When the .40SW came to be, I figured that the 9mm vs .45ACP debate would finally be put to rest. Here was a cartridge that was a fair compromise between the shootability of the 9mm and power of the .45ACP.

Years later, I find that while there are many believers, there are quite a few folks who dislike the .40SW and some may even hate it. So tell me, what's wrong with the .40SW

__________________
Audemus jura nostra defendere

There's nothing wrong, per se, with the .40 S&W round. I suspect, however, that with the proliferation of very small, polymer frame pistols, some are put off by the snappy recoil of the .40. This recoil isn't experienced with the 9MM or the slow moving .46ACP round. That said, in the circles in which I travel, the .40 S&W is a very popular round.

There are those around the internet, (James Yeager), who consider the 40 S&W and .357 Sig too hot for the polymer 9mm platform leading to fatigue and parts breakage. I'll leave that debate to others. The other possible issue is you'd be behind Homeland Security in the food chain. They seem to have a corner on the 40 S&W ammo market these days.

JMO, but it's snappier than the 9mm, by far. Though some might debate it, it's not as effective as the .45 ACP and my 10mm can be loaded to be superior to it. So, the question for me is, what purpose does it serve me? None.

There's nothing wrong with the caliber, so if you like it shoot it. I just see it as an answer needing as question. Others love it, shoot up my share, we'll all be happy.

With all that once fired brass laying on the ground / floor at the range, why not buy a .40 S&W something? My answer was a Para stainless double stack 16 rounds. I did it just to make the S&W revolvers jealous.

I used a lighter spring from my 45 acp 1911 to make the snappy 40 into a "mouse load" gun with no muzzle blast and a fun shooter. Change springs and it is bowling pin capable.

__________________
S&WHF 366

Para P-12 and LTC owner here, I've heard the negatives, but I've never had a problem from them, great guns.

My issue with 40 S&W is the same as my issue with 45 GAP.. it is a cartridge in search of a purpose. Both increase pressure for no gain. The 10mm was designed to give 45 ACP terminal ballistics, and does the job fantastically, albeit at a recoil cost... 40 was designed as 10mm loads slipped gown lighter (to reduce recoil)... ie less effective... The "snap" that people feel is directly proportional to the high pressure at which they are loaded (35000 for 40, 37500 for 10mm, 21000 for 45, 28000 for 45-70 govt). Ever shot a short barreled rifle? same same, lots of noise and flash, more snappy recoil than hard push....

So I dont hate 40, I actually own a couple and in a carbine its a pretty nice round.... I just prefer 45 ACP for hand gunning.

There's not a thing wrong with the .40 S&W. It's purpose is to provide a bigger bullet in a 9mm sized gun, and that it does just fine.

A .40 caliber 180 grain bullet at 950 feet per second has been killing people for about 130 years. The .38/40 had a great reputation as a manstopper. But if you put that performance into a shorter case with a better bullet and then put a bunch of them into a fast-shooting pistol, it becomes "Short and Weak", apparently.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

There ain't a dang thing wrong with the .40 S&W. Just like the .38 special isn't undesirable just because there is a .357 magnum.

The .40 is what many Law Enforcement agencies want. They consider the 10 mm to be too much for the AVERAGE agent to handle well. When they decided they didn't need anything that potent, they reduced the powder and shortened the case. The .40 has ample power for SD or LEO purposes but given a choice, many shooters prefer to step up to a 10mm.

BTW - That .40 'Short and Weak' thing only means something to people that want powerful guns.

I wouldn't want to get shot by one.

People talk about calibers and argue like they are airsoft guns. Seriously?

Recoil is the reaction of what is going down range. Learn to control the biggest caliber you can, then carry it. Done. For some this means a .44 mag scandium. Others a .357 mag 360pd. Others a 9mm.

I prefer the .40 as my carry because I can shoot quickly and very accurately with it. It used to be 9mm until I was able to train myself to be better.

Carry the biggest caliber you can to put a 2-3 shot group within 3-4" center mass of a target. Simple as that. Target placement and accuracy matter first. THEN caliber. Its up to the shooter, not the ballistics data.

__________________
Matt H.

I recall my agency upgraded to the .40 after our 9mm failed to perform on the street, but I've been retired over 15 years. During that time 9mm ammo has improved so the caliber wars rage on.

Law enforcement wanted a 9mm size gun that handled a larger round and the .40 seemed to fill that niche. Personally I don't notice much difference in recoil but I don't shoot my Glock 23 very often.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Short reply to the OP.....nothing wrong at all with the 40S&W. I it like just fine and prefer it over both the 45acp & 9mm.

Don

__________________
Laus Deo! <><

Nothing wrong with it. As noted it pushes a decent sized bullet at an effective speed.

But, for my money if I need a small frame gun the 9mm ammo has improved to the point where it will do the same job with less recoil and more capacity.

If I need bigger it's .45acp territory.

__________________
USAF, 69-92
Vietnam, 72-73

First off, I don't consider myself to be any sort of hotshot shooter. I'm just an average size guy at 5'11' and 170 lbs. and in my late 50's, don't consider myself recoil sensitive.

