I own some .40 pistols along with some 9mm. I've grown accustomed to the recoil action on the .40, and it is now more technique -- improved grip along with stance -- that makes the .40 shot hardly noticeable from the 9. I love the action of the Shield in .40, but the only .40 I did not like was the CW40, primarily because of feeding problems with some big mouth .40 hollow points.

When I read some of the posts on folks being averse to the action of the .40, I wonder if they're a group of wimps who can't handle a little more action. Annnd the expression, guns are for comfort, not to be comfortable. haha. As spockrock says G23 is the truth, just ask Hickok .45.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with .40s&w... there just isn't much of anything to separate it from 9mm or .45
Handgun caliber arguments are 98% hype.

.40 is the minimum diameter to make major in USPSA limited, that's the only reason I shoot it.

 

 

I originally wanted to go .40 but price compared to 9 made up my mind.

 

I'm in the same boat as the OP. Bought into only needing 9 and/or 45. But with the current ammo scare I figure the more the merrier, so I should always have SOMETHING to shoot.

I haven't yet, but planning to get a hold of a g22/23 and a lone wolf conversion.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I originally wanted to go .40 but price compared to 9 made up my mind.

I started out with .40 but the price difference was the main reason I switched to 9mm.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4

 

The very first pistol I ever bought was a G23 because I asked the cops what they carried.
I still have that gun today, gets carried and shot alot, it's the one I would always reach for when things go bump in the night, the. 40S&W is and has always been a compromise cartridge, not good or bad, just what it is.
Cost is the biggest thing driving this switch from other calibers back to 9mm. Agencies or high volume shooters can simply get more bang for their buck.
Modern pistol ammunition performance is pretty much equal now. It's still a handgun with terminal ballistics that for statistical purposes are equal.

Not saying that I won't buy another .40S&W but I would probably buy a 9mm first for a pistol I had intended to shoot alot.

My safe has 9mm, 40S&W, 357 Sig, and 45 ACP pistols, Probably always will be.... If I found a 10mm, probably would be there too. Not ready to dump all of my other calibers for one yet.

Sent from this using that.....

 

This is my perception of the "Big Three" semis - 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

The .40 S&W is disliked by many because of the recoil. The 9mm, even in +p. is snappy but very manageable, while the .45ACP is more of a push than a snap. The .40 S&W has the recoil of the .45 ACP, but it's more snappy and is uncomfortable to many.

Now, the PERCEIVED recoil will be different in different guns and for different people. EVERY round is a trade-off in the various aspects - expansion, penetration, and recoil/follow-up capability.

Personally, I LOVE the .40 S&W for carry - HOWEVER, in the same platform, I can carry 14+1 9mm vs 10+1 .40 S&W. Although I don't have any problems controlling the .40 S&W, I AM just that little bit faster and more accurate on follow-ups with the 9mm.

Bottom line - carry what you shoot best.

 

I recently sold my last 40S&W pistol, a Beretta 96F centurion. Of all the 40's I owned it was the best for that cartridge. I played around with lots of loads with different powders and bullet weights and found a slow powder with heavy bullet to be the least snappy feeling. With all the loads I tried I also never really found one that struck me as terribly accurate like I did with other calibers. In the end I needed to cut down the number of calibers I was loading and 40S&W had become my least favorite. Certainly nothing wrong with it and if I was a cop and had to carry one it sure wouldn't bother me.

 

.40 is a wonderful cartridge in a metal-framed gun. It *is* snappy and loud (in factory loadings) without much going for it other than all the police agencies carry it - mostly to shoot thru intermediate barriers, as I understand it. The few people I know who have had to use it against a two-legged predator have found it to be effective. My sense is that 9mm will do just fine as well in a worst-case scenario, and you'll have 10% more ammo. If not, you'd better believe we would've dumped it from the military (as all of NATO would have) by now.

.40 got cleaned out of my stable (again) lately because 9mm is so much cheaper, and .45 is more pleasant to shoot. I have a Beretta 92FS I'd be happy to trade for a 96 or other metal-framed .40 though... and I HAVE considered a 10mm for "in the woods"...

For most of us, 9mm is the least expensive option to practice with, as well as shoot USPSA (production) and IDPA with. Both in USPSA (single stack) and IDPA (CDP) there is a divison for only .45. So at the end of the day, .40 has it's place in sports (USPSA limited, open) but due to cost probably will never be as popular as 9mm.

So... no hate, but I would agree that the luster has worn off the .40. It's just as bad as all the other pistol rounds, and 9mm is cheaper.

