Is the 40 S&W a must have cartridge?

[LoboGunLeather]

Must have? No.

Interesting caliber, available in excellent quality firearms offering lots of other opportunities (like easy .357 Sig conversion)? Yes, definitely.

Nearly a year ago I purchased a Sig "red box" P229 in .40S&W. LE trade-in, Sig puts them through the shop for full inspection and replacement of any significantly worn parts, ships them out with a one-year warranty, manual, and two standard magazines. My cost delivered to FFL was just a shade over $400, which compares to MSRP of $1087 at the time.

Convert to .357 Sig? Requires only a barrel. Same mags & springs work just fine.

Extra magazines? Readily available (I bought two in as new condition, delivered for $44).

Since I already owned a .40 and was reloading for it I had over 1000 cases, couple thousand bullets, and 700-plus rounds of ammunition on hand at the time. Easy to reload for, components readily available at minimal costs.

Looks like I failed to mention Sig's excellent reputation for reliability, accuracy, and quality. Consider that mentioned.

 

[daglockman]

I shot a GLOCK in .40 in USPSA to make major power factor also as scoring is different. I switched to 9mm because I don't hit anything but alphas anyways!!!! I have several .40's and shoot them well. They are full and medium sized guns though. I tend to stay away from subcompacts in .40 as they are very snappy to practice with a lot. I have been drawn to 9's in subcompacts as I can place all shots on target fast and accurately when stationary or moving. .40's take more practice for me in a small framed gun. The .40 is a mean little round though, and as mentioned before, I believe it was developed back in the 90's when the FBI and other agencies were trying to go to the 10mm, but it was too much for many agents and officers. It was scaled back a bit and the .40 was born and widely accepted. Fast forward to today, and bullet technology has come along way. 9mm is a very effective caliber, and many more people can shoot it with great results. New shooters can also be turned off by the snappiness of the .40 as compared to the 9mm. I recently shot my fathers shield in .40 and it is a completely different animal than my shield in 9mm. He saw the huge difference also, and preferred the 9mm. I bought him one for Christmas and it is all he carries now. Do you need a .40, of course you do. That is the only way you will be able to tell whether it is for you or not, and as mentioned before, they are quite affordable at this time. I regularly see 229 CPO guns in the $400 range which is a steal for a great quality gun like a SIG in my opinion. 9mm CPO guns are at least $150 more it seems.

 

[Nevada Ed]

The great thing about a cheap, "Used" LE weapon is, that it is broke in
and usually has only minor flaws that most of us can live with.

Add a NEW barrel to it and now it is good for another 9,000 rounds of target loads with maximum accuracy.

Do we need a 40..............?
If the price is right, why not ?

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

If you need to ask, then have you not answered your question?

 

[Sevens]

If you hang around gun forums, you will find that there are some things... some lines... some mantras... some legends... that get flipped out all the time. You get used to seeing them. Some of them drive me a little bit up the wall. I won't bore anyone with the long list of them that annoy me, but one of them is relevant.

It's the whole "man, I don't want to stock another caliber..."

I mean I think I get what you are saying, but I just don't understand how this is such an enormous burden or pressure on you.

Scenario: you are a guy who loves guns and shooting and you own a handful (or a pile) (or a truckload) of different handguns. You don't own a .40. You don't care that it's maybe a bit snappier. You don't care that it may be a little tougher to sell if you don't like it. You don't care that it holds a few less rounds than a 9mm, you don't care that the .45 guys at the range will snicker at your .40.

But what weighs you down is that you must "stock another caliber!"

Man, you could buy a box of ammo, maybe $14 OTD. You could even buy 2 or 3 boxes for less money than a dinner out for two.

Realistically, you could buy zero ammo and own zero ammo and have no components or tools to load ammo, have absolutely NOTHING to shoot in it and you'd be at exactly the same place you were a week ago before you bought a .40cal pistol... you would have everything you have ever had an no .40.

