Preach

Why does anyone care what anyone else says about a cartridge?  If the cartridge does what you want and you shoot it well, what does what anyone else think matter?  I still shoot and even carry 38/200.  I just built a 30 Remington AR.  Both of those cartridge make 40S&W look like the 6.5 Creedmore of pistol cartridges.  Use what you want let the the experts be damned.

I just have one at the moment, a Webley Mark IV but I would love to find a S&W Victory chambered in it.  The 30 RAR has been fun.  A 150gr bullet at a bit over 2400 fps from an 22-inch AR is just a nice shooting rifle that makes the hanging steel dance at 100 yards very nicely.  I am looking forward to trying it on some deer this coming year.

The reason for the big switch back to 9 is cost . I went to my local gun shop a few weeks back just after 9 am opening , saw a black Chevy out front went in looked like 3 big gang banger types at the handgun counter the biggest had a new High Point in his hand , he looked at me and said I know its just a High Point,I said no no they are good for the price things seemed OK, we talked. The other two dudes were looking around . I was thinking all I had was a single stack 9 with about 8 rds in it and if it went bad should be enough. the biggest gets two and I can get to back store corner area that lets door out clear for other two . The gun shops young son maybe 22 was opening the shop I jusy thought it was odd they were there at 9 am opening . Nothing happened just my thoughts . I think a 40 cal 165 or 180 gr would have been a better fit for that Sat morn . Ben and I laughed later in the week . every thing was good .

Cost on comparable 9 and 40 has always been pretty close especially back when the switch to 9mm was starting to happen. Why do you feel 40 would have been better? What would it do that 9mm won't?

I was shot twice by a .40. Weak.

Yes.

Do tell!

Start a new thread and link it here please!

Tissue disruption is work and work takes energy.  You get, on average for the top choices in both calibers, more expansion from .40, similar penetration from both and that bigger hole is more damaged tissue.  Is it incremental?  Sure, but it's significant and measurable and is part of the reason why .40 is a superior caliber from a performance only perspective to 9MM.

Never liked it in  Glock 22 always hurt my hand.
Just that gun only.   I seemed like a good round.
Who knows where it will go?

 

Can you point to data that says it actually makes a difference though? Everything I have read says they are almost identical and in many tests you can't tell the difference.

My former agency ran the Gen3 G22 and G23 for about 8 years and they were completely beat to hell.  We also had the WML malfunction issue.  We replaced them with the Gen4 models.  I’m at a different agency now, and got a phone call from my former agency last week asking for my help developing a pistol MRDS program since I helped develop one at my current agency.  Former agency has 6 years on their Gen4 G22 and G23 and they’re already having issues and the guns are beat up really bad.  They are swapping to 9mm and getting Gen5 G17 and G19 and exploring MRDS authorization.  

As a pistol armorer of multiple gun manufacturers, I’ve never seen any other auto caliber beat up a gun like the .40S&W.  .40S&W is also more expensive than 9mm, sharper recoil and more unpleasant to shoot for smaller or weaker shooters and it does nothing a 9mm can’t.

At my current agency, we authorize 9mm, .40 and .45 (officer-owned guns) and are working to phase out the .40S&W for logistical reasons.  We have numerous OIS per year and have seen zero measurable difference in the effectiveness of calibers.  The key is that we currently issue the HST, and previous to that used the Federal Tactical Bonded JHP.  Bullet technology matters greatly.

The dudes were bigger and younger than me , and the big one would soak up a few 9 rounds unless a good hit maybe. I had a Glock 48 and there are 3 guys. the 40 180 Gold DOT or 165 HST I think would have took the fight out one or the other . Ben thought same thing . I did talk chit chat with the big one about Hi Point and told him to stay with FMJ in it because it may run better . Every thing was good but at 9 am it was odd to see a gang like this . Who knows now a day .

What is this "40S&W" you speak of?...

I don’t care what the “experts” say.

With good ammo, 9 40s and 45s, will get the job done

The rest is skill and practice (with a little luck thrown in)

There have been a lot of 40 S&W firearms sold, and they will last a very long time so the cartridge will continue to be available. The 303 Savage is still available thanks to PPU and there hasn't been a new rifle chambered in it for over a 100 years (only ever chambered in Savage model 1899), but a lot of rifles were sold back then chambered in this cartridge so it's still available.
Will the 40 S&W be a popular cartridge choice for police depts when they select a new firearm for their officers in the future - nope. I don't think that very many new pistol designs are going to be available chambered in 40 S&W.

