Hello!

While out at Camp Atterbury working the National Matches, I was talking guns with a co-worker, and we were discussing the 40.

Having no personal experience with the round, I tend to ask questions and listen to the answers. My co-worker is a retired LEO and police firearms instructor. He shared that he personally disliked the round, and shared numerous examples of officers having difficulty qualifying with the round due to flinching and limp-wristing induced by the muzzle flip generated by the "snappy" round.

Is there any particular round or weight bullet in factory loaded rounds that can minimize this "snappiness"? Can this" snappiness" be minimized or eliminated via the use of handloads?

Should I purchase a handgun in 40 S&W, it would primarily be for range shooting, and once mastered, for CCW where I am legal to carry. The handgun I am looking at would be either a Sig 226 or 229.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

No wonder their department had a problem with the .40S&W. Flinching and limp-wristing have nothing to do with the bullet caliber.

There are a lot of people who own .40 caliber pistols who should never have bought them or had them forced upon them because they may have had shot anticipation problems and/or poor grip issues with other caliber handguns.

If you run full factory loads the 40 s&w is snappy but certainly not uncontrollable. I reload my Sig 2022 with Unique 5.0 gr. 1.130 oal and the recoil is really pretty light and accurate. The Lymon Cast Bullet Handbook for 180gr lead list a minimum 4.6gr to max of 5.2 gr. A good source for loading lead. Hope this helps.

I have a Sig P226 in 40 cal and I don't think the round is as bad as so many think it is. I also have a Ruger SR40c in 40 cal and a friend of mine has the same gun in 9mm. The Ruger 40 recoil was much better than with a Glock G27 or the Springfield XDM 40c. My friend was surprised there really wasn't as much of additional recoil versus his 9mm.

I don't like shooting heavy recoil ammo and the 40 to me isn't bad. A 40 in my opinion for felt recoil is nothing compared to say a 357 magnum.

The 40 cal cost is about in the middle of the 9mm and the 45.

I would suggest you rent one to shoot before you up and buy one though. You might be one of the 40 haters. The gun used can make a noticeable difference though.

The short answer is generally "yes", recoil of the .40S&W is usually pretty brisk and "snappy". The factors involved include the necessity of using powders and charges appropriate to operate reliably in a wide variety of production pistols, with sufficient recoil within a predictable range (recoil impulse) to cycle the slide, eject, and chamber another round regardless of the weight/mass of the slide and/or resistance of the recoil springs. Weight of these pistols ranges from under 16 oz. to over 32 ounces, so the recoil impulse must be within a specific range to properly cycle them all.

I shoot .40S&W in a Kahr P40 (16 oz. empty) and a Sig P229 (29 oz.) Barrel lengths are similar, but slide weight and recoil spring resistance varies considerably. Both pistols deliver very "snappy" recoil, but the little Kahr becomes very uncomfortable in as few as a dozen shots while the P229 can be fired comfortably about as long as I want to stand on the range and shoot.

For many years competition shooters used specially loaded .45 ACP ammunition in modified pistols for precision range games. Lighter weight bullets loaded at modest velocities are easier to shoot well consistently, but the pistols require lightened recoil springs and other modifications to function reliably. The same could be done with the .40, but the result is likely to be unsuitable for any use other than range games.

No the .40 is not a snappy round to me. It is a very stepped down 10mm with a short case. When the FBI went to 10mm carry they found that the women and a bunch of city boys did not have the muscle in their arms and wrists to be able to shoot the 10mm well. The .40 was developed to reduce the recoil. They found that the .40 could be put in a smaller gun so everyone seemed to move to the .40 which worked better than a 9mm. With all the bullet design today the 9mm looks like it works as good as the .40 so a lot of police forces are going back to the 9mm.

Side note I have a Sig 229 and if I have to give up my 1911's that is my goto gun.

I have shot .40 S & W in a Kahr P40, a Walther P99 and a Beretta 96 (actually a 92 with a 96 top end). It's a relatively high pressure round with a medium+ (135-180 gr) bullet and recoils proportionately to the weight of the gun you use; not much more than a 9 mm in a full-size steel pistol and fairly miserable with a polymer subcompact. No surprises there.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

snappy recoil / uncomfortable to shoot is also depend on your stance . If your 2 arms are as stiff as 2 boards straight out in front of you, then yes you will probably complain loudly and bitterly . If you will relax your arms a bit , absorb the recoil in your whole body , then " no " it's not a problem . This has just been my experience and trying to help others . Regards, Paul

Not real snappy in a 4006. In a Shield, there is some snappiness but not terrible.

