Why the decline of S&W 40?

[Mike SC Hunter]

While I agree with "GB", and generally I am not a big conspiracy theorist, consider the following. When did the PUSH for LE to change over-back to new 9mm guns and ammo occur? Look at the timing. After the 2016 Presidential election the slump in firearms sales began and the market became saturated with firearms at bargain prices. How could the firearms manufactures and ammo manufacturers create a new market? Convince the heads of LE that their current firearms and ammo were "not effective enough and too expensive". Convince the powers that be, they need to "upgrade" to new more effective ammo and by the way you can't use the new "more effective & cheaper" ammo in your current firearms. Wallah new sales in-coming. Never under estimate a well thought out sales program.

You nailed it . Then "Joe Shooter" had to switch because LE did. All now want a 9mm that holds a box of ammo. The 40 & 45 are better. Plus anything you can do to improve the nine you can do to the 40/45 to make even better...Lots of followers out there.........Not many leaders.

 

[K Frame Keith]

I was in the FBI when we switched from 9mm to .40, and I was still in the FBI when we switched from .40 to 9mm.

You are all missing one little thing: On a sunny day in September of 2001 (almost exactly the ten year mark in my career) 19 scumbags with boxcutters changed the world.

After that our ammo budget stayed exactly the same while the Bu spent gazillions of dollars on computers and analysts to squint at them. By exactly the same, I don't mean the same percentage of the budget. The same dollar amount. Ammo costs continued to rise, though.

Gone were the days when I could grab a Thompson ( yes, we still have some), a few cases of .45 ball, and go forth and make friends in PDs and SOs in my territory.

Soon, the days of grabbing ammo for shooting on your own were gone.

Then the days of shooting up your carry ammo at every qual were gone. Download your good stuff and save it.

Finally they were handing out just enough to qualify. No more marksmanship drills.

One day some bright boy realized in the great scheme of things guns were cheap compared to ammo costs. They budgeted 1000 rounds per agent per year. 12000 agents means 12 million rounds a year, not counting SWAT, HRT, the National Academy and New Agent training. (New agents burn about 10-12,000 rounds each in training). Guns are chump change, especially when Glock wants the contract really, really bad.

They hung their hat on the bullet technology thing, but it was absolutely a monetary decision. Nothing to do with smaller agents, recoil, the phases of the moon, or anything else.

The Bureau does not issue ammo to other agencies. Everyone is free to continue to shoot .40s, .45s, .32/20s, or Red Ryder BB guns.

Thank you and understood.

 

[Echo40]

Here is my take. Even if you buy the hipe that the 9mm is better than it was in 1986 when the Miami Shootout happened (I do), the .45 ACP and the .40 S&W did not get worse. The .40 was discovered, in high volume use, to be REALLY hard on guns (lots of broken locking blocks, and other major issues with nearly every brand, but this problem was not noticed as much by ordinary folks who just don't shoot that much), and it is really hard on shooters too. Yes, I know all the "real men" would never admit it, but there are others using these guns also.

While .40 S&W is most certainly hard on firearms which were originally designed for 9mm then modified to chamber .40 S&W, most firearms which were designed with the .40 S&W in mind, (namely those made by S&W themselves or SIGsauer) hold up just fine to a steady diet of .40 S&W.

Unfortunately, most PDs went with Glock 22/23s because Glock was often times the lowest bidder, and the Glock 22/23 is just a modified Glock 17/19. So the .40 S&W got a bad rap for battering guns because it battered a firearm which Glock rushed to market in order to beat S&W, and if the rumors are true, was designed around a single box of ammo that a Glock employee swiped off of Winchester's table at SHOT Show 1990 when nobody was looking then left some money in its place.
Meanwhile, notice how the SIGsauers and S&W .40cal pistols used by the FBI strangely aren't known for breaking down.

 

[44wheelman]

Some guy shot ballistic jello with all the usual suspects, determined there wasn't a whole lot of difference between them and said hmmm....why not just use the one with the most bullets....or something like that.

