Recoil of M&P 40C

[Tom Goodrick]

I have had an M&P40FS for several months and am pleased with it on the range. My accuracy is pretty good as the trigger has worked in well. I like the feel of the gun. But it seems a little big for CCW. I would like that capability (and have the license). I tried a Taurus that others seem to like but I had a lot of trouble with the trigger because it was very different from the M&P. It was also much smaller and had much more recoil. I like the idea of the M&P compact in .40 because months ago I decided .40 was the most effective defense round. But I worry that the recoil would be worse. According to Genitron.com, the recoil of the .40 FS is 7.810 and the .40 C is 9.103 ft-lbs in recoil. That is quite a bit higher when you consider that a .357 mag revolver I used to shoot is only 8.531 ft-lbs in recoil. So it looks like I may have to settle for the M&P 9C which has a recoil of only 5.891. But I am not sure I want to use a 9mm in a short barrel where its energy is reduced below normal.

If anyone has experience with the .40C and .40FS, could you comment on the relative recoil strength? Does the recoil affect the accuracy of your second shot?

 

[growr]

A proper grip and a good stance makes the recoil issue almost irrelevant.Especially in the situation you described.
Randy

 

[Goathead75]

A proper grip and a good stance makes the recoil issue almost irrelevant.Especially in the situation you described.
Randy

Of course, what's the likelihood of you having both of those in a defensive situation? Get a CCW that you can confidently handle to put the shots on target.

 

[obiwankabaldi]

I had the M&P's in 9, FS and compact, 40, FS and compact, and 45 compact. The 40 compact I found very difficult to control. I can shoot the 45 compact very well but just could not master that 40 compact. some guys told me it was me, but no matter why struggle with it when the 9 and the 45 were such great firearms. I do believe that the snappiness of the 40 made it difficult to shoot, especially as double taps. JMHO

 

[flkinganuthin]

I had a little bit of issue with the recoil, especially the longer I shot.. The polymer doesn't help. Once I installed grips, that all went away.

Another thing to consider is the 9mm conversion barrels for the 40c.

 

[tstrenuous10]

FWIW I carry a 40 full size in a CTAC and it's not too big. I'm 5'8 180. I can wear most of my T-Shirts over it as long as they're not too tight.

 

[Lost Lake]

How about getting a 40c for carry and using a full size mag for the range? You can practice with the smaller mags but most of the time use the more comfortable long mags. In a 'need to use' situation you won't care if the gun is a compact or a bazooka.

Now tell me more about that kick difference you cited between a 40c and a 40fs. They shoot the same exact round and a 40c barrel is shorter so it should have less recoil. The grip is smaller but that won't matter if a small hand has all fingers on the grip anyway.

What factors are included in the quantifying of the recoil felt?

 

[T-BoneFL]

I have had an M&P40FS for several months and am pleased with it on the range. My accuracy is pretty good as the trigger has worked in well. I like the feel of the gun. But it seems a little big for CCW. I would like that capability (and have the license). I tried a Taurus that others seem to like but I had a lot of trouble with the trigger because it was very different from the M&P. It was also much smaller and had much more recoil. I like the idea of the M&P compact in .40 because months ago I decided .40 was the most effective defense round. But I worry that the recoil would be worse. According to Genitron.com, the recoil of the .40 FS is 7.810 and the .40 C is 9.103 ft-lbs in recoil. That is quite a bit higher when you consider that a .357 mag revolver I used to shoot is only 8.531 ft-lbs in recoil. So it looks like I may have to settle for the M&P 9C which has a recoil of only 5.891. But I am not sure I want to use a 9mm in a short barrel where its energy is reduced below normal.

If anyone has experience with the .40C and .40FS, could you comment on the relative recoil strength? Does the recoil affect the accuracy of your second shot?

Maybe my experience will help. I own the M&P9c. I recently rented FS M&P45, FS M&P40, and Glock 27 (approx same size as M&P40c, and caliber-ed in 40S&W).

The Glock 27 (recoil = 10.782 ft-lbs) felt better in my hands than the FS 45 and FS 40. I also had more control of the Glock since it was easier for me to grip. So recoil is just one data point, but other factors come onto play.

Not advocating the Glock my any means... the range did not have the M&P40c (most likely my next purchase) for rent, so I tried something comparable.

Hope that helps.

-T

 

[VMaxSplat]

The 40 is a great combination of bullet diameter and magazine capacity. It is a high pressure round with snappy recoil but is a great choice for a general duty pistol round (especially in the M&P40FS). The 40 is a handful for fast, accurate shooting out of subcompact CCW pistols.

