Feel the same about the 40S&W as you use to? - Page 2

fourdegrees11 · August 9, 2014, 11:38 AM

High end .40 loads are quite a bit more powerful then even +p+ 9mm loads. It's funny to see people complain about snappiness and then state there's no advantage over the 9mm. Do you not realize that "snap" is due to the increased power of the round?

Let's take a look at Underwood's cream of the crop loads for comparison

+p 124gr 9mm
Muzzle Velocity: 1225 fps
Muzzle Energy: 413 ft. lbs.

+p+ 124gr 9mm
Muzzle Velocity: 1300 fps
Muzzle Energy: 465 ft. lbs.

155gr .40 s&w
Muzzle Velocity: 1300 fps
Muzzle Energy: 582 ft. lbs

Most people wont even bother with +p+, so compared to +p that's about 27% more energy delivered. Usually you only give up about 12% ammo capacity going with .40

PatientWolf · August 9, 2014, 11:50 AM

No. Not at all. Now I find myself wanting a gun in .40S&W. 10 years ago I had no such desire.

Skans · August 9, 2014, 11:59 AM

Yup. I thought .40 was a decent round 10 years ago and still think it's a decent round. I still like 9mm, 10mm, and 45acp too.

About the only round I feel a little differently about today than 10 years ago is .380. I have a tad bit more respect for .380 today.

Tipsy Mcstagger · August 9, 2014, 12:07 PM

I don't think that 40 is as much fun to shoot as 9, 38 super or 45 due to snap/shock. And it's probably psychological but I don't find I'm as accurate with 40, save a good experience with a USP. Thus, I only have one pistol in 40. I concede that it's more powerful than 9 or 45. I think it's a fantastic do-all round and bridge-gapper for those that shoot it, I just don't enjoy shooting them. I do CCW the 40 sometimes, though. It's just not a range caliber for me.

sureshot106 · August 9, 2014, 12:35 PM

I still like my .40 s&w as much as I always have. I have two and shoot them regularly. If you load them hot then the recoil is severe. If you load them moderately they are no more abusive than a 9mm or 45acp. They are accurate, especially if loaded properly.

gb_in_ga · August 9, 2014, 12:54 PM

Yeah, I still feel the same about it. It still isn't for me.

If I want double stack capacity, I want double stack capacity. That would be 9mm.

If I want slim concealable, I want slim concealable. That would also be 9mm.

If I want diameter, I want diameter. That would be .45ACP.

.40 S&W really doesn't do anything for me that something else doesn't do better.

RX-79G · August 9, 2014, 01:17 PM

When .40 came out I felt that the cartridge design was a big compromise - the short ogive of the bullet and high pressure was not at all forgiving of the guns it was initially chambered to.

Now I think the guns have mostly caught up, but the .40 case design still asks a lot of the gun. If you're going to replace a cartridge like 9mm, you could at least emulate the feeding and case strength of 9mm while you're at it.

At IDPA clubs, .40 used to be really popular. Now it seems to be in the minority to 9mm and .45. Either a lot of people bought gamer guns, or less folks are using .40 in general.

SHE3PDOG · August 9, 2014, 01:54 PM

I like it, not for any advantages it may have, but because it gives my collection more diversity when ammo is scarce and 40 is all I can find.

Kirkpatrick · August 9, 2014, 01:56 PM

For sub compact carry, I use 9mm. For compact/almost full size carry (winter) I still like my XD40.

WESHOOT2 · August 9, 2014, 02:08 PM

Nope; still wish it had been market-stomped by the superior 41 AE.

Sevens · August 9, 2014, 04:16 PM

I should have mentioned that I've always had an underlying (unadmitted!) appreciate for the success of the .40 S&W as it's popularity has quite simply guaranteed that I'll never have a problem finding component bullets for handloading the 10mm Auto which I prefer.

If WESHOOT2 had gotten his way, I'd be the poor schmuck left searching for oddball .400" slugs.

jmay · August 9, 2014, 04:18 PM

I just thought this would make a nice topic with many different angles of view. Like someone stated I do not want this to be a caliber war. I have never owned a 40 S&W always had 45acp and 9metric but that will soon change.

