Do .40s Really Suck?

[tipoc]

From the wise Tunnelrat:

Why is this thread still going?

Good question.

How much money has this thread made for the chucklehead who made the video?

Vids like this one are suckerbait.

tipoc

[SoCal326]

Originally Posted by 10851Man

The 'user friendly' .40 caliber offerings are pretty dismal in performance.

Just look at the November 2006 Geroge T. Deeb shooting for evidence of this...FWIW

Wow, this guy was shot 17 times and still fought back. The article says the the 17 rounds that hit him caused 28 entry/exit wounds. That's it, I'm getting an RPG instead.

http://archives.timesleader.com/2006...e_-tlnews.html

[BGutzman]

My 100 whatever lb wife says 40 rocks... I love it when she picks on those who cant handle it...

[breakingcontact]

Eh. I can handle it. But I don't need it. I had a 40. I liked it and I was accurate but I can shoot a 9mm faster.

[RBid]

The problem with people saying that they "can handle" .40, .45, .357, etc is that most of the people saying this have not actually practiced rapid fire. The common use of "can handle" describes not being bothered by the percussion or snap under slow fire, with ears on, firing from a static position, with a strong two hand grip.

The real question is what that snap and percussion translates to while shooting quickly, on the move, at a dynamic target, while possibly having to break your grip at various points.

It is obviously possible to gain very high proficiency with the higher recoil rounds, but there are a lot of folks out there who think that slow and static fire means that they're good to go.

[AZAK]

It is obviously possible to gain very high proficiency with the higher recoil rounds, but there are a lot of folks out there who think that slow and static fire means that they're good to go.

And perhaps "they" are; good to go.

I find that I can shoot faster and be more accurate with a full size .22lr pistol than just about any other.

Then again, I don't own any .40 S&W pistols any longer, prefer 10mm auto; I bought into both cartridges when they both came out, The .40 just didn't stick with me.

My focus in shooting is accuracy. I prefer to make little tight holes at greater distances; one of my favorite targets are dandelion stems, cutting the heads off. (Very seasonal target given where I live.) Does that mean that I am at a disadvantage If I ever need to use a weapon defensively? Just because I prefer a 10mm over a 9mm or a .40? Well, I hope to never find out.

And heaven forbid that I do have to find out, I believe that Mas Ayoob said something about that first well placed shot...

There are many ways to skin a cat.

YMMV

[Gaerek]

The problem with people saying that they "can handle" .40, .45, .357, etc is that most of the people saying this have not actually practiced rapid fire. The common use of "can handle" describes not being bothered by the percussion or snap under slow fire, with ears on, firing from a static position, with a strong two hand grip.

1. For the most part, I agree with you. A lot of the people who talk about handling the bigger rounds are shooting one shot, stopping to reacquire sight picture and/or grip, firing again. I see it all the time at the range. I remember just a couple nights ago, I was at a practical shoot practice session. While shooting targets ahead of time I was talking to a guy with a .40. He was brand new to it, and he said he loved it, and was very accurate with it. As soon as we started the practical scenarios, where we were putting two in center mass, he either had one shot dead center, second shot way high, or two relatively slow fired shots.

2. Although I think the above is common, it is definitely not a rule. The guy who ran the practical shoots I mentioned above shoots a G23 (.40). He was very fast. When I asked him about it, he says the way he grips the gun, the heavy recoil helps snap the gun back on target. He's timed himself and he says he's faster in follow-up shots with his G23 than with his G17 (9mm).

I can't comment on whether #2 is true or not, but I know this guy pretty well, and he doesn't have any real reason to lie about it. I know I'm far faster with follow-up shots with a 9mm than a .40. I much prefer 9mm, not because I can't handle the recoil, but because I choose to shoot a gun where I don't have to fight the recoil.

[SA2112]

Yeah... the .40 S&W is junk... reach for the Howitzer brand.

Six pages of replies to a troll.

[KO3422]

Still going. Oh well. The .40 doesn't suck.

[MCCALL911]

No, .40s do not suck. I've owned 3 so far and wouldn't mind having another. I've just owned 9mm's the last few years and IMO they don't they suck either. The .40 might have more muzzle flip than the 9mm and this might affect recovery time, but this would probably depend on the shooter.

[LewSchiller]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

CONCLUSION:
"Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit."

[NJgunowner]

I wondered how long it would take someone to whip that paper out. By that logic I should just use a .22 or .32

Long story short use the biggest round you can use COMFORTABLY. If you don't like the muzzle flip of the .40, it's not for you. I rather like it, but then again my favorite round was the 10mm, I just gave up on it (for now) because no one sells it locally and it a bit of a pain to keep ordering.

[LewSchiller]

I dunno - that's not really what that study said.
I didn't quote too much based on forum concerns. The conclusion as I read it is that penetration means more than anything...at the risk of being edited here's the last paragraph of the conclusion...

