My general perception of .40 call guns like the glock 27 and from what I've read the CZ 75 is that they never quite shoot as well and as easy as the 9mm version of the same gun which in the glocks case is the model 26.

Ditto for guns that were originally first made in .32 acp like the PPK and the colt 1903 that were then brought out in .380 ACP

and that got me thinking what guns do shoot as well as their 9mm counterparts in .40 besides the 10mm's that have had .40 SW barrels made for them.

so does anyone know of any?

Hmm...9mm is easy to shoot..the .40 got more recoil..could give tthe perception it ain't accurate.

Then you have pistols like my S&W 4046...The only .40S&W I own. Shoots fine..just took a bit of getting used to the trigger.

I don't think the .40 is any less accurate than any other handgun cartridge.

I have a 40 caliber Sig P239 that will shoot a 2 inch group for me at 25 yards if I use a bench rest and use some weak readers so I can see the sights. Don't know if that's any better than the 9mm version but it's good enough for me. Also have a 40 caliber P229 that I shot into 1 1/2 inch at 50 feet offhand but that was when I could still focus on handgun sights on a day when I was shooting exceptionally well. Finally, there is my 610 revolver that gets used mainly with 40 caliber ammunition and is equipped with a reflex sight. From a benchrest 3 inch groups at 35 yards are routine and on my best days I've been under 2 inches.

IMO what you've observed is simply a matter of shooter proficiency. In a lighter gun the 40 caliber has a sharp enough recoil to test the recoil management skills of the shooter and the result is throwing flyers.

Any whimpy cartridge ought to be easier to shoot, hence the perceived better performance with the 9mm.

__________________
- Change it back -

It's been my experience that both the SIG P229 and the HK P30 will run with their 9mm counterparts in the accuracy departments.
The Performance Center .40s are good, and the M&P.40 isn't bad either. Dale

__________________
"Long live the S&W 3rd. Gen.!"

Just buy a 9. With good ammo they get the job done.

My G27 performed just as well as my G26.

Indeed! At the moment my 9mms out number my .40s by a margin of at least 5-1. Dale

__________________
"Long live the S&W 3rd. Gen.!"

I think the question mostly involved mechanical function and reliability. It seems to me most all guns (semi-autos anyway) perform best in the cal. they were originaly designed for.

Sigs, CZ's, FNP and/or FNX Probably any good 1911 platform chambered in 40.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

My SW40VE performs as well as the 9mm.

my beretta brigadiers both in 9mm and 40 both shoot the same,,the 40 may have a little louder report and a little snappier recoil but i can shoot both the same..

I own a M&P 40 and shoot a friends 9mm (M&P) fairly often.
I like the 40 better.

__________________
Gerry

I have a 5906 and a 4006, configured identically except for caliber. The 5906 is noticably more accurate than the 4006. I don't find the 4006 to recoil all that much more than the 5906. The 4006 simply doesn't have the same degree of accuracy as the 5906.

no I dont mean that the .40 is less acurate its just that from the one I've handled and shot which is a sized up version of the 17 it seems like its not as easy to control as the glock 10mm that I also shot and I'm kind of wondering why that is.

I mean why is the more powerful gun thats roughly the same size easier to shoot, its quite perplexing.

and I have to admit I've been playing around with the idea of going with a smith 1006 in addition to the 645 and order the .40 SW barrel for the 1006 as well that a guy makes here so I can shoot both calibers out of it.

although honestly while I understand why people love the 10mm I'd rather go for one gun ment only for the .40 smith and wesson and not the 10mm as its a nitch caliber now and I've got a M29 for when I want to play eastwood at the range with to begin with.

umm I dont know honestly after reading the horror stories about anything sub .40 call in Keith's sixguns book from the 50's which I just read while the power was out for 4 days thanks to a wimpy snowstorm here in MA I've kind of come to the belief that for a primary carry gun it shouldnt be any less than .40

plus theres actually an exact parralel to what one of the guys said here in the thread I posted about the standard police load for the .38 special with the porcupine thing and that 200 gr .38 special load.

and I dont want to screw around with the ammo just to have faith that my carry gun will do the job needed if and when its called upon to save my life or someone elses.

