I haven't heard a lot of .40S&W bashing, but I have heard several people say that they don't really care for the .40, for reasons unknown to me.

I am not the type to just go on what everybody says, so I do my own research, and experimenting.

I started out with the .45ACP in a S&W 645, nearly 30 years ago, and like many, thought it was the only semi-auto handgun caliber worthy for self defense.

In the last few years I have been trying out other calibers, and "plastic guns", and to my surprise, I have found that I like a smaller caliber, and a polymer striker fired pistol.

I started out with Glocks in 9mm, and a Sig P226 in 9mm. I found I liked the Glock "plastic gun", and the 9mm was great for cheap practice ammo, and actually realized there was some pretty good SD in 9mm ammo also.

After more research, I decided to try out the .357Sig for a SD round. I found a great deal on a M&PC in .357, and the rest is history.

My M&PC .357Sig came with a .40S&W barrel, and I also purchased a 9mm barrel for it.

After researching the three calibers some more, and shooting all three in my M&PC, I have come to the conclusion that my favorite caliber option for SD is the .357Sig, with the .40S&W being a viable back up caliber if .357Sig becomes too difficult to find, and the 9mm is great fun, and inexpensive, for target shooting.

I believe that all three calibers are effective for Self Defense with the proper ammo, but my first choice is the .357Sig, 2nd the .40S&W, and then 9mm.

I just ended up with a Full Size M&P40 in a trade, and I will also purchase the 9mm, and .357Sig barrels for it.

This is my own personal choice and preference, I don't expect everyone to agree.

Good luck on your search for your favorite!

I had a Storm Lake 357Sig barrel for my M&P compact and I LOVED it! Talk about accurate!!

As I stated above, got rid of it because I had TOO many calibers. And I couldn't afford to shoot them all.

Agreed. I would not want to face a man who was determined, and knew what he was doing with any service caliber gun.

Unless I had a bazooka.

I don't make a point of bashing the .40, but I've sold all of mine and don't plan on going back to it.

I'm just not sure what exactly it can do that a modern 9mm can't. So I'm back to 9mm because it is more affordable to practice with, and in model to model comparisons it holds more rounds.

I'm not sure of the background of some of those who wrote on the reasons for the 10mm/.40 S&W issues. However, since my employer adopted the round shortly after the FBI and the Virginia State Police and kept it for around 15 years, perhaps some additional information would be welcome.

The recoil of the 10mm full power round was not really a major issue to us. We had 115 lb officerettes who handled it just fine. Could they have had a faster rate of fire with a less muscular round? Probably. Could they have been more accurate? Maybe. One major issue was that the reach to the trigger on the 1000 series S&W autos was the same as an N frame revolver.

One of the primary reasons the FBI gave for adoption of the 10mm was pure BS. That being that progress in ammunition development would concentrate on the new 10mm projectiles. I expect that issues in barrier penetration and desired expansion had more to do with the reduction in velocity than recoil, but that's opinion.

Once the lower velocity rounds were found acceptable, other possibilities blossomed. It was now possible to get the same ballistics in a package that could work in a 9mm framed weapon, which better fit the hand of a larger cross section of people. It would be much easier for folks of smaller stature to use the new pistols.

However, converting 9mm pistols to .40 turned out to be more complicated than expected. Early versions by all makers generally had lousy accuracy due to the barrel unlocking from the slide too early. That problem was solved by changing the dwell time and isn't much of an issue now.

I'll close with the comment that NONE of the preceding posters have noted the vicious, bitter internal fighting between 9mm & .45 fans in the FBI. Adoption of a new caliber was THE ANSWER and dissent was heresy. Never underestimate the power of politics in decisions.

Short form: if you put your bullets in a vital area, it doesn't matter how big or fast they are. If you don't put your bullets in a vital area, it doesn't matter how big or fast they are.

