What is wrong with the .40

Carried a Glock model 23 as a back up sidearm for several years, had no issues qualifying with it.

I think the caliber will eventually fall into the column of:

"Seemed like a good idea, at the time."

I do like the fact I can swap barrels with my Glock 32 and have two (2) for the price of one.
 
.40 S&W quickly became very popular when the FBI and police agencies across the country embraced and endorsed it when it came on the market. Harder hitting than 9mm with a greater mag capacity than .45ACP, it quickly became the darling of the handgun set. With advancements in 9mm defense rounds to go with even higher mag capacity it seems to be slowly falling out of favor. With so many guns out there and so much ammo on the market I cannot imagine it will do a disappearing act like .357SIG, 10mm or .45GAP.
 
Our local police department is gradually going away form the .40, and primarily on the capacity issue. Their thought has been expressed "I would rather have a couple more rounds in my gun, than the more powerful load". There was some concern expressed about multiple wall penetration, but to me the 9mm isn't much better in that concern. The 9mm is easier for the troops to shoot, and ours shoot only when they are required to qualify, I don't know of any that actually ever practice.
 
I as many shooters stayed with the 45acp through the 9mm craze when more fire power was needed for inaccuracy, then the 357SIG, 40cal & 10mm craze that followed. My 1911/45acp has been through three 1/2 caliber wars/crazes and it's still standing and holding its own for over 100years of excellence.

The 357SIG was a auto 357mag in ballastics, as the 10mm was to the 41mag well not exactly. These new wiz bang caliber come and go like the winters. Soon another one will pop up to keep the industry going.

I feel the 45acp is good enough. The 1911a1 is back in service in our different branches of our forces too.
 
Last edited:
I used to be a huge fan of the .45ACP, especially when shot out of a 1911 type pistol. I suffered an injury to my dominant wrist a few years back, and was no longer able to shoot the .45ACP out of a semiauto handgun afterwards (my wrist would unlock under recoil leading to loading and extraction issues), As a result, I switched to the .40S&W, first in a Sigma 40F, then a 4006, and finally in a M&P 40c and a CZ-75B. I found the 180 gr. loadings to work best for me. I also have a 9mm barrel and magazines for the M&P, so I get the 2 for 1 benefit.

Regards,

Dave
 
Nothing "wrong" with it..............

When introduced in the late 80s IIRC I already had 9mm, .45s and .357s......so I didn't drink the "Cool Aid" and buy into the .40 thing.

......just really not needed!

That said......15 years later I came across a anib Sig 229 with both .40 and .357sig barrels, night-sights and 4 mags.....snapped it up for $500...... was nice to have in 2008/09 and 2013...........
 
Grayfox said:
My issue with it was accuracy. It was "combat" accurate enough I suppose. But I demand better of my guns. I fought this thing for two years, tried every factory load and reloaded every bullet and powder I could get my hands on. But accuracy was never better than so-so. Finally gave up and decided to sell it.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is never a problem I've had with my Glock 22. With lead bullet bullseye handloads, it's more than accurate enough to shoot in an NRA Conventional Pistol Centerfire match.

And that's the strange thing about it. One handed it's fine. I never could figure out a way to shoot it two handed and have both hands firmly on it at the end of the recoil path. That's a problem I've never had with any .38, .357, 9x19mm or .45acp.
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with the .40 S&W round itself, I've never been a big fan of it although there are a few pistols in that caliber I want to own. I currently feel if I need more power from a handgun than the 9mm I'll shoot a hot 357 mag load.
 
Like it or not...

...40 caliber Glocks need loving too. ;)

410901484.jpg


411818780.jpg
 
I suspect that a lot of folks consider it to be un-necessary. There are the 9mm types and the .45 types and some would go one way or the other rather than pick something in the middle.

I did carry a Glock 23 for a while but I'm basically a .45 auto kinda guy so I eventually went back to that. The .40 is alright. It will do the job. But it just isn't a .45. If you have to make a hole in something, it might as well be a big'un. ;)
 
Last edited:
Could have been the gun?
Click to expand...

