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

[RX-79G]

That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?

It appears to be more of the latter.

[subhuman]

I believe you, not arguing that point but my disdain for the 9mm will not change, it is the last gun i will carry, on the other hand my wife carries and loves 9mm and looks at my guns like they are nasty spiders but I'm confident that her 9mm Shield will get the job done if she has to use it and may god have mercy on anybody she has to draw on because she can shoot

[Dragline45]

That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?

I would say a little of both. As bullet technology improved, and as more studies have been done, more people are adopting the 9mm. I know far more people dropping down from .40 to 9mm because of this, and it is also becoming a trend for many PD's and agencies as well.

[Sevens]

That's kinda my point: Did 9mm actually improve that much, or did the perception of 9mm change?

It appears to be more of the latter.

I definitely would not argue against the quoted text. At the same time I will freely admit that I simply don't have the certain answers. And I'm suspect of folks who believe that they do.

When I was in my formative shooting years (late 80s), the 9mm was compared most often to the .38 Special, just about as "effective" but with twice or 3x the ammo on board. Where does .38 Special sit these days?

And where does the .380 Auto fall in place in the discussion?

It seems to me that every single different round out there falls in a different place according to whomever happens to be discussing it at that moment.

[SansSouci]

Handguns & cartridges for self-defense often come down to preference, sometimes subjective.

When the .40 S&W was introduced, I had no opinion of it. Around 1997 I bought a P-229 in .40 S&W. It is the most reliable handgun I own, and that includes revolvers. I have come to believe that the .40 S&W is the second best self-defense handgun cartridge. I'd rather have a .40 S&W than a .357 Mag. If fact, for many reasons, I do not consider the .357 Mag a good self-defense choice. Besides it being a revolver with limited capacity and time-consuming to reload only six more rounds, its muzzle blast is disorienting, its muzzle flash blinding, and its recoil, especially with light guns, excessive. All of these factors cause sight picture retention -a potentially life saving criterion extremely crucial were a bad guy shooting at a good guy- dicey at best.

For self-defense, I prefer heavy for caliber bullets. I am not if the light & fast corner. I want a bullet that will penetrate, preferably through-and-through. I'd much rather have through-and-through penetration than a bullet that's supposed to expand. I will go with an expanding bullet as long as I don't have to compromise what I consider more crucial criteria. I do not like frangible bullets. I want a self-defense bullet to retain its original weight.

Since .40 caliber self-defense projectiles are optimized at 180 grains at a nominal 1000 FPS, I see no benefit of the 10MM for that application. I'll take more .40 S&W rounds than less of the more powerful 10MM rounds. The 10MM would be superior for trail use.

I've remained of the opinion that the 1911A1 in .45 ACP is the best self-defense handgun. However, a P-229 with 13 180 grain rounds is a very close second.

I would definitely recommend the .40 S&W for self-defense. And I consider the P-229 one of the best handguns made.

For those who prefer the 9MM, .357 Sig, 10MM, etc, I'm good. After all, your choices will have to be what's right for you.

[Webleymkv]

I'm still pretty ambivalent about it. I don't think it's a bad cartridge, but at the same time I don't think it's head and shoulders above the other popular "service" handgun cartridges either. Honestly, about the only interest I'd have in buying a gun in .40 S&W is to have another caliber choice when ammo gets scarce as it did in 2008/2009 and 2012/2013. Beyond that, I already own semi-autos in 9mm, 10mm, and .45 ACP as well as revolvers in .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Special, and .44 Magnum and I just don't see a .40 being able to do anything that I couldn't accomplish with at least one of those other calibers.

As to the notion of the 9mm improving so much, I think one needs to understand that the 9mm needed more improving to begin with. To understand this, you really need to look back more than 10 years, more like 20-25 years when the .40 first debuted. Back then, bullets which we consider very dated like Winchester Silvertip and Federal Hydra-Shok were the latest and greatest. The 9mm, at that time, basically offered two choices: a light, fast 115gr bullet which expanded well, often to the point of fragmentation, but didn't penetrate very deeply or a heavier, slower 147gr bullet which penetrated quite well but didn't expand reliably.