I'm so glad I posted. I went from skeptical about the .40S&W to 100% sure which caliber I want to concentrate on; the .40S&W of course. I've taken to heart the greater importance of putting the bullets where you want them so I want to become an absolute ace marksman with the .40S&W.

This post from brucev really resonated:

"Why all the .40 S&W bashing? Perhaps it's because it wasn't developed by the U.S. Army, John Browning, Herr Luger, one of the assorted Russians, Elmer, Askins, Skeeter, etc. Perhaps it's because S&W looked at what the FBI didn't like about the 10mm, thought hard about what was good about the 9mm and then did something called "product development" with the happy result that policemen and citizens of all walks of life now have a wonderful round that pushes 180 gr. JHP's out the barrel of nice mid-sized semi-autos that can run all the way from duty size right down to sub-compact size. What's not to like? Oh... I know... it's not big enough... or fast enough... or new enough. Oh well. You can't please everybody. From the field most reports are that those who get hit by it would rather have not have gotten in the way of where that .40 caliber slug was going! Cool."

Anyway, I learned something from every post and I'm grateful for all the responses. You guys make me proud to be an American, and I'm comforted to know that great Americans like yourselves are still around in this upside-down country we currently find ourselves in.

Thanks again for the awesome education and the comraderie. You guys are the best.

A very small matter, unless you think about the money, but I remembered that and always thought it comical that the usual modern government approach to everything (stall, appease, compromise, etc. - or any combination thereof), which almost invariably ends in failure, made no one particularly happy, and ultimately went nowhere, at least as far as the 10mm goes. I have always wondered how much money the FBI wasted with all their "testing" and eventual purchases. My comment below meant to address that, obliquely.

The FBI already had weapons fully capable of the kind of penetration they desired, viz. their .357 Magnum revolvers, but I gather they routinely did not allow the agents to use .357 ammunition.

Mr. Moore, I will take my brownie now, with chocolate icing, if possible.

I've got nothing against the .40 caliber, and if I were only going to have one gun I would seriously consider it. However I already have several
.38s, 9s, .357s and a 45. I absolutely refuse to buy another type of ammo.

I don't know if it's be mentioned already but there is one vitally important area in which 9mm is superior to all other handgun rounds.

Cost

You can shoot between 50% and 100% more 9mm for the same money you'd pay for .40S&W, .38 Special, .380 or .45 ACP.

This advantage of 9mm is vital because the single most important factor in shooting is practice.

Period.

So if it were me and I was advising a first time buyer I'd say 9mm all the way, the gun is secondary. S&W, Sig, Glock or Ruger, I'd look for whatever fit your hand better, and stick between the Glock 19 and 17 in overall size.

Then go shoot the **** out of it.

/c

Okay, this raises another question I have. When I was a kid I used to shoot BB guns and .22s and I was always a good shot, better than anyone I ever shot with. I also seemed to have a knack for estimating how high to aim to compensate for gravity. I remember knocking a small bird off a power line from really far away with a BB gun, maybe 150 yards or so. I had to aim really high above the bird. I suppose it was a lucky shot, but I accomplished what I tried to do.

Since those experiences shooting as a kid I have a hard time understanding why so much practice is necessary to be proficient with a gun. I mean it would seem to me that once you figure out how the handgun behaves and the amount that the bullet drops at various distances you should be pretty much all set, maybe just shoot every so often to refresh your memory and get the feel back.

My question is I don't see why you would have to shoot boxes and boxes of rounds or "shoot the hell out of it" as you say. I mean once you learn how to drive a car it's nothing you really have to practice over and over, or drive the hell out of the car. A qualification I would add is that if you're competitive marksman working with razor thin margins I can certainly understand the need for lots of practice, but I don't know how this would apply to someone interested in self-defense. Thanks.

When you were aiming at that bird you had all day to figure it out. In a SD situation I would like to have some pretty good muscle memory built up. And for me that comes with practice - and lots of it.

