40 s&w - which guns can handle it?

[Slyk54]

I keep reading that the 40 s&w round is hard on guns, wears them out more quickly than other calibers, etc. could someone "rank" which makes, models are the toughest, from say strongest to weakest? Not every gun/model, obviously but as much as you would care to share.

I have also read that some models were designed or scaled around this caliber as opposed to ramping up a model in 9mm.

I am looking at an FN, and s&w m&p in the .40 right now. Possibly a Beretta Vertec also.

And in the case of the s&w m&p, does the compact model wear more quickly than the full sized version?

I know recoil is snappier, not an issue at this point.

Thank you

 

[Roger S&W]

I keep reading that the 40 s&w round is hard on guns, wears them out more quickly than other calibers, etc. could someone "rank" which makes, models are the toughest, from say strongest to weakest? Not every gun/model, obviously but as much as you would care to share.

I have also read that some models were designed or scaled around this caliber as opposed to ramping up a model in 9mm.

I am looking at an FN, and s&w m&p in the .40 right now. Possibly a Beretta Vertec also.

And in the case of the s&w m&p, does the compact model wear more quickly than the full sized version?

I know recoil is snappier, not an issue at this point.

Thank you

I must tell you, the FN FNS-40 is an extremely rugged and well built pistol. Solid, tough, feels GREAT in the hand, shoots like a 9mm. Has a Glock like trigger with crisp break and very short tactile and audible reset. Has a cold hammer forged barrel! Pretty much unheard of in pistols. As you know, usually only high quality "military rifle" barrels are made that way. FN is major manufacturer for our US military. Most importantly in any .40 though, you want full chamber support. The FN-FNS has it.
To top it all off, I shoot it very well.

 

[Rastoff]

Which gun can handle the .40S&W round? Honestly, any gun chambered for that round.

No, the compacts do not wear out more quickly than the full size guns. In fact, I've yet to see an M&P that was "worn out". So, if wear on the gun is your big concern, just go shoot it. If you shoot it enough that you can wear it out, price is not a concern for you because you will have spent thousands on ammo and you can just buy another gun.

If you want the toughest gun on the planet, look to the H&K line. They are the only company I know of that states specifically that their guns can shoot +P+ loads.

 

[CB3]

IMO, .40 S&W makes smaller guns even harder to shoot well. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but real world physics trump anecdotal experiences or perceptions. Compared to a 9mm with (most often) lighter bullets and less recoil, the .40 is snappier and induces more flinching and slightly longer recovery times.

The guns can handle the load, but sometimes the shooter cannot. All the guns you mentioned can handle the cartridge without having wear issues, except for spring replacement, for tens of thousands of rounds. The cartridge will beat up the shooter long before it beats up the gun. Admittedly, in a full size pistol the .40 recoil is manageable for experienced shooters, but capacity and blast are ever present issues.

Having owned, shot and liked many .40 guns, including early Keltecs (which did self destruct with round counts only in the hundreds), I have returned to the 9mm. For purposes of either self defense or paper competitions, I see no real advantage to the .40 round, according to real world shooting reports. Accuracy, speed and capacity are more important to me than a slightly larger hole. The mythical one shot stop is no more likely with the .40 than the 9 or .45, so if multiple well placed rounds are the order of the day, nine is fine.

 

[Roger S&W]

IMO, .40 S&W makes smaller guns even harder to shoot well. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but real world physics trump anecdotal experiences or perceptions. Compared to a 9mm with (most often) lighter bullets and less recoil, the .40 is snappier and induces more flinching and slightly longer recovery times.

The guns can handle the load, but sometimes the shooter cannot. All the guns you mentioned can handle the cartridge without having wear issues, except for spring replacement, for tens of thousands of rounds. The cartridge will beat up the shooter long before it beats up the gun. Admittedly, in a full size pistol the .40 recoil is manageable for experienced shooters, but capacity and blast are ever present issues.

Having owned, shot and liked many .40 guns, including early Keltecs (which did self destruct with round counts only in the hundreds), I have returned to the 9mm. For purposes of either self defense or paper competitions, I see no real advantage to the .40 round, according to real world shooting reports. Accuracy, speed and capacity are more important to me than a slightly larger hole. The mythical one shot stop is no more likely with the .40 than the 9 or .45, so if multiple well placed rounds are the order of the day, nine is fine.

