What is wrong with the .40

[Dales396lt4]

I was a fan of the 41AE back in the day in my IMI Jericho 941 that I bought in 1986 (oversea) this gun has always been my go to hand gun over the years. As everyone know the 41AE is no longer around, so I shoot it in 9mm today. I have tried the .40S&W many times over the years and just have not found the gun that does it for me. It just comes down to what you like, I love my 1911 in 9mm and I shoot it well.

 

[BearBio]

I couldn't find where I've posted , so here goes. I went from a 38 Super Commander to a G26 to a G27. I liked the 40 (I previously had a 3rd Generation S & W). However, I walked into a deal on a 357 Sig barrel and switched my G22 over. Much more accurate, so I switched the G27 over. My 40 S & W groups were acceptable (about 3" rapid fire at 7-10 yards) but the 357 Sig were much better (~ 1" at the same distance, if I did my part). I carry the 357 barrel but wouldn't feel compromised with the 40 cal either.

 

[OldCop876]

As a former police firearms trainer and armorer, maybe I can comment on some aspects of the .40 which make it less attractive than it was when introduced in 1990. There is really nothing wrong with it except:

1. Police and FBI recruits are easier to get qualified with a 9mm versus the .40. Two-thirds of American cops carry Glocks, and the .40 Glocks are much more challenging to shoot well for new people than are the same guns in 9mm. 9mm ammunition has improved so much in the last decade that there is very little reason to opt for the .40 for recruits anymore. The .40 does have a "snappy" character to its recoil that some new shooters find disconcerting. It can be mastered, but requires a bit more commitment than most recruits have anymore. How the .40 feels in hand can be changed simply by buying a different type of ammunition. In my experience, the 180 grainers feel the mildest (but with more flip), the 165 grainers are in the middle, and the 155 grain loads are nasty numbers that you feel in your teeth when you fire them, but move out of the gun very fast. Your choice.

2. People say that the .40 is harder on guns, accelerating wear and parts breakage. Having maintained .40 issued weapons, this is partially true. However, that seems to be more of a function of whether or not the gun started life as a .40 by design, or was modified from 9mm. The .40, in my experience, is especially hard on Glocks of older vintage. I do not note this accelerated wear or breakage on M&P's.

3. Many whine about the additional expense of shooting the .40 versus the 9mm. While this may be true for some, if I compare ammunition of equivalent quality, brand for brand, I find that I am paying $1-2 more per box for .40. This will not make or break me. I have also located a source for LE contract overrun .40 caliber ammo which is top quality and is running me less per case than most 9mm.

4. I had sworn off the .40 until recently, saying that I just didn't "need one", owning many 9mm and .45 acp guns. But then I was offered a brand new M&P Compact with 3 magazines and night sights at a price that I could just not turn down, getting me back into the caliber. I'm having a great deal of fun with it, carry it regularly, have an additional barrel (because I still like to play with .357 SIG) and like it so well that I bought a 9mm version of the same gun for my new students to shoot.

So my bottom line is, if you want a .40, buy one and take advantage of the cheaper pricing available these days. Having been the top caliber in American law enforcement for over 20 years, I think there is zero chance it will go away in our lifetimes.

 

[Faulkner]

Short answer: There's not a thing wrong with the 40 S&W. It works just fine.

Longer answer: Personally, I have no use for it. It's a fine semi-auto service round. I just happen to think that the pros don't outweigh the cons on this one. It's a snappy round, more so than either 9mm or 45 Auto. But all that extra snap doesn't translate to appreciably any more damage to the target.

All the service rounds, for all intents and purposes, perform about the same.

I don't find the .40 a snappy round, but rather, I find the 9mm wimpy. It's all in how you compare it.

 

[HalfStack]

As with any gun you can get used to the recoil where you don't notice anymore. So far I've shot 4 boxes (of 50) of Sig Elite 10mm 180 fmj and I don't notice the recoil anymore. At the beginning my hand was smarting.

I'm ready for the 50AE.

Anyway, I like the 40 and I sold my 9mm to get my 40 out of hock. Also some of the 40sw ammo are hot and does serious damages to the baddies.

Get some Hornady 165 FTX and tell me about it.

 

[okiegtrider]

Well said OldCop876.

 

[walkin' trails]

The 40 came along at a time when there was a lot of concern and debate about the effectiveness of accepted LE handgun calibers at the time. The FBI had had a tragedy occur on their watch and found issues with the 9mm Silvertip's performance. The crowd, including the FBI, touted the 147 grain 9mm hydra Shok, but that round's real world performance wasn't that impressive. On the other side of the 9mm world was the 115 grain +P+, but that round didn't perform as consistently or as impressively in gel as it did in the real world. Then, there was the 45ACP, which came in a big package, and if in 1911 form that would fit a larger spectrum of shooters, required more training, maintenance, and armorer support than rank-in-file LEOs were going to give it. So along came the FBI's 10mm program, which put the round in a pistol frame too large for a lot of things, and not just shooters with small hands. That all occurred in the late 80s, and the FBI didn't adopt the 4O until around 98. I was in the Border Patrol Academy in 1990 when the 40 was introduced. The Patrol sort of wanted to switch to a semi auto like everyone else, but couldn't decide on anything. They had apparently evaluated the 1076, as I got to see one for the first time there.

Fast foreword thru the years. The 9mm made incredible improvements in performance (as did the 40s and 45s), but did it without the sharp recoil or battering of components as the 40 still does (the 45s still come in packages that may not fit all shooters). I still carry an issue Glock 22, but it's not my favorite shooter. My BUG & off duty are 9s. There's nothing wrong with the 40, but like the 45, it's not for everyone.

 

[HalfStack]

One of the problems with the 40 is the 9mm frames they put 'em in, those get beat up. Get a pistol that's made for the 40 and you're good.