The caliber seems to get no love right now with used handguns in this caliber bringing the least money. I like the caliber but most of my shooting is casual shooting at paper or metal plates. I've used 40 S&W one in self defense against a pit bull and the caliber did everything I hoped. The big disadvantage I see is that if you don't reload it is more expensive to shoot than 9mm. However I find it easier to reload 40 S&W than 9mm so to me that is a moot point. When the caliber first came out I saw it as 45 performance on a 9mm platform. I think others did too but it has since lost it's shine.

So from those of you with experience with this caliber what did you like and what did you dislike. You are not going to change my opinion of the caliber but I'd really like to hear your opinions and experience. For what it's worth the few times in my life I actually felt I might have to depend on a handgun to keep body and soul together I made sure I had a 1911A1 in 45 ACP in hand.

I, for one, like the .40. I have several and reload for them. To me, they are more desirable than a 9mm, and as long as the nines hold popularity, it just helps the price of the 40’s as long as you’re buying and not selling. I also like the versatility of the caliber. You can easily convert to .357 Sig with only a barrel change.

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

I like the 40... easier to see the holes...lol

if your looking 40smith and wesson i think if you buy a case
thay might give you free shiping
go to
Target Sports USA - Free Shipping On Bulk Ammo & All Firearms

I like the .40, too. Glad it’s not the current fad, so there’s more for me.

I’ll agree with the masses that with current bullet technology and propellants the gap that once existed between the 9mm and the .40 has narrowed, but that doesn’t make the .40 a bad cartridge by any means- it’s as effective as it ever was.

And most folks that say that a .40 “wears” quicker than a 9mm will never come close to putting enough ammo thru their handguns to worry about it. Lots of great deals to be had on Glock 22s and 23s lately with so many ppl decrying the .40.

__________________
Some Might Say.

When I retired my Sheriff's Office had just replaced model 645 with the model 4506. I haven't kept track the whole time I have been gone, but last year they had .40 Glocks. I was recently told they were going back to 9 mm Glocks. The reason, I do not know. I have carried a .45 since we changed to semi autos from the .357 revolver. I still carry a .45, and expect I always will.

*
The Glocks in .40 have had well known functionality problems, and when there was a short period of getting them to work well a couple of years ago, it messed up the 9mm variants. I know of several agencies that have had trouble with the .40s, going back well over a decade (it was heavily discussed on the old 10-8 forums and has been the subject of quite a bit of knowledge based hate on LF). A friend's agency had an awful time with them and had to recall and replace them pretty soon after purchase and before issuing them was complete. It is a clear discipline issue for incompetence for command to allow them.

I don't care about the .40, and there are good arguments for buying one just in case I need to use that ammo. If I did, it would almost certainly be an M&P 2.0. FWIW, I was at a class with an FBI instructor a few years ago, and he had regular malfs with his issue pistol. He had also found that smaller shooters actually did better with the Glocks in .45 - they were easier to shoot well.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

As a firearms training officer for a Sheriff's Office we were issued Glocks .40, which I mentioned above. We had almost no mechanical problems (I can't remember a single one) with the .40.

The reason we adopted it as I may have said before is the FBI used it and had a lot of paperwork which we would have to rely on in a shooting case. Since then 1996, a lot has changed. The FBI went to the 9mm and took a lot of range paperwork with it.

It's a fine round, but not significantly better than a 9, which has less recoil. I have several 9mms, no .40, and I think its popularity has diminished a lot. You can probably find police trade-ins for great prices and they make a fine SD gun. Ammo isn't as cheap as with a 9, and we in the SO had to buy on government contract prices.

I don't have much tangible to add but somehow that never keeps me from rambling. At the moment, I have NEVER loved .40 more! I recently grabbed a barely-used CZ Tac Sport in .40cal and it is absolutely everything that I could possibly have hoped it would be. Beautifully accurate, big and heavy that eats up the muzzle flip and with no doubt whatsoever, it smacks steel plates harder and dumps them with more authority than does 9mm, which is what I'm usually throwing at them.