After shooting a couple cylinders of stout .357 mag loads from my 4" M28-2, then stepping down to the FS M&P 40, it feels like a mouse gun. With it, I can put relatively quick 5-shot groupings into a 5" diameter circle at 10 yards. That's pretty good for me considering my extreme nearsightness plus bifocals. If I take my time and do single shots, it's obviously much much better. So yes, I like the caliber.

I shot the caliber since it first came out, on LEO duty in a Glock 23. I am currently shooting it in a S&W Shield. I like the capabilities of the round and never thought that the recoil was a negative issue. I just shot 50 rounds in a Shield and it seemed comfortable. In the Glocks, I didn't see much difference in recoil, compared with 9mm. I like the round.

Hmm. That's not the experience I've had in my area... For the past few months, it's been much easier to find 40 S&W than it has 9mm. Also, the big discrepancy in price between the two seems to have narrowed. 9mm is still less expensive when you can find it, but not as much as it used to be.

__________________
M&PC FS BG Shield+ 642 686+

I shoot the .40 and shoot it well.

Some people complain about recoil, but then if you watch those people you find out they really haven't been taught how to control recoil.

The way you hold the gun will make a world of difference. When most law enforcement agencies were switching over to semi autos the choices were 9mm and .45acp. Then there was a shootout in Miami, Fl. where several FBI agents were killed and other agents wounded.
Nothing the agents used stopped the threats even though there were multible rounds that should have been rendered the subjects dead. They did eventually die after the carnage was done.

The FBI decided to go to 10mm, only problem was more and more women were getting into the FBI and other agencies like the one I retired from. They could not handle the weapon in a fight due to slow followup shots and grip size. As a firearms instructor I had to deal with this alot with smaller women and some men.

The .40S&W was developed to give an officer a choice of smaller grip and faster followup shots. As for the 9mm at the time, they had a history of overpenatration and the 45 acp would have feeding problems in the weapons of the eighties and early nineties.

It is fine in a 4006-or other non plastic pistol or revolver. When you look a some load data, you can find yourself right in .357 Mag turf pretty quick, just by lightening the bullet some. That's great if it's what you want, but make mine steel.

Nothing is wrong with the .40 S&W that I can see.

All of these defense cartridges want to be as good as the .45 ACP, which offers a very good balance of controllability, low chamber pressure, excellent stopping power without "gee-whiz" bullets, accuracy, power, speed of follow-up shots due to low recoil, etc.

None of the others even claim in their hype to be better than the .45 ACP.

The 9mm is older than the .45 ACP and, in its standard loading, no better than the .38 load our military rejected when it did not stop the small frame, hyped up Moros in the Phillipines.

The .40 S&W is designed to give the ballistics of the FBI's 10mm Lite round adopted in the wake of the 1986 Miami tactics failure, but in a smaller "operating envelope" requiring less grip circumference duty to shorter ammo length, and less operating travel to eject and chamber a cartridge, all adding up to easier use for the "new breed" of kinder, smaller, weaker and gentler police officer.

True if shooting the same RNL or FMJ bullets. But, terminal ballistics have improved greatly, with the modern crop of JHP bullets such as HST, Gold Dot, and Golden Saber. The 9mm and .38 so equipped are now much more effective. So is the .45, still at the head of the pack. (for autos)

__________________
USAF, 69-92
Vietnam, 72-73

An objective view of some numbers reveals that;
--180 grain .40 loads have a sectional density equivalent to a 230 grain .45. (.40s penetrate.)
--180 grain .40 loads travel at roughly the speed of a 185 grain .45. (.40s are fast.)
--More .40 cartridges can be stuffed in a magazine than .45 (.40s carry more rounds than a .45.)
--.400 is appreciably larger than .355. (.40s make bigger holes than a 9.)

Subjectively, I think it gives the best of all worlds; plenty of cartridges that are of respectable power in a compact yet controllable package. A Glock 23 is big enough to get my whole hand on, yet small enough and light enough to conceal--when loaded it is the same height, same length, and same weight as a loaded 2" K Frame; yet the Glock holds more than twice as many rounds, and each round is a larger caliber.

Plus, around here at least, .40 has been the easiest of the big three auto cartridges to find available for purchase. By far.

HA! the original 10MM, 38/40-- I love that round. Love the 10MM even more. I just fail to understand why people don't get it. You put anything in too light of a frame and it it going to be a bit rough-- so what? Same thing when plastic stocks came out- everyone had to have one. In the day I made a good deal of money installing recoil pads on such guns. There is a marked difference in going to the range and firing a couple rounds in SD.
Also, when you load the 40, GO BY THE BOOK!! Can't tell you how many guns I saw damaged by over loading this round a number of years ago when I did some work for H&K. I thought long and hard when I considered buying a 40, simply because I had several GALLONS of brass. I chose a SIG 250C. Came with two barrels, 357SIG as well as the 40. Yeah, it has a bit of a snap to it but she is right on at any distance I would use it for. I might even consider a 9MM conversion kit, just because. My only other choice would be as mentioned above, something in stainless -- what ever that might be. I am just too old to worry about it. JMHO of course.

