.40 over 9mm

[best defense]

I still prefer .40. As a hunter and reloader, I use oddball cartridges and find most of the vanilla stuff boring. Also as a hunter, I don't hunt dangerous animals with something "adequate with propper shot placement". I like a little more margin of error and bigger bullets going just as fast as smaller bullets are never not better. Recoil is negligibly greater and capacity is a round or two less, yet double what a 1911 provides.

****************************************************************
Perhaps if you like hunting with a handgun and also like the 40 caliber, you might like the 10mm over the 40. It shoots the same bullet at significantly higher velocity and has a better reputation as a hunting caliber. Just a thought.
I bought a 40 S&W several years ago but after shooting a little over 250 rounds, I decided that the recoil impulse was not doing good things to my fore arm, so I sold that gun and bought a 10mm. I get a much longer somewhat softer recoil impulse from the 10mm. The down side to that is the 10mm weighs almost half again as much as the 40.

 

[dcfranzen]

I bought a 40 S&W several years ago but after shooting a little over 250 rounds, I decided that the recoil impulse was not doing good things to my fore arm, so I sold that gun and bought a 10mm. I get a much longer somewhat softer recoil impulse from the 10mm. The down side to that is the 10mm weighs almost half again as much as the 40.

Just curious, what .40 caliber handgun did you replace with which 10mm pistol? The 50% increase in weight explains the softer recoil impulse from the 10mm.

 

[Dan Adams]

Back in B.C. (Bill Clinton) times, ammo shortages abounded. I decided then to get at least two guns in each of the most popular calibers (which I take to mean 9mm, .40, .45, .380 and .22LR Auto for pistols, and .308, 22LR and 22WMR for rifles). I started with the .40 only because my son's XD was in that caliber, and we could share ammo at the range.

 

[DHart]

.40 for me because it offers the blend of high potency with high capacity, adding only slightly more recoil than 9mm +P.

.40S&W packs more of a punch than 9mm with heavier bullets of slightly larger diameter, penetrates bone with less deflection than lighter weight 9mm bullets, has nearly the capacity of 9mm, and hardly much more recoil than 9mm +P has.

As compared to .45, .40 gives much higher capacity, less recoil, and has nearly as good terminal performance.

As for "snappy".... .40S&W pistols that were designed from the ground up for this caliber (like the M&P .40, P320 .40, VP40) are not the least bit "snappy". The reputation for .40 being a "snappy" caliber came from people who have only shot .40 caliber with Glocks, which were designed for 9mm but adapted to shoot .40. Yes, .40S&W feels very SNAPPY when fired from a GLOCK. No so with some other platforms, which feel quite comfortable firing .40S&W.

I'm OK choosing .45, .40, or 9mm. But .40S&W offers a very appealing blend of attributes from both .45 and from 9. High capacity and excellent bone-busting capability make .40S&W the sweet spot for me.

And, if you reload .40S&W, you can have that high capacity with "woods load" rounds which are equal to lower-end 10mm performance.
180 gr. XTP with 7.7 gr Longshot has pressure of 30,870 vs. SAAMI max of 35,000 and gives 1127 fps / 203 PF

 

[Pandaz3]

I was a 9 MM guy and wanted to try a Walther without really knowing much about Walther's. I spied an ad for a PPX in 9 MM and the 40 was the same cheap price, I bought both. The wife and I shot both a good bit, and clearly to us the 40 was way more accurate. I continued to use that PPX 40 for a course and it performed pretty well. I was not a fan of the PPX trigger, not bad, just not great. A few year went by and I bought a new XD40 SC Mod 2, after I already had a SC 45. I was just more accurate with the 40, at 40-60 yards it seemed to shoot straight and the 45 seemed to lob the rounds in, I liked the 40 better.

Since, I got two more SA XD40 Mod 2's, 1 HK USP40, 1 SA XDS40, 2 S&W M&P40C, 1 S&W M&P Shield 40, 1 Taurus PT-140, and last night ordered a SA XDS 40 Mod2.

I am a 40 convert.

 

[Shawn424]

I have recoil anticipation and push low and left

Dry fire, and dry fire some more. Train your brain out of that habit.

 

[WaGuy52]

I look at it as a "tool for the job". My edc is a 9mm. Easy to carry, cheap plentiful ammo, fun to plink with. A bonus of 9vs 40 is more rounds in the clip. When hunting, I carry a .357 for bubblegumtyKitty / grumbly bear deterrence.

