Anybody a big fan of the .40?

[88E30M50]

I don't know if I would say that it's better. Just as good is accurate. With the P229, you have a slightly wider grip that allows a tad shorter mag without losing capacity. I like the feel of both guns and the are identical in weight, so both shoot about the same for me.

Advantages of the P226 would be the longer sight radius and you can now get flush fitting 13 round mags where as the P229 still needs mag extensions to go above 12 rounds.

But, the P229 sure does carry well

 

[OZZY.40]

I don't know if I would say that it's better. Just as good is accurate. With the P229, you have a slightly wider grip that allows a tad shorter mag without losing capacity. I like the feel of both guns and the are identical in weight, so both shoot about the same for me.

Advantages of the P226 would be the longer sight radius and you can now get flush fitting 13 round mags where as the P229 still needs mag extensions to go above 12 rounds.

But, the P229 sure does carry well

Thanks for the info. I always thought the P229 was the compact version of the P226, just like a Glock 19 is to a 17.

 

[snapping turtle]

What makes the P229 better than the P226 in .40? I was thinking of getting a P226 until a USP popped up.

I have no P226. So I can not state that it is better or worse the the P229. I have shot the P226 in 9mm. Never in 40, once in 22 LR. If I wanted a service sized gun I would most likely have chosen the 226. The 226 was designed around the 9 mm round for US service trials in 1984 and the beretta 92 and sig 226 passed.

I do know the P226 parented the P228 which then parented the P229 So more like a grandparent. In 1994 The 229 was the first pistol to support 357sig/40s and w The slide is heavy, it is a little higher Bore axis than I normally like. I shoot it very well. I wanted a carry pistol. The Double action/ single action took a bit of getting used to but it is a solid wall and breaks consistently.
i got mine from an friend. When he graduated college he thought about a career with the JAG or secret service. he got it with the 40 s&w and 357 sig barrels. He then went back to law school. Got a job in New Jersey and sold to me because he moved to Japan. He said the secret service used the 229. i got a very good deal on a pistol which had limited use.

40 in the 229 seems right for it, a heavier round for a slightly heavier pistol. In 357 sig the thing rocks out. If the 357 sig was not so expensive I am sure I would be talking up that round.

 

[Noble Sniper]

I find it amusing that the 40 has been “swept” away because 9mm technology has gotten better. That same tech has bolstered the 40 as well so the 9mm is still not as hot as the 40 can be. It’s called Napoleon syndrome. Off the shelf 40 is plinking ammo but handloaded 40 is a much different beast. Just as folks were able to go nuclear with the 10mm in a Glock you could do the same with 40 in a Glock back in the day…. Full length guide rods and springs and a good aftermarket barrel and it was off to the camp town races. Now personally…. I wouldn’t want to get shot with a 9mm or a 40 as it would hurt LOL. But to compare modern 9mm to 30 plus yr old manufactured 40 is shortsighted. If you compare apples to apples using the “same” tech for all aspects of the cartridge the 40 still outshines the 9 now just like it did back then.

 

[Noble Sniper]

 

[88E30M50]

One advantage that the P226 has over the P229 is that the .40 P226 can run factory 9mm, .40 and .357 barrels in the same gun using the same mags. 9mm needs a 9mm recoil spring to cycle well, but that's it.

 

[TLHelmer]

I find it amusing that the 40 has been “swept” away because 9mm technology has gotten better. That same tech has bolstered the 40 as well so the 9mm is still not as hot as the 40 can be. It’s called Napoleon syndrome. Off the shelf 40 is plinking ammo but handloaded 40 is a much different beast. Just as folks were able to go nuclear with the 10mm in a Glock you could do the same with 40 in a Glock back in the day…. Full length guide rods and springs and a good aftermarket barrel and it was off to the camp town races. Now personally…. I wouldn’t want to get shot with a 9mm or a 40 as it would hurt LOL. But to compare modern 9mm to 30 plus yr old manufactured 40 is shortsighted. If you compare apples to apples using the “same” tech for all aspects of the cartridge the 40 still outshines the 9 now just like it did back then.