I'm carrying 9mm and I'm good with that. I've got lots of handguns in a slew of calibers, my .40cal's number the fewest, but this CZ TS is a total winner and in .40cal, it's a thumper.

For anyone who was an avid handgunner through the AWB, the .40 S&W round made a LOT of good sense for defense, as you were capped at 10 rounds capacity. Running .40cal when 9mm was still being dumped on as often "ineffective" and you were stuck with a max of 10 either way... .40 S&W guns sold quite well.

I don't currently have anything in .40 but came across a very nice CS40. I shoot my 3913 very well as well as my 1911. From what research I was able to do most opinions were that the CS40 was harder to shoot than the CS9 and CS45. (More recoil/flip)
Any thoughts on using the CS40 foe EDC?

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

The CS40 is a tack driver at 7 yards (the distance I drill). Recoil has never been a problem for me after carrying a .357 magnum revolver for 25 years. I learned to ride the recoil wave a long time ago.

Heavier metal handguns in .40S&W seem to outperform the plastic offerings. I have one plastic 40, a PPS40, which is a great CCW but not a range gun. After a few mags, it can seem punishing to my old hands.

My favorite 40s are the single stacks built on 45 frames - CS40, 4053, and 4054. The older I get the more bothersome the double stacks become.

Ammo cost is a bit more but not prohibitive for me. I only use factory ammo and shoot a case of 9mm and 40S&W every year, so I bring most of my accumulation out to dance at least once a year.

A few years ago, you could find 40 ammo but no 9mm in the big box stores. I don't have a problem buying 40 in bulk through the same online vendors I get my 9mm ammo.

There are some great bargains on used 40 police trade-ins or sock drawer offerings from the guy who's trading down to 9mm or 380.

.40S&W is a caliber best left to experienced shooters who enjoy using a heavier handgun and have mastered recoil.

I cut my teeth on a .45 M1911A1 during my time in the Army (1960's, early 1970's) and that remains my personal preference for a defensive handgun.

I also learned to love the Browning Hi Power with a captured piece (FN P-35) in Vietnam, and the 9mm cartridge has been in use around my house for many years.

My first .40 S&W was a Kahr P40 compact, polymer framed pistol weighing in at just over 16 oz. empty. This has been a reliable and accurate "travelling gun" and back-up piece for the past 15 years or so. Only complaint I have ever voiced is the sharp recoil with high-performance loads in such a light pistol, but it is not a pistol intended for extended range use.

Several months ago I purchased a Sig P229 in .40 caliber. This is a very fine defensive handgun, DA-SA function with easy-to-use decocker mechanism. I like it a lot and would not hesitate to rely on it as a primary defensive handgun. 12-round standard magazine is a plus for the intended use.

Ballistics of the .40 S&W compare pretty well with the .45ACP, with the .45 capable of heavier bullets, of course. Several major federal agencies continue to use the .40 as standard issue, as do a number of major LE agencies, and good quality ammo is easy to find for now. I doubt that the .40 will dry up and blow away any time soon.

Brass, bullets, and other components are readily available, and the .40 is quite easy to reload ammo for. Looking into my ammo locker I see about 800 rounds or so ready for use, and I intend to enjoy them all.

I enjoy the 40S&W very much.Its easy to find,,easy to reload and there are still lots of great guns chambered in this calibre. I have two 610 revolvers that I shoot 40 thru in competitions. The wife also likes and can handle a 40S&W so its a family affair.

The 40 S&W had it's day in the sun , not a thing wrong with it .
I thought it a well balanced round .

Funny how after the big party is over , everyone goes right back to ....the ancient but ever present , hard to beat ...
9mm Luger or 45 acp . Each has it's camp and the debate as to which is better goes on .
The newcomers just lays in dust ...all beat up , all his adherents have abandoned him .
I find it strange that a round designed in 1902 (9mm Luger) and a round designed in 1911 (45 acp) are even still talked about....
much less still popular !
I guess , like the 30-06 , they just get the job done .

In my 70 years of life I've seen a lot of different rounds hit the scene on fire...blaze up and then fade out to become a footnote in "Cartridges Of The World" !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

I was a longtime .45 shooter who only finally grudgingly accepted 9mm ... when they made me carry one for work.