The 9mm is a better choice in the subcompact guns than the 40, IMHO. It is easier to shoot fast, accurate double taps and helps maintain decent magazine capacity in shortened grips. Being a high pressure round, the 9mm does pretty well in short barrels.

As for the 45ACP, it is a low pressure round that really suffers in short barrels and is already limits magazine capacity in full size pistols. It is less than ideal in the subcompacts.

 

[flkinganuthin]

To add..
180 grain = less recoil, and is the best grain for short barrels.
So when you test, buy 180 gr.

 

[Wee Hooker]

FWIW, I fired both and found the 9mm C is WAY easier to shoot accuratly. It's just stays on target ..round anfter round...In addition because it's so cheap and pleasent to shoot, It's going to get shot more often. FWIW, I bought and carry the 9C often and feel very confident that 11 well placed ( premium) 9mm rounds will get me out of ANY situation my civilian tutkas is likely to come into.
Not looking to argue the 9 vs 40 thing. Just expressing my findings.

 

[dallascj]

I have all of the compact models: 9/357/40/45 and I don't find any of them difficult to control. The 357 is the punchiest of all as it is a very fast round, but is still comfortable to shoot. I also own full-sizes in these calibers and am always surprised at how well the compacts compare in accuracy and fun to shoot.

 

[dallascj]

The 40 is a great combination of bullet diameter and magazine capacity. It is a high pressure round with snappy recoil but is a great choice for a general duty pistol round (especially in the M&P40FS). The 40 is a handful for fast, accurate shooting out of subcompact CCW pistols.

The 9mm is a better choice in the subcompact guns than the 40, IMHO. It is easier to shoot fast, accurate double taps and helps maintain decent magazine capacity in shortened grips. Being a high pressure round, the 9mm does pretty well in short barrels.

As for the 45ACP, it is a low pressure round that really suffers in short barrels and is already limits magazine capacity in full size pistols. It is less than ideal in the subcompacts.

All of these comments seem generic and not really to the OP's question. The difference between each compact M&P is 2 rounds: 12 for 9mm, 10 for .40/.357, and 8 for .45, so the quantity isn't that much of a factor. Secondly, the 45C has a 4-in barrel vs. the 3.5-in barrel of the other compacts. How much of a handful any caliber can be is entirely subjective.

 

[Houdini1953]

I shot the full sized 40 before getting my 40C and it does kick quite a bit more than a nine which I have a full sized as well as a Model59 (kinda older semi).

I have posted that I tend to shoot left of POA and with the M&P 40C it is exaggerated so more trips to the range or even a sight adjustment is in order.

I do not mind recoil as the grips on an M&P make them less hurtful, I went through 100 rounds today with mine as well as 100 rounds through two other 9 mm pistols one M&P and the other Glock subcompact G26!

 

[VMaxSplat]

All of these comments seem generic and not really to the OP's question. The difference between each compact M&P is 2 rounds: 12 for 9mm, 10 for .40/.357, and 8 for .45, so the quantity isn't that much of a factor. Secondly, the 45C has a 4-in barrel vs. the 3.5-in barrel of the other compacts. How much of a handful any caliber can be is entirely subjective.

Subjective? Not really. An IDPA taget at 10 yards and a shot timer will clearly give a shooter the skinny on how things stack up. Based on my experience with compact 40 (not M&P) and 9mm guns, the 9mm will be easier to get quick, accurate hits with. Based on the specs you provided, if we strike the 40 compact from consideration, the M&P9C is more compact and has 50% greater magazine capacity than the M&P45C...

Once again, for full size guns the 40 is a great combo of capacity vs bullet diameter (I carry one daily). It just isn't my first choice for compact carry gun use. Other folks may feel different. That is fine by me. My goal here is to help the OP by relaying my experience / opinion on the subject he asked about.

 

[dallascj]

Subjective? Not really. An IDPA taget at 10 yards and a shot timer will clearly give a shooter the skinny on how things stack up.

As I said, it is subjective. Perhaps that is how it works for you, but I have seen others shoot a .45 like it was a .22 with amazingly fast shot recovery. I don't feel a significant difference in shot recovery times due to recoil-mine is almost always in sight recovery due to my aging eyes.

Based on my experience with compact 40 (not M&P) and 9mm guns, the 9mm will be easier to get quick, accurate hits with.

The OP asked specifically about experience with both calibers in an M&P compact. You admittedly don't have that.

Based on the specs you provided, if we strike the 40 compact from consideration, the M&P9C is more compact and has 50% greater magazine capacity than the M&P45C...

Not to the OP's point. Solid hits with either caliber should stop the fight before 8 rounds are needed. He was asking about self defense, not which to use shooting IDPA.

