.40 S&W Hate?
- Thread starter Me239
- Start date
A plurality of LE agencies use the .40 S&W so I'd defer any expert opinion to them. Subjective opinions to the contrary are just that. I have one of the first gen 2 Glock 22s made. I had an FFL in the early '90s and I ordered it the instant that the wholesaler told me it was available. I have never had lick of trouble with it. Out of the box accuracy, reliability, and durability are superb. I later purchased a Smith & Wesson 4013 and I love that pistol for pretty much the same reasons. I don't think the .40 S&W falls short of any purpose it was intended to fulfill. Personally, I think it was a great idea.
Peter M. Eick
Member
For me is it because it is not a 10mm. Every time I see a 40 short and weak I think, dang it should have been a 10mm.
I really did not hate the 40 until the ammo companies started downloading the 10mm to not make the 40 look so wimpy. That is when I started to take a serious dislike to the 40.
I really did not hate the 40 until the ammo companies started downloading the 10mm to not make the 40 look so wimpy. That is when I started to take a serious dislike to the 40.
Don't like the caliber ?
Don't buy the gun or ammo. Life is too short to whine about what someone else chooses to shoot.
Don't buy the gun or ammo. Life is too short to whine about what someone else chooses to shoot.
Smitty357
Member
I think this post is kind of funny.
And yes I do own a 9.... and 45
I just own a 9mm barrel. And of course I have an extensive 1911 collection. So u could say I own my share of .45. But the one caliber I don't own is 9mm.
I know women who wouldn't own one of those because they like em bigger LMAO.
Waywatcher
Member
It's a newcomer on the scene, relatively speaking, so it is the natural target of derision.
Being 'a numbers guy,' I appreciate it for what it is. I think it is the perfect cartridge for compact handguns (but not subcompact). In a gun with a 4" barrel, .40 S&W offers things that comparable size .45s really can't.
For a full size, 5 inch or longer barrel, I prefer a .45.
However, in a 4" or less barrel, the .40 really does provide more reliability and velocity with a still respectable payload that offers bigger holes and better barrier penetration than a 9mm, with many more cartridges than a .45. (Also with much better reliability than compact 1911s.)
For subcompacts, a J frame is still hard to beat.
Being 'a numbers guy,' I appreciate it for what it is. I think it is the perfect cartridge for compact handguns (but not subcompact). In a gun with a 4" barrel, .40 S&W offers things that comparable size .45s really can't.
For a full size, 5 inch or longer barrel, I prefer a .45.
However, in a 4" or less barrel, the .40 really does provide more reliability and velocity with a still respectable payload that offers bigger holes and better barrier penetration than a 9mm, with many more cartridges than a .45. (Also with much better reliability than compact 1911s.)
For subcompacts, a J frame is still hard to beat.
Last edited:
If they think....
If they think the .40 has 'too much pressure' they should try the 10mm that the .40 was derived from.
If they think the .40 has 'too much pressure' they should try the 10mm that the .40 was derived from.
Allen in MT
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 229
I have the S&W M&P 40 CORE 5.25", and it is a joy to shoot, don't even notice any recoil, never had a problem with it. I roll my own and shoot a lot of steel plates. I've had Glocks, Sig's and a Kimber and I prefer the S&W, but then this is just my 2 cents and there is a lot of change out there.
IAhunter
Member
No hate here. I carry one on duty daily, and own two others. For shooting, hunting, and off duty, I prefer my wheel guns. The 40 S&W is a great cartridge, with a great track record in LE use.
I don't hate the 40 S&W, but won't own one.
I don't need another calaber to reload for.
Same reason I sold all my .41 Magnums, anything it could do, my .44 Magnum was better at for me.
I do have the original 40 calaber in a revolver(38-40/38 WCF) and it's OK, but not a .44....
In a bottom feeder, the .45 ACP is my choice.
Old Navy guy's think like that.....
I don't need another calaber to reload for.
Same reason I sold all my .41 Magnums, anything it could do, my .44 Magnum was better at for me.
I do have the original 40 calaber in a revolver(38-40/38 WCF) and it's OK, but not a .44....
In a bottom feeder, the .45 ACP is my choice.
Old Navy guy's think like that.....