I like 9mm for a lot of reasons but mostly it's low recoil and easy to shoot fast. I figure if I need more power I go up to a 10mm. There's no need for the in between cartridges for me.

However I do like shooting 40 through my Glock 20 because it's more powerful than 9mm and recoil is nonexistent. I only do that when plinking though.

They have said that about all those rounds in my lifetime. I have yet to see any common pistol round go extinct. Wildcats yes, but not common rounds. I love my old 10mm G29 that I got for half off because it was chambered for a dead round lol.

ETA
You’re not a real gun guy unless you have weapons in all those chamberings. It sure helps during the crazy times finding ammo.

Fake news.

Boss just ordered a rifle in 45-60. That is about gone. 40 isn’t going anywhere.

Just sold my only .40 , a G23 , with 500 rds of ammo , 10 mags , and three holsters for $300 to my future son in law.

Or fake experts.

9mm will always be more popular, but 40 isn't going anywhere. In fact, I'd mimic what the other poster said. You can get more guns in 40 than 45.

I really want a Glock 48 in 40S&W

I was really hoping for this but not going to happen.

Maybe these "experts" aren't really experts at all, maybe they're just opinionated people.  There's nothing wrong with the .40, not really sure why it gets so much hate.  

By experts you mean the kid at the gun counter? or some writer trying to fill a magazine?

This thread should've been about .45 GAP...

Good riddance to "Forty, Short and Weak"

.40 S&W will be around for a long time.

So many guns are already out chambered for it, and more new .40 S&W are still being sold every single day.

The Gun 'expert' hate for the .40 S&W is absolutely retarded.

.40 S&W perfectly splits the difference between 9mm (.355) and 45 ACP (.451) by putting .40 holes into objects with boring reliability and good terminal effectiveness.  A service sized pistol holds 15 +1 rounds (same as a Typical "Wonder Nine" like a CZ-75, Beretta M-9, 3rd Gen S&W, Sig 226 or other "service size" 9mm pistols that 9mm fans claimed were "twice" as "superior" to the 7+1 Colt 1911.

I'd say there is a lot more risk of .357 Sig, 10 mm and especially the 45GAP going away before the .40 S&W - There just are not many guns still being sold in .357, 45 GAP and 10mm is a niche round that fans love, but don't shoot much.

BIGGER_HAMMER

Just saw one of them ‘experts’ on YouTube. Top guns to buy in a panic, and Guns not to buy during the panic. His first quote was “absolutely do not buy anything in .40 S&W”. Which I guess Is good advise since that is one ammo caliber that has been easiest to get for the last few months. Guess the panic herd mentality is 9mm or nothing.

Again the mentality of people that follows the logic that what law enforcement and military use is the only the way to go for personnel weapons.

Would be an interesting thing to watch if LE suddenly went back to .38 spl.  

anything over 9mm by diameter in pistol shooting is retarded, for practical purpose, of course.

I do shoot 40 in competition for major scoring in limited and I fully enjoy the fun of recoil management.

Not going away at my house

Attached File

.40 is great.  It’s a more powerful round with better barrier penetration and makes measurably bigger holes with quality bullets.  Yes, you give up some capacity but that advantage shrinks as the pistols grow larger.  My carry gun is a USP 40C, nightstand gun is an XDm in .40 that holds a total of 17 rounds.

9MM is also great, but it’s not what I choose.




It’s kind of tough since the gel tests only measure penetration and final diameter.  While high end rounds in 9 and .40 do both penetrate and expand, the final diameter advantage of .40 is measurable.  With one notable exception, the better performers in .40 in luckygunners tests make bigger holes and show more consistent penetration.  Check out Winchester’s highly regarded rounds in particular for both calibers.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

The problem 23 ounce plastic guns and semi trained shooters have with the 40 is the ammo.

When the FB1 adopted the 40 in 1997, they did so with the so called FedLite 40.  Federal 165 grain HydraShok at about 950fps.  The recoil duplicated the 9/147 at about 950 closely.  It was shootable and easy on guns.  3 G22.2s and 3 G23.2s ran 120,000 rounds with two total malfunctions in the final tests we did.

Practice ammo matched.  Weak kneed guys and womenettes ran that just fine.  Anybody shot, stayed shot.

