts any day.

My work has required .40 Glocks for seventeen years now currently using G23s for everybody. I personally like the .40 round and find it easier and just slightly more expensive to reload for than 9mm. If my agency mandated 9mm and I didn't reload, I would be fine with it as well. YMMV.

All three XD-40's  competition, bedside, carry.  Same ammo (reloads) for competition, practice and training to save money.  Same controls on on a three so the muscle memory gained in competition applies directly to other situations.

I like the .40 just fine.  I like the 9 as well.  I just recently traded a Glock G22 for a G19.  It wasn't because I dislike the round.  I just couldn't afford to purchase the G19 out right and I wanted to even up my collection of .40s and 9s.  I have 2 handguns of each now.  I have to admit, I did succumb to the 9mm peer pressure, though.  I miss that G22.  I need to listen to people who say, "never trade away a gun."

This guy got it.   .40 just does not offer that much extra - if at all - to justify some of the tradeoffs.

I can double tap my 9mm.  

I can't double tap a .40

Double tapping is stupid, so that is irrelevant.

Two shots = two sight pictures.

I disagree. If someone is in my house at night as an uninvited threat, as soon as I have a clear shot, a double tap is exactly what I would be going for. I don't see the stupidity in that. Speed and aggression towards the aggressor, yes?

Forgot this...
I get the "snappy" recoil thing, but in my experiences, the guns I had in 40 were the CZ 40P, CZ-P06, a Glock 22 & 23. All 4 are fairly light guns. The glocks were poly and the CZ's are aluminum framed with small, light slides. The CZ 40P I shot the best but was also the heaviest of the 4. I could double tap that gun or dump the mag pretty easily, and not bad at 5-10ft. It took some practice, but was possible to keep them center mass/chest.
I have a Sig 229r in 40 now. It is slightly heavier than all except the CZ 40P I think by 2oz, but it has a heftier slide which makes it feel very smooth, much like a 1911. I don't carry a 45 cuz I'm not fond of C1 carry in the 1911 platform and I haven't found anything comparable in size to the 229 I like carrying/shooting. I prefer a hot chamber with a de-cocker. There is no safety to have to check and make sure it is on/off. Under stress, I don't think I'd notice the difference until after I was in SA. I would like to think anyway.

Non tech pic removed - Maynard

Because, OP, Thug Life...and all that.

To be more serious, I carry a Shield .40 and have a Compact and FS in .40 as well.  I don't understand all the hate myself.  When panics come, it's nice to have the option of both 9mm and .40 because one is usually going to be on the shelf.

You need more practice then my friend.  

 
I'd rather actually hit the bad guy.  But that's just me.

sorry to hear that LOL



typical USPSA Limited division gun is a .40 hicap 1911/2011 or 40 cal glock.

loads must make major power factor. bullet weight in grains x velocity = 165000

typically a 180gr. at 950fps.







 

I've never had any interest in .40 S&W or .45 ACP for that matter. My carry guns have always been 9mm and 10mm. I carry a Glock 9mm most of the time but if I feel the need for a more powerful gun I want the most "oomph" that can be stuffed into a concealable package, which is the Glock 20 with 16 magnum level rounds.

If the 40 is such a bad round, Then why is there a Police officer being buried today?   (Sgt Moore of the Coeur d"alene Police department) KHQ, KXLY, KREM2 news stations.

Suspect (Jonaton Renfro) stole officers gun (A 40) and shot the officer (with body armor), And his car. Lead police on a high speed chase and eluded police only to be found later 15 miles away.

Officer ended up passing away a few hours later.

But yea, The 40 is a worthless round. (Sarcasm a plenty)

I don't think anybody's saying it's a bad round (penetration/killing power), but I hear more commenting about the "recoil" and capacity.  I think this flew over your head

I myself have a USP40, P2000SK 40 and P99C 40, and one HK45C...so I don't hate the .40.

The fastest shooters in the world say 2 shots = 2 sight pictures, and I'm inclined to take their advice.

Does that mean 22 LR is a great self defense round, too, since plenty of people have been killed with 22s?

Non tech video removed - Maynard

Sure beats throwing rocks don't it? Guess my point is the 40 penetrated body armor, and killed an officer. Is it the answer to end all questions...? NO but I would take a 40 over quite a few other rounds.

.40 is nice when in the woods. When have possibility of bigger/larger threats.

For $300 (+ or - ) you can get a Police Trade G22

Why wouldn't you get one? In fact hard to argue a Police trade in G22 isn't the best handgun for $300

I also prefer 40 over 9 besides ammo availability during a panic but accessories as well.

How much was a Glock 17 mag and a box of 9mm going for during the last panic? much more than any .40 item

I am planning on getting a 9mm just still haven't decided which 9mm I want.

I like .40.  

I bought my first real service caliber pistol after the first Obama panic.  Noticed during the panic that Wallyworld  had them when 9's were nowhere to be seen.

Shortly after, I bought a G23 and G27 (BTW, those were less expensive guns compared to their 9mm siblings) and I was able to make them go bang through the last panic.  That is good.