Arik
Member
Hating on the 40 because it's not a 10 is like hating on the 38spl because it's not a 357
I admit to being one who is less than fond of the .40 S&W. I think
part of it comes from the fact that the .40 was over-hyped when first
introduced. Hyped as .45 acp power or more in a 9mm size gun. Touted
as far superior to the puny 9 mm. Reality set in when some models of
9mm guns were unable to handle the high pressure .40 without
beefing up which led to a situation of simply a new cartridge and new
guns specifically for it. Better than the 9 mm and .45 acp? Well no
it seems. Actually a somewhat problematic round. What good is it
really? What will it do that a 9 mm or .45 won't? Nothing.
part of it comes from the fact that the .40 was over-hyped when first
introduced. Hyped as .45 acp power or more in a 9mm size gun. Touted
as far superior to the puny 9 mm. Reality set in when some models of
9mm guns were unable to handle the high pressure .40 without
beefing up which led to a situation of simply a new cartridge and new
guns specifically for it. Better than the 9 mm and .45 acp? Well no
it seems. Actually a somewhat problematic round. What good is it
really? What will it do that a 9 mm or .45 won't? Nothing.
What will a .45 do that a 9mm won't? Besides cost more and lower magazine capacity. If the .40 suffers from the "what does it do something else doesn't do" problem you shouldn't give the .45 a pass.
95% of cartridges suffer from that "problem." It's really not a valid argument.
I doubt logic can be employed in evaluating the love/hate debate for the 40 S&W. Here's my take on it:
The pedigrees of the 45 ACP and 9mm are indisputable. They both have long histories in military service. Not so, the 40 S&W. It's seen as the "newer" kid on the block and has a "tactical" flavor rather than military. It is also seen as an emasculated 10 mm, hence the moniker "short and weak." I think these issues polarize folks on these cartridges. Logic can be applied but it doesn't seem to go very far in these situations. So I think the debate is largely emotion-driven. Myself, I never met a cartridge I didn't like. I like some better than others, but there are none that I hate.
The pedigrees of the 45 ACP and 9mm are indisputable. They both have long histories in military service. Not so, the 40 S&W. It's seen as the "newer" kid on the block and has a "tactical" flavor rather than military. It is also seen as an emasculated 10 mm, hence the moniker "short and weak." I think these issues polarize folks on these cartridges. Logic can be applied but it doesn't seem to go very far in these situations. So I think the debate is largely emotion-driven. Myself, I never met a cartridge I didn't like. I like some better than others, but there are none that I hate.
LimaCharlie
US Veteran
I don't hate the 40 S&W, I just don't respect it. I have carried a 10mm with hot loads since 1992.
P33v3
Member
The short answer is two fold.
First, the 40 interferes with the age old 9mm vs 45acp debate, which shouldn't be a debate at all. 45 wins
the second half, 40 is a concession on a fine and worthy caliber, the 10mm auto. Here 40 takes on all the liabilities of a high pressure cartridge. Without providing any of the advantages of it's forefather, the 10mm.
look for the exploding 40 cal. Glocks and the term"glocked" brass.
Yeah, the Glock didn the same tricks in 10mm, but at least gave you 357 mag level performance for your trouble.
Today, I'd still opt for a 10mm over the 40.
Yeah agreed.
It's like buying a V6 Camaro. You get the styling and the increased insurance without the performance. It works but it is unnecessary.
Being a fan of the 10mm the .40 S&W is routinely called the 40 Short & Weak. Yes, it does the job but the pressure is much higher and it is being used in guns designed for the 9mm so theres some inherent danger there. The same bullet in a 10mm can be loaded to .40 S&W levels or be loaded to Nuclear level 10mm levels which makes it a more versatile cartridge.
I don't own a .40 currently, I have and quickly sold them. It does the job fine but I'd take a 45ACP, 9mm, and of course 10mm before I'd carry a .40.
Peter M. Eick
Member
Arik,
You are correct in your analogy of 38 to 357, but what/how would you feel if instead of keeping the power difference between the 357 to 38, the powers to be started downloading the 357 to 38 special power levels so it would not make the 38 look so badly in comparison?
That is a more accurate comparison of the 10 to the 40 short and weak in my opinion. If they kept the 10 at 200 grns at 1200 fps instead of taking it down to around 1050 I would not care about the 40. It is just the impact on my favorite round (the 10mm) is why I get irritate with the 40.
You are correct in your analogy of 38 to 357, but what/how would you feel if instead of keeping the power difference between the 357 to 38, the powers to be started downloading the 357 to 38 special power levels so it would not make the 38 look so badly in comparison?
That is a more accurate comparison of the 10 to the 40 short and weak in my opinion. If they kept the 10 at 200 grns at 1200 fps instead of taking it down to around 1050 I would not care about the 40. It is just the impact on my favorite round (the 10mm) is why I get irritate with the 40.