 

I like my Witness .40 and, being a cz 75 clone, it's very accurate. If you want to shoot cheaper, then buy a .22. I got a conversion kit for my .40 and target practice with the .22 when I want to go cheaper. I can also get a 9mm barrel and slide for the Witness and have a 3 in 1 weapon. Now that's the best of both worlds.

 

I've got well over 5k rounds with my G22 and it is one of the most accurate guns I have shot. Now if I had to choose a target round over a purely defensive round I'd go with the 9mm all day.

 

I originally wanted to go .40 but price compared to 9 made up my mind.

Same here, and I have zero regrets, especially consider the marginal performance differences between 9, 40, and 45. You'll shoot best with that which you practice most, and costs can be a big hurdle to practicing often.

 

40 is like the 380, but in the other direction. About the same size as the nine, more expensive, and ballistically doesn't really bring enough to the table to warrant the extra cost for most people.

 

I learned to shoot a glock 19 at 9yo, I quickly transitioned to a .40 in my older Teen years and have never looked back. performance wise I don't think that 40s that much different than a 9... Penetration in Ballastics Gel is about the same, Ft/lb of force is similar when comparing +Ps and standard 40s, the major difference comes from the expands size of the 40 post impact and the permanant wound cavity.

My primary reason for sticking with the .40 is reloading capability... I have 10k+ empty brass a well worked up load and enough powder and bullets to load half of them... So expensive ammo is no big deal..

It is all personal opinion and comfortability.... I like the idea of having the size of a bigger bullet, similar to a 45, with mag capacity closer to a 9.

 

My Glock 27 is my primary carry. I'm only losing 1 round of capacity compared to the Glock 26. No complaints here.

 

lots of good replies here, at least no one seems to be completely bashing someone else for choosing a specific caliber. my 2 carry guns are my pm9 and g23, and i really like to practice w/ at least a mag of carry ammo once a month. one thing i meant to mention about that was that it seems much easier to procure .40 defense ammo at the moment, and with the gov't ordering over a billion rds of hst recently that probably won't change. of course 9mm ammo is coming back slowly but surely as well, but it's still not avail like the premium .40 rounds.

 

You've got a point about .40 self defense/hollow point ammo. But I think everything is slowly starting to come back at this point. We're all too dang broke to be buying fancy ammo. LOL

 

It does not matter if I hit you with a 9mm, .40, or .45 HST, if I miss a vital structure, you aren't dropping. If I connect with one, you... well, you still might not. If you don't, then that tells me that I have to move my POA to another spot. I can get that done quicker with 9mm, and even .45, than .40. Would it make a difference in the real world? I don't know, I hope to never find out. But all things being equal, there IS a difference (for me, anyway).

My take on it is that handgun technology is at its peak, when you consider recoil and ballistic performance. I mean hell, 147gr 9mm, 230gr .45, and 180gr .40 have essentially the same sectional density and are bound to the same basic concepts. You can comfortably launch a heavy bullet at a slow velocity, a lighter bullet at a faster velocity, or something in between at an in-between velocity. .40 is not "the best of both worlds", as many people describe it... It's simply another way to do the same thing. My own reasons for not owning .40 S&W are mainly due to recoil. I perform better with 9mm and .45. I feel like I have to wait for the slide of the .40 to come back down. I don't feel that with the other two. At the end of the day, handguns poke holes, and the only thing that matters to me is where that hole is, and how long it took to get there.

I'll choose what I perform best with. Maybe for you that's .40. But for me, it ain't.

 

I like my 40's...but some like James Yeager does not.....oh well.

 

Ive always wondered why so many ppl consider 9mm to have such a higher recoil than a .40...

If you look at the cartridge pressure specs for a standard 9mm (34,100psi or 235Mpa) it's not really much lower than a standard .40 (35,000psi or 240MPa.) I understand that pressure isn't the only factor in recoil but considering the weight and size of the average CCW 9mm is considerably smaller than the average size and weight of a CCW .40 I don't quite get the "it's SUCH a difference in recoil" commets.

And I'm not even commenting on the 9mm+P rounds which push the pressures to close to 38,000PSI... I don't know the statistics on which are more likely to be carried (9mm vs 9mm+P) by CCWers but I'd expect it to be fairly high on the +P side...

 

I like my 40's...but some like James Yeager does not.....oh well.

only way to reply to this..."what a douche"...

 

The Forty is for those folks that can't make up their minds but somehow feel compromise is the best solution to the caliber delima.

 

40 sucks thats all. Just my opinion.