Which overall is better?
I've heard that .40s can misfeed if not held properly (I have no personal experience here). Anything to that?
Ammo prices and availaibility - are there significant differences?
Is one caliber actually inferior to the other? How big are the differences?
As a general rule:
10mm > .45acp > .40s&w > 9mm
.40 Smith is basically a short version of the 10mm and is a good compromise between the .45acp and the 9mm. You trade power for magazine capacity. As for controllability, for me it's a wash. The .45's recoil is more of a push back into your hand while the .40 is a little "snappier." Neither is hard to handle so long as you have a swinging pair and enough red meat in your diet. Also remember that perceived recoil is very subjective (hence the "perceived") and will vary from weapons system to weapons system (including the shooter).
As for the .40 being susceptible to "limp-wristing," that's more the pistol and shooter than caliber.
Concerning price, .40's a little cheaper to feed at the range, but high performance ammo's much closer in price.
I agree that the recoil of the 45acp is more of a push and that the 40 S&W is snappier. The 40 S&W generally is more adaptable to smaller platforms than the 45acp. There are small 45acps but few have the dimensions of a Glock 27, Kahr K40, or CZ 2075. A sleeper you may want to look at is the Bersa Thunder 45, it is a fine handgun, which is accurate, compact, and reliable. Regards, Richard:D
The .40 S&W has become the premiere law enforcement caliber. It serves as a bridge caliber, satisfying those who feel more comfortable with a bigger caliber than the 9mm and more bullets than the .45 ACP. It has started to produce excellent results and appears it will be the law enforcement round of the future replacing the .45ACP.
The .45 Auto, of course, has an extremely large and emotional following. Unfortunately, much of this loyalty is tied to the alleged superiority of .45 ACP hard ball. I used to be a believer in it too, until I started to collect actual shooting data and found that while there are some excellent loads in this caliber, the 230 grain full metal jacketed offering is not one of them, regardless of bullet design.
Federal 230gr Hydra Shok
Remington 185gr Golden Sabre
Cor Bon 185gr jhp
Federal 155gr Hydra Shok
Cor Bon 155gr jhp
Remington 165gr Golden Sabre
It is notable however that the .40 requires the bullet to perform properly whereas the .45acp needs to expand less. It's simply a matter of size. And yes, size does matter...
Basically, you’re looking at trade-offs (as some members above have already mentioned).
A .45 ACP is at least a little more powerful than a .40 S&W.
For example, a .40 S&W can throw a 180 grain bullet at about 1000 fps. A .45 ACP can throw a 185 grain bullet at 1140 fps in a +P loading (which is fairly uncommon).
More importantly, the 180 grain is the .40 S&W’s heaviest bullet, while the .45 can throw a 230 grain bullet, though at a somewhat slower 820 to 950 fps.
OTOH, the .40 S&W can fit in a smaller frame and, depending on the firearm in question, can give you more ammo.
Personally, given a choice between a high capacity .40 handgun and a lower capacity .45 handgun, I’ll go with the .40.
Still, there’s really no one right answer to your question.
This question might be simply answered by finding the pistol you want first. That in itself may rule the other caliber out. There isn't enough difference using high perfomance rounds in a defensive situation to pick one over the other by caliber alone. my 2
.45 ACP = More stopping power period, hands down.
BOTH SHOULD BE BANNED!
it really depends on the size of your hand and how familiar you are with handgun shooting. I own a mini glock in 40 cal and shoot my friends 1911 in 45 regularly. The 40 is much smaller and with my small hands it is better for manipulation. The 45 rocks as a man stopper. You really just have to weigh your options. Go to a range or borrow one. I love my Glock but I will be buying a 45 shortly.hug.gif
What the hell are you talking about?
must be one of the 9mm lovers......
Read any of his posts, they all say that.
Once again I find it funny how an avid 45 gunner hoots and howls about how the .45 rules the nest, and when someone provides statistics that dont show that they say its "junk science" but fail go give any of their own...
Im sorry my friend, but the ONLY statistics I have seen show that there is just NOT that big a difference in .45 vs. .40 shooting results when actual shooting results are documented.
Keep in mind that the shooting statistics I have provided, according to the source, said these shootings involved only ONE hit in center mass, no other hits/wounds, and the person shot had to drop within 10 feet of the actual point of impact.
In for example the best man-stopping round listed in these statistics is the Federal Hydra Shok... in .45 there was 107 shootings, with 102 one-shot-stops. 95%
In .40 cal same brand bullet.... 56 shootings, 54 stops... 96%.
If you take the average of all 3 top calibers... with .40 cal you have a 95% one-shot-stop, with .45 you have 94% (each rounded to the nearest whole % point. The actual figures were 95.33 and 93.66 for .40 and .45 in that order).
Also please note, that while everyone seems to desire the heavier 230 grain .45 bullet, 2 of the top 3 man stoppers is actually the lighter 185 grain bullet.
Whereas with .40 cal also shows that the top 2 of the 3 best man stoppers is the lighter 155 grain bullet and the 3rd is the heavier 165 grain bullet.
SO... what does this mean? Simple... bullet placement.
Remember this study only polls results from shootings where there was one shot to CENTER MASS... meaning if you draw a line across your collar bone, down thru your nipples meeting in the middle in an upside down triangle, there is your center mass.
