I have the Shield 40 and love it, but not sure on the carry ammo to use. I like light and fast, so have been carrying the 155 Gold Dots. However, I chrono tested them and they are around 1080fps for my 3.1" barrel. That's only 389 ft-lbs. My 3" Kahr in 9mm gets over 400ft-lbs with +P+. Sometimes i think the 9mm is hard to beat. The 155 gold dot is designed for 1200fps and I have seen tests done were the 155 out of the Shield failed to expand fully. I looked at tests on the 180gr gold dot and HST from a shield and expansion and penatration looked good. I just don't like the lower energy of the 180. Just wondering what others are using and if you found any short barrel tests done for that particular ammo. I would like to stay with gold dots or HST's.

__________________
M&P Shield 40, M&P-10
S&W 629

I use 180 Gold Dots in my 3.5" barrel 4013TSW. There is more to terminal ballistics than just kinetic energy. I prefer heavy-for-caliber bullets, assuming good expansion, of course.

This runs great in my Rami, has less recoil, and seems to perform well in tests.

__________________
Israel Has The Right To Exist.

IMO, you'll be better off with either 180gr HST or Speer Short Barrel from a sub-3.5" barrel 40sw. Buffalo Barnes TAC-XP would be another option, but I would shy away from the Barnes loadings themselves from a 3" barrel, as they tend to be lower velocity.

180gr HST, but really it's a coin flip. Any modern HP will do. The tiny difference in energy is insignificant. Shot placement is everything.

My hand loads (not yours perhaps): Hornady 155 gr xtp with 6 gr unique give one hole groups at ten yards from my stainless Sig 239. It's a pretty heavy/beefy little piece. Never chrono'd but it hits the steel challenge plates & bowling pins with authority. At close range I wouldn't overthink the velocity/K.E. thing, use a quality bullet & focus on shot placement. I certainly WOULD NOT want to be on the receiving end.

One of the reasons I like .40 is that I like short barrels, and .40 seems to stand out in the crowd when it comes to short barrel ballistics.

Shooting Illustrated | Snubby Ballistics

Within reason, and from what I've come across as per tests and such, I would say that just about any good defensive load would do in .40 short barreled guns, the trick for me was in finding a load that would decrease follow up shot time, which meant a projectile that is on the lower end of the weight spectrum for caliber and has a little less oomph.

I do keep some of the heavier stuff around, the heavier weight bullets are unquestionably going to deliver better penetration, and another reason I like .40 is that it can be loaded with heavyweights, but the Barnes load is by far the best that I've tried yet in my Rami subcompact. I think of it as "running the .40 like a 9mm ". Except, its a 9mm with greater surface area, and a little more oomph. if your comfortable with a 9mm short barrel pistol then there's no reason to not feel the same, running the .40 "like a 9".

ETA:


The barnes tac looks good in short barrel 9mm.....

IMHO, but of course people are free to disagree, the Barnes Tac solid copper bullet is, overall, one of the best of the new whiz bang bullets to come out yet. Doesn't seem to matter who's loading it, corbon, buffalo bore, or Barnes themselves.......

__________________
Israel Has The Right To Exist.

I carry 180 grain HST's in my 40c. They shoot to point of aim and I like them.

Fox

That's an interesting link Ramikrav, but I tend to put more stock in denim-covered gel tests than water tests. If you check out MouseGunAddict.BlogSpot (Pocket Guns and Gear: Ammo Tests), you'll see that the 155gr GDHP was a poor performer through denim and gel out of a 3" Shield. Personally, I feel that the 155gr loads pack the most punch in terms of recoil, while the 180gr loads are much softer.

I have concluded (from my own internet research) that when you go down to that small of a barrel in any caliber, not all HP ammunition will perform well, and you should be selective about what you carry. In general, I would say that HST's seem to do better out of 3" barrels than standard Gold Dots, and that heavier bullets also perform better than the lighter options.

TAC-XP's are one of the 'newer' bullet types that I also believe to work very well, but it does seem that more velocity equals more penetration with them. IIRC, I have seen the 9mm Barnes loading fail to expand through gel, and it also tested at significantly lower velocities than advertised. Buffalo Bore is IMO the fastest, most reliable loader of TAC-XP's, with Corbon being a close second. Black Hills, Barnes, and Doubletap Ammo are all loads that I avoid in TAC-XP for their slower velocities and/or poor QC/production.