I understand but you completely forgot about an important component of understanding how powerful a particular round is and that's - muzzle energy. This, more than anything will determine the power "knockdown power" if you will. The .40 surpasses the 9mm by quite a large margin. Like with rifles. Why is a .308 more powerful than a .22? Not the size of the round per se but the energy behind it.

 

[Eshooter]

Have a shield .40 & a HK USP .40 compact. The HK shoots like a dream while the shield not as much. Not to say the shield isn't nice but the HK is considerably bigger & easier to handle. For cc purposes it's hard to beat a shield!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[CB3]

I understand but you completely forgot about an important component of understanding how powerful a particular round is and that's - muzzle energy. This, more than anything will determine the power "knockdown power" if you will. The .40 surpasses the 9mm by quite a large margin. Like with rifles. Why is a .308 more powerful than a .22? Not the size of the round per se but the energy behind it.

Bullet placement trumps muzzle energy. If not so, we would all be trying to shoot high ME rounds like 10mm 180 grn to get our "one shot" stops. Medical and LE professionals have pointed out consistently over the past few years that caliber choice based on mathematical formulas has much less influence on terminal effectiveness than previously thought.

Here are a few references:

Stopping Power: Myths, Legends, and Realities - Article - POLICE Magazine

9mm Versus .45 Caliber: Does Size Really Matter? | Joe Barrett's Blog

Let?s Talk Terminal Ballistics 3 ? The Myth of Handgun Stopping Power | Gun Nuts Media

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

I'm not saying .40 is ineffective, or that 9mm actually has better terminal performance. I'm saying that the terminal differences are small enough that other factors, like capacity and shootability, favor the 9. Ammo cost can be a factor affecting one's decision also, especially for volumes of practice/training.

 

[tim c]

S&W designed the cartridge and the first firearm for it i do believe in 1989

 

[hbaird]

The problem in MMHO is the more is better principle. If you have pistol of any caliber and try to get the absolute maximum bullet weight and velocity out of it risk occurs. No pistol can give complete security. Bullet placement is still the most important factor. For .40S&W in my limited experience about 1000fps 165gr. hollow point is good for personal defence. Even small improvements come with higher pressure, more recoil, and risk in any compact pistol. The bigger and heavier the pistol the less the risk. If open carry was a well accepted practice I would not carry a Shield .40S&W or 9mm.

 

[Arik]

Some alloy guns tend to wear quicker but I don't know if that has to do with the fact that it's alloy or a bad mix of materials. I know there have been frame failures in CZ alloy RAMI 40.

Otherwise there really is no list of least to greatest. Any gun chambered in that cal will handle it. Full size guns tend to absorb recoil better leading to a feeling of more durable. That being said if you are set on 40 and "the best" I would go with HK. They are not cheap but they do state that the use of +p+ is perfectly fine and as far as I'm aware they are the only company that requires their gun to function after a squib. Their tests include plugging the barrel with a bullet, shooting that bullet out with another and to continue to fight and shoot.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[The Sarge]

The HK USP full size was designed as a 40 and has great longevity and is soft shooting. My favorite pistol for this caliber and also built for it is the SIG Sauer 229. Also demonstrates longevity and handles the 40 very well. Most pistol manufacturers assign a duty service pistol life at 20,000 rounds. SIG rates the 229 duty service life, in 40 or 357SIG, at 60,000 rounds. This rating is not the expected life of the pistol but an indicator of how the pistol will perform under harsh military/LE duty conditions. Bill

 

[Rastoff]

IMO, .40 S&W makes smaller guns even harder to shoot well. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but real world physics trump anecdotal experiences or perceptions.

The statement that .40 makes smaller guns harder to shoot sounds good on paper, but is not always true in the real world.

There is a phenomena that is hard to quantify; human factor. Believe it or not, I actually shot the Glock 27 (sub compact .40) better than the Glock 22 (full size .40). I can't explain it, but it works.

It's the same as grip size. Just because you have small hands doesn't mean you need the small grip. I prefer the small grip in my M&Ps and my wife likes the large. My hands are much larger than hers.