Just about 10 years after the .40 had been in LE-service, and had demonstrated it was "working" acceptably well in actual shooting incidents, I became a little interested in it. That "interest" was motivated by the fact that my own agency was beginning to show some interest in it. I'd already picked up 3 different makes/models before I was issued my first one.

Now I own 5 of them, which is coincidentally the same number as the 9's I presently own. (I own 9 .45's, FWIW. )

It can be a somewhat snappy and brisk recoiling caliber for the "average" shooter, and a bit daunting and unpleasant for the "minimally average" shooter who isn't interested in shooting very often (or more than is absolutely required, if it's issued).

For an armorer required to maintain and repair a lot of issued weapons, it's often a bit more attention and parts-intensive than maintaining a similar inventory of 9's or .45's.

For firearms instructors it can make it a harder task in training and repeatedly qualifying folks who aren't more than "average" shooters (especially if the shooters with whom they work aren't "gun enthusiasts" and their interest stops when they manage to squeak by qualifying and leave the range).

Since there's a bit more of the metals involved in making the cartridges, the cost can be a bit higher (more copper, brass and lead, by weight, after all).

There's nothing particularly "wrong" with the .40 as a defensive caliber.

Personally, after having invested the time to send some many tens of thousands of .40 downrange, I've found it's made me a better shooter. By that I mean it's made shooting 9's (even +P & +P+) and .45's seem easier.

Over the long run, I think it offers a nice compromise between a heavy 9mm (147gr) and a light .45 (185gr) for those folks who like to use heavier bullets.

The expansion often demonstrated by a good .40 JHP might exceed that of a good 9mm JHP by a couple hundredths of an inch, give or take. Maybe the same amount of diameter less than a good .45 JHP that expands. If that matters to you, go for it. (Think dime, nickel & quarter, more or less, but it's not like it's any sort of hard & fast "rule".)

Capacity? Less than similarly sized 9, and more than a similarly sized .45. (Notwithstanding that a .45 typically requires a larger grip girth.)

Lots of "average" shooters seem to find they prefer the felt recoil of a 9 to that of a .40 ... and some claim they can't notice the difference.

Well, as long as the holes in the intended target are appearing where they need to appear ... and the claimed "unnoticed" felt recoil proponents don't suffer any loss of actual accuracy ... pick whatever you wish.

I like that the .40 has heavier bullet weights available compared to the 9.

Don't lose any sleep worrying about the practical difference, though.

Pick what you like, for the reasons you like ... and if one comes in a prettier color finish, so much the better?

I just ask myself if I can put the hole where I want them to appear, as rapidly as I want them to appear (may need for the to appear?) ... and have no immediate plans to divest myself of any of the 3 major calibers.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I love the .40 S&W. All but a couple of the police shootings I worked were with it, and it worked fine every time.

Now is the time to pick up a police trade-in dirt cheap. Ammo will be around for a looooong time.

As noted above, all you need is a barrel to make it a .357 Sig if you want something to show the cool kids. For me, the .40 is fine.

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

Can't imagine what advantage a .40 S&W would have over a .45 ACP.

It fits in a 9mm sized gun.

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

I stepped gingerly away from the .40 when I saw my middle-of-the-road handloads do weird things at temperature extremes. I load plenty of things that aren't touchy.

I haven't missed it: the .40 S&W guns don't stop any better than a 9mm (he says, having worked on a couple hundred handgun killings in some capacity), experts can't tell the difference in the wound track left by a .40 JHP and a 9mm JHP (this came up), 9mm guns hold more rounds and 9mm ammo is cheaper. Plus, I have (and happily load for) .45s.

But you're right: there are some screaming deals these days on police trade-in .40 guns (because so many departments are going back to the 9mm).

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Have you seen many shootings with the more exotic 9mm projectiles?

Let's please not drift the thread but I am not sure I understand your question: nothing more exotic than a variety of hollow points.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Not true. They make all kinds of (silly, ignorant, cash-grab) ammunition products that often have sintered metal projectiles, ultra-light weight and extremely high velocity type rounds. Glaser Safety Slugs were some of the earliest of these, more recent silly rounds marketed as "DRT" rounds.

