Let me turn the tables a little. I will try to represent this as a school board President that is committed to the safety of the students and staff.

How many departments (today) encourage their officers to hit the range t to practice on a regular basis, as opposed to annual or semi-annual qualification?

How many departments encourage officers to participate in PPC matches, or even support a departmental PPC team?

What scares the bejesus out of me is the increase in the number of domestic violence events and mass shootings where hostages can be taken. I know that based on the marksmanship skills that I have both read about and witnessed within today's law enforcement community, I am beyond mortified at the prospect that the average officer that is first on scene may fire at the perpetrator and hit an innocent.

I can remember the time when most officers (carrying a revolver) could confidently engage an neutralize an armed suspect out to about 40 yards or so. Today, that scenario would most likely require a SEAT call up, which could even then result in an unacceptable level of collateral damage.

Bottom line, when did marksmanship become a secondary or tertiary skill set for law enforcement officers? As always, it is the well placed shot that will end the immediate threat. Theoretically, the caliber and capacity of the duty arm should be secondary to the officer's ability.

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

This is the truth, and I'd add "If you CAN hit the target
reliably with a handgun, it doesn't matter what caliber you are using."

I've actually been seeing a fair amount of talk regarding a possible comeback of the .40 S&W in the civilian market. Supposedly all of the police trade-in deals were indeed too good to pass up, so now a lot more folks who would have otherwise never purchased a .40 S&W pistol own one and have actually come to discover that the supposedly wrist-snapping recoil of the .40 S&W cartridge actually isn't so bad, especially not in the heavy duty service pistols which have flooded the market over the past few years. So now more folks own .40s, and obviously enjoy shooting them seeing as sales of .40cal ammo are on the rise.

Granted that it could be in part due to COVID-19 panic-buyers, but these threads started showing up prior to any of that.

My only hope is that if .40 S&W is indeed making a comeback, then prices will remain low until I can pickup a Ruger SR40c. I've been wanting one since last year and their prices are at an all-time low at under $300 brand new.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

It all comes down to $$$. "Training" is turning into 30-45 min online videos with a 10 question quiz at the end. It's sad and the reason for a lot of these dumb accidents and poorly performing police officers.

I think a .40 cal auto is like a .41 cal revolver and a 16 ga. shotgun. 2 big 2 be little and 2 little 2 be big. Don't sit on the fence. Make a decision and pick a side. Larry

I think it is political correctness on the lack of practice shooting. There are so many politicians (many times are in charge of the police force) that don't like guns, they would prefer the cops to not even carry them. They would prefer them carry clubs like they do in England or even nothing like Andy Taylor. Having them shoot a lot implies they think carrying is a good idea. Also, shooting a lot cost money and budgets for LE is usually tight.

Rosewood

I prefer to think of it as goldilocks!

I never had a desire for a .40 S&W until AIM Surplus ran a batch of surplus M&P40 pistols at $229. I picked one up simply because it was barely more expensive than a Hi-Point or Rough Rider. Who could pass that up?

I can't say I've become a .40 fan, really, but I appreciate having something in the caliber simply for ammo availability reasons. I'm still more of a 9mm, .38, .22 guy but I like the M&P well enough. In fact, when a good deal on ex-cop M&P9s came along, I picked one of those up, too . . .

It's only REAL downfall, is it's an "In between" cartridge, NONE of them, rifle/pistol have any longevity. I still can't believe the 10mm's still around! It's loud, heavy recoil, and STILL not a magnum.

Why should I care if a round is sub-sonic or not?? Such as the 40 cal.
Jim

All I can talk about is my little microcosm...but I don't know anyone personally who enjoys shooting one, I know I don't. With the hot magnum revolver loads I make and shoot, I'm far from recoil sensitive, but I don't like shooting 40 in a polymer semi auto pistol. Case in point, I have a XD "sub compact" in 9mm and my uncle has the exact same one in 40. Back to back, it shows you how much more difficult the 40 is to control. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it's more difficult. He traded his in on a 9mm after that range session.

