Has Smith & Wesson abandoned the .40 S&W cartridge?

[clang444]

Anybody here remember the 9mm rimmed Federal????..........That cartridge took off like a turtle at Daytona.

I've got a box of it - to go along with my 9mm Ruger Speed Six. It's demise is it would fit into old .38 S&W top break revolvers and could cause explosive results.

To me - the .40 S&W is kinda like a 16 gauge shotgun. It carries like a 20 gauge (9mm), but hits almost as hard as a 12 gauge (.45ACP). The only problem is the modern 20 gauge is much improved and will handle most situations adequately.

I still like my 16s and .40s though...

 

[LVSteve]

Glock seems to be doing the opposite. Not only did they give G22 and G23 the gen 5 upgrades, they re-designed them with wider, heavier slides. This reduced perceived recoil and muzzle flip substantially. When I shoot G22.5 with 180s, it's barely more than G17.5 with +P 9MM loads. So there was a big commitment to .40 from Glock.

It's about damned time. First Glock I shot was a 23C over 15 years ago and it was a nasty little thing. Mind you, the distance the empties flew I felt it needed a new recoil spring. Then there was that early Glock trigger.

I was done with Glock and 40 S&W at that point. Maybe I should try a different gun in 40, but I'm heavily invested in 9mm with 45 as a fall back.

 

[Hasbeen1945]

I only have one 40. But I have numerous 45's , 38's and 9mm's. I laugh when some say a 9 is as good as a 40. Shooting paper the only difference is a little recoil. But a the range I belong to we have plate racks. When the plates are knocked over you can tell the difference between the calibers.
The 9 knocks the plates over but the 40 and 45 shake the rack when you knock the plates over.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Heck........I even still have and shoot a sling shot..Can handle projectiles from marbles/ball bearings(30-50 cal.) to hickory nuts(12 ga). With enough force and accuracy to hit a target and do damage. It's a thousand year old design THAT STILL WORKS.....Same way with cartridges. The better ones last 2 days short of forever.

 

[BB57]

As others have stated, 40 S&W blends the horsepower of 45 ACP with the capacity of 9mm. It's an excellent compromise round between the two calibers…./

/….9mm has come a long way, and there's many very good options for ammo available, however the terminal ballistics data shows that 40 S&W is still superior to 9mm.

Two comments:

1) Some folks will say "blend". Others will say the .40 S&W just falls short of the power of the .45 ACP and sacrifices the magazine capacity of the 9mm Luger.

Like most compromises it doesn't to anything particularly well.

Now… to be fair, the .40 S&W pretty well replicates the black powder era 38-40 ballistics and that has gotten the job done since 1874.

2) 9mm Luger hollow point performance has come a long was since the need for the .40 S&W was first envisioned. That improvement has eroded much of the actual real world advantage of the .40 S&W over the current 9mm hollow point offerings.

What hasn't changed are the realities that:
- all handgun rounds are inadequate;
- bullet placement still matters more than slightly larger bullet diameter; and
- more wound tracks represent more potential for an incapacitating hit than fewer wound tracks; and
- most shooters, even experienced shooters can score more A zone hits in the same time frame with 9mm Luger than they can with .40 S&W.

Then there's the oddity of .40 S&W recoil. It's heavier than 9mm Luger, but "snappier" than .45 ACP. For many shooters the slow "push" of a .45 ACP is more manageable than the "snap" of a .40 S&W, especially in a compact sized pistol.

Consequently, if folks want capacity 9mm is the go to round. If they favor terminal ballistics then .45 ACP is a more likely choice, especially in a compact pistol.

——-


I don't think the .40 S&W is going anywhere as there are plenty of them out there. But I also think it has had it's day in the sun and is on the back side of the growth curve.

Could it make a comeback? Sure it could. The .38-40 and .44-40 sure did.

.

 

[CouchPotato]

Like most compromises it doesn't to anything particularly well.

And yet 40 S&W delivers superior energy, expansion, and penetration to 9mm and allows for superior magazine capacity to 45 ACP.

I see 40 S&W more as an "option" than a "compromise" simply because 100% of caliber options compromise something in some way. The only fair compromise point on 40 S&W is when comparing it to 10mm, which itself "compromises" how manageable it is, even more than 40 S&W does.

If you've got the skills to quickly shoot 40 S&W or 10mm accurately, then you'll be able to shoot 9mm even better.

I agree that shot placement is critically important, especially with any handgun round. I also agree that 9mm has come a long way, but so has 40 S&W right along side of it.

As this debate continues to evolve in future years, manufacturing innovations in handguns themselves will ultimately cause high recoil handgun calibers to become more and more manageable. Specifically, innovations with low bore axis, porting solutions, and optimized grip geometry will enable shooters to more easily manage recoil which will open the door back up for the popularization of harder hitting calibers.

 

[lrrifleman]

This is a very interesting thread!

Currently residing in NJ, I find that:
a) a slingshot can not be my platform of choice, possession of same is a felony,
b) capacity is irrelevant, I'm limited to 10 rounds.

