Do .40s Really Suck?

[Pops1085]

I saw a youtube video with the title .40's suck and if you haven't seen it it basically gives all these reasons as to why a handgun in a .40 caliber is no good. I just shot a barretta 92 in a .40 yesterday along with a 1911 in 45 acp and to be honest I couldn't really tell a HUGE difference between the two. Before yesterday the only other handgun that I had ever shot in my life was a 44 magnum with a 3 inch barrel when I was 10. So you can kind of see the relief that I got when I shot those calibers

[lyodbraun]

Yeah they Must (JK) cause something like over 65% of Police depts carry the .40 S&W round,, Its a fantastic round, I think the person who made that video SUCKS LOL.... and prob just cant shoot a .40 very well... I love my .40 S&W's ... works just fine...

[Tactical Jackalope]

They don't "suck". I used to only shoot .40 years ago.

Now I only shoot 9mm and .45 they're my favorites.

So, they're better things out there than .40's muzzle flip. But if you want to get used to .40, and you can and eventually will. Then it isn't a problem. I personally believe it costs more to get used to a .40 than a .45 or 9mm. That muzzle flip is nasty and unnecessary to me now.

[Timowen1]

Are you sure it was a Beretta 92 and not a 96? Beretta 96 is the .40 S&W and the 92 is 9mm.. Anyway I have 4 different pistols in .40 S&W and they are fine shooters. A little more expensive than 9mm but a good bit more knock down power. In the right gun maybe even smoother shooting. If you have no pistol and are trying to decide between the 9mm or the .40 I'd go with the .40 for home defense.

[TunnelRat]

A little more expensive than 9mm but a good bit more knock down power. In the right gun maybe even smoother shooting. If you have no pistol and are trying to decide between the 9mm or the .40 I'd go with the .40 for home defense.

No such thing as "knock down" power. If it was literally powerful enough to knock down your human target it would knock you down in firing it.

I think 9mm or 40SW are fine for home defense. Modern 9mm and 40SW defensive rounds perform very similar.

[Nathan]

40's suck because when semi auto's became the rule, most people bought into either 20 round 9mm's or 7 rd 45's. Stopping power data clearly showed 45 superior.

Then the FBI made the 40. It's stopping power data was collected and was on par with 45's, but in a 9mm size gun and it was easy to shoot.

Since the shooting culture was already split 9mm, 45 or 357, new shooters were the 40 market. People like me. We bought our first handguns as 40's. being new, we sucked, so 40 was called inaccurate or whippy. As we got better, it became a solid competition caliber...major + high cap.

Then when CCW became huge, 40's were made in 9mm size guns which 45's couldn't be made in.

Last, some of these newb's became mouthy to one or both of the old guard. The Glock tried to kill 40, by making unsupported chamber 40's and putting them in LEO and civi hands...and don't forget the kabooms.

So, in the end, the 9, 40 & 45 are here to stay.

[IMightBeWrong]

Of course not. However I personally wouldn't take one over a 9mm or .45 because I don't think it's worth the extra high pressure for the minimal difference in power.

[blackamos]

I have four .40's and like them all. Beretta makes a 90-two in .40 and a 96 in .40, in their 90 series pistols.

[CDW4ME]

My Glock 23 and 27 do not suck.
A little bigger, heavier bullet with a little more recoil than 9mm in same size pistol.
If a 9mm is okay for SD, then an equivalent 40 is potentially better.

[Pops1085]

I'm not sure exactly what model of a beretta it was, I was only shooting my uncle's guns. Maybe if I shot alot more I would see the difference, but I hit almost everything I was aiming at so it can't be terrible.

[TunnelRat]

Stopping power data clearly showed 45 superior.

Aww, I smell a caliber war brewin'.

Do we really need to flog this poor old horse? We've killed it in a lot of threads. 9, 40, and 45 are all acceptable.

[Rainbow Demon]

Knockdown power is a misused term, but it has a basis in fact.
A hard hitting slugger can knock an opponent down and out if he connects at the right spot, jaw, solar plexus, etc, while a wimpy kid could flail away all day long and not do any damage.
I've brought one up from the floor and connected under the chin to bring my opponent off his feet and knock him backwards over an office desk. No harm was done to my fist and I wasn't thrown backwards by any recoil effect.

Bullets impart energy to a small surface area and further on into flesh or bone. The amount of energy necessary to put someone off their feet is not that great.
You aren't spreading that energy over any large area.

You won't see people thrown twenty feet through a window as in a TV cop show, but they may be knocked back far enough to over balance and fall, especially if the shock disrupts the nervous system to prevent any attempt at regaining balance.

We've all seen tests where a man wearing a vest takes a hit from a .44 magnum and barely reacts. I've also seen a test where a reporter volunteered to wear the vest and the shooter suprized him by firing a 38 to the mid section while he was still talking. The reporter ended up staggering back several steps and falling on his kester cussing and squaling like a child.

So knockdown power is a factor, though not well understood as to exactly what it means.

[Tom Servo]

Stopping power data clearly showed 45 superior.

Whose study might have shown this, and by what criteria did they prove it?

[TunnelRat]

We've all seen tests where a man wearing a vest takes a hit from a .44 magnum and barely reacts. I've also seen a test where a reporter volunteered to wear the vest and the shooter suprized him by firing a 38 to the mid section while he was still talking. The reporter ended up staggering back several steps and falling on his kester cussing and squaling like a child.