SO ... placing your round in center mass is critical above all else.
If you like the .45, then go for it. Its truly an excellent round with a LONG history of combat behind it. Its a very common round, and really not all that expensive if you buy in bulk and can afford to shoot as much as you feel necessary to become proficient.
But the .40 is equally effective in actual shootings. Its only a tad less expensive for range ammo... WWB runs 14/xx for .40 cal, and 19.xx for .45 cal.
But each round "feels" different as stated by the gentlemen above. The .40 is well described as "snappy" while the .45 "pushes". So its kind of up to how youre built, and what you find comfortable.
I think the best advise given on a thread like this is try one out for your self. Find a range or a buddy who has one (preferably one of each) and shoot them side-by-side if possible.
SGB is quite correct when he says "Multiple rapid center of Chest hits are necassary in any handgun caliber" is the way to go.
"Why" you ask if both rounds are so great? Simple... 2 reasons really.
1. Im not going to stop with a single shot... train to double tap effectively. I dont think the BG is going to light up like a video game if you hit his X Ring right away, and that pause to see if he falls down and goes boom, may give him enough time to get that fatal shot to YOU if he is only wounded in a non-lethal area.
2. If the average is 95%, there is always that other 5%.
And remember above all these precious words...
"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat."
Train hard... train well... in the end its your training that will see you to the end of the gunfight far more effectively than the caliber of your sidearm ever will.
MSG to Bear B: Exactly! Brohawk, you need to listen to his info. I've carried both for duty and for CCW. Totally happy with both, but now I carry my Kimber Compact CDP in .45 everywhere, every day. I love being able to double tap and see both rounds travel down range (Speer Gold Dot 200 Jhp-"The flying ashcan"). The "snapiness" of my Glock 22 (.40) was only slightly more pronounced than the "push" of my Kimber, but it made a serious difference between shots. Uhhh, good luck!
I take it you have never shot a .45 acp, otherwise you would know
Well I own 2 .45s a G21 and a Kimber. I also own a XD40. I perfer the 40 becuase it works for me I deal with the recoil better. Also ammo for thr 40 is abit cheaper. Both are nice, I perfer 40 abit myself.
And as I stated... the statistics I provided were only those shootings that included one shot to center mass.
Providing statistics on shootings that included leg shots, arm shots, etc... is not very useful especially when we are talking about "stopping power".
And I dont think I mentioned you by name... I said avid .45 gunners... of which you may be, however I was talking about .45 gunners who commonly get on these boards and give us the whole "if it aint .45 its just no good" speech, not you specifcally.
But your response was typical of a .45 gunners... calling the statistics JUNK or CRAP or whatever is quite common in these discussions. But like I said, not one has ever provided any useful statistics in return. Just a buch of "hooting and howling" about their precious .45s.
And your reply here is typical also in the fact that ALL that info I provided, and all you got out of it was a perceived attack on you or your choice of caliber.
My point was simply this... that statistics show there is little difference in the terminal effectiveness between .40 and .45. AND the fact that your caliber of weapon is a (or should be) a secondary concern compared to your level of training.
TRAINING FIRST... and then at a distant second, your caliber.
What good is your wonderful .4(insert second digit here) caliber handgun if you cant hit squat with it when firing under stress or make fast accurate double taps with it???
As I have said before, and I will say now... each caliber has its own unique properties... every armed citizen who chooses a CCW or home defense weapon should choose based on their ability to shoot the pistol well. Which means for some the choice may be a 9mm, or .40, or .45 for others.
People get entirely too wrapped up in the "if it aint XX caliber, it aint a real gun and is junk and not worth having".
(and NO I did not say that YOU said that... but many many many others in discussions just like this one have)
Some people will choose a caliber based solely and entirely on "bigger is better", or on "I can put 34 rounds in two mags!", or whatever popular trend is all the rage at that moment in time.
I still think the best advise here is to seek good solid defensive training for what ever handgun you shoot.
Find one that fits YOU, and learn to shoot it fast, and accurate. Learn to draw from a concealed location and fire. Learn to shoot from cover. Learn to shoot strong/weak hand only. Learn to do fast mag changes. Learn to shoot from odd angles and prone positions. Learn to clear your weapon with one hand.
All these are far far more important than the caliber of your weapon will EVER be.
I just thought of a really good reason to go with the .45acp.
You don't ever have to resort to caliber apologetics.
those #s are by a couple of guys named marshal and sanow
they are frauds
they have been completely debunked
the nra had to apologize for including their work in issues of the rifleman
they have $ connections to SUPRISE! the ammo manufacturers rated highest
read the ammo oracle. please. follow the links. i'm to damn lazy to go get em
anyone with ANY background in statistics or science can smell something funny. they won't release their raw #s. peer review is a foundation of the scientific method.
according to these assholes a .32 silvertip from a seecamp is more effective than .45 hardball.
there's a lot of .40s out there. you don't here the failure to stop stories like you did with the 9mm.
and you've got 2x the ammo.
i'm not saying the .40 is more effective, but i think it's good enough not to make enough of a difference between the 2.
i'll take the extra ammo.
i'll take the lighter weight.
i'll take the smaller package. (hold for laughter)
i'll take the lighter recoil.
and i think gunnut is on target with the 4" vs 5" thing