40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

[Forte S+W]

Personally. I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase something as expensive as a firearm if they weren't sure that they were going to keep it indefinitely and frankly feel that anyone who buys a firearm — presumably on impulse — then sells it later at a substantial loss has nobody but themselves to blame.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

Personally. I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase something as expensive as a firearm if they weren't sure that they were going to keep it indefinitely and frankly feel that anyone who buys a firearm — presumably on impulse — then sells it later at a substantial loss has nobody but themselves to blame.

I’ve owned many firearms, a number of which I have since sold or traded. I have the disposable income to do so, and for me getting to use and learn about those different firearms is worth any money I lose on the sale. I don’t “blame” anyone for what is a willful decision on my part. I have found that what people “get out of” owning a firearm is as varied as the people themselves.

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Miami_JBT

I shoot .45 GAP out of my 625. Just clean the cylinder.

Why?
Did you inherit a case of the stuff?

[Pumpkin]

I stopped getting rid of guns because of waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweats.
If I want something today, I just add rather than sell or trade to finance the new one.
I miss some of my old guns much more than any girlfriends I had.

[wild cat mccane]

Point being, that decline in value of a 40 P229 or a trade in G22 or VP40...supports the original statement/question.

[JohnKSa]

Why?
Did you inherit a case of the stuff?

There are a couple of reasons to shoot shorter cartridges in a revolver.

1. The ejection is more positive and tends to be easier with shorter cases.
2. The wobble is less (or rather has less effect) with the shorter cases in a moon clip which makes loading a bit more sure.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

So what your saying is, go buy 40s because everyone is deciding to get rid of theirs.... interesting logic.

L.E. agencies that had adopted 40 are going back to 9mm. There are a lot of 40 LE trades floating around. Nothing wrong with 40, but the FBI went back to 9 and all the monkey see monkey do agencies are following.

[JohnKSa]

It's very much like the old military surplus deals. It wasn't like tons of people desperately wanted rifles chambered in 6.5x55Swedish, but when you could get a really nice, really accurate rifle for around $100, the fact that WalMart didn't carry 6.5Swede ammo was something a lot of people found very easy to overlook.

[Red Devil]

The train one never misses - is the train one never got off.

.40 S&W - Designed to out-perform and replace the 9mm, and even better at doing that today.




Red

[dogtown tom]

Red Devil The train one never misses - is the train one never got off.

Or the train you did get off.
Or you chose to fly.
Or you took an Uber and never got on the train to begin with.

It's a nonsensical statement.
Especially when you realize the train was headed someplace you didn't want to go, like Pine Bluff.

.40 S&W - Designed to out-perform and replace the 9mm, and even better at doing that today.

That's debatable. If it was "better", it wouldn't be in the state it is today. "Better" could mean more velocity, more energy, more capacity, more "stopping power".

It could also be viewed negatively as in more recoil, more difficult to shoot accurately, more wear or more expensive.

It ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Or the train you did get off.
Or you chose to fly.
Or you took an Uber and never got on the train to begin with.

It's a nonsensical statement.
Especially when you realize the train was headed someplace you didn't want to go, like Pine Bluff.


That's debatable. If it was "better", it wouldn't be in the state it is today. "Better" could mean more velocity, more energy, more capacity, more "stopping power".

It could also be viewed negatively as in more recoil, more difficult to shoot accurately, more wear or more expensive.

It ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

So, apart from your gibberish fallacy opener...

You dispute both the origin and effectiveness of a cartridge that you appear to be clueless about.

... Based on the fact that, after being the purpose built replacement for the 9mm and ubiquitous law enforcement cartridge for Twenty-Five(25) Years - the FBI, and their subsequent requirement to arm All agents, even clerical women and limp-wristed males, somehow reflects poorly on the outstanding performance of the .40 S&W?

Do tell.


Red

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

You dispute both the origin and effectiveness of a cartridge that you appear to be clueless about.

... Based on the fact that, after being the purpose built replacement for the 9mm and ubiquitous law enforcement cartridge for Twenty-Five(25) Years - the FBI, and their subsequent requirement to arm All agents, even clerical women and limp-wristed males, somehow reflects poorly on the outstanding performance of the .40 S&W?

So I’m at a loss then why upper echelon law enforcement and military units have also adopted the 9mm in favor of the superior 40SW. I guess I didn’t realize their ranks were also full of clerical women and limp-worsted males. Like Tom, I guess I’m “clueless” in that matter.