All of these are poor, over priced alternatives to a quality bonded JHP, but they do exist.

You misunderstand me, sir: I was answering walnutred's question about what I had seen in my work.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

He probably means stuff like 9x18 Makarov, .38 Super, 9x21 IMI, .357 SIG, 9x23 Winchester, and 9x25 Dilon.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Sorry for the thread drift Erich. The point has been made a couple times that with modern ammo (presumably hollow points) the 9x19 is as effective as larger calibers. I was asking if you have seen much use of 9x19 hollow points in the field or are most shootings still involving ball ammo. I would expect that gang bangers are sticking to ball ammo or whatever happens to be with the pistol when they steal it in the first place.

My preference in semi auto pistols is ball ammo as I feel reasonably confident they will preform as designed.

.40 S&W should never have been born. But that's also true of .45 ACP.

If I understand your various posts correctly the ONLY cartridge to have and shoot is a 9mm?

Many will cite that improvement in 9mm projectiles makes it so much more formidable ( including the FBI), do people think that other diameter projectiles were just sitting still with no R&D as well?

Randy

Yes. I saw the autopsy on a RIP 9mm round homicide. That's the only one I've seen. They aren't very common.

Erich is correct. After about 9mm or .38 spl, anything bigger is mostly overkill. A 9mm through the aorta is just as final as a .500 magnum would be. The mouseguns have problems with penetration and therefore are less reliable. The $1.50 a shot self defense ammo makes holes, but so do FMJ rounds. And experts really can't tell from the body the caliber or the bullet design.

Most all of this is simply marketing to people who seek technological solutions to human problems.

1. Placement.
2. Penetration.

That's about it.

We should all quit worrying about "ballistics" and study anatomy and physiology. Bullets of any size or type that hit the vitals stop people, sooner or later. Bullets that don't, don't.
So I carry Q4318 NATO FMJ stuff. It will, or won't, work as well as whatever you're carrying.

Back when hollow points didn't work very well, .40 may have made some sense. Personally, I don't think it would, but it may have. Also, during the bad, old days of the Assault Weapons Ban and no new mags over 10 rds (and available mags over 10 rds costing an arm and a leg), 10 rds of .40 in a gun the same size as a 10 rd 9mm may have also made some sense.

It's not that the .40 is necessarily a bad round. I was forced to carry a .40 for a couple of years at my PD job and found that the issued Glock 22 Gen4 was wonderfully accurate and reliable. Up till then, it was the most accurate duty style handgun I have ever handled. It seemed that all I had to do was point the pistol in the general direction of the target and I hit it. It also didn't have even a single reliability issue over several thousand rounds, but then again I have never had any reliability issues out of a handgun made by any of the major manufacturers.

I found that .40 also has some issues. It recoils more than 9mm and, in my experience, the recoil, while not necessarily greater than, is more harsh than .45. Muzzle flip was also greater than 9mm and .45. Recoil and muzzle flip weren't so bad that the pistol was uncontrollable or anything, but they were noticeably worse. In Glocks anyway, .40 also wears the guns more quickly and worse than 9mm and .45, largely because of the greater and more intense recoil. Parts breakage on .40 is more common, particularly locking blocks if the recoil spring starts to wear.

As was stated above, when using good quality hollow point ammunition, there really isn't any real difference between the major calibers. 9mm, .40, .45, they all expand to about the same size, give or take a tenth of an inch or so, and they all penetrate about the same. As a result, there really isn't much difference between them. There have been some studies that say .40 MAY (stress may) have a slight advantage when penetrating auto glass or sheet metal, but the results are inconclusive because there have also been some studies that show differently.

In the end, if you like .40, carry it. It certainly won't perform worse than 9mm and .45. I chose 9mm and don't even own any .40 guns and probably never will again. As long as it is reliable and you are accurate with it and practice with it, have at it. Just be aware that .40 isn't the hammer of Thor, but then again none of the handguns calibers are.

