40 Smith & Wesson?

[PKendall317]

Since I'm assuming that most of y'all know more about this than I do, can someone help me out with a question I have? I carry a .40S&W handgun, but as soon as I can find ammo and afford a new gun, I'm switching to a 9mm.

My question is basically, is the 40S&W caliber a good caliber? I've read different things online, and heard other people say that 40 essentially sucks. Can someone explain to me the pros/cons of 40SW and how it performs compared to other common handgun calibers?

 

[x10]

I'm at a loss,

The 40/9 thing has been done to death. So many threads and arguments both ways its not really worth going into here.

Both Calibers do the intended job, If your going to shoot Upsa in factory you might as well have 9 and load it down to reduce recoil to a minimum,

If your shooting bowling pins 40 might be a better choice a little harder hit

to just say a caliber sucks doesn't do much.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I carry .40 as my work duty carry

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, it depends on how you weigh the different parameters. I'm no expert. There are certainly others that can give you all the stats between the two. To say it "sucks" is rather imprecise. In regards to a self defense round, it'll get the job done.

 

[Cygnus]

It doesn't matter what you shoot as long as you are respectful at the range!

 

[9mmfan]

It's shot placement above almost everything else. I carry a G19 (9mm) or a 38 special almost daily. Traded my HK 40 for a Glock 20 (10 mm). To me, the 40 was 'snappy' between shots, while the 9mm (even Cor Bon rounds) just settle back into place easily. Even my G20 is a dream to shoot even with 180 Gr Underwoods.

 

[sgreen3]

I'm not so sure as I would say it "sucks", but 40 is not for me. A little to much on the snappy side for my liking which is why I carry and shoot 9mm. But I wouldn't say it sucks, it does its intended job very well. Just comes down to what you feel more comfortable shooting.

 

[NetPIMP]

My extremely limited experience tells me only that my Glock23gen4 (.40S&W) is "snappier" firing 180gr AE target ammo than my Glock19gen4 (9mm Luger) is firing 147gr AE target ammo.

Past that, I think the most definitive test that you can do yourself is to source the handgun you prefer best in both .40 *&* 9mm models - keep them stock as consistency will be key for this test.

Then using each gun, each loaded with a single JHP round from the same line (i.e. both Hornady Critical Duty, or both Federal HydraShok, etc.), simultaneously shoot yourself in each leg.

From there, try to discern which one hurts more. Do this quickly, time will be very limited.

My preliminary guess - and it's really just a guess - is that IF you're able to actually discern a difference, the .40 will hurt more, solely as a result of the slightly larger caliber, and no other factor. Past that, I'm thinking it will be really super-super-close.

Remember to diligently document your findings with as much detail as possible BEFORE you bleed out.

All of us on INGO will be anxiously awaiting the AAR.

Good luck!



--
Nothing in this post is intended to be construed as actual fact, and is also wholly and completely inconsistent with any opinion I've ever had on this, or any other related topic. Furthermore, I do not condone ever actually doing anything I say to do, and should you elect to do so, you alone are responsible for the outcome.

 

[VERT]

Not sure why the .40 generates so much hate. It does have more recoil then 9mm but it also a more powerful cartridge. .40 in a small firearm can be a handful to control and not something I recommend. In a duty sized gun it handles fine. I say this as a shooter with relatively small hands and carpal tunnel.

 

[jwh20]

Since I'm assuming that most of y'all know more about this than I do, can someone help me out with a question I have? I carry a .40S&W handgun, but as soon as I can find ammo and afford a new gun, I'm switching to a 9mm.

My question is basically, is the 40S&W caliber a good caliber? I've read different things online, and heard other people say that 40 essentially sucks. Can someone explain to me the pros/cons of 40SW and how it performs compared to other common handgun calibers?

I really don't understand the "40 essentially sucks" comment. There are no objective measurements that show it is anything but an effective handgun round. I have two .40 S&W handguns and I love them both. I have an H&K P30, a full-sized .40 and the Beretta PX4 Compact which is not all that "compact" in my opinion. Both are easy to shoot and handle the recoil from the .40 round just fine.

I also like the .40 recently because .40 S&W ammo is a lot more available than 9mm. I've also found is cheaper than the 9mm that wasn't available.

Under normal market conditions the .40 should be a little more expensive than 9mm.