We all are different . I have a S&W MP 40 Compact . I don't mind shooting it , don't find the recoil a problem . My S&W J-frame 640 was shot so much using +P loads I really loosened it up . When I called the factory I told them exactly why . The CS just chuckled and told me to send it back . I don't find it bothersome to shoot either . Regards Paul

Huh? What are you on about, plenty of intermediate cartridges have been around for a very long time. Heck, what was the 9mm before .40 S&W came along but an intermediary between .380 ACP and .45 ACP? As for 10mm Auto not being a magnum cartridge, the only reason why it isn't a magnum cartridge is because "Magnum" isn't in its name. Seriously, full-power 10mm loads are at the very least equal to full-power .357 Magnum loads, and with a larger diameter bullet to boot.

The biggest issue with 10mm Auto is that the vast majority of Commercial factory loaded 10mm ammo is nothing more than .40 S&W in a longer case. If more ammo manufacturers would load it to full spec, then it would be excellent. Honestly, I was actually shopping for a 10mm right up until I learned that you either had to reload or pay a huge premium to get real full-power 10mm loads.

Lastly, what determines the longevity of a cartridge anyway? To this day ammo manufacturers continue to load cartridges which are practically dead like .44-40/.38-40 WCF, .38 S&W, 7.62 Tokarev, 7.65 Luger, and 9x18 Makarov, 9x18 Ultra/Police regardless of the fact that nobody makes firearms chambered in them anymore save for maybe reproductions. So if cartridges dating back to well over a century ago are still in limited production, why is everyone so certain that .40 S&W is just going to be discontinued entirely within a decade or two?
Besides, sometimes cartridges make comebacks or otherwise remain relevant or in production long after falling out of favor with Military/LE. Consider the .45 Long Colt, it was only in Military service for a very short time, even shorter than .40 S&W, but it remained popular/relevant due to its reputation for effectiveness. Folks need to understand that the Military nor Law Enforcement aren't really concerned with what is the most combat effective, but with what is most cost effective. Combat effectiveness is obviously still a concern, but it's a secondary concern.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Love my 10mms, would be the last guns I would give up. The 10mm has higher chamber pressures than the 44 magnum. Not sure what defines a cartridge as a "magnum".

Rosewood

This seems to be the case with most factory ammo, it's all middle of the road. Unless you buy the "hot stuff" from small batch manufacturers, it all seems to be this way.

I didn't really experience what 44 magnum could do until I started reloading for it...

While some factory loaded ammo typically runs shy of SAAMI Specifications, 10mm Auto is much more significant. Full-power 10mm will push a 200gr bullet at 1200fps or a 180gr bullet at 1300fps, but most factory loaded ammo is loaded to FBI Specifications, which launches a 180gr bullet at about 1000fps. For reference, typical factory loaded .40 S&W ammo will launch a 180gr bullet at about 950fps, and while that may seem like the 10mm is at least loaded slightly hotter, it's actually because most factory loaded 10mm ammo is chronographed from a 5" barrel whereas .40 S&W is more commonly chronographed from a 4" barrel.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

It is easy to measure velocity these days but pressure data is very elusive. I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff that you can get from Buffalo Bore and Underwood is really 10mm +P. The pressure difference between 40 and 10mm is only 7%, 35,000 vs 37500. The case is larger so slower powder can be used but that helps more with longer barrels than the more common 4 to 5 inch barrels. Expecting 70% more power from 7% more pressure isn't realistic.

I freely admit I have never seen any pressure data from a reliable source but my gut feel is that Sig 10mm ammo is about as hot as you can get with SAAMI pressure levels. A bit more energy than a 357 with a heavier bullet out a semiauto pistol is pretty impressive even if it does not meet the original claims made by Norma. Notice I said claims. If you search for tests of the original Norma ammo on YouTube you should be able to find a couple of videos. The "full-power" Norma ammo typically comes in 150 to 200 fps slower than the numbers printed on the box. It was a lot easier to get away with inflated velocity numbers before there were lots of channels on YouTube testing ammo.

ETA:
Test of Norma 170 grain - Actual velocity 1219 fps

Test of Norma 200 grain, also about 200 fps short of advertised velocity (Skip to about the 20 minute mark):

I don't think it is a coincidence that velocity numbers suddenly decreased when affordable chronographs became available. Happened not just with 10mm but also with 44 and 357 magnums as well as some rifle cartridges.

