40 s&w what so much hate for this round!

[Leo]

I have only spend any time experimenting with the .40 S&W in the last 5 or 6 years. I have found that it is a flexible, easy to load round that has really nothing wrong with it. So many of the comparisons are apples to oranges. If you compare a bullseye wadcutter .45acp target load to a full power 180 gr .40 S&W it seems "snappy". I have Stainless 1911's in both calibers. If you are shooting 230 grain hardball .45, there does not seem to be that much difference.

I still blame glock for the bad start of the .40 with that poor chamber design. I hardly ever see the blown out brass any more, so it appears those first generation glocks are gone, or people have retrofitted them with properly designed barrels.

I have some pretty good loads for the .40 S&W that are accurate and easy to shoot. The 155 gr and 165 grain HP loads are controllable and accurate. I also have a 180 gr "powder puff" cast lead bullseye load that is a joy for indoor target use.

Other than being late to the party and being blamed for things that was really a poor design by glock, the .40 is really a decent cartridge. If John Browning had chambered the original 1911 in .40, it would be America's favorite.

 

[Leo]

Somebody can deny it. But then there is an argument on the whole "bullet energy" thing.
The .45 was developed 100 years ago. Metallurgy of the guns, not as good as today.
the .40 could be put into guns with better metallurgy, and have more pressure.
The .45 makes a bigger hole.
The .40 goes 300 fps faster (approx.).

Thanks for posting the chart. It is always good to see the numbers. I have one off topic observation. The standard bullet weight for a .38 spl is, was, and always has been 158 grains. The 9mm was 115 gr, until NATO adopted 124gr projectiles. For the last 10 years or so all the comparisons have shown only the light bullets (with lower performance) in the .38 spl. Do you think the standard weight bullets gone out of style because people mostly shoot .38spl in light pocket sized revolvers?

 

[riverman67]

ALL common pistol rounds suck as far as manstopping power is concerned.
They are a compromise where portabliity/concealability are the most important.
The package needs to be practicle to carry all day everyday.
If I know I'm going to a gunfight,I'm going to have a rifle,hopefully a .30 caliber rifle.
Pick a gun and caliber you like and shoot it. These caliber wars are senseless.

 

[KLB]

Then there is this.

 

[45fan]

I just hate sorting the brass when .40 gets mixed in!

This is my biggest gripe against 40 S&W. I started out wanting a 1911 in 45 ACP. No energy/knockdown power/stopping power argument involved, just what I wanted at the time.
My wife then decided that she wanted something with more power than her .380, and picked up a 9mm. It was the most logical option that I saw that when I wanted a smaller gun to carry than the 1911, I stayed with the 9mm that my wife was already shooting, and I was already loading for.

A friend of mine shoots a 40, and his brass gets mixed in with the rest when we police the brass. 40 is just big enough to let a 9mm case slip in its mouth, and just small enough that it slips into the mouth of a 45. Keeping the 3 separate is a pain in the butt, and for what the caliber offers, I do not see any real advantage in picking a gun in that caliber up to add to the confusion when reloading.

For what its worth, the 9mm, 40 SW, and 45 ACP are all workable options for SD use, and not one of them would fail to do their part, as long as you do yours. The 9mm is cheaper to shoot, especially if you don't reload, the 45 puts a bigger hole in a body, if its ever called on to do so. The chart giving energy numbers of various calibers is skewed to the side of a 40, but on the average the numbers will favor the 40 S&W. The "average" 45 ACP load for SD will run around 400 FPE, the 40 will squeak out a few more, and the 9mm, depending on bullet weight will run around 325-340.

When its all said and done, what matters most is what caliber you have when you need it, and that you are capable of putting the lead where it will do the most good.

 

[Jeremy1066]

I have had 9mm, 10mm, and .40 in the past. I STILL have 9mm and 10mm. With modern bullet technology (Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger T) there isn't much difference in bullet performance between the 9mm, .40 and .45. If I need a bigger punch, 10mm surpasses them all when loaded to full power.

 

[savage308]

I have not heard any negative talk about the 40. Everyone that shoots it that I know love the round.
45 has a long and storied history, hence people are gonna hate on the new comer.

 

[Jbow]

Thanks everyone for the comments I love the pics they kinda talk for themselves I think.

 

[Tobias]

Snappiness to me also completely depends on the gun being shot too. PERSONALLY my Kahr CW9 is snappier than my Glock 23. Shoot as many as you can and see what iz most comfortable for you.....that's all that matters.

I love the s&w 40 myself in a full size or compact gun. If it's in a subcompact or similar sized gun a 9mm is more enjoyable to shoot IMO.

 

[Hopper]

Perhaps this is a stilly reason for how I got into 40, but after shooting my younger brother's G4 G23, it wasn't The Devil that I thought it was. From a strategic standpoint, I liked the idea of having a 2nd caliber besides 9mm. I can pick up a box or two of 40 any day of the week, whereas around my area, 9mm can still be tough to come by.

