# Who dislikes the 40S&W?



## arnisandyz (Jul 19, 2006)

Well, maybe not dislike, but "prefer" something else?

They've been around for a while and its THE caliber for IPSC limited since you can easily make major and have the benifit of a couple more rounds compared to a 45. Ballistically speaking its a very effective round and has proven itself to be an effective caliber for law enforcement.

Personally, I never really liked it, and i've shot quite a few. To me, its not pleasant to shoot, it has more of a sharp spike type of recoil where a 45ACP is a firm push. Maybe one day I'll own one and warm up to it but I doubt it will replace my 45s and 9mms.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 19, 2006)

*raises hand*

Too much muzzle energy for the job. Had a  subcompact Glock 27 for a day and the sonofabitch ate my hand. Had a full size Glock22  for awhile which was somewhat easier, but it's not worth the extra effort it takes me to keep it on target as , say, 9 or 45. I will never voluntarily own/carry a .40 again.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 19, 2006)

I like the .40 but I do not really like any Smith and Wesson that I have ever used.  Now the Glock 22 is a great hand gun.  I own one myself and would recommend it to anyone.  :ultracool  Everyone has their preferances and for me I will continue to avoid the Smith and Wesson models.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 19, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> IEveryone has their preferances and for me I will continue to avoid the Smith and Wesson models.
> 
> Brian R. VanCise
> www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


 
On that, at least, we're in total agreement.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jul 19, 2006)

Tried the new S&W M&P...except for the crappy trigger, it wasn't too bad.  Thier M&P AR15 and 1911 aren't too shabby either, but I don't think I'd buy one.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 19, 2006)

I enjoy using the .40 for the reasons above: it's effective, you still get decent magazine capacity, and that you can still make Major for shooting competitions.  

I happen to possess three Glocks chambered for this cartridge, the Glock 22, 23, and 27, and they'll regularly make their way through my concealed carry rig.  

However, when all is said and done, I do prefer different cartridges for a simple reason.  When you take the premium hollowpoint loads from all the commonly used defensive calibers, there really isn't much of a difference in terms of how effective they are going to be, as manstoppers.  I can shoot my 9 mm Glocks a wee bit better than I can my .40 Glocks, and having that extra round or two gives me a wee bit more of the warm fuzzies.  

Yes, a 10 mm beats out a .40, which beats out a 9 mm, etc., but again, the differences are small enough, that it's really not much of an issue.  All of those millions of dollars in research and development that the cartridge companies spent to come up with the premium hollowpoint designs have resulted in equalizing the field.  

Depending on what day of the week it may be, or what I consider my passing fancy for the moment, I might carry my Glock 27 (subcompact .40), or I might carry my Glock 26 (subcompact 9 mm), or go with the corresponding midsized models during cooler weather (23, 19).  Sometimes I'll even use my Glock 30 (compact .45), or even the full sized Glocks during cold weather.  

Since I carry decent hollowpoint loads in each gun (165 grain Golden Sabers in the .40, 230 grain Golden Sabers in the .45, and Winchester  127 grain +P+ Ranger in the 9 mm), I feel equally confident in any of the above guns, in terms of ballistic abilities.  If I do my job of placing the shots, then the cartridges will do their job as well as a handgun cartridge can.  

The above ammunition choices are my personal preference, based on the fun times I had with ballistic testing.  I would feel equally confident loading up my 9 mm pistols with 147 grain subsonic Remington Golden Saber, 147 grain Winchester subsonic SXT, 115 grain +P+ Gold Dots, etc.  The same holds true for all the other calibers, although I do stick with 175 grain Winchester Silvertips for the 10 mm.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 19, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> On that, at least, we're in total agreement.


 
Heh.  

I really, really detested the first generation S&W Sigmas.  Their  411 wasn't too shabby, though.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 19, 2006)

It's a good round. It does a better job of splitting the difference between 9mm and .45 ACP than the 10mm did.  And it doesn't wear the pistol out so quick like the 10mm did.  

That being said, I own one, a Glock 22, but never carry it.  I'm just more comfortable to stick with my .45's or 9mm's.  

