I was just curious about different opinions.
Why did a 1911 chambered in 40 S&W never catch on? I know there are a few more options now, but most are high range. I think a Ruger commander in 40 at $700 would sell good.
Thoughts?

__________________
God, country, family.

Not sure, but I've heard that they don run reliable. I don't know what do believe though, especially since Wilson Combat offers their guns in that caliber incl. the Supergrades. They wouldn't sell it if it doesn't run...

__________________
Jorge

One great thing about the 1911 is the 45 acp.

The 45 is the hallmark against which all sd handgun rounds is measured.

I can't see a reason to be interested in a 1911 in 40 cal.

Double the pressure with less effective performance. Who needs it?

I've no doubt someone will offer a 1911 in 40, but they won't sell one to me.

Just my opinion, of course.

I've got three 1911 semi-autos in 40 S&W, double stack and made by Para (but there old and all steel).

__________________
S&WHF 366

Looked at a USPSA match lately? USPSA LTD is dominated by .40 S&W.
Most STI guns are available in .40 S&W. But you're right, they are not trying to compete with the cheapest 1911s made. They are made to last under heavy use. http://www.stiguns.com/the-sti-trojan/

__________________
Science plus Art

The .40 is that in between caliber that some skip over. One story is that S&W came up with it as an alternative to the 10mm that the FBI found had too much recoil for it agents.

It's not much higher in pressure than a .45acp...certainly not double as stated. Loading manuals put the .45acp at about 17000 C.U.P towards the top end and the .40 runs at about 22000. In comparison a 9mm runs in the 30000 range while the .357 mag is 40000. It's simply not the high pressure round it gets tagged with. All calibers have their loading quirks but I find the .40 easy to load and have had no reliability issues with it. I have a Shorty 40 and an M&P 40c.

Why a .40? Hits harder than a 9mm and holds a couple more rounds than a .45.

The most common argument against the .40 I hear is "I have a 9mm and I have a .45acp so I don't need a .40." That's fine and I get it...solid point taken. I'll just say that I have a couple 'cause they make 'em. Can you imagine anyone here saying, "I already have a gun so I don't need another."? Need has nothing to do with most of my stuff.

I not arguing for or against the value of having a .40 but I sure like mine.

I have had three 1911s in .40SW, I still have two. My first was a high end Colt that simply would not run. I sent it back to Colt, they sent back some new magazines and said it was fixed. It wasn't. I traded it for an AR. I have an older Para-Ord double stack, Limited LDA that has never given me a problem, although I am not fond of the double stack. I also have a custom job built on a Remsport frame, the slide is not marked. I took it in trade and have no idea who did the work, but they knew what they were doing. Runs without a hitch, lots of custom features such as checkered front strap, fiber optic front sight and ambi safety. I am satisfied with it. After I disposed of the Colt I looked into an STI through a large dealer in STI guns. The Smithy I talked to wouldn't recommend the 1911 in .40. I was looking for a duty weapon and he advised that the .40s were OK in competition but he couldn't recommend the reliability for duty work. He suggested I stay with the .45ACP or 9mm. I stayed with the .45ACP. I'm sure I just clouded the issue more with the above but hopefully it helps somehow.

__________________
Keep Shootin' and check 6

There is no significant difference in performance for duty/SD use between the major service calibers, including 9, 40, and 45ACP. That means that unless one has a logistical purpose served by the .40 (agency allows PODA pistols, but they must be .40, for example, or you have lots of .40s and lots of ammo and want to keep things simple), there is not much value to a 1911 in .40.

Further, it is not impossible, but HARDER to make a .40 run well enough for serious use. It is unlikely to be successful without spending a lot of money. A malf in competition sucks, but losing a match is not fatal to yourself or others. The 1911 platform is designed around the length of the .45ACP. By good fortune (and I think it was intentional) the .38 Super is the same length. The platform works the best with those two cartridges, and it is easier and less expensive to get one to work well in those. Shorter cartridges (9, .40, .357 Sig for example) may work, but the pain in the gluteals factor and cost make it mostly a poor use of money for most of us.