I don't know that I *like* 40 better than 9mm, but I have grown very fond of it, I shoot it well, and it lets me keep shooting a caliber that I can replenish very easily. For me anyway, what began as a bit of a strategic experiment has worked out nicely.

 

[billt]

I don't care for this guy personally. But with that said I do respect his opinion. It's based on a lot of years of experience, and the fact he's trained over 23,000 people. That's a lot of lead downrange from a whole lot of guns. Everything he mentions is common sense.

.40s SUCK - YouTube

 

[actaeon277]

I don't care for this guy personally. But with that said I do respect his opinion. It's based on a lot of years of experience, and the fact he's trained over 23,000 people. That's a lot of lead downrange from a whole lot of guns. Everything he mentions is common sense.

.40s SUCK - YouTube

Someone needs to find Que and Esrice's video. My phone won't do the video so good.

 

[Dolton916]

I don't hate the .40, other than the brass nesting, but I haven't found a pistol in .40 that I find enjoyable to shoot.

 

[Win52C]

45 acp is the god of bullets. BOW u mere 40. The rock from Davids sling that took Goliath down, it was actually a 45 acp bullet. Yes they are older then Jesus never mind that 100 yr old stuff. Speed of light, yep based off the speed of 45 acp. Shot heard round the world during Revolution, yep u guessed it 45 acp. That little meteor thing that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, 45 ACP. Big Bang theory actually 45 acp theory. And there you have it 45 acp is the very best at everything. Only reason it is not widely known that 45 acp has done all these things is cause the liberal media is trying to keep the bullet down.

I'm glad Somebody understands!!

 

[redwingshooter]

In a world of compromise, some men don't!

For me, either a 9mm or 45 acp will get the job done. That's just my feelings though, and if you like the 40 and shoot it well then more power to you. It just doesn't fit me as a shooter. YMMV.

 

[Leo]

Watched a little of the posted video. Sammi Spec 9mm is 35,000, Sammi spec for 40 S&W 35,000. An opinion is an opinion, not science.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

9, 40, 45

Good gun, good bullets, good shot placement, they are all good enough.

I went from .45 to 9mm because it was cheaper to practice and more rounds in the magazine. I have not tried .40 yet because...because I just have not gotten around to trying it. There's nothing wrong with .40's, most of the noise you hear people yelling about them is just people messing with each other.

 

[88E30M50]

I just hate sorting the brass when .40 gets mixed in!

I don't hate the .40, other than the brass nesting, but I haven't found a pistol in .40 that I find enjoyable to shoot.

I have a set of the brass sorting trays. They are worth their weight in gold. I used to spend hours sorting brass on winter evenings and would collect buckets of it to sort all summer long. I got lazy and accumulated a lot of mixed brass and was not looking forward to the sorting chore, so I bought the trays. Within a half hour, I had run out of brass to sort. Those things are a time saver and now after each range trip or two, I sort whatever brass has accumulated and it only takes about 2 minutes to sort a couple of hundred cases.

As for .40, I like the round. Last year I became really enamored with the .40 round and spent most of the year with either a G23 or G27 on my hip. I did not find it overly snappy and really only feel the difference between it and a 9mm if I shoot the G23 and a G19 back to back. To me, the G23 seemed like the perfect balance of capacity, concealability and caliber. Late last year, I managed to kick my fear of going out with less than 40 rounds on me and got back to the 1911 platform. I am now quite happy to be in a public place with as little as 17 rounds on me but do still ramp up capacity if I'm heading into the city. On those occasions, it's back to the G23, G27 or CZ 75 Compact and a total of around 30 rounds.

But, I still like the balance the .40 has in size, power and capacity.

 

[billt]

There's nothing wrong with .40's, most of the noise you hear people yelling about them is just people messing with each other.

True. That and the fact it's such a boring round. Most all powerful cartridges were built on a lesser powered, shorter round that came first. The .357 came after the .38 Special. The .44 Magnum came after the .44 Special. The .454 Casull long after the .45 Colt. With the .40 it was the exact opposite. The 10 MM round arrived in the 80's as a "Magnumized" auto pistol round. Then, after the whole FBI fiasco with downloading it because half of their staff couldn't control it, the .40 arrived a minute late and a dollar short, as they say. It's been losing ground ever since. It's basically a solution to a non existent problem. More cost, more recoil, more wear and tear. Without much if any ballistic advantage worth arguing about. Especially with todays modern, reliable expanding self defense ammunition.

 

[noylj]

Huh, the .45 was proven in combat with FMJ-RN--the least desirable bullet shape.
The .40 could be good, but the cases seem very marginal for the pressure and you do a web search for Ka-Booms and count all the .40s.
The 9x19 was designed before the .45 and was foisted on the US by NATO.
I shoot all three, carry all three, but really only enjoy one of 'em.