When it comes to guns, blanket statements don't work. So, no, smaller guns are no more difficult to shoot than other guns. It depends on the shooter. Neither are the small guns more prone to wear.

 

[Arkie45]

I have put thousands of rounds through my M&P 40c, Shield 40, Glock 23, and Sig 226 with zero issues in any of them. My 40 shoots the softest, then the Sig and Glock tied for second, and the Shield very close behind. I run many rounds through every handgun I own, and have no problems. If I do run into issues with any I own and maintain...they become someone else's.

 

[Eshooter]

I have pistols in 9mm, .40s&w, & .45acp. My .40's are the only ones that have had absolutely no malfunctions! Got a S&W shield .40. & HK USP .40 compact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[sdeeut69]

NOT THE SHIELD!

I keep reading that the 40 s&w round is hard on guns, wears them out more quickly than other calibers, etc. could someone "rank" which makes, models are the toughest, from say strongest to weakest? Not every gun/model, obviously but as much as you would care to share.

I have also read that some models were designed or scaled around this caliber as opposed to ramping up a model in 9mm.

I am looking at an FN, and s&w m&p in the .40 right now. Possibly a Beretta Vertec also.

And in the case of the s&w m&p, does the compact model wear more quickly than the full sized version?

I know recoil is snappier, not an issue at this point.

Thank you

I LOVE the shield, such an excellent little pistol, but did not enjoy shooting the 40 cal version. Way too snappy. But worse were the pins kept coming out above the trigger and the one behind the safety. Found other posts with the exact same thing on their shield 40s. I'm not saying it's a wide spread problem, but thousands of rounds through my 9 shield and not one problem. But! The full size M&P 40.. LOVED IT! I can't speak for the Compact, I have never shot one, but the full size was the rentable range gun and I rented it.. a lot! Don't know how many rounds have been through it but it was always awesome. Good luck on your search.

 

[686-380]

I can't say whether one brand of firearm is better than another...other than S&W, of course

I can state that I have been shooting the heck out of my FNS 40 and love it!

 

[FiremedicMike]

I understand but you completely forgot about an important component of understanding how powerful a particular round is and that's - muzzle energy. This, more than anything will determine the power "knockdown power" if you will. The .40 surpasses the 9mm by quite a large margin. Like with rifles. Why is a .308 more powerful than a .22? Not the size of the round per se but the energy behind it.

Retrospective studies of the terminal ballistics against human targets would disagree with your statement that the .40 surpasses the 9mm by a large margin.

 

[epj]

The S&W 4006 and variations should surely make this list they are plentiful and inexpensive on the used market. I think you can get a new one if you order 50 or more at a time.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I keep reading that the 40 s&w round is hard on guns, wears them out more quickly than other calibers, etc. could someone "rank" which makes, models are the toughest, from say strongest to weakest? Not every gun/model, obviously but as much as you would care to share.

I have also read that some models were designed or scaled around this caliber as opposed to ramping up a model in 9mm.

I am looking at an FN, and s&w m&p in the .40 right now. Possibly a Beretta Vertec also.

And in the case of the s&w m&p, does the compact model wear more quickly than the full sized version?

I know recoil is snappier, not an issue at this point.

Thank you

I have a Glock 23 with about 20,000 rounds fired through it and no malfunctions. Replaced the slide lock spring and the slide stop spring, the latter just a couple months ago.

 

[NYresQ]

Any of the major manufacturers guns made for the 40 will fire tens of thousands of rounds of full power ammo as long as they are properly maintained. (which is something many people don't do) Changing the recoil spring when its reccomended is probably the biggest thing you can do for longevity in a pistol.

My agency (Sig P229 in 357sig)changes our recoil springs every 10k, and a full respring of the guns every 20K. We commonly replace guns in the 55-60,000 round range. and many of those have nothing wrong with them and are converted to simunitions guns for training.

That being said, I have never seen a 40XX 3rd gen S&W, or a Sig P229 worn out, even after tens of thousands of rounds. Both were designed from the ground up for the .40S&W.

The cost of a new gun versus the cost of the ammo to wear out any of the well made, well known manufacturers guns on the market today is a small fraction. If you can afford that much ammo, you can afford to maintain it and when needed, replace the gun.