Does .40 really kick this bad?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does .40 really kick this bad? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:06:22 AM EDT

I have a beretta 96. It seems to have a really harsh kick. Much worse than my FNP-45 and 1911. I'm looking to buy a CC pistol soon and know that smaller pistol = bigger kick. I am unable to test fire any other guns. So I guess my question is, does that .40 really have that harsh of a kick? Or should I attribute some of the blame to the Beretta? If so I may end up buying a 9mm CC pistol.

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:06:57 AM EDT

[#1]

.40 is quite "snappy" in my opinion.

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:10:03 AM EDT

[#2]

I don't think it does. It really depends on the loads you're using and the gun you're shooting it out of that matters more than the caliber.

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:12:01 AM EDT

[#3]

It depends. I have shot 40 in HK USP compact and that has quite a kick, i did not enjoy shooting it.

I have shot a Sig 229 in 40 and that one i can shoot all day.

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:17:12 AM EDT

[#4]

I was interested in the HK P2000 SK and the SIg P239. Has anyone shot one in .40 or should I just use 9mm.

When I shot the Beretta I used Winchester and Remington ammo. Both kinds of ammo kicked like what was said earlier "snappy"

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:21:47 AM EDT

[#5]

The beretta 96 is a light framed pistol and very snappy in my experience. I didn't like it much, sold mine. Heavier pistols like the p229 are softer shooters; some of it has to do with the bore axis being higher above your grip too i think. .40S&W is a pretty snappy cartridge; for CCW I went with 9mm after trying a few .40's. Rapid fire is much easier to control with the 9mm and modern 9mm+P ammunition is very effective.

Posted: 7/12/2010 11:27:04 AM EDT

[#6]

.40 is that bad for me. i had a glock 23 and the muzzle flip was not fun. it made follow up shots take longer. i have shot a smith m&p .40 and it had the same results. i stick to 9mm or .45 as my carry weapons. i just plain ol' dont like the .40 cartridge. as long as the 9mm and .45 do the same job, thats what i'll be packin.

Posted: 7/12/2010 12:13:39 PM EDT

[#7]

40 is a very snappy round to shoot. It's one of the reasons I don't like it or own one. You have to realize standard 40's are running very close to plus p pressure levels.

I've shot a handful of 40's over the years, everyone I tried was like that. Something like an all steel Smith or a 40 1911 (if you can find such a creature) might help.

Posted: 7/12/2010 12:47:28 PM EDT

[#8]

The 135gr +p's are pretty close to 9mm recoil wise.

165s produce distinctly different recoil impulses, and the 180s even more so.

If you are recoil sensitive I would stick with the 135s.
They are considerably more pleasant to shoot in compact/sub comp pistols.

Posted: 7/12/2010 2:27:16 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
.40 is quite "snappy" in my opinion.

It has been a long time since I've shot a .40, but this is my opinion as well.

Posted: 7/12/2010 3:11:44 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
40 is a very snappy round to shoot. It's one of the reasons I don't like it or own one. You have to realize standard 40's are running very close to plus p pressure levels.

I've shot a handful of 40's over the years, everyone I tried was like that. Something like an all steel Smith or a 40 1911 (if you can find such a creature) might help.

I have never shot a 40 but today the place i have a PM9 on order told me a PM40 came in if if would like to check it out....I thought for about 3 seconds and said no...i will wait for the 9.
I bet a kahr PM40 is very very snappy huh?

Posted: 7/12/2010 3:49:39 PM EDT

[#11]

Not in a P229 Sig

Posted: 7/12/2010 3:50:15 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

.40 is quite "snappy" in my opinion.

This.

9mm and 45 are both more pleasant to shoot, but it is not punishing, just "snappy"...good word for it....

Posted: 7/12/2010 5:20:18 PM EDT

[#13]

I find .40 snappy as well. The most comfortable I owned was a P229. Snappiest was my G23 and not far from that, my HK P2000. I have to stick with .40 because it's what I'm issued. I have just learned to live with it. I found the 180 gr had less perceived recoil, but we're issued 165gr. I rented a G27 to maybe buy for off duty but I'm gonna buy a G26 instead.