Yes it is that's what the FBI did the whole Papa Bear, Momma Bear, Baby bear dance


38 special
9mm
45
10mm
40SW
back to 9mm or some such order, Don't know if 45 was ever in there.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Part of the equation is the gun used. A Sig P226 is probably going to have less perceived recoil than a Glock 23.

I had a Glock 23, pretty much just used 165gr ammo, and considered that combination "snappy," but certainly not uncontrollable. I was able to get rounds where I wanted them to go (more or less... ). If I were to go .40 again, I'd probably be more inclinded to get something like a Sig P229.

Technique is another part of the equation. Good grip and, to a lesser extent, stance can mitigate recoil/controllability issues.

One more component of the equation is mindset. If someone keeps getting told that .40S&W has a hard kick, then actually shoots one, what is the likelihood that this person would describe it as a hard-kicking gun?

So, in my opinion, it's about getting the hardware and software working together properly, more than any intrinsic factor in the ammo.

FWIW, I do recall there being some "de-powered" .40S&W loads in 165gr, but I can't recall the brand/model. I believe it was Speer Gold Dot, and/or Federal, but I could be wrong.

And, generally speaking, heavier-weight bullets will typically have more of a "push" recoil while lighter-weight bullets will typically have more of a "snap" recoil, given they have about equal power in the same caliber. So a 180gr load may have recoil that's more "palatable" than a 165gr or 155gr load.

Groo here
As the 40 [aka S&W or short and weak] runs at similar pressure to the 357, 357sig and 10mm-- it is snappy...
Add to that , many guns are converted 9mm designs, the 40 is often shot in lighter smaller guns...
After a rash of glock-k-booms I have little use for one..
Tried many kept one [ eaa Gold team comp gun that WAS accurate]
The two best things about it is:
1 It is bigger than a 9mm in the same size gun...
2 It makes a good 357 sig with a cheap barrel change....

Here's my very unscientific take on the .40 recoil. With larger "service" sized pistols, the 9mm and its recoil will make you bend more at the wrist, (or try to,) the .45 ACP will make you bend more at your elbow, and the .40 will try to do both.

Bill

I sometimes carry a Glock 27 as it checks a lot of boxes for me. I don't think the recoil with 180 grain Gold Sabers is close to a full throttle .357 158 grain fired from my GP100. Yes, the 40 does have more recoil than a .38 LRN but there is a tiny bit of difference in the ballistics also. It has been my experience that with some training and practice, most people can shoot a 45/40/357 pretty well. But I am old so what do I know.

I knew a man that knew another man that was his brothers uncle that said the .40 was so snappy that it broke his wrist AND the recoil was so bad that the gun smacked him in the forehead and knocked him out and the was just the first shot!!!

That's how snappy the .40 S&W is.....

Randy

PS. Small attempt at humor and sarcasm ..........the .40 S&W is no big deal to me. Not a wimpy round but is not a dragon slayer either.

I changed from .40 caliber factory 180 grain JHP ammo to 165 grain JHP ammo and find that the 165 grain is a better choice.

Full power loads in .40 caliber ARE snappier than a 9MM or a 45ACP in my experience, especially when firing them in a lighter weight handgun. The report of the fired round is also louder to me. I shoot all calibers and recoil is not an issue for me with any of them, it is just different. I'd much rather shoot any of my .45ACP's in any size frame than a .40 in the same size frame. The difference is a "push" with the .45's and a bit of a snap with the .40. This does not create any kind of problem for me, but it exists. I have fired all three of these calibers back to back to make my comparisons and I can feel the difference. As has been said, grip and stance and personal tolerances can magnify or molify the recoil for different people. Different guns with different grip configuration can make a difference.

So each of us will have different experiences with these calibers and different guns. As I said, none of these calibers are a problem for me, but if I'm shooting a lot, I'll take the 9MM or the .45 over the .40. Part of the reason is that since I don't reload any longer, the expense of rounds fired also makes a difference. They will all get the job done, given the proper selection of ammo and when my performance with each of them is satisfactory. This is just my perception and experience with all three calibers. Your experience may certainly vary and that's OK. You'll just have to try them for yourself and see what works best for you!

