Why does everyone hate the .40s&w?

[orygun]

Just prefer the .45 ACP, but I'd much rather have a .40 S&W than either the 9mm or a 45 GAP.

 

[Bello425]

I don't HATE the 40, but I do prefer the 9mm and .45ACP. All the various guns I've shot in 40 I've shot in a 9mm from Taurus, Sig, Kahr, Glock. For me it was too "snappy", for a quick follow-up shot. The light/polymer 40's I've shot were dead on, but it was not appealing to shoot more than a couple of mags.

 

[smonk]

It's an interesting debate................ I don't hate the 40, but I don't really like it either.

My main problem is that it's a short, fat cartridge that doesn't feed all that well in auto loaders. To get it to feed, many chambers are cut away at the bottom to allow the case to feed up the ramp. This is OK if you stick with new ammo. But if you reload these cases you will find there is a bulge on the case where it was not supported by the chamber. This part of the cartridge case has been weakend and could fail if reloaded. I believe this has contributed to 40 Cal guns blowing up in the past.

As a reloader, I prefer to stick with calibers that use a fully supported chamber like 9mm and 45ACP.

 

[RVTECH]

I was talking to an employee this morning in the Bend Outdoor Outfitter's and while questioning the pallet quantities of .40 ammo on the floor he said the .40 auto new gun sales far outweigh all other calibers sold.

 

[terrylf72]

Forgive me havent read through the hole thread so Im not sure if someone else has posted something simullar..

Why shoot 44 spl when you can shoot a 44 mag.

40 or the 10 mm.. I prefure the 10mm.

 

[durango#95]

The ballistics aren't better enough than 9mm to warrant cost/ammo capacity/extra wear and tear.

When the .40 came out, it was a noticeable improvement on the 9mm. But compare it to all the modern 9mm rounds. It's no better.

This, and the fact that I shoot the 9mm better. Shot placement is KING for me. A miss with the .40 will be no more effective than a miss with any other round But with my G19 I know for a fact that I will have better shot placement, and 2 more rounds to use -vs- my 23. I don't hate the round, it's just not for me. I don't carry a .45 any more due solely to lack of capacity in the same size/weight gun.

 

[jimmyleost]

I love .40. I have a g27 and it is a bit snappy but overall, i think its a good round.

 

[mobil1]

For me, it comes down to comfort and accuracy. My father is retired OSP, and is actually a US Marshal. During his career, he has carried a .38sp/.357 revolver, 9mm, and .40S&W. He SWEARS by the .40, saying its by far the best caliber hes carried.

The revolver, for obvious reasons, was not the ideal carrying platform for an officer. Slow reload times, mud and water created malfunctions, more difficult to aim with, etc. So that was out.

They switched to the 9mm for higher mag capacities, less recoil, cost of ammo, more reliable weapon (glock), and all of the other reasons why people like 9mm. The problem was that it wasn't powerful enough. One example my father gave me was when a deer was dying on the side of a road that had been hit by a car. My dad shot it in the head with the 9mm to put it to rest, and the damn thing didnt die! He couldn't believe it, and basically lost all faith in the 9mm from that point on.

A year or so later, they switched to the G22 platform in .40 S&W. Since then, he has sworn by this caliber. He carries it daily in the G22, and also his backup which is a G27 in .40 as well.

Having said all that, I think I can give a pretty unbiased opinion on why I don't carry or care for the .40. I like a caliber that I can shoot comfortably right out of the box. The 9mm is hands down one of the easiest cartridges for me to handle and shoot. I feel like I can hit ANYTHING, in ANY situation. I do not have this kind of confidence in any other cartridge for accuracy. I carry a 9mm daily.

The .45 is my other caliber of choice. The recoil is comfortable and predictable, and I feel like it will get the job done in most situations. I dont carry a .45 because its costly to shoot, and it will be a while before I have the confidence in the .45 like I do in the 9mm. Like others have said, ballistics dont mean anything if you can't hit the target

Now, having said all that, the main reason why I dislike the .40:

-The recoil has snap like attributes! The 9mm has very little recoil, the .45 has a push back type recoil, but the .40 has just enough to break your wrist free. Its something I know I could get used to if I trained with it more, but why? I already like 2 other platforms better right out of the box.