People retire and the quality/institutional knowledge of employees declines and things are forgotten.  Or more accurately, the dip shit “Boomers” take over again.  In the middle 200Xs, the contracts expire and the low bid ammo becomes 180/1000-180/1050 (edited noting the original point was a heavier bullet even faster.  Various loads with various specs. The result was no longer 9mm like recoil.).  F’n nasty in a light plastic gun unless you trained 15+1 and shot the tops off the magazines for slow bullseye quals.  On silhouette courses, they reduced the number of rounds at any longer distances to make up passing scores for now untrainable shooters.

This became the need for G17/19s to be the new firearm in 9mm.  Often issued with light 124 grain and now 135 grain ammo.  Pussy Cats to shoot.

40 S&W 180 gr @ 1150 fps? Going to have to throw the bullshit flag on that one.

The original point was that a pussy cat 165/900-950fps load got re-sourced into either 165/100-200fps faster or 180/heavier and faster like and including these:













Adding 100-200 fps to the 165 grain ammo did not make it easier to shoot or easier on guns.  The 180 was more so not so easy.

Yes, there is no doubt that .40 is more powerful than 9mm. You’re also getting measurably better performance for what I would consider to be manageable recoil.  Check out some of the higher end 180Gr  .40 from the lucky gunner test, most are running mid to low 900’s.  

The 165’s are another sweet round in .40.  This particular one knocks it out of the park with an average of 14” penetration, average .73 diameter with the lowest bullet being just under .7”, and with a relatively manageable (for 165 gr) 978 FPS average.  The photos and numbers show very consistent and impressive expansion performance.

https://www.luckygunner.com/40-s-w-165-grain-jhp-tactical-bonded-federal-premium-le-50-rounds#geltest

I’m about two beers away from adding a Glock 35 to my stable full of 9mm’s.

Lgs has gen4 MOS for $629 or armslist has like new gen 4 for 500.

I like the idea of .40 for an outdoorsy sidearm or for my rural home defense needs. Lions and coyotes are just as common as methbillies these days.

Admit to have a bias towards the .40. Currently have a 3 Glock 24's, 2 -35', 8-22's and 2 23's.

This is an easy round to load for. Minor loads are my favorite.

Lots of great ammo out there now at good prices.

What's not to like

I understand what your saying and don't want you to take this as a flame at all just a question to ask yourself. Modern bullet design ONLY worked for one caliber?

The one that is cheaper made lower recoil and higher capacity? Yet if you put in play the 5.7x28mm has less recoil higher capacity able to penetrate most soft body armor YET costs more!

In the end, it's about money not what caliber is the best round. I feel that the 300BLK is a much better round for police officer then the 223. Why most offices are going to shoot MAX 100 yards I'm really wanting to say 25 to 50 yards but let's go with 100.

The 300BLK has so much more stopping power than the 223 at that range less over-penetration. Yet LEO departments most will not issue it to there officers.

I know one in Sioux Falls South Dakota that uses a 300 BLK suppressed to take deer out and there S.W.A.T sniper team was looking to use it as a 200 yard or less sniper system. Don't know if it did pan out meet the guy at a tazer instructor course.

I feel they change the calibers so much one because of cost the other reason is so that ( I'm not saying all women can't handle a gun!) They can boost having more female officers on the payroll!

Mostly I feel that it allows all male and female officers who don't enjoy or like firearm proficiency to pass the part that means life or death the easy way!

Barrier penetration is a function of projectile design far more than caliber.  Yes, energy matters to penetrate through hard barriers like auto glass and steel, but the projectile is a major factor.  I have pictures of a garbage .40S&W G2 RIP round that bounced off a car at 15yds from a drive-by shooting to prove why bullet design is of such critical importance.  Such is why the FBI BRF and IWBA have REPEATEDLY stated that there is no tangible difference in major calibers when using duty/defense ammunition that meets their testing protocols.  That said, if you run the numbers on Vista Outdoors and Hornady websites, you’re going to see data the shows the 9mm and .40 trading off penetration depths and expansion diameters through different materials, to the point where you would never be able to identify a “winner”.  In fact, the 9mm Federal HST penetrates deeper through most barriers than the .40 model, while the .40 Gold Dot G2 favors slightly over the 9mm variant.  In the end, they’re generally equal.  If we were talking about bullets from 15-20 years ago, there would be merit to this, but technology has advanced dramatically to invalidate that premise.  