Where is this tremendous burden? A .40cal chambered pistol sitting on a low shelf in your safe doesn't eat anything. If you don't have ammo at the house, it doesn't choke & die. It doesn't do anything differently, it doesn't demand that you vacuum-seal 2,000 rounds to fend off the apocalypse.

It's just a handgun. If you want to use it, grab some ammo. If you like it, grab some more (better yet, roll your own or learn to roll your own and there's dozens of us that are ready & willing to help you learn.)

If you shoot thousands of round of 9mm or .45 and you don't want to cut in to that budget, don't. Snag that fantastic deal on a .40cal pistol in this market and buy one box of ammo or zero. It isn't going to hurt the gun if you don't have ammo and you won't need extra therapy because you don't have .40cal ammo on hand. The pistol will not wither and die or corrode and seize up because you aren't feeding it.

Really.

 

[Farmer17]

The only "must have" handgun caliber to me is the .22lr, after that its whatever YOU want. The .380 is great for a pocket pistol and the 9m/m is cheap and soft recoiling so I have some and I have several 38 Special and .357's because I like revolvers, and I have one .45 acp because I absolutely love the GI issue 1911 pistol. If it wasn't for the "GI 1911" I probably wouldn't own a .45 acp, just nothing that appealing about it to me but to each his own. The .40 is my defensive handgun of choice and I have confidence in it and I shoot it pretty good, I have confidence in the 9m/m I just have a little more confidence in the .40.

 

[woodsltc]

I enjoy shooting all 3 (9mm, 40S&W, and 45ACP) .... why limit oneself to just one or even just two of the three? They are all good calibers and IMO all 3 will be around for a long time.

None of the three are more of a "must have" over the others IMO.

Don

 

[WardenRoss]

My history with the S&W .40.

Circa 1990, Glock did a magnificent marketing job in selling departments huge swap out contracts, if they would exclusively go with their .40 Glocks.

I had them crammed down my throat from 1996 through 2016. Then my department exchanged them for Glock 19's. I prefer any SIG classic to a Glock. I never found the .40's to be as accurate as any .45 and especially compared to my SIG P220 or P245.

I still have my Glock 23 (.40) and probably always will. I got used to it and shoot it well enough but only because I HAD TO with no other pistol allowed by my department. It is a good inexpensive pistol that has seen a lot of abuse and I really don't mind it getting banged up or God forbid, have it stolen or admin confiscated.

But talking about the classic SIG's (metal framed), they are pure magic in my hands. I find them to be very comfortable and very accurate. I would jump at the chance to buy one in any caliber if the price is right.

Just my 2¢.

 

[BigBill]

Lots of affordable used pistols in 40 cal in your LGS. Seems like no one wants them. I don’t. It’s going the way the dodo bird did.

 

[Doug627]

I work in a gun store that buys used firearms. We have stopped buying 40 S&W. We cannot sell them. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants them.

 

[Sevens]

It’s going the way the dodo bird did.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You could make a list of cartridges offered by the biggest names in the history of American factory ammo production that are no longer offered and effectively "dead" and you'd run out of ink in your pen trying to write them long before you got to .40 S&W.

Random made-up statistic? 75% of the folks active on this forum will have gone on to the next life before Winchester and Federal quit making .40 S&W ammo.

 

[rags]

I like a nice 10mm short! Life is short. You can never have too many guns or calibers!

 

[gman51]

Is there a need for a 40 is like asking was there a need for all those handgun same models bought with 4", 5", or 6" barrels.
I have owned four .40 handguns and only kept two. A Ruger SR40c and a Sig P226 DAK I still have. I carried the SR40c as my main carry for maybe 2 years before I went to the Ruger LCR 357. I then replaced the LCR with a Charter Bulldog in 44 cal.

Like was stated above during the ammo shortage the 40 was easy to find in stock at the vendors. After shooting the 40 I quit buying the hype that the forty was just to snappy for carry. Whatever trips your trigger go with it is what I say.