-I do not want to stock ANOTHER pistol caliber. Lets face it, nothing is really cheap anymore. Just some calibers that cost less than others. It makes no sense to me to have to add yet another caliber that Im not even comfortable with.

-Most guns come in 9mm and .45, and if I buy other platforms, I already have ammo. I dont want to add another platform to my collection.

-9mm and .45 in an apocalyptic situation will more than likely be easier to obtain than .40.

-Its my life, and my choice!

 

[BlvdKing]

I believe the .40 is the stepchild only because its still the new kid on the block and isn't quite as tried and true at the 9mm and .45. I have 9mm, .40. and .45 and like all of them for different reasons.
9mm- cheap practice ammo (only will carry with +P or +P+ defensive HP)
.40 cal- good carry option and cost effective ammo (only will carry with defensive HP)
.45 acp- fairly expensive to shoot all of the time but time proven and very effective caliber (great terminal ballistics with almost any bullet)

I think all of them will work as a defensive round with the right bullets and I would trust any of them.

 

[clearconscience]

I would agree with most of you.
The .40 has more snap and can be a little harder to aim true with. For me I feel the 9mm and .45 shoot a little straighter.
But also the 9mm makes a better fun shooting gun because of the price and I think that's why people were trying to trade/buy them over the last year because ammo was more expensive and scarce.

I personally like the .40, but when I had to sell one of my handguns I sold my subcompact .40 and kept my Beretta 9mil.
Also I'm eagerly waiting to get ahold of some cash so I can purchase a 1911 .45.

 

[badazzelanore]

I was sold the first time I shot my G23! I have shot 9mm for the last 10 years and my G23 was just as smooth as my berretta. The .40 may have more snappy recoil but I didnt notice, although that may have been because I had just fired a box of 000 .410 handgun out of my Taurus Judge Public Defender. I love my G23!

 

[Will]

I own three .40's a compact metal frame, a full size metal frame and a full size polly frame and in all they have a snap over the 9mm or the .45's in the same style frames. I like the intent of the round but 9mm or .45 seem to fit me better. Might be me but as much as I like the round it doen't do as well putting a tight group on target as the 9mm or the .45.

Can anyone tell me why the .40 fmj round has a flat nose? I expect it is to slow it down a bit but wouldn't that cause more recoil/snap? I bet I could look it up but I'm lazy.

 

[usfatboy01]

.40's are just trying to wreck a perfect .45 world.

 

[clearconscience]

I do like the 9mm and .45 better, but I am looking forward to getting my Dad's S&W 10mm someday. Even though I can't afford the ammo.

 

[mattt]

+1 on the snappy recoil, especially in little carry guns. Sub compact 9mms don't bother me at all, nor does an officer sized 45. Everybody has their own idea of how much recoil is too much for comfort.

 

[pirateer2007]

I raced USPSA with a Glock 35 and I never had an issue with it being "snappy" I've also never had any issues with my 23, but I do have really big meaty hands

 

[smonk]

Can anyone tell me why the .40 fmj round has a flat nose? I expect it is to slow it down a bit but wouldn't that cause more recoil/snap? I bet I could look it up but I'm lazy.

The reason the 40 has a flat nose it so the mags will fit into a smaller magazine. The caliber was designed to be built into a 9mm sized platform therefore the cartridge has to be about the same length as a 9mm.

 

[Riot]

Why the dislike of the .40?

Probably because of <broken link removed>. There was a police shootout in Pennsylvania last year...a subject ambushed a couple of Police Officers with a .45 and was hit at least six times by the Officers' .40 calliber glock pistols.

The coroner conducted an examination that concluded that the .40s didn't penetrate far enough to cause enough damage to stop the subject. Mind you, most shots were in the torso and one in the neck. None of the rounds penetrated farther than 1" in the neck or torso. It was only when the .223 was brought in did the subject get dropped....being shot in the hip, lung, and foot.

