Why the .40 ?

[amboy49]

Shooting at the range and picking up brass after IDPA and USPSA matches, I'm starting to acquire quite a bit of .40 caliber brass. This gives rise to the question: Should I sell the brass or buy some dies and a new gun ? Are there any advantages to the .40 ? More recoil than the 9mm but less than the .45 ? I don't plan on carrying the gun - just shooting it in competition events. I can load up to 147 gr. bullets in the 9mm - which easily gets me to a power factor in major. Minimum bullet size for the .40 is ?

Besides the dies I'd also have start inventorying separate bullets. I haven't done a lot of research, but would hope I wouldn't have inventory totally different powder(s).

Other than just acquiring another gun for the "fun" of it, are there reasons I should consider the .40 caliber ?

Thanks in advance

 

[netsecurity]

I think it has more recoil than the .45 because it has higher velocity. I dislike .40S&W.

 

[koutsevil]

I see factory weights up to 180 grain. I read that 165 grain is the best weight to use. I have shot both the 180 and the 165. The 165 recoils more than a .45. The 180 recoils a bit more than 9 mm to me. The 165 has more let recoil.

 

[DRob]

I have an SR1911, a Glock 27, & a Glock 23. I like each of them a lot but the G27 is my every day carry simply due to it's smaller size. I bought the G23 many years ago through IPD's armory at the city contract price. Easy decision. I have the SR1911 purely because I wanted a 1911. I have seen several posts here bemoaning the .40's "snap" or heavy recoil but the little 27 is every bit as comfortable to shoot as either of the other, heavier guns. My wife also shoots all of them with no difficulty. Perception being each person's reality, though, you should shoot a light .40 like the G27 and make your own decision. If it's too much recoil, maybe your wife or girlfriend will like it! I kid, I kid!

 

[roadrunner681]

I think it has more recoil than the .45 because it has higher velocity. I dislike .40S&W.

well i shoot 44 and 357 quite often while they recoil a bit there not uncomfortable, i find the 40 caller to just be uncomfortable to shoot, i have no idea why 10mm doesn't bug me but the 40 does.

 

[HavokCycle]

my first handgun was a .40 ruger. i bought it under the premise of having more power than 9mm, true or not, thats not the debate here.

since then ive stuck with it for some reason or another, and have several .40s now. my EDC is a g22 but occasionally carry a G27. i even have a keltec sub2k in .40, and as far as that goes, i can definitely tell you 165gr rounds have a lot of recoil when put thru that one.
that said, ive more rounds down my g22 than any other of my guns, and i'm more competent with that round than any other. just used to it i suppose.

some people like 9, some like .45, some 38 spl. i like .40. but if you're that concerned about it... i'm sure i can find a home for that brass..........

 

[SSGSAD]

I think it has more recoil than the .45 because it has higher velocity. I dislike .40S&W.

I have bad wrists, I too think the .40 recoils more that my .45 .....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The .40 has less actual recoil than the .45 but will typically have more perceived recoil because the recoil pulse is being delivered faster. Total energy is only part of the recoil story, how long it takes to deliver it matters. To exaggerate the affect, say you sit in a chair and I accelerate you to 50 mph in 2 seconds vs accelerating you to 75 mph over 35 seconds. There is more energy (recoil) in the second, but its much more gentle on you than the first because its spread out over more time.

That said, I've never found the .40 to be unpleasant or uncontrollable. Its a fine round, but I wouldn't expand my stable of calibers just to include one if I was already happy with 9mm, .45, etc.

 

[HavokCycle]

something else to consider - when the ammo shortage started, 9mm quickly cleared the shelves. .40 was to be had in spades, tho eventually that dried up as well.

 

[KellyinAvon]

The .40 has less actual recoil than the .45 but will typically have more perceived recoil because the recoil pulse is being delivered faster. Total energy is only part of the recoil story, how long it takes to deliver it matters. To exaggerate the affect, say you sit in a chair and I accelerate you to 50 mph in 2 seconds vs accelerating you to 75 mph over 35 seconds. There is more energy (recoil) in the second, but its much more gentle on you than the first because its spread out over more time.

That said, I've never found the .40 to be unpleasant or uncontrollable. Its a fine round, but I wouldn't expand my stable of calibers just to include one if I was already happy with 9mm, .45, etc.