Perhaps I'm beting overly optimistic here, but I'm more apt to believe that the differences between the velocity printed on ammo boxes and what shows up in chronographs has more to do with the fact that due to the inconsistent nature of gunpowder, the subsequent effects on burn rate, and the fact that their chronograph tests are most likely conducted indoors where atmospheric conditions cannot affect readings as much than ammo manufacturers outright lying.

The fact of the matter is that the velocities printed on ammo boxes are more of an estimate or perhaps even a guestimate than 100% accurate approximations of the kind of velocity one can expect from the ammo when they shoot it.
Factually speaking, gunpowder cannot always be consistently measured because it can clump, flake, cake, and settle, which can effect the rate in which it burns when ignited, thus altering the potential results, ergo freshly loaded ammo tested on site at the factory could potentially have a faster burn rate than say a box of 10mm ammo that has been transported over long distances, stored under a variety of conditions while in transit, sat on a shelf for a very long time prior to being fired, and potentially was even stored under less-than-ideal environmental conditions.

Sure, they could be exaggerating the numbers, rounding them off to the highest ten, or just plain being overly optimistic regarding the mean average velocity one can expect due to numbers they received by testing under laboratory perfect conditions which simply do not exist in the field, but I don't think that they're an outright lie. If they were, then I assume that somebody would have attempted to file a lawsuit against these ammo manufacturers for deceptive marketing by now, and likely won considering that the product is intended for Self-Defense purposes which is needless to say of the utmost importance.
Heck, we have people successfully suing firearms/ammo manufacturers just because their products were used in shootings, so it doesn't seem at all out of the question that they could be successfully sued because the ammo was ineffective at stopping a threat and the case was made that it was due to the ammo's specifications being misleading or something.

I think the results of ammo testing are not unless the results of following a recipe and getting a different result. Ammo chronographed indoors is just going to get a different result than ammo chronographed outdoors, just like how a cake baked in an electric oven is going to turn out different than a cake baked in a conventional gas oven, or how icing made with spring water is going to turn out differently than icing made with tap water.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Could be, but also could because of the increase of frivolous law suits and paranoia from the manufactures. That is real interesting with the Norma Ammo. The guy justified it as maybe being old from sitting attic. I don't buy that, I think that is what it was loaded to begin with.

I have a 200 grain WFNGC that I load in the 10mm using longshot powder and my chrony reads it at 1225 FPS. I am selective on what guns I shoot it out of though. It is a P16-40 with a 10mm bbl that is my hunting pistol that always goes with me regardless of the rifle I choose for the hunt. And surprisingly, even with such a hot load, I shoot it better than other less recoiling loads and guns.

Rosewood

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That's sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants


Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo? | Investor's Business Daily

Temperature will have a small effect but a cartridge has no way of knowing whether it is being fired indoors or out. There will be some small variations shot to shot and batch to batch but when velocities are 20% less than listed which translates to 40% less energy than listed something else is going on.

One difference is being fired out of test barrel vs a real gun. When gun magazines first started chronographing ammo I would often read things like "I am sure the ammo reached its listed velocity in the manufacturer's pressure test barrel but in my gun . . .". The problem with this is we use the ammo in real guns. Some companies will pick the best numbers on the basis they represent what their product can do, not what it typically does.

I once read how one bullet manufacturer measured the ballistic coefficient of their bullets by calculating it from the measured velocity drop over a know distance. They repeated this several times using the best quality barrels they could obtain and picked the best number they got to list as the BC. I think I read this in a Sierra reloading manual but am not sure. Their logic was that in most guns the bullet starts out a little crooked and that significantly decreases the BC until the bullet "goes to sleep", fully stabilizes and starts flying straight. Which happens sooner in match grade barrels. They are making bullets, not barrels and are trying to measure what the bullets are capable of. So in that case picking best number makes sense. And they were completely open about what they were doing, they put it in the manual. But if you plug that number into a ballistic calculator to estimate wind drift and drop the results are probably not going to be as accurate as they could be.

Ammo makers might have done the same thing in the past. A pressure test barrel could give very different results than a real gun. I have read reports that even things like stronger recoil springs can affect velocity quite a bit. So the ammo makers may not have been lying so much as cherry picking the data.