The attached is the FBI jumping all over the report to defend the .40 S&W for current use....stating that the coroner's report was "innacurate" and that the .40 S&W passed all of their ballistic tests.

Nevertheless, since they used 180gr Speer Gold Dots, I switched all my carry rounds to Hornady TAP.


Read the report, but realize it is VERY graphic. It includes XRays and the examiners initial observatory pictures. Also, I would take the FBIs conclusion with a grain of salt...I don't care what some ballistic gel test says, if the rounds didn't go past the breast plate then I don't want them as my carry rounds.

Just to clarify, I'm not against the .40 S&W...not in the least bit. The round has it's uses...in fact, I own and carry a G22 and G27. What I got from the article is that bullets slow down quite considerably when they hit glass and other hard targets. This was the last stray for my faith in Speer Gold Dots as well...I had a bunch of .45 ACP rounds crimp in their cassings when loaded into a Springfield XD.

Just take what you can from the information and make your own conclusions...that is the only reason why I've posted the above. Again, I'm not anti-40, nor am I anti-Speer...I just made my own conclusions from the information provided and my own experiences and experimentations with the rounds.

 

[crosse]

I raced USPSA with a Glock 35 and I never had an issue with it being "snappy" I've also never had any issues with my 23, but I do have really big meaty hands

the 35 isn't fair to compare. all of owners of the 35 report a "slower" slide recoil pulse making it feel like a super tame 45acp round. making it a damn fine gun.

I think what it comes down to is that the 40 like everyone has said is a compromise caliber. It takes compromises of what 9mm and 45 does and plops it right in the middle of the two calibers. but its not the best in either one. no one likes the well-rounded caliber. Everyone wants the extremes. same thing with cars. people want a big comfy suv or do they want the little compact. try jamming the two and you got a reasonable offering but no one is gonna be vocal about how amazingly great their mediocre.....ford explorer is. Even tho it gets the job done fairly well in all categories.

that being said, I love my 9mm and I love my 45acp. 9mm easy to shoot out of any platform. 45acp great out of any large one. 40s&w...i can shoot out of a g35 w/o any issues but put that thing in a g27 and I can barely hit paper consistently on rapid.

 

[wichaka]

The coroner conducted an examination that concluded that the .40s didn't penetrate far enough to cause enough damage to stop the subject. Mind you, most shots were in the torso and one in the neck. None of the rounds penetrated farther than 1" in the neck or torso. It was only when the .223 was brought in did the subject get dropped....being shot in the hip, lung, and foot.

The attached is the FBI jumping all over the report to defend the .40 S&W for current use....stating that the coroner's report was "innacurate" and that the .40 S&W passed all of their ballistic tests.

Nevertheless, since they used 180gr Speer Gold Dots, I switched all my carry rounds to Hornady TAP.


Read the report, but realize it is VERY graphic. It includes XRays and the examiners initial observatory pictures. Also, I would take the FBIs conclusion with a grain of salt...I don't care what some ballistic gel test says, if the rounds didn't go past the breast plate then I don't want them as my carry rounds.

Just to clarify, I'm not against the .40 S&W...not in the least bit. The round has it's uses...in fact, I own and carry a G22 and G27. What I got from the article is that bullets slow down quite considerably when they hit glass and other hard targets. This was the last stray for my faith in Speer Gold Dots as well...I had a bunch of .45 ACP rounds crimp in their cassings when loaded into a Springfield XD.

Just take what you can from the information and make your own conclusions...that is the only reason why I've posted the above. Again, I'm not anti-40, nor am I anti-Speer...I just made my own conclusions from the information provided and my own experiences and experimentations with the rounds.

After attending numerous autopsies of gunshot victims I have come to 2 indisputable facts;

1) Shot placement is king;

2) One can shoot 10 different people with the same gun/bullet combo, at the same distance, angle etc., and get 10 varied results.
There are numerous variables that contribute to bullet performance in the human body.