For almost 20 years, I had only 1 9mm, my 439, which saw limited use. I was still physically able to shoot long arms, and my pistol usage was split between my K22, K38, and 1911 for precision pistol matches. Having only 1 fully functional arm, I jumped into combat-style pistol shooting, and the 9mm was not only easier to control, it's mild recoil facilitated accurate bullet placement. Finding first shot DA to be a slight handicap, I picked up both a 1911 9mm and a Glock. I've found that the striker fired pistol is currently more advantageous. Between door prize wins and random wins, my 9mm collection and striker fired pistol collection has expanded.

I believe in developing transferable skills, and I am now shooting limited IDPA-style matches, along with PPC and GSSF matches in order to hone my shooting skills. For some, the pistol is temporary until you can access your long-arm. For the disabled, the handgun is not the temporary defense until you get to the long-arm, it MUST be the long-arm! It is for this reason, I think that the 30 Super Carry will have a following.

For me, I wouldn't want to solely depend on a 9mm in a defensive situation, I'd prefer something a bit larger: 357 Sig, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP, because the rounds (in my opinion) carry more energy farther, and can be manipulated easier with one hand.

Currently, I would like to believe (rightly or wrongly) that handgun manufacturers are scaling back firearms production to coincide with current ammunition availability. Why make something that the consumer can't shoot but only use as a paperweight?

In the unlikely event that the 40 S&W should join the Dodo bird and the 25-35 Winchester, that is why I both cast and reload. As long as I can maintain a supply of powder and primers, ALL of my handguns can be ready for action.

I would like to think that most gun buyers would pick the arms best suited to their particular needs than to be led by what others prefer!

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

9, 45, .22rf
done. At this point, I'm going for cheap.
At this point, I'll probably elevate my SKS to my primary deer/pig/stop sign/discarded appliance gun

 

[ladder13]

……..

I would like to think that most gun buyers would pick the arms best suited to their particular needs than to be led by what others prefer!

That would bring the forum to a halt.

 

[sigp220.45]

I like the .40 and have great faith in it. I worked a lot of police shootings and learned one thing it does really well is kill people.

I got a Glock 27 the first year they came out and didn't realize the kick was supposed to be objectionable (I refuse to join in the overuse of the "S" word) until I started reading some gun forums. Mine must be broken because it is still easy to shoot.

 

[BigBoy99]

Cuz... it's Russian!!

'Merica

Using your reasoning, then there shouldn't be builders in the US making AK47 and millions of rounds of 7.63x39nn ammo being produced!

 

[CouchPotato]

Using your reasoning, then there shouldn't be builders in the US making AK47 and millions of rounds of 7.63x39nn ammo being produced!

No, that would be your reasoning, which would imply no rifle innovation or development should have happened after the AK47, which is exactly opposite of what I'm saying.

 

[rosewood]

There is a .30 cal semi-auto round which has been around for over a 100 years - the 7.62x25mm cartridge! Why not build something around the caliber and make it it a double stacked magazine to boot? I guess the bean counters like new things because it means more money will be spent buying the "new stuff."

One, the OAL won't fit in a 9mm sized frame. You would have to put it in a 45/10mm sized frame. I believe they were trying to fit this in the guns they already had in production. It was also meant to be compact.

Other thing is, if they went with a 7.62 diameter bullet, they would have to find bullets designed to expand at the 30 TC velocities. The .312 diameter they chose is already in production and used in the 32 H&R Mag and 327 Fed mag. So the components already existed, just needed brass. (too bad they didn't use this philosophy with the 350 Legend)

Rosewood

 

[Elkins45]

Kentucky State Police still use 40 S&W, and I'm sure a number of other agencies do as well. Until that changes it's in no danger of obsolescence.

 

[S&W-Keeper]

I have 2 Sigs,a Glock, and a Model 646 revolver in .40. I don't have an issue with it.I really like it in my 646.

 

[Rowdydog]

I hope S&W continues to support the 40. A 40 Shield is my every day carry. I do a lot of hiking in Colorado and usually carry my Compact 40.
I like the options of the 165 gr and 180 gr.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

A SIGMA, a couple M&Ps, a Kahr PM40, a FTX & a SUB-2000 in this purportedly "abandoned" caliber...

Plenty of magazines, Hornady & LEE dies and sufficient supplies to insure I probably won't ever need to buy any factory ammo unless some new development results in an even more outstanding loading than those which are currently (O.K., supposed to be?) available...

Capability to convert to 357 SIG &/or 9mm with a simple barrel (and magazine, vis-a-vis the M&Ps) change means unsurpassed versatility.

Certainly can see the attraction of the 10mm for many, but unless you are taking about the far upper end of the 10mm spectrum (aka, traipsing around in bear country?) there's really not THAT MUCH more in a factory 10mm 180gr XTP @ 1275 fps and 8.0gr of Longshot behind the same bullet @ 1159 fps in 40 S&W as far as any two-legged danger is concerned.

And I can practice with reloaded 180gr Berrys plated FPs all day at around $0.35 per round, or less...?

I love it!

Cheers!

 

[Biggfoot44]

From the start , I thought the .40 was a needless compromise , chasing a non existent problem .