Note that the Springfield EMP in 9/.40 is scaled down just a bit, and I have heard that they make a decent base platform as a result. I would consider one in 9mm if I was going to spend the money, but I already have a Wilson KZ9 and a couple other pistols that fit such a usage niche.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I've wondered many times why a 1911 in .40 S&W wouldn't be an ideal gun, especially in a Commander-sized gun.

I've read on more than one occasion, that the biggest problem lies with the COL of the .40. It's a bit too short for any of the standard frame sizes.

• The .40 is 1.135"
• The 9mm is 1.16"
• The Super .38 is 1.28"
• The .45 ACP is 1.17"

These sizes are from the 13th Edition of Cartridges of The World, and particular makers could be at variance based on bullet length. But, the gist is that the round is just too short. To fit the existing magazine profile into a gun which has a different feed ramp is probably the biggest hurdle.

I have had two Browning HP's in .40, that were great shooters, but the .40 S&W frame is slightly different than the standard HP. I've also owned a H&K mid-size .40 that was very reliable. I also currently own a S&W M&P 40 Shield, and it's a great pistol.

I have a .40 Para Ordnance P-16Ltd and it has never malfunctioned in a few thousand rounds. It works great. I originally purchased it for major caliber IPSC limited and Steel Challenge with powder puff PMC 165gr loads. I rarely shoot it any more as I use M&Ps for competition and duty.

Nothing really wrong with .40 1911s, but I'd take a 9mm or .45 any day over the .40.

There's better options...the 40 shines in a double stack 9mm sized pistol.

To correct someone above, the FBI had their own downloaded 10mm ammo they specified. The problem was the guns were big, heavy, and had frame sizes that didn't fit small hands.

For a 40 I have a CZ and the wife a BHP.

Why not a 1911 in 10mm? None of the target ammo is full power these days and it can be loaded to wide range of power levels.

Like it has been stated the .40 in 1911(double stack/2011) platform rules in USPSA Limited class. But that is because it takes full advanage of the rules. Most competitors are loading the cartridge long in the 1.175-1.200" OAL which probably helps the reliability. As far as a straight 1911 in .40 you gain one more round but if you using it in Single Stack you can only load 8 in major and you're one short if shooting minor, so no gain. One advanage over 45 is your brass, 45 is getting pricey where they almost give away 40 brass. I've got a STI 2011 and a custom Caspian 1911 in 40, both guns work well and have had thousands of rounds through them, but neither was cheap.

I like mine too (it's a Wilson Classic in polished stainless), but SAAMI gives the chamber pressure as 35,000 psi.

Regards,
Bill

I own a Kimber 10MM, I had a good local Smith fit a 40S&W barrel to it, my reasoning was mostly brass availability, while its fun to shoot the 10MM,
even downloaded the brass really flies, and I lose a lot.
I am a reloader and a very, very cheap person in general, losing brass drives me crazy, it makes me shoot my 38 Supers and 10MM very little compared to 9MM, 40, 45acp.
I have only owned 40S&W for a few years, I have been shooting 35 plus years.
I always saw it as a unnecessary caliber as I owned 9MM & 45.
That is true to a point, but I have grown to shoot it a lot and mostly because I tend to leave my used brass and pick up others once fired.
It is very easy with 40, outside of USPSA competition you see less reloaders then 45acp especially.
The points stated about loading long for STI are very valid, you can load a 40 long and hot if you want and they run wonderfully in a STI 2011.

I have five guns in 40 S&W. Sig's,CZ's, S&W. The last a Sig 1911 T-40-SME. This 1911 shoots great no hang ups. This 40 ammo you can find almost any ware, At Wal-Mart their is always a load of 40 ammo.

That is not a "story." In actual fact, the FBI came up with its recipe for the 10 mm Auto, which it found would do everything they wanted in their multi-barrier ballistic gelatin tests. The FBI recipe for its service round reduced the 10 mm from 200 grains at 1,200 foot seconds to 180, and then 190, grains at roughly 995 fps.

The FBI 10 mm ammo as issued to agents allowed the use of its standard service round (190 gr. at 995 fps) or a "Magnum" version, the full power 10 mm which was 200 gr. at 1,200 fps. This was similar to its long-standing practice of using a service round, but having available a more powerful round for special circumstances. This is most easily illustrated by the FBI +P 38 Special standard service load in the .357 Magnum guns, into which Magnum ammo could be used upon special permission.