Added diameter of the bullet is also negligible and provides no quantifiable advantage.  The .40 rounds only increase expanded projectile diameter by 0.1 - 0.12” in bare gelatin.  Through hard barriers like auto glass and steel, they are equal in diameter.  In others, there are differences depending on design of the bullet.  The base .40 projectile is only 1mm or 0.045” wider than a 9mm.  No such data exists to conclude this means anything.  Anyone can claim that that added diameter will make a difference, but there is ZERO data to support that assertion because it’s statistically irrelevant.  There is no way to prove this is actually a thing, because the internal shifting of soft tissue in a body makes it impossible to break down the exact limits of the projectile diameter and circumference due to tissue elasticity.  Such is why when you shoot someone with a FMJ, the wound channels tend to be smaller than the actual projectile because tissue is pushed out by the projectile and then contracts behind it.

If expansion diameter was such a problem, then the FBI would not have switched to the Speer Gold Dot G2, which has a smaller expansion diameter than the previous Federal Tactical Bonded JHP (which the Speer GD2 was created to replace) or Federal HST.  Vista built the GD2 bullet to FBI BRF requirements, which relate specifically to barrier-blind performance by way of defeating barriers (mass retention) and consistent desired penetration depth.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS with pistol rounds.  NOTHING.  When this solicitation was made for a new round, projectile expansion was measured, but not regarded as a primary selection factor because it was deemed to be irrelevant.  Again, this is because defeating barriers and still maintaining predictable acceptable penetration are the only key factors that matter with pistol duty/defense loads.  You will not magically stop someone with a .40S&W round that otherwise wouldn’t have been stopped by a 9mm with the same round, the same way a .45 won’t magically give that advantage over a .40.  No data has ever been produced to prove otherwise.  If there was, the FBI BRF would not have recommended moving back to the 9mm from the .40S&W several years ago.  I encounter shooting victims on about 20% (1 in 5) of my patrol shifts, and unless there are casings at the scene, none of us can tell what the victim (or “victim”) was shot with if it was a major caliber handgun.  Ultimately, shot placement matters most, and we all know this.  A fraction of an inch isn’t going to make or break a defensive shooting, nor should anyone count on it to make that difference.  If someone needs that difference, they should have shot better or sent more rounds down range.  

If .40 works for you, keep on keepin’ on.  Just be careful about asserting that statistically irrelevant data points validate it as a superior choice, as opposed to just a parallel or equal option.
For my agency ditching the .40, I have a dog in the fight.  For everyone else, whatever floats your boat and the .40 is perfectly fine.

In a world where modern projectile design and agency/medical studies have shown us that all service calibers have no difference in terminal performance, the 40 S&W does what the 9mm does, except with 1) lower capacity 2) higher recoil 3) and higher cost.

So, the 40S&W is a perfectly fine caliber, but if you get to choose - why accept these trades offs for no benefit?  

And good luck finding something that would compete with the size and capacity of the Sig P365 or G43x with Shield 15 round mag too.

@Miami_JBT


Never mind he's already here. I would make my argument to 40 but he already did.

This guy gets it. All handguns are relatively poor 'stoppers' regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
All handguns underperform, some worse than others. I prefer 9mm as the best combination of controllability, performance & capacity. I'd rather have more and more controllable underperformers than fewer and less controllable underperformers.

Tomac

This is very well stated.  I don't think that I was trying to make a sweeping statement that .40 is better in most situations.  It's hard to quantify the effect of a controlled expansion bullet traveling through tissue but if we accept that FMJ-like performance is not desirable, then it leaves a bit of mystery.  Muzzle energy from some of the more reasonable loadings of .40 and 124 +P are almost tied and even the 124 standard pressure rounds are nipping on the heels of the heavier bullets in .40.  The comparison heavily favors the 9MM in the 147 Gr standard pressure rounds, of course.

Still, if penetration is accepted as a holy grail, and expansion never really made much difference, then yes, it would be hard to see a lot of advantage in the .40 loadings, which, by and large, do offer a measurable advantage in expansion.  Would a 9MM FMJ bullet that consistently penetrated to 15" be just as effective as something like the HST's with their consistent expansion to .6-.65 or so?  If we grant that this would be just fine, then we're really opening the door to .380 which can offer the same penetration but with a much weaker cartridge.  

You've given me a lot to think about.  I will now ponder whether my preconceived notions about .40's measurable advantages are overblown or even significantly outweighed, especially by the higher quality standard pressure 147 grain offerings in 9MM.

In the last ten years, 40S&W users are clearly migrating in one of two ways.  

Away from the 40 to the 9mm, ... or away from the 40 to the 10mm or .45acp.

The reasons don't matter. Those are just the facts.