A better .40 pistol

[Willie Lowman]

I have owned many .40's in my life. I used to use them to make Major in USPSA. Most of my .40s were polymer striker fired wonderguns.

Some ammo makers produce .40 ammo in 135 grain or 155 grain loadings that rival .357 magnum for muzzle energy. And we all know if there is that much energy going down range then there will be stout recoil on the shooter's end. "Snappy recoil" the .40 haters like to complain about. But the lion's share of .40 pistols are polymer framed. Most of your .357 revolvers are steel framed. That puts the .40 at about 2/3 the weight of the .357. Of course you are going to experience greater recoil.

So I wonder how many people have tried .40 in a full size duty pistol with a steel frame? Something like the CZ 75 SP-01 Tactical. I would wager it to be a pleasant pistol to shoot and offer up to 526 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. That's nothing to sneeze at. Better barrier penetration. Better expansion and penetration in gel and the occasional bad guy.

So my real question is, why are so many .40's being produced in ultra light polymer frames when the caliber would really shine in a steel frame duty pistol?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Willie Lowman

So my real question is, why are so many .40's being produced in ultra light polymer frames when the caliber would really shine in a steel frame duty pistol?

Because weight of the firearm as it relates to carry, whether duty or concealed, is a factor for many. I’d personally rather carry a lighter pistol in 9mm than a heavier pistol in 40SW.

I’ll also add not all polymer framed 40SWs are that bad. I found the HK P2000 in 40SW to be about as pleasant as the same pistol chambered in 9mm and shooting +P. Frame material isn’t the only factor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amd6547]

A long time user of 9mm, and Glock owner, I couldn’t resist the cheap police surplus .40’s. I ended up getting a like new night sight equipped G22 Gen4 for a ridiculously cheap price.
At the range, I found shooting it to be nearly identical to the Gen3 G17 I’ve been shooting for years, with the +P+ and +P service ammo I use.
In fact, I like it so much that the G22 is my house gun now. I use the 180gn HST load. Makes a good woods pistol, too. I added a used Safariland holster and dual mag pouch to a GI pistol belt for a quick grab and go rig.

[Shadow9mm]

because full sized steel framed guns are heavy, harder to conceal, and more expensive. Also most militaries and law enforcement agencies have gone to the polymer wonder guns as they are lighter to carry, and less expensive, that kind of rules it out as a "duty gun"


On a side note. I was issued and carried a G22 for the first 6 or so years at my agency. It shot just fine and was more than manageable, but I shot and still shoot regularly. They switched over to G19 a few years back. The reason. Most people who don't train regularly shoot better and qualify easier with 9mm, and modern 9mm bullets and loadings are plenty adequate for 2 legged threats. Also 9mm is cheaper... a very important factor. Its not nearly all bout the power.

IMHO A big heavy steel 40cal only has 2 main uses, a range toy or a competition gun to fit in a class.

[Forte S+W]

Folks who complain about .40 S&W having snappy recoil must not shoot anything hotter than Standard Pressure 9mm Luger because when comparing pistols of similar size/weight/dimensions, the felt recoil is practically indistinguishable from 9mm +P. Furthermore, I've shot plenty of pistols with snappier recoil than .40 S&W, including ones chambered in substantially weaker cartridges than .40 S&W, such as .380 ACP. (Try shooting a small straight blowback .380 like a Walther PPK some time, now that's snappy, painful too!)
Long story short, felt recoil has more to do with the gun than the cartridge itself.

I doubt that anybody who's ever shot something like a Smith & Wesson 4006 would ever complain about it's snappy recoil.



On the subject of loads, light for caliber .40 S&W loads may have impressive energy on paper, but they don't penetrate for beans, and have snappier recoil to boot. They either expand really fast or fragment before they reach adequate depth.

If what actual performance is what your after, then don't go below 165grs. A proper 180gr load is less snappy and more effective than any of those 135gr poor-man's .357 Sig loads.

As for why there are more polymer framed .40s than steel framed, the answer is simply because they're easier to carry and therefore more desireable. I myself carry an 18.5oz Smith & Wesson M&P40 Shield in the Summertime because it's more comfortable to carry, and as snappy as it is, it's not by any means painful to shoot, nor is it difficult to control.