I own 9, .40 & .45 as well as .44 mag. I carry .40 in a Glock 27 usually. I like the 180 grains in .40, fast enough & big enough...and for some reason the .40 recoil is OK with me,. doesn't bother me at all. I like the snappy feel & it's not hard to control w practice. Having said that I have no issues w 9mm, I like it & have 2 beretta older 92s.

.40 is not going anywhere, shoot it if U like it.

When I went back to LE in 96, the .40 was what we carried. Mainly because the FBI records supported that round. I have no fault with the round, but think the 9mm will do just as well with a bit less recoil and a bit less wear on the Glocks we carried. Since I retired, my agency went to 9mm because a lot of data support it. I have no problem with that. I don't own a .40 and will probably never buy one since ammo isn't as available as it used to be. A good round in a sea of good rounds that are more available and less expensive without any appreciable advantages.

I am pretty much a revolver guy but have owned a number of .40s and still have a Glock 27. Many bash the round but I think it has a lot to offer. I have been through enough flip-flopping on what makes a round effect to know that the "current wisdom" will change. Then some will start yelling that we are going to die because we carry 9MM or whatever. I am making sure that I have enough .40 S&W ammo on hand and I may pick up a police trade in.

The FBI switched to 9mm Luger, made the excuse that after performing rigorous testing the .40 S&W and .45 ACP performed no better than modern 9mm without disclosing any load data, then people ran with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that it's possible to duplicate the performance of .40 S&W/.45 ACP with the right 9mm Luger load, but I doubt that said load is your garden variety 115gr 9mm load, more likely a 147gr +P load, if not a +P+.

I honestly think that the FBI just wanted to save money in the long run, and 9mm Luger was the way to go since the cost of ammo is cheaper and the service life of weapons longer, plus it has the fringe benefit of being easier to shoot, which makes qualification courses for new agents easier as well.
Furthermore, I doubt that the FBI is even using an equivalent 9mm load to match their previous .40 S&W loads, they just told a convenient half-truth that 9mm could potentially match .40 S&W, regardless of having no intention of making such an equivalent load the standard issue, because they knew it would look bad otherwise if they merely adopted a weaker cartridge without an explanation.

In their defense, modern 9mm Luger self-defense loads are most likely adequate for their needs regardless, so it's not like they're putting their agents lives at risk by equipping them with an inadequate cartridge, but the insinuation that 9mm Luger in general is equal to .40 S&W is misleading at best. So unfortunately now there are folks who parrot the whole "9mm is equal to .40 S&W/.45 ACP" assertion without really understanding it, as if that means the 115-124gr standard pressure loads they're carrying are somehow magically equal to a standard 155-180gr .40 S&W load.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I don't care for the cartridge personally

In my opinion it can't do anything better than a 9mm 124gr +P+ or a 45ACP 185gr +P

I had owned 3 40S&W chambered autos previously (during the clinton era) but having a case blow out sealed its fate in my head and I won't waste time ever considering a 40 again

Nothing at all wrong with the 40, it’s still doing the job it was designed to do. LE and government agencies are fickle and often go with the prevailing wind, especially if it’s cheaper. I also looked at the .40 as a compromise between the capacity of a 9 and thump of a 45; others think it’s neither fish nor fowl. I carried my 229 for the majority of my career and if starting over, would confidently carry it again. Great gun/ammo combination. FWIW, Sig is the first company to build a gun around the .40, while everyone else was converting their 9mms.

The 9 mm cartridge is under rated. The .45 acp is over rated. The .40 is a good compromise between the two.

A better question is: What's wrong with 9mm?
Meaning: Why add another caliber to your arsenal that really adds no benefit?
9mm does the job just as good, uses same cleaning supplies as .38, and .357, usually holds more ammo and is cheaper to shoot.
I guess if it's your only gun, or dont shoot much, it shouldn't be a big deal, but sticking to .22, .357/9mm, .45 & .44 mag for handguns keeps my shooting hobby simpler and more efficient.

Good question, I guess I just never liked the 9x19 round. I saw it as a good SMG round and a functional handgun round. Not that there is any logic behind my caliber preferences. 32-20 as been one of my favorites since I picked up my 1st one in the mid 70's. When the Army adopted the Beretta 92 I had a t-shirt made that front said, 45 ACP, Cocked and locked since 1911. The back said 9x19, the choice of defeated armies since 1902.