Sevens · August 9, 2014, 04:28 PM

Haha, "9 metric"
Can't say I've come across that term before.

Neat. We could use another term for 9mm. We've only got like four or so, I say we build a collection of 'em!

saleen322 · August 9, 2014, 04:38 PM

The 40 S&W is a compromise round that gives a little larger caliber than the 9mm and performance of a mild 10mm. That was the intention when it came out and that still seems to be unchanged. I think it is as effective as any of the other common service pistol rounds so if one likes it, it should work fine for them.

SauerGrapes · August 9, 2014, 04:55 PM

10 years ago, I could care less about .40S&W. Now I have 4 of them.

Rob96 · August 9, 2014, 04:58 PM

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0

pete2 · August 9, 2014, 04:58 PM

I guess I don't feel the same. I bought one, seemed a good idea at the time but decided that I have 9mm and 45ACP so there is no need for a 40, traded it for a sub compact 9mm.

jmay · August 9, 2014, 05:07 PM

Yep 9metric, 9Kiser, the .354, and the 9natzi. Thats all i know.

Nick_C_S · August 9, 2014, 05:25 PM

Quote:

The success of the .40 S&W has guaranteed component bullets for handloading the 10mm Auto. (paraphrased)

I never thought of that before. Good point. Makes one wonder where the 10mm would be right now if there were no 40. Which is a shame because the 10mm is a great round in its own right. And yes, I'm aware (well aware, actually) of the recoil - but I still don't understand why it's not more popular.

The 40 is a great round too. I've shot a couple. Seems a good compromise between power and control. I don't own a 40; but I'm certainly not opposed to it. I just chose to go with the 10mm Auto.

Sevens · August 9, 2014, 05:40 PM

Quote:

but I still don't understand why it's not more popular.

^with regards to 10mm.

I think it's a simple answer. The popular rounds (especially in service sized pistols) have all had the benefit of widespread police or military use. The 10mm's service career was just a scattered footnote in history, comparable to the .357 Sig.

There are, IMO, two distinct levels of semi-auto cartridge popularity, with one half-way in between. You've got 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 on the top tier for obvious reasons we don't even need to discuss.

You've got all the "standardized" rounds in the lower tier that simply won't ever make it with the big three. 10mm, .357 Sig, .38 Super, .25/.32 ACP, 9x18 Mak, .45 GAP, .50AE and some others with a bit of argument.

In that slim slot right between would be, IMO, the .380 Auto.
The .380 Auto was solidly in the same second-level group just 10-15 years ago before the concealed carry wave that swept this nation and saw a public demand for smallish, concealable pistols. But it has had a meteoric rise due specifically to tiny carry guns. It's a pretty interesting feat for a cartridge that's been around as long as it has.

RX-79G · August 9, 2014, 07:17 PM

I think it is because the Moros needed 11mm bullets to be stopped. 10mm isn't going to do it.

arizona98tj · August 9, 2014, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Just wondering if folks feel the same way about the 40 S&W as you did say 10 years ago?

I had absolutely no desire to buy one 10 years ago and I have no desire to do so now.

PP99 · August 9, 2014, 09:56 PM

Just wondering if folks feel the same way about the 40 S&W as you did say...

Since the early 90s

jmstr · August 10, 2014, 12:04 AM

Yes

10 years ago I hated it, as it had the worst of both worlds of recoil: combining the snap of the 9 with the long push of the 45, with the feel of a twist added for good measure.

Abandoned it and stuck with 9 and .45.

3 years ago picked up a couple of .40s to just round out my range toy bag.

Tried them out and came to realize I can actually hit something with them now.

I still dislike the kick more than the other 2, and still use the other 2 calibers more, but I now feel comfortable enough with it to use it.

in the last 10 years I got rid of a nasty flinch habit a .40 caused in me. Of course, it was the result of it being the first handgun caliber I ever bought and never being able to practice at a distance less than 20 yards. 10 years of shooting other calibers and my control is good enough to handle it now.

Still don't recommend it for new shooters. Still respect its' capabilities. Still don't enjoy shooting it as much as other calibers. But I am now willing to use it and/or carry one. THAT is a HUGE change!

