Are guns in .40 going down in value

[Ggreen]

Too soft, that is why we all get the .357 Sig barrels and put in the .40s

mmmmhmm love me some 357sig

 

[Hohn]

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.

There's not much room for improvement left as long as the primary wounding mechanism of crushing tissue is used.

The closest thing to a viable new technology is something like the Lehigh Extreme Defender/Penetrator which is even then not radically different.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I’ve always heard the argument .40 hits harder but 9mm is tested to have a better follow up shot.

No doubt on the speed you can accurately shoot a 9mm vs the same gun in a .40 *IF* you practice with it. It takes a bit after transitioning to speed up your cadence because you've burned in the "this is how fast I can shoot" with the .40. The "hits harder" is meaningless in self defense vs humans applications, as "hitting hard" isn't wounding. Assuming similar bullet construction, there's no real difference between the heavy for caliber 9mm and .40. 115gr and under 9mm, then you start to see the gap opening up.

 

[88E30M50]

Can someone please explain why a 35,000 psi 40 is “high pressure” but a 35,000 psi 9mm is not?

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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That higher level of energy is harder on frames.

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.

 

[88E30M50]

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.

 

[Hohn]

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.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion, that a bunch of .40 haters who were technically ignorant tried to explain the observations of the higher stress the .40 causes on frames. So the "pressure" angle stuck.

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.

Absolutely. To my knowledge the 229 was actually designed for the .357 Sig, which at 40,000 psi is actually higher pressure than either 9mm or 40sw and has more bolt thrust than either. Especially with a stainless frame, it might be one of the "toughest" autoloaders ever made.

Not many other guns expressly designed for 40/357. G22/23/27/31/32/33 I think were all scaled up 9s? Pretty sure that's why they added the 3rd pin whenever it was-- mid gen 2 or something.

Any others you know specifically designed to handle extra bolt thrust of .40?

 

[Ggreen]

The usp was originally released in 40 and adapted into 9 and 45

 

[Hohn]

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.

Manufacturers keep trying to make one bill of materials work for both 9 and 40. And they keep failing. The gen 4 G19s were all oversprung because they used the G23 spring. That's only one of many examples.

Lots of non .45 1911s seem to be less than reliable because the makers don't dial in the timing. Heck, even .45 versions of it can be unreliable in the micro models (officer-ish size with light slides).

But to the point here: 40 is not *inherently* worse for a gun anymore than 9mm is (because it had more pressure than .45) or .45 is (because it's low pressure acts on a larger area).

It's just a matter of designing a gun to the demands of the cartridge. And far too many makers are too cheap to do so, making many .40 guns a compromise ranging from almost-as-good to near-disaster.

Thus, the inherent problem isn't the cartridge, it's the refusal to engineer the gun to its needs.

 

[Route 45]

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.

 

[98cirrus]

ZX in Goshen, and Ft. Wayne have fair used gun prices. I have bought 4 or 5 in the last 6 months or so. I have noticed a trend away from .40 also. Happy because I have more than a few aging 9mm, in the safe that will need to find another home some day. .

 

[ECS686]

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.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

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.

We had the 226 .40's for awhile. Very good shooting .40 weapons. Kicked myself several times because I didn't buy it back after switching.

 

[Sdleach08]

I had 2 40's and yes several stores wasn't interested in buying them and I eventually traded them in for a lot less. I just don't like paying so much more for the ammo.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Recoil Gun Works, is a on line dealer only, no brick and mortar store, they will be at the Indy 1500 sometimes.