I'm just gonna say it... .40 recoil isn't bad at all. - Page 4

Crankgrinder · October 21, 2014, 12:28 PM

Very sorry to be off topic, and at no offense to the thread,but since it was just mentioned could someone please clarify what is "making major"? This is a new term for me.

Skans · October 21, 2014, 01:19 PM

I just want to stop the attacker; not explode him into a thousand pieces. That's why I choose 9mm over 40!

Plus, with 9mm, I can stop the attacker a fist-full more times than I can with the fat 40 cartridge.

(Yes, this makes about as much sense as any other comment that claims one of these cartridges is superior to the other for XYZ reason.)

zincwarrior · October 21, 2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

In some of range games being able to shoot 5 rounds .5 seconds faster and hit tiny targets can mean the difference between winning and 2nd place. Not sure that is relevant in the real world.

You're not seeing how the ability to put more rounds into a target in a given piece of time is not relevant?

1. Unless you're a one hit wonder you're going to need to amek follow up hits.

2. You only may have a glimpse of a target as the BG may be behind cover too. Is it better to hit that target twice or once?

3. Recoil may be extremely important to some parties. My wife cannot shoot a .45ACP where she can comfortably and reliably rapid fire a similarly sized 9mm.

4. Each to his own. Try multiple calibers. Whatever works for you should be the driving factor, not what other people think.

Jo6pak · October 21, 2014, 05:31 PM

I think the point is that the difference is so small as to not make a difference in most situations.

tote4570 · October 21, 2014, 06:20 PM

I agree with the fact that it has alot to do with the model of gun you use. I had a SW40VE and didnt like it. I had a 3rd generation S&W auto that I didnt like, but for some reason I enjoyed shooting my Glock27.

Deanimator · October 27, 2014, 03:27 PM

I have a Glock 22. I always found the recoil extremely SHARP. It's not PAINFUL like 240gr. Winchester White Box out of a 4" S&W Model 29, but it's sharp to the point where it makes the gun difficult to control in rapid fire.

I greatly prefer the 200gr. Hornady TAP out of a .45acp M1911 or 147gr. Winchester White Box 9mm JHPs out of a Glock 19 or Browning Hi Power.

Even the 3" M1911s are easier to control than the Glock 22, whether with 230gr. ball or 117gr. Aguila IQ.

The .45acp out of an M1911 probably has MORE recoil, but it's spread out over a greater period of time. The .40 is a higher pressure round with a steeper pressure curve.

Supposedly there are recoil spring/guide modifications which will help with the Glock 22, but I haven't tried them.

I had to sell my Norinco M1911. I won't be replaceing it with a .40, certainly not a polymer one anyway.

lee n. field · October 27, 2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

I have a Glock 22. I always found the recoil extremely SHARP.

People's hands differ. Where I start to object to .40, is in very small guns. Springfield's EMP in .40 was not (for me) pleasant to shoot. (Their XDS in .45, was.)

Grunt96 · October 27, 2014, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tote4570

I agree with the fact that it has alot to do with the model of gun you use. I had a SW40VE and didnt like it. I had a 3rd generation S&W auto that I didnt like, but for some reason I enjoyed shooting my Glock27.

Agree, some guns handle recoil better than others. The 96a1 is a heavy piece, and is really a joy to shoot the 40s&w from. Super accurate, and follow up shots are quick and easy due to the overall size and weight of the weapon.

I don't think the recoil of the 40s&w is much more than a +p 9mm that is so often used for SD by those who prefer the 9mm. I've seen it mentioned many times; and I have to repeat that, "guns are personal". Luckily there is a nice wide variety of options between style and functionality that everyone can find something that works well for them.

Ruger45LC · October 28, 2014, 10:12 AM

Want to hear something crazy? I pocket carry a Kahr CM40, it holds 5+1rds of .40 S&W and you know what? Recoil isn't bad, it is a little more than the CM9 I used to have but nothing even approaching bad.

Velocity loss from the 3" barrel is minimal as well, factory 180gr JHP's of various makes averaged around 950-990 fps and 165's around 1100 fps. On top of all of that, the gun is surprising accurate despite its size.

Rogervzv · October 29, 2014, 09:35 AM

For whatever reason, I shoot way above my abilities when shooting my Ruger SR40c at the range. There is just something about the recoil with this particular gun and round that suits me. I have no issues at all with the 40S&W round recoil, at least when shooting the Ruger SR40c. This is one of my CCW guns and I find that I shoot it accurately and with no recoil discomfort whatever.

CWKahrFan · October 29, 2014, 09:57 AM

Yep. My SR40c is a comfortable and accurate shooter too. It's a very versatile gun with two mag choices and nice ergos... a great value IMO.

ninjarealist · October 29, 2014, 11:42 AM

My nightstand gun is a USP40 Compact. There's a moderate amount of muzzle flip, but the felt recoil is really not that bad. I go shooting a lot with my buddy who favors a Beretta Elite 1A and I honestly don't find that the muzzle-flip is too on the USP comparatively.