 

[VMaxSplat]

As I said, it is subjective. Perhaps that is how it works for you, but I have seen others shoot a .45 like it was a .22 with amazingly fast shot recovery. I don't feel a significant difference in shot recovery times due to recoil-mine is almost always in sight recovery due to my aging eyes.

The OP asked specifically about experience with both calibers in an M&P compact. You admittedly don't have that.

Not to the OP's point. Solid hits with either caliber should stop the fight before 8 rounds are needed. He was asking about self defense, not which to use shooting IDPA.

OP, I stand by my previous statements. The 40C will slow your shot splits down (for the same level of accuracy) and cost you two rounds over the 9C. You'll have to decide what is the best option for you.

 

[Tom Goodrick]

According to Genitron.com, the mass of the gun is the main cause of small guns having more recoil. In a few days I intend to test this by taking my 40FS with me when I rent a 40C and shoot a box of ammo at the range. I do normally shoot 180 grain on the range and as home defense ammo with the FS. I'll alternate 10 shots with each.

Had a case locally last night of a home invasion where the owner shot the BG 3 times. The BG ran away to a hospital where the police caught him. Caliber was unreported but must have been small. The BG also had a gun but the owner was unhurt. He must have kept the BG busy. I guess it is OK since the robbery was foiled. But I don't want to use any less than 40 S&W.

 

[The Viking]

Try shooting the 180 grain mag tech for practice and use 180 grain hollow points for defense. The give me less recoil.

 

[Lost Lake]

Tom,
I understand the relationship between mass and inertia, so when you are doing this test, maybe you could try the compact with a full mag and the full size with just one in the pipe and an empty magazine.

If the slide and barrel difference matter that much (your testing will show us) then someone shooting a compact could add weight to the gun (weapon light or just clamp a weight on the rail) while at the range to reduce the felt recoil.

Could be a million dollar idea.... The Lower Recoil-inator!

 

[VMaxSplat]

Tom,
I understand the relationship between mass and inertia, so when you are doing this test, maybe you could try the compact with a full mag and the full size with just one in the pipe and an empty magazine.

If the slide and barrel difference matter that much (your testing will show us) then someone shooting a compact could add weight to the gun (weapon light or just clamp a weight on the rail) while at the range to reduce the felt recoil.

Could be a million dollar idea.... The Lower Recoil-inator!

One factor with compacts (a big one) is that the short grip affects recoil control. I believe the M&P compacts have a floor plate extension to get a full shooting grip. That should help. Of course it also makes the grip length closer to the full size gun which sort of defeats the purpose.

A few years ago I went thru all of this with a Kahr K9 and K40. The K40 murdered my shot splits for a given level of combat accuracy compared to the 9mm. As for the M&P, I've only owned the full size 9 and 40. Maybe the compact M&Ps defy the laws of physics.

 

[Lost Lake]

I understand that Vmax, but the recoil numbers were being quoted from some type of machine or something, which shouldn't take into account the grip size (if it does anyone can shoot holes in all the numbers produced based on the variation in hand sizes of shooters).

 

[Tom Goodrick]

You ought to look at Genitron.com. It covers most guns in use today. For recoil it uses a momentum formula that is not too complicated. (We can use it in spread sheets.) I certainly know it is not perfect. Our response is very subjective even while shooting. I went to the range today and shot the 40C along side and alternating with my 40FS. At first I was relieved to see that "This isn't so bad. I can handle this!" Then I noticed there weren't as many holes appearing on the paper.

I had no choice in the ammo. I wanted Fed 180 ball and the store said I could only use Blazer 165 gr FMJ (flat nose) on the rental gun. I thought I could buy and use more expensive ammo in their gun if I wanted too. So it goes. (I was offered Fed Pers Defense JHP at over $1 per round but for use only in my personal gun.) I shot the Blazer ammo from both guns.

I recently fired 50 9mm shots from a Taurus Slim and got 42% on the 8x10 target paper. I thought that was terrible. Today of the 30 shots with the M&P 40C, I got 47% on the target paper. Of the 20 shots with my 40FS all hit the paper and only 3 were outside the 1.5 inch scoring ring at 30 ft. (30ft is a common distance used on this range.) Today I fired 10 with the FS, 20 with the C, 10 with the FS and 10 with the C.

On my first set with the C, I thought its recoil was not too bad. Indeed for all 30 shots with the C, I had no discomfort. I was using my standard 2-handed grip with the left hand under the right hand, thumbs together. In some cases I tried squeezing the left hand hard to reduce the response. But it did not help. Most shots went left and low. I think that is mainly the gun response as my hands held on.

