.40 Cal Declining?

[Peacekeeper3073]

That's lower than blue label price. I'd have to see that to believe it.

Yeah Kiesler blue label with plastic sights was $399 last time I checked.

 

[aporter]

I used to only buy and carry 40. Loved my G23! Started shooting 9mm and found I could shoot more for less. I didn’t want to have three pistol calibers, and I wasn’t getting rid of my 1911. Great round, just personal preference IMO. LGS I spoke with said they sell 1 40 for every 10-15 9mm.

 

[88E30M50]

I have not been able to find the G22, 23, or 27 trade-ins for under $200. Where are they located? I would like to get a 23 and a 27.

I was suggesting that they can be had for around the $300 price point in some places.

 

[cce1302]

That's lower than blue label price. I'd have to see that to believe it.

It was a black Friday deal in 2017 at the Marine Corps Exchange (no sales tax). For some reason, they were selling below cost. I can't find the flyer online or I'd post it.

 

[CPT Nervous]

You can get LE trade in S&W M&P 40s, full size and compact, for less than $250. Magazines for $12. My department recently switched from the M&P 40 to the SIG P320 in 9mm. I have a couple of M&P 40s now. I still carry them and shoot them frequently. But, I have to admit, I'm in love with the SIG. I've always preferred 9mm over .40, but with it being so cheap, I say buy.


I like that .40 target loads and .40 defense loads shoot similarly. Way different than shooting 9mm FMJ vs. 9mm +P. You get more out of your training that way.

 

[223 Gunner]

That's why people should be stocking up now, but they will wait for the next big panic and buy at a higher price and complain.

Not I he says. I have been buying ammo for awhile now since prices have come down. Not that I am running low, just some very good ammo deals out there that are to hard to pass up.
I will admit that I am not well stocked on .40 and I do own two .40 caliber pistols.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Not I he says. I have been buying ammo for awhile now since prices have come down. Not that I am running low, just some very good ammo deals out there that are to hard to pass up.
I will admit that I am not well stocked on .40 and I do own two .40 caliber pistols.

Keep an eye out for deals. I bought 1500 rounds of Federal American Eagle on Aim Surplus for $9.99 a box. Deals are definitely to be had.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The same improvements that have benefited 9mm, have benefited .40 as well. It’s not that the gap has narrowed, but that 9mm has become reasonably effective.

No, the gap has narrowed to the point it's inconsequential. The improvements are not the same across the board. .45 doesn't benefit from bonding as much as 9mm does, for example. The heavier bullet can shed more mass and still be heavier then the 9mm, and it's slower speed means it's harder to fragment anyway. The .40 was pretty well tailored for the tech of the day, and is still just as viable. It's just not that much better. 9mm benefited heavily from the paradigm shift away from super light/super fast and trying to make 115 gr projectiles barrier blind. 147 gr loads that function in handguns (instead of just SMGs) was a big boost to terminal ballistics. Take a look at silvertips. They worked pretty danged well in calibers like .45 Colt, but the design didn't translate well into lighter projectiles in 9mm or .380. .40 was already on the heavy-for-caliber bandwagon from the beginning with the 180gr projectile (although a few did try the lighter/faster route with a 135 gr).

All of the major duty calibers are completely viable, but it's a mistake to say that they've benefited equally from improvements in the technology, nor do they get the same love from the ammo developers. Someone could probably put together an improved .45 GAP if anyone cared about it, for example. .380 is still sort of in a no man's land, the tech still isn't there for them. It is not a rising tide lifts all boats situation.

 

[STEEL CORE]

PX/BX Military sales are Glock Blue Label pricing to service members, or retired Military.
They do have sales every now and then.

 

[Hohn]

No, the gap has narrowed to the point it's inconsequential. The improvements are not the same across the board. .45 doesn't benefit from bonding as much as 9mm does, for example. The heavier bullet can shed more mass and still be heavier then the 9mm, and it's slower speed means it's harder to fragment anyway. The .40 was pretty well tailored for the tech of the day, and is still just as viable. It's just not that much better. 9mm benefited heavily from the paradigm shift away from super light/super fast and trying to make 115 gr projectiles barrier blind. 147 gr loads that function in handguns (instead of just SMGs) was a big boost to terminal ballistics. Take a look at silvertips. They worked pretty danged well in calibers like .45 Colt, but the design didn't translate well into lighter projectiles in 9mm or .380. .40 was already on the heavy-for-caliber bandwagon from the beginning with the 180gr projectile (although a few did try the lighter/faster route with a 135 gr).

All of the major duty calibers are completely viable, but it's a mistake to say that they've benefited equally from improvements in the technology, nor do they get the same love from the ammo developers. Someone could probably put together an improved .45 GAP if anyone cared about it, for example. .380 is still sort of in a no man's land, the tech still isn't there for them. It is not a rising tide lifts all boats situation.