I agree completely! It seems that technology has helped handgun rounds in all of the major calibers. The Federal HST is my favorite round and when you look at that round in 9mm, .40 and .45 you see very impressive results.

 

[1nderbeard]

As said above, I wouldn't say I'm a fan. A .40 caliber Ruger was the first handgun I ever bought. Had no clue what I was doing, the gun counter guy just sold me on it. From there I traded up to a glock 27. After years of practice I finally learned to shoot it halfway decently. And now I've invested too much in .40 to go back. I knew a few older guys who were "downsizing" to 9mm and I bought all their magazines and .40 ammo.

I don't get tied down in the 9 versus .40 debate. I found recoil to be about the same in either. My motto has always been just learn to shoot what you have.

 

[gglass]

I have been a huge fan of the .40 S&W for many years, and I can't find a reason to stop now.



I own pistols in most of today's popular calibers, but there will always be a place for a 40 S&W in my safe and by my side.

 

[Amishman44]

I find it amusing that the 40 has been “swept” away because 9mm technology has gotten better. That same tech has bolstered the 40 as well so the 9mm is still not as hot as the 40 can be. It’s called Napoleon syndrome. Off the shelf 40 is plinking ammo but handloaded 40 is a much different beast. Just as folks were able to go nuclear with the 10mm in a Glock you could do the same with 40 in a Glock back in the day…. Full length guide rods and springs and a good aftermarket barrel and it was off to the camp town races. Now personally…. I wouldn’t want to get shot with a 9mm or a 40 as it would hurt LOL. But to compare modern 9mm to 30 plus yr old manufactured 40 is shortsighted. If you compare apples to apples using the “same” tech for all aspects of the cartridge the 40 still outshines the 9 now just like it did back then.

Pretty much... every round benefits when improvements are available...improvements in bullet design, powders, etc., all end up transferred to other calibers as well!

 

[LEGSHOW]

simple answer yes. was my duty carry for 15 years

 

[Chewie]

Yep, it's In my edc rotation. 40, 9mm, and good old reliable 1911 in good old reliable 45acp.

 

[edporch]

Yes, though I prefer the .357 Sig round, I do swap in the .40SW barrel at times too.
I have more faith in .40SW than I do 9mm.

 

[Amishman44]

Yep, it's In my edc rotation. 40, 9mm, and good old reliable 1911 in good old reliable 45acp.

...and a good ole reliable 1911 in .45 acp...ya just can't beat it for reliability!

 

[Amishman44]

Yes, though I prefer the .357 Sig round, I do swap in the .40SW barrel at times too.
I have more faith in .40SW than I do 9mm.

Having helped a friend and LEO do the ballistics / barrier / penetration testing, and develop a written plan for moving their department from 9mm to either .40 S&W or .45 ACP caliber, there were definitely differences between 9mm and .40 S&W when it came to penetrating potential barriers that LEO's face every day, the heavier .40 S&W outperformed the lighter 9mm rounds in just about every category!
Example: Against a motor vehicle windshield, one could see a majority of the 9mm caliber rounds simply ricochet off and fly away vs penetrate the windshield, whereas the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP penetrated every time. Unless one was close and nearly perpendicular to the windshield, penetration with the first 9mm shot was less than 20%.
All of the testing we did raised a valid question, "Can one really trust 9mm caliber when it comes to home and personal defense, especially when physical barriers play a part?"
The answer I gave (and still believe) is, "While you can make a 9mm work (shot placement is key always), keep in mind that it's still an 'average' (aka, middle of the road) caliber when it comes to home and personal defense use. And, while I consider it a 'minimum level caliber' for EDC, there are better performing calibers, depending on one's capabilities and needs."
(Note: Not trying to offend others or create an argument, I am simply relaying my experience based on first-hand, actually testing.)

 

[1nderbeard]

For what its worth...

Shot a bowling pin head to head match this last weekend. I use a glock 22, full size .40. I assume most guys were using 9mm. I saw a lot of pins just falling down and needing follow up shots to hit the ground. Nearly all mine hit the ground on the first shot.

Only lost at the final to dirty harrys 44 mag. Guy was a pro. 5 shots, 5 pins, less than 5 seconds.