Regarding the need for routine practice for self defense, suggest you go try an IDPA match.
Lots of folks who stand and shoot flatfooted a few shots (or even blast away a lot) and are "legends in their own minds" find out even a llittle stress of a timer and folks watching shows their gunhandling is nowhere near as good as they thought.
The gunhandling, shooting on the move, and keeping cool with malfunctions are definite assets if you have to shoot in self defense.
Under high stress, you fall to the level of your training (at best), and do NOT rise to the level of your expectations. And there are no second place winners in a gunfight.

__________________
Science plus Art

The phrase "Shoot the (blank) out of it!" seems to be an internet creation that has little to do with anything. I have known a few pistol shooters who taught me more watching me shoot 3-4 cylinders full through my 44 Magnum than I would bet any number of the gentlemen I see at my local indoor range learn blazing their way through a case of 9mms with their plastic fantastics. So the operative thought might be, "Are you trying to learn something or just making noise?" Quantity is only functional in the latter case. JMHO.

Jeff Cooper always used to say if given a reasonably fit and interested individual, he could produce a fair defensive pistol shot in 12-16 hours with 500 rounds of ammo. After that, routine maintenance of your skills should be sufficient for an ordinary citizen. Most of us shoot more just because we enjoy it.

Great thread as my interest in my next gun is for a .40.
I am just one of those guys that rather than focus on a select caliber, I like the idea of eventually owning one of each.
I have landed on the Glock 22 or 23 as my choice for this caliber.
I have fired at least 100 rounds on a .40 and didn't find myself liking it any less than a 9 or .45.

I will confess that I was once the owner of a Glock 23, but gave it up because I found that I really didn't enjoy shooting it. I did find the cartridge to be too snappy, and there were other things about the Glock platform I decided, after owning several, that I just didn't like. The G 23 was my last plastic gun; it went in a partial trade on my first Hi Power, and I've never missed it.

The ".40 is gay" thing has taken on a life of its own as an internet meme. One can argue that given the improved performance of current 9mm rounds and the availability of .45, there's no need for it, but the same can be said of a lot of other rounds. .45 GAP, anyone? Here in the greater Baltimore-DC area, .40 is commonly pronounced, and not just on the internet gun forums, as "Fo-tay", and it does enjoy a certain mystique amongst the enterprising street-corner entrepreneurs that increasingly dominate our urban commerce, just as it does with their opposite numbers in the LE ranks. And traditionalists, of which there are many, believe that sufficient proof of its "otherness" is provided by the fact that JMB, of blessed memory, never designed a gun around it.

Just a fad, really. I personally wouldn't want another gun chambered for it, but then again, I wouldn't want to get shot by one, either.

Oh, and like some of the earlier responders, I'm trying to hold down the number of calibers I have to stock ammo for. With .22, 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag and .45, that's enough to deal with.

The way I look at it is that I've gone through my entire life unarmed and I'm still alive to talk about it, and I've been in some tough neighborhoods/ situations as well. It seems to me that just having a weapon on my person and being able to adequately operate it would be all gravy to me. Maybe I wouldn't be able to shoot like Rambo taking on the National Guard, but it seems that my chances of survival would be increased by being armed and understanding how my weapon shoots.

I can see if someone just enjoys shooting, and I might fall into that category, then by all means have fun and burn through tons of ammo.

The way I see things transpiring for me is that when I first acquire my pistol I'll go through a lot of dry runs getting a feel for the trigger. Taking the gun apart and putting back together, operating all the controls until I can do it my sleep. Then I'll go to the range and shoot as many rounds as I feel I need to get comfortable with the gun and see how it shoots. After that I don't see why I wouldn't be all set for street self defense if, god forbid, that situation ever arose. Maybe go to the range once-a-month, or every other month to reaquaint myself. Maybe I wouldn't be trained like a Navy Seal but I should be in better shape than if I was unarmed. If this scenario transpires for me then getting a 9mm because ammo is cheaper would be a moot point since I wouldn't be burning through tons of ammo anyway.

