-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Anybody a big fan of the .40?
- Thread starter Dante1983
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I started out with .40 and eventually transitioned to mostly 9mm due to cost and the lighter recoil being more favorable in the Shield which is what I prefer to carry. I do still keep a full size M&P40 just cause I do still like shooting that round out of the larger frame pistol.
I agree, the recoil to me feels about the same as nato spec 124 grain 9mm. Especially with 165 grain loads.
Invested 3 different times with the .40. The only thing it did for me was game USPSA for legal major. Carrying no advantage. Hunting no advantage. Common availability disadvantage. Cost disadvantage. Flexible loading range disadvantage. Contaminating manufacturing resources for common ammo production disadvantage. Gun and ammo marketers advantage.
When we look back at how ammo gets a sail behind it for a marketing success, there are have been many fails. i.e the .32 trail, or the .356 TSW, the Black Talon, and many others. Caliber success however, doesn’t mean it was best, just popular for the masses. For instance, we proved many times back in the day that the American Cartridge .38 Super actually invented 3 years earlier than 9mm) held an edge over the German 9mm and all its sister calibers as well (9x21.5) Largo, Luger etc).
Timing is everything. For me and in my opinion, it’s sad that NATO and the marketing geniuses did not choose the .38 Super to launch a following. From hand loading to ballistics it is a better round all together. Pricing and no world support give way to the tapered case, less potent and harder to hand load round of the Europeon 9mm.
The .40 caliber in size is not new. Many of us cowboys have been shooting .400 size lead projectiles for many years. Introduced in 1874 the .38-40 predates the S&W 40 by126 years. The marketing was ripe for S&W to introduce the round, especially when the FBI (some say the gun authorities) was blaming its anemic ammunition for the embarrassing shootout in Miami circa 1986.
Twist and turns can make the water murky when it comes to getting the masses behind something. Like politics and marketing successes, there is no guarantee the product is the best one available but are force fed by marketing majors and accepted by uninformed sheep. Individually we are a smarter buyer but collectively, not so much.
If you have and shoot a 40, then by all means enjoy. It is a strong platform and will do the job for which it was designed. I would stock up on rounds and hand loading equipment if you haven’t as the future of this being a long running success is questionable.
See you on the range,
Trapper
When we look back at how ammo gets a sail behind it for a marketing success, there are have been many fails. i.e the .32 trail, or the .356 TSW, the Black Talon, and many others. Caliber success however, doesn’t mean it was best, just popular for the masses. For instance, we proved many times back in the day that the American Cartridge .38 Super actually invented 3 years earlier than 9mm) held an edge over the German 9mm and all its sister calibers as well (9x21.5) Largo, Luger etc).
Timing is everything. For me and in my opinion, it’s sad that NATO and the marketing geniuses did not choose the .38 Super to launch a following. From hand loading to ballistics it is a better round all together. Pricing and no world support give way to the tapered case, less potent and harder to hand load round of the Europeon 9mm.
The .40 caliber in size is not new. Many of us cowboys have been shooting .400 size lead projectiles for many years. Introduced in 1874 the .38-40 predates the S&W 40 by126 years. The marketing was ripe for S&W to introduce the round, especially when the FBI (some say the gun authorities) was blaming its anemic ammunition for the embarrassing shootout in Miami circa 1986.
Twist and turns can make the water murky when it comes to getting the masses behind something. Like politics and marketing successes, there is no guarantee the product is the best one available but are force fed by marketing majors and accepted by uninformed sheep. Individually we are a smarter buyer but collectively, not so much.
If you have and shoot a 40, then by all means enjoy. It is a strong platform and will do the job for which it was designed. I would stock up on rounds and hand loading equipment if you haven’t as the future of this being a long running success is questionable.
See you on the range,
Trapper
My carry Sigs do as well. As much as I like .40, I like the .357 Sig round a bit more.
I’ve never understood the hate that .40 seems to bring out in people. Is there any other round that brings that out like .40 does? To me, .40 is the perfect middle ground between the 9mm and .45. In the right gun, it’s a pleasure to shoot. It delivers almost as much energy as a .45 but with better capacity.