Posted: 7/12/2010 7:56:25 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
does that .40 really have that harsh of a kick?

Yup. The .45 acp is a nice soft push, .40 is a nasty snap.

Posted: 7/12/2010 8:29:45 PM EDT

[#15]

I can shoot my P239 in .40 all day long without a problem. I've also had several USP .40 compacts and it wasn't bad at all, but the P2000 SK is another story. It's shootable, but is a little rough on the hands. IMO

Posted: 7/12/2010 10:45:51 PM EDT

[#16]

I don't like shooting .40 out of a 96 period, my LEO friend carries a 96, and I have shot it several times, but I don't like the recoil, but when I shoot my PX4 in .40, or my cougar .45acp, the recoil is much more manageable. Not sure why, I thought maybe it was the recoil design, but I have a 9000s with similiar design just smaller and lighter in .40 and again no problems. .40S&W is a snappy round, ,more so than .45acp, in some hand guns 9mm can be snappy too.

Posted: 7/13/2010 12:54:32 AM EDT

[#17]

Had a full size Glock for a number of years and didn't really enjoy it.(Issued). Got my hands on a ss p226 and now have 2. Shoots like a charm for me. The extra weight more than justifies how I shoot it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 7/13/2010 1:45:57 AM EDT

[#18]

I don't think my opinion would make any difference since it is about the same as everyone else here.. My 40 S&W is in a SIG P239, which is a small/compact handgun. It is definitely built different from the 9mm in the same P239 ; a much heavier slide and the weight shows when shooting. Not as snappy as a Glock, but it does take a moment to reacquire iron sighting. Shooting 180s or 135 is about the same feel to me..

I can shoot a box of 40s and not have a bad time.. I don't feel the kick is bad.. I really like the P239..

Posted: 7/13/2010 3:26:14 AM EDT

[#19]

Every gun that I've had in .40 I've gotten rid of at some point. The recoil is way too snappy for me personally. The only .40 pistol that I actually enjoyed was a S&W 4006, which felt like a slightly hot 9mm.

Posted: 7/13/2010 3:38:54 AM EDT

[#20]

10mm

Pansies...

yes, perceived recoil has a lot to do with the gun, weight, balance and locking design...

Posted: 7/13/2010 6:37:03 AM EDT

[#21]

I have a Glock 23. I dont care to shoot it because it is "snappy". I think it is a combanation of it being a small gun ect. I prefer my 1911's. they have more of a push than a snap.

Posted: 7/13/2010 8:11:31 AM EDT

[#22]

I've got a 229 and a 239 in .40. Both of them have less felt recoil than my wife's PPS in 9mm, and it is mostly because they are pretty heavy for their size. If you are looking at a 239 I would find one to shoot first and see if you can live with the plastic grips on it, which do make it a bit top heavy. If you don't like them and are thinking about switching to thicker grips, you might as well just get a 229.

Posted: 7/13/2010 8:48:02 AM EDT

[#23]

Recoil is relative... Does a 40 have as much recoil as a 44 mag, not close. Does it seem worse than a 45 ACP or 9mm, yep.

The 40 is very manageable and could be acurrately fired by 90% of the people in this country but I would wager not even 1/2 would consider it enjoyable.

Posted: 7/13/2010 9:39:58 AM EDT

[#24]

.40 is certainly more snappy than 9mm, but I think it depends on the gun quite a bit.

I carry an M&P40 full size that I can shoot all day long with no discomfort. I had an M&P40c that was the same. I never liked shooting my buddy's Glock in .40, however. The felt recoil was much more sharp.

I'm guess one of those odd fellows that actually thinks .40 is fun to shoot.

Posted: 7/13/2010 10:41:45 AM EDT

[#25]

A 460 S.W. magnum out of a 5in. X-Frame is "snappy"

The .40 S.W. out of a full size Glock is a pussycat.

Never shot a Beretta 96 but really can't imagine it being that much worse than a G22.

I'm no Billy bad-ass, but like all the guys in my USPSA club, I shoot hundreds of major power factor, 180 gr. .40 cartridges a month.

I suppose it's all what you're used to.