That said, my EDC is a Beretta Nano in 9mm. I've not fired any .40 S&W handguns that are "mini" sized like the Nano so far. I understand that eventually Beretta is going to release a Nano in .40 S&W but I've never seen one.

My bottom line is that .40 S&W is a great round.

 

[9mmfan]

Not sure why the .40 generates so much hate. It does have more recoil then 9mm but it also a more powerful cartridge. .40 in a small firearm can be a handful to control and not something I recommend. In a duty sized gun it handles fine. I say this as a shooter with relatively small hands and carpal tunnel.

In my case, it's not hate, but my experience with that round. I found that getting a 2nd shot off a quite a bit slower than with my Beretta 92. Thinking about it later, I have decided that the USP compact should have been a full size model.

Ironically enough, the G 20 I traded it for (plus financial incentive ) is much easier to control and a second shot (usually)is much faster to get off.

 

[actaeon277]

The way the ammo situation is......
Maybe you should own 9 and 40.

Everyone 6 months ago was talking about downsizing their choices of ammo, making it easier to supply.
Works great until you have a hard time finding ammo for what you have.
Why not a 9 and a 40?

 

[VERT]

The way the ammo situation is......
Maybe you should own 9 and 40.

Everyone 6 months ago was talking about downsizing their choices of ammo, making it easier to supply.
Works great until you have a hard time finding ammo for what you have.
Why not a 9 and a 40?

How about a .40 with a 9mm conversion barrel?

 

[actaeon277]

How about a .40 with a 9mm conversion barrel?

Sounds good to me.
I have a M&P 40c. Would love to shoot 9 out of it.
If I wanna go 9, I have to break out the Taurus 92

 

[XDmShootr21]

How about a .40 with a 9mm conversion barrel?

+1

 

[bass pro]

I love the 40 cal round. I have a glock 23 and 2 para 40cal 1911 style pistols. I reload my own rounds (165 gn full metal jack), and reduce the powder load a bit to shoot steel matches. This reduces the recoil and keeps the pistol flat for easy second shot target acquisition. I like the power of the 40. It has the speed of a 9mm and almost as much power as a 45.

 

[saberstar]

I own a sig p250 in .40 with a 9mm conversion kit. I can tell that the .40 is a bit snappier but not to the point of being unmanageable. I like them both.

 

[PKendall317]

Sorry I missed alot, I started the thread and then realized I had papers to write. Anywho, the "40 sucks" comment basically came from a James Yeager video I watched when doing some research on the subject.

Based on my very limited experience with 9mm, I do enjoy the more manageable recoil it has compared with 40SW.

 

[actaeon277]

Sorry I missed alot, I started the thread and then realized I had papers to write. Anywho, the "40 sucks" comment basically came from a James Yeager video I watched when doing some research on the subject.

Based on my very limited experience with 9mm, I do enjoy the more manageable recoil it has compared with 40SW.

Well, shoot what is comfortable for you, and you can accurately place.

 

[Mgderf]

I think I've been spoiled in regards to both of the above mentioned calibers.

I have, for many, many years, owned an older Taurus PT99 in 9mm that is, to me, a shooters dream. That thing handles like a .22,, just a lot heavier. I couldn't ask for an easier handling firearm in that weight. It fits my hand to a tee. It's well balanced and handles the recoil almost on it's own.It's at least as accurate as I am, easy to breakdown and clean,and it's inexpensive to feed.

My.40S&W is a 4.5" barreled Magnum Research "Baby Eagle". It's all steel, just like the PT99. It's a little smaller overall, but almost the same weight. The Desert Eagle speaks for itself. It feels like one of the most well-built firearms I've ever had my hands on, let alone owned.
The polygonal rifling took a while to get used to looking at, but it seems to function like any other style rifling I've used in a handgun.
The desert Eagle is again at least as accurate as I could expect from a 4.5" barrel. It too is easy to disassemble and clean, especially the polygonal rifled barrel.
It too is really well balanced and ergonomically close to perfect for me.

I don't find either gun to be "snappy", but with that much real steel hanging out there, it's a lot easier to keep your muzzle down where it should be.

I think either round should be sufficient for the task of self defense.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the FBI statistics show that most encounters involving a firearm occur inside 7 yards, or 21 feet.
If you can't hit a target at 21 feet with ANY handgun, you need a different handgun, and at 21 feet, I'm sure either a 9mm or a .40S&W will do just fine.