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

[weldonjr2001]

I like the .40 quite a bit, but only in the 155 grain variety. I carry one quite often with Winchester, Remington, Federal, or Speer 155 grain JHPs.

I started liking it years ago based on the then Border Patrol's use of it in 155 grain, and haven't wavered.

I also like .45, .357, and 9mm (in the +P or +P+ loads), but the .40 is my most numerous caliber.

Currently:
S&W M&P .40
Beretta PX4 .40
Browning HP .40
S&W M&PC .40
Beretta PX4 SC .40
Sig P250C .40
Glock 27 .40
S&W Shield .40

Have had:
Glock 22 .40
Kahr K40
Kahr CW40
Kahr PM40

Velocities with the 155 grain factory loads range from around 1200 fps/500 ft/lbs ME in the full size models down to around 1100 fps/420 ft lbs ME in the smaller ones.

Just never had any reason to use the 180 grain, or even the 165 grain loads, as barrier penetration isn't high on my priority list.

I keep meaning to turn one or more of them into the .357 Sig, but have so much .40 ammo on hand I just never get around to it.

You used to be able to buy the Border Patrol's then-current load, the Remington Express 155 grain JHP, cheaply and in quantity, and I picked up quite a bit.
Same for the Federal Classic 155 grain load.

I now mostly carry newer Speer Gold Dot 155 grain JHPs and/or Winchester Ranger 155 grain JHPs, and use my older Rem and Fed loads for the range.

[Bob Wright]

I do.

Bob Wright

[Bozz10mm]

Never owned a .40 cal. Two years ago, I thought my next handgun would be a .40 cal, but it turned out to be 45 ACP. I already have a 10mm, so that is about the same as .40 cal, but with some added velocity.

[44 AMP]

Do I feel the same about the .40 S&W as I did ten years ago? Absolutely the same.

I had no use for it then, and have no use for it now.

[salvadore]

What 44 amp said.

[jmr40]

When most of us choose a handgun our only thoughts are personal protection from human threats or paper punching. Given that criteria I firmly believe there isn't much if any difference between any of the common handgun rounds. For those uses I'm perfectly content with 9mm, or 45, or most anything else.

But some folks consider the possibility or using their handguns on larger, tougher things than humans. This is one reason why LE in rural areas stayed with magnum revolvers much longer than in urban areas. Some still do. It is not uncommon at all for wildlife or livestock to wander into traffic, be injured and have to be put down by someone with a gun. Rural areas at times deal with large predators and 40 S&W has been successfully used to take down 400-500 lb bear on several occasions. An officer in a urban area stopped a 400 lb tiger that had escaped from a zoo several years back with a 40 cal pistol too.

A 180-200 gr bullet fired from a 40 S&W or 10mm @ 1100-1300 fps is going to work in that application far better than anything fired from a 9mm or 45. The end results will be virtually the same as with most magnum revolvers.

I know the 40 wasn't invented for that role, but it does offer a level of versatility that 9mm or 45 can't match. There is room in my safe for all of them.

[BarryLee]

Ten years ago I never really even considered the .40S&W when I looked at new guns. However, about two years ago I was looking for something different and since I already owned guns in most of the popular calibers, including many duplicate calibers, I decided to get something different.

So, I picked up an HK USP40 and was blown away with how accurate and fun to shoot this gun is. Since then it’s become my preferred home defense gun and I always in the rotation at the range.

[Skans]

The goal should be to have one firearm each for: .380, 9mm, 40, .357, .45acp. If you can afford, then add: 10mm, 44 magnum, and .357 Sig and 38 Super to that as well.

Then go to WalMart and take an inventory of what pistol ammo they have available. If they have lots of boxes of XX caliber ammo, then buy a gun in that caliber as well. Because, when the next ammo shortage hits, you will have a 9 times better chance of finding ammo to shoot with than the guy who swears him/herself to one caliber.

[BarryLee]

better chance of finding ammo to shoot with than the guy who swears him/herself to one caliber.

Yes, I think one reason I shot my USP40 so much over the last couple of years is that .40S&W ammo seemed more readily available than 9mm.

[Dragline45]

The goal should be to have one firearm each for: .380, 9mm, 40, .357, .45acp. If you can afford, then add: 10mm, 44 magnum, and .357 Sig and 38 Super to that as well.

Then go to WalMart and take an inventory of what pistol ammo they have available. If they have lots of boxes of XX caliber ammo, then buy a gun in that caliber as well. Because, when the next ammo shortage hits, you will have a 9 times better chance of finding ammo to shoot with than the guy who swears him/herself to one caliber.

Or you could just stock up for that one caliber instead of buying smaller stockpiles of a bunch of different calibers.

