.40 S&W Hate?

[jmace57]

I frankly don't enjoy shooting my .40 cal - I have a S&W 4043. That said, it is my nightstand gun, so I do trust it. I DO practice with it, I just don't enjoy it. My other home SD guns are .38 revolvers with wadcutters.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Don't hate the 40SW, just don't see the need for it when a 9MM or 45 ACP will do the job just the same.

Many flock to the 40 because cops carry it which usually turns out to be a mistake.

 

[Chris642]

I wasn't a big fan until I picked this gun up for a ridiculously low price:



I also have a Shorty 40 that I picked up at a very reasonable price. I've got plenty of 9s and 45s and a couple 10mm's too, but without first getting the PC Tactical 40, I probably never would have owned anything in .40 S&W.

That is a real beauty, thanks for sharing.

 

[CTG_COLLECTOR]

Is there then no truth to reports that the full-house 10mm was found by FBI agents to be too much of a handful? My understanding for years has been that the FBI requested the power reduction of the 10mm to make it more manageable for their personnel.

The recoil of the 10MM was just one part of the problem.

When the 10MM was issued to some FBI agents, I had the opportunity to talk to an agent while I was working. He HATED his 10MM S&W pistol because it was so heavy. Like him, almost all the agents he worked with that was issued the 10MM kept their guns in their desk, briefcase or stashed them under the seat of their cars! Carrying a brick on your hip while wearing dress slacks held up by a flimsy dress belt isn't very comfortable.

 

[brucev]

Have no idea how many rounds of 9mm, .45ACP and .40 S&W I've fired. Plinking level range loads are unremarkable regardless of caliber. As well everyone has at some point had a less than satisfactory experience with some particular load in some particular caliber. To suppose that such experience defines a particular caliber is about as rational as taking the single highest velocity a load demonstrates over a questionable chronograph and declaring that velocity to be the standard routine norm of that load.

About the only thing wrong with the .40 S&W is that it offends the cognizant who have much invested in their support of the 9mm or .45 ACP or the 10mm or of late the .357 sig. The 10mm was about like the .41 Magnum, dead on arrival for police work, poorly thought out in the reality of actual day to day use. The .357 sig. is what it is, a cartridge that came late to the dance floor already crowded with well established very effective rounds.

Had it come to the market before the .40 S&W, had it been made available as something other than limited bullet weights, were it useful by recreational shooters w/ cast lead bullets., etc., and were it not so much more expensive to general shooters, it might now be the round everyone loves to hate. But, it didn't.

The .40 S&W did come to the market first, at a time when there was a perceived need for something offering better ballistics than what was commonly thought the norm for 9mm ammo, something offering much better capacity than possible with the .45 ACP.

 

[hatt]

About the only thing wrong with the .40 S&W is that it offends the cognizant who have much invested in their support of the 9mm or .45 ACP or the 10mm or of late the .357 sig. The 10mm was about like the .41 Magnum, dead on arrival for police work, poorly thought out in the reality of actual day to day use. The .357 sig. is what it is, a cartridge that came late to the dance floor already crowded with well established very effective rounds.

Had it come to the market before the .40 S&W, had it been made available as something other than limited bullet weights, were it useful by recreational shooters w/ cast lead bullets., etc., and were it not so much more expensive to general shooters, it might now be the round everyone loves to hate. But, it didn't.

The .357 Sig was designed to mirror popular 125 grain .357 mag defense loads of the time in a 9mm frame. If you want to shoot heavier bullets you'd simply buy a .40/10mm/500S&W. Plenty of people shoot cast bullets as well. Not that it's ideal for folks who want to shoot a high volume of ammo. Those people would simply get an easier round to reload. .357 Sig isn't an all around round and was never intended as such. It's certainly more expensive for factory ammo but if costs are a factor you'll be shooting 9mm exclusively.

And I can tell you that the .357S round has more hate than the .40. The most vile product ever set forth upon the public if you ask people. I like mine though. Since I understand it's purpose and limitations.