IMHO, I think more effort should be spend on inovating delivery systems than on new calibers.  But that's reall neither here nor there.

JeffJ


----------



## RBaddorf (Jul 19, 2006)

.40 isn't bad.  Having said that though, I traded my Glock 22C to a friend to cover part of the payment for teaching a seminar.  Wouldn't let him have my Kimber .45 or my wife's Glock 36 (mini in .45).  I guess that means I still prefer the .45.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jul 19, 2006)

Didn't mean to imply that 40 isn't a good round or to start another caliber war. Just that it isn't for me. I think a Porche Boxter S is an awsome car, but its not for me. It could be I'm just not used to the 40. 9mm and 45ACP feel "comfortable" to me like an old pair of socks.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 20, 2006)

I don't have a problem with the .40 S&W round...that being said, I've yet to find a pistol *chambered for that round that I like*. To be truthful, the only two .40's I've shot are a Glock 22 that belongs to a friend, and the Glock 23 that I'm issued for duty use. Even though I've put about 1,000 rounds through it, I still don't like the 23 as much as I like my Glock 19. With the 19 I get faster follow-up shots and tighter groups. The main reason I don't like the 23 is that it has a "weird" recoil. To me it feels like the gun is recoiling up at an angle rather than straight up, I don't get that feel with the G19, or even with the larger G22.

Maybe one day I'll run across a .40 cal. pistol that I like. Until then, for personal use, I'll stick with my 9 or my .45


----------



## arnisandyz (Jul 20, 2006)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> The main reason I don't like the 23 is that it has a "weird" recoil. To me it feels like the gun is recoiling up at an angle rather than straight up, I don't get that feel with the G19, or even with the larger G22.



I don't think that can be blamed on the caliber. Same thing happened to me when I switched from 9mm to full power 45ACP loads. Seems that the 9mms light recoil allowed me to get away with slight errors in my grip. The harder recoil of the 45 amplified my problem and didn't let me get away with it. Shooting in ISO, I had to adjust the pressure in my off hand and lighten the grip in shooting hand to get the gun to track straight up and down. Weaver is even harder because you have a push/pull pressure thats harder to adjust.  If your gun isn't tracking straight up and strait down you need to adjust your grip and/or stance until it does regardless of caliber. I'm thinking the 40 amplifies problems even more than the 45 because of the sharp muzzle flip.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 20, 2006)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> I don't think that can be blamed on the caliber. Same thing happened to me when I switched from 9mm to full power 45ACP loads. Seems that the 9mms light recoil allowed me to get away with slight errors in my grip. The harder recoil of the 45 amplified my problem and didn't let me get away with it. Shooting in ISO, I had to adjust the pressure in my off hand and lighten the grip in shooting hand to get the gun to track straight up and down. Weaver is even harder because you have a push/pull pressure thats harder to adjust. If your gun isn't tracking straight up and strait down you need to adjust your grip and/or stance until it does regardless of caliber. I'm thinking the 40 amplifies problems even more than the 45 because of the sharp muzzle flip.


That may very well be...I'm still working on it.


----------



## pstarr (Jul 20, 2006)

I figure if you're going to move up to something like a .40, why not go on up to a .45?  I love my .45.....

Anyway, the S&W .40 and .45 are a pain to break down and reasemble!


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 20, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I figure if you're going to move up to something like a .40, why not go on up to a .45? I love my .45.....


 

Basically, the recoil difference between the two cartridges is actually minimal.  The .45 ACP loads are almost always subsonic, and low pressure, while the .40 loads are sometimes supersonic, and high pressure.  

The .45 feels more like a heavier blunt shove, versus a sharper kick (but shorter) of a .40.  That alone might be enough of a reason, since some people are more susceptible to one type of recoil over another.  No joking.  

Where the advantages of the .40 come into play, are in the magazine capacity.  Simply put, all things being equal, you can cram more .40 rounds into an equivalently sized magazine, than you can with .45 rounds.  Or, you can find guns that have slimmer profiles, while keeping the same magazine capacity as their .45 ACP counterparts.  