The common argument is that there’s not enough benefit in .40 over 9mm. In drag racing, you don’t choose a lesser engine to reduce costs if you expect to win. A gunfight is the drag race where your life is at stake, so why would anyone leave ANY performance on the table if they can have it.
Sticking with 9mm because you run it better is fine. I do the same from time to time. Sticking with 9mm because it makes you a better shooter for the same defense budget makes sense too. But to hate the .40 as some do makes no sense.
The benefits of .40 to me are:
-More energy on target
-More barrier blind
-Cost difference is negligible for reloaders
-Easier to reload than 9mm or .45 (.45 due to the mix of SPP brass)
-Practice ammo is very close to SD ammo in performance
Even if shooting commercial only, it’s giving you practice that mimics SD ammo at a fraction of the cost of practicing with SD ammo. 9mm has the danger of allowing cheap practice with range ammo that’s very different in feel from SD ammo to be careful of.
9mm makes a lot of sense in today’s world and I carry it at times but the hate for .40 just seems odd to me.
The common argument is that there’s not enough benefit in .40 over 9mm. In drag racing, you don’t choose a lesser engine to reduce costs if you expect to win. A gunfight is the drag race where your life is at stake, so why would anyone leave ANY performance on the table if they can have it.
Sticking with 9mm because you run it better is fine. I do the same from time to time. Sticking with 9mm because it makes you a better shooter for the same defense budget makes sense too. But to hate the .40 as some do makes no sense.
The benefits of .40 to me are:
-More energy on target
-More barrier blind
-Cost difference is negligible for reloaders
-Easier to reload than 9mm or .45 (.45 due to the mix of SPP brass)
-Practice ammo is very close to SD ammo in performance
Even if shooting commercial only, it’s giving you practice that mimics SD ammo at a fraction of the cost of practicing with SD ammo. 9mm has the danger of allowing cheap practice with range ammo that’s very different in feel from SD ammo to be careful of.
9mm makes a lot of sense in today’s world and I carry it at times but the hate for .40 just seems odd to me.
Last edited:
Hate is such a strong word. LOL
"Can't we all just get along?"
The only moment of hate for the 40 is when it gets in my batch of 45 brass and screws up my Dillon.
eldirector
Grandmaster
88 above hit the high points for me. I like my 40's. They still carry a ton of energy, even in a subcompact. Yeah, harder to shoot, but I still get my hits. In something larger, it shoots really well. And, when y'all are scouring the shelves for 9mm, I can usually find cases of 40.
I carry a full size M&P 40 frequently, been carrying one for years. Love my 1911's and 9's and carry them all depending on my mood. I really can't understand the 40 dislike and am equally comfortable with all 3 pain inducers!
Same here. Except when I swap a 357 Sig for .40.
Also a sensible choice. I prefer supersonic for HPs, though
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,953
- 113
I'm a "fan" of the .45, both Auto and Colt. I find the .45s to be a lot of fun to shoot and to load. Hobbyist concerns aside, the "big 3" duty rounds are essentially interchangeable now. I wouldn't complain about carrying any of them, they all work if you do your part. Penetration and expansion between the 147gr HST in 9mm and the 180gr HST in .40S&W are remarkably close. The 9mm will penetrate a bit more in some situations, the .40 a bit more in others. I suspect you'll see more lot to lot variability than cartridge variability now because they are all "tuned" to meet the FBI specs for minimum and maximum penetration in the full battery of tests.
Muzzle Energy is not a reliable indication of wounding potential, particularly in handguns. It's easy to market to, though.
Muzzle Energy is not a reliable indication of wounding potential, particularly in handguns. It's easy to market to, though.
Back when I got most of my information from gun magazines I was big into the fotay. Once I started doing a lot of training I pretty much gave it up. There is nothing wrong with it but for me it has almost no advantages and as noted elsewhere a number of disadvantages. If I was going to carry something other than 9 it would be .45.
Considering power factor between the common service caliber cartridges means almost nothing in actual performance on the street, I guess I am missing your point.