We’re talking handgun cartridges. I would like to think we can do so without tired cliches and veiled ad hominems.

[Pumpkin]

Not sure military (FMJ) and domestic law enforcement (expanding bullets) requirements are the same.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

Not sure military (FMJ) and domestic law enforcement (expanding bullets) requirements are the same.

The US military adopted a hollowpoint round as part of the Modular Handgun System contract.

https://sofrep.com/gear/u-s-army-ado...ow-point-ammo/

This is not me saying 9mm > 40SW. This is me saying that the idea that the switch was solely to enable marginal shooters to pass a qualification is to me unfounded, which I would argue can be seen in the use of 9mm by certain units (both law enforcement and military) before and after the FBI switched.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

The US military adopted a hollowpoint round as part of the Modular Handgun System contract.

https://sofrep.com/gear/u-s-army-ado...ow-point-ammo/

This is not me saying 9mm > 40SW. This is me saying that the idea that the switch was solely to enable marginal shooters to pass a qualification is to me unfounded, which I would argue can be seen in the use of 9mm by certain units (both law enforcement and military) before and after the FBI switched.

The military was also slow to give up the .45 ACP, and some SWAT units still use it. The military is also enamored with capacity and weight, so overhauling the supply chain for a marginally better, more expensive, heavier, and lower capacity round doesn't make sense.

The FBI? Also had to contend with qualifying AND equipping this new hoard of woman clerical workers and limp-wristed males - a considerable increase in the ammo and training budget.

And as 9mm is considered "good enough" w/ current loading, and the woman clerical workers and limp-wristed males not needing it at all, why not BS the agency into a cheaper and easier to shoot budget item.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the performance of the superior .40/180 gr. load.

More expensive/recoil/energy/expansion/effective?

Yes.

Prohibitive, or even incidental to Law Enforcement or the civilian SD gun owner?

No.

It was the standard for Twenty-Five(25) years.

The .40 S&W has both a subsonic muzzle velocity and the same energy as the .45 ACP, as well as the 10mm performance the FBI deemed optimal, in a 9mm form factor pistol that fits most hands sans a coupla rounds in the double-stack magazine.

IF - a stop requires 2-3 good hits, where the .40 is closer to 2, and the 9mm is closer to 3? (and most data bears that out, excluding the time to incapacitation, which favors bigger holes)

3, is 50% more hits than 2.

And requires 50% more rounds fired to achieve those 50% more hits, which, in turn, will generate an additional number of missed rounds to achieve those 50% more hits as well.

The extra rounds in the magazine don't really cover the added exposure.

Not to mention the Time required to fire all those extra rounds.


The .40 S&W just requires marksmanship skills marginally in excess of those required for the 9mm.

So, if one chooses, enjoy the popular, less expensive, less effective, higher capacity option that is easier to shoot, or not.

The .40 S&W is not only a better round than the 9mm at its inception, it is a better round than the 9mm today.

If one can shoot it well.

Skill is like that.




Red

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

If one can shoot it well.

Skill is like that.


Red

You’re willfully ignoring the people and units that have the discretion to choose essentially whatever they want for equipment and still choose 9mm so that you can continue to push your narrative of the decision being a result of people lacking skill. I’ve had one on one discussions with Kyle Lamb who was in Delta Force and talked about the unit’s time with 40SW before going to 9mm. Again, this is not just “clerical women and limp wristed males”. That language takes away from your argument because of the ease by which we can find examples of people that chose 9mm and don’t fall under that description.

The rest of your arguments above are conjecture without seemingly any data to back them up. Yes 40SW was the standard for a period of time. To go back to your train analogy, the point of being on a train isn’t to just stay on the train. The goal of being on the train is to get somewhere. If there is another train or mode of transportation that can get you there faster then it may make sense to use that instead. There is no guarantee that the incapacitation of a threat will take 50% more shots with 9mm than 40SW. That’s a number seemingly out of nowhere, and if we’re going to go the route of just inventing numbers then this back and forth will go on forever and lacks meaning.

The FBI published a white paper back when they transitioned back to 9mm. You’re welcome to read it. You also have the option to completely dismiss it as fake justification to cover for “clerical women and limp wristed males”.

https://www.gunnuts.net/wp-content/u...paper-2014.pdf

[JohnKSa]

The FBI? Also had to contend with qualifying AND equipping this new hoard of woman clerical workers and limp-wristed males - a considerable increase in the ammo and training budget.