 

[Lt JL]

I carried a 226 in .40 the second half of my career, with a 239 in .40 on my vest. I have a few, Sigs and a couple Glocks.. I have seen what a quality 165 gr load does to ,er, things. Beats the tar outta 9 mike. The .40 was the cat's pajamas until the FBI weenied out and went back to 9. I have a 229 and a 226 converted to .357 Sig, as well as a Glock 32C, and I love that caliber, a lot. If I can't hit something, at least it will go deaf!!
With .40 on the decline , it's a good time to pick up a great caliber, and a couple different loads, for not much money. I don't believe you can beat a Sig 229 in .40 or .357Sig.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Don't know about "must have," but like others have said, hard to go wrong with the current prices.

I picked up a factory refurbished (red box) .40 cal P229R for $400. Good gun. Great price. Like new condition.

 

[Gunhacker]

Lots of affordable used pistols in 40 cal in your LGS. Seems like no one wants them. I don’t. It’s going the way the dodo bird did.

Totally disagree... over the years, how many times did we hear that about the 10mm, and look at it now?

In the 90's when the .40 S&W was all the rage, millions of them were snapped up by people because they were influenced by the fact that LE agencies were dumping the 9mm like the morning after a bad blind date.

Many a gun writer at that time declared that the 9mm was going to go the way of the dodo bird due to the .40 S&W.

The same herd mentality is also now in play.... the same gun magazines are now decrying how lousy the .40 S&W is and people are all buying into it.

There are still many, not represented by gun forum posts, nor influenced by such, that still own a .40 S&W firearm and are quite happy with it.

Going the way of the dodo?

Ruger just introduced a .40 S&W version of their immensely popular PCC carbine, why would they make that move if they didn't feel that there was a viable market?

If you think the 9mm becomes a heck of round when shot through a carbine, the performance of the .40 S&W should be real interesting.

 

[LVSteve]

Years ago when I first started shooting, a buddy had me shoot his Glock 23C. It put me off 40 S&W big time with the muzzle blast and zingy recoil from his preferred SD load.

These days with more experience I would buy a longer barreled pistol in 40 to get the blast a bit further away and make the best use of the high pressure it uses. I'm thinking Glock 24, 35, 5" M&P or XD Tactical size, but at the right price, naturally.

 

[fiasconva]

I'd like to have a 4006 to compliment my 5906 but I seem to accumulate ones that end up with hard to find ammo, like a 16 ga shotgun, and a 303 British. I don't see 40 cal ammo getting scarce any time soon though.

 

[Fishslayer]

I'm afraid I'm no help to you. One of the calibers I've never owned since, like you, I've had no issues with the 9mm and the .45acp.

Neither have I. Occasionally I've been tempted by a dirt cheap Ruger P94 but that's about it.

Been seeing quite a few SIG P226 in .40 up for sale lately.

 

[lrrifleman]

Hi all! I don't know where the extrapolation came from that suggested that I didn't want to stock another caliber/cartridge, or the fear that 40 ammo would disappear. I not only "roll my own", I also cast my own bullets. Unless some travesty arises that detonated my supply of primers, I will always have ammo on hand.

I posed my question because, while piloting a plane having redundant systems is beneficial, I question the need/desire to have multiple handguns that produce redundant performance. Essentially, does the 40 S&W excel in any area of performance where any of my handguns fall short?

Yes, my 41 falls short in the capacity role. Yes, it will out perform my 9 except for capacity, and it beats the 45 with capacity, but will it out perform the 45? Toss in the 357 Sig barrel, then it muddies the water by bringing the 357 Magnum into the race.

Bottom line, when you are limited to 10 rounds in the magazine, the capacity argument between the 9-40-45 is pretty much neutralized. You are then left looking at cartridge performance. Presume it was the 40 in a 610, with the capability of handling the 10mm, would it surpass the 41Magnum? There, the capacity argument is neutralized and it is all about performance. That is where I am coming from when comparing against the 9 and 45.

Thanks!