Sgt127 · August 10, 2014, 12:43 AM

About 18 years ago, I was handed a Glock 35, six magazines and new leather gear. I had to give up my Wilson Master Grade .45 that I had been carrying for the previous 10 years.

That was my introduction to the .40 and Glock. Carried one on duty ever since. It's a perfectly acceptable combo.

August 9, 2014, 12:35 PM	#30
sureshot106 Member Join Date: September 6, 2012 Posts: 32	.40 S&W I still like my .40 s&w as much as I always have. I have two and shoot them regularly. If you load them hot then the recoil is severe. If you load them moderately they are no more abusive than a 9mm or 45acp. They are accurate, especially if loaded properly.

August 9, 2014, 12:54 PM	#31
gb_in_ga Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2005 Location: Pensacola, Fl Posts: 3,092	Yeah, I still feel the same about it. It still isn't for me. If I want double stack capacity, I want double stack capacity. That would be 9mm. If I want slim concealable, I want slim concealable. That would also be 9mm. If I want diameter, I want diameter. That would be .45ACP. .40 S&W really doesn't do anything for me that something else doesn't do better. __________________ COME AND TAKE IT http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/batgon.htm Formerly lived in Ga, but now I'm back in Tx! Aaaand, now I'm off to Fla...

August 9, 2014, 01:54 PM	#33
SHE3PDOG Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2013 Posts: 988	I like it, not for any advantages it may have, but because it gives my collection more diversity when ammo is scarce and 40 is all I can find. __________________ Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms

August 9, 2014, 02:08 PM	#35
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	made more 40 than anything Nope; still wish it had been market-stomped by the superior 41 AE. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

August 9, 2014, 04:16 PM	#36
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	I should have mentioned that I've always had an underlying (unadmitted!) appreciate for the success of the .40 S&W as it's popularity has quite simply guaranteed that I'll never have a problem finding component bullets for handloading the 10mm Auto which I prefer. If WESHOOT2 had gotten his way, I'd be the poor schmuck left searching for oddball .400" slugs. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

August 9, 2014, 11:38 AM	#26
fourdegrees11 Member Join Date: December 8, 2008 Posts: 23	High end .40 loads are quite a bit more powerful then even +p+ 9mm loads. It's funny to see people complain about snappiness and then state there's no advantage over the 9mm. Do you not realize that "snap" is due to the increased power of the round? Let's take a look at Underwood's cream of the crop loads for comparison +p 124gr 9mm Muzzle Velocity: 1225 fps Muzzle Energy: 413 ft. lbs. +p+ 124gr 9mm Muzzle Velocity: 1300 fps Muzzle Energy: 465 ft. lbs. 155gr .40 s&w Muzzle Velocity: 1300 fps Muzzle Energy: 582 ft. lbs Most people wont even bother with +p+, so compared to +p that's about 27% more energy delivered. Usually you only give up about 12% ammo capacity going with .40

August 9, 2014, 11:50 AM	#27
PatientWolf Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2012 Location: NC Posts: 946	No. Not at all. Now I find myself wanting a gun in .40S&W. 10 years ago I had no such desire.

August 9, 2014, 11:59 AM	#28
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	Yup. I thought .40 was a decent round 10 years ago and still think it's a decent round. I still like 9mm, 10mm, and 45acp too. About the only round I feel a little differently about today than 10 years ago is .380. I have a tad bit more respect for .380 today.

August 9, 2014, 12:07 PM	#29
Tipsy Mcstagger Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2013 Location: South Texas Posts: 190	I don't think that 40 is as much fun to shoot as 9, 38 super or 45 due to snap/shock. And it's probably psychological but I don't find I'm as accurate with 40, save a good experience with a USP. Thus, I only have one pistol in 40. I concede that it's more powerful than 9 or 45. I think it's a fantastic do-all round and bridge-gapper for those that shoot it, I just don't enjoy shooting them. I do CCW the 40 sometimes, though. It's just not a range caliber for me.

