JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
My experience with those rounds in a S&W Shield were the opposite of that, I found the 45 Shield much less 'snappy' and easier to shoot, but the pistols were not identical, the 45 was in a standard Shield and the 40 is my 4" ported optics ready version. Not real sure why that was, it might have been that the orts helped hold the slide down so the recoil was more straight back into my hand or it could be that the ports increased muzzle blast and I was reacting to that And yes, I was wearing ear pro
Small guns, like the Shield and my P365 or my P224, generally have a snappy recoil, sometimes objectionably so. My 365 is not fun to shoot - it really needs a comp. The 224, which is a .40 but about twice the weight of the 365 is just "snappy".

The worst recoiling gun I ever shot was a .380 - a Grendel P10.

Small guns have a lot of variables that affect recoil; they have short slides and springs so slide velocity is faster and the spring/etc. has less time to respond, they generally have short grips, and often have lightweight. IME, weight is the most significant variable.
 
Small guns, like the Shield and my P365 or my P224, generally have a snappy recoil, sometimes objectionably so. My 365 is not fun to shoot - it really needs a comp. The 224, which is a .40 but about twice the weight of the 365 is just "snappy".

The worst recoiling gun I ever shot was a .380 - a Grendel P10.

Small guns have a lot of variables that affect recoil; they have short slides and springs so slide velocity is faster and the spring/etc. has less time to respond, they generally have short grips, and often have lightweight. IME, weight is the most significant variable.
For me, the short grips are the big cause of greater muzzle flip, due to the fact I can only get two fingers on many of the small guns. That's why I don't carry a small gun. I also don't carry a 10 rnd mag gun.
 
Personally, I do not see enough added benefit of a slightly larger bullet to justify the extra cost of the ammo and the added recoil. And especially as 9mm bullet technology has improved so much in the last couple of decades.

I think these are the reasons...along with reduced mag capacity in free states...that we are seeing such a sharp decline in popularity of the .40 cal round...in the carry world. I realize it is still popular in various shooting sports. The juice is simply not worth the squeeze. YMMV.
 
Personally, I do not see enough added benefit of a slightly larger bullet to justify the extra cost of the ammo and the added recoil. And especially as 9mm bullet technology has improved so much in the last couple of decades.

I think these are the reasons...along with reduced mag capacity in free states...that we are seeing such a sharp decline in popularity of the .40 cal round...in the carry world. I realize it is still popular in various shooting sports. The juice is simply not worth the squeeze. YMMV.
The .40 S&W 180gr has more mass, so theoretically at least, better penetration.
 
Interesting question.

Personally, it's going to be a P365 or 640/King Cobra .357 revolver, iffin and when magazine restrictions go into effect in Oregun. If I felt I needed more mass, than maybe a G30 or one of those 8 round .357 N frames.

Again, I avoid places like Portland like the plague and I carry to protect me and mine, so small concealable arms work for me. If I ever were to get into a protracted firefight, well than I just plain wasn't payin' attention…
 
Last Edited:
The .40 S&W 180gr has more mass, so theoretically at least, better penetration.
Nothing wrong with a heavy bullet, with the 40 really splitting the difference between 9mm and 45. While not used anymore, and rarely used for handguns in the first place, I'll bet the 40 rates higher if using the TKO method of energy.
Personally, I do not see enough added benefit of a slightly larger bullet to justify the extra cost of the ammo and the added recoil. And especially as 9mm bullet technology has improved so much in the last couple of decades.
Recoil is one thing I've heard as a complaint about the 40, but I never really noticed it. My little 380s have a bunch more "snap" than the Shield 40 I had. During one of the runs on ammo, the 40 was found in abundance when 9mm and 45 were hard to come by.
I like the 40, but if I were to buy a gun to replace the Shield, it probably would be in 9mm. The cost of plinking ammo and the availability of really good defensive ammo is a big plus.
 


Recoil is one thing I've heard as a complaint about the 40, but I never really noticed it. My little 380s have a bunch more "snap" than the Shield 40 I had. During one of the runs on ammo, the 40 was found in abundance when 9mm and 45 were hard to come by.
I like the 40, but if I were to buy a gun to replace the Shield, it probably would be in 9mm. The cost of plinking ammo and the availability of really good defensive ammo is a big plus.
Re recoil, to me it's very subjective. Some calibers/guns have more of a "push" and others have more of a sharp snap. I've always felt the recoil of 40 s&w to be pleasant, but stronger than 9mm. .357 sig has a sharp "snap" imo. But then the power level of the .357 sig range ammo is 645 fpe on a 6" barrel. Can't recall .40 but it's a lot less than that. 430fpe maybe?