The S&W 4006 is obviously softer shooting, but it's an absolute tank of a pistol. Big, thick, and heavy at 39oz unloaded. Sure, one could make the argument that you're wimpy if you can't bear to carry a big old heavy slab of steel around with you everywhere you go, but one could just as easily say the same of someone who can't take the recoil of .40 S&W out of a lighter weight polymer framed pistol. Personally, I say either argument is just insecure people trying to justify their choices to others in the most faux-masculine way possible. It's a trade off one way or the other, you sacrifice comfort for power.

[Kevin Rohrer]

I carry a Gunsite/BHP in .40cal on a regular basis, which is all-steel. Others can keep their recycled baby-bottles.

[JohnMoses]

My favorite 40 is my 10mm Ruger GP100 Match Champion.

[rodfac]

I have several .40's..a 229 Sig, Colt Gold Cup Elite, Bersa, and a Browning Hi Power. Of the 4, the Colt is the most accurate (with a Wilson match bushing), the Browning fits my hands the best, and the Bersa's got the best sights (big orange dot front and a tritium rear).

Recoil is not significant on any of them...more than a 9mm of course, but easily mastered, as is the .45, with some practice. I've never understood the "Snappy" complaints voiced by some...

Shooting them, I like the Browning the best but for those who haven't tried a BHP, the slide racking force is about double any other gun. I do like Kevin R's pic...those are the sights I'd like on my BHP.

As to weight, I don't mind the feel of the Browning on my gun belt for all day carry, but then I'm well used to a Smith M19 or 66 so the weight is comparable. It's a bit lighter than the Colt BTW, just enough to notice.

Of the 4, the Sig is...well it's a Sig and has that DA/SA transition after the first shot. I do well with it, if I keep in practice, but any significant lay-off and that 2nd shot goes astray to some extent. At speed, controlled pairs from 10 yds, show two groups ~2" apart...for combat shooting, it's more than good enough, but would probably cost me some points if I was in one of the shooting games. I doubt it would make a difference on the street, and it's my opinion that the extra bullet weight helps when the chips are down.

YMMv Rod Pic is of the Colt.

[bamaranger]

I can name 2 "all steel" pistols with which I have pretty good familiarity.

Forst is a Browning HP, a fixed sight, blue/walnut version. I used to carry it quite a bit, but two annoying traits surfaced. The spur hammer ate a hole in me when riding in a vehicle and the pistol holstered at the waist in the
4 o'clock position. Additionally, I would discover the pistol with the safety disengaged while holstered, compliments of the ambi-safety while riding as well. With no grip safety, that was a concern. I liked the gun as a shooter, and it seemed extremely fast on repeat shots, due to great grip feel and heft.

The P229/.40 was a popular duty sidearm for the NPS when the agency finally switched to auto pistols in the mid 90's. There were some teething problems with either the gun or the ammo or both, as we suffered some blown extractors in the first year or so, but an improved extractor assembly and or more consistent ammo solved that. Initially, the .40 was only available in the milled slide compact P229. When the full size guns became available, the P226 appeared in .40 as well. That combo was in high demand, but many were disappointed, as the all steel guns were a good bit heavier than the compact P229, or steel/alloy 9mm-.45 models.

No figures to substantiate this claim, but the P229 .40 was likely the most issued NPS sidearm in my era, I'd guess about 50%, the .40 attractive and seen as a blend between capacity and cartridge. The 9mm and .45 making up the remaining half. All that has changed, and the SIG 320 9mm is now issue.

[BarryLee]

While not all metal I have an HK USP40 which is a very nice and easy shooting handgun. I shot it a lot during the first ammo shortage when I was able to stock up on lots of 40S&W but no 9mm.

[JDBerg]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

While not all metal I have an HK USP40 which is a very nice and easy shooting handgun. I shot it a lot during the first ammo shortage when I was able to stock up on lots of 40S&W but no 9mm.

I wish I still had mine. Great shooting forty, I’d like to get another one, maybe a compact.

[Cowboyfromhell]

Hk usp or Sig 229...

[Ruger45LC]

The Gen5 Glock .40's have a wider slide than previous generations, not quite as wide as the .45/10mm models, but definitely wider. This cuts recoil pretty well, I shot a Gen5 22 + 27 side by side with a Gen5 17 + 26 and honestly there wasn't much difference at all in recoil. I'm suggesting you take a look at Gen5 Glock .40's, they do shoot softer now because of the wider/heavier slide.