 

[oink]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the little issue about the military going to the 9mm. Where a huge percentage of police recruits came to police work having been trained in the military at least a little on .45ACP, the police recruits for a generation now have been coming from a military experience of 9mm. Those guys are now in charge of training and etc.

Personally I like the .40 and I've never found it to have much recoil. My early Gen 2 G23 seems to have held up very well.

 

[swsig]

And then there are a few of us who have dropped the 40 S&W, not because it was a bad round, but because we found it easy to convert our M&P and SIG 40s to 357 SIG. In my case, all I had to do is replace the barrel on my M&P 40c, and the barrel and sights on my P229. The 357 SIG is more fun to shoot, and you never know when its extra 100 ft/lbs of muzzle energy are going to come in handy.

 

[CCantu357]

The decline of the .40 as an LE round has made for some great deals. A couple of years ago, I was looking for a HK USP. Cabela's had two USPs, one in .40 and one in .45. The .40 was about under $500 and the .45 was selling for over $800. Granted, the .40 came with Clinton mags, but it was still a great deal.

I think it is important to remeber the that .40 is in decline not because it is a bad round, but because the 9mm has improved and is still cheaper to shoot. While I prefer 10mm or .45, I still like the ballistics of the 180 grain .40 round. From what I understand the .40 is one of the best performing police rounds since the .357 Magnum 125 grain hollow point.

 

[rwsmith]

I think that a lot of .40 S&W guns.....

.... were built using 9mm frames. That's why they got battered so much.

 

[Pointblank2U]

Just like in real estate and cars, the industry makes money on "churn". We constantly see the newest whiz-bang pistol released with "just one more round" in the magazine and a seesawing between calibers. Caveat Emptor.

 

[glider1]

I have a 9 for a range gun. Cheap to shoot whether you reload or not, accurate, mild recoil, just a nice range gun. I wouldn't feel under gunned with my 9 but I would prefer my 40 or 45ACP if the SHTF. Actually, if the SHTF a 357 with 125 JHP would be my first choice. That may change after I get a 357SIG barrel for my P229.

 

[IAhunter]

The .40 S&W remains a very proven and effective cartridge for police work with a strong real life police shooting track record.

 

[reccpd101]

Reality

While I agree with "GB", and generally I am not a big conspiracy theorist, consider the following. When did the PUSH for LE to change over-back to new 9mm guns and ammo occur? Look at the timing. After the 2016 Presidential election the slump in firearms sales began and the market became saturated with firearms at bargain prices. How could the firearms manufactures and ammo manufacturers create a new market? Convince the heads of LE that their current firearms and ammo were "not effective enough and too expensive". Convince the powers that be, they need to "upgrade" to new more effective ammo and by the way you can't use the new "more effective & cheaper" ammo in your current firearms. Wallah new sales in-coming. Never under estimate a well thought out sales program.

Reading the results of the 1986 Miami FBI shootout with the 9mm ammo of the day was all the sales pitch I needed as a LEO and agency head. Yikes !!! The smaller officer issue is one of hand size and training. No amount of training will make a good shooter out of a person with small hands trying to shot something the shape of a box of Wheaties. An agency head who buys a large gripped weapon and requires all officers to carry it regardless of their god given hand size is living in a dream world and asking for a tragedy without regard to the caliber contained in the large grip. YES, the change back was good for the firearms industry. If agency heads bought that BS they were too much administrator and not enough LEO.

 

[Echo40]

And then there are a few of us who have dropped the 40 S&W, not because it was a bad round, but because we found it easy to convert our M&P and SIG 40s to 357 SIG. In my case, all I had to do is replace the barrel on my M&P 40c, and the barrel and sights on my P229. The 357 SIG is more fun to shoot, and you never know when its extra 100 ft/lbs of muzzle energy are going to come in handy.

I was actually looking into converting my SW40VE into .357 SIG, (albeit more to have access to another cartridge than anything else) but unfortunately nobody makes .357 SIG conversion barrels for the Sigma Series (although at one point in time there was a limited run of SW357V models) and contrary to what folks on the internet say, a Glock barrel will not in fact function in a Sigma, nor will an M&P barrel.

