Why does everyone hate the .40s&w?

[civilian75]

Although I have about a dozen hand guns, my favorite guns still is my 40cal P229.

The best caliber is that with you can shoot best.

 

[Redcap]

Also 40 fan. Mine is a Daewoo DH40 MKII. 20 years and no problems. Even with my son's hand loads.
I believe it was Guns and Ammo who ran an artical on the 40 and tested it. Don't remember the maker of the pistol they used. What got my attention was their statement that it shoots like a 9mm and hits like .45.
To me the 9mm is TV popular and the .45 is WWII popular. This is not saying they are bad rounds.

Nice. You are the thread necro king.

 

[Gunner3456]

Looking at the 1986 FBI shootout I am not a fan of the 55 grain 5.56 bullets either. I prefer the M855 and similar weight hollowpoints

I also like the 9MM/40/45/38 Special/.357 magnum/10MM for primary CCW handgun calibers, depending on the circumstances. You put those bullets (modern expanding hollowpoints like gold dots) in the right place and they should do the job

I have never heard the guys in the military complain about either the 55gr or the 62 gr or the M-16 for that matter. The reason the military switched to 62 gr was because it's more stable in a 1:7 barrel because the bullet is longer. They needed 1:7 for the very long tracers. 'Nam was fought with 55 gr and it's faster and tumbles more on impact. Its speed makes up for its lack of weight. But, the guns in 'Nam had a 1:12 twist. Actually, the first of the Armalite guns had a 1:15 twist until they discovered that the bulllet stabilizes better in 1:12. The M193 doesn't do so well in a 1:7 twist so out it went.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the M855.

I buy only M193 or 55gr bullets. My rifles are 1:9, and they are all sighted in for 55gr at 3250 fps. I make sure of that speed with a chrony when I reload.

I agree with you completely about the handgun calibers. I have a Glock 19 and a 23 and I find myself carrying the 23, but shot placement with the 9mm would outdo the .40 poorly placed every time. FWIW I don't find that the 23 kicks hard, but I have really big hands.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I have never heard the guys in the military complain about either the 55gr or the 62 gr or the M-16 for that matter. The reason the military switched to 62 gr was because it's more stable in a 1:7 barrel because the bullet is longer. They needed 1:7 for the very long tracers. 'Nam was fought with 55 gr and it's faster and tumbles more on impact. Its speed makes up for its lack of weight. But, the guns in 'Nam had a 1:12 twist. Actually, the first of the Armalite guns had a 1:15 twist until they discovered that the bulllet stabilizes better in 1:12. The M193 doesn't do so well in a 1:7 twist so out it went.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the M855.

I buy only M193 or 55gr bullets. My rifles are 1:9, and they are all sighted in for 55gr at 3250 fps. I make sure of that speed with a chrony when I reload.

I agree with you completely about the handgun calibers. I have a Glock 19 and a 23 and I find myself carrying the 23, but shot placement with the 9mm would outdo the .40 poorly placed every time. FWIW I don't find that the 23 kicks hard, but I have really big hands.

Check out the 1986 FBI shootout where a 55 grain FMJ bullet tore up an agent's forearm and never reached his chest. They are too light and fragile for general purpose self defense, IMO

 

[Gunner3456]

Check out the 1986 FBI shootout where a 55 grain FMJ bullet tore up an agent's forearm and never reached his chest. They are too light and fragile for general purpose self defense, IMO

I can see how that could happen, but it's an isolated incident. There's no way to prove that a 62gr would have done better because it's traveling slower. The entire 'Nam war was fought with 55gr, as were many battles around the world until they changed to the 62gr.

The 55gr is believed by many to tumble and break more after entry and really tear things up. Part of that is its short length, and part is its speed.

Again, the military went to 1:7 twist and the short 55gr just doesn't stabilize as well from it as does the longer 62gr.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I guess I'm not surprised that people may dislike .40 (I have a couple of them myself and am fond of it from a shooting perspective.) It's just a personal preference thing, really. Cost, comfort, capacity, etc. Anything that puts lead downrange and gives you the ability to put an assailant down is good, IMO. Personal preference moved me away from .40 as a carry to .45, but that, 9mm, .38, or whatnot will be more than adequate to do the job.

