I have never owned a Smith and Wesson M&P in .40 S&W before.

In my 22 years of being an LEO and firearms instructor, I have probably shot around 30,000 rounds of .40 S&W in Glocks, Smith and Wesson semi auto's such as 4006 and many other semi auto metal frame in this caliber.

I can say I really don't have a lot of love for .40 S&W.

Today that changed. I bought a Smith and Wesson M&P chambered in .40 S&W from Kings Firearms about a week ago. But the weather here in Missouri has kept me from shooting it.

It appeared to be brand new. Little to no wear one the barrel exterior or as we say smiley face from its interaction with the slide. It was very clean, even the breech face was clean. So, it tells me it was not shot at all or new. Anyway, a nice firearm with little signs of use.

I have always disliked shooting Glocks in .40 S&W or other center fire semi-autos, and my point is this. The recoil impulse I felt from the M&P was not as sharp or harsh as the Glocks or other center fire semi-auto's I've been shooting for the past 22 years.

I'm not sure if it has to do with the superior ergonomics of M&P or if the M&P has a lower bore axis?

I shot over 100 rounds through it with no malfunctions, and it was darn pleasant to shoot. Double taps and follow up shots were easy. It was more akin to shooting 9mm. Some were target some were duty rounds.

It is the first time I have enjoyed shooting .40 S&W.

I know that felt recoil is a contentious subject with many.

I understand that. I am just giving my opinion on the subject since I have shot thousands of rounds through Glocks and other semi-autos in .40 S&W.

I love this gun!!!

I have the .40 Shield with a 3.1” barrel. It kicks but the hand hold is just right and very controllable.

Attached Images

IMG_3500.jpg (23.6 KB, 41 views)

I don't notice a worthwhile difference between shooting 40s&w and 9mm. It more or less always depends on the platform in whether a gun had a lot of recoil with 9mm, 40s&w, or 45acp than the caliber. I think a lot of it is in people's head. 357 mag on the otherhand, it kicks and is loud. Period.

40s&w is my favorite caliber FYI.

neorebel, I agree completely.
I AM a fan of the .40 S&W. I carried an agency issued Beretta 96 for several years until it was replaced by a Sig P226 in .40 S&W and a personally owned Glock 27 as a backup/off duty gun. I also have a custom built Novak's customized Colt 1911, a Novak's custom .40 Browning Hi Power, a Kahr K40, a .40 Star Firestar, a Sig P229 and a 4inch M&P all in .40 S&W. I have shot the Glock 23 a bit. I have shot thousands of rounds of .40 S&W through all of these platforms and to me there is NO comparison, the M&P has a much smoother recoil impulse and is much quicker to get back on target. For me I believe it is a combination of the grip angle, MUCH more ergonomic shape of the M&P grip and the low bore axis. The only pistol that even comes close to the same shoot-ability for me is my .40 S&W Colt 1911 but it is much heavier and I have more rounds through that pistol than any other.

Some 20+ years ago I was soured on 40 S&W by a buddy's Glock 23C. Maybe it needed a new recoil spring or something, but I found the recoil nasty. I've often thought about scoring a used Glock 22, a flood of which seem to have hit the market lately. If the M&P has tamed the recoil that much, maybe I should get one of those instead of the Glock.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I have 13,000 rounds through my 1.0 M&P 40 compact, and recoil impulse has never been a problem. Then I converted it to the more potent .357 SIG round and have put 3,000 of those through it. Recoil is stronger, but still not bothersome. The 40c is a great design for handling the recoil of stouter rounds.

__________________
What, me worry?

My wife and I have Shields in 40 and 45; neither pistol is problematic. Smith clearly spent some time on ergonomics.

But they failed in having waaay too strong mag springs. None of my other pistols need a Uplula mag loader. I’ve wondered why? This is my only striker fired handgun. Could (that) require a crazy strength mag spring? Why else?

No clue, but I use the mag loader because I value my fingers.

I have a lot of time behind 38 super, 10mm, 9mm, 357 sig, 357 magnum and 44 magnum.

As well as shooting .45 acp in 1911's for years and they were my primary carry gun.

I will carry this one now. I won't even get into the caliber debate. 40 S&W is a great round and especially in this pistol.

Thank for listening and for your replies.

I have been somewhat schizophrenic when it comes to a duty weapon. I started out with a P85 and completely regretted it. I moved on to a 1911. It was fantastic but, way too heavy on my hip. The holster was rubbing on my hip causing problems. I then went to the 22 an 27. Fine guns but, the 22 mag would not work well in the 27. Contacted Glock and got the run a round and 2 new mag springs that changed nothing.

