What is the origin of the misconception that .40 S&W is a high pressure cartridge?

[Funflyer]

We can thank Gaston Block for the bad rep that the .40 has and why lots of shooters shy away from the cartridge. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people at gun counters perpetuating the unwarranted BS about the .40S&W. Oh no! I don't want a 40 because they are too high pressure and will blow-up in my hand. It's typically followed up by "but the new bullet technology makes a 9mm just as effective". What a load of bull-squatchy. Truth is that if Blocks had "in spec" chambers, instead of being the size of a one-car garage, you wouldn't be hearing any more mis-information being spewed about the .40 than any other other cartridge. They may have been accurate also.

 

[VictorLouis]

The 10mm guns were chambered in .45cal sized frames and used .45cal-sized barrels and chambers that were reduced in size from .452" to .400", this added steel around the chamber and around the bore. A hotter, smaller hole in a larger gun.

The .40 S&W hit the scene exactly opposite. Take a 9mm-sized gun and barrel and open chamber, make it larger and sacrifice the steel. Do the same thing for the bore. Bigger hole, less steel. And now fit that top half to a pistol frame designed wholly for the 9mm cartridge.

After all this time, I don't think I've ever read of it expressed so succinctly. Nice!

No one yet has mentioned looking at your brass and the signs and indications it provides. Bulges over the unsupported part of many feed ramps. Primer wipe indicating pre-mature unlocking. Primer cratering (duh). Burrs on rims where the extractor is ripping away.

 

[Dave Lively]

We can thank Gaston Block for the bad rep that the .40 has and why lots of shooters shy away from the cartridge. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people at gun counters perpetuating the unwarranted BS about the .40S&W. Oh no! I don't want a 40 because they are too high pressure and will blow-up in my hand.

It wasn't just Glock. Search "40 Shield kaboom" and you will find several hits, including a couple on this forum. It has been a long time since I heard anyone have a problem but as I recall the high slide velocity and steep feed ramp of the Shield compared to larger guns making bullet setback more likely was the usual explanation.

 

[Echo40]

We can thank Gaston Block for the bad rep that the .40 has and why lots of shooters shy away from the cartridge. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people at gun counters perpetuating the unwarranted BS about the .40S&W. Oh no! I don't want a 40 because they are too high pressure and will blow-up in my hand. It's typically followed up by "but the new bullet technology makes a 9mm just as effective". What a load of bull-squatchy. Truth is that if Blocks had "in spec" chambers, instead of being the size of a one-car garage, you wouldn't be hearing any more mis-information being spewed about the .40 than any other other cartridge. They may have been accurate also.

Unfortunately, Glock wasn't the only manufacturer to attempt to simply modify a 9mm pistol for .40 S&W, technically even Smith & Wesson's own 4006 was based on the 9mm 5906, albeit they at least beefed it up substantially rather than just bore out a 9mm pistol to fit a 10mm bullet.

Sadly, not many developers wanted to spend the necessary funds on R&D to make guns chambered specifically for the .40 S&W cartridge, so they took the quick and easy route to capitalize on the hype/popularity of the cartridge.
It couldn't be helped, and besides, the cartridge's reputation only really suffered in the short term because eventually firearms manufacturers started designing their firearms with .40 S&W in mind, and nowadays the only folks who act like the cartridge itself was at fault are either ignorant or just petulant haters seeking approval any excuse to justify their senselessly persistent denigration which they know deep down is invalid and silly.

 

[bigggbbruce]

We can thank Gaston Block for the bad rep that the .40 has and why lots of shooters shy away from the cartridge.
Truth is that if Blocks had "in spec" chambers, instead of being the size of a one-car garage, you wouldn't be hearing any more mis-information being spewed about the .40 than any other other cartridge.

Block's are known for unsupported chambers and bulged the brass "badly".. Had seen reports of some ruptured cases IIRC..

I shoot 10mm with a 1076 and an EAA Witness.. barrel chambers are fully supported and the brass has a reload life like 45ACP 20+ times each.

 

[rwsmith]

That's what I remember....

There is more force exerted with the 40 than say the 9mm because it has a greater head diameter. Also since most 40's are built on 9 frames, there is less of a safety margin built in.



F(force) = P (pressure) x A(area)

Earlier .40s had a short life due to banging on 9mm frames. I SUPPOSE since this was recognized they've beefed things up a bit, but the deal about 'just switching barrels' to convert some guns didn't work out well.

 

[peterGun]

The whole reason I own guns in .40S&W is size, I want a 9mm sized gun that will fire a bullet comparable to 45acp weight.

I find both Glock and S&W meet my needs for CCW, my Shield40 does sting a bit but so does a .380acp in a 12oz gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic 9c]

Block's are known for unsupported chambers and bulged the brass "badly".. Had seen reports of some ruptured cases IIRC..

I shoot 10mm with a 1076 and an EAA Witness.. barrel chambers are fully supported and the brass has a reload life like 45ACP 20+ times each.

The early Glocks used barrels similar to the Browning GP/ Hi-power. These chambers are not well supported.

Geoff
Who had a Browning HP back in the 1980s.