It's not that I avoid 9mm completely, I think between my wife and I we have three or four pistols in that caliber. And I tend to dance all around 9x19 with 9x17, 9x18 and even 38 S&W.

I live in a state where we can only have 10 round mags. I carry my SW compact 40. My though twas 10 of 9 or 10 of 40? OK I will take the 40. If the persistent push to limit magazine capacity continues I am sure it will hit more states. I am far from an expert but can shoot equally well the 9 or 40. I practice and practice some more.

I have pistols in 9 mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP.

I find the larger bullets to suppress very well. I was surprised that 40 S&W actually suppressed but it is naturally subsonic in 185 gr. I’d like to find some 200 gr just for shooting Suppressed in my Keltec Sub 2000 (Sub 2K).

I like carrying 9 mm for capacity and practical weight. I prefer 40 S&W over 45 ACP for capacity, as I get 3 more in a pistol of the same sized gun.

In end, it’s all about shot placement, what you’re comfortable shooting accurately and quickly, and what fits your budget. I have the different pistols, and I stock a lot of ammunition in all three calibers. I have progressive reloaders for the 9 and 45, but I’d love one for 40 S&W .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

There's not a thing wrong with the .40. People have their preferences, biases and opinions. Before the .40 it was 9mm vs .45 or 9mm vs .38/.357. The .40 just added to the debate.

It will never end and is kind of like the dog chasing his tail.

I have and use 9mm, .40 and .45. My safety is not dependent on other peoples choices nor is their safety dependent on my choice.

My agency initially transitioned to the Glock 19 9 MM, but switched to the Glock 23 in .40 after a couple officer involved shootings that failed to stop the suspect. Glock swapped the guns at no charge but ammo technology has narrowed the gap since then. The chief recently purchased G43s for narcotics officers so things may be changing.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

I find it at least mildly entertaining that so many make these concise, bold statements that .40 S&W offers nothing (nothing!) as in (nothing at all in any way) that isn't covered by 9mm or .45...

...even though some have listed multiple tangible bits that the .40cal provides clearly, including the opening posts that point out how .40 chambered guns are flooding the used market and can be purchased at great savings.

I could list benefits again, but this post here will already be received poorly or ignored entirely. This is no worry because I've eaten through 500 rounds over .40cal over two days of shooting this last week, through two different guns and my ammo chest has only 120 rounds of .40 in it.

I've obviously got a lot of loading to do!

The .40 is a little more powerful than the 9m/m about as much as the 9m/m is a little more powerful than the .380. There are Underwood .380 rounds that put a 90 grain JHP at about 1280 fps out of Beretta M84 and many LE 9m/m issue loads only shoot a 115 grain bullet at about the same speed out of a short barrel. I never quite understood how the 9m/m is considered the "man stopping death slayer" and the .380 is inadequate and should not even be considered for defense. The .40 shoots a bigger and heavier bullet at roughly the same velocity and I can handle the recoil well, shoot it accurately, and I have confidence in it so that's what I prefer. I do like the 9m/m for soft recoil and cheap ammo costs.

The answer is in plain sight...

The parent case is a 10mm.. I started using 10mm in the mid 80's because of the ballistics.

It was decided to fit the 10mm to a medium frame gun. The case was then "s" hortened and ballistics "w" eaker..40 s&w..40 short and weak.

Says it all..

My only fault with the 40 is that it is so darned hard to find a 1911 in this caliber. Other than that I find the 40 to be the perfect compromise between the 9mm Para and 45 ACP. For me the 9mm shines when you want something convenient to slip in a pocket and the 45 ACP shines when you need something that will stop a large dog or other predator quickly. For anything in between, that is where the 40 shines.

We all like choices... but how do you determine which caliber you will need when walking out the door..

My 45 whines if I try to leave it home..

Good in a pistol caliber carbine-and OK in a 610 revolver as well.

I vote for 10mm of course 40 is nothing but a 10mm Special