They go bang every single time.  And I would not volunteer to be shot with those bullets. That would be bad.  

I don't have to do gel shoots or conduct any kind of study other then going to a range and shooting steel to know that .40 hits harder then 9mm. Targets that a 9 won't knock down or swing gets pushed by the .40.  

Now how much of this translates into putting a human down? I don't know. But I know the .40 performs better against barriers and hits harder.  And .40 round expands further then a 9.


I've a few buddies that carry G22 as woods guns. IMO makes a bit more sense then most other calibers. (If you don't have 10mm).



As far as a carry gun .40 probably makes more sense as a duty weapon. 9 as a concealed carry gun/off duty gun. If you aren't likely to be engaging through glass/barriers a 9 is probably the smarter choice.

I think what this topic comes down to is that everyone has a personal preference. My preference is to not get hit with any of them, because they all hurt. 9, 40, 45, 22, 50, 460, etc. They all hurt.

Wow, I'm late to this thread.
 

I went with the .40 S&W because it packs a perfect punch. Capacity, penetration, performance, recoil, etc... fit me like a glove. Love it and ain't leaving it.

We were wondering when you were going to show up.

I do have to work for a living. Running a Political Dictatorship for Life as a Supreme Leader for the most perfect of Cartridges... the .40 S&W isn't easy.

 

What? You expect me to just goof around amd surf Arfcom all day?

cause it's not a 10mm.

It's all about technique.  I've seen small women do better than 4 accurate shots per second with the 40 in USPSA.

Yeah but you don't need a current Mall Ninja certification to own 40S&W...

Poor grip and technique.   Professional training will help.

Your doctor can prescribed you something for that now. You don't have to live in denial.

 




 

I think this might be the cause of a lot of people's aversion to the .40S&W



 

Another plus for 40 is that you can always find guns cheap. I got my last NIB Glock 22 Gen 4 for $520 including shipping and transfer fees and I'm about to pick up a second NIB M&P40 for $480.

Can't shoot down a plane either can you?

Non tech pic removed - Maynard

Well since you are a Mighty dictator. We kinda expect nothing less I still haven't been approved to be in the mighty 40 Club. Just sayin

This. Also I don't have any trouble controlling, or shooting rhythm drills into the A with .40, and the loads I choose go jsut about as fast as 9mm, but weigh more.
doing some simple physics math wherein we determine something's kinetic energy as ke=1/2(m*v^2), we can determine that at the same speed, .40 is going to have more kinetic energy if it's going at the same speed as 9mm since it weighs more.

Argue all you want. I have a 9 because I can get rounds for it and practice all day. I carry a .40 because I believe in the rule that one should carry a pistol whose caliber begins with a "4" and that's the fastest 4 caliber, in the most convenient package that I shoot well. Also the rounds for it are readily available when everyone who owns a 9 is buying rounds in a panic.... and I can continue to take it to the range.


continue to argue, I'm still carrying a .40, because I like it.

all I could find during the panic was .45ACP.... no 9mm or .40short/weak anywhere.

I don't know what "bad rap" you are talking about with the .40S&W? its a perfectly viable round compared to other typical semi-auto self defense rounds (even though they are all poor choices compared to a rifle round) but that said, I believe the 9mm is the educated choice.

Don't take my word for it, ask the FBI (FBI Training Division - 9MM Justification). You know the guys who originally led the charge for the development of the 10mm/40S&W rounds. Their report details why they now recommend the 9mm over the .40S&W. Keep in mind that these guys have more scientific testing and research (as well as direct access to the manufactures, data and experts) then any internet expert.

The short version is simply this, the .40S&W offers no significant ballistic or effective advantage over the 9mm PERIOD This is a scientifically proven fact and not up for debate. The 9mm does however offer some real world advantages over the 40. Namely, higher capacity, lower costs and less recoil.

Lets start with the lower recoil because I think this one is over emphasized IMO. Yes the 9mm is a tad softer shooting but depending on platform, the difference is so small as to not even matter IMO. I've shot the G19 next to the G23 and could hardly tell a difference. I think the difference becomes more noticeable in platforms with higher bore axis's like the Sigs, XD's or HK's?

As for higher capacity, this is nice but not the "end all, be all" IMO either. I will say however that 2 or 3 more rounds in the mag is more likely to save your life than the slightly larger diameter of the .40 bullet over the 9mm. Just to refresh your memory...



The "hole" a .40 creates in a human body is indistinguishable between the hole created by a 9mm round but you can certainly tell if the body has 2 or 3 extra holes

Ammo costs and availability is where I think the 9mm really shines, especially for us civilian types. Lower costs means you can buy more ammo. More ammo allows for more shooting. More shooting usually leads to better shooting. Being a better shooter is a lot more of an advantage in a gun fight then the size of the bullet. The other advantage is stock piling. After the first ammo shortage I learned the "Buy it cheap/stack it deep" mantra. This most recent ammo shortage didn't effect me in the least. The greater availability and significantly lower cost of 9mm ammo made that much easier to do.