Thanks for your response.

Trained LEO's average less than 50% connect rates in shootouts....you might want to shoot quite a bit, take a class that includes timed combat shooting etc. It will prove or disprove your theory on how much you need to shoot. It will also help you in your quest to get a Class A. Good luck!

Really, "Col. Cooper says..." I must 'a missed that one, I thought he ran a school.

You guys obviously have a different view of competence than I do if you think you'll achieve it in 500 rounds with a handgun. Either that, or some pretty extraordinary talent.

500 rounds wouldn't even break-in a gun. I wouldn't trust a gun, certainly not a pistol, holster, and magazines, that I haven't run a lot more than 500 rounds through.

What are you guys, Cops?

How many draws in those 500 rounds?
Positions?
What distances?
Any movement (you and/or the targets)?
Lighting?
Cover?
Clothing?

I'm not saying you need to be Bill Hickok... ah what's the point, suit yourselves.

and thank God modern guns and gear are as safe as they obviously are.

/c

Before you plunk down money on a new pistol, its never a bad idea to go rent a few at an indoor range, if possible, to get a feel for a particular platform and caliber. No amount of reading or gunboard opinions will help you determine what feels good in your hands, what is reliable, what is controllable, or what you will shoot well, etc.

Any of the service calibers will serve you well as a primary or backup ccw. .38 +p, .357 magnum, 9mm, .45 acp, .40, 357 sig, etc, etc.

One last thing. Gun skills are perishable. Just because you could shoot well 20 years ago or 20 months ago doesn't mean you will shoot well today, or tomorrow. The idea that you never need to practice once you learn how to do it is simply false. Please get some knd of training, for everyone's sake.

The tests I read over the winter of pistols in magazines ALL show 40 to be less accurate (group size) than 9 or 45. In your hand, your gun may of course be different.

As to the 'can't do' - can't do what? There is no definitive proof that anyone round has more 'stopping power' than another. Maybe 357 mag has an edge. It depends so much more on accuracy, and the extra velocity of a 9 over a 45 can indeed make a difference in how a HP opens.

My favorite illustrative example of the issue, in summary:

__________________
" I said, good DAY! "

Way less than 50% from the published accounts of many incidents around Baltimore. Practice always helps, unless you're Superman.

Try re-reading the quote, it said fair defensive shot, not proficient defensive shot. As for your generalizations, I know a lot of cops who are Ex-Seals, comp shooters etc who I'm sure will out shoot you there Wyatt. Though I will admit, I also know some who couldn't hit a bull in the butt at 10 yds.

You want to be truly afraid, Baltimore had the best shooting % in the Nation percentage at least one yr, 2008 I think it was.

What I want to know is how, I say how, did this become another inane caliber wars thread?

What's next? I wonder which caliber would work better on a bear?

I agree,,, the .40 is not a less accurate round.. out of a quality pistol, & Barrel... how could one, even think that with todays barrel tolerences...more then likely.. its a shooter issue... of the increased recoil, and snap as some call it... I have fired 1000s of ea and certainly have not seen a less accurate round in reality. and ohhhh so much more punch... its called Foot lbs of energy.

Absolutely StatesRightist, training is a requirement for a license; in fact, it's the first step I need to take.

If the connect rate is less than 50% is it possible that it's not so much a training deficiency but maybe how a person reacts under pressure and stress? I could imagine that someone who was cool under pressure, without thousands of hours of training, might perform better than someone who fell apart in a life threatening situation and had a lot of training. What about things like street smarts, how you project yourself, how you relate to different types of people?

I'm not saying that training is unimportant, but is it possible that there's much more to successfully dealing with a dangerous situation than just formal training?

It seems if you were able to shoot well at the range but not so well in an actual situation then maybe other factors are more important than training. Just thinking out loud really. Thanks.

So which caliber would? I wanna be prepared.