This^. The improvement made are not equal because not all the calibers had the same weaknesses.

I like the idea of having a little more mustard behind a round, so I'd be predisposed to prefer 40SW. But anyone with that preference would be really hard pressed to justify it on empirical data. There's more variation in test to test than there is between calibers.

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

Calibers come and calibers go.

The caliber itself is no less effective than it has been for the last 30 years.

I think it's just hipsters turning up their noses at it. Just not cool enough for instagram commandos anymore.

I think that's exactly it. The whole reason why .40 became popular had to do with the perceived need for stopping power; which would you rather get shot with, a 9mm or a .40?? The fact that 10mm has finally come into its own with many firearm manufacturers now offering 10mm pistols is why there's been a slight drop in .40's popularity. When the next great handgun cartridge comes around, then 10mm will lose some of its uber-coolness. Such is the way of the American gun culture.

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

I think the evolution of ammo has a lot to do with it. 9mm ammo got sooo much better that there really wasn't the need for the 40 S&W anymore. I think it has kind of got stuck as the in-between round, which can be good or bad- depending on how you look at it. If people are worried about velocity and capacity, they tend to go with 9mm. If they want mass, they tend to go with 45acp. 40 kind of gets lost in the middle of that. I like it because it's kind of best of both worlds. More capacity than 45 but bigger and harder hitting than 9mm.

Exactly right!! I like .40 so much that I have two: a near-new Taurus PT101 that I bought super cheap over 15 years ago so I could try out the cartridge, then last year I saw a Springfield Armory XDm new in the box with 4 mags, holster, and speed loader for about $450. I love them both to pieces.

The #1 fact about the .40 being the best in-the-middle cartridge vs 9mm & .45 is that it has most of the velocity of the 9 and most of the weight of a 45. That is best demonstrated using a cinder block target. .45 can dent the block significantly, but does not penetrate. 9mm will penetrate, but only through the 1st half and leaves no real impact on the inside of the opposite side. .40 cal, on the other hand, not only penetrates the 1st half of the block, but makes a significant dent on the inside of the 2nd half... and it will crack the whole cinder block IN TWO!!

Haters will hate, but THAT IS WHY I LOVE .40, and why if I ever buy another handgun, It will be a 10mm (".40 Magnum")!!

 

[BigRed3588]

I think that's exactly it. The whole reason why .40 became popular had to do with the perceived need for stopping power; which would you rather get shot with, a 9mm or a .40?? The fact that 10mm has finally come into its own with many firearm manufacturers now offering 10mm pistols is why there's been a slight drop in .40's popularity. When the next great handgun cartridge comes around, then 10mm will lose some of its uber-coolness. Such is the way of the American gun culture.

I personally don't think it has much to do with the "cool factor." It's just a simple matter of practicality IMO. Most people are going to be able to put more rounds on target in rapid succession with a 9mm than they are with a .40. Combine that with improvement in performance of 9mm ammo and the .40 starts to look obsolete.

That said, i'm also biased. I can choose between .40 HST or 9mm Gold Dot for free, but the .40 is about 4x more available. Regardless, I still don't own a gun in that caliber. I had a Glock 23 a few years ago and ultimately sold it. When I started getting the ammo for free my instructor let my try out his service weapon (P229) and then gave me a case with 5 pistols in .40 so I could see if I liked any. I preferred the 23 to all of them so I bought another. After about 2K rounds I came to terms with the fact that I'd simply never like the round and sold it as well. Now I just take the Gold Dot when I can get it. In my case, it's a matter of physical limitations. I weigh 200lbs but I have small wrists. The 9mm is manageable and I can control .45 because the recoil is more push than snap. The .40 is in that middle ground where there's too much snap for me to group well. The difference between my targets on body armor drills with 9mm and .40 is comical.

 

[AlVine]

It’s because the gap in performance between 9x19 and .40 has narrowed to the point the .40s advantages no longer outweigh its disadvantages.

 

[Tonybnw]

I've been a big fan of 45 acp and I tried a glock 40 because a friend said it was like a cross between 9mm and a 45.. I was not impressed, it just didn't have the feel of what I want in a round

 

[88E30M50]

This^. The improvement made are not equal because not all the calibers had the same weaknesses.

I like the idea of having a little more mustard behind a round, so I'd be predisposed to prefer 40SW. But anyone with that preference would be really hard pressed to justify it on empirical data. There's more variation in test to test than there is between calibers.

Makes sense. I was thinking that the benefits to a 9mm HST would be equal to a .40 HST but agree that the .40 didn’t have the same problems to solve as the 9mm did.

I do like the fact that when I shoot .40, I’m running a lot closer to my carry ammo in performance than I am when shooting 9mm. I reload .40 and have a load that’s pretty close to the feel of the HSTs that I carry. I don’t reload 9mm any more and the target 9mm that I buy is nothing like the feel of the HSTs that I carry when I carry 9mm.