Please expound on your loathing of the .40. I'm just curious. I don't have one. Just a 9 and a 45 here but the .40 has always had me curious.
It's simply a matter of my personal opinion really, but since you asked . . . . .
First, I've owned three .40's: Glock 22, Glock 27, and Beretta 96SD. I have sold all of them.
My reasons being 1) I don't believe that the harsh recoil, and wear and tear on the gun is
worth any so-called ballisitic advantage. My logic is that if you want more "power" than a 9mm,
then go with something in .45 . The 40 just doesn't give that much benefit, for what you get in
return: Snappy/harsh recoil, relatively inaccurate, holds fewer rounds, ammo relatively expensi-
ve. **Disclaimer to all 40 lovers**, this my opinion, and this gentleman asked for it.
2)I had a severe accuracy problem with the G22. I'm talking basketball size groups at 25. But
yet, I could take my beat up Kimber , that I bought second hand with 10k thru it, and print a
softball size group at 25; same with my Beretta 92, and Glock 34.
3)My Beretta 96 simply would not function 100%. I had stove-pipes, FTF, and FTE's regularly.
This is in stark contrast to my 92 that I have 4,535 rds thru it to be exact, and honestly not a
single issue. I mean, NOTHING. My 96 was simply damaging Berettas damn fine reputation.
4) My G27 was a chore to shoot. I would put 150rds thru at the range, and have to move on to a
different weapon. It was pretty painful to shoot after 150-200 rds. Now, give me my friends G30,
I could shoot 500rds thru it and only feel a little discomfort after all those rounds, and it's a
45 ACP! I won't comment on accuracy.
After a couple thousand dollars in handguns, ammo, mags, etc.; I have finally realized that the
forty is not all that great. Of course there are some other experiences I've had with 40's but
no need to get into all that. I hope this answers your question
No foh-tey for me, make mine a nine or a good ole 45!