Posted: 7/13/2010 10:59:24 AM EDT

[#26]

One time I had my mother who is in her mid-50's shoot my Glock 27. She had never shot a handgun before, who is small in height and has small hands.

Her response when I asked about recoil... "That wasn't bad at all"

Posted: 7/13/2010 11:45:56 AM EDT

[#27]

You are ALL pansies!!! You need to shoot a real cartridge out of your pistols!! .45-70 colt peacemaker... jeez, you whine and moan about the weight of your glocks and ar15's this thing weighs 6.5 lbs empty and can take down a charging locomotive... (all about shot placement, in this case the "front, the bullet will hit everything else on it's way through, as will the huge fireball muzzle flash)

9mm<.40<.45<.500<.45-70!!!

I would imagine that a .45-70 would be a "snappy" recoil...

Actually I carry a 9mm sig 225 so I cant really complain about recoil, havent shot much .40(dont own one).

Posted: 7/13/2010 11:47:45 AM EDT

[#28]

Shoot it and see

No, but really go shoot the weapon your interested in and see if you like it. Just because something is a great fit for someone else doesn't mean it will be for you.

$.02
-Urban

Posted: 7/13/2010 11:58:28 AM EDT

[#29]

As said above, Sig is the way to go if you want to run that cartridge IMO.
I carry a P229.

Posted: 7/13/2010 12:21:34 PM EDT

[#30]

I also find the S&W all stainless to be very soft shooting like the p229/p239's (S&W 4006, etc.)

Posted: 7/13/2010 12:25:29 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I was interested in the HK P2000 SK and the SIg P239. Has anyone shot one in .40 or should I just use 9mm.

When I shot the Beretta I used Winchester and Remington ammo. Both kinds of ammo kicked like what was said earlier "snappy"

Go with the P2000 SK in 9mm. Your best choice, IMO.

What I like about the 9mm is that I can get more hits on target, faster, and more accurately than with .45 acp or .40 S&W.

Good luck, let us know what you decide.

Posted: 7/13/2010 5:19:02 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Shoot it and see

No, but really go shoot the weapon your interested in and see if you like it. Just because something is a great fit for someone else doesn't mean it will be for you.

$.02
-Urban

I have no place available to rent and shoot a weapon. It's either buy it or don't.

Posted: 7/13/2010 5:40:24 PM EDT

[#33]

I dont think the recoil on a .40 is that bad. My Baby Eagle is a .40 cal and its not bad. I think the weight of the gun helps. My Beretta 96 is snappier but is still not bad.

Posted: 7/13/2010 9:06:29 PM EDT

[#34]

I would say 40 is snappier than 45acp. I would also place 357sig about the same as 45acp, maybe a hair more.

Bore axis, gun weight, materials, bullet weight, grip angle, all have an effect of perceived recoil.

Posted: 7/13/2010 9:41:57 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
10mm
Pansies...

yes, perceived recoil has a lot to do with the gun, weight, balance and locking design...

I can shoot a Glock 20 all day long. And I hate .40

Posted: 7/13/2010 9:55:34 PM EDT

[#36]

I didnt see a difference between .40 and 9mm. But i suck at comparing since i didnt think my uncle's .44 magnum desert eagle was bad either.

Posted: 7/14/2010 12:31:10 PM EDT

[#37]

A couple weeks ago, I took my fnx 40 and fnp 45 to the range. The three of us had great time. The fnp 45 and fnx 40 are nearly identical with the 40 being just slightly downsized. 4" barrel vs 4.5" barrel, etc.

One of the reasons I own and carry the fnh pistols is that I shoot with both hands and these pistols are fully ambidextrous. I don't mean both hands at the same time, although I tried it this trip, just to see what it was like. First off, I couldn't hit a damn thing that way.

But more importantly, for this discussion, I was able to compare recoil from two very similar weapons side by side.

I hate to disappoint the Internet masses, but the 40 did not kick more and was not snappier. They were nearly identical, with just a little more muzzle flip on the 45.

This was shooting factory fmj.

Myth busted.

Az

Posted: 7/18/2010 11:20:09 AM EDT

[#38]

When my daugther was 10, she could shoot my glock 27. She said, it kicks a little dad. Can I shoot it somemore?