Just as well, I heard that S&W stopped chambering the M&P Series in .357 SIG because they kept getting them sent in for service by the Texas Rangers, and has subsequently gone on to advise against converting the M&P to .357 SIG using aftermarket conversion barrels. Which is a shame because apparently those who own them swear by them, so I guess they either don't hold up well to extensive use or otherwise some of the more *ahem* "equal opportunity employees" within the Texas Rangers were limp-wristing them.

My brother is currently looking into buying a Glock 32 (.357 SIG) because he wants something with a bit more oomph than 9mm.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
Another thing, FBI sets the "specs" for good ammo.
9mm got there.
BUT, makers want to say their stuff is FBI spec.
Now we have loads to spec, but not many to full pressure/power.
No wonder every thing seems to test and work the same...
PS just converted my 40 shield to 357sig Wa Hoo....

 

[sheepdawg]

I've shot the touted, new fangled, just as good as the 40 and 45, 9mm rounds into milk jugs full of water and wet, found in the attic phone books. They aren't. The difference in just the 40 and the 9 in a jug full of water is impressive.

 

[REM 3200]

Furthermore, it's very likely that the very same scapegoating and knee-jerk reactions which resulted in the creation/adoption of the .40 S&W cartridge will be repeated in the event in which history repeats itself and an FBI-involved shooting goes awry. The only question is, will they go back to .40 S&W or drastically alter the parameters of their testing yet again, resulting in the creation and or adoption of a new cartridge?

Probably the 8mm Super Wolverine Womper Stomper +P+++

 

[rags]

I put that rumor out there so 40 would more available and cheaper for me.

 

[growr]

So, what happened to the billions of rounds of .40S&W ordered by Government agencies? I want some!!!

Randy

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Yeah, remember during the 80s the first thing we did when we got our new Smiths home was to throw the wood combats, targets and magnas in a box or drawer and throw on a set of pachmayrs.

I still do, only i sell the targets and try to keep track of the Magnas.

 

[rwsmith]

After the big shootouts.....

...if you can't hit the target reliably with a handgun, it doesn't matter what caliber you are using. Might as well use a 9mm in places that pistols work and switch to a carbine or rifle if the handgun isn't up to the job.

 

[lrrifleman]

I am entering the world of 40 S&W owners without expectations. I have a Sig P229R CPO on order in 40. I bought it because of it's ability to switch chamberings. Because of the "power" of the 357Sig, I wanted a metal frame, not a polymer frame. I see it (40S&W) as an intermediate cartridge between the 9 and 45.

 

[Echo40]

...if you can't hit the target reliably with a handgun, it doesn't matter what caliber you are using. Might as well use a 9mm in places that pistols work and switch to a carbine or rifle if the handgun isn't up to the job.

But what if you can?

I see it (40S&W) as an intermediate cartridge between the 9 and 45.

That's how most people view it, but it's really sort of an oversimplification considering that in terms of muzzle energy, .40 S&W actually typically matches .45 ACP Standard Pressure loads, and falls just short of .45 ACP +P loads.

.40 S&W is actually best described by its Metric German name, 10mm Kurz. (i.e. 10mm Short)

 

[sheepdawg]

So, what happened to the billions of rounds of .40S&W ordered by Government agencies? I want some!!!

Randy

A lot of the online ammo sellers had it, cheap too. I bought a bunch of it, Winchester Ranger JHP bonded.

 

[LCC]

LE having established there is minimal lethality difference between current 9mm and .40 when accurately placed, why not switch to the round with less recoil and additional capacity?

Especially when factoring what is now a far more diverse group in LE, many of them meeting only minimal fitness standards, and the only handgun they ever shoot is a duty weapon when requalifying.

A recently retired LEO friend and avid shooter said in his first decades on the force he routinely shot at the range with fellow officers when off duty, in his last decade far fewer officers used the range on their own time.

