Too soft, that is why we all get the .357 Sig barrels and put in the .40s
mmmmhmm love me some 357sig
Too soft, that is why we all get the .357 Sig barrels and put in the .40s
Doubtful. The FBI test criteria and all the other research, record keeping, etc. that resulted from that incident arguably got us where we are today. Terminal ballistics and improved barrier blindness are good things, so if there was a quest for 'better' it's hard to argue that's not a win for everyone. However, the real question is if there's more meat on that particular bone, and I think that's doubtful unless there's some major game changing technology around the corner.
I’ve always heard the argument .40 hits harder but 9mm is tested to have a better follow up shot.
Can someone please explain why a 35,000 psi 40 is “high pressure” but a 35,000 psi 9mm is not?
That higher level of energy is harder on frames.
The whole 'high pressure' thing was a bit of disingenuous BS tossed out by some of the early vocal .40 haters, such as Yeager. IMHO, it was because they could not bring themselves to say that .40 is a higher energy pistol, which it is. That higher level of energy is harder on frames. It's been heard often enough that it's now become a common phrase.
If Yeager had said that he chooses 9mm because the higher energy delivered by a .40 is not needed to achieve an acceptable level of effectiveness, I'd have more respect for him. I'd still carry .40 regardless, but his argument would contain less BS than discrediting .40 as being a high pressure round.
Particularly guns that were designed to be 9mm, then "converted" to .40 often didn't do well. The expected Beretta 96 life span vs the expected Beretta 92 life span is a huge gap. Guns that were designed from the ground up for the .40 seem to do just fine in terms of longevity. The P229 being the one I'm most familiar with.
Not only is .40 harder on guns designed for 9mm, it can also mess with the timing. I have a CZ Compact in .40 that I've struggled to get it to run well. It's good now, but to get there, it took over 700 rounds of testing different spring combinations to achieve consistent performance. The problem was that they simply upped a 9mm compact frame and slide to .40 and retained the light slide weight of the 9mm while shortening the spring house to allow a bit longer slide travel under recoil. That longer slide travel allows spring bind and the gun would eat 22# recoil springs in under 100 rounds. Any lighter and you get frame contact. Heavier gives even worse spring bind. Later guns use a heavier slide to help with recoil but those early light slide guns can be tricky because they stuffed a .40 into a 9mm without fully engineering it.
Any others you know specifically designed to handle extra bolt thrust of .40?
I believe the M&P pistol was originally designed around the .40 cartridge.
As was the SIG 229 (it was the first Sig P series with a milled slide over stamped due to the 49's increased slide velocities) SIG didn't offer their 226 in 40 until 5 years later around 1998. Since SIG cane out with the 357 SIG in 1994 and was busy with that a few years was probably why the 226 40 took a minute.
My local Sheriff's Department carries 226's in 40 and have bo wish to change. They love the round and the guns.