I love the .40 And the .45. In the end they are both good rounds. It all depends on what you prefer. I use my .40 more than my .45. It's just the way I like it.

Not really anything if you like it. Kind of a personal thing in my opinion.

I think a lot of people just don't like that it was the result of a great cartridge being toned down so a wider variety of people could handle it.

I have one, but don't shoot it much. I much prefer 45 in my semi auto's, tho for a small pocket ccw gun 9mm is handy as well. To me, the .40 is kinda like diet coke... which I don't like either haha. I usually drink the real deal, or water. Of course, I'm also not a huge proponent of high cap mags...I just don't necessarily feel the need for half a box of ammo in my mags. Mileage may vary. I just find myself in the "solution looking for a problem" camp when I think about the .40s&w.

IMHO, there's nothing "wrong" with it. I like all cartridges and firearms - some more that other, but none that I dislike. For me, it's the plastic guns that come closest to an actual dislike. The only 40S&W I have is a Ruger SR40. While it works just fine, it reminds me of a plastic squirt gun populated with ballpoint pen springs.

Give me wood and steel. Although I have one foot in the 21st century, I'm happier in the traditional world.

Doesnt matter what caliber you carry. If you dont train to properly use the weapon. Then chances are it's not going to do you any good anyways.

Most people worry more about the caliber than they do about actually learning how to use it properly. 9mm, .40, .45 are all just as deadly in the hands of a person who's trained himself to properly use each one.

A .45 to a guy with no training, seems to kick too much. Put that same .45 in the hands of a guy who knows how to use it and control the recoil, then watch how much that "kick" doesnt affect his accuracy.

Next excuse, please.

Nothing wrong with the 40 S&W. Just like there is nothing wrong with the 44 Magnum. Depends on the shooter, their ability (not all cops or LEO / Agents can shoot well). In fact, there has been a movement within even the Feds moving back to the 9 MM with the proper ammunition. Ever do double tap drills with a G27 Glock? Don't think you'll do so good! Even my BIG FBI neighbor dislikes his G27. As always, too much muzzle flip, slowing the second or 3rd round. It's all physics.The 40 I think was a good experiment that couldn't be solved with new bullet designs (which we now have).

__________________
Live Free or Die

It seems pretty popular in my area, but I personally don't really see much of a benefit vs 9mm or .45 ACP.

And........ some of us are just indifferent........When the .40 came out....I already had 9mms and .45s........... .40 was touted as a compromise..... I was kind of ho-hum ...... didn't need another caliber to stock/shoot.

I also thought the 10mm was a better cartridge....... so the .40 S&W is a compromise on a compromise.......



I did about 8-9 years ago pick up a really nice used Sig 229 with .40 and .357sig barrels and 6 mags...... just in case the zombies come and all I can scavenge on the road is .40 or .357sig. Course I've even picked up a nice PPKs in .32apc for $350 couldn't resist that it had 4 mags with it. LOL

For me it’s more the platform than the caliber.

I would never have bought a .40 S&W handgun but my wife wanted me to shoot something different than a .45ACP due to ammunition price.

I have always wanted a 4006 but hadn’t been able to find one so I ended up with a CZ75B that I really liked. It’s an all steel pistol so I can’t say that I notice any more recoil than I do with a 9mm.

(and really, after you’ve fired an M110A2 on charge 7 white bag “recoil” just isn’t a word you apply to a handgun )

After purchasing the 75B I picked up a 2075 RAMI because the 75B magazines were compatible.

A few months back I finally found my 4006 at a price that was just too good to pass up and it’s pretty much become my go to carry gun but it’s more that gun than the fact that it’s a .40.

Wow , Bam Bam was reading my mind. Before the .40 came about I was happy with the effectiveness of my prefered 9mm+P+ loads, and likewise didn't feel overly inconvienced by 7rd 1911 magazines. So the .40 was a compromize to a nonexistant problem.

But in the late '80s large segments of the LE world believed with religous frevor that Cal *X* was the hammer of the gods , while Cal *Y* was essentially commiting suicide to carry on duty. And equal numbers felt the reverse , and there seemed no possable middle ground. The invention of the .40 as a political compromise gave each side somthing they could live with , and claim partial victory.

In actual practice the .40 proved more effective than the detractors first estimated. But I've still never warmed up to it.

As noted several times , any of the half dozen or so popular or semi-popular cals can be handled with a bit of training and practice - in a service size or larger gun. In a polymer framed subcompact the 9mm is both much more controlable , and less effected by the vel loss.

For young guys like me, starting from a clean slate, .40 has a lot to offer. I couldn't warm up to carrying a 8 round .45 or a 15 round 9mm. The 9mm lacks size, and the .45 lacks capacity. For guys already stuck in their ways, well, it's understandable that something new wouldn't be attractive. No offense meant.