So, just to review: .45 has more recoil, it just seems like .40 recoils more because of the speed of the recoil, leading to the "perception" of .40 having more recoil. Is...perception...reality??

 

[seedubs1]

Higher capacity than .45
higher power than 9mm
whats not to love

if you're irritated by the recoil:
1). Factory loads typically have higher energy than .45 rounds (sorry .45 guys)
2). Load your own, and tone it down a bit. This isn't rocket science...

 

[88E30M50]

I picked up a lot of .40 brass over the years but did not actually buy a gun in .40 until this spring. It's become one of my favorite calibers to carry. I don't know why, but I shoot a Glock 23 about as good as, or better, than any other gun I have. There is a bit more perceived recoil, but nothing uncontrollable. I've timed my shots and the difference between the G23 and my CZ 75 is negligible. For me, the .40 allows a nice balance between the capacity of a 9mm and the energy of a .45 ACP. It's also, apparently, a great way to make friends in unlikely places! Just ask Que!

 

[BigJ]

I picked up a lot of .40 brass over the years but did not actually buy a gun in .40 until this spring. It's become one of my favorite calibers to carry. I don't know why, but I shoot a Glock 23 about as good as, or better, than any other gun I have. There is a bit more perceived recoil, but nothing uncontrollable. I've timed my shots and the difference between the G23 and my CZ 75 is negligible. For me, the .40 allows a nice balance between the capacity of a 9mm and the energy of a .45 ACP. It's also, apparently, a great way to make friends in unlikely places! Just ask Que!

I see what you did there! Great video!

I too had never used 40 until I took one in on trade, it is now my EDC round and quickly becoming a favorite! Can't wait till I get my press to start reloading for it!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, just to review: .45 has more recoil, it just seems like .40 recoils more because of the speed of the recoil, leading to the "perception" of .40 having more recoil. Is...perception...reality??

In a real way, yes.

The energy of a given cartridge is based on the weight of the charge and of the projectile. This measurement alone, much like muzzle energy alone, is almost useless. It will not tell you how much "kick" a weapon will have when the cartridge is fired.

Now you can take that information and combine it with other information, such as the weight of the firearm, the velocity at which the projectile and gasses (what used to be the charge) exit the barrel, etc. and get a figure more useful for comparison. You can figure both how much total energy the recoil pulse will have, and also how fast it will accelerate. More overall energy = more pushing, faster acceleration = more slapping, if that makes sense. You can take a lot more push spread over a longer time period, you won't like a slap even if its relatively light.

Of course this doesn't take into consideration grip/stock material and its give or flex, total surface area that you are exposed to (recoil channeled into a smaller area of your flesh will be more uncomfortable than the same recoil spread over more of your flesh, thing pushing a nail into your shoulder vs a soup can with the same amount of energy behind it), etc.

I had all the forumulas at one time, but apparently my ex-wife needed my Ballistics books more than I did, as once I got back in country they were gone, but I digress.

If you are math nerdy enough, you can calculate it all out and have nice neat comparisons. Or you can just go shoot it and see.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1). Factory loads typically have higher energy than .45 rounds (sorry .45 guys)

Muzzle energy is a near useless measurement of the difference in effectiveness between calibers. It is heavily weighted toward velocity over mass in a way that real world shooting results aren't. The only time it is of any value is when comparing two cartridges with the same weight OR the same velocity, and even then is only one of several measurements that matter.

 

[chezuki]

Shooting at the range and picking up brass after IDPA and USPSA matches, I'm starting to acquire quite a bit of .40 caliber brass. This gives rise to the question: Should I sell the brass or buy some dies and a new gun ? Are there any advantages to the .40 ? More recoil than the 9mm but less than the .45 ? I don't plan on carrying the gun - just shooting it in competition events. I can load up to 147 gr. bullets in the 9mm - which easily gets me to a power factor in major. Minimum bullet size for the .40 is ?

Besides the dies I'd also have start inventorying separate bullets. I haven't done a lot of research, but would hope I wouldn't have inventory totally different powder(s).

Other than just acquiring another gun for the "fun" of it, are there reasons I should consider the .40 caliber ?