At least with FMJ target loads. When you compare the hot JHP loads the 40 seems to kick significantly more than the 9mm.

mellow_c · October 29, 2014, 12:31 PM

The difference in recoil between a Glock 26 (9mm) and a Glock 27 (40 s&w) is enough for me that I can not maintain a consistent grip on the 27 between shots, where I can with the 26. This problem might be reduced with grip tape or stippling though.

It's not as noticeable between the 19 vs 23, or 17 vs 22.

I would still chose 9mm over the 40 in most cases because of the extra round/s similar performance, reduced recoil/snap, and reduced noise/pressure.

I like the 40 though, and with a proper firm grip and experience it's not a hard round to love. The difference really does come through in the smaller guns though.

I wish 357 sig weren't so expensive... That's a fast, fun, and loud round!

CDW4ME · November 1, 2014, 08:54 AM

I recently used a shot timer to compare between 9mm +P, 357 Sig and 40
My average split time is based on my requirement of both shots hitting a 6 inch circle at 6 - 7 yards (its not horseshoes, so close doesn't count).

Glock 19 with 124 gr. +P Golden Saber: .28 second
Glock 32 with 125 gr. Gold Dot: .28 second
Glock 23 with 180 gr. HST: .32 second

The "snappy" recoil of 180 gr. 40 cost me a whopping four hundredths of a second (.04) over 9mm +P

Grunt96 · November 1, 2014, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDW4ME

I recently used a shot timer to compare between 9mm +P, 357 Sig and 40
My average split time is based on my requirement of both shots hitting a 6 inch circle at 6 - 7 yards (its not horseshoes, so close doesn't count).

Glock 19 with 124 gr. +P Golden Saber: .28 second
Glock 32 with 125 gr. Gold Dot: .28 second
Glock 23 with 180 gr. HST: .32 second

The "snappy" recoil of 180 gr. 40 cost me a whopping four hundredths of a second (.04) over 9mm +P

You're doing it wrong.

banditgriot · November 1, 2014, 02:51 PM

To me it is not a matter of the recoil being punishing, it isn't. I think it is about slide velocity in some guns. I had an early model Glock 22 that I learned to hate in comparison to the other service sized pistols I owned, but then I bought a Steyr M-40, which seemed to be chambered for a different round in comparison. The slide weight on the M-40 was and recoil spring seemed to handle the cartridge better than the Glock. I also fired a friends Browning Hi Power in .40 and my brother's Taurus (96 clone) and they were better than the Glock in terms of ease of follow up shot. I am not recoil sensitive, but I know what I like and I prefer both the .45ACP and 9mm over the .40 S&W. Nothing wrong with .40 S&W, but I think early on it deserved more development focus from manufactures who seemed to slap together beefed up 9mm's to meet market demand as fast they could. If you shoot it better or as well as either a 9 or a .45 then more (or less) power to you.

Crankgrinder · November 3, 2014, 06:28 PM

Well I tried out my g23 today and I think it's a keeper so far. No recoil wasn't bad at all and there was another shooter there who had a rock 1911 commander in 10 mm who let me shoot it. Great gun from what I.Could see, and that 10 mm recoil wasn't as bad as they say either..

October 21, 2014, 05:31 PM	#79
Jo6pak Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2010 Location: West Coast...of WI Posts: 1,663	I think the point is that the difference is so small as to not make a difference in most situations. __________________ NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.

October 29, 2014, 09:35 AM	#85
Rogervzv Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2011 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 1,075	For whatever reason, I shoot way above my abilities when shooting my Ruger SR40c at the range. There is just something about the recoil with this particular gun and round that suits me. I have no issues at all with the 40S&W round recoil, at least when shooting the Ruger SR40c. This is one of my CCW guns and I find that I shoot it accurately and with no recoil discomfort whatever. __________________ The difference between a citizen and a civilian is that the citizen makes the safety of the body politic his personal responsibility, protecting it with his life. The civilian does not.

October 29, 2014, 09:57 AM	#86
CWKahrFan Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2010 Posts: 2,016	Yep. My SR40c is a comfortable and accurate shooter too. It's a very versatile gun with two mag choices and nice ergos... a great value IMO. __________________ What did Mrs. Bullet say to Mr. Bullet? ... "We're having a BeeBee!"... IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!... IF THE GUN FITS, SHOOT IT! "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

November 1, 2014, 08:54 AM	#89
CDW4ME Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009 Posts: 1,321	I recently used a shot timer to compare between 9mm +P, 357 Sig and 40 My average split time is based on my requirement of both shots hitting a 6 inch circle at 6 - 7 yards (its not horseshoes, so close doesn't count). Glock 19 with 124 gr. +P Golden Saber: .28 second Glock 32 with 125 gr. Gold Dot: .28 second Glock 23 with 180 gr. HST: .32 second The "snappy" recoil of 180 gr. 40 cost me a whopping four hundredths of a second (.04) over 9mm +P __________________ Strive to carry the handgun you would want anywhere, everywhere; forget that good area bullcrap. "Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating.

