40 S&W M&P and felt recoil

[neorebel]

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!!!

 

[Jakerin]

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

 

[Well Armed]

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.

 

[mckenney99]

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.

 

[LVSteve]

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.

 

[swsig]

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.

 

[biku324]

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

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

 

[Jakerin]

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?

 

[biku324]

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

 

[neorebel]

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.

 

[IAM Rand]

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.

 

[neorebel]

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.

 

[Dave686]

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 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.

 

[TPD252]

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.

 

[M29since14]

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.

 

[neorebel]

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

 

[Jakerin]

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.

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

 

[hardluk1]

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 .

 

[FortyFiveACP]

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.

 

[peterGun]

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro