.40 S&W Hate?

[Me239]

Can somebody explain why there is so much hatred for the .40 S&W? Size wise, it's an intermediate cartridge between 9mm and .45 ACP. It packs greater energy in a 9mm framed pistol than the 230 grain .45 ACP in a large framed handgun, and has greater capacity. I can understand the preference people have between the big three (9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP), but the complete disregard for the .40 S&W to be anything but a meager compromise is beyond me. I've seen the following:

"The claim that .40 S&W doesn't have the case capacity to amount to anything like the revered .45 ACP"
.40 S&W case capacity 1.25cm^3
.45 ACP case capacity 1.6cm^3
OK, so the .45 ACP has more case capacity, but, by that logic, .38 Special should be worlds more powerful than the puny 9mm, but alas it is not. Plus, .45 ACP and .40 S&W have around the same powder charges, but the shorter .40 S&W has more pressure from the reduced case capacity.

"The .40 S&W is too high pressure. Go with something low pressure like a 9mm or .45 ACP" (James Yeager logic) "The .40 S&W is higher pressure than any 9mm or 9mm +P"
SAAMI pressures...
9mm 35,000 PSI
9mm +P 38,500 PSI
.40 S&W 35,000 PSI
So that's out the window too. The .40 S&W is the SAME pressure as 9mm and LESS than 9mm +P

"The .40 S&W has too much kick and flip for the marginal performance gain over 9mm. If you want something bigger than 9mm, the .45 ACP is better because the round has less flip, is more comfortable to shoot, and has a bigger hole than .40 S&W"
OK, so by that logic we should also all switch to .50 GI. Why do we even bother with these pathetic cartridges under 1/2" in diameter? OK, so the .45 ACP is .05" larger than .40 S&W, which is in turn .046" larger than 9mm. It seems that people trash the 9mm as being pathetic and underpowered, yet praise it when someone mentions a .40 S&W, cause at least it isn't a .40 S&W, right? Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't more kick in a gun of similar weight mean more momentum, right?

"I see people hunt with the .45 ACP and not the .40 S&W, so the .45 ACP must be better as far as stopping power goes"
So here we are again, back to the preference war. So some handgun hunters (who are already sacrificing a huge amount of energy by choosing an automatic) go with .45 ACP handguns. Would that be because the .45 ACP is the most fearsome cartridge on earth and Black Bears cower in fear of its mere name being muttered? Or is it because the .45 ACP has existed for 110 years and has dozens upon dozens of platforms that fire the cartridge, and the .40 S&W has only existed for 24 years and has limited offerings? I think the latter might be part of your problem.

Sorry for the rant, it's just with all the cartridge comparisons I look up, I always see, without fail, someone saying how the .40 S&W is nothing more than KB'ing, over pressured, yet underpowered, neutered 10mm that blows your wrists to ****. I've enjoyed every pistol caliber I've fired and just don't understand the deep seeded distaste people have for the .40 S&W.

 

[shouldazagged]

Beats me. I've only owned a couple of .40's. a Smith 411 and a second-generation G22, but I liked them both. Especially the Glock. I was forced to sell them, but I was well pleased with the .40 S&W round,

But then I must confess that I've never owned a .45 ACP, so perhaps I've not experienced the earth moving.

 

[lhump1961]

I'm with you! I have a Shorty 40 and an M&P 40c...love 'em both. I also like the .357Sig round. I have never paid much mind to the arguments for or against any caliber as it's just someones opinion...I'm capable of forming my own. When anyone asks why I have guns in 40S&W I simply say...'cause they make 'em!

You stated your position well and I wholeheartedly agree. I simply love guns and appreciate all calibers. I've even been known to carry a .380!

 

[Malpasowildlifer]

I hate the .40 S&W with a passion.

That is interesting about the specs you posted though; I always figured the snappy recoil was from the smaller case capacity and thus higher pressure.

I love the 10mm and if I want to shoot a 40, I'll shoot a 10mm.

I hate Glocks too so maybe it is the .40 out of a Glock. My duty gun is a Glock 22 and I can't stand it.

I love Sigs so maybe it is better out of a Sig. A buddy bought a SIg P229 in college and I got to shoot it once, but I don't remember what it was like. Before I was properly tough how to shoot a handgun too.

However, I have no problem with the 9mm and would not feel under gunned at all, especially with the new ammo out there.

I love the 357 Sig! I love my P239 in 357.

