Revolver-time
Member
Seems to be a bit of " I won't buy anything in .40" statements on the various forums. What are the issues with this cartridge?
What is wrong with the .40
- Thread starter Revolver-time
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Ozark Marine
US Veteran
Nothing. A lot of people on other forums watch what the FBI mandates for it's agent's. I would say 99.0 percent of the folks on S&W Forum here are avid shooters with more than 2 weapon's.
I haven't ventured into the .40 Cal. arena because I have enough different caliber handguns. If I want something in "forty caliber" I'll get one of my .45 ACP handguns and if I want a hot round, I get the .38 Super+P. I just don't need another caliber to reload for.
Texas Star
US Veteran
Supposedly, it batters guns more than 9mm or .45. Browning had to beef up the Hi-Power for it and so did Beretta with their M-92 spinoff, the M-96. I gather that neither proved durable. The CZ seems the best, from what I can tell.
Some .40's have very heavy springs, making them hard for women and some smaller or older men to operate.
Some .40's have very heavy springs, making them hard for women and some smaller or older men to operate.
Not a thing wrong with the .40 S&W and the guns that shoot them. When it was introduced there were some problems with some guns as the manufactures basically took 9mm guns and made them in .40 without additional strengthening of the pistols, but those problems were fixed long ago. Most of the negativity about the .40 is old internet chatter that just gets rehashed. I shoot a G22 and a G23 on a fairly regular basis and the G23 is one of my go to carry pieces.
Two things the way I see it:
1) I don't like a .40 in a sub-compact plastic pistol.
It kicks too hard for my old, weak, right hand and my severely handicapped left arm. 
But in a compact or full-size plastic pistol... or any all-metal pistol... it's fine. 
2) An amazing number of people have a serious mental block about taking on a third centerfire pistol cartridge for cost, storage and/or reloading complexity reasons... so a lot of .40 pistols can be hard to re-sell for top money if/when the time comes to do so.
Of course, on the other hand, they can be excellent bargains if you are in the market to buy. Arik
Member
A lot of people have a mental block about it. It is to the 10mm what the 38spl is to the 357. A slightly tamer version. Because S&W invented the 40 and because it is less powerful than it'd parent the 10mm people came to call it 40 Short&Weak dispite being neither.
It's s little snappier than a 45 but I personally don't feel much of a difference. It can be a little bit of a handful in smaller guns.
Personally I like it and I own two of them but in my experience some guns handle the snappier recoil better. I really like the way my Glock 22 shoots and my HK P2000. I had the HK USP 40 and didn't care for it dispite liking the 9mm version. But it may have been because I was not as experienced in shooting when I bought it
The only gun I know of that was designed specifically around the 40s&w was th HK USP
It's s little snappier than a 45 but I personally don't feel much of a difference. It can be a little bit of a handful in smaller guns.
Personally I like it and I own two of them but in my experience some guns handle the snappier recoil better. I really like the way my Glock 22 shoots and my HK P2000. I had the HK USP 40 and didn't care for it dispite liking the 9mm version. But it may have been because I was not as experienced in shooting when I bought it
The only gun I know of that was designed specifically around the 40s&w was th HK USP
Last edited:
Nothing really wrong with it. It's just different. The recoil is pretty snappy, especially in a polymer framed pistol. Agencies are moving away from it for two reasons. The .40 caliber pistols they purchased several years ago are ready for replacement, and a significant percentage of shooters have difficulty with the recoil, leading agencies to return to 9 mm. Cost and convenience. Easier ability to qualify means less ammunition expended in training and preparation.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Nothing is inherently wrong with it. My opinion is that it's just another "in between" caliber like the 10mm or the .357 Sig. Why shoot either of those when the .45 acp and 9mm will do just as well (or better), and are easily found pretty much all over the world?
cmort666
Member
It's got VERY sharp recoil. It's not painful, but it's very FAST, far more so than .45acp, in any load I've ever shot.
In a Glock 22, I find the muzzle whip objectionable. It makes the gun hard to control for followup shots. It's like somebody whacking the dustcover from the bottom with a broomstick.
I'd consider another .40, but NEVER in a polymer gun, only in something like a Browning Hi Power or a CZ75SA.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,824
- Reaction score
- 31,732
There is really nothing inherently wrong with the .40. The reason many won't buy one (including myself) is that they have a .45 and or a 9mm which is also pretty good with the right ammo. While the same models will hold an extra round or two over the same model in .45, it is often not enough to justify a new purchase - especially since the .45 is certainly a great man-stopper! Those really concerned about sheer round count are going with a double stack 9mm and that's that for them. SO........ the .40 in my mind is in the same ball park as the 41 magnum - good, but not enough difference to really make a change.