What "new hoard"? You have some numbers or data or anything that might be loosely termed as evidence to support the idea that the FBI was having more trouble qualifying/equipping new recruits?

Not that any of this has anything to do with the performance of the superior .40/180 gr. load.

Please quantify this superiority in terms of actual performance difference on the street. If you can, the whole world wants to know. If you can't, consider yourself in good company. People have been trying for a long time and have been failing. Which is:

1. Why the debate continues. Once there's actual evidence that it makes a measurable difference in the outcome of real-world shootings, it's over.

2. Very good evidence that the difference, if it does exist, is very small. If it were significant, why would it be so hard for all the people and organizations that have been trying, to prove it exists and to quantify it?

IF - a stop requires 2-3 good hits, where the .40 is closer to 2, and the 9mm is closer to 3? (and mo...

It's the 'IF' that is the problem, isn't it. If there weren't an 'IF', then the debate would be over. It's precisely because it is an 'IF' that people have to resort to speculation, insulting those who disagree, assertions without hard evidence to support them and statements of personal opinion as opposed to being able to actually provide real data.

Here's what this boils down to. No one has been able to categorically demonstrate that the outcome of real-world shootings is significantly affected by caliber choices within the "service pistol class". That's a simple fact.

Given that fact, which makes more sense?

1. Assume that there is a difference and that it's significant.

2. Assume that if there is a difference it can't be significant or it would have been detected and quantified by now given all the time and effort that has been put into achieving that goal.

[Forte S+W]

People really need to stop regurgitating urban legends like the FBI replaced 10mm Auto with .40 S&W followed by 9mm Parabellum because of female agents and paper pushers.

Was the fact that all agents could more easily handle 9mm and score higher in training with it accurate? Absolutely, but that's just it, they didn't set out to replace .40 S&W because their agents were struggling with it, they replaced it because 9mm was less expensive first and foremost, then was the fact that it met their specifications for a duty round, and lastly because agents were scoring better with it in training.

The FBI had no valid reason to continue using .40 S&W when 9mm Parabellum was less expensive, still met their specifications, and was easier to shoot. Their decision was perfectly sound in that regard and I don't feel that they in any way gimped their agents by dropping .40 S&W.

For all the stuff I've heard about .40 S&W being dropped because their agents were weak, I've never previously nor subsequently heard anything to suggest that FBI Agents were struggling with .40 S&W, they simply shot 9mm better, which makes sense seeing as it has less felt recoil.

So if anyone is going to slam the FBI over said decision, then they might as well do so in a more accurate fashion by framing it as; "The FBI only dropped .40 S&W because of bureaucratic bean counters!" or if you really want to spice it up; "The FBI only dropped .40 S&W because they're cheapskates!"

Regardless, 9mm Parabellum is obviously adequate as a Duty Cartridge, so there's not much sense in getting worked up over it for anything other than petulant reasons like Law Enforcement no longer using your preferred cartridge.

[dogtown tom]

Red Devil
So, apart from your gibberish fallacy opener...

So you don't really take a train, miss a train, get off the train?
The wheels on the bus go round and round my man.

You dispute both the origin and effectiveness of a cartridge that you appear to be clueless about.

Uh.......what?
Point out where I even mentioned the origin or the effectiveness of the cartridge.

I'm not clueless about the .40 being that I own and shoot four of them regularly.

... Based on the fact that, after being the purpose built replacement for the 9mm and ubiquitous law enforcement cartridge for Twenty-Five(25) Years - the FBI, and their subsequent requirement to arm All agents, even clerical women and limp-wristed males, somehow reflects poorly on the outstanding performance of the .40 S&W?

Yet..... CURRENTLY....no military or federal LE wants anything to do with the .40.....and those that still carry it are dumping them as fast as budgets allow. Same with .357Sig.


I know it hurts .40cal fanboys that their favorite cartridge has fallen out of favor. That ain't my fault.

[dogtown tom]

Red Devil
....The FBI? Also had to contend with qualifying AND equipping this new hoard of woman clerical workers and limp-wristed males....

Please tell us what "clerical workers" in the FBI are issued firearms.

And its horde, not hoard.

It was the standard for Twenty-Five(25) years.

Which is kinda pathetic.