The majority of my handguns are 9mm, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Guv]

What Jmr40 said is one of the reasons I like the 40. While I have allot of choices my favorite side arms while hog or deer hunting are a SP101 357 or my Beretta 96INOX with some 180gr Ranger HP's.

[N R A]

It is interesting how some people in this thread have strong feelings one way or the other over a caliber. I could see a favorite brand of car, hair color on girls, and lots of other preferences, but strong almost prejudice hatred of a handgun caliber?

When I switched from 10mm to .40 it was not a dogmatic epiphany, it is just that my local WM quit stocking 10mm, and they had lots of .40.

Like someone said in another thread, does not matter what you shoot, matters what you hit.

[Wheelgun]

For me it's a yes, I do feel the same about the round. I liked it when it first came out, and I still like it today. Every once in a while I start feeling nostalgic and carry my old .357mag, but I mostly tend to carry an auto in .40 these days.

[44 AMP]

The goal should be to have one firearm each for: .380, 9mm, 40, .357, .45acp. If you can afford, then add: 10mm, 44 magnum, and .357 Sig and 38 Super to that as well.

Who's goal is that, yours? Or are you suggesting it for all of us?

I do find it interesting how you group the calibers. Also, you didn't specify, although the calibers you listed imply you are thinking primarily of pistols for defensive use. Although the inclusion of the .44 Mag means you are reaching a bit outside the usual defensive caliber group.

I don't have a .380. I do have a .32ACP that could be a .380 in the same gun, and frankly, I'm fine with the .32, while its not much of a gun, it is a gun.

If the goal is to have something in each caliber possible, that one thing. Or if the goal is to have all the calibers a certain model, or class of pistol comes in, that's another thing. And its perfectly fine to have a gun in a certain caliber, just because one is curious about it. I've got several in that category.

But if you are advising to get guns in these calibers as your necessary battery, I have to wonder why, and why you picked which as "first" and others as "additional" when you can afford it?

I have a lot of personal experience with some of the rounds listed, and a little personal experience with all of them. And for me, the .380, .357 Sig, .38 Super, and 10mm don't have much to recommend them, over the other calibers I already have.

While there is a practical advantage to having the "popular" calibers, I think if your choice of which one is solely based on what you can find at Walmart, I think you ought to consider additional things.

I'm a dinosaur, and a bit fossilized, I still use 7rnd mags in my 1911s. Round capacity isn't really a critical matter for me. Heck, I even use revolvers! (and for sport, a single shot, sometimes). So arguments about .40 giving more rnds than .45 are, for me, rather moot. Other folks have other considerations, and I'm not saying its not something worth considering, just that round capacity is again, only one factor.

Other than the pleasure of ownership, and the curiosity, and learning the hands on reality of the caliber and gun, if you have a 9mm or a .40, or a .45 that you like, why bother with either of the others?

I never got interested in the .40 (or the 10mm) simply because when they came out, I already had 9mms, .38/.357s .44s & .45s, and there was nothing they did that wasn't already covered one way or another by what I already had. The same goes for the .357 Sig. They were mildly interesting, I checked them out a bit, but never felt a need to own them, having a friend or two who did own them, for me to check out.

If the .40 (in whatever gun) is your thing, enjoy it. I don't think you are unarmed, or underarmed. I just don't see it as anything special enough to warrant me adding it to my battery. I'm not in law enforcement, live in the country, and have more than enough choices to fill my needs, so I'm not in the market.

[DA/SA Fan]

I like the 40. I think being the top caliber for a 9mm sized gun frame makes it a great caliber. I do hate the way it came about though! I would have preferred that the 10mm had really grabbed hold and become popular in larger framed guns before the 40 came about. I used to hate the 40 because of what it did to the 10mm but now days I just see it for the great caliber that it is.........Just wish there were a lot more choices in 10mm guns and hot loads available in 10mm.

[Guv]

The 40S&W and the 92 Beretta discussions, seem to raise more emotions than any other cartridge or pistol topic on here, on both sides.

[zombieslayer]

I bought my first .40 a few years ago, when it was the only ammo on the shelves here locally and I got curious. I like it a lot. To each his or her own. I son't see the point in debating these things. I was impressed with the destructive power the .40 showed in my backyard against melons and concrete blocks.

[Skans]

I do find it interesting how you group the calibers. Also, you didn't specify, although the calibers you listed imply you are thinking primarily of pistols for defensive use. Although the inclusion of the .44 Mag means you are reaching a bit outside the usual defensive caliber group.

Yes, I'm just discussing handguns since this is a handgun forum. Rifle/Carbine cartridges would open the list up to at least 5, perhaps 10, more guns for those cartridges.

