JWintergreen
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2021
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 348
Is 40s&w going the way of the dinosaurs
- Thread starter BackeastCowboy
- Start date
Have you had issues with 9mm variants of pistols jamming? My 9mm M&P 2.0s work fine with JHP if I shoot them with a loose 2 fingered grip. Haven't tried that with my 40 slide yet. The theoretical feeding advantage of 357 SIG compared to my M&P 9 2.0s is likely to be simply theoretical in nature just as the flatter trajectory is.
As for Glocks, I've watched a lot of officers who aren't particularly interested in shooting with Glocks, M&Ps, P320s, along with older metal frame pistols like 5900s, 6900s, P226/228/229/239, and Ruger P series. The Glocks were more prone to limp wrist malfunctions, whether 9x19 or 45 ACP. There were also a lot of reports of .40 S&W Gen 3 Glocks with weapon lights having malfunctions. While Glock blamed them on over-torqued lights, many suspect it was a frame harmonics issue, as it was most apparent in .40 S&W models. It anecdotally became less common on Gen 4; I suspect that there was a polymer change, the dual RSA added stiffness, or a combo of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if the .357 SIG's geometry makes these issues less likely, but I am not a Glock Gen 3/4 enjoyer in general.
Maybe 357 SIG had advantages over early 40 S&W pistols that were 9mm designs altered to .40 S&W post-hoc, like the P226, Beretta 96, or S&W 4000 series. Even there, we've largely figured out .40 S&W mags for pistols designed around the cartridge. They just made the magazines 1-1.5mm wider to support 40, and added ribbing for the 9mm magazines.
gnappi
Member
Q? What does the 9mm have to do with my comnent or the thread?
You posited that the case design of .357 SIG is a major advantage for feeding. Over what 9x19? .40 S&W?
I reject that as largely theoretical like most of .357 SIG's other supposed advantages, yet still steel-manned your argument. I concede that it would probably be a benefit in pistols that are more prone to limp wrist malfunctions like Gen 3 Glocks.
As for the relevance to this thread; .40 S&W has overall better terminal ballistics. The advantages of .357 SIG over .40 S&W are very niche.
Converting to .357 SIG gives you a round with terminal performance that is no better to worse in most respects with the exception of penetration after shooting though sheet metal. That might be appealing to Highway Patrol, but is unlikely to be relevant for non duty applications.
STORMINORMAN
Member
Uh... The 40 S&W hardly has "better terminal ballistics" than 357 SIG... Tests of 9mm, +P and +P+ vs. 357 SIG are really not even close, unless you feel +15% in velocity and often up to +40% in energy are somehow merely "niche" advantages?
Cheers!
P.S. Look at what some of the typical Alaskan gun sites say about the effectiveness of 357 SIG solids on large dangerous quadrupeds. Now, that specific application may in itself qualify as "niche", but 357 SIG "terminal performance" is definitely better (not worse).
Cheers!
P.S. Look at what some of the typical Alaskan gun sites say about the effectiveness of 357 SIG solids on large dangerous quadrupeds. Now, that specific application may in itself qualify as "niche", but 357 SIG "terminal performance" is definitely better (not worse).
Last edited:
gnappi
Member
Do you own a .357 Sig? No? Maybe a 9x25? No? If not you simply have no idea what a well constructed round brings to the table.
Energy/temporary stretch is not a primary wounding mechanism in common service pistol cartridges. Permanent wound cavity (the hole the bullet crushes/cuts) is. Most tissues are quite elastic, with the nervous system, liver, pancreas, and kidney, tissue being exceptions. As I said before, Federal 9BPLE 115 gr +P+ has more energy than HST 124 gr +P or 147 gr +P. It's also got more energy than HST 230 gr .45 ACP. What does it do with that energy? Shed a bunch of weight with core/jacket separation resulting in an overall shallower, smaller hole. Sure, the Illinois State Police had good results with 9BPLE, but like many state police, they also have higher shooting standards than most municipal police departments. They've also been happy enough with .40 S&W to stick with it since they switched from 9mm, but that may change in the future as .40 S&W pistol availability declines (the ISP 100th Anniversary Commemorative pistol was humorously a Glock 17 instead of a Glock 22 because Glock wasn't scheduled to make any G22s in 2022).
As for large animals, yes, 147 gr XTP at 357 SIG velocities would be better than 9x19 velocities and isn't a bad do-it-all round. However, compared to a 180 gr hard cast 40 S&W bullet, you're trading a lot of penetration for a small amount of expansion.