Thanks in advance

.40 is the minimum bullet diameter for major in USPSA limited or limited 10. The only class that scores 9mm loaded to major is open.

 

[seedubs1]

Muzzle energy is a near useless measurement of the difference in effectiveness between calibers. It is heavily weighted toward velocity over mass in a way that real world shooting results aren't. The only time it is of any value is when comparing two cartridges with the same weight OR the same velocity, and even then is only one of several measurements that matter.

Velocity, mass, expended diameter, unexpanded diameter, reliability of expansion, energy, etc...

The most commonly (and rightly so) way to measure a self defense cartridges usefulness is energy (barring geometrical differences such as hard ball vs. jhp, non expanded jhp rounds, etc... I'm talking .40 hst vs .45 hst for example). You can argue all you want, but energy is what matters in the end. It doesn't matter if its more weighted towards velocity if we're considering a non-pass through shot, all of the energy must be dispelled in the material that is shot.

if you'd rather compare momentum, then were talking 25-26 lb-f/s for .40 and 26-27 lb-f/s for .45.....a pretty marginal difference. And that is not weighted towards mass or velocity

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You can argue all you want, but energy is what matters in the end.

The most commonly (and rightly so) way to measure a self defense cartridges usefulness is energy

Using Muzzle energy (kinetic energy) alone tells you nothing. Let's give an example with a wide spread so we can really see the difference. Let's say you had to choose to let me clothesline tackle you across your chest from a run or you have to let me shoot you in the chest with a 158 grain Hyrda-shock .357 magnum bullet. Taking the tackle results in you absorbing about 300 ft/lbs of energy over what taking the bullet does. Right across the chest. I'll probably knock you down, but will I inflict any significant injury? 300 ft/lbs of energy over the .357, after all.

A .22LR and a well thrown baseball have about the same energy, yet you'd be hard pressed to slaughter a cow throwing a baseball at the animal's skull. Penetration to vital bits kills someone/thing, not muzzle energy. Or stops them, if we prefer that terminology. Muzzle energy does not tell you penetration, resistance to intermediate barriers, tissue destroyed, etc, all of which are significantly more important than simple kinetic energy. Two rounds with the exact same ME can vary wildly on how they act striking a human or animal target, as the baseball vs .22LR demonstrates.

Muzzle energy is often cited because it looks impressive and is easy to calculate and put on your box. Its especially popular with gimmick ammo that is incredibly light weight and prefragmented or super frangible because it makes it look more impressive in the marketing material. However, the most commonly cited measure of effectivness continues to be the FBI standards, which of course measure penetration.

I'd urge you to read Understanding Ballistics and Bullet Penetration: Modeling...Wound Trauma.

 

[g00n24]

If you want to shoot limited in USPSA you pretty much have to have a .40

 

[seedubs1]

Using Muzzle energy (kinetic energy) alone tells you nothing. Let's give an example with a wide spread so we can really see the difference. Let's say you had to choose to let me clothesline tackle you across your chest from a run or you have to let me shoot you in the chest with a 158 grain Hyrda-shock .357 magnum bullet. Taking the tackle results in you absorbing about 300 ft/lbs of energy over what taking the bullet does. Right across the chest. I'll probably knock you down, but will I inflict any significant injury? 300 ft/lbs of energy over the .357, after all.

A .22LR and a well thrown baseball have about the same energy, yet you'd be hard pressed to slaughter a cow throwing a baseball at the animal's skull. Penetration to vital bits kills someone/thing, not muzzle energy. Or stops them, if we prefer that terminology. Muzzle energy does not tell you penetration, resistance to intermediate barriers, tissue destroyed, etc, all of which are significantly more important than simple kinetic energy. Two rounds with the exact same ME can vary wildly on how they act striking a human or animal target, as the baseball vs .22LR demonstrates.

Muzzle energy is often cited because it looks impressive and is easy to calculate and put on your box. Its especially popular with gimmick ammo that is incredibly light weight and prefragmented or super frangible because it makes it look more impressive in the marketing material. However, the most commonly cited measure of effectivness continues to be the FBI standards, which of course measure penetration.

I'd urge you to read Understanding Ballistics and Bullet Penetration: Modeling...Wound Trauma.

however, were not comparing a baseball to a bullet. We're comparing bullets to bullets. Your analogy fails.