I agree, 44 magnum is generally too powerful for me to use in a defense pistol But, I have a DE 44 magnum, and it wouldn't make a horrible home defense pistol if everything else dried up. It would be my "go-to" home defense pistol, ranked just before my AR pistol, Gwinn Arm-Pistol or other novelty "assault pistols" I have just for fun. Of course, my Ruger LC9 and Glock 17 are further up on that list than the DE for home defense.

You know, .32acp might be something to consider. Not a cartridge I generally like, but when .380 was nearly impossible to find......why not?

[N R A]

How I got a .40 on my hips is cart before the horse. I was in walmart at the height of the recent ammo shortage when an employee puts out two 250 round mega pacs of .40 on the empty ammo shelf. I had long thought of buying a .40. I owned ammo six months before I owned the gun to shoot it. The gun (G22C, G23C and G27) and round are great little brothers to my 10mm's.

[CowTowner]

I own two .40 Short & Wimpy guns. A CZ-40B and a Baby Eagle FS Steel. Both nice shooting guns. But I prefer the 10mm Auto cartridge for some reason. Guess that's why I have a 1911 Commander style Fusion in 10mm Auto as my primary carry piece.

[Crankgrinder]

All my shooting life I've had a 9mms, then a .357,then a .45 acp. Can't say a 40 will do anything the stuff I got won't do but I have to say I've been thinking about a 40 more and more. I don't know if it's I can't make up my mind on what I want or if it's I just want one in every flavor. When I bought my 9s it was ammo was more plentiful and much less expensive. All that's changed, these days it's almost hard to ask if any 9mms and if it is it's about two dollars less. 40 has been everywhere before during and after both panics.

[Bongo Boy]

Wow. Not quite a caliber war yet. Almost. Not quite.

What I think is just hilarious though is the "any practical difference" and "in any real-world situation" arguments. They are just too funny. Like anyone who spends any time on the internet knows anything about either of these.

I love this. "Return to target" and and "follow up shot" stuff. My goodness it's worth a million bucks to read about "follow up shots". I'm thinking that's so important I'm a fool for not carrying .380 ACP.

And here I'm thinking that getting a first shot is so unlikely it hardly matters what I'm shooting, but only to find out that follow up shots are really important, too. Wow. Just like at the IDPA matches. I'll have to reflect for a moment on the importance of those follow-up shots in 'real world' situations. But shucks...now I have to find 'real-world' situations where follow-up shots happened. Hmmm. Gotta a lot of real world situations where a lot of shooting happened, just not sure if it was 'follow up' or not.

OMG what a fantasy world. I can 'follow up' with 40, 45 and 10 just as quickly as I can follow up with 9mm in any situation I consider practical or remotely realistic. I think 40SW is an okay cartridge. I think 9mm stinks. It's fairly simple--I shoot what I enjoy shooting because I'm more likely to die from a heart attack while getting struck by lightning skydiving than from a dweebus attacking me with a lethal weapon. If I am attacked by someone with a lethal weapon, I'd be happy to be armed with 9mm. I'll be armed with 40SW, 45 or 10mm though...so I'll die a little bit happier I guess.

[Bongo Boy]

The goal should be to have one firearm each for: .380, 9mm, 40, .357, .45acp. If you can afford, then add: 10mm, 44 magnum, and .357 Sig and 38 Super to that as well.

Well, only if you want to have a bunch of guns in a variety of calibers. I have no use for or interest in .380 or 9mm (useless bs calibers that solve no problem I have) or .357 Sig (why?). So, that's NOT a goal I think anyone should have.

The goal should be to be an incredibly effective shooter, or to be an incredibly happy shooter, or both. The first if you want to defend yourself, be accurate or win shooting games. The second if you shoot because you like the 'bang'. Both are totally consistent and mutually-supportive goals.

Owning guns in calibers is, to me, mindless. No more meaningful than owning roller skates in different colors.

[DA/SA Fan]

Doin' your best to make it a caliber war though!

[jtmckinney]

I grew up with a Ruger Standard 22lr as the home protection firearm. This same pistol passed to me from my father and served as the only firearm in a home protection role for many years. I didn't become interested in center fire pistols until around 2008 when I realized that if I had to use it in self or home defense it would probably be confisgated and I may loose it forever.

2008 was also around the time I became interested in protecting the Second Ammendment and reading gun forums including this one. I read all the caliber wars, shot several different calibers including the most commented ones here and when I decided on 40SW it was because that seemed to be the right choice for me. I am a big heavy built man and recoil tollerant. 9mm and 45ACP were the others that got the most consideration and of these two the 45would probably have got the nod. It could been have revolver calibers but I hadn't discovered how much I love revolvers yet, something I have since corrected.

Again 40SW was the right choice for me at the time I made it. If I was a smaller man that had trouble controlling the 40 I would probably have chosen 9mm.

To answer the OP my history with this debate doesn't go back quite 10 years but I still feel the same way as I did 6 years ago when I first considered the 40SW.