Why the decline of S&W 40?

[Dave Lively]

Perhaps I'm beting overly optimistic here, but I'm more apt to believe that the differences between the velocity printed on ammo boxes and what shows up in chronographs has more to do with the fact that due to the inconsistent nature of gunpowder, the subsequent effects on burn rate, and the fact that their chronograph tests are most likely conducted indoors where atmospheric conditions cannot affect readings as much than ammo manufacturers outright lying.

Temperature will have a small effect but a cartridge has no way of knowing whether it is being fired indoors or out. There will be some small variations shot to shot and batch to batch but when velocities are 20% less than listed which translates to 40% less energy than listed something else is going on.

One difference is being fired out of test barrel vs a real gun. When gun magazines first started chronographing ammo I would often read things like "I am sure the ammo reached its listed velocity in the manufacturer's pressure test barrel but in my gun . . .". The problem with this is we use the ammo in real guns. Some companies will pick the best numbers on the basis they represent what their product can do, not what it typically does.

I once read how one bullet manufacturer measured the ballistic coefficient of their bullets by calculating it from the measured velocity drop over a know distance. They repeated this several times using the best quality barrels they could obtain and picked the best number they got to list as the BC. I think I read this in a Sierra reloading manual but am not sure. Their logic was that in most guns the bullet starts out a little crooked and that significantly decreases the BC until the bullet "goes to sleep", fully stabilizes and starts flying straight. Which happens sooner in match grade barrels. They are making bullets, not barrels and are trying to measure what the bullets are capable of. So in that case picking best number makes sense. And they were completely open about what they were doing, they put it in the manual. But if you plug that number into a ballistic calculator to estimate wind drift and drop the results are probably not going to be as accurate as they could be.

Ammo makers might have done the same thing in the past. A pressure test barrel could give very different results than a real gun. I have read reports that even things like stronger recoil springs can affect velocity quite a bit. So the ammo makers may not have been lying so much as cherry picking the data.

But 10mm fans need to stop using the numbers Norma published as the standard for "full power" if that ammo could not achieve those results in a real gun. If Norma is the standard and the 200 grain load out of Glock 20 clocks in at 1000 fps then the standard for full-power 200 grain 10mm loads should be 1000 fps, not 1200. All other 10mm ammo is judged by how well it performs out of real guns, the old Norma ammo should be too.

 

[Dave Lively]

Could be, but also could because of the increase of frivolous law suits and paranoia from the manufactures.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Canister powder used by reloaders has always been very consistent and max loads have gone down over the decades.

The 10mm cartridge is what prompted me to start reloading in the 80s. At the time AA7 was considered "the" powder for 10mm loads and Hornady listed a maximum of 13.9 grains for their 155 grain XTP bullet. I could not get there in either of the 10mm guns I had a the time. My Springfield Omega started showing pressure signs at a little over 12 grains. My 610 could go a bit higher but the primers started to really flatten out if I went over 12.6 or so. The last reloading book I saw listed 12.7 grains as the max which agrees with what I saw.

There probably are guns that could be loaded with the old max load and work fine. But mine couldn't. I think what happened if you go back 30+ years the reloading companies assumed you were really going to start low and work up to the best load for YOUR gun, like they emphasized in all their manuals. Not just load a bunch of ammo with the max charge and sue them if that blew up your particular gun. Now the max charge is more likely to be the lowest common denominator which is a shame.

 

[rosewood]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Canister powder used by reloaders has always been very consistent and max loads have gone down over the decades.

The 10mm cartridge is what prompted me to start reloading in the 80s. At the time AA7 was considered "the" powder for 10mm loads and Hornady listed a maximum of 13.9 grains for their 155 grain XTP bullet. I could not get there in either of the 10mm guns I had a the time. My Springfield Omega started showing pressure signs at a little over 12 grains. My 610 could go a bit higher but the primers started to really flatten out if I went over 12.6 or so. The last reloading book I saw listed 12.7 grains as the max which agrees with what I saw.

There probably are guns that could be loaded with the old max load and work fine. But mine couldn't. I think what happened if you go back 30+ years the reloading companies assumed you were really going to start low and work up to the best load for YOUR gun, like they emphasized in all their manuals. Not just load a bunch of ammo with the max charge and sue them if that blew up your particular gun. Now the max charge is more likely to be the lowest common denominator which is a shame.

All of these were in a 5" 1911 full supported bbl.

Longshot gets me the highest velocities with the 200grain WFNGC at around 1225.

Bluedot gets me about 1315 with a 180 grain.

Using the new Alliant BE86, I get 1410 with a 155 grain bullet. I haven't tried BE86 with other weight bullets, it was just their published data showed over 1400 and I didn't believe it, so had to try it out.

I have noticed some of the modern published data is fairly close, more so than some older manuals. In the .357 Sig, using the near max load and 124 XTP, was getting right at 1430 with longshot which is right at what Hodgdon's webpage said.

Back to the 40, using max load of longshot and a 180 XTP, get 1170 FPS in a 5" M&P. This was quite surprising to me also, no pressure signs either.

I have also observed that barrel length makes big differences in velocities in these high end loads. Have seen 100 FPS difference in 1" of barrel length.

And before I get browbeat, I do start with a lower charge and work my way up to max and check for pressure signs along the way. Sudden changes in velocity also helps to reveal dangerous conditions.

Rosewood

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

As an aside, the S&W CHP 4006 TSW is currently available for about $399 around the country (in free states) , It may be the last mass LEO trade in of metal S&W firearms.

 

[Richochet]

9mm more controllable

The fact is that for many folks the .40 is not a pleasant caliber to shoot, especially .40 cal loads with bullets less than 180 grains. The end results of shootings with 9mm, .40cal and .45 cal are equivalent.

I had a Smith .40 cal semi auto Performance center 4006 in the 1990's. I didn't like the snap recoil. I find the 9mm a somewhat more controllable round to shoot with confidence. That's my subjective experience. For what it's worth.

 

[Chino74]

My primary .40 is a Glock 27 which is the subcompact. I have never shot anything but 180 grain bullets. I prefer heaver projectiles in .40 caliber. It recoils more than my 92F 9mm or my 1911 Gov. models in .45 however, it's not unpleasant & I can shoot easily a couple hundred rounds.

So I don't mind the recoil. With magazines using the Pierce finger extension dble taps are just a tad slower than 9 or .45 but nothing significant imo. My Glock is a Polymer frame subcompact. So ya, it's gonna recoil more but to me at least it's not excessive, it's reassuring.

 

[Rubone]

I was gifted an XD40 Springfield Armory service model a few years back by a friend who didn't like the idea that it had "too many springs and parts" to mess with (he is a revolver guy). I already had a SA XD45 so I was familiar with the platform. I used it on a course I took and fired over 500 round in the two day class. At the end I had to ask myself what all the hype about recoil was as it is a *****cat. I'm not a big guy but I have worked with my hands all my life so the recoil nonsense was a bit of a joke. Enough so that I recently bought a Shield 40 2.0 for a pocket gun. Plenty of good defensive ammo out there and no issues with either. I have plenty of 9s but seem to go the .40 more often than not.

 

[Santafe66]

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.

Well, someone finally got to the caliber I appreciate. The 357Sig has all the boxes checked for me except price. But I'll spend my money on it because I shoot it well and the performance is what I need for SD. My M&P is very accurate and I can swap a barrel and buy a mag and shoot 9mm. Best of both worlds to me.