Posted: 10/27/2009 9:48:16 AM EDT
|
So people are claiming that ammo is becoming more available, but I have yet to see it. However, I have always been able to find .40 in my area, and I'm thinking I'll finally get into that caliber.
So my question is, what pistol is purpose built for .40 S&W? It seems like most are built for 9mm, then modified a bit for .40 or .357sig, or built for .45 and modified for other chamberings. Are any pistols built specifically for the .40S&W round? |
|
I have a SIG 229 (non-railed) that was made when SIG was the SIG their reputation was built on.
It is without question a purpose built .40...and.....it's for sale. 
I just don't shoot .40 anymore......figured I'd mention it since the 229 is what you've described your looking for. |
|
Quoted:
Does it really matter whether they were first made for .40 or not? Any .40 S&W pistol is fine from a reputable manufacter. Believe that if you like, but I'd be willing to bet that the failure rate of any 40 that was originally designed for 9mm is higher than the 9mm brother. Not to say you can't get a good 40 cal that was originally designed for 9mm, but the rate of failures for the product as a whole is usually worse. Back when I frequented the XD forums, most of the problem XDs are in 40 caliber. Most of the problem Glocks are in 40 caliber. Coincidence? |
|
Quoted:
So people are claiming that ammo is becoming more available, but I have yet to see it. However, I have always been able to find .40 in my area, and I'm thinking I'll finally get into that caliber. Never have a problem finding 40. Wish I could say the same for 9mm. 
|
|
Quoted:
If you like 3rd Gen S&W, the 4006 was the first one they built for the 40. The Smith 4006 was the very 1st gun built for the 40. It was designed specifically for the 40 at the time the 40 was being designed. It was and still is the best gun for the 40. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you like 3rd Gen S&W, the 4006 was the first one they built for the 40. The Smith 4006 was the very 1st gun built for the 40. It was designed specifically for the 40 at the time the 40 was being designed. It was and still is the best gun for the 40. Technically (and very ironically) the Glock 22 hit the market before the Smith & Wesson did But then again the Glock was NOT designed in .40, just upsized... Just Sayin' I'd get an HK USP if I was worried about a purpose-built .40 |
|
The whole point of the .40 was to put a cartridge that matched the 10mm FBI load into a 9mm size pistol. In order to do that the cartridge case and the gun/chamber were pushed to the ragged edge of their pressure limits and the cartridge had to have a truncated cone bullet before it would even fit into the 9mm length magazine. That's the plan you're buying into when you pick a .40 S&W caliber weapon. Building a beefier, heavier gun around it to handle the extra pressure kind of defeats the entire purpose it was designed for. If you're doing that, it seems to make more sense to me to step up to a .45 ACP or a 10mm and get the performance increase that goes with the larger gun and the heavier recoil. Personally I feel stuffing the .40 into 9mm frame guns without redesigning for the extra pressure and recoil was a mistake from the get go, but that's my opinion and God knows the .40 became a sales success. As the years passed .40 made less and less sense to me, and I've since sold, traded or converted all my .40 caliber guns. But hey, if you like them there's nothing wrong with that! 