 

[venomballistics]

The short answer is two fold.
First, the 40 interferes with the age old 9mm vs 45acp debate, which shouldn't be a debate at all. 45 wins
the second half, 40 is a concession on a fine and worthy caliber, the 10mm auto. Here 40 takes on all the liabilities of a high pressure cartridge. Without providing any of the advantages of it's forefather, the 10mm.
look for the exploding 40 cal. Glocks and the term"glocked" brass.
Yeah, the Glock didn the same tricks in 10mm, but at least gave you 357 mag level performance for your trouble.
Today, I'd still opt for a 10mm over the 40.

 

[Irn-Bru]

The .40 S&W is my least favorite round to shoot. I have the Glock 27 and the recoil is just too snappy for me.

 

[RobertJ.]

You stated your position well and I wholeheartedly agree. I simply love guns and appreciate all calibers. I've even been known to carry a .380!

I agree completely. And even though I've never owned one, or a Glock for that matter, I have a huge amount of respect for the .40 S&W. I have a good friend who loves the Glock 22, and I've shot his a bunch. Every time I do, I think the same thing: Why don't I have one of these yet?

 

[semperfi71]

I own two .40 S&W handguns. Both are CZ75s. I bought the first just to "see" what the .40 S&W was like. I bought the second because I liked the first.

As a reloader I see little advantage to the .40 S&W over the .45 ACP. I am shooting 180 grain .40 S&W loads to 950/1,000 fps. I am shooting .45 ACP 200 grain loads to 950 fps.

The .40 S&W, in its lighter-but-faster loads (155 grain?) will probably open up very well in hollow-point versions but I live in country where I might have to defend myself from a black bear (rare to almost never) so I prefer the heavier "solids". Plus I might have to shoot into an automobile so I prefer the better penetration of the 180 grain solids.

With my CZ75s I carry 12 round magazines, with my M1911A1s I carry 7 round magazines. In theory I have 5 more shots in my .40s, but also, according to "theory"; if 7 rounds of .45 ACP don't work, no handgun will work.

I will keep my .40 S&Ws because one never knows when .40 S&W might be the only ammunition available. Same for any other caliber.

One of the .40 S&Ws (a CZ75 Tactical) will soon replace my Auto Ordnance M1911A1 as the "house gun", simply because it has night sights and will provide me with a more compact overall storage "unit". The AO M1911A1 sits in a box with three loaded 7 round mags, a tactical light, 25 extra rounds, and a whistle (my theory is that a whistle might run off someone before I have to shoot them?).

The CZ75 replacement will have three magazines loaded with 12 rounds each and no extra ammo. Plus the light and whistle.

But then there are people who can shoot accurately under stress and they will be deadly with a 9MM. Which means that it's not the caliber as much as it is the accuracy of the shot.

However, if I have a choice, I am going to use a .45 anything if I have to use a handgun for self-defense. But I also feel adequately armed with anything 9MM or above. My first real choice for self-defense is a 12 gauge shotgun.

 

[CoMF]

I never hated the .40 S&W but I never really had a use for the cartridge either, especially when there are plenty of great performing 9mm loads.

 

[b_san]

I own no 9mm handguns but many .40's (even 2 .40 carbines ) if that helps forward the debate. I just don't want to stock ammo for both calibers and I like .40 better. Probably didn't help that my 1st personally purchased handgun was a P-O-S Ruger P89 that I hated and then I bought a G27 that I absolutely loved.

Now that argument doesn't keep me from owning guns (and stocking ammo) in .45, .357, .38, .44, etc etc but to me 9 vs 40 is either/or since you're looking at mostly the same pistols in the 2 cartridges.

I've considered a 940 or one of the new 9mm revolvers but then I think about how I really want to get a nice 646 and stop myself...

 

[Old Corp]

Have no dog in the fight, but all my '.40's' are 10mm's.

Still chuckle when I recall a LE training seminar I attended several years ago where the instructor was relating the story of an officer-involved-shooting. He asked if everyone was familiar with what a .40 S&W was. Of course, everyone nodded to the affirmative.
He wanted to further educate us, tongue-in-cheek of course and said:

"The .40 is simply a .45 set on 'stun'."

That got a good chuckle.

 

[Chris642]

During the great ammo crisis, about the only decent handgun ammo I saw available in the local shops was .40S&W. That taught me that I need to seriously consider adding a .40S&W handgun to my roster.

 

[JPriest]

My first guns was a Glock 22 in .40S&W. It was a good gun and over time I got better with it, but never that great. A friend had a G21 in .45 that he let me try and I shot groups half my normal size with it the first time I picked it up. I sold the .40 intending to pick up a G21, but they were sold out and hard to get at the time and instead of waiting I picked up a full sized M&P45. I really love that gun. I do notice that the flip, or recoil is significantly less. I have big hands so the size is of no matter to me, and the gun shoots so smooth. Also, where I live we are limited to 10 round mags for all handguns, so capacity isn't an issue either. I don't have anything bad to say about the .40, it just turns out I like the .45 a lot more. If you really want to mess up this debate, I'd have to say my favorite is the .44mag though.