I moved on to the M&P 1.0 40 in full size and compact for the ankle. Never had any issues. When I started driving a desk more than a radiator I switched to a 627. My chief said we would be no allowed to carry 357 anymore I switched back to a 1911. Cons: tired of switching guns all the time. Pros: I get more guns.

I am now carrying the M&P Metal and love it. Nothing against the 40 by any means, just like the metal and was again told by the chief that we would all be going to 9mm.

Gave my M&P 40 full size to my son. He loves it too.

I checked out the metal M&P full size when it came out. I liked it a lot but just could not pull the trigger on it.

I have 2 high capacity 9mm and one Gen 2 Glock 22 that was a Police trade in from Detroit. So, my bases were covered.

I thought I might try the 40 S&W in the M&P since I could get one for pretty cheap from Kings with three magazines and yea, the night sights still work! I'm glad I did. I am very happy with the trigger as well. It breaks very clean.

When I shot it yesterday, I was shooting at 7 yards with a friend of mine who was on the Air Force shooting team. HE loved it to and had the same reaction as I did. I think he's buying one.

I'm hooked on this pistol now.

I don’t notice any real difference in shooting a full size 40 or a 9 (I have both). Neither does my daughter who has a full-size M&P9 or my grandson who shot them both and said he didn’t notice much difference.

I always wondered why some of the guys were acting like girly men. Your comments may have cleared that up, maybe they had a Glock.

.40S&W is my favorite semi-auto defensive pistol round. Depending on where I’m going and how I’m dressed I have it in M&P Full size, Compact M2.0. and Shield.

I wanted to get the new Shield Pro, but it appears S&W has decided we don’t need .40S&W in any of their new releases. I'm not buying it for shooting paper, so I don't want a 9mm.

My last four pistol purchases have been M&P 2.0s in 40S&W. When my agency transitioned to Gen3 Glock 22s I was very disappointed. I’m not recoil sensitive, but I hated that thing. Sharp recoil, slick frame and unnatural grip angle made that pistol awful to me. I did pick up a Gen4 22, and that was far more comfortable and confidence inspiring. That being said, recoil with the M&Ps felt better to me than the Gen4. I’m sure grip texture helps too, but I think their overall design is far better for the caliber. Not to mention the ability to convert to two other calibers😉.

I don’t think any handgun has a significantly lower bore axis than Glocks. That said, and I’ve only fired early models of Glocks up thru Gen 3, I always thought Glocks were uncomfortable guns in general (especially because of the trigger tab, which contributes to pinching my finger), regardless of caliber. I also agree with those who say they don’t notice much difference between 9mm+P and .40 SW recoil.

But to get back to the point, yes, I think M&Ps handle recoil very well, especially in .45 Auto. The weakest link with these modern guns for me, regardless of manufacturer, has always been the atrocious triggers. When I started shooting no one would have tolerated the average plastic pistol trigger action, and then along came Mr. Glock and somehow his organization managed to convince the overwhelming majority of buyers that such a mechanism was just fine. Then they went to work convincing the public that weapons with actually usable trigger actions were somehow “dangerous.”

If I hadn’t lived through the process, I would never have believed it.

I don't think I have ever heard the words, great ergonomics and Glock ever in the same sentence.

This is my only .357 and it (really) kicks.

Attached Images

IMG_4047.jpg (26.1 KB, 5 views)

I started shooting a 40sw back in '90 or '91 with a firestar m40 and some years later a kahr tp40 for 8 years and a m&p for 11 years . Can't say recoil was ever and issue . My first CC was a officers acp and still carry a lw commander in 45 as my rural county carry , save the m&p40 for big city and road trips . That one is filled with underwood 155gr 1300fps loads . Recoils nothing special when you use to shooting 44mags and smaller and lighter 357mag revolvers .

I'm with OP on this one. I bought a .40 in another make back in the early 90s and never really enjoyed shooting it. I sold it after a few years.

Years later, I shot .40 in an M&P and was shocked how mild it felt compared to what I remembered. I ended up diving back into .40 S&W as a result. I bought an M2.0 compact in .40 and it's awesome. Then started reloading .40. Then picked up a Shield in .40 for $199 which I couldn't pass up. I thought the Shield might be a bit rough but it's very manageable and a fair amount of firepower in a small package.

I know .40 is kind of out of favor now but I think a Shield Plus in .40 S&W would be interesting.

I have a G23, M&P40fs but my favorite.40 is a Shield40 2.0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Handling the M&P series in shops I always thought they felt well in my hands. I never reached for my wallet until the police trade-ins started hitting the market at around $200. First was a medium barrel 45 MP, Liked it so well when Brinks dumped their 40 S&W I picked up a M&P Compact, which lead to another full sized 45. Was by the Aim showroom this summer and they and the full sized M&P 40s on sale, so I picked one up. I like the M&P 40 so much I sold off the 45s.