|
|
Quoted:
The whole point of the .40 was to put a cartridge that matched the 10mm FBI load into a 9mm size pistol. In order to do that the cartridge case and the gun/chamber were pushed to the ragged edge of their pressure limits and the cartridge had to have a truncated cone bullet before it would even fit into the 9mm length magazine. That's the plan you're buying into when you pick a .40 S&W caliber weapon. Building a beefier, heavier gun around it to handle the extra pressure kind of defeats the entire purpose it was designed for. If you're doing that, it seems to make more sense to me to step up to a .45 ACP or a 10mm and get the performance increase that goes with the larger gun and the heavier recoil. Personally I feel stuffing the .40 into 9mm frame guns without redesigning for the extra pressure and recoil was a mistake from the get go, but that's my opinion and God knows the .40 became a sales success. As the years passed .40 made less and less sense to me, and I've since sold, traded or converted all my .40 caliber guns. But hey, if you like them there's nothing wrong with that! I really appreciate your knowledge and comments. However, did you even read my first post? |
|
Quoted: Does it really matter whether they were first made for .40 or not? Any .40 S&W pistol is fine from a reputable manufacturer. This. It doesn't matter. At all. ETA: I have two XD40s that "weren't designed for 40S&W." Both have many thousands of rounds through them, without any problems, or stoppages. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does it really matter whether they were first made for .40 or not? Any .40 S&W pistol is fine from a reputable manufacturer. This. It doesn't matter. At all. ETA: I have two XD40s that "weren't designed for 40S&W." Both have many thousands of rounds through them, without any problems, or stoppages. Then why do most problem guns seem to be in .40 caliber for guns not originally designed for it? The XDs had cracked locking block issues with 40s, and generally a problem gun in other areas was in 40 caliber. Glock 40 calibers have storied histories of being the "worst" Glocks, and are typically the ones that KB. And then you can factor in size. The XD Service, for example, is practically the height of a USP with a Jet Funnel attached. The 40 XD has a 12 round capacity while the USP w/ JF has a 16 round capacity. The skinny 9mm magazine in the XD is to blame for this. While being as wide as your typical double stack pistol, the XD has the mag capacity of a 1.5 stack pistol. If the gun is designed properly, the pressure differences, feeding issues, and extracting issues can be overcome. It may take a manufacturer a couple of revisions to a design to get a 9mm pistol to handle 40 caliber. Eventually, they should get it down properly. The early locking block cracking issues of 40 caliber XDs are probably solved by now. But physical dimensions of the pistol may still suffer as a result. It's a very legitimate concern to want a gun ACTUALLY designed for the 40 caliber. It's essentially like shooting +p+ 9mm on every round. Some companies just don't design the pistol for that kind of "abuse". |
| Why not get a gun that was designed for 45 and "downsized" .40? My wife has a 1911 in 9mm and loves it. There are 40 versions of the 1911 in single and double stack configurations available. The XDm was already mentioned and would be my next choice, just because I am familiar with them. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does it really matter whether they were first made for .40 or not? Any .40 S&W pistol is fine from a reputable manufacturer. This. It doesn't matter. At all. ETA: I have two XD40s that "weren't designed for 40S&W." Both have many thousands of rounds through them, without any problems, or stoppages. Then why do most problem guns seem to be in .40 caliber for guns not originally designed for it? The XDs had cracked locking block issues with 40s, and generally a problem gun in other areas was in 40 caliber. Glock 40 calibers have storied histories of being the "worst" Glocks, and are typically the ones that KB. And then you can factor in size. The XD Service, for example, is practically the height of a USP with a Jet Funnel attached. The 40 XD has a 12 round capacity while the USP w/ JF has a 16 round capacity. The skinny 9mm magazine in the XD is to blame for this. While being as wide as your typical double stack pistol, the XD has the mag capacity of a 1.5 stack pistol. If the gun is designed properly, the pressure differences, feeding issues, and extracting issues can be overcome. It may take a manufacturer a couple of revisions to a design to get a 9mm pistol to handle 40 caliber. Eventually, they should get it down properly. The early locking block cracking issues of 40 caliber XDs are probably solved by now. But physical dimensions of the pistol may still suffer as a result. It's a very legitimate concern to want a gun ACTUALLY designed for the 40 caliber. It's essentially like shooting +p+ 9mm on every round. Some companies just don't design the pistol for that kind of "abuse". The locking block issue was solved by radiusing the corners of the locking block. It didn't happen to everyone. I have the old style block, and have had zero problems, no cracks. It only seemed to be a "problem" with the service sized pistols too, and not the tactical or subcompact model 40s. The problem with Glock 40s stem from having an unsupported chamber. Why Glock doesn't fix that, I have no idea. Like I said, I have zero problems with my XDs. I also don't mind that it "only" holds 13 rounds. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Does it really matter whether they were first made for .40 or not? Any .40 S&W pistol is fine from a reputable manufacturer. This. It doesn't matter. At all. ETA: I have two XD40s that "weren't designed for 40S&W." Both have many thousands of rounds through them, without any problems, or stoppages. I have two with well over 30k down range, never a single issue. Some of the earlier models had some issues, but so does just about everything when it first comes out. ETA: With that being said, I do have my eye on an XDm in 40. But I have no desire to ditch either of my current XD40s. |