Posted: 7/18/2010 11:24:41 AM EDT

[#39]

I was always anti-40 until I bought my first one last week due to job necessity. I'm a long time shooter of the glock 19 and bought a glock 23 for my new and only 40. I would say that the recoil difference is just above the threshold that it is noticeable. Any less and I would not have been able to tell the difference. I liken it to a 3 decibel increase in sound. Any less than that and the human ear can't perceive the difference.

In conclusion, in my recent and limited experience with the .40, no it does not kick that bad at all. At this point, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Posted: 7/18/2010 11:36:14 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I was always anti-40 until I bought my first one last week due to job necessity. I'm a long time shooter of the glock 19 and bought a glock 23 for my new and only 40. I would say that the recoil difference is just above the threshold that it is noticeable. Any less and I would not have been able to tell the difference. I liken it to a 3 decibel increase in sound. Any less than that and the human ear can't perceive the difference.

In conclusion, in my recent and limited experience with the .40, no it does not kick that bad at all. At this point, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Tried double taps with that 40 S/W? Not as quick as your 19 huh? I have a G27... It is not that the recoil is bad, but there is just some weird feeling about the recoil on the 40S/W that I don't like.

Posted: 7/18/2010 1:04:42 PM EDT

[#41]

All the recoil of 10mm all the stopping power of 9mm.

Ran 50 round though one today. Made me glad I carry a 45 acp.

Posted: 7/18/2010 1:19:05 PM EDT

[#42]

I bought a 96G slide assembly back when CDNN was selling them and swapped it out on my 92F on a pretty regular basis. I don't recall it being "snappy" or the recoil being excessive. It's a full size service pistol using midrange ammo. I didn't feel that the .40 did anything my 9mm's or .45's didn't already do, so I got rid of the 96G assembly, the G23, S&W 646 and STI .40 and replaced them with a S&W 625, S&W M22, an HK USP 45 and more mags for the 92.

Posted: 7/18/2010 1:33:23 PM EDT

[#43]

haha no recoil issue with the .40 sw 'bout the same as 9mm imo. We have four 40sw handguns of different configs and my wife carries a G27. Double Taps center mass are no problem for her, third round to the face creeps up around the forehead area tho.

Posted: 7/18/2010 2:20:30 PM EDT

[#44]

I have a xdm and a xdsc in .40 and I dont see what everyone is moaning about. It feels very slightly less tame with the 9mm conversion.

Posted: 7/18/2010 2:35:33 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

.40 is that bad for me. i had a glock 23 and the muzzle flip was not fun. it made follow up shots take longer. i have shot a smith m&p .40 and it had the same results. i stick to 9mm or .45 as my carry weapons. i just plain ol' dont like the .40 cartridge. as long as the 9mm and .45 do the same job, thats what i'll be packin.

Well this right here demonstrates just how subjective "felt recoil" can be in a weapon. Not knocking you at all, shadyhaven, just using your post to illustrate:

Because I was about to post that in my own G23, I don't feel the .40 is that harsh at all. Though it's light, it seems that frame flex, coupled with the low bore-axis, aids in controllability and it doesn't feel that snappy.

I will agree that comparing pistols exactly the same besides caliber (G19 vs. G23), the .40 gun is somewhat snappier/harsher. But not all that much...........certainly not to the point where it's not controllable, even one-handed.

I myself have pretty much gone over to 9mm though, because it does the job, has higher capacity, and I DO apprieciate the controllability issue, however slight it may be.

But that's just my take. It ultimately comes down to individual user preference.

OP, if it's impossible for you to test-fire any .40 guns, to know for sure, you might as well go with 9mm. You certainly won't lose anything by doing so.

Posted: 7/18/2010 2:38:18 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
I also find the S&W all stainless to be very soft shooting like the p229/p239's (S&W 4006, etc.)

Might shoot ok...when they shoot.....lacking in dependability? I was issued a 4506 S&W years ago.....went through 4 before I got one that would shoot more than just the first shot....over 300 moving parts and a buch of weird springs and plastic crap that wears quickly?