I'm not suggesting that everybody run out and sell their .40's and there is no reason why someone couldn't own multiple handguns in 2 or more calibers. If you like your .40 then stick with it but for someone just starting out or someone looking to consolidate, there is no doubt in my mind that the 9mm is the right choice.

I know... I have a lot on my plate. The membership roles will be expanded.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Amount of information content =< NULL - ?
Join date - ?
typical - ?


I have primarily .40 S&W due to the grip size on .45 Glocks are larger than my ideal. The .40 S&W Glocks can be purchased as police surplus at a significant discount with most only have some surface wear and low round counts. The .40 S&W was readily available during the ammo panics. It does have a slight different recoil impulse than a 9mm but it no greater than the ? between the 9x19mm Parabellum and 9x17mm Kurz. I shoot enough that it isn't a BFD to me. I prefer the .40 S&W since I carry a pistol on the farm if I run into feral pigs.

If the reduced recoil impulse was the big motivator, Glock would be importing the G25 with the loaded chamber indicator for sale in the US(yes, it was on this very site that this was stated that Glock isn't going to bother since of projected poor sales). To carry that line of thinking to its absurb logical end, the summum Arma would be a compact sized Glock in 7.62 Browning Long with a 24 round magazine.

As I've stated many times before, I got my mother, my sister, my daughter, and all three nieces a Glock 19. They weren't comfortable with the idea of anything that starts with a .4" and am smart enough to know to not to force the situation. I got them what they wanted.  My mother is 78 and has never shot a firearm before; took this G19 to a senior citizen training session put on by the sheriff's department and put all 15 rounds in a 9" circle on her second magazine.

Get which ever one you want and practice with it.


ETA:  PLEASE NOTE SIGLINE BELOW.

Because it's different

I disagree with your established facts not being up for debate. The article you linked contains citations all from the 80's. So the same information they used to justify the switch to .40 is now reason to switch to 9mm?  I'd say there's room for interpretation, which ultimately depends on what your level of significance is.  If you take a look at say, Speer Gold Dots muzzle energy listings. Comparing 115 gr 9mm to 155 gr .40 cal, you'll see the .40 has 32% more muzzle energy. Is that insignificant?  The same 32% exists between 124/165 and 147/180. Wait, what about +p?  Well the 124/165 comparison now drops to 12% more energy for the .40. Is 12% significant?  

Although .40 cal doesn't look like it makes a much bigger hole than 9mm, the 10.2mm .40 S&W is 13% larger than the 9.01mm 9mm Para.

Let's assume you don't think 12-13% is significant. Let's look at the flip side: capacity. Let's use probably the most common police sidearms: the Glock 17 and 22. The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds of 9mm and the Glock 22 gets 15 rounds of .40 cal. The 17 has 13% more capacity. If you want, we can do more concealable pistols. The 19 has 15% more capacity than the 23. But it falls off at the 26/27 to 11%.

My simple point is that there are not indisputable facts that the there's no difference. My eyes tell me the .40 ballistics gel results are significantly larger than 9mm. Your idea of significant may be different.

I will agree that pistols are all relatively ineffective.

My last thought here will echo a previous poster (ICEAGE). I jus shot a 3 gun today with my SP2022 in 9mm (124 gr) for the first time. I normally shoot my .40 cal P229 (lately 180gr, but usually 165 gr). I have never had a steel target fail to fall when hit with my P229.  I had SEVERAL problems today on the dueling tree and even the Texas Star with the 9mm hitting but not scoring me a hit.  The dueling tree took enough multiple hits to reverse the capacity advantage.

Not saying that translates to human bodies, but there's clearly more energy and a bigger hole. Capacity?  Yeah that's definitely nice, but it didn't pay off for me today.

I love me some 40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWy2AB_AQYo

Cost is becomming an issue.

I can finds lot of 9mm practise ammo for $9.99-$11.99.  .40SW is running $14.99-$18.99 (just looked at PSA and MidwayUSA, was actually shocked how much more .40SW cost now). When did .40 get so expensive?

You are free to disagree or disbelieve all you want but the scientific facts are out there if you care to look for them. I'm not going to hand feed you the information but I assure you its out there. Experts like Dr. Martin Fackler and others have devoted their lives to the field of terminal ballistics and none of them have found any scientific proof that there is any discernible difference between these 2 calibers. All of the studies and research indicate that when comparing handgun calibers, the specific load you choose is much more important then the caliber itself and when comparing similar loads in 2 different calibers, the performance is roughly the same.


Exactly, shooting steel does not translate to shooting flesh in any way, shape or form.

If you want to debate if a .40 or larger round has any advantages in the shooting sports arena, that's one thing and there may be some valid points to be made there but if we are talking about self defense then I stand by my statements.


Again, if you read up on Terminal Ballistics, you will see how the above math is fairly meaningless but just for shits and giggles, I'll play...

G22 -> 15+1 = 16rds x .40 (bullet diameter) = 6.4 total
G17 -> 17+1 = 18rds x .355 (bullet diameter) = 6.39 total

Pretty damn close wouldn't you say but to answer your question, no I do not believe the difference of 0.045" is likely to make any difference in stopping a threat.