Might well have been. Over the years I've heard several comments that the 4006s were simply bad guns. I've never been that much into S&W autos, so I can't swear if its true or not.

My point is that I tried the .40, didn't care for it, found it had nothing new to offer me and have since dismissed it as something I'm just not interested in.

I will add this. I've spent a lot of time at gun shows on both sides of the table. I've seen and been offered quite a few .40 cal guns for sale or trade. When I say I have no interest in a .40, many times the owner will remark "Yeah, I'm hearing that a lot today."
 
Revolver-time said:
Seems to be a bit of " I won't buy anything in .40" statements on the various forums. What are the issues with this cartridge?
Click to expand...
Nothing. In fact, it's explosive growth and adoption among LE agencies showed that it was the optimum blend of stopping power and magazine capacity. Most important of all was the fact that every popular gun out there chambered in 9mm could easily and cheaply be designed to accept .40 and all of them did (SIG, Glock, Beretta, Browning, HK, SW XD, etc). Unlike the .45 which requires a whole new gun, going to the .40 meant departments could stay with the gun they were already trained on.

The FBI recently changed back to 9mm but that was because somebody decided that their awful shooting statistics could be improved if they went to a round with less recoil. There is NOTHING wrong with the .40.

The recoil issue is interesting because the hottest defense loads in .40 are very nearly equal in muzzle energy to the .45, while the hottest loads in 9mm are still well behind. But the new "improved" 9mm loads are a lot hotter than previous 9mm gens, so the laws of physics would imply their recoil would be a lot harder than previous 9mm loads. The new "let's get something for nothing" claim about how the new 9mm rounds give super duper ballistics with mild recoil make this old engineer think it's a lot of baloney. From what I read the driving force behind "loading down" for the FBI was poor shooting scores and grumblings that the hotter round was "unfair" to women because smaller and weaker hands could not control the gun well enough to shoot it well. The story afterwards was what they came up with to rationalize changing back to 9mm after they were the ones who proclaimed the weak 9mm cartridge was the reason the got shot up in the infamous Miami shootout (even though fewer than half the agents involved carried 9mm weapons) but whatever makes them happy. It's just mega millions of taxpayer money being wasted when they throw away perfectly good pistols so why should we care.
 
Last edited:
H Richard said:
Our local police department is gradually going away form the .40, and primarily on the capacity issue. Their thought has been expressed "I would rather have a couple more rounds in my gun, than the more powerful load".
Click to expand...
Now I would say that's a perfectly valid opinion and considering they sometimes get in fights with multiple perps, a legitimate concern. My problem is the FBI is claiming advancements in cartridge development have somehow made the 9mm superior to all others which is baloney. If they want to change to get more capacity and reduced recoil, just say it. Don't try to claim the 9mm has somehow evolved past all others through a miracle of ballistics.
 
Double-O-Dave said:
I used to be a huge fan of the .45ACP, especially when shot out of a 1911 type pistol. I suffered an injury to my dominant wrist a few years back, and was no longer able to shoot the .45ACP out of a semiauto handgun afterwards (my wrist would unlock under recoil leading to loading and extraction issues), As a result, I switched to the .40S&W, first in a Sigma 40F, then a 4006, and finally in a M&P 40c and a CZ-75B. I found the 180 gr. loadings to work best for me. I also have a 9mm barrel and magazines for the M&P, so I get the 2 for 1 benefit.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Last four autos I bought were purchased in .40 and with a conversion barrel, you can shoot 9mm for practice.

Too bad the FBI couldn't "re arm" to 9mm with conversion barrels at a cost of about $150 each instead of buying new guns at a cost of about $800 each.... but taxpayer money is free, so probably never considered.
 
Last edited:
I come not to praise the .40 S&W nor to bury it.

The .40 S&W is great for those that cannot make up their mind between a .45ACP and a 9mm. You get greater capacity in the double stacks and you get more knock down than the 9mm. I really like all three rounds, but the older I get and the mores sensitive to recoil I get the more I tend to favor the higher capacity 9mm. In my youth I preferred the .45ACP or even the .40 S&W.