 

[lrrifleman]

Often we see the phrase "police qualification" thrown around, but I have to take that with a ton of salt. Having been a teacher for too long, I have to ask by which standard do they qualify!

Most of the LEOs that I know qualify on the Q target. As a school board President, and the need to rely on our local street cop that needs to attain either 70% or 80% to qualify on the Q target in the event of a school shooting mortifies me. When it comes to range qualification, I have a much higher degree of respect for an officer that qualifies on a B27-style or K-D silhouette as opposed to the Q target.

In my opinion, if an officer can't achieve a 100% score on the Q target, they need to reimburse whichever entity that paid for their training. Like each and every one of us, police officers own every round they fire. I shiver at the thought that a marginal body shot on a Q target allows a police officer to carry a sidearm.

I don't offer this as a condemnation of police officers, but strongly believe that a department shouldn't adopt a potentially less capable arm in order to enhance an officer's ability to qualify.

Here endeth my rant.

 

[Chino74]

As to the viability of the .40 S&W I have shot it for years primarily in Glocks. I like the round quite a bit. I also shoot 9 & .45 and I wouldn't have problems carrying any of them & don't plan on getting rid of my .40 platforms at all. I need more 9mm ammo though LOL, gotta wait till after the current situation is somewhat back to normal.

 

[UncleEd]

The 9 mm is the most universally used cartridge
in the world for military and police. This was true
going back to nearly WWII and even more so since.

Only in the U.S was the 9 mm a stranger. For autos,
the U.S. was wed to the .45 and a few other
auto calibers such as the .38 Super. But by
the 1980s, with the U.S. military adopting the
9 mm, its total world dominance was assured.

The .40 S&W was but an historical and marketing
blip.

In the world of revolvers, no doubt the .38 and to
some extent the .357 dominate that international
market.

 

[Old Corp]

I'm just over here waiting for the enormous resurgence of popularity of the .45 GAP guns and ammo.

 

[UncleEd]

I'm just over here waiting for the enormous resurgence of popularity of the .45 GAP guns and ammo.

Ah, a shooter of discerning and individualistic taste.
You are to be admired.

 

[Echo40]

Often we see the phrase "police qualification" thrown around, but I have to take that with a ton of salt. Having been a teacher for too long, I have to ask by which standard do they qualify!

Most of the LEOs that I know qualify on the Q target. As a school board President, and the need to rely on our local street cop that needs to attain either 70% or 80% to qualify on the Q target in the event of a school shooting mortifies me. When it comes to range qualification, I have a much higher degree of respect for an officer that qualifies on a B27-style or K-D silhouette as opposed to the Q target.

In my opinion, if an officer can't achieve a 100% score on the Q target, they need to reimburse whichever entity that paid for their training. Like each and every one of us, police officers own every round they fire. I shiver at the thought that a marginal body shot on a Q target allows a police officer to carry a sidearm.

I don't offer this as a condemnation of police officers, but strongly believe that a department shouldn't adopt a potentially less capable arm in order to enhance an officer's ability to qualify.

Here endeth my rant.

I agree. I've read a number of disturbing reports of police officers firing upwards of 30 rounds of ammunition at a target within 7 yards yet only scoring 3-5 hits, and these reports often specify that said officers were carrying 9mm pistols, mind you.

So yeah, apparently even after lowering the bar for officers to qualify by adopting a cartridge which is easier to shoot and saving money on ammo in the process which ought to enable them to train officers better by purchasing more ammunition, apparently certain officers still can't hit for beans.

Frankly, I don't buy that the switch to 9mm Luger had anything to do with optimizing the shooting performance of officers, it's merely an excuse to justify switching to lower cost ammunition, which in reality was most likely a decision made primarily through the consultation of accountants.
The FBI can claim all they want that the differences in ballistics performance between 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are marginal at best, but regardless of whether or not said statement is 100% accurate, I don't believe that they conducted thorough, costly experimentation in order to reach that conclusion because obviously .40 S&W was working just fine for them, so why would they have any reason to perform said testing for any other reason than to cut costs in the long-term?