I know the 9mm is probably thy most popular caliber out there and the advancements in the ammo is fabulous. But just curious how many still prefer the S&W .40 over the 9mm and why. Thank you in advance.

 

[No_Regerts]

****************************************************************
Perhaps if you like hunting with a handgun and also like the 40 caliber, you might like the 10mm over the 40. It shoots the same bullet at significantly higher velocity and has a better reputation as a hunting caliber. Just a thought.
I bought a 40 S&W several years ago but after shooting a little over 250 rounds, I decided that the recoil impulse was not doing good things to my fore arm, so I sold that gun and bought a 10mm. I get a much longer somewhat softer recoil impulse from the 10mm. The down side to that is the 10mm weighs almost half again as much as the 40.

To clarify, I hunt with a rifle, but choose more oddball calibers. Didn't mean it to sound like I hunt with a pistol. But, I'm contrary by nature and if people hunt with 270s, I shoot a 280 or 7x57 with .007 difference in bullet diameter because its WAY better!

 

[3putts]

I had mentioned this in a previous thread. I have a Glock 19 (9mm) and a CZ 75 P-06 that is a .40. There is little difference in recoil between the two, primarily because the CZ is all metal.....love it. Much easier to carry the Glock tho......

 

[The Heretic]

I have a 226 in .40, a 229 in .40 and a 224 in .40

The 229 is about the same weight and grip size as the 226, but with a shorter slide and barrel - the slide and barrel being about the same weight as the 226 actually - to handle the .40 recoil impulse, but in a shorter travel distance. The two are about the same for recoil too - but I have yet to fire them back to back.

Now the 224, being a compact with an inch shorter barrel and an inch shorter grip, and lighter, the recoil is noticeably sharper - the ergos not being as amenable to holding onto the pistol as its larger siblings. I want to get the 12 rd mags with the pinky extension and try again. With the shorter recoil spring and slide travel, it has less distance to handle the recoil too. I've noticed this about a lot of compact and sub-compact pistols.

 

[DB is Here]

Much easier to carry the Glock tho

Curious why you say that.

 

[Pandaz3]

Curious why you say that.

The weight is why

On small gun recoil with a 40, I thought it was sharper than my 9, but less than the 45 in the XDS 3.3 platforms, It is sharper, but not much with Taurus G2C's in 9 and 40.

 

[The Heretic]

weight and ergos and sometimes other design factors have a lot to do with felt recoil

 

[DB is Here]

The weight is why

On small gun recoil with a 40, I thought it was sharper than my 9, but less than the 45 in the XDS 3.3 platforms, It is sharper, but not much with Taurus G2C's in 9 and 40.

I get the heavier gun would produce less recoil, but he said it was easier to carry and I was curious why.

 

[Pandaz3]

True, the Taurus is light, but it has good ergos. I have read a review or two that offers that the Mod 2 XDS in 9 MM was softer shooting than its predecessor. I'll find out if that holds true with the 40 versions now that I have ordered a Mod 2.

 

[Pandaz3]

I get the heavier gun would produce less recoil, but he said it was easier to carry and I was curious why.

The CZ is heavier to carry all day.

 

[DB is Here]

It is heavier to carry all day.

That's what I'd think also.

 

[The Heretic]

I am going to have to get some .357 SIG ammo and try it in my SIGs to compare to the .40 recoil.

 

[BATTERY]

Ok, I wasn't kidding when I said this feels like 2009. This debate has been done and a winner awarded.

It's not even between .40 and 9 to argue. .40 is dead.

It's 45 ACP AND 9MM

Ken Hackathorn and Bill Wilson have even switched to 9MM. They don't even mention .40. "It died"

Pretty much any caliber 9MM and above works and the differences are minor. But which can you get on target better? Don't lie, I shoot steel challenge every month. (No im not that good) I already know the answer. So do you.

Ask experts. Not us FUDD experts.

 

[uberguy]

I don't buy into the 9 vs 40 carries more ammo argument. Own several of both, with 17 vs. 15.

Two rounds (12%) aren't a deal breaker to me, (or 12 vs 10 in a compact model). If I found myself in some high round count shootout, I'd be more disappointed in my situational awareness than fretting over a couple rounds difference. I generally carry a spare mag or two anyway. Experts will tell you to carry what you shoot best.