I can't say on 10mm cuz I only have a heavy p220 in that caliber and I find it very pleasant, similar to the .40 s&w. But it's a heavy gun.

Gun operating system is a factor too. Roller delayed 9mm mp5/clones are incredibly mild and smooth. So far the rotating barrel grand power 9mm is much less recoil, faster follow up shots than any other tilting barrel gun I've tried, including full sized metal gun. Accuracy was better too. Compact version with irons outshot 2 other tilting barrel 9mms with red dot. Recoil is way less. Need to test full sized grand power vs other full sized competition titling barrel guns. Perhaps beretta px4 is similarly low recoil I don't know (px4 also has rotating barrel).
 
Last Edited:
Re recoil, to me it's very subjective.
Agreed.
I had two identical 1911s, one in 45 and the other a 10mm. I couldn't tell the difference when shooting them.
After owning and shooting Magnum revolvers for a long time, I haven't found any semi auto to be unpleasant.
 
Agreed.
I had two identical 1911s, one in 45 and the other a 10mm. I couldn't tell the difference when shooting them.
After owning and shooting Magnum revolvers for a long time, I haven't found any semi auto to be unpleasant.
I find .38 special in a 6" .357 revolver very boring fwiw. I like the .357 mag though. Have yet to try .44 special in a .44 mag 8.3" but that's next on my list. I hope it's not boring. .44 mag packs a wallup.
 
Agreed.
I had two identical 1911s, one in 45 and the other a 10mm. I couldn't tell the difference when shooting them.
After owning and shooting Magnum revolvers for a long time, I haven't found any semi auto to be unpleasant.
I've shot every magnum revolver there is but I have found one semi auto to be unpleasant. My S&W M&P 2.0 C.O.R.E. in 40 S&W w/a 5 inch bbl loaded with 6.0 gn of HP38 damn near kicked the gun outta my hand !! And the trigger kept pinching my finger. So I backed it off to 5.1 gn and it works like magic !!
 
I've shot every magnum revolver there is but I have found one semi auto to be unpleasant. My S&W M&P 2.0 C.O.R.E. in 40 S&W w/a 5 inch bbl loaded with 6.0 gn of HP38 damn near kicked the gun outta my hand !! And the trigger kept pinching my finger. So I backed it off to 5.1 gn and it works like magic !!
My 365 is not pleasant, not fun, and I limit my shooting with it, but it doesn't compare to the Grendel P10 (.380) I shot years ago, which left bruises on my hand, being worse than my S&W 329 in .44 mag which leaves my hands numb. I have found that weight is the primary variable in recoil for centerfire pistols.
 
One of the advantage of 9mm over the 40 is the ability to hold more bullets in the same size gun. But what about when limited to neutered magazines will you be looking at the bigger bullets as a self defense choice? I don't really have a dog in the fight because I've been a 40 fan boy all along but was wondering if others might be thinking the bigger caliber might be a better choice when all other things are equal?
The advantage of a 9mm over the .40 is accurate quick follow-up shots. Hanguns neutralize threats either by switch or timer. I know of no meaningful evidence that the .40 has an advantage on either of those.

In short, poking more holes faster and more accurately is the way, Grasshopper.

kung fu.jpeg
 
The advantage of a 9mm over the .40 is accurate quick follow-up shots. Hanguns neutralize threats either by switch or timer. I know of no meaningful evidence that the .40 has an advantage on either of those.

In short, poking more holes faster and more accurately is the way, Grasshopper.

View attachment 2018967
Between 9mm & .40, I have found little difference in my speed of hitting a target accurately.

OTOH, there is a noticeable slowing with .45 ACP.
 
The advantage of a 9mm over the .40 is accurate quick follow-up shots. Hanguns neutralize threats either by switch or timer. I know of no meaningful evidence that the .40 has an advantage on either of those.

In short, poking more holes faster and more accurately is the way, Grasshopper.

View attachment 2018967
The question was basically if we have to carry guns with 10 round magazines will you go up in caliber that is all. Not if you believe the media and bean counters hype around 9 vs 40.
 
Last Edited:
When 114 was originally put in and the buying craze started, I bought a 6shot 44mag.

If I can't have my 18rd mag of 9mm, I'll have the same energy in 6 rounds...

Less rounds, bigger holes...

Might need to do a 308 pistol build..... so 10rds can be more effective...
 

Upcoming Events

Subsonic Rifle Match
  • Eugene, OR
Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR

New Classified Ads

Back Top