The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Sevens · September 22, 2011, 12:43 PM

It can be argued that the .40 S&W was ill-conceived from the very start. The following are my own opinions, not to be taken as fact, and they are part of why I view the .40 S&W not as a beginning handloader's best friend.

The .40 S&W was purpose-built by Winchester at the behest of Smith & Wesson for the single purpose of squeezing a middle-sized bore in to a handgun specifically designed around the 9mm.

When the FBI found that they didn't care for the 10mm in all it's glory (for sorted reasons that shall not be the subject of this thread) they began to ask ammo companies to reduce the load and give them a 180 grain bullet at 950 FPS. S&W looked at this request and basically said, "Sheeesh, if you are going to do THAT, we can create a new round that doesn't need this tank of a weapon we built here to handle the 10mm Auto."

That tank of a weapon was a .400" bore in a .45 Auto sized barrel blank... a smaller hole in a large-sized bar of forged steel. That barrel rides in a massive .45-sized slide, mated to a large frame handgun built around the .45 Auto round.

The .40 S&W on the other hand... is a larger .400" bore driven through the smaller .355" bore of a 9mm barrel. And that larger hole through the smaller barrel is fitted to a 9mm-sized slide, with a 9mm-sized breech face and mated to a 9mm sized frame. Everything about the .40 S&W platform is designed around the concept of shoe-horning a .40 caliber hole in a 9mm sized unit. 10mm does exactly the opposite.

On top of that, (and I almost hate to accuse Glock of some treachery here...) but on top of it, Glock managed to get a hold of the dimensions and ideas of the not-yet-to-market .40 S&W round and they managed to bore out their Glock 17 and rush that sucker to market as the G22 before Smith & Wesson even managed to get their own 4006 pistol in to the hands of shooters.

Now being that the lion's share of the world's handgun KABOOMS are usually thought to be early generation Glock .40 cals, you've got to ask yourself... "Hmmm, is there a problem with the Glock .40 cal design? Hmmm, could there be something to the idea that the .40 cal cartridge isn't as forgiving as, well, EVERY other commercial handgun cartridge ever built & marketed in modern times?"

It doesn't help that there exists NO extra space, no margin of safety and no wiggle room whatsoever in COAL in the round. How many past handloader-experience .40 cal KB's had so much more to do with unintended and unnoticed accidental bullet setback than possible over charges? How many have been due to out-of-battery discharge and not due to powder overcharges? How many have simply been due to poor support in the feed-ramp area of the "always feeds all the time" early Glock pistols, especially the .40 cal ones?

The problem with assessing the event AFTER it's happened is that you don't get to know for sure what the hell happened. It's my position that many of the KBs folks have experienced have come from unintended and unnoticed bullet setback in the .40 S&W where there simply is no room for it to happen without catastrophic results. That's a design "feature" in the .40 S&W round that many (most?) other handgun rounds don't share. When you mate that "feature" up with the fact that .40 cal pistols are purposely designed to be 9mm pistols in the first place, you have EVEN less metal around all the most critical areas of the event.

There are numerous pictures on the 'net showing how .40 cal Glock OEM barrels have evolved over time... Glock themselves have tried to clean up the mess they had a hand in, but you'll NEVER get them to admit it.

The .40 S&W is the only round that I've ever seen specific warnings about in powder manufacturer/distributor printed loads guides. Specific warnings about COAL and unintended setback specific warnings about case head support.

Now as I said... these are merely my opinions.
Personally, if the new-to-the-bench handloader in this thread were rolling .38 Special ammo for the first time to be launched from a .357 Magnum revolver, we wouldn't even bring up the subject of some of the real UGLY nasties that can happen with chamberings that have a reputation for some ugliness.

Take from this whatever you wish. You may even have fun calling me a conspiracy theorist.

Either way, it occurs to me that the .40 S&W round is somewhat ill-conceived and not a great place for a brand new handloader to start.

Me? I've never cared for the round for any purpose. I do shoot it some. I do handload it. I have never had a problem with one of my handloads. (that may be because I know going in what I'm dealing with...) In my world, .40 S&W could cease to exist and I don't think I'd lose a wink of sleep.

Ummm... until I noticed that there are NO components .40 caliber bullets in the world, and I can't feed my 10mm pistols anymore!

Then I'd jump off a cliff.