The .40 S&W and .45 ACP, on the other hand offered large enough hollowpoint cavities to expand at lower velocities than the 9mm and, even with lighter, faster bullets, could still sling a heavy enough bullet to penetrate reasonably well even if they fragmented moderately. Revolver rounds like .38 Special and .357 Magnum could also use bullets of different construction, like dead-soft swaged lead or semi-jacketed hollowpoints which wouldn't reliably feed in a semi-automatic and Magnums simply had enough sheer horsepower to make bullets which would act like FMJ at 9mm velocities expand.

You must also remember that, even after better bullets like Gold Dots or Black Talon/SXT/Ranger came to be, their availability was often limited. The Black Talon in particular was only offered to the non-LE market for a short time before Winchester restricted it to the Ranger line due to bad PR. Also, until the late 90's the internet was in its infancy and mail-order/online ammo sales were not what they are today. Simply put, many people were restricted in their choice of ammo to what they could find in stock locally and, if all that was available was older JHP designs, the .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP could make better use of them.

Today, however, modern JHP designs have allowed the lighter, faster 9mm loadings to hold together and penetrate better and the heavier, slower ones to expand reliably. While those same improvements have also been applied to the other service cartridges, the difference isn't as noticeable because they weren't all that bad to begin with. Also, most modern JHP bullets, regardless of caliber, are all designed to do pretty much the same thing: expand to 1.5-2x their original diameter and penetrate 12-16". While modern .40 S&W bullets can certainly do this, many of the older ones could too so the difference between the .40 and 9mm has shrunk.

[boxing21]

I'm one of those who dislike it. I carry one for work, and am pretty pumped to hear that my dept is going to 9mm, following suit of the FBI. I'll take the reduced felt recoil of the 9x19 any day, with modern ballistics being very similar.

[N R A]

According to Massad Ayoob, whom I respect at a 90% + level, the best one shot stop round from LE statics is the .357 caliber.

Contrast that with James Yeager that I trust about half the time (if that) , the only real option is 9mm or .45. I only mention Yeager in this thread, because he thinks .40 is the antichrist. Lol. Because he thinks this round is so bad, it must be good!

[Guv]

I'll take a .40, 155 hp at 1250 over a .355, 115 hp at the same velocity.

[Mike Irwin]

I sure do!

I didn't really want one 10 years ago, and I don't really want one now.

[wojtekimbier]

I know it's off topic but...
People are absolutely right saying that 9mm, .45acp and .40/.357sig are pretty much equal.
To people claiming that .40 is significantly more powerful: you're right too, it is more powerful. But the increased power doesn't make a major difference in real world effectiveness.

What I'm saying is:
Because the .40 has 25-35% more "energy" (or any "power factor" you like) than 9mm doesn't mean the .40 is 25-35% better at stopping bad guys. In practice they are almost equally effective.

You should all read this study by Greg Ellifritz (if you haven't already).

[Skans]

I really like the .40 with my STI LS40. That gun is overkill for 9mm and .45 would make it too thick. .40 S&W is easy enough to shoot in that little all-steel gun. Believe it or not, I've even pocket carry the LS40 occasionally with a wallet-type holster. In any event, the LS40 is my only .40 among many 9mm's .45's and even a lone 10mm.

[jmr40]

If I were limited to 1 semi-auto handgun caliber it would be 40. I feel no different now, than 10 years ago on that. The 9mm does what most people need a handgun to do, but the 40 offers some advantages. Although most people will never take advantage of them. I have owned several in the past and would 10X rather have 40 than 45, even if the mag capacity were the same. I'd just as soon have 9mm as 45 even if the mag capacity were the same. But I ain't selling my 45's, just because I like them.

But for someone who owns multiple guns, the 40 could probably be left off. For years I didn't own one. I felt my 9mm, 45, and 10mm pistols along with 357 and 44 magnum revolvers covered all the bases well enough.

I've recently corrected that. With the better loads and heavier bullets it will come close enough to 357 mag revolver loads if needed with less recoil and blast. It offers the same, or nearly so mag capacity as 9mm, depending on the model. With slightly better performance than 9mm or 45. Recoil is an issue with some, but it is still far easier to control than any magnum revolver.

I can understand the shift back to 9mm though. It is still a very effective round most of the time. And there is no denying it is cheaper to shoot and with less recoil.

[lee n. field]

According to Massad Ayoob, whom I respect at a 90% + level, the best one shot stop round from LE statics is the .357 caliber.

Oh, never mind.

[mbott]

Oh, never mind.

