40S&W ammo?

[JesseGDeluca]

Just ordered a Glock 22, Gen 3 with OD frame. I am not a big user of .40 S&W, so I have a question on best self defense ammo. Which do you guys prefer...180 grain or 155-165 grain?

[Shadow9mm]

I have not had a 40 in several years now, but I rather preferred the 180s when I did. As far as ammo brand goes, I stick with Federal HST or Speer Gold Dots. Both are proven performers.

But that's just me. Lots of people use different stuff. You will probably get a million and 1 answers.

[Shane Tuttle]

Moving over to the Handgun Forum...

[44caliberkid]

“I stick with Federal HST or Speer Gold Dots” quote Shadow9mm
Agree, can’t go wrong with those. I’ve used a lot of Hornady American Gunner 180 gr. HP’s as well.

[reynolds357]

I prefer 180 because the 155 and 165 are notorious for underpenetration.

[Cosmodragoon]

I've been happy with 165. I feel like they offer the right balance of mass and velocity for .40 S&W.

Regarding the above post, I don't know where the idea of notorious under-penetration got started. This is actually the first I've heard that. I've never shot a person but from everything I've heard, they work just fine. Shooting varmints and "fun" targets like water jugs, fruit, etc.; they're fine. During tests on complex "meat targets" designed to simulate bad guys, they are fine. In the Lucky Gunner tests on specific ammo linked below, they are fine.

I sometimes encounter a largely superstitious idea that using "heavy for caliber" ammo is always better. That's not necessarily true. In general, I've had good experiences with mid-weight ammo such as 115-124 in 9mm, 125 in .357 Sig and .357 magnum, and 165 in .40 S&W.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...ic-tests/#40SW

[CDW4ME]

180 gr. Gold Dot / HST which produces about the same recoil as 180 FMJ.

[Willie Lowman]

I sold my .40 cal pistols but I kept 100 rounds of 165 grain gold dots in case I ever get another.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Cosmodragoon

I've been happy with 165. I feel like they offer the right balance of mass and velocity for .40 S&W.

Regarding the above post, I don't know where the idea of notorious under-penetration got started. This is actually the first I've heard that. I've never shot a person but from everything I've heard, they work just fine. Shooting varmints and "fun" targets like water jugs, fruit, etc.; they're fine. During tests on complex "meat targets" designed to simulate bad guys, they are fine. In the Lucky Gunner tests on specific ammo linked below, they are fine.

I sometimes encounter a largely superstitious idea that using "heavy for caliber" ammo is always better. That's not necessarily true. In general, I've had good experiences with mid-weight ammo such as 115-124 in 9mm, 125 in .357 Sig and .357 magnum, and 165 in .40 S&W.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...ic-tests/#40SW

I always considered. For 9mm, 115g to be light, 124g medium, and 147g to be heavy.

For 357 mag. 125s are light, 158s medium, and 180s heavy.

As a reloader I have found that I prefer medium to heavy bullets, depending on the cartridge. They just seem to be more efficient. But that's is just what I have seen. And it all comes down to personal preference.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

But that's just me. Lots of people use different stuff. You will probably get a million and 1 answers.

That's where I stand with what defensive ammo is good for X gun.

Jesse, the best answer I can possibly provide is one you may not want to hear. I with there was. It's hard sometimes to convince newcomers TFL is a solid source of information regarding to the advancement of gun ownership and 2A rights when you get an answer such as this:

There is no way to provide an honest answer what is best for your firearm. I could post my findings using the exact same model firearm and it still would not determine the best defensive ammo for yours. If we were talking about reloading recipes for plinking at the range, that can be debatable. We're talking about ammo to use to preserve your life, though. Can we point you in the right direction? Sure.....somewhat. 20 years ago, there were limited options. These days, IMO, just about every major manufacturer provides high quality defensive ammo. As expensive at it is, I would start with one or two brands and buy a couple of boxes of each. Go to the range and test away. Any hiccups that had to do with your Glock not liking it and you can scratch it off your list. If they perform well, I would buy at least 3-4 more boxes to assure reliable function. 20 rounds doesn't cut it with me.

One last tidbit of info: 135, 155, 165, 180...does NOT matter. Hornady, Federal et al. have spent a helluva lot more time research and developing their defense loads to provide proper penetration/damage than any of us.

[amd6547]

The only reason I have a .40 is the cheap police surplus pistols pre-plandemic. Got a like new Gen4 G22 with night sights very cheap. The same wholesaler had police turn in 50rd boxes of 180gn HST, so I got some of those. Shoots great in my pistol, and have had no desire to try anything else.
That G22 and ammo combo quickly became my home defense set up of choice.