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock"
of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration.
The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid
bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the
1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound
by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

[RBid]

The determining factor should not be COMFORT. It should be SPEED. I could comfortably shoot .40 from day 1. I could not place hits as fast with .40 as I could with 9 until I had practiced doing so for awhile. I'll still group tighter with 9mm, but I'm at a point where I'm not trading 9mm hits for bigger holes in a wall.

I think that far too many people make their choice based on comfort, and completely neglect speed.

[imthegrumpyone]

Ya that's why I carry two, don't carry anything else. One's for everyday carry and in the car, the other is when I ride the "scooter", never leave home with out one. Just love a "pair of 40s". So I'd really say they "rock" !!!

[Seaman]

Been collecting free 40 cal spent brass for years but never owned a 40 cal handgun, and what with the current shortage figured this was an inexpensive handloading solution. With all those brass casings urging me on, finally acquired my first 40 cal handgun, a Sig 229. First range visit is pic #1, first shot went low and the next 12 clustered into a one and a quarter inch group. Problem ... I won't carry a handgun unless it groups one inch or better at CCW distances (7 yards/21 feet). Was getting ready to sell it when I came across a Sig 40 cal upper kit (custom barrel/ spring/ SAS melted slide/ nite sights). Took it to the range with the xchange kit on and shot 13 rounds quick into a three-quarter inch group. Recoil? What recoil? A Makarov PM has more snap.

Must admit, 13 rounds (12+1) of 180 gr flat point fmj should be ample for most social emergencies.

FWIW, the 40 cal cartridge is an accurate cartridge.

PS: I shot an XDm 40 and it is also very accurate (mild recoil too), but I prefer the features and looks of the Sig.

[Skitter]

I enjoy my Stoeger 40, it's alot of fun and pretty low amount of recoil. I bought it based on .40 ammo is easier to find currently than 9mm is

[BGutzman]

The problem with people saying that they "can handle" .40, .45, .357, etc is that most of the people saying this have not actually practiced rapid fire. The common use of "can handle" describes not being bothered by the percussion or snap under slow fire, with ears on, firing from a static position, with a strong two hand grip.

I cant say that I disagree with what you have said here but look at the overall "facts".. The average SD situation requires the defender to fire two bullets... So in most situations it seems rapid fire is pointless, because its simply not going to happen.. Now that said I understand every incident is different but overall rapid fire is just one more tool in the set...

Finally even my little wife can rapid fire with deadly accuracy with the supposedly unmanageable 40... Its a matter of making a point of doing the training... 40 being unmanageable is a mindset, a simple matter of favorites not so much reality.

[Seaman]

Reminds one that the finest shooter in American history was not a man, but a woman... Annie Oakley.

Was a gent beside me with my 40 cal Sig 229, he was shooting a M1873 SAA Colt 45 (Ruger). He was not shooting as quickly as the Sig, but slower, however the result was similar, his 6-shot group was clearly under an inch ... not bad for a half dozen hot loaded 260 gr bullets.

It was one of Annie Oakley's contemporaries who opined:

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final."*



*Wyatt Earp

[jedi391]

The .40 is an excellent round. I have carried .380, .38, 9mm, .357, .40, and .45. I currently own 2 .45's, 2 9mm's, and one .40. I am can shoot the .40 accurately the fastest with my M&P .40. Overall accuracy goes to the USP .45 but its slower. The Sig P226 is closer to the M&P overall but not as fast. In slow fire it's a toss up between the P226 and the M&P.

I find that the snap of the .40 actually allows me to get back on target faster then the .45 push or the 9mm soft snap. I suppose it's sort of line the old every action has an equal and opposite reaction rule. I used to be skeptical of guys who bagged on the forty snap as I just couldn't see it and I figured they were probably old fogies set in their ways who just wouldn't like anything new. Since then I have come to see that some people probably really are sincere. My wife has reminded me that I grew up as an athlete playing football and basketball and I have big hands and am stronger then most people so things that may seem easier for me may really be hard for others. Maybe if my hands were smaller and I was weaker the .40 might be harder for me to shoot. I can't say because I don't know how that would affect me. Part of it might also be that I'm shooting the M&P which I really feel to be an outstanding design which channels the recoil impulse into your hand in exactly the right spot, at least for me.

The other issue is penetration. People say that with modern HP's there is no appreciable difference between 9, 40, and 45. Well that's not totally right. Against intermediate targets (particularly car windshields) .40 and .45 punch through and go on to do their jobs much better then 9mm does. Unfortunately I know of cases where this has been an issue. If you know that you're not going to be in a position where you might have to shoot through auto glass or something similar you should be good. Problem is how will you know?

At the end of the day I subscribe to Doctor Gary Roberts opinion that the best firearm for uniform patrol duties, for this very reason, is an M&P .40 with 15 + 1 rounds of 180 grain .40 on tap.