M&P 40 full size is the softest shooting 40 I ever shot.

Carry what your comfortable with. Personally the 9 doesn't bother me. As I've said before, the 40 was a compromise. There isn't that big enough difference between them to matter.

A couple of well placed Win 127 +P+ and the fights over.

My issued Glock 22 and 23 shoot as well as the Glock 17 I was originally issued. Yes, there's more recoil but the accuracy is still there.

I think it was Mas Ayoob who once said that a handgun is always more accurate and reliable in the caliber it was originally designed for. And lets face it HE SHOULD KNOW!

__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin

My Sig 229 is an absolute tack driver, but the 229 was specfically designed as a 40. I can put a 357 Sig barrel in it and it shoots great too.

My BHP in .40 outshoots all of my 9mms. My Colt XSE (.45) outshoots my BHP by a little bit. I have a dozen or so S&W revolvers in multiple calibers that shoot rings around any of my semis.

__________________
Copyright MCMLXII ©

Well its just one of those things where its a carry pistol and since I havent heard of them making a revolver that can shoot .40 SW without moonclips besides some new charter arms that just came out it that means it kind of has to be a semi auto, plus the semi auto is thinner to begin with and has more than 5 unlike the charter arms, plus I dont really like charter arms to begin with.

and I do remember picking up a sig at a local gunshop that was in .40 that felt great in the hand, but since it was for a raffle and I wasnt really looking for a .40 then I never really pursued it and I'm pretty sure its one of the two that you guys have brought up as being made in that caliber first. either a 229 or a 239 which is what I'm looking for out of the .40 I want to go with, its gotta be made and ment for the .40 SW caliber first.

with the BHP I did skip over a like new 9mm one for a glock 17L awhile back because it was 200 dollars cheaper, the trigger of the 17L was on par with the BHP if not better and there was more pre ban magazines out there for it that were also for much cheaper than the browning high power magazines, plus it felt very slipery in my hand, not sure if that would apply to the .40 version though as I think they do make a version with checkering on the front unlike that one.

with the M and P I did pick one up at a gunshop about 5 months ago and I gotta say I wasnt impressed with the trigger, it felt alright but it just didnt impress me as much as the 17l and if I had had a choice between the M and P and the 17L in the same caliber I would have probably gone with the 17L over it too.

and I'm not a glock guy either, I just do my research on them and its just that it was one of the originals from the 1980's complete with german proof marks and it felt just as good in hand as the BHP and the hogue slip on grip did completely rectified the slipery grip on it.

My 40 USPf does pretty well in the accuracy dept. With most decent ammo and handloads it keeps groups in the 1.5-2" range at 25.

I had a 4006 I bought new in 1990 and while it wasn't a tack driver was decent enough.

The most accurate 40S&W I have ever shot is a 5.5" Ruger Vaquero in 38/40 with an extra 40 cylinder. That is a pure one hole cluster shooter at 25 yds, even with its simple fixed sights. I guess that meets your criteria since the Vaqueros were designed around completely different cartridges than the 40!

__________________
" I said, good DAY! "

well thats actually one of the cartridges Keith said a serious holster gun should be in in the book (the .38/40) and its actually quite close to the .40 SW in performance so I'm not the least bit surprised about that.

and actually my father has one of the old pre transfer bar ruger .357 single actions and that thing is damn accurate too, hell now that they finally fixed that design so the cylinder lines up with the ejector rod on the new ones now it might be worth it to look into one.

8"x11.5" target, SW40VE, Federal 180gr FMJ at 10 yards unsupported, slow fire, old man that needs new glasses...

I've owned a fair number of 9mm and .45ACP pistols. I've only owned two .40 S&W pistols... a P-226 and a G-22RTF. I did not like the P-226 enough to keep it and do not remember what level of accuracy it produced. I currently own and enjoy shooting a G-22RTF. It produces on target results equal to a G-17L that I once owned and shot extensively. Of course my experience may not mirror that of others.

__________________
<><

I have the CS9 & CS40.Both seem to have the same accuracy.I also have the Ruger SR9c & SR40c,both seem to shoot the same.The 40's have a bit more recoil however,like all my guns,they are more accurate than I am

__________________
JR