August 9, 2014, 01:17 PM	#32
RX-79G Junior member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 1,139	When .40 came out I felt that the cartridge design was a big compromise - the short ogive of the bullet and high pressure was not at all forgiving of the guns it was initially chambered to. Now I think the guns have mostly caught up, but the .40 case design still asks a lot of the gun. If you're going to replace a cartridge like 9mm, you could at least emulate the feeding and case strength of 9mm while you're at it. At IDPA clubs, .40 used to be really popular. Now it seems to be in the minority to 9mm and .45. Either a lot of people bought gamer guns, or less folks are using .40 in general.

August 9, 2014, 01:56 PM	#34
Kirkpatrick Member Join Date: October 15, 2011 Location: Alabama Posts: 95	For sub compact carry, I use 9mm. For compact/almost full size carry (winter) I still like my XD40.

August 9, 2014, 04:18 PM	#37
jmay Member Join Date: July 31, 2013 Location: Dallas Tejas Posts: 53	I just thought this would make a nice topic with many different angles of view. Like someone stated I do not want this to be a caliber war. I have never owned a 40 S&W always had 45acp and 9metric but that will soon change.

August 9, 2014, 04:28 PM	#38
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	Haha, "9 metric" Can't say I've come across that term before. Neat. We could use another term for 9mm. We've only got like four or so, I say we build a collection of 'em! __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

August 9, 2014, 04:38 PM	#39
saleen322 Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2010 Posts: 778	The 40 S&W is a compromise round that gives a little larger caliber than the 9mm and performance of a mild 10mm. That was the intention when it came out and that still seems to be unchanged. I think it is as effective as any of the other common service pistol rounds so if one likes it, it should work fine for them. Last edited by saleen322; August 9, 2014 at 07:56 PM.

August 9, 2014, 04:55 PM	#40
SauerGrapes Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2009 Location: S.E.PA. Posts: 920	10 years ago, I could care less about .40S&W. Now I have 4 of them. __________________ NRA member, DCF&S member, PAFOA member, USPSA member, NSCA member R.I.P.____Murphy

August 9, 2014, 04:58 PM	#41
Rob96 Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 1999 Location: Allentown,PA Posts: 1,969	https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0

August 9, 2014, 04:58 PM	#42
pete2 Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 2,566	I guess I don't feel the same. I bought one, seemed a good idea at the time but decided that I have 9mm and 45ACP so there is no need for a 40, traded it for a sub compact 9mm.

August 9, 2014, 05:07 PM	#43
jmay Member Join Date: July 31, 2013 Location: Dallas Tejas Posts: 53	Yep 9metric, 9Kiser, the .354, and the 9natzi. Thats all i know.

August 9, 2014, 07:17 PM	#46
RX-79G Junior member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 1,139	I think it is because the Moros needed 11mm bullets to be stopped. 10mm isn't going to do it.

August 9, 2014, 09:56 PM	#48
PP99 Member Join Date: August 16, 2013 Posts: 85	Just wondering if folks feel the same way about the 40 S&W as you did say... Since the early 90s

August 10, 2014, 12:04 AM	#49
jmstr Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2001 Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA Posts: 1,281	Yes 10 years ago I hated it, as it had the worst of both worlds of recoil: combining the snap of the 9 with the long push of the 45, with the feel of a twist added for good measure. Abandoned it and stuck with 9 and .45. 3 years ago picked up a couple of .40s to just round out my range toy bag. Tried them out and came to realize I can actually hit something with them now. I still dislike the kick more than the other 2, and still use the other 2 calibers more, but I now feel comfortable enough with it to use it. in the last 10 years I got rid of a nasty flinch habit a .40 caused in me. Of course, it was the result of it being the first handgun caliber I ever bought and never being able to practice at a distance less than 20 yards. 10 years of shooting other calibers and my control is good enough to handle it now. Still don't recommend it for new shooters. Still respect its' capabilities. Still don't enjoy shooting it as much as other calibers. But I am now willing to use it and/or carry one. THAT is a HUGE change!

August 10, 2014, 12:43 AM	#50
Sgt127 Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2002 Posts: 1,053	About 18 years ago, I was handed a Glock 35, six magazines and new leather gear. I had to give up my Wilson Master Grade .45 that I had been carrying for the previous 10 years. That was my introduction to the .40 and Glock. Carried one on duty ever since. It's a perfectly acceptable combo.