I've shot both, but don't own either, so I'll never have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of having invested hundreds to thousands of dollars for non-existent to niche gains. Maybe I'll buy a 357 conversion barrel one day, but that money would probably be better spent on milling my 40 slide for an optic. Still, I've certainly bought sillier things out of curiosity.
I also think that Winchester has some idea, and according their Ranger chart, RA9BA 124 gr +P had identical bare gel penetration to RA357SB 125 gr and worse denim and heavy cloth penetration. If you look at Lucky Gunner's tests, HST 357 SIG basically has the same performance as standard pressure HST 124 gr!
You can ridicule gel tests, but what did Gary K Roberts say after analyzing officer involved shootings? That there were no greater gains with 357 SIG vs modern, well engineered 9mm, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP ammunition.
gnappi
Member
Again, I said nothing about terminal performance. Talk about thread drift? 
It always amazes me that every couple weeks this topic comes up. For years as an LEO, we were issued 40 caliber ammo to be used in a departmentally approved firearm ( think Smith and Wesson, Glock, Beretta, etc.) The whole department, which included Male and female officers qualified twice a year without a problem. The main firearm that was used was either a Glock 22 or a Glock 23. After shooting thousands of rounds of all calibers. (9mm, 40 cal, 45 acp and 10mm). Working the street or defending my home, I still trust the 40 caliber. I have been lucky with my local Gun shops because they marked the 40 caliber down quite a bit and I grabbed them.. variety is the spice of life. Now if you want to talk about a caliber that’s on life support, it’s the 30 Super carry. Ammo and guns are marked down at local gun shows and gun shops and no one will take them on trade.
The only real problem with .40, especially in the LE environment was cost relative to 9mm. Ammo was more expensive. Guns wore out more quickly and / or required more maintenance. There might have been some training issues. But if needed, the round worked.
For civilians, especially for CCW, 9mm being small, and working better in smaller guns, has practical advantages (and is also cheaper.)
For civilians, especially for CCW, 9mm being small, and working better in smaller guns, has practical advantages (and is also cheaper.)
oldmanmontgomery
Member
This message establishes and announces the real reason for the lack of .40 caliber pistols. Blatant stupidity based on personal (corporate political) preference.
I do remember the mess caused by the rather politically minded FBI in what? The 10mm pistol was an excellent stopper, but had too much recoil. So it was reduced in power and developed into the .40 S&W, another decent stopper with less recoil due to reduced velocity. However, this round was deemed too powerful as many of the new political correct hirelings could not qualify for reasons not reported or denied.
One official reason for dropping the .40 S&W was the results of testing showing 9x19mm rounds could penetrate better in gel than did .40 S&W rounds. Not on a test measuring energy transmission or effectiveness, but on ability to qualify on a prescribed course of fire.
Yes, that rather politically directed function and decision made the difference.
I have owned an H&K USP compact since (1995 as I recall). I gentleman with whom I worked and I bought the USP (full size), I bought a USPc (compact size) as well and I think my friend did as well. At that time one could carry such arms if the officer could qualify. I qualified quite handily scoring in the upper levels of the scoring.
I should point out I am a huge monster of a man of 5 ft, 5 in (five foot and five inches). A towering giant of a man. (Those who can't follow the reality probably can't recognize sarcasm, either.)
My own take is this is about as silly a justification as not using a certain vehicle for pursuit work as it goes too fast and the hired individuals can't control it.
Yeah..that’s the ticket!Twenty odd years ago I dated a pathological liar and weird gal for a little while and she would have told you she invented the gel
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2001
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- 19,659
- City & State/Province
- In The Woods Of S.C.
Bet ya never owned a 40 and ya are only repeating unproven facts ya read somewhere else..........Speak the truth or don't speak at all.
Anybody know why the FMJ 40 S&W rounds are always truncated? Even the defensive rounds aren’t round profile. Does it have to do with feeding based on OAL?
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2001
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- 19,659
- City & State/Province
- In The Woods Of S.C.
My cast .40 bullets are truncated too..........Just guessing.......Mebbe to feed better.
Partly for feeding, partly that's just how the projectile tends to look given the SAAMI dimensions, especially with heavier bullets.
.40 S&W has a 21.59 mm case to 9x19's 19.15 mm case, and a slightly shorter max overall length, 28.83 mm vs 29.69 mm. A rounder 'ball' profile probably isn't going to happen with typical bullet weights given the wider case and less length for exposed bullet.
