Faulkner
Member
The only time a .40 S&W is wanting is when you compare it to something it was not designed to be compared to.
Kind of like the M1 carbine was designed to give support troops something easier to shoot in combat conditions than a M1911 or Thompson submachine gun. It exceeded those design parameters. It was not designed to compete with or replace the M1 Garand on the battlefield and when compared to the Garand it falls short. No surprise there.
The .40 S&W was designed in a time when 9mm bullet development was not nearly as advanced as it is now. In the Miami shootout, the 9mm came up wanting. The thought process on the .40 S&W was that it would give about 85 to 90% of the performance of a full size .45 ACP handgun and do it in a 9mm sized frame. Something the 9mm could not do at the time, but times and bullet technology has changed.
Also, I shoot .40 S&W and 9mm in my G23 and G19 side by side almost weekly. It is unfounded that the .40 S&W has 30 or 40% more recoil than 9mm. Actually, I find the difference insignificant.
Kind of like the M1 carbine was designed to give support troops something easier to shoot in combat conditions than a M1911 or Thompson submachine gun. It exceeded those design parameters. It was not designed to compete with or replace the M1 Garand on the battlefield and when compared to the Garand it falls short. No surprise there.
The .40 S&W was designed in a time when 9mm bullet development was not nearly as advanced as it is now. In the Miami shootout, the 9mm came up wanting. The thought process on the .40 S&W was that it would give about 85 to 90% of the performance of a full size .45 ACP handgun and do it in a 9mm sized frame. Something the 9mm could not do at the time, but times and bullet technology has changed.
Also, I shoot .40 S&W and 9mm in my G23 and G19 side by side almost weekly. It is unfounded that the .40 S&W has 30 or 40% more recoil than 9mm. Actually, I find the difference insignificant.