The grip frame on the 40 feels slightly narrower and therefor fits my hand better than the 45. Easier to manage under recoil. Plus with a magazine adaptor I can use the full size magazines in my compact.

The M&P .40 is the favorite pistol my sister, who weighs roughly100 lbs, likes to shoot.

They're very soft shooting pistols and mine has been impervious to "limp wrist" stoppages, even those I've intentionally tried to introduce.

I like the M&P .40 also and had a Detroit PD gun that I loved but sold for a nice profit because I wanted a gun with a manual safety. But if you like the M&P .40 you need to try out a M&P 10mm! It doesn't kick much more but has a lot more punch, I love the the Sig 180 grain ammo at 1250 fps from a 4" barrel. Very accurate and controllable even for my 120lb fiance.

I bought a Gen 2 Detroit Police Department Glock 22 a while back. I won't part with it either.

I used it to qualify for my LEOSA card each year and every time I used it, I remembered why I didn't like Glock 22's in any Gen.

I'm very happy with my new to me Gen 1, Smith and Wesson M&P 40. Qualifying will be a much more pleasant this year!

I don't have any use for .40, but I do shoot a lot of 357 Sig.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

OP, you didn't specify the barrel length of your new M&P but it's cool you found one you like.

I own a M&P 5" frame safety .40 and find it's not much different shooting from my steel 4006 SAO custom shop or 4026, and quite a bit different than any other polymer pistol as the M&P points naturally for me while others most notable Glock do not point well for me.

Side note, my 5" .40 also has a .357 Sig compensated slide / barrel that is one of the very few compensated pistols that I've owned that will eat any ammo from powder puff to max loads and not have cycling issues.

Sorry about that 4.25 inches gnappi!

This ! The S&W grip is the absolute best IMO.

I'll be the odd guy. I've had a Gen 2 Glock 23 since the Gen 2 Glock 23s came out. I've always been happy with it and never found the recoil anything to give any thought to. I confess to putting a 9mm PSA Dagger upper on it when they were blowing some out but that's just because 9mm is the only affordable ammo now, other than 22LR.

I actually have shot 10mm a lot over the years and I like the round as well as 357 Sig.

But as I am now in my mid 60's, I have cut my different ammo loves down to 40 S&W, 22LR, 9mm, 45 acp and 9 Makarov.

I just got tired of having too many different calibers around.

Yep, as I said, I still have a Detroit Police Department, Gen 2, Glock 22. I will not sale it. Cool gun.

I bought my 4006 when they were first announced. Got a box of bullets(20) with it. No ammo was available. I made cases from cut down and inside neck reamed 10mm brass.....Later came a 229......And 2 years ago I added a Shield. I have a lifetime supply of brass now. I most shoot my cast 175 gr. bullets in them now.
I have 2 glocks in my safe that I have been holding for someone for 2 years.......I have NO desire to shoot them.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

The m&p40 is the reason that I am a 40 guy. Of all the calibers I have guns chambered in, nothing comes close to 40. Went from full size m&p to shield to 4006, then the dreadful glock(35 luckily and only because I was building p80s with a buddy), and now I have an ar in 40. This thread gives me some hope about the future of 40s&w. I never got why so many people dislike it.

__________________
Please no more EZs...

The M&P Series handles .40 S&W quite well despite being a relatively lightweight polymer-frame pistol because the M&P was built specifically for .40 S&W.

The Glock 22 on the other hand is merely a modified Glock 17. Granted, Gen 5 .40cal Glocks were redesigned with .40 S&W in mind, so they're most likely less snappy than older models.

That being said, the M&P40 Shield is quite snappy, but that's to be expected from such a lightweight single stack pistol.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Appreciate all the info on the 40 and the s&w. I found the HK USP FS to be a real easy 40 cal to shoot. The pistol was engineered to reduce recoil 30% and does. It is an ugly pistol, built like a tank, and feels horrible in the hand. It was made to be shot with gloves. A good friend of mine knows a retired Navy Seal team chief, who told him they saw that pistol in very third world country. He carried one because they work under all primitive conditions.

Blasphemous....

If you want a 40s&w pistol with great ergos, feels great in hand, and is built like a tank, get a HK P30L. I am glad you brought HK up because they are another brand that handles 40s&w well.

Yup if we ever forced to go to ten rounds my two go to pistols will be the HK USP FS in 40 and the S&W M&P in 45 acp. I will ditch the 9mm.

I picked up my first S&W auto-pistol since the ‘80s this past Friday.
Used M&P .45 2.0 4” barrel from our local Cabela’s for $340 OTD.
Immediately put ten rapid fired Winchester Ranger T duty rounds in the head box of an IPSC target at seven yards.
I am very pleased with this pistol.