October 21, 2014, 12:28 PM	#76
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	Very sorry to be off topic, and at no offense to the thread,but since it was just mentioned could someone please clarify what is "making major"? This is a new term for me.

October 21, 2014, 01:19 PM	#77
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	I just want to stop the attacker; not explode him into a thousand pieces. That's why I choose 9mm over 40! Plus, with 9mm, I can stop the attacker a fist-full more times than I can with the fat 40 cartridge. (Yes, this makes about as much sense as any other comment that claims one of these cartridges is superior to the other for XYZ reason.)

October 21, 2014, 06:20 PM	#80
tote4570 Member Join Date: September 17, 2005 Posts: 59	I agree with the fact that it has alot to do with the model of gun you use. I had a SW40VE and didnt like it. I had a 3rd generation S&W auto that I didnt like, but for some reason I enjoyed shooting my Glock27.

October 27, 2014, 03:27 PM	#81
Deanimator Member Join Date: June 8, 2006 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 26	I have a Glock 22. I always found the recoil extremely SHARP. It's not PAINFUL like 240gr. Winchester White Box out of a 4" S&W Model 29, but it's sharp to the point where it makes the gun difficult to control in rapid fire. I greatly prefer the 200gr. Hornady TAP out of a .45acp M1911 or 147gr. Winchester White Box 9mm JHPs out of a Glock 19 or Browning Hi Power. Even the 3" M1911s are easier to control than the Glock 22, whether with 230gr. ball or 117gr. Aguila IQ. The .45acp out of an M1911 probably has MORE recoil, but it's spread out over a greater period of time. The .40 is a higher pressure round with a steeper pressure curve. Supposedly there are recoil spring/guide modifications which will help with the Glock 22, but I haven't tried them. I had to sell my Norinco M1911. I won't be replaceing it with a .40, certainly not a polymer one anyway.

October 28, 2014, 10:12 AM	#84
Ruger45LC Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 768	Want to hear something crazy? I pocket carry a Kahr CM40, it holds 5+1rds of .40 S&W and you know what? Recoil isn't bad, it is a little more than the CM9 I used to have but nothing even approaching bad. Velocity loss from the 3" barrel is minimal as well, factory 180gr JHP's of various makes averaged around 950-990 fps and 165's around 1100 fps. On top of all of that, the gun is surprising accurate despite its size.

October 29, 2014, 11:42 AM	#87
ninjarealist Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 2014 Posts: 213	My nightstand gun is a USP40 Compact. There's a moderate amount of muzzle flip, but the felt recoil is really not that bad. I go shooting a lot with my buddy who favors a Beretta Elite 1A and I honestly don't find that the muzzle-flip is too on the USP comparatively. At least with FMJ target loads. When you compare the hot JHP loads the 40 seems to kick significantly more than the 9mm.

October 29, 2014, 12:31 PM	#88
mellow_c Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,862	The difference in recoil between a Glock 26 (9mm) and a Glock 27 (40 s&w) is enough for me that I can not maintain a consistent grip on the 27 between shots, where I can with the 26. This problem might be reduced with grip tape or stippling though. It's not as noticeable between the 19 vs 23, or 17 vs 22. I would still chose 9mm over the 40 in most cases because of the extra round/s similar performance, reduced recoil/snap, and reduced noise/pressure. I like the 40 though, and with a proper firm grip and experience it's not a hard round to love. The difference really does come through in the smaller guns though. I wish 357 sig weren't so expensive... That's a fast, fun, and loud round!

November 1, 2014, 02:51 PM	#91
banditgriot Senior Member Join Date: June 26, 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 132	To me it is not a matter of the recoil being punishing, it isn't. I think it is about slide velocity in some guns. I had an early model Glock 22 that I learned to hate in comparison to the other service sized pistols I owned, but then I bought a Steyr M-40, which seemed to be chambered for a different round in comparison. The slide weight on the M-40 was and recoil spring seemed to handle the cartridge better than the Glock. I also fired a friends Browning Hi Power in .40 and my brother's Taurus (96 clone) and they were better than the Glock in terms of ease of follow up shot. I am not recoil sensitive, but I know what I like and I prefer both the .45ACP and 9mm over the .40 S&W. Nothing wrong with .40 S&W, but I think early on it deserved more development focus from manufactures who seemed to slap together beefed up 9mm's to meet market demand as fast they could. If you shoot it better or as well as either a 9 or a .45 then more (or less) power to you.

November 3, 2014, 06:28 PM	#92
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	Well I tried out my g23 today and I think it's a keeper so far. No recoil wasn't bad at all and there was another shooter there who had a rock 1911 commander in 10 mm who let me shoot it. Great gun from what I.Could see, and that 10 mm recoil wasn't as bad as they say either..