Or less than 3 yards (eight feet) - as evidenced by two of the NYPD's finest totally missing the target with 9 of 16 shots and wounding 9 separate bystanders in the process. And it wasn't like they were surprised - in this case they were the predators hunting the suspect!

Current proficiency requirement is to hit 78% of 50 rounds fired twice a year. My guess is that there are thousands of NYPD cops who shot exactly 100 rounds per year.

I guess Mr. Moore has the answer to that.

Absolutly to each thier own. I'm not trying to convience anybody what to shoot. I'm new to guns and shooting my self. Within the last eight weeks I have bought a 686+ 4 inch, Marlin .357, Mossberg 500, and just picked up an M&Pc 40 for CCW.

Why did I choose the M&Pc 40. For my state CA, the mag capacity cant be more than 10. That negates many arguments for lower caliber to obtain higher capacity.

Although I have not shot much I have seen the carnage that differnt calibers do, I work as an X-ray technologist in the ER of a trauma center. Granted many of the gang bangers I see might not be trained profiecent shooters and shot placement does count. Still if it's me 5'7 and 160 lbs against three 6 foot plus 300 lbs lbs gang bangers looking to fund thier next drug score I want my 10 shots to count the most.

I have seen many 9mm bullets stoped in the femur or spinal collum. If somebody is druged out they might keep comming at you with a bullet in the femur. On the other hand just last weekend there was a 23 y/o gang banger brought in at 2 am. as soon as I saw the xray I new he was not shot with a 9mm. The right illiac wing of his pelvis was shattered. A 9mm would have ricocheted off the pelvis. Sure enough when they dug the bullet out it was a 40 or 45 cal. He had massive internal bleeding due to the fractured pelvis, Hopefully he died on the OR table. One less BG.

I bought a 9mm barrel and mag for my M&P and plan to shoot 500 rounds of 9mm just to be sure it functions fine. Im not planning to use it for SD, Just wanted the option if I run into a shortage of 40cal.

The best advice I have heard is shoot the largest caliber you can handle. Price maters not when you are protecting the lives of your family. Plus if you shop around the price difference between calibers in negligible. I just bought 3000 rounds of 40cal. Federal 165 grain at $13.50 a box shipped. The 500 rounds of 9mm were only $1.50 a box cheaper.

I cant wait to shoot this gun and get to know what I can do with it. The recoil was less than I was expecting, Very simmilar to my 686. I think I'll be happy with my M&Pc 40.

There's a 10 round mag limit in Massachusetts too.

Along with the 10 round limit, you presented some compelling evidence for going with the bigger caliber.

An M&P40 is on my short list so I'd be interested in hearing your observations. My first purchase is going to be a Remington 870. Is there any reason you chose the Mossberg over the Remington? Thanks.

I carry 40S&W because I feel it has the best overall Hatcher Rating. It is currently loaded with 180 grain PDX1.

I agree with statements previously made regarding shooting the largest caliber you can hit with but I would also add that in the case of a home defense weapon you should select the caliber that the least able person can accurately shoot if multiple family members could be using the weapon. Weapon operational aspects (clearing jams, reloading, etc) should also be considered.

Okay, also realize that the 45s reputation as a manstopper and the 9mm's rep as a poor round came about BEFORE the development of reliable jacketed hollowpoint ammo. The 40 came along just at the right time to benefit from the ongoing process. It is either a "compromise" or a "well balanced round" depending on who you talk to. Accuracy will depend on the quality of ammunition, gun and fitting. Today's JHP ammo is so far superior to stuff from the 70s and 80s.

__________________
Always bet on stupidity.

"LE and the military went to 9mm so women could handle the sidearm."

Disagree with this ^

LE went to a semi auto 9mm replacing the .38 special revolver.
Military made the switch to comply with NATO.

Actually this is not true, you should read that report a bit more carefully.

Scroll down to item 6. FBI Action Resulting. You'll see that in A. 1) that the FBI concluded that existing commercial 10mm loadings were too high in pressure and too high in velocity. Then go down to B. 4) you'll see that the FBI developed a load using a 180 gn. bullet at Subsonic velocities.