All three rounds are deadly and reliable.

My .40 S&W is a 4013TSW double stack that is as good a gun as ever was made. So even though I rarely carry it any longer, I still keep it handy. The 4006TSW is a slightly larger and heavier version that is made to last for the next 3 or 4 centuries and is also the one in my night stand with a red laser sight on it.. The weight and heft of this gun tames any recoil problems even for us old geezers. Any unwanted guests that make it past my GSD would not be happy being introduced to the .40 S&W round.

So while I don't necessarily advocate the .40 S&W over the .45 ACP or the 9mm, I certainly don't consider it any less valuable than those rounds. Mostly it just gets down to personal choice and which one you have handy.
 
bountyhunter said:
Nothing. In fact, it's explosive growth and adoption among LE agencies showed that it was the optimum blend of stopping power and magazine capacity. Most important of all was the fact that every popular gun out there chambered in 9mm could easily and cheaply be designed to accept .40 and all of them did (SIG, Glock, Beretta, Browning, HK, SW XD, etc). Unlike the .45 which requires a whole new gun, going to the .40 meant departments could stay with the gun they were already trained on.

The FBI recently changed back to 9mm but that was because somebody decided that their awful shooting statistics could be improved if they went to a round with less recoil. There is NOTHING wrong with the .40.

The recoil issue is interesting because the hottest defense loads in .40 are very nearly equal in muzzle energy to the .45, while the hottest loads in 9mm are still well behind. But the new "improved" 9mm loads are a lot hotter than previous 9mm gens, so the laws of physics would imply their recoil would be a lot harder than previous 9mm loads. The new "let's get something for nothing" claim about how the new 9mm rounds give super duper ballistics with mild recoil make this old engineer think it's a lot of baloney. From what I read the driving force behind "loading down" for the FBI was poor shooting scores and grumblings that the hotter round was "unfair" to women because smaller and weaker hands could not control the gun well enough to shoot it well. The story afterwards was what they came up with to rationalize changing back to 9mm after they were the ones who proclaimed the weak 9mm cartridge was the reason the got shot up in the infamous Miami shootout (even though fewer than half the agents involved carried 9mm weapons) but whatever makes them happy. It's just mega millions of taxpayer money being wasted when they throw away perfectly good pistols so why should we care.
Click to expand...
The 9mm at that time was not what it is today. Hollow points were just coming in and they were no where as good or consistent as they are today. Which is one of the reasons they originally went away from the 9. The 10 become too powerful. ...or so the internet says but downloaded a little it still delivered more energy and better terminal performance than the 9.....at that time.

Since then bullet technology has caught up and 9 does a fine job of deep penetration and full expenssion.

I don't buy the argument that it's woman related. They always seems to be the internet "scapegoat" for anything firearms related. I can see it being a problem one time but now it's just getting ridiculous. Women couldn't handle the 10mm so we went to the 40. Women can't handle the 40 (25 years later) so we are switching to the 9mm. Meanwhile the military wants to switch because apparently women can't handle the 9mm and/or Beretta. ...depending on who you ask. Meanwhile my PD switched from Sig 2340 (40s&w) to G22 (40s&w) and they have quite a few women cops. My friend's PD went to 40s&w because of input from women cops. Another local agency of 6000 officers have plenty of women who carry 40s&w and they have a choice of any caliber Glock.

I'll buy the 10mm argument but until I see or hear from the people who made these decisions I call BS on the rest of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
.380 barrel in a Gen one shield .40
Replies
3
Views
510
murphydog
murphydog
Rule3
Lack of interest in 40 SW yet 10MM is getting popular??
9 10 11
Replies
204
Views
7K
rpv-ak
R
sjmjax
Does anyone shoot anything other than 9mm?
10 11 12
Replies
222
Views
9K
usmcsgt
usmcsgt
Bear8
Shield .40 cal conversion for CCW use..
Replies
6
Views
842
Shibadog
S
D
629 locking up with mag loads
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
drumsetdrummer
D

Latest posts

Back
Top