[stinkeypete]

It all comes down to what it’s for.
If you need to make a major power factor, then mass of the handgun is clearly beneficial for sport use.
If you carry the thing around far more than you shoot it, heavy is bad.
This idea of kinetic energy and perceived recoil is very interesting to me. I used to shoot a G22 Long Slide and a Springfield National Match .45acp side by side. I wanted to love that G22 but… the supersonic “crack” made it a “plugs and muffs” gun indoors while the .45acp was a muffs “boom” … a chest thumping push-you-back vs “twist in your hand.” The twisting might be something to do with the bore axis, but it’s also about accelerating that bullet to something like double the velocity in the same barrel length.

I also have a Bersa Thunder, nearly a clone of the blowback PPK and to compare the recoil to a G22 is baffling to me. The .380 is a pussycat in comparison.

.40 is a no-joke round. It really hums. I sure would not want to shoot one indoors without hearing protection!

[Willie Lowman]

Well, people are suggesting that modern .40s are made in polymer for ease of carry but what about all the die hard 1911 guys who carry wood and steel .45 ACP every day.

There's plenty of revolver guys who carry a model 66 with a 3 inch barrel that weighs in at 33.5 ounces. The 1911 weighs in at 39 ounces unloaded. There's lots of folks that pack this kind of iron every day.

[TunnelRat]

Yea there are people that carry heavier pistols. But you asked why there are 40SW pistols being built in polymer. While some people don’t mind the weight, others do. That’s why the market offers choices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThomasT]

I had one of the Stoger Cougar (or maybe it was the Beretta version) guns in 40 S&W and it was a neat pistol and all steel and had some pretty good recoil with 180gr loads. I really like the round though. If the ammo were more common and cheaper I would buy another one but this time it will be a Glock 22.

I thought the 40 cal was the best round ever given to the cops and civilian gun owners. It thought it was about as close to perfect for a handgun round as you can get.

The main thing I didn't like about the Cougar was the ambidextrous safety was as sharp as needles on the points and it hurt like hell to rack the slide. I don't know why they were designed like that and they had to of known it. And yes like all Berettas that gun was a serious chunk of steel.

[sparkyv]

I am a big bore guy and not very recoil sensitive. Having said that, I have a  "Assembled in Portugal"  FN in 40S&W. It shoots well, and fits well in the hand. The recoil is just fine and very manageable, but the trigger is nothing to write home about, the recoil spring is ridiculously heavy, and the hammer bites! I'm more of a revolver guy, and shoot 40S&W in my M610 with great satisfaction. If this Hi-Power had no sentimental value, I would have sent it down the road like I did with my SR1911-10 from which I've lit off more than a few 40S&W rounds.

In 40S&W semi-autos, I'd rather shoot my poly SIG P320 and poly CZ P-09 than the heavier metal-framed BHP.

[Forte S+W]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

I also have a Bersa Thunder, nearly a clone of the blowback PPK and to compare the recoil to a G22 is baffling to me. The .380 is a pussycat in comparison.

Believe it or not, the Bersa Thunder is an exception to the rule. Ask anyone who has shot both the Bersa Thunder/Firestorm and any other straight blowback .380 ACP pistol, (PPK, IJ-73, SMC-380, etc) the Bersa Thunder just recoils less. Presumably, Bersa found a way to make a straight blowback .380 that doesn't feel like you're whacking asphalt with a tire iron.

Originally Posted by Willie Lowman

Well, people are suggesting that modern .40s are made in polymer for ease of carry but what about all the die hard 1911 guys who carry wood and steel .45 ACP every day.

There's plenty of revolver guys who carry a model 66 with a 3 inch barrel that weighs in at 33.5 ounces. The 1911 weighs in at 39 ounces unloaded. There's lots of folks that pack this kind of iron every day.

Those are typically the sort who absolutely despise polymer framed pistols and feel the need to remind the world of it at every available opportunity.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

Folks who complain about .40 S&W having snappy recoil must not shoot anything hotter than Standard Pressure 9mm Luger because when comparing pistols of similar size/weight/dimensions, the felt recoil is practically indistinguishable from 9mm +P. Furthermore, I've shot plenty of pistols with snappier recoil than .40 S&W, including ones chambered in substantially weaker cartridges than .40 S&W, such as .380 ACP. (Try shooting a small straight blowback .380 like a Walther PPK some time, now that's snappy, painful too!)
Long story short, felt recoil has more to do with the gun than the cartridge itself.