--
Mike

[Kennydale]

I'm thinking of switching to 9mm. I shoot Ruger SR40C no problems. Rented a G23 and my hand was Killing me. I am 64 maybe time to lighten recoil.

[SansSouci]

Webleymkv,

Excellent post.

[fourdegrees11]

I'm thinking of switching to 9mm. I shoot Ruger SR40C no problems. Rented a G23 and my hand was Killing me. I am 64 maybe time to lighten recoil.

There's always lower recoil ammo to shoot. Not sure what you're shooting now though?

[fourdegrees11]

You should all read this study by Greg Ellifritz (if you haven't already).

So this study shows that .40 S&W has a "higher One-shot-stop %" and "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" then both 9mm and 45 ACP...

There's a lot that could skew the data in that study making it almost a useless comparison. There's also nothing that shows the .40 as not being a good choice.

[krimmie]

I traded my last 9mm this year, it's .40 S&W and .45 for me from now on; I like the round, and I shoot it well...but I will be getting a .357 Sig barrel for my P229 soon.

During the ammo craze, I never had a problem finding .40, and the cost of the ammo is not that much more than 9mm has become. Locally, I just purchased Fiocchi FMJ for the .40 for $13.99/50...the 9mm was $11.99. For those of you that shoot handguns a bunch, I'm sure that difference is significant, but I only shoot around 150 rounds a month from a handgun...don't ask how much money I spend on shotgun ammo though(my wife can hear the words I type

[Noreaster]

Great round but if I didn't have it issued to me I wouldn't be so invested in it. I find follow up shots are quicker for me with a 9mm and 45acp. Nothing wrong with the 40S&W at all, like I said it's a great round. With regards to rounds the 165 grain load is as light as I will take my 40S&W. The 155 and 135 grain rounds tend to beat up guns.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I do feel the same about 40 as I use too....evidently the FBI doesn't (going back to 9mm ?)! Crazy that we go through the trouble of developing a more powerful round only to say its too powerful and reduce the power to say its still too much so lets go back to where we started...crazy if you ask me how long it took for them to figure out what they really wanted.

Just for me the added recoil of the 40 is not that unmanageable in a decent sized gun, but in a compact it shows it's recoil teeth a bit more. I have to say without a 10mm in my hand as an alternative, the 40 will do. YMMV.

[seeker_two]

The recent ammo shortage has changed my mind about owning a .40S&W. While I still want a pocket 9mm, I may also get a .40S&W full-size gun and a 9mm barrel so I can keep in practice no matter what.


BTW, what model gun does best with the .40S&W/9mm conversion barrels?

[mavracer]

I feel exactly the same about the 40 as always, it's still the answer to the question I didn't ask.

[wojtekimbier]

I'm sorry for my english but I'm tired while writing this.

Originally Posted by fourdegrees11

There's a lot that could skew the data in that study making it almost a useless comparison.

This is real data from real world based on many hundreds of real shootings. Statistics are not perfect in any way but are way more accurate for comparison than any calculation on paper.

Originally Posted by fourdegrees11

There's also nothing that shows the .40 as not being a good choice.

I've never said .40 is a bad choice. I said people claiming .40 is much more effective than 9mm because of "27% more kinetic energy"or "higher power factor" are wrong.

Originally Posted by fourdegrees11

So this study shows that .40 S&W has a "higher One-shot-stop %" and "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" then both 9mm and 45 ACP...

This study shows that one shot of 9mm (mostly FMJ) is only 5 percentage points less effective than one shot of the "mighty" .40 S&W (comparing "incapacitated by one shot").

Originally Posted by Greg Ellifritz

A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner.

That means if they used similar types of bullets, the difference between 9mm and .40 S&W would be even less than 5 percentage points.
What is also important is the "failure rate" near the end of the article I guess you didn't bother to read.
Both .40 S&W and 9mm failed to incapacitate bad guys in 13% of all shootings.
In other words, both 9mm and .40 S&W guns managed to incapacitate the threat 87% of the time.

I'm not saying 9mm is superior or .40 S&W is a bad choice. I'm not saying .40 S&W is superior or 9mm is a bad choice.
I'm saying that, despite what some people claim, neither is significantly better or more effective in real world. 9mm gives slightly more capacity. .40 gives slightly more power. Choose whatever you like, what you can find on the shelves, what you can afford and what you feel more confident with. In practice, they both work equally well.

Be safe