Note: in rough round numbers the speed of sound at Sea Level is 1100 fps. I think that it's pretty safe to assume that FBI load referenced is the classic FBI loading of a 180 gn. bullet at 1050 fps.

This report clearly documents that the first 10mm loading issued to the line Agents was the classic FBI 10mm, a 180 gn. bullet at 1050 fps. Basically, all that stuff about the 10mm being "too powerful" for femaie and weaker agents is Urban Legend. The truth is that during the initial phase of testing the 10mm that was commercially available proved to be too powerful and those who did the initial tests worked to develop the FBI 10mm before the 10mm was ever issued.

Now, you have every right to call the FBI instructors and scientists who did the initial testing wimp but I won't. The simple truth is that 800 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy is senough to cause problems for almost every handgun shooter. You either have to reduce your rate of fire or accept a distinct loss of accuracy. In Defensive Shooting what is most critical is the rate of accutate fire not hitting once with the most powerful bullet. Because as has been seen over and over and over One Shot Stops are usually the result of a lucky hit.

BTW, if you read deeper into the report and look at the accuracy results you'll see what I believe indicates that the testers were "cooking the books" to favor their 10mm FBI load. Because those results were so far out of line in comparison to the 9mm and 45ACP that it is rather glaring.

LE went from the .38 after the registered magnums came out, many years before they switched to the 9mm.

As for the military there are a myriad of stories/reasons. I do agree NATO was an important part of the equation.

Yes and it says they anticipated no issues with recoil AND the report results showed the 10mm to be the most accurate, regardless of your questions on the results. So you can argue it either way.

I posted the report because there was information both supporting and showing the other side of the 10mm so others could read it and decide what spoke to them, not because I wanted critique and it worked, you drew your own. If I were looking to try to influence someone I would have paraphrased and not attached the link. Thanks.

Before I decided on the M&P I shot the Berreta PX4 storm which was off the list due to the compact not being CA compliant. Also shot Springfield XD, didn't like the feel of it.

M&P wasn't perfect but offered most of what I wanted. I like the crimson trace option for the M&P. I'm not a fan of rail lasers, I'll put a light on the rail. I'm also upgrading with the Apex Tactical DECAK and trigger kit.

If I was buying new I would have went with the Remington shotgun but a coworker was selling the like new mossberg for $125, I jumped on it.

Only way to know which pistol is right is to shoot several. Personaly I'm proud to say I'm a S&W guy.

Starting with, " I don't own a Smith & Wesson; 1911 or Winchester Model 70 ".
IF I DID:
Model 649 ( pre-lock ) .357 Remington Magnum
COLT ( 's ) COMMANDER .45 ACP Royal Blue Steel
Featherweight Classic Stainless w/B.O.S.S. in 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser

THAT being said...
When I first got 'into' guns, my inclination was towards 'pistols'.
I ended up with a Beretta 96 CENTURION in ".40 CAL.", made in Italy.
My next pistol was a Beretta 96 in .40.
After trading off my Beretta Tomcat 3032 in .32 ACP and Model 84FS in ..380 ACP ( I still regret trading that perfect pistol )... for a Mini-Cougar 8040F in .40, I was firmly entrenched in Beretta .40's.

No regrets.
I LOVE THE .40 S&W caliber/cartridge.
Always available on the shelves.
Always hated by some and loved by others.
Good selection of bullet weights and power levels.
Still a handgun cartridge which can lead to a rifle-caliber firearm, if necessary.
NO Handgun cartridge is perfect.
The .40 isn't a compromise, it's what it is, and why I love it.

Working on getting those missing 'niches' in my collection.
Hope you all find what you like and train to use it.
BAM!

No... that would be 38 Super

My opinion is that the debate goes back to Ford v Chevy v Dodge... My choice is better than yours.

Not really, the Big 3 all offer V8 engines.