 

[Autococker07]

I got into 40S&W in the early nineties... I was shooting IPSC, and had recently moved to 9mm.... I hated shooting the minor caliber, but 45 was almost twice the cost... I had a buddy that wanted to sell me a 40 Glock, and the local gunshop/reloading store showed me that I could make major power with 40 cheaper than 9mm factory..... I still have the G22, more sentimental value than anything....

I found for MY ergonomics that I had more flip/blast in 40 and eventually went back to 45. I was a careful reloader, and luckily never had any "scary" rounds in the time I shot 40. Since then, I have stumbled into a Kel Tec sub2K in "Glock 40", and I can tell you that a 40 S&W makes a FANTASTIC light carbine round...... so my two 40's sit around in the safe most days, and while I don't "hate" 40, it would take a smoking deal to get me into another.....

On a side note, I do have a buddy who is a 10mm addict, and I hope to visit him one day and shoot some of the buffalo bore insane loads he talks about.... he says that 10mm is much different than 40... I can only imagine stronger, however.

 

[scott1970]

For ten years as a street cop I carried a department issued HK USP .40 cal. While carrying the issued HK I cast, loaded, and shot thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo for it. It was an extremely effective and reliable platform. On two occasions I saw firsthand how effective the round can be on the human body. With a good hollow point load the .40 caliber is a superbly effective and deadly cartridge. I also witnessed it shot repeatedly through a car windshield and deflect straight down into the dash never making it to the man it was intended for. Side windows were no problem though.

I personally view the .40 caliber as a solution to a problem that never existed. As soon as the department switched to Sig P220 .45s I stopped loading .40 caliber and sold off my personal .40 cal handgun. The .40 caliber is a good killing round, but I prefer other calibers instead. If my department went back to the .40 caliber tomorrow I wouldn't be crying over it. Until then my .40 cal dies and molds will remain 10mm dies and molds.

 

[Calaveras Slim]

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.

Yep. Gotta agree. 40 is a fine round but if I want to shoot a .401 bullet, the 10mm is just dandy with me.

 

[KSDeputy]

The sheriff's office where I served 30 years went from S&W 4506 .45acp, to a Glock .40s&w. I know why they did it, they hired a lot of females who could not handle a .45. Why Glock has taken the lion's share of LEO pistol business away from S&W concerns me greatly. I have never shot a Glock, have no desire to. I will say I do not like all double action pistols. All of mine in .45acp & .380 are DA first shot, SA thereafter.

 

[brucev]

The .357 Sig was designed to mirror popular 125 grain .357 mag defense loads of the time in a 9mm frame. If you want to shoot heavier bullets you'd simply buy a .40/10mm/500S&W. Plenty of people shoot cast bullets as well. Not that it's ideal for folks who want to shoot a high volume of ammo. Those people would simply get an easier round to reload. .357 Sig isn't an all around round and was never intended as such. It's certainly more expensive for factory ammo but if costs are a factor you'll be shooting 9mm exclusively.

And I can tell you that the .357S round has more hate than the .40. The most vile product ever set forth upon the public if you ask people. I like mine though. Since I understand it's purpose and limitations.

With respect, observations made regarding the .357 sig. were to illustrate the reason why the .40 S&W is by some lauded while by others denigrated, often driven by unfounded emotionally based supposition rather than actual broad experience.

 

[Arik]

The sheriff's office where I served 30 years went from S&W 4506 .45acp, to a Glock .40s&w. I know why they did it, they hired a lot of females who could not handle a .45. Why Glock has taken the lion's share of LEO pistol business away from S&W concerns me greatly. I have never shot a Glock, have no desire to. I will say I do not like all double action pistols. All of mine in .45acp & .380 are DA first shot, SA thereafter.