I also noticed many of the holes from the 40C were elongated indicating the bullet was starting to tumble. The holes for the 40 FS were all round in this stiff paper.

The targets had no marking to show intended use. They had a black circle 7.5 in diam with a red dot in the center, 1.5 in. dia. and rings 1 in. apart marking 7,8,9 point areas. My score for the first set of 10 FS shots was 76 and for the second set was 86.

I like the 40 FS for home defense and will continue to practice it. For CCW I will look at more 9mm guns. In 40 cal I was going to try an XD Compact and a Glock 27. Maybe I will. But it will be a while before I buy a CCW gun so I will keep my options open. Range cost does not change when I own the gun. (But I have more freedom to choose the ammo.)

 

[VMaxSplat]

Tom, glad you got a chance to try some different guns out today. Sounds like fun!


For the sake of clarity (for someone that may be reading this thread and is just starting out), all of the common defensive calibers are pretty much ***** cats as far a painful recoil is concerned. Several of the commenters here have alluded to the fact that the 40c isn't painful. The point isn't one of painful recoil, but an issue of muzzle flip and its affect on fast, combat accurate shooting. The 40 has a snappy recoil impulse that, IMHO, makes it more suitable for duty size guns than subcompacts. Big magnum revolvers (like the 500S&W)...now there is some pain involved there.

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the 9mm for duty guns because I was taught years ago that "defensive rounds should always start with a 4". I do think it is the best choice for small carry guns.

 

[T-BoneFL]

Tom - nice post. very informative.

However, you committed a cardinal sin: you compared the accuracy of a sub with a full sized gun

I've shot many guns that were either rentals or belonged to friends. I am super freaking accurate at the range with every full size I've shot. With subs (be it 9mm, .40, or .45), however, it's a different. I can place all shots within the 8" diameter circle at 40 feet... but subs are not as tightly grouped.

I think with practice, anyone can shoot a compact 40 accurately.

-T

 

[Rangel]

You ought to look at Genitron.com. It covers most guns in use today. For recoil it uses a momentum formula that is not too complicated.QUOTE]

Excellent site!

 

[Tom Goodrick]

Sitting here all relaxed, I agree: "Yes, I should be able to learn to shoot a small 40." But I would qualify that. I could not shoot it as well as a full size gun. On a man target I could learn to get a central shot where it would at least hurt the opponent. More trials will tell what I like the best. I might even revisit the Slim in 9mm. I like it for CCW.

 

[Lost Lake]

That website is good for comparing the basics of handguns, such as length, width and barrel length. That's about it. When you look at the 'defensive ratings' of guns, it's nothing more than a spreadsheet calculation based on length, weight, mag capacity, velocity of round etc. They do not take into account the sights, safeties, dual slide release or not, etc.

So comparing the recoil generated by one gun to another is done by weight and bullet energy. Obviously firing a less powerful round will reduce recoil. Changing the grip angle affects perceived recoil, even muzzle blast will affect perceived recoil.

I pointed out before that I feel no difference between a .40FS and a 9mm compact. I think there are a lot more variables to consider. Hand size and strength would be a big one.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I won't even reload for the .40SW unless the bullet weight is at least 170 - 175 grains. I cast my own 175's and I find them very mild to shoot. I have bought 155 and 165 grain bullet factory ammo and even the cheap aluminum case Blazer is snappy as heck. You just don't get something for nothing. If you want added velocity then you get added recoil. I stick with 158 grain bullets in .357 magnum for the same reason that I avoid 125 grain or lighter. Sure, the 125's are real highly rated, but they also are the known recoil monsters that are known for wearing out guns and shooters arms. I was gifted with some 155 grain plated bullets and I almost wanted to regift them. That's how not excited I am about light for caliber bullets in the .40SW.

 

[M29since14]

I have bought 155 and 165 grain bullet factory ammo and even the cheap aluminum case Blazer is snappy as heck...

I agree. Some 165-gr .40SW loads are just plain mean, and especially so in a compact gun. I use 180-gr Winchester Rangers in my 40c and 4040PD. I doubt there would be any problems with effectiveness, and neither gun is brutal to fire, like a G27 is for me.

I think you would find a 40c, with proper ammunition, to be quite controllable - not punishing at all. It is true you do give up two rounds if you decide to buy the .40 over the 9x19, but I am not sure that is much of a consideration for the ordinary citizen, "unless you plan to miss a lot." (I wish I could remember who coined that little quip. )

As to accuracy with the 40c, I have never noticed my gun shooting any worse than my full-sized M&P40. With the M&Ps, for me at least, it is all about the trigger. If one has a better trigger than the other, I shoot it better. I think my 40c has a little bit better trigger than my 40 F-S. Neither are great.