__________________
So long ... Ken

I have a Sig 229, a Springfield EMP 4, and a Glock 23 Gen 4 all in 40. I dislike the Glock because it is too light for that round. I'm and older guy and don't have the forearm or wrist strength I once had and that Glock hurts my wrists -- It's not that far from my S&W 11 ounce Model 342 Titanium shooting +P. Ouch. The Sig 229 Nitron is built like a tank and weighs like a tank. It manages the 40 caliber nicely, although getting past that first 8Lb double action pull takes some practice. In single action it's awesome. The EMP 4 is also hefty at nearly 3 lbs when fully loaded and I shoot it as accurately as the S&W M&P 9mm full size in a 20 round holster draw routine (10x1, 2x2, 3x3). It is also a magnificently finished gun and an all time favorite. (maybe I should mention that I had to send it back to Springfield very early on because of failure to feed problems but since its return from the factory I've had over 1,000 rounds without a failure.)

I've ways been a 9mm guy, with no interest in the .40.
But, I like Glocks, and the bargain police surplus pistol prices were irresistible...
So, I now own a like new Gen4 G22. $300, with good night sights.
I've only had it to the range once, but I didn't find it snappy at all. In fact, it felt pretty similar to my G17 using +P or +P+ 9mm. I shot 165gn fmj, 135gn, and 180gn HST.
I liked shooting it so much that it has become home defense pistol.
Certainly less snappy than my 3" GP100 using magnum 357 ammo.

Trying to simplify this as much as possible, with the 180 gr "standard" load, the .40 is snappy. A major department training head mentioned that after switch from 9 mm to .40, they had lower qual scores and a several claims of work related wrist injuries (No, I'm not joking. Wish I was,)

Again, trying to simplify, a great part of this seems to be a very sharp pressure spike with the 180 gr load, gun weight and slide weight/velocity. The level of training, physical condition and shooting stance also affect this. Jimmy notes above, the 165 gr load was developed to reduce the pressure spike and would seem to to likely to reduce the issue.

We went from 10 mm, to 10 mm lite (FBI spec load), to .40. The .40 was a different gun and I don't particularly care for it the combination.

Shoot 10mm then tell me if a 40 Short & Weak is snappy..

Just because the 10 mm recoils more, doesn't mean the .40 S&W is the same as a .22.

I have a .40 in a 646 L-frame revolver. With 180 grain loads, the recoil seems to me about the same as a 4 inch L-frame .357 magnum with 158 grain loads. The .357 has more muzzle blast. the 646 has slightly bigger holes, and a titanium cylinder; my 4-inch 686 is the Pro model without the full length lug, and a slightly reduced barrel diameter, so the weights are roughly equal.

The .40 is relatively high pressure for a handgun round, and that's one reason it is regarded as snappy; that's why the larger, but relatively lower pressure .45 ACP seems to have more of a "push" type of recoil.

I might draw some flak here but I disposed of my 9mms in favor of the Glock 23 40S&W. I find the 40S&W much preferable with perhaps a little less muzzle flip/recoil than the 9mm out of a Glock 19 (same frame as the 23). Just my opinion, but I really like the 40S&W. Shoot max loads using green dot and a 180 grain TMC.

I love .40 S&W. My first pistol was a Sig P229 .40. I've never even owned a 9mm I love it so much. But I love 10mm more, and now only own 10mm semi autos. .40 S&W was a good starter caliber for me to work up to shooting my 10mm pistols as well as I do though. To an inexperienced shooter, yes, .40 is definitely snappy unless you have fat, heavy, large hands. I have thin, but strong, large hands.

I've owned a P229 .40, a Kahr CM40, and a S&W 4053. Traded the P229, sold the Kahr, and converted the 4053 to 10mm.

All this being said, the P229 was a pleasure to shoot and felt like a potent semi auto caliber should feel, in my opinion. When I first started shooting pistols a lot, I would get some fatigue after about 150rds of .40 out of the P229. The Kahr CM40 wasn't terrible, but it wasn't exactly fun to shoot...more of a tool than a leisurely shooter. I never even shot .40 out of the 4053. It was traded for with the specific purpose of being a 10mm conversion donor gun. I'd imagine it would be just as pleasurable as the P229 since they are both alloy frame, steel slide guns of similar size.