And it WAS NOT "the standard" for twenty five years. The FBI did not begin issuing the .40S&W until 1997. Switching back to the 9mm in 2016.
Thats nineteen years with the FBI.

Even the wimpy girly man 9mm has been a standard longer. The US military adopting it in 1985.......thirty eight years ago.

T W I C E.......A S......L O N G !

If you want to convince others of the superiority of the .40........ya gotta do better.

[radom]

Its a easy deal just look at the energy figures for the 9mm vs the .40 and the .357 sig. Now the 9mm has grow up in the US and is 1000% better as its samii spec and nato now vs down loaded crap ammo we have had till the army adopted the 9mm. But what do I know too as have .41 mags I really like too.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It's very much like the old military surplus deals. It wasn't like tons of people desperately wanted rifles chambered in 6.5x55Swedish, but when you could get a really nice, really accurate rifle for around $100, the fact that WalMart didn't carry 6.5Swede ammo was something a lot of people found very easy to overlook.

Milsurp rifles are different, I don't have a need to shoot rifles as much as I do pistols because once I sight the rifle in and find how it groups I don't need to do it again unless I change ammo.

It changes once you get to pistols and the one I see often talked about is Tokarev pistols, where guys bought them as the ammo was cheap, not because than the pistols being good or well made. What I didn't understand was why people dumped them Toks as soon as the cheap ammo dried up as they had spent a lot of time with those pistols, proved them out, and likely became proficient with them.

If I was in that same position I'm not selling that gun just because the ammo cost tripled, I keep the gun and shoot it a third of what I use to.

The .40 is different than old milsurp stuff because it's far more common and popular and supported by the industry today, thus it's still cost effective to own and shoot in comparison to milsurp. The issue that .40 has is it's not as cheap as 9mm and what is obvious is if it's not the cheapest caliber it's resented, viewed as terrible, never should have existed, etc.

One thing that I like about the .40 is it was built from the ground up to be a hollow point, which is why the bullet nose is flat. This makes it easy to make pistols run better when the FMJ and JHP ammo has the same profile. Is that worth paying more for the ammo? IDK, but my point is the .40 does have merits that make it a good choice.

[rc]

For civilians where you will be judged by the number of times you shoot an assailant, 357, 40, 44 and 45 have a distinct advantage over 9mm for home defense but there are valid lines of reasoning for the 9mm. In a commercial business where you are more likely to encounter multiple assailants during an organized robbery, more rounds with 9mm might be favorable. In ultra compact single stack carry guns, the 9mm rules for its balance of power and size. Is it really important to have 15 or 17 +1 in 99.9% of self defense shootings??? NO! Would that be an advantage in an all out fire fight with a large number of determined enemy??? YES!

I really would sleep well having a gun in any of the common self defense calibers from 38 special to 45 ACP or even 38 super by my bed. Being able to make clear tactical decisions is your most important factor for survival followed down the list by being proficient with your gun followed further down the list by the size and power of your bullets. If you connect rounds on target and are not facing a large number of enemy, magazine capacity is probably irrelevant but we know power was given up for capacity when LE went from 357mag to 9mm. Bullet size, shape, speed and type are simply choices that people make that may or may not influence the outcome of a self defense shooting depending on the interplay of many other factors including skill of the person behind the trigger.

[Red Devil]

The .40 S&W, for Twenty-Five(25) years, was, far and away, the #1 Law Enforcement round in the country, including the three letter Federal Government agencies.

With the same chamber pressure and penetration - the .40, with it's 400 ft-lb of energy and larger, heaver bullet, will do more damage to the intended target than the 9mm.

If one can not shoot it well, that is a purse-onal problem.

It changes neither the facts nor the physics.


Red

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

With the same chamber pressure and penetration - the .40, with it's 400 ft-lb of energy and larger, heaver bullet, will do more damage to the intended target than the 9mm.

If one can not shoot it well, that is a purse-onal problem.

It changes neither the facts nor the physics.


Red

The added muzzle energy doesn’t somehow only have an effect on the target and yet not impact the shooter and the shooting process. That’s not the physics work, which is especially ironic given your comments above. A person can shoot the 40SW just fine, and still notice differences as compared to 9mm.

Your repeated need to make personal insults detracts from the arguments of those that can seemingly advocate for the 40SW without resorting to ad hominems. I would say the behavior is childish, but I think that’s insulting to most of the children I know.