I really enjoy my 5" M&P .40, its not as accurate in my hands as my Springfield 1911 Loaded, but its a lot of fun to shoot. On one fast double tap at a Gallon antifreeze jug at 50 yds, I hit it with both rounds,, I don't know how that happened, but it made me smile, hell, that still makes me smile.

billy

Last year I got a deal on a m&p 2.0 pc ported 5" SKU: 11825 for 540 bucks and almost 2 years old then. I fired maybe a mag of ammo thru it and set it in the safe !

I pulled in out last month to start getting some range time with it and found it to now be a favorite of mine now and have started to carry it over my old m&p 4.25 40sw . It does not have as nice a trigger pull as my old m&p with the apex fst kit but its a better over all pistol and the triggers pull is not bad .Might upgrade the trigger only with it .


https://www.smith-wesson.com/product...rrel-and-slide

Yeah, I like the feel of the arched back strap on the M39 too. The curve fits my hand just right.

Monogrip Sleeves help the Shield for bigger hands.

Same here. Bought a used Glock 23 from a lgs during the Clinton Ban because it came with a couple of high cap magazines (which were "outlawed" at the time). I planned to use this as an EDC pistol, but as LVSteve stated, the recoil was nasty and it soured me on .40 S&W. I ended up trading that pistol in and went back to .45 ACP. I think it must be bad ergonomics because these days I shoot 10mm (M&P 10mm 2.0) without any issues. I still don't look at anything in .40 S&W, including bargain priced police trade-ins.

I started out carrying a .357 Magnum revolver and I've never understood the complaints about the .40SW recoil.

I too like the M&P 40, and bought two 1.0's some years back cheap that were in excellent condition.
I also bought OEM .357 Sig barrels for them as I like the .357 Sig, and use Underwood 125gr JHP at 1475fps for defensive carry.

You can see from @Hawg Rider's comment the lunacy in it all. Doesn't like 40s&w because he tried one gun in 40s&w with probably one or two types of ammo, but he's happy with 10mm which is either loaded to be simular like 40s&w 90% of the or hotter then 40s&w for full power hunting loads. It makes absolutely zero logical sense.

I think some people's perceptions, what they like, and what they don't like is subconsciously heavily influenced by their environment and what their peers think. If LE, NATO, and all the social media influences started pushing 40s&w, many of the same naysayers would flip-flop.

I take exception to Forum members slamming other Forum members for their likes or dislikes. "Lunacy" and "absolutely zero logical sense" are not the kind of comments we need to see here on the Forum! I was trying to make the point that the ergonomics of the modern S&W M&P pistols are much better than those of the earlier Glocks and help to reduce felt recoil of cartridges like the .40 S&W and 10mm. Poor ergonomics and recoil are probably contributors to why so many police forces abandoned the .40 for 9mm.

I'm not shaming anyone for their preference. People can have any preference they want to have. I'm just saying that the logic and rationale, many people, not just you, express for not preferring or outright disliking 40s&w does not make any sense. It's not a personal attack on you, but rather, I'm giving my point of view on the reasoning/logic you and others have given.

FYI: Law enforcement went with 9mm for cost to save themselves money, and because 9mm was just good enough (not better). Then you say "ergonomics," but I would point out that 40s&w often has the same ergos as 9mm. As I pointed out in pervious post, there are several 40s&w offerings in the 180 gr weight that law enforcement often used that has LESS velocity and muzzle energy than some of the popular JHP 9mm self-defense ammo on the market, so the canned response blanketed assertions that all 40s&w is snappy and has an unflattering recoil impulse and all 9mm has less recoil, etc. is not exactly true in all cases. In the case of hotter 40s&w, I agree with you 100% that the ergonomics of some platforms will tame hotter rounds whether in 9mm, 40s&w, etc... There are just caveats (platform, weight, ergonomics, size, ammo selection) to whether recoil impulse will be more or less. I'm not referring to you here, but it seems like everyone acknowledges that fact with all other calibers except in the case of 40s&w for some reason.

Law enforcement basically changed for the same reason why the military and many law enforcement agencies went with the P320 of Glock, Beretta APX, and many other options. It wasn't the best option, didn't perform better, but Sig had the lowest bid and a product that was just good enough.

Yes, the ergonomics of the M&P 40 are much better then the Glock 23 .40 S&W, but I carried a Glock 23 .40 S&W for several years after buying it in the 1990's and though "clunky", it was still a usable pistol until I sold it.

As far as departments switching to 9mm, though there were complaints about recoil, the main driver I remember is the belief that 9mm bullet technology had improved, 9mm was cheaper than the .40 S&W, and 9mm was believed now good enough.

Personally, I never owned or carried a 9mm until I bought an M&P Shield 9mm for a pocket pistol 10 years ago or so, because I always had more faith in a more powerful round.
But each to their own.