That in no way is representative of actually being shot. The energy of the round isn't being used to pierce bone, tear muscle, or expand. It's all being directed into a vest.

I've seen a video of a man taking a 308 WIN round from a rifle straight into the chest while standing on one leg. He doesn't move a muscle. People move from the shock of getting hit, they get startled. Again, from Newton's laws if it seriously had enough power to actually cause that person to fall over it would knock you on your butt too.

[Pops1085]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsxdk1V8i-M

I thought I should share the video in question

[Spats McGee]

If you fellows want to debate various calibers, that's fine, but when a thread starts with "does X suck?" . . . Well, that's usually an invitation for the thread to turn into a spitting contest. "X sucks!" "Y Sux more!" . . . Then things really go downhill.

Please avoid that temptation.

[HKFan9]

Personally.. after owning a few and reading and shooting a lot.. I sold all my .40cals.

Main reasons... I prefer the 1911 platform. So clearly I stick to .45acp a lot. I am comfortable with it, both in my ability to shoot it, and its performance.

Second reason.. when I am not carrying a 1911, or my XDS for that matter...it is because I want something with more capacity... so I will go to a 9mm.

Yes a .40cal is the same size as a 9mm, but you are sacrificing a few rounds.. and for what exactly? YES in theory... the .40 is MARGINALLY better, but to be honest.. I don't think its enough of a difference to sacrifice the extra rounds.

I am sure people will be in an uproar and posting gel tests and what not and crunching numbers, and I completely agree, however I would place my bet on 3 more rounds placed center mass over 1mm more diameter, and some extra weight and velocity. If you read some autopsy reports.... generally most hand gun wounds look the same across the board, and caliber isn't determined until the slug is removed.

Not to mention 9mm is still cheaper to shoot, enjoy, and practice with.

Not knocking the .40..... just stating why I personally felt I no longer needed to own any.

Also police forces are starting to release the same thing, and switching back to 9mm's such as my local one did.

I have been mulling over the fact to buy another .40.. but in a 2011 STI for IPSC competition to be in major scoring.

[TunnelRat]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5_1315934617

Here is a video of a man shooting himself in the chest with a 44 magnum. He follows it up by shooting a man in the chest with a 308 WIN rifle who happens to be standing on one leg. Neither man moves a muscle (they do have some serious faith in the products though). I laugh when I hear knockdown power. If a 44 magnum and a 308 WIN can't "knock down" a man, a 9mm or 40SW sure can't. Heck, even a 45 ACP might not be able to do it.

[Mike Irwin]

yes they certainly do suck.

they suck the life out of people stupid enough to stand in front of the business end of 1.

[jimbob24]

Once again its an opinion thing. Everyone handles a weapon a little differently and imagines themselves in a different situation, whether it be engaging a nut job in public, home defense or whatever other scenario we can cook up in our heads.Regardless, doesn't matter.

The .40 is great! I have met a lot of people who swear by them. As a 9mm fan, I've heard it all. .40 fans say they're better than 9mils. .45's are more powerful than everything...
9mm is better cause you can obtain a better follow up shot due to lighter recoil!

Who cares!?!?!?

I don't care for the .40, and swear by the 9mm,however enjoy shooting the .45. Call me crazy!

Bottom line is, they're bullets leaving a barrel at a velocity we couldnt come close to matching on foot!
Shoot what you like! There all great! An expensive hobby is not expensive if you like it.
One more quote, no caliber sucks if it saves your life.

Thanks for reading.

[thinktwice]

To each his own, however I am far more accurate with my Glock-33 357 Sig "high pressure" round than my Glock- 26 9mm. So I disagree, and I think the 40 is a great round, and I guess so do most Law Enforcement Agency's.

[Noreaster]

Glock Gen 4 40s don't suck.

[MRL21]

A round being good or bad is going to be from experience. I used a .40 to put the kill on a few deer.

For shots to the body I got terrible penetration from federal hydrashock from a USP. Basically made it through the hide and stopped with out penetrating the shoulder tissue. Had slugs flattened siting between hide and tissue. I was 15-20 yards, never found a pistol round that contributed to death, gave up the goat from the rifle round best I could tell.

Now for 10 yard head shots, I haven't had any issue on mule deer.

Jackrabbits don't much care for .40. They can suck them up though, but only one has taken more than one round to put down.

Javelina don't like 40 either. Though one I shot in the head death rattled for a good 5 minutes.

For caliber I chose .45 not because its super cool and awesome and nothing compares, but because I didn't like having to feed 5 flavors of semi auto pistol. I have a full size am compact 45 that have identical controls. It was what I wanted as felt most comfortable with.

For the Glock 4 Gen 40 not sucking...most the officers I've talked to that have just got them notice their qualifications have dropped from the gen 3. Two local PD's are switching from them. One going bak to gen 3, the other 9mm. Again it's all subjective to the person, that's why we have Sig, Glock, HK, Springfield, Smith and so on to choose from.

[blackamos]

I found myself enjoying my .40 cal's more and more over the last couple of months. I can find ammo at most of my local gun shops. I can't same the same about 9mm or 45acp's. So I have been shooting them much more than the others. I hope everyone thinks the .40 sucks and I can keep finding them at a reasonable price.

[TunnelRat]

I can find ammo at most of my local gun shops. I can't same the same about 9mm or 45acp's.

Now this is a good point .