I must be the rare guy here who likes the 40 S&W round but to me as a reloader it's a near perfect round because it takes a small pistol primer, not a lot of powder and still shoots a medium weight bullet at a very respectable speed.
I wasn't a big fan until I picked this gun up for a ridiculously low price:
I also have a Shorty 40 that I picked up at a very reasonable price. I've got plenty of 9s and 45s and a couple 10mm's too, but without first getting the PC Tactical 40, I probably never would have owned anything in .40 S&W.
I also have a Shorty 40 that I picked up at a very reasonable price. I've got plenty of 9s and 45s and a couple 10mm's too, but without first getting the PC Tactical 40, I probably never would have owned anything in .40 S&W.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
Is there then no truth to reports that the full-house 10mm was found by FBI agents to be too much of a handful? My understanding for years has been that the FBI requested the power reduction of the 10mm to make it more manageable for their personnel.
LimaCharlie
US Veteran
Many law enforcement cadets today have trouble qualifying with the horrible recoil of the 9mm.
Mark F
Member
Been there, done that 40 S&W dance many times over. CZ's, FN's and S&W's. The same thing with 9mm, 45ACP, 10MM, etc. I always end up going back to revolvers... 38/357Mag and 44Spl/44Mag. My newest addition is a Model 69. And I just traded off my FNX-40 for a 629 Classic. Now those are "real" guns...
I'm not understanding how it's a totally different cartridge's fault some ammo companies download the 10mm? People(FBI) were downloading the 10mm before the .40 was ever sold. It's the reason for the .40 in the first place. Blaming the .40 for weak 10mm loads is like blaming WWII on the Cold War.
Another question is why YOU CHOOSE to buy the downloaded ammo if you don't want it? Simply buy from a company that doesn't download. Several companies make full power 10mm.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 2,483
I've owned: Kahr K40, 4006, CZ85 in .40 early on in the life of the cartridge. Shot plenty more, including Glocks, Sig 229, Beretta's 96, BHP, and a custom STI 1911 platform.
Look at the .40 brass from your gun, or what you see laying around. You will see firing pin/Striker 'wipe', indicating the case is sliding up the breechace BEFORE the pin/striker has had a chance to retract. This indicates premature unlocking. You may also see cratering of the primer impact. Look at how the cases are bulged out from where there is less support at the 6 o'clock portion of the chamber mouth. These latter to indicate over-pressure in every OTHER auto pistol chambering. WHY do we expect it in the .40????
The ONLY gun that didn't experience signs of either was that pimp STI ! ANd, my friend who owned it was no-doubt conserving powder with his own powder-puff reloads, I'm sure, LOL.
SO, more recoil impulse and muzzle flip than the 9, and harder on guns than either the 9 or the .40.
Look at the .40 brass from your gun, or what you see laying around. You will see firing pin/Striker 'wipe', indicating the case is sliding up the breechace BEFORE the pin/striker has had a chance to retract. This indicates premature unlocking. You may also see cratering of the primer impact. Look at how the cases are bulged out from where there is less support at the 6 o'clock portion of the chamber mouth. These latter to indicate over-pressure in every OTHER auto pistol chambering. WHY do we expect it in the .40????
The ONLY gun that didn't experience signs of either was that pimp STI ! ANd, my friend who owned it was no-doubt conserving powder with his own powder-puff reloads, I'm sure, LOL.
SO, more recoil impulse and muzzle flip than the 9, and harder on guns than either the 9 or the .40.
ma deuce
Member
I tried the .40 and gave it up. I had a Glock 23, and just found the muzzle blast and "snappiness" to be unpleasant. I've got .45s and 9mms and just enjoy them more. I've shot other .40s and I'm still not into them. I went shooting with a friend who had his SIG with him (not sure which model number, but it was one of the compact ones) and I shot it better than he did, but it's just not my thing. Personally, I feel like for defensive purposes, a 9mm with good loads serves the purpose. YMMV.
Deuce Caboose
Member
In reading these types of threads, a case, (no pun intended), can be made for each caliber. What remains constant however, is that shot placement is really the most important thing. Only hits matter. When marksmanship skills garner the same level of discussion that caliber debates do, there will be far less debate about the numbers.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
In my opinion, .40 is a great cartridge to load. Lead bullets at 950 fps don't lead badly and shoot well. If 9mm is loaded with lead 115 gr bullets, in my experience, leading is a problem. Nine mm and .40 are both loaded to the same pressure. I don't seem to experience the terrible recoil or muzzle flip some mention. As far as .40 being short and weak, just hold up your left hand and shoot yourself through the palm and with any gun chambered in .40 I can guarantee it will be effective. Dean
Similar threads
