JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
in my small guns, I find the 40 has more of a push and the 9 is more snap - but change the 9s bullet weight from 115 to 147 and that can change the feels too.

I got into 40 back when the po-po all went for it -early 90s. One of my thought was if SHTF, where will you pick up ammo? = off the dead cops. And, if it is right for LEOs then it is right for me.

A couple years back, you could find 40 on the store shelves, but not 9.



I think the current 9mm offerings are much better - ~30 years later.
 
Shot my new TNW ASR in .40SW at the range today. Being as it's kind of a compact PCC, I wasn't sure what to expect with .40SW, but it turned out to be a pretty soft shooter. I've had 9mm PCC's that kicked harder than this did. Fun gun to shoot.
 
in my small guns, I find the 40 has more of a push and the 9 is more snap - but change the 9s bullet weight from 115 to 147 and that can change the feels too.

I got into 40 back when the po-po all went for it -early 90s. One of my thought was if SHTF, where will you pick up ammo? = off the dead cops. And, if it is right for LEOs then it is right for me.

A couple years back, you could find 40 on the store shelves, but not 9.



I think the current 9mm offerings are much better - ~30 years later.

As 9mm performance has improved, so has the .40 S&W.

So, the 40 S&W will always be a better cartridge than the 9mm, everything else being equal.:s0024:

In the old days, we looked for increased performance at any cost. A 9mm-size pistol shooting .40 S&W with a whole bunch more power than a 9mm? That's what we were talking about. Then the .40 S&W got the tag 40-short and weak. Really? At the same time folks were hating the .40 cuz it hurt their hands to shoot.

There will never be agreement of what's best. Seems to me many folks are rationalizing taking a step backwards to satisfy comfort. That's okay too, but don't rationalize a lesser cartridge is just as good.

And having guns chambered in all the potentially available chamberings? Pretty smart. I also saw for sale, .40 ammo when I couldn't find 9mm ammo. And visa-versa.

WAYNO.
 
As 9mm performance has improved, so has the .40 S&W.

So, the 40 S&W will always be a better cartridge than the 9mm, everything else being equal.:s0024:

In the old days, we looked for increased performance at any cost. A 9mm-size pistol shooting .40 S&W with a whole bunch more power than a 9mm? That's what we were talking about. Then the .40 S&W got the tag 40-short and weak. Really? At the same time folks were hating the .40 cuz it hurt their hands to shoot.

There will never be agreement of what's best. Seems to me many folks are rationalizing taking a step backwards to satisfy comfort. That's okay too, but don't rationalize a lesser cartridge is just as good.

And having guns chambered in all the potentially available chamberings? Pretty smart. I also saw for sale, .40 ammo when I couldn't find 9mm ammo. And visa-versa.

WAYNO.

I think its funny too that some call the 40 S&W "Short and Weak" because its a shortened 10mm, but they don't mention 40 performs the same as the downloaded 10mm the FBI was using. And people still complain about the recoil!
 
I have an XD40SC and I got very good at shooting it even though it has a 3" barrel only. I loaded Speer 180gr short barrel rounds or Barnes TAC-XPD 140gr rounds for SD. Now I moved over to a 9mm pistol using 147gr HST rounds. I need to take my XD40SC to range quite a bit since it recoils somewhat harsher that my USP 40.
 
Back to the OP....

Photo Jun 05, 1 05 19 PM.jpg
 
Well, I won't be selling my XDs .40 or my Sig P320 .40 anytime soon so, shoot what you like and damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!
 
Depends on the gun. They have to be .40S&W pistols that were designed for the .40S&W, and not a 9mm rechambered for the .40S&W. Glocks in .40S&W, the S&W Shield, Beretta 96A1,... not so great. The SIG P229 was made for the .40S&W. Ruger P-Series can handle the .40S&W.
 
Depends on the gun. They have to be .40S&W pistols that were designed for the .40S&W, and not a 9mm rechambered for the .40S&W. Glocks in .40S&W, the S&W Shield, Beretta 96A1,... not so great. The SIG P229 was made for the .40S&W. Ruger P-Series can handle the .40S&W.

HK USP 40 was designed from the start for the 40 S&W as well. 9MM and 45 ACP came out later.
 
I think I am an endangered species. The 40 S&W guy. I hear all of the criticism about the cartridge, and none of it matters to me. I've carried it off and on since I was 22 and have a lot of confidence in it. Here is my take:

Yes, its a bit more "snappy" than 9mm or 45, but I think this is way overstated. I find it very controllable and I have competed with it and done pretty well. I have used the G22 and G17 in competition and find that how I feel on a particular day or a host of other factors have a greater impact on my shooting than the difference in cartridges.

Yes, service life is 2/3 of what you'd expect out of a 9mm or 45. Thats still 20 or 30k rounds. No big deal, thats still a really long time. I had a 257 Weatherby that showed a decent amount of throat erosion at 1200 shots. But, to me, the performance was worth it.

Yes, 40 usually has a round or two less in the magazine than a 9mm. But, it will have three to five more rounds than an comparable 45. If you can, in good conscience, feel like you have enough firepower in a 45, a 40 should be plenty.

Yes, 9mm now has the benefits of new wonder bullets. So does 40 at the same or greater velocity with a greater cross section and more bullet weight.

I only paid $21 for a box of 50 Federal 165 HST today. $14 a box for Remington UMC FMJ. Not much more expensive than 9mm and cheaper than 45.

Yessir, I like me some 40.

+1, SW 4006

I not only "like me some 40", but actually love my 40. But it is the orgininal 40 S&W that made its debut in 1990. The CHP used it for quite some time. I believe from 1990 to around 2008. My 4006 was made in 1991 and has been absolutely flawless.
 
A-****, Not me. Shooting Glock 23 in .40. Was practicing with self defense ammo. Specifically, Corbin P 180. Experienced first time. Hand gun blew up in my hand. When I bought the gun and started gathering reloading components for that caliber became aware from Hodgson magazine warnings of risks of high pressures. Sent gun to Glock and three remaining rounds of Corbon along. Five months later got replacement gun which was traded for a new rifle.

When gun came apart I was bloodied in my shooting hand. Washed away to see only a large blood blister. No damage. Bible says Jesus sweated drops of blood on eve before crucifixion. My blood came through my skin. Have tiny speck of polymer remaining in my face. Don't care for Glock. Don't prefer .40.

Shoot higher and lower caliber all day long.
 
I'll be the a-hole here and say that it's a novelty round and nothing more than a cut-down 10mm for recoil sensitive folks...
Just sayin. :D
Don't think so. It's still very popular with police all over. I own and shoot 40 S&W, 9/10mm, 45 ACP - been a 45 guy for decades but shoot the 40 as well as or better than any other. 10mm is the round just barely hanging on.
 

Upcoming Events

Lakeview Spring Gun Show
Lakeview, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA
Wes Knodel Gun & Knife Show - Albany
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top