That would be odd since the 45acp in a steel frame has a lot less recoil then the Glock in 40s&w

 

[Maximumbob54]

I just miss the days when .40SW brass used to grow out from the ground. I started collecting it up and before I knew it I had a couple of buckets of the stuff. A couple of bullet molds later and I became a .40SW owner. I still run all my brass through a Redding G-Rx die and my gun has a fully supported chamber. I found early on that the lighter bullets in the .40SW were the stuff that people complain about being snappy and high recoil. As soon as I switched to heavy bullets then the issues went away. Now I cast the Lee 175gr SWCTL and coat them in powder coating and load them mild with Titegroup to wild with Longshot. I could care less for caliber war talk as most of it boils down to sounding like children argue. Gun capacity wars are second only to the caliber wars. Someone will always take up the torch of one side or the other. I'm happy with what I have. I even do 10mm in a Delta Elite. Heck, I've even shot some Corbon loads through it and didn't think it was so bad. If that's the recoil that had everyone whining back then I'm not sure what to say about them. It wouldn't be polite.

 

[MCM]

I think its just media / marketing swaying the herd. They are now saying a 9mm is "just as good" as a .40 these days. With "new bullet technology" LOL LOL (Same tech as could be used with any round)
One of its main strong points is capacity & energy. I shoot about all the major calibers. Nothing wrong with 15 in a Glock 22 or 12 in a 229.
Have had mine since they came out.
These are strange days with everything being pitted against each other. LOL LOL And I mean everything... On the plus side, when 9 and 45 were hard to get, .40 was not a problem. )
Fads are pushed in and out. Seems right now we are being told the 40 is dead. I am not buying it...... In small guns its more an issue. Example, my Shield is 9mm. But I mainly wanted the xtra round over 9 V.S .40 6+1 V.S. 7+1.

On another note, D/A S/A semi autos are also out of favor right now. Please don't tell my 225, 226 & 229. Thanks

 

[Maximumbob54]

On another note, D/A S/A semi autos are also out of favor right now. Please don't tell my 225, 226 & 229. Thanks

Amen, brother. I don't know why the current fad is if it isn't striker it isn't safe/good/accurate/whatever. That snapping green twig feel drives me nuts. There is NOTHING crisp to be found in a striker fired gun. You can tweak and spend on them to get them lighter and shorter but they just aren't a true single action trigger in feel compared to the standard.

That being said I still like my M&P's and my SR9 but they will NEVER replace anything. Just another option in the catalog.

 

[rwsmith]

I have a few requirements.....

As long as the gun was MADE for .40 instead of a conversion, and it's a model that won't beat up my brass I have nothing against .40s.

 

[Pigirondan]

If I had to only have one pistola, it would be a .40 S&W, probably a Springfield XD Tactical. YMMV

 

[JeepinSoldier]

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.

This. I have never hated the .40 S&W, Just never had a need for it. I think it had a definite purpose when introduced as it was better than the 9mm loads of the day, and allowed a more powerful round in the common 9mm framed guns. At the time I was a 1911 devotee, so was never interested in the .40

Now, hollow point bullet and cartridge design has put the 9mm in the same performance as the .40 and .45 with less recoil and more rounds in the gun. I have several 9mm's and 3 .45's so I don't really need a .40.

I live in CO and routinely go into the mountains where there are both mountain lions and black bear. The 610 appeals to me as a revolver that can fire both 10mm for black bear defense and .40 for a lot of range shooting. I have picked up almost 2000 pieces of .40 brass casings and I have .40/10mm dies so I could reload easily, but 4" 610's are extremely expensive when you can find them so the 686 or 3" 65 does duty.

 

[Rick_A]

To my understanding the FBI came up with their own parameters and Norma uploaded it (in regards to the 10mm).

I prefer the bigger caliber in the given pistol.

The wife has a BHP 40 and I have a compact framed CZ 40.

The BHP is a dream to shoot and the alloy framed CZ is a bit more energetic feeling. They are well suited to their purposes and great pistol/caliber combinations.

Being used to shooting .40, .45, and an Airweight .38, 9mm feels a bit anemic.

I'm not hunting with my pistol so .40 works for me.

 

[Duster340]

Love the .40!!!..................and 9mm....and .44Spcl....44 mag.....380.... 22. Just never got too caught up in the hype over which caliber is best. IMO they all have their own place. I shoot em, if I like them, I keep them.