September 22, 2011, 12:43 PM	#14
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	It can be argued that the .40 S&W was ill-conceived from the very start. The following are my own opinions, not to be taken as fact, and they are part of why I view the .40 S&W not as a beginning handloader's best friend. The .40 S&W was purpose-built by Winchester at the behest of Smith & Wesson for the single purpose of squeezing a middle-sized bore in to a handgun specifically designed around the 9mm. When the FBI found that they didn't care for the 10mm in all it's glory (for sorted reasons that shall not be the subject of this thread) they began to ask ammo companies to reduce the load and give them a 180 grain bullet at 950 FPS. S&W looked at this request and basically said, "Sheeesh, if you are going to do THAT, we can create a new round that doesn't need this tank of a weapon we built here to handle the 10mm Auto." That tank of a weapon was a .400" bore in a .45 Auto sized barrel blank... a smaller hole in a large-sized bar of forged steel. That barrel rides in a massive .45-sized slide, mated to a large frame handgun built around the .45 Auto round. The .40 S&W on the other hand... is a larger .400" bore driven through the smaller .355" bore of a 9mm barrel. And that larger hole through the smaller barrel is fitted to a 9mm-sized slide, with a 9mm-sized breech face and mated to a 9mm sized frame. Everything about the .40 S&W platform is designed around the concept of shoe-horning a .40 caliber hole in a 9mm sized unit. 10mm does exactly the opposite. On top of that, (and I almost hate to accuse Glock of some treachery here...) but on top of it, Glock managed to get a hold of the dimensions and ideas of the not-yet-to-market .40 S&W round and they managed to bore out their Glock 17 and rush that sucker to market as the G22 before Smith & Wesson even managed to get their own 4006 pistol in to the hands of shooters. Now being that the lion's share of the world's handgun KABOOMS are usually thought to be early generation Glock .40 cals, you've got to ask yourself... "Hmmm, is there a problem with the Glock .40 cal design? Hmmm, could there be something to the idea that the .40 cal cartridge isn't as forgiving as, well, EVERY other commercial handgun cartridge ever built & marketed in modern times?" It doesn't help that there exists NO extra space, no margin of safety and no wiggle room whatsoever in COAL in the round. How many past handloader-experience .40 cal KB's had so much more to do with unintended and unnoticed accidental bullet setback than possible over charges? How many have been due to out-of-battery discharge and not due to powder overcharges? How many have simply been due to poor support in the feed-ramp area of the "always feeds all the time" early Glock pistols, especially the .40 cal ones? The problem with assessing the event AFTER it's happened is that you don't get to know for sure what the hell happened. It's my position that many of the KBs folks have experienced have come from unintended and unnoticed bullet setback in the .40 S&W where there simply is no room for it to happen without catastrophic results. That's a design "feature" in the .40 S&W round that many (most?) other handgun rounds don't share. When you mate that "feature" up with the fact that .40 cal pistols are purposely designed to be 9mm pistols in the first place, you have EVEN less metal around all the most critical areas of the event. There are numerous pictures on the 'net showing how .40 cal Glock OEM barrels have evolved over time... Glock themselves have tried to clean up the mess they had a hand in, but you'll NEVER get them to admit it. The .40 S&W is the only round that I've ever seen specific warnings about in powder manufacturer/distributor printed loads guides. Specific warnings about COAL and unintended setback specific warnings about case head support. Now as I said... these are merely my opinions. Personally, if the new-to-the-bench handloader in this thread were rolling .38 Special ammo for the first time to be launched from a .357 Magnum revolver, we wouldn't even bring up the subject of some of the real UGLY nasties that can happen with chamberings that have a reputation for some ugliness. Take from this whatever you wish. You may even have fun calling me a conspiracy theorist. Either way, it occurs to me that the .40 S&W round is somewhat ill-conceived and not a great place for a brand new handloader to start. Me? I've never cared for the round for any purpose. I do shoot it some. I do handload it. I have never had a problem with one of my handloads. (that may be because I know going in what I'm dealing with...) In my world, .40 S&W could cease to exist and I don't think I'd lose a wink of sleep. Ummm... until I noticed that there are NO components .40 caliber bullets in the world, and I can't feed my 10mm pistols anymore! Then I'd jump off a cliff. __________________ *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.