.40 S&W has a 21.59 mm case to 9x19's 19.15 mm case, and a slightly shorter max overall length, 28.83 mm vs 29.69 mm. A rounder 'ball' profile probably isn't going to happen with typical bullet weights given the wider case and less length for exposed bullet.
fratermus
Member
Yes, I think so. It keeps the rounds short enough to work in a frame shared with 9mm.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 9,284
- Reaction score
- 21,202
- City & State/Province
- NM - Land of Enchantment
These are some of my practice rounds:
These have been my duty/carry rounds since '92/'93 (including SRT):
These have been my duty/carry rounds since '92/'93 (including SRT):
Going the way of the dinosaurs isn't a very good comparison since they were around for millions of years....or maybe it is?
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,565
- Reaction score
- 3,245
IIRC, it's because the .40S&W cartridge was designed to fit into pistols with 9mm size grip frames and the truncated cone allowed that to happen by reducing the overall length to not exceed that of 9mm.
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,565
- Reaction score
- 3,245
Regarding .40S&W "beating up the gun"; it's an artifact of some manufacturers (like Glock) originally shoehorning .40 into pistols originally designed as 9mms.
The S&W M&P .40 as introduced, was originally designed for .40 S&W, the caliber followed in the market by the M&P 9 using the same design and basic components.
The S&W M&P .40 as introduced, was originally designed for .40 S&W, the caliber followed in the market by the M&P 9 using the same design and basic components.
Last edited:
Yep, I've heard retired cops say that the rollout of the S&W 4000 series was not without serious teething issues.
The Glock 22/23/27 were probably the up-converted 9mm designs that worked the best. Even there, there's speculation that functioning issues with WMLs, particularly on G22/23 vs G19/17, were more due to frame/guide rod flex/harmonic issues than the 'over-torqued WML' explanation.
On the plus side, that probably led to the steel reinforcement that the M&P frames got.
Treads that have a few pages to tend do then to drift away from the opening tread . Thats life on most any forum.
I prefer a 40sw pistol over the last 35 years 40sw and a 1911 in 45 for 49 years so far.
lppd4
Member
The flat nose on .40’s do make them easier to identify. And I have still seen people load .40’s in their .45’s and 9mm’s in their .40’s.
I didn't know we had the handgun (and overall) genius on here, so I stand corrected. I'm sure your entire life has validated your advanced intelligence, so I'll just stand here and bask in your superior intellect. Thanks for taking time out from running the world to grace us with your wisdom.
You're also clearly a very kind and loving person who talks like this to all the people in your life.
STORMINORMAN
Member
I do think that this last observation might be a tad harsh...? I don't consider use of the term(s) "personal (corporate political) preference" to be directed at any individual (or group of such, i.e. thread contributors) but more likely a generalized indictment of all aspects of the firearms community.
Just an IMHO...
Cheers!
Just an IMHO...
Cheers!
jbrittbrown
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2019
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 65
40 S&W is not going away at my home! I like the caliber!!
oldmanmontgomery
Member
Thanks for suspecting another reason. That comment wasn't directed initially at the firearms community. Allow me to fill in the blanks,
The initial idiotic opinion was the FBI - under the control of the leftist group mind - decided the 9x19mm round is just as good as one of the real calibers.
This decision was based on the results of gelatin testing penetration and expansion and ignoring any energy transfer.
This decision was based on the failure of too many candidates failing the handgun qualification. The massive (in some manner to the control faction) was a result of the chosen and politically correct candidates not being able to control the hideous recoil and muzzle blast of the terrifying .40 S&W round.
The only reason to put any blame on shooters is the blind belief of the announced results of the above mentioned gel testing.
Note: I am roughly five foot, five inches tall. I was in pretty good heath (overweight) during the time involved. In the time preceding 'issue' arms only, I carried an H&K USP in .40 S&W. We had three firearms qualifications a year. I typically scored in the top two or three officers. My small size was no problem compared to my hard head.
mrshyvley
Member
As somebody who began carrying a .357 Magnum revolver in the early 80's when most people carried revolvers, I don't understand why so many people say the .40S&W is snappy and hard to shoot.
How did people back in the day ever qualify with .357 Magnum revolvers?
I personally never owned a 9mm until about 12 years ago or so because I needed a pocket pistol.
I'm pretty sure that I posted in here that I think that a lot of .40 S&W's 'snappy' reputation comes from most widely being used early on in slippery Gen 2 and Gen 3 Glocks with the ergonomics of... a Glock.
As for qualifying with .357 Magnum revolvers... Most officers probably didn't. There are probably more Model 10s out there than Model 13, 19, and 27/28 combined.
During the heyday of .357 Magnum, lots of departments didn't have females in patrol, still had minimum height requirements, and the departments that issued .357 Magnum probably had higher shooting standards as well.