 

[Farmer17]

The .40s bad reputation was caused when the round first came out gun makers simply took their 9mm handguns and re-chambered them to .40 without a total redesign. This caused several problems in various guns from various makers. Once the gun makers started spending more time and money redesigning their guns to work with the new cartridge most of the bugs got worked out and the guns functioned fine. I bought an inexpensive Witness .40 when they first came out about 30 years ago and it was an all steel gun that absorbed the recoil nicely. I put thousands and thousands of rounds through it and never had one jam with factory ammo and it was extremely accurate. I loved the gun and the round and I always heard of people complaining of the .40s "snappy recoil" and I didn't know what the heck they were talking about. Then one day I fired a friends Walther P99 .40 and the muzzle was pointing straight up in the sky after every shot. Walther had done a terrible job of balancing the recoil spring and slide mass to the cartridge.

 

[Jlduke]

I'm indifferent and far too cheap to get myself invested in yet another caliber.

 

[johngalt]

The .40 isn't higher energy than the .45 auto. Check a reloading manual. A 185 gr .45 auto can be loaded to higher velocity than a 180 gr .40.

The .45 can launch much heavier bullets than the .40

And it does it with 14000 psi less pressure.

The .40 has a nasty, sharp recoil.

My favorite pistol is the 1911, which shall be chambered in its native cartridge, the .45 auto.

The only advantages to the .40:
Cost of ammo, which is insignificant since I reload.
Magazine capacity, which is insignificant in a 1911.

 

[Arik]

I had a 10mm, didn't care for it. Can't hunt with it and ammo is too expensive. Why would I pay more for something that's loaded down to a 40? Never made sense to me. A box of 10mm ammo is $35+ and a box of 40 is $17+.

10mm as a woods gun? Maybe, but again I practice a lot so that's a lot of money to throw downrange besides, my woods gun start with 7.62 cal. So anyway the 10 doesn't work for me.

Ive always been a 9mm with 45 in the background type but i have tried the 40 a few times. My first 40 was a poo-poo Taurus. Got rid of it. The second one was a Glock. I couldn't shoot good with it. I like Glocks and I liked the 40 but just couldn't get the two together to work for me. And as a note I don't care about the brass bulge and don't buy into the Glock 40 Kabooms. They are like that story about Chinese made 44mag ammo which blew up a S&W 629......mainly BS and repeated over and over until it turns into every other Glock went kaboom. So anyway I got rid of that Glock.

Fast forward to 2 years ago when the panic hit. In my area the longest lasting ammo was the 40. Walk into my LGS one day and there was a used HK P2000 in 40s&w with 5 mags and 2 boxes of Wolf ammo for $550. The price was too good to pass up and the ammo was still available. After hitting the range I was sold. Excellent firearm with low recoil (felt slightly more than my G19 with +p) and great accuracy.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[CatSnipah]

I never hated the .40 S&W but I never really had a use for the cartridge either, especially when there are plenty of great performing 9mm loads.

Same with me. I don't care for it, don't want it, but that's my preference. Obviously plenty of folks like it, and if it makes them happy, why would that bother me?

I've said it before...if we all liked the exact same things this would be a boring world.

 

[BAM-BAM]

I'm indifferent and far too cheap to get myself invested in yet another caliber.

Well almost true....... by the time the .40 came along I already had too many 9mm and .45s...LOL...... add a few .357s and...........
I just didn't see the need.......................with new 9mm ammo designs

Fast forward about 5-6 years and a lgs had an almost new Sig 229 with both .40 and .357sig barrels, night sights and 4 mags at what I considered a very reasonable price (IIRC about $500 OTD)........ so I made a CYA purchase to cover myself on ammo availability for those 2 calibers......I've since added a couple more mags and it fits my 220/245 holsters..... so it's my "safe queen insurance policy".

During the last ammo crisis I was still able to buy boxes of .357sig and .40S&W ammo which were still available at reasonable prices.

 

[gdnagle]

During the great ammo crisis, about the only decent handgun ammo I saw available in the local shops was .40S&W. That taught me that I need to seriously consider adding a .40S&W handgun to my roster.

This is the reason I have one of each except 10mm. Come to think of it I've never seem any 10mm ammo around here and rarely .357 Sig, but then again I don't look for it. I do know right now I can buy anything, but sometimes .380 and never .22 and still don't see any 10mm. I would buy a .357 Sig barrel for my P239 when I get around to it. Now if you load your own this is a mute point as long as you can get components.