Wow, great deal on the Mossberg, congrats! Here's the 590 at 200 yards with 2 3/4" slugs:

Shotgun Slugs at 200 Yards - YouTube

Police departments nationwide carried .38 special revolvers longer and with more regularity than reg. magnums. Hell, they're still grandfathered in to veteran officers in Phila. In fact, I know of no big city dept. that primarily issued magnum revolvers for rank and file patrolmen.

Looking for a Home Defense gun, having experience with 45 ACP, 357 Mag, 9 mm, 380, 32, 22, it was obvious to me that the specs and law enforcement history of the .40 S&W indicated it was the best available. I have owned two .40 S&W for a while now, one a full size S&W .40 M&P and one a smaller Ruger for CC. I am happy and have become reasonably competent with both. I plan to take a short diversion with a .357 Sig barrel in the M&P 40. It is such a low-cost option it would be silly to pass it by. But I expect it will be a novelty.

How sad is that?

In the local paper recently, there was a report of the city police being involved in a shoot-out with a suspect. Suspect is dead, six by-standers were wounded. All of the by-standers were hit by errant police bullets.

It occurs to me that those errant bullets could penetrate a by-stander and hit a second by-stander.

Always remember the accuracy triangle (weapon, ammunition, shooter) in any discussion of on target results with a particular caliber. Firing from a mounted test barrel eliminates issues with the shooter, design of weapon, etc. From such testing using a variety of loads one can actually compare on target results of different calibers relative to accuracy.

Similarly such testing with firearms that are as closely equal as possible will establish for those firearms a relative ranking of on target accuracy.

Testing as above but with a individual doing the firing from typical marksman positions will produce a relative result on target as to how well that individual does with a particular ranges of calibers.

As a for instances, this past year I've fired 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP. Unfortunately for the 9mm, the pistol I used was not well suited for accuracy evaluation, so it came in at the bottom of the barrel as far as on target results. The .40 S&W was a G-22RTF which in my hands produced superlative groups out to 15 yds. (10 rounds into 2 inches fired two-handed standing). The .45 ACP was fired from a SA Mil-Spec. 1911 and a S&W 625-2. From the 1911, it produced occasional 2 inch 15 yd. groups, but mostly it was about 2.5 inches. The 625-2 routinely put two cylinder loads into less than 2 inches and would keep 100 rounds into less than 4 inches at 25 yds. But then, we all know that when it comes to any sort of accuracy evaluation, any man firing just about any S&W handgun will produce better that normal results compared to any other handgun ever developed. :-).

Now... as to stopping power, that is another discussion entirely. I am running low on coffee. And I need time to think. So, I'll just fill up my morning cup... again. And I'll do a little thinking. Cheers to all! Sincerely. brucev.

__________________
<><

Please note that I related what the officer told me as to his understanding of the difference between the .45 GAP and the .45 ACP. He did not appear to be someone who was overly concerned with firearms.

__________________
<><

Once upon a time a coach observed, "You play the way you train! You play the way you train!" Apparently he thought that if in general we trained appropriately with specific attention to each upcoming game/opponent, we'd get better on the field results come game day.

Maybe the problem with a low percentage of hits relative to shots fired by policemen stems from less than ideal training. And... maybe there's more to it. Policemen do not routinely shoot people. Many officers go their entire careers without drawing their weapon except at a range. Good for them. Police work is not a game. There is no score to be kept.

In the incident that recently occurred in NYC, some have opined that the policemen did a poor job of hitting the criminal. Oddly, he was hit many times. Maybe they should have just double-tapped him and then stepped back and looked to see if he cooperated by collapsing? Or... maybe under the circumstances they did about the best that could be expected from policemen who do not routinely slap leather and come up shooting at armed criminals at the Empire State building?

Perhaps it is a bit extreme to suppose that in each and ever instance where a police officer must fire his weapon that he will do everything exactly as a magazine pundit supposes is best, etc.

__________________
<><