That said , it's a perfectly functional ctg , and the real world results exceeded my initial expectations .

LE caliber selections start out political , and quickly become a self sustaining bandwagon , with the 1995- 2015 era being the exception with a wider than ever before variety in use .

I burn internally at all the hype of " modern wiz bang 9mm ammo is not just as good as ( everything else ) , but actually Better . "

A more realistic , but honest statement would have been along the lines of " Modern wiz bang 9mm ammo is plenty darn good , more than sufficient for all around LE purposes , plus has several unique other advantages ."

That further said , there's millions of .40 guns out there , they're as good as they ever were , and they're not going away .

The hot ( / hyped) buying trend now is very light. Sub compacts . 9mm is more suited for this class of gun . In " regular sized guns , .40 is quite viable , and not terrible in sorta compact- ish .

Did I belatedly see the light, and switch my allegiance to .40 ? Nah , I still like 9mm , .45acp (, and real 10mm ). But I do have a couple of PCC in .40. Would I try to talk anyone out of .40 ? No , just some good natured ribbing .

**************8

7.62 was a popular and sucuessful German cartridge for 20 years before there even was a Soviet Union .

9mm Federal ( Rimmed) was a victim of unanticipated bad timing . It was introduced at the exact moment that semiautos quickly displaced revolvers . 5 years earlier , and it would have been a medium sized hit . Think " efficient new. Ctg that exceeds the power of .38 +P+ , and very efficient case expansion ratio for improved velocity from even snub bbls " .

If there hadn't been an untimely fire at the plant in Israel , we'd be having this thread speculating about the possible demise of the .41 Avenger .

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Well, it was certainly THOUGHT (by some of the "shotcallers", anyway?) to be a serious problem... at the time?

Compromises are not ALWAYS non-advantageous: I'll opine (as I have previously) that a hot 40 S&W does not give much (if any?) up to a watered-down 10mm for most applications.

A couple fewer rounds (typically) than in the corresponding 9mm platform (but, typically more than in the 45acp), a bit more perceived recoil (for some) but what has actually been more available ammunition-wise in the current dempanic. And at reasonable pricing, for the most part.

Now, as far as the 9mm Federal "rimmed" is concerned there are (still) ways of shooting 9mm in revolvers: Charter Arms & Ruger variants immediately coming to mind... Unfortunately, the S&W options are as rare as hen's teeth!

In addition to the "good $0.05 cigar" and that ol' $0.10 cup of coffee(!) what we REALLY need is an inexpen$ive 9mm revolver!

Cheers!

P.S. Safe to say it has "exceeded my initial expectations" as well: the only caliber that I have more individual weapons for is the 22lr.

 

[Echo40]

In my experience, most folks who refer to it as a "compromise" seem to do so as a sort of backhanded compliment, as the more you read into their statements it becomes apparent that they are of the mindset that a compromise represents an inherently bad scenario with an unsatisfactory outcome.

Personally, I find the whole comparison between 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP to be not unlike a comparison between apples and oranges in which the only basis for comparison is that they're each a variety of fruit.
.40 S&W wasn't designed to duplicate the performance of .45 ACP, nor was .40 S&W designed to feature greater magazine capacity, so such similarities are irrelevant.
Moreover, the folks who insist that the .40 S&W is somehow objectively inferior to both the 9mm Luger and .45 ACP because it has less magazine capacity than 9mm and less mass/momentum than .45 strikes me as a contradictory statement from someone who just plain dislikes the cartridge on the ludicrous grounds that it splits the difference between two distinctive sets of perceived advantages which are each of separate mindsets and thusly don't work together because even those who recognize both the benefits of greater magazine capacity and greater mass/momentum would most likely come to the conclusion that .40 S&W strikes a good balance between magazine capacity and mass/momentum rather than it somehow being inferior to both.

Last but not least, perhaps the most contradictory statement I have ever seen used against the .40 S&W cartridge is that because all of the big three handgun cartridges lack the necessary energy to cause remote wounding effects/peripheral tissue damage, shot placement is absolutely vital when it comes to handguns and therefore having two or three extra rounds in the magazine with 9mm Luger is better.
Huh? No seriously, back it up, if shot placement is so vital, (which it is, don't get me wrong) then where is the logic that having a couple of extra rounds is better if a single well-placed shot will do the job with any of them?

Oh, and as a sort of relevant closing comment, for all the folks who insist that handguns are all substandard weapons so there's no advantage whatsoever between them because they are all such diminutive weapons, they certainly have killed a lot of people, even in modern times in which we have much better medical care than we ever had in the past, so it would seem as if handgun rounds aren't quite so wimpy, seeing as they cannot be shrugged off quite so easily as certain folks assert. Honestly, the fact that a hit to a non-vital organ isn't immediately deadly doesn't mean that anyone who has been shot in a non-vital organ will survive indefinitely without proper medical attention. Sure, if someone can survive for up to twenty minutes after being shot in the stomach, then that may not be optimal combat effectiveness, but it's also a far cry from them being able to rub some dirt in it and walk it off.