Now, my EDC is the "1053," but before that my EDC was my G29 Gen 4. I still love that pistol and will likely never part with it, as I continue to carry it regularly. I wouldn't recommend it to a novice shooter though, unless you intend on doing some fairly serious strength and conditioning work to build up your hand and wrist strength. Personally, I shoot a lot of full power magnums now, mostly 44 magnum, so 10mm doesn't beat me up like it may have when I first started into the 10mm world years ago.

YMMV

__________________
SWCA 3563
10mm aficionado

.40sw is a pleasant shooting round in larger guns. Understand that the round is larger and more powerful than 9mm and stuffed into the same guns for the most part. You should expect more recoil.

The recoil is more than a 9, less than a 45, but with more muzzle blast. It’s easier to train folks with no pistol experience with mild 9mm in a pistol, 38 wadcutters in a revolver, but neither is a good choice for police duty nor personal defense when you have to actually stop someone.

I think of 38 wadcutters and standard 9mm ball like T-ball; they’re fine for newbies starting to learn what works, then perhaps easy practice, not so much for actual games.

“Snappy...” ... oh, Tiffany - we’re doomed.

I've had a Glock 23 for many years. A Gen 2 I bought new. It's currently on it's way back from Smyrna Ga after getting their inspection and update, which is just springs I think. Yes the 40 is snappy. I know this because that's what everybody says. But personally I've never found to to be snappy or harsh or whatever. To me it doesn't seem all that different from a 9mm, but YMMV. I like the 40 and I like the G23. I've never shot the Smith version.

Guys who regularly shoot large-bore, magnum revolvers chuckle over conversations like this.

The only 40 I've owned is my M&P 40 compact (1.0). I've put over 13,000 rounds through it, so I'm very familiar with the 40's feel. Even though the 40c is a small and fairly light pistol, I've never found its recoil to be particularly painful or objectionable. However, it's somewhat stronger than what you'd experience with a 9mm. When I first got my 40c, I experimented with the grip inserts, and finally settled on the largest one. The large insert completely fills my palm, and reduces the 40c's tendency to rock upward and backward when fired. I've fired as many as 150 rounds in succession with no pain. I like my 40c it so much that it has been my EDC for nearly five years. Recently, I converted it to a .357 SIG, not because I had any problem with or objection to the .40 S&W round, but because I felt that an extra 120 ft/lbs of muzzle energy might come in handy some day. But that's off-topic, and if the supply of .357 SIG dried up, I'd have no hesitation about going back to the 40. My suggestion is to rent a few 40s and judge for yourself.

__________________
What, me worry?

As to the .40 being a "high pressure round," it operates at the same pressures as 9mm. The 9mm +P+ that seems to have favor in some law enforcement circles is high pressured, often unnecessarily, and creates the same problems that a poorly designed .40S&W pistol (poor long term durability/high slide velocity) will be subjected to.

A Sig 226/229 is among the softest shooting and most accurate .40 caliber pistols out there. H&K designed their USP around the cartridge, and a Browning Hi-Power in
40 is a joy to shoot as well. I have a CZ, which is a little less pleasant a shooter than the others mentioned, but accurate and controllable enough to be fun.

The 10mm "FBI load" was determined by their own testing, not by their inability to handle it. The .40S&W was derived from that formula. IIRC it was Norma in their own development that attempted to get the most out of the round.

The effect in shooting is cumulative. For a few boxes of ammo it's fine. If you're going to be shooting all day it might get a bit rough.

I prefer 180's...but everyone is different.

And where was that mentioned..

Lol, exactly.

__________________
SWCA 3563
10mm aficionado

I load my own and a 0.40 165 grain FMJ in a Browning HP is effectively the same as a 124 grain FMJ loaded to NATO specs in the corresponding BHP. The pistols are different weights and the BHP 40 slide is heavier and the recoil springs are different. With lighter weight pistols there is a difference as I can tell when firing the same rounds in Walther P99s of the same vintage. Dave_n

I'm not a fan of hard-kicking guns, but the one time I shot a .44 Magnum it was 6 rounds of factory ammo rapid fire. It left the palm of my hand a little red, but I actually found it more pleasant to shoot than the PPK .380ACP I also shot that day.

As I mentioned before, it's not just the caliber, but the gun it's shot from as well as the person doing the shooting.