[totaldla]

I like the feel of fast (1200+ fps) 155gr better than the typical 1000fps 180gr. But that is just me with my M&P 4" barrel.
Unfortunately, it seems as though I'm in the extreme minority as most self-defense ammo is 180gr.

[Onward Allusion]

I personally like Federal's 180gr HST. Here's a chart that summarizes a bunch of 40's tested.

Scroll to the bottom of the page...

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index...tol-ammo-40-sw

[wild cat mccane]

Because it is the best round (measured by penetration and expansion and no need for massive velocity to perform) AND because of price, HST or Gold Dot should always be the answer.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammuniti...n/default.aspx

[totaldla]

Here are lots of pretty bullet pictures to stare at, the best collection of test data I know of. There are lots high performance 40sw loadings available.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...ic-tests/#40SW

Edit: I just realized that this link was posted earlier, but I think it is worth posting again so that casual thread browsers see it.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Because it is the best round (measured by penetration and expansion and no need for massive velocity to perform) AND because of price, HST or Gold Dot should always be the answer.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammuniti...n/default.aspx

Even if they malfunction in the firearm of your choice?

[Shadow9mm]

I have met very few modern production firearm that have problems feeding hollow points in general. It should be a given but yes you should always test your Intended carry ammo in your firearm to ensure reliability.

[Nick_C_S]

My free advice:

165 grainers for 40 S&W.

Save the 180s for 10mm Auto.

And of course, free advice is worth every penny you paid.

[JustJake]

My free advice:
165 grainers for 40 S&W.
Save the 180s for 10mm Auto.

Pretty much.

In real-world ammo, the .40S&W tops out at 180grns (@ 980fps-1000fps) unless you want a KABOOM! ...

... whereas the 10mm is just getting started at 180grns ——> 220grns, having been designed to send relatively heavy bullets fast: 180grns @ 1300+; 200grns @ 1250fps+; 220grns @ 1200fps+.

If you want a “speedy” .40 load that’s safe, stick with ammo topped with the 135grn, 150-155grn, and 165grn bullets.

[Cosmodragoon]

Originally Posted by Nick_C_S

My free advice:

165 grainers for 40 S&W.

Save the 180s for 10mm Auto.

And of course, free advice is worth every penny you paid.

This is what I do, for all the pennies that is worth.

[Shotgun Slim]

As a reloader and 40 lover I know that I can Safely load for more power with 165 bullets than 180s. I have to assume,because I don't care to look it up,that the ammo manufacturers generate the most power with the 165. That's power I'm talking about,weight times velocity, not taking into account sectional density,cross section or any small details available to argue about. Nick C S said it best.....

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Shotgun Slim

As a reloader and 40 lover I know that I can Safely load for more power with 165 bullets than 180s. I have to assume,because I don't care to look it up,that the ammo manufacturers generate the most power with the 165. That's power I'm talking about,weight times velocity, not taking into account sectional density,cross section or any small details available to argue about. Nick C S said it best.....

Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass * (velocity squared) but in the world of handguns it does not mean much. The explosive kinetic energy is only seen in rifle rounds. Normal Handgun rounds do not generate the shock wave rifle rounds do. In a handgun, you basically have permanent wound channel and depth.
The formula you list is for momentum.

[Cosmodragoon]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

I always considered. For 9mm, 115g to be light, 124g medium, and 147g to be heavy.

For 357 mag. 125s are light, 158s medium, and 180s heavy.

As a reloader I have found that I prefer medium to heavy bullets, depending on the cartridge. They just seem to be more efficient. But that's is just what I have seen. And it all comes down to personal preference.

The "light" stuff is its own category and there are people who are into it. For instance, two of the more common lightweight choices for .40S&W are 155 and 135 grains. I've seen 105 and 80 grains for 9mm. Heck, one company makes a 50-grain defensive load in 9mm!

I've shot 155-grain factory ammo when choices were limited. I didn't notice much of a difference versus my normal 165-grain. Of course, I didn't shoot that much of it and I didn't "test" it against different media or anything.

I've never messed around with the really light stuff.

[BornFighting88]

Hornady Critical Defense 165's. I changed to a 45 for my carry pistol, and picked up CD 185's for that reason. Fired them into ballistic gel and they messed that gel dummy's day up. My choice and suggestion.

[DT Guy]

It's important to realize that since the rise of internet experts and another round of FBI testing, it's pretty well known that most .40 ammo is ineffective, produces excessive recoil, reduces capacity, damages firearms and threatens the climate.

If you check YouTube and many forums, it's well-accepted that .40 ammo is essentially harmless, won't stop anyone and often refuses to even fire at all. Even if it does, the person you shoot with it will simply burst out laughing at you for not using a modern 9mm defensive cartridge...


Larry