I have a Glock 22, 23, and 27 all in .40 S&W and they are all managable to shoot.....they do have a sharper recoil than their equivilent sized Glocks in 9mm....maybe twice the recoil? But still not too bad....I'm a pretty good sized guy (5'08" and 210) and I shoot mine a lot. Never have a problem qualifying. Even on the weak hand only shooting (and I have some bad nerve damage in my off hand that makes this difficult).

Posted: 7/18/2010 3:43:57 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was always anti-40 until I bought my first one last week due to job necessity. I'm a long time shooter of the glock 19 and bought a glock 23 for my new and only 40. I would say that the recoil difference is just above the threshold that it is noticeable. Any less and I would not have been able to tell the difference. I liken it to a 3 decibel increase in sound. Any less than that and the human ear can't perceive the difference.

In conclusion, in my recent and limited experience with the .40, no it does not kick that bad at all. At this point, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Tried double taps with that 40 S/W? Not as quick as your 19 huh? I have a G27... It is not that the recoil is bad, but there is just some weird feeling about the recoil on the 40S/W that I don't like.

My double taps were no different. I can't prove it on a timer. All I know is I felt my control and speed with the 23 were no different than with my 19. I had two other 9mm Glock shooters shoot it yesterday as well and they both agree that the .40 was a barely perceptible increase in recoil.

I don't dispute that you feel a difference with the .40. If it's not for you, it's not for you. I've never been in the business of defending the .40. I've never been a fan. This switch is a must, not an option. I'm trying to be as objective about this as possible. I maintain that the difference is negligible.

Posted: 7/18/2010 4:14:03 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was always anti-40 until I bought my first one last week due to job necessity. I'm a long time shooter of the glock 19 and bought a glock 23 for my new and only 40. I would say that the recoil difference is just above the threshold that it is noticeable. Any less and I would not have been able to tell the difference. I liken it to a 3 decibel increase in sound. Any less than that and the human ear can't perceive the difference.

In conclusion, in my recent and limited experience with the .40, no it does not kick that bad at all. At this point, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Tried double taps with that 40 S/W? Not as quick as your 19 huh? I have a G27... It is not that the recoil is bad, but there is just some weird feeling about the recoil on the 40S/W that I don't like.

My double taps were no different. I can't prove it on a timer. All I know is I felt my control and speed with the 23 were no different than with my 19. I had two other 9mm Glock shooters shoot it yesterday as well and they both agree that the .40 was a barely perceptible increase in recoil.

I don't dispute that you feel a difference with the .40. If it's not for you, it's not for you. I've never been in the business of defending the .40. I've never been a fan. This switch is a must, not an option. I'm trying to be as objective about this as possible. I maintain that the difference is negligible.

This^, I'm of the same opinion. Been into 40's for a long time, bought a 19 to try because of everything I've read(has to be true

), was willing to switch for the wife if a big difference. Put 19 up for sale same day I bought it after side by side w/ my 23, not much difference. I would have no problem carrying a 19 or any 9mm but have too many 40's, mags and ammo.

Posted: 7/18/2010 5:04:56 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I have a beretta 96. It seems to have a really harsh kick. Much worse than my FNP-45 and 1911. I'm looking to buy a CC pistol soon and know that smaller pistol = bigger kick. I am unable to test fire any other guns. So I guess my question is, does that .40 really have that harsh of a kick? Or should I attribute some of the blame to the Beretta? If so I may end up buying a 9mm CC pistol.

Some do, some don't. I had a Glock 22 where the recoil was pretty mild. I've shot an XD 40 that kicked pretty hard! I had sold the Glock previously so I couldn't bring it along to compare. Maybe I remember it kicking lighter than it did.....but I don't think so. Barrel length, weight, balance, and the ammo choice do matter. I'd try a few others if you didn't like the Beretta (maybe the Glock).

Posted: 7/18/2010 6:06:08 PM EDT

[#50]

2 .40 cal's, .38, and a .45. Love to shoot all of them. One time I shot a buddy's .50 cal revolver. Now that mutherfucker was a hand cannon that I only shot twice. I guarantee that it will scare the shit out of anyone within a 1/4 mile radius even if you can't hit your target.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does .40 really kick this bad? (Page 1 of 2)

Handguns » Carry Issues

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us