Tommy Campbell, then with S&W and perhaps others thought that a 10 mm cartridge casing could be shortened to allow it to function in a "9mm length action," and still duplicate the ballistics of the FBI Service round.

S&W and Winchester worked together and introduced the Model 4006 (developed by S&W) and the Winchester .40 S&W ammo (jointly developed), which was 180 grains at 990 foot seconds, roughly, and the rest is history.

Those not impressed with the ballistics of the "castrated" 10 mm cartridge disparagingly referred to the .40 S&W as the ".40 Short and Weak," the "10mm Short," or "10mm Lite." The round was so new that the California Highway Patrol, at the time it adopted the S&W 4006 and the new .40 S&W round refers to the round as the "10 mm Short" in the report. Glock submitted an experimental version of what became the Model 22 to CHP, but the report, which I have read, details numerous failures of the pistol. In fairness to Glock, if I recall, they claimed at the time that the pistol submitted was an experimental model and they did not expect it to be subjected to the grueling tests.

I'm not disputing your statement because I don't know the limits of pressures but the Lyman manual doesn't have any loads over 23,500 C.U.P. in their data regardless of bullet weight.

One problem is that it's hard to compare CUP to PSI, PSI is always higher. Even so .45acp max psi at 21,000 to .40s&W at 35,000 is a big jump. Hodgdon starting loads for the .40 180gr bullet are 26,000psi going up to 34,300 max loads. The .40s&w is a high pressure round much as the .38Super and 9mm with the 10mm only slightly more at 37,500psi. Now if you really want to talk high pressure handgun rounds the .356tsw (9x21.5) was 49,000psi.

When Colt introduced the Defender it came in .45 and 40 S&W. Sadly Colt dropped the 40 S&W after a year or so. Every now and then on the 1911 or Colt forums somebody posts who has one, carries it, and loves it.

__________________
NRA Life Member

unless you compete and go through 10s of thousands of rounds in several platforms a 40 1911 has no advantage. By standardizing on one caliber a shooter can buy in bigger bulk and simplify his ammo supply.

To me buying a 1911 in a cailber other than .45 ACP is like buying a V6 Mustang.

I personally have wanted a 1911 in .40 for a long time. The few that are out there are very expensive. RIA has introduced a commander size .40. I'll probably get one. Personally I see absolutely no use for a 1911 in 9mm. I have a few big buckets of .40 brass. I also have an original 4006 & 229. My 9mm is limited to a P35 & 228. Different strokes for different folks.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

The reason is FAR less complicated than many responses here would suggest.
MOST makers chamber the 1911 in .45 ACP and that is what MOST buyers buy...realizing that most buyers aren't into all sorts of varied shooting sports, but only seek a pistol they feel shoots a robust cartridge at a price they can afford.

The 1911 was built for the .45 ACP...and despite much press to the contrary, a suitably built 1911 in .45 ACP WILL feed and extract with excellent reliability! Rock Island is selling a line of 1911's that rival Glock when it comes to "mean rounds between stoppage!"

Also, MOST consumers aren't "into" all the specifics of what makes one round superior to another...what they SEE is the .45 ACP is a "fat" cartridge, shooting a heavy slug. That the .40 S&W might be shooting a slightly less-rotund slug at equal or superior terminal energy is moot. That the 1911 frame can accommodate the 10mm length with ballistics far superior to the .45 ACP is also moot...this is the sort of thing that interests "gun lovers" but has no bearing on those who buy ONE gun for their social needs.

From and engineering standpoint, the .40 S&W is a short cartridge when loaded in the 1911 planform and so consideration MUST be given to reducing the "run" from the magazine into the chamber...as in magazines modified to position the rounds further forward to reduce the propensity to nose dive as the slide impacts the case rim.

Ideally, if one loves the 1911 platform the "right answer" for alternative calibers are those originally developed to shoot from the frame...the .45 ACP, .38 Super, and 10mm.

+P+ 9mm and .38 Super +P ammo deliver pretty much equal terminal power, and both exceed the .45 ACP in standard loadings. However, there are .45 ACP loads that push 600 lb-ft of KE which is well into the .357 Magnum's power spectrum!