Inusuit
Member
I shot a .40 in IPSC and a Glock 23 is my truck gun. The only downside for me is, as others have noted, is the snappy recoil. For a while, I carried the now discontinued KelTec P40. Very unpleasant to shoot. It now gathers dust in the safe except when I use it in basic pistol classes to demonstrate a DAO semiauto.
Who said there was anything "wrong" with it?
Somebody on The internet?
Somebody on The internet?
For an interesting read, Google "Is 40 cal dead" and look for the article posted on Guns America. I'm not saying that I agree with the article, but it makes several valid and thoughtful points. 
steveno
Member
I already had a Browning High Power in 9 mm so when the 40 S & W High Power had to get one. right away you could tell there was a big difference in the way it handled. Browning had to add a lot of extra steel and a MUCH heavier recoil spring for the 40 S & W. it shot ok but it just didn't handle the same way so I got rid of it. I would wonder if you shot the 40 S & W High Power alot how well it would hold up.
Arik
Member
If you're looking into one I'd recommend you shoot the model you're looking at first. If that's not possible at least something similar to get an idea.
I always had 40 off and on but when the great panic of 2011 hit 40 was what was mainly available. I found that the recoil is not bad on the Glock 22. Not much more than on the 17 and I can shoot it pretty fast and accurate.
I always had 40 off and on but when the great panic of 2011 hit 40 was what was mainly available. I found that the recoil is not bad on the Glock 22. Not much more than on the 17 and I can shoot it pretty fast and accurate.
Grayfox
US Veteran
I had a .40 once. Fell for the hype when it was first introduced. ".45 Power with 9mm Capaicity!" I soon discovered that was total BS. 
Anyway I bought a S&W 4006 when they first came out.
As already mentioned the recoil pulse is much sharper and definately different from other calibers. It took some getting used to.
My issue with it was accuracy. It was "combat" accurate enough I suppose. But I demand better of my guns. I fought this thing for two years, tried every factory load and reloaded every bullet and powder I could get my hands on. But accuracy was never better than so-so. Finally gave up and decided to sell it.
That's when I discovered the other problem with the .40. You can't hardly give 'em away. It took me another year to finally trade it off. Lost my butt on the deal, but didn't care as I was glad to be rid of it.
I've since learned that many consider the 4006 to be, shall we say, NOT one of S&Ws better efforts. Later models were supposedly better.
But I've never been inclined to test that theory. IMHO the .40 cal has nothing to offer that I can't do better with a 9mm or a .45acp. I'll never own another one.
Anyway I bought a S&W 4006 when they first came out. As already mentioned the recoil pulse is much sharper and definately different from other calibers. It took some getting used to.
My issue with it was accuracy. It was "combat" accurate enough I suppose. But I demand better of my guns. I fought this thing for two years, tried every factory load and reloaded every bullet and powder I could get my hands on. But accuracy was never better than so-so. Finally gave up and decided to sell it.
That's when I discovered the other problem with the .40. You can't hardly give 'em away. It took me another year to finally trade it off. Lost my butt on the deal, but didn't care as I was glad to be rid of it.
I've since learned that many consider the 4006 to be, shall we say, NOT one of S&Ws better efforts.
Later models were supposedly better. But I've never been inclined to test that theory. IMHO the .40 cal has nothing to offer that I can't do better with a 9mm or a .45acp. I'll never own another one.
Arik
Member
Could have been the gun?I had a .40 once. Fell for the hype when it was first introduced. ".45 Power with 9mm Capaicity!" I soon discovered that was total BS.
As already mentioned the recoil pulse is much sharper and definately different from other calibers. It took some getting used to.
My issue with it was accuracy. It was "combat" accurate enough I suppose. But I demand better of my guns. I fought this thing for two years, tried every factory load and reloaded every bullet and powder I could get my hands on. But accuracy was never better than so-so. Finally gave up and decided to sell it.
That's when I discovered the other problem with the .40. You can't hardly give 'em away. It took me another year to finally trade it off. Lost my butt on the deal, but didn't care as I was glad to be rid of it.
I've since learned that many consider the 4006 to be, shall we say, NOT one of S&Ws better efforts.
But I've never been inclined to test that theory. IMHO the .40 cal has nothing to offer that I can't do better with a 9mm or a .45acp. I'll never own another one.
I shoot my HK out to 50 yards on clay pigeons without any accuracy issues.
Similar threads
