Is the .40 dead?

I have no personal data since I've never shot at a person, but I've read that in the last couple of decades the ammo makers have improved 9mm ammo a lot, in terms of expansion and terminal ballistics. Certainly if the 40 was better 20 years ago then the same new technology should improve the 40 and keep it better than the 9. But maybe the thought is that the 9 is now good enough.
This very well said!
 
I have not heard that the FBI has actually conducted its new pistol trials, although it has selected and awarded contracts for 9mm ammo.

That said, just because the 9mm defense ammo has gotten better, that does not mean that .40 and .45 have gotten worse. Use what you like!
 
I have never even fired a .40. The Salesman that recently went to work for us loves them. He has 2 and when we hit the range I am getting 50 rds. so I can give em' a try. He has good taste BTW...both are S & W (plastic, but hey he loves em' and that's all that matters). They will be the 1st non-metal guns this old fart ever fired!
 
All I can say is, if "trained professionals" only hit their target 20% of the time, they are not very well trained!
LE was getting the same hit % using 9mm any 45. So it doesn't really matter what caliber they use, they suck with all of them!
 
All I can say is, if "trained professionals" only hit their target 20% of the time, they are not very well trained!
LE was getting the same hit % using 9mm any 45. So it doesn't really matter what caliber they use, they suck with all of them!
I'd venture a guess and say most of the folks here would do worse than 20% if they were shooting at the targets LEO had to engage in situations they were in.
Sure, 20% is horrible for standing at the range shooting at paper, but I don't think that's where the figure comes from.
 
All I can say is, if "trained professionals" only hit their target 20% of the time, they are not very well trained!
LE was getting the same hit % using 9mm any 45. So it doesn't really matter what caliber they use, they suck with all of them!
I don't think you'd want to duplicate their scenarios in live fire.
 
All I can say is, if "trained professionals" only hit their target 20% of the time, they are not very well trained!
LE was getting the same hit % using 9mm any 45. So it doesn't really matter what caliber they use, they suck with all of them!
Because your practice on paper is so much more realistic
 
The military went away from .45 Colt many years ago, but I still have four revolvers in .45 Colt.

Law Enforcement went away from the .357 magnum many years ago, but I still have five revolvers in .357 magnum.

The military and law enforcement went away from 1911s in .45 Auto, but I still have five of them.

Everybody went away from the 10mm semi-auto, but I still have three of the .40 S&W magnums.

I recently bought my first ever .40 S&W which is a Glock G35 for rural carry.
 
Things to keep in perspective:

Skill levels differ between individuals
Larger calibers do not make up for poor tactics or training

I don't care if it's a .17 round or a 17.5 inch ship mounted gun-
A miss is still a miss.

The only guaranteed close shot is with a nuclear weapon.
:cool:
 
I was never a trend chaser. That is why I never got on the .40 band wagon when it was the hot new thing years back. I have fired a few, but never owned a .40 handgun. I will stick with my old fashioned .45acp and newly re-fashionable 9mm handguns.
 
In my 40 years of gun ownership I've owned only one 9mm and that was a Sig P226 back in the Mid/Late 80's. Never liked the 9mm, and replaced it with an HK P7M10 as soon as it came out and have never looked at another 9mm since. Currently own 4 M&P's all in .40S&W. I highly doubt the .40S&W will be dead in any of our lifetimes, and probably not in our grandkids lifetimes.
 
Whats not to like, almost within a round or two of the nine in most guns, similar energy figures as the 45 with higher mag capacity.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top