I doubt that anybody who's ever shot something like a Smith & Wesson 4006 would ever complain about it's snappy recoil.



On the subject of loads, light for caliber .40 S&W loads may have impressive energy on paper, but they don't penetrate for beans, and have snappier recoil to boot. They either expand really fast or fragment before they reach adequate depth.

If what actual performance is what your after, then don't go below 165grs. A proper 180gr load is less snappy and more effective than any of those 135gr poor-man's .357 Sig loads.

As for why there are more polymer framed .40s than steel framed, the answer is simply because they're easier to carry and therefore more desireable. I myself carry an 18.5oz Smith & Wesson M&P40 Shield in the Summertime because it's more comfortable to carry, and as snappy as it is, it's not by any means painful to shoot, nor is it difficult to control.



The S&W 4006 is obviously softer shooting, but it's an absolute tank of a pistol. Big, thick, and heavy at 39oz unloaded. Sure, one could make the argument that you're wimpy if you can't bear to carry a big old heavy slab of steel around with you everywhere you go, but one could just as easily say the same of someone who can't take the recoil of .40 S&W out of a lighter weight polymer framed pistol. Personally, I say either argument is just insecure people trying to justify their choices to others in the most faux-masculine way possible. It's a trade off one way or the other, you sacrifice comfort for power.

Most people shoot standard loads. Never even seen factory ball +p but I'm sure it exists. I hand load my 9mm pretty hot but not +p. Having been issued and shot regularly both a G22 and a g17, the recoil from a 40 is stouter and snapper than 9mm. I also felt like it had more muzzle flip.

Now with that said, neither is hard to control, both are more than manageable. But imho there is a distinct and very noticeable difference between the 2.

[TruthTellers]

Having gotten into shooting and loading 10mm if I wanted a heavier steel frame pistol, I'd just as soon go 10 instead of 40. The one steel frame I have thought about getting in .40 is the Kahr K40 or MK40, but that's because it's small.

Really, the best .40 pistol is your standard full size pistol, whether it's polymer or metal frame. The smaller size and lighter weight can make them better choices than 10mm for conceal carrying and even open carry, but if I were open carrying I'd just go 10mm.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by Willie Lowman

I have owned many .40's in my life. I used to use them to make Major in USPSA. Most of my .40s were polymer striker fired wonderguns.

Some ammo makers produce .40 ammo in 135 grain or 155 grain loadings that rival .357 magnum for muzzle energy. And we all know if there is that much energy going down range then there will be stout recoil on the shooter's end. "Snappy recoil" the .40 haters like to complain about. But the lion's share of .40 pistols are polymer framed. Most of your .357 revolvers are steel framed. That puts the .40 at about 2/3 the weight of the .357. Of course you are going to experience greater recoil.

So I wonder how many people have tried .40 in a full size duty pistol with a steel frame? Something like the CZ 75 SP-01 Tactical. I would wager it to be a pleasant pistol to shoot and offer up to 526 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. That's nothing to sneeze at. Better barrier penetration. Better expansion and penetration in gel and the occasional bad guy.

So my real question is, why are so many .40's being produced in ultra light polymer frames when the caliber would really shine in a steel frame duty pistol?

My first carry gun was an all steel CZ75B. It was a joy to shoot. If you can find one I highly recommend it

[Doc Intrepid]

I'm another fan of the Sig P229 in .40. It shoots really well for me, fits my hand, and isn't as large as the Sig P220 or similar sized service pistols while offering 13 rounds.

It's all metal as opposed to polymer-framed, and yes - it is heavier. But the weight makes it shoot better - at least in my opinion. I generally carry it in a Galco shoulder rig, which tends to reduce some of the complaints about heavy pistols on anyone's waistline.

[JDBerg]

Originally Posted by Willie Lowman

So my real question is, why are so many .40's being produced in ultra light polymer frames when the caliber would really shine in a steel frame duty pistol?

A lot of the polymer framed forties currently produced are possibly Glocks and HK’s. I don’t miss the early Gen4 Glock 22 that I used to own, but I definitely miss the HK USP 40 that I used to own.

The new Gen5 Glock forties with the heavier slides might argue that the additional weight of a forty compared to a 9mm should be in the slide and not in the frame.