My Glock 27 and my Glock 30 have about the same capacity (9 for the .40, 10 for the .45), but the Glock 27 is significantly easier to conceal.  It's not quite as bulky as its fatter (but more comfortable) cousin, the Glock 30.  That's why I might choose to go with the .40, or 9 mm, instead of the .45 ACP at certain times.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 21, 2006)

Now that I've had my morning coffee, I can think a bit more clearly, and remember a (semi) important tidbit about this caliber. 

Sometimes, the .40 was considered inaccurate, compared to other calibers, for certain reasons.  One was that some of the guns that were chambered for this caliber used too slow of a twist (many used 1 in 16") for the barrel rifling.  That seems to have been rectified throughout the years, though.  

Some people might complain about the faster .40 cartridges.  With the speed of sound being a shade under 1100 fps, and many common .40 cartridges (especially the 165 grainers) being just above that at muzzle velocities, there were some people who swore that the bullet's velocity passing below the sound barrier limit would create the opposite effect of a sonic boom, resulting in the loss of accuracy.  

Personally, I strongly disagree with the above statement, since I've found that the most accurate loads in my Glocks have been of that type, the slightly supersonic 165 grainers.  Also, when I see folks doing beautifully at the IDPA matches with their Glock 35's and 165 grain Speer Lawman (slightly supersonic), then it's only natural that I put more faith in the shooter's skill above everything else.  

Now, maybe if we're comparing precision shooting at 50 yards away, trying to go for that last 1/8th of an inch of accuracy, the above argument might hold more water, but if it's at that range, rest assured, I'm grabbing my long guns.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jul 21, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Now that I've had my morning coffee, I can think a bit more clearly, and remember a (semi) important tidbit about this caliber.
> 
> Sometimes, the .40 was considered inaccurate, compared to other calibers, for certain reasons.  One was that some of the guns that were chambered for this caliber used too slow of a twist (many used 1 in 16") for the barrel rifling.  That seems to have been rectified throughout the years, though.
> 
> ...



One of my friends reloads for 40SW for IPSC and IDPA. His IDPA load is very mild, feels like a 9mm. His IPSC major load is snappier. In either case his accuracy doesn't seem to be effected. 

As Grenadier mentioned, the gap in basllistic performance is narrowed with modern hollowpoints. I feel comfortable carrying my 9mm as much as I do with my 45ACP. Here is my biased opinion based on my use, feel free to comment. I'm into the "games" so in addition to defensive uses this is also addressed.

9mm - light recoil, middle to high pressure, easy to reload, high capacity/and or small footprint, accurate, easy to shoot, effective defensive caliber with the right ammo, inexpensive... THE caliber for IDPA SSP and ESP division due to its light recoil and fast follow up shots

40SW - snappy recoil, high-pressure, more difficult to reload for, high capacity/and or small footprint, accurate, effective defensive caliber....THE caliber for IPSC competetion, versatile - can easily be loaded to Major OR minor, can fit on the average, 2 more rounds per magazine than 45ACP

45ACP - heavy smooth recoil, low pressure, easy to reload, accurate, effective defensive caliber.. THE (only) caliber for IDPA CDP. Is still used in IPSC although the 40 is taking over. BIG semi-wadcutter hole saves me points when hits are close to the scoring line.

In the end its a game of compromises.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 26, 2006)

I'd been shooting 40s for years.  I have several Baby Eagles and I love them.  The compact 40 is a great carry gun ... and accurate.  But last year I developed tendonitis in both my elbows and just a couple of clips worth of 40 cal would leave me aching.  A friend suggested trying a 45 and I thought ... bigger projectile, lower velocity ... sounds like a good idea.  Besides, my dad carried a 45 during WWII, I should have a 1911 around in his honor ... at least that's how I pitched it to the wife.    I picked up a Springfield Champion Mil Spec ... put 200 rounds through it and handed it to the gunsmith for night sights, beaver tail, hammer and trigger work.   After another 760 dollars worth of work it shoots about as good as my Baby's ... PLUS, my elbows don't hurt!  I liked the round so much I bought a Baby Eagle 45 too!  Haven't told the wife about that one yet ... LOL

I put some Cocobolo grip panels on it ... they're about half the thickness of standard panels ... now the Springfield is my main carry gun.


----------