 

[edporch]

-Snip-
All of the testing we did raised a valid question, "Can one really trust 9mm caliber when it comes to home and personal defense, especially when physical barriers play a part?"
The answer I gave (and still believe) is, "While you can make a 9mm work (shot placement is key always), keep in mind that it's still an 'average' (aka, middle of the road) caliber when it comes to home and personal defense use. And, while I consider it a 'minimum level caliber' for EDC, there are better performing calibers, depending on one's capabilities and needs."
(Note: Not trying to offend others or create an argument, I am simply relaying my experience based on first-hand, actually testing.)

I've been carrying since the early 80's, and I never carried a 9mm or even owned a 9mm until about 5-7 years ago when I began using a S&W 9mm Shield, and then a Sig P365 about 3 years ago when I need a pocket pistol.

I always use Underwood +P 124 Grain HP for defensive loads.

When I don't carry a pocket pistol, it's usually in .357Sig, 10mm, or sometimes .40SW.

 

[DadSmith]

Having helped a friend and LEO do the ballistics / barrier / penetration testing, and develop a written plan for moving their department from 9mm to either .40 S&W or .45 ACP caliber, there were definitely differences between 9mm and .40 S&W when it came to penetrating potential barriers that LEO's face every day, the heavier .40 S&W outperformed the lighter 9mm rounds in just about every category!
Example: Against a motor vehicle windshield, one could see a majority of the 9mm caliber rounds simply ricochet off and fly away vs penetrate the windshield, whereas the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP penetrated every time. Unless one was close and nearly perpendicular to the windshield, penetration with the first 9mm shot was less than 20%.
All of the testing we did raised a valid question, "Can one really trust 9mm caliber when it comes to home and personal defense, especially when physical barriers play a part?"
The answer I gave (and still believe) is, "While you can make a 9mm work (shot placement is key always), keep in mind that it's still an 'average' (aka, middle of the road) caliber when it comes to home and personal defense use. And, while I consider it a 'minimum level caliber' for EDC, there are better performing calibers, depending on one's capabilities and needs."
(Note: Not trying to offend others or create an argument, I am simply relaying my experience based on first-hand, actually testing.)

Do you remember what grain the 40 and 45 were? I'm going to guess 180 and 230. I wonder if a 45acp 185gr would preform as good or better than the 40S&W? Reason I ask is because the 45acp could have a lighter recoil using standard velocity 185gr vs 230gr for those people that are recoil sensitive.

 

[Amishman44]

I've been carrying since the early 80's, and I never carried a 9mm or even owned a 9mm until about 5-7 years ago when I began using a S&W 9mm Shield, and then a Sig P365 about 3 years ago when I need a pocket pistol.
I always use Underwood +P 124 Grain HP for defensive loads.
When I don't carry a pocket pistol, it's usually in .357Sig, 10mm, or sometimes .40SW.

I have carried 9mm, occasionally, to match my wife's Beretta 92 (I have a Centurion DAO model) and the only 9mm ammo I carry is CorBon's 115 grain JHP popping out at 1350 fps...as one needs to propel a bullet faster to off-set the lighter grain.
But, typically, I prefer a 155 or 165 grain .40 S&W or a 185 grain .45 ACP, which is more comfortable to shoot out of a shorter-barreled pistol.

 

[Amishman44]

Do you remember what grain the 40 and 45 were? I'm going to guess 180 and 230. I wonder if a 45acp 185gr would preform as good or better than the 40S&W? Reason I ask is because the 45acp could have a lighter recoil using standard velocity 185gr vs 230gr for those people that are recoil sensitive.

I believe the .40 S&W we tested was 180 grain and the .45 acp was 230 grain...
In .40 S&W, I prefer either 155 or 165 grain JHP...heavy enough to generate additional momentum and light enough to have a lighter felt recoil, which results in a faster, second, follow up shot.
In .45 ACP, I prefer Hornady's 165 grain JHP Hydra-Shok or, sometimes, Remington's Golden Sabre 185 grain JHP, both of which shoots very well (are very accurate and both have a very moderate felt recoil) in the Glock 36 that is often my EDC.