But 10mm fans need to stop using the numbers Norma published as the standard for "full power" if that ammo could not achieve those results in a real gun. If Norma is the standard and the 200 grain load out of Glock 20 clocks in at 1000 fps then the standard for full-power 200 grain 10mm loads should be 1000 fps, not 1200. All other 10mm ammo is judged by how well it performs out of real guns, the old Norma ammo should be too.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Canister powder used by reloaders has always been very consistent and max loads have gone down over the decades.

The 10mm cartridge is what prompted me to start reloading in the 80s. At the time AA7 was considered "the" powder for 10mm loads and Hornady listed a maximum of 13.9 grains for their 155 grain XTP bullet. I could not get there in either of the 10mm guns I had a the time. My Springfield Omega started showing pressure signs at a little over 12 grains. My 610 could go a bit higher but the primers started to really flatten out if I went over 12.6 or so. The last reloading book I saw listed 12.7 grains as the max which agrees with what I saw.

There probably are guns that could be loaded with the old max load and work fine. But mine couldn't. I think what happened if you go back 30+ years the reloading companies assumed you were really going to start low and work up to the best load for YOUR gun, like they emphasized in all their manuals. Not just load a bunch of ammo with the max charge and sue them if that blew up your particular gun. Now the max charge is more likely to be the lowest common denominator which is a shame.

All of these were in a 5" 1911 full supported bbl.

Longshot gets me the highest velocities with the 200grain WFNGC at around 1225.

Bluedot gets me about 1315 with a 180 grain.

Using the new Alliant BE86, I get 1410 with a 155 grain bullet. I haven't tried BE86 with other weight bullets, it was just their published data showed over 1400 and I didn't believe it, so had to try it out.

I have noticed some of the modern published data is fairly close, more so than some older manuals. In the .357 Sig, using the near max load and 124 XTP, was getting right at 1430 with longshot which is right at what Hodgdon's webpage said.

Back to the 40, using max load of longshot and a 180 XTP, get 1170 FPS in a 5" M&P. This was quite surprising to me also, no pressure signs either.

I have also observed that barrel length makes big differences in velocities in these high end loads. Have seen 100 FPS difference in 1" of barrel length.

And before I get browbeat, I do start with a lower charge and work my way up to max and check for pressure signs along the way. Sudden changes in velocity also helps to reveal dangerous conditions.

Rosewood

As an aside, the S&W CHP 4006 TSW is currently available for about $399 around the country (in free states) , It may be the last mass LEO trade in of metal S&W firearms.

Attached Images

40cal 4006.jpg (40.5 KB, 11 views)

I had a Smith .40 cal semi auto Performance center 4006 in the 1990's. I didn't like the snap recoil. I find the 9mm a somewhat more controllable round to shoot with confidence. That's my subjective experience. For what it's worth.

My primary .40 is a Glock 27 which is the subcompact. I have never shot anything but 180 grain bullets. I prefer heaver projectiles in .40 caliber. It recoils more than my 92F 9mm or my 1911 Gov. models in .45 however, it's not unpleasant & I can shoot easily a couple hundred rounds.

So I don't mind the recoil. With magazines using the Pierce finger extension dble taps are just a tad slower than 9 or .45 but nothing significant imo. My Glock is a Polymer frame subcompact. So ya, it's gonna recoil more but to me at least it's not excessive, it's reassuring.

I was gifted an XD40 Springfield Armory service model a few years back by a friend who didn't like the idea that it had "too many springs and parts" to mess with (he is a revolver guy). I already had a SA XD45 so I was familiar with the platform. I used it on a course I took and fired over 500 round in the two day class. At the end I had to ask myself what all the hype about recoil was as it is a *****cat. I'm not a big guy but I have worked with my hands all my life so the recoil nonsense was a bit of a joke. Enough so that I recently bought a Shield 40 2.0 for a pocket gun. Plenty of good defensive ammo out there and no issues with either. I have plenty of 9s but seem to go the .40 more often than not.

Well, someone finally got to the caliber I appreciate. The 357Sig has all the boxes checked for me except price. But I'll spend my money on it because I shoot it well and the performance is what I need for SD. My M&P is very accurate and I can swap a barrel and buy a mag and shoot 9mm. Best of both worlds to me.