 

[Gunner3456]

Check out the 1986 FBI shootout where a 55 grain FMJ bullet tore up an agent's forearm and never reached his chest. They are too light and fragile for general purpose self defense, IMO

Here's where some plain jane 55gr PMC .223 went clean through a 1/2" steel plate.

AR15 Stag Arms 2T .223 vs. 1/2 steel plate ( Inspection ) - YouTube

You have to read the comments section to see that he said:

"It was PMC Bronze 55 Grain FMJ - and the target was cold roll 1/2 inch steel 10x10 plate at about 100-120 yards. we never walked the distance and it was up and down hill."

 

[reloaderjoe]

I also think the 40 is a nice round, but the ultimate auto pistol round is a 45 wthout a doubt. So i think a lot of people would just assume carry the pistol with more knockdown power. unless they just want a smaller pistol that is cheap to shoot which most people would choose a 9mm. the 40 is just not as appealing to most shooters.

 

[cyclesurvival]

I personally can not afford another type of ammo to buy not to mention another pistol, so I haven't even fire one by choice

 

[coop44]

40's have a snappier recoil than a 45. And most 40's are built on 9mm frames, which will wear out quite fast.

If you put a ton of rounds thru an early 40 Glock, you'll be breaking things.

have both like both, out grew 9's a long time ago, 9mm is still a good round for women and limpwristed sissies.

You sir are a blasphemer, the glock pope will surely denounce you and have you burned at the stake.

 

[jimwsea]

My first gun ever was a .40. At that time, I chose the .40 because I thought it fell in between the 9mm and the .45...the bigger the bullet, the harder the recoil. I didn't know about pressures and velocities. I got used to the .40 as much as I could, but when I finally shot a .45, I thought to myself "this doesn't hurt like I thought it would". I bought a .45 and then sold the .40.

I never hated the .40, and my HK was a great gun. I just felt the .45 was easier to shoot, especially with follow-up shots. People have been taking care of business with a .45 for a century, so it would be good enough for me.

 

[Gunner3456]

but the ultimate auto pistol round is a 45 wthout a doubt. QUOTE]

Got some links to professional ballistics tests to prove that?

 

[mjbskwim]

but the ultimate auto pistol round is a 45 wthout a doubt. QUOTE]

Got some links to professional ballistics tests to prove that?

Hahaha

All he'll end up with is threads like this one.

I never knew someone hated the .40.I mean,if I ask 10 people what they carry it would be something like 1) 380,1) 10MM,2) 38sp,2) 9mm ,1)45acp and 5)40s&w

Not seeing much hate at all.

 

[Gunner3456]

Hate .40 S&W because I have a 9mm and a .45 acp and reload.
Easy to separate 9mm and .45 brass, but with .40 mixed in, it gets difficult.
Also don't want myself or family getting a 9mm into a .40 or a .40 into a .45 gun by mistake and have a KA-BOOM!
Same reason I don't own a .380 auto with a 9mm.

Get some glasses, LOL.

I'm waiting for you to dump a .45 powder charge into a 9mm.

 

[Tangent123123]

seriously? i'll spell it out: it's bad form to resurrect long-dead threads.

Yes, we'd rather you start a new thread about a topic that interests you rather then refresh an old one. That way we can be d-bags and berate you for not using the search function. How dare you!

There is a reason we keep threads around and if someone finds interest in something previously discussed I don't see a problem with them adding to it. They aren't sacrosanct or anything. As you can see, a lot of people are finding new interest in an old post.

 

[glock.40]

I have (and love) my Glock 22 in .40. I shot a buddies Glock 19 and loved it so much that I just bought on tonight. Thanks SavageGerbil! It seemed much easier to shoot 'controlled pairs' and get quick and accurate follow up shots. Maybe I'm just a limpwristed sissy?

 

[Gunner3456]

I have a Glock 19 and a Glock 23. Same gun but one is 9mm and one is .40 SW. I have the 9 because it's NATO, but I carry and shoot the .40. I don't find the recoil to be too much at all. If a female cop can fire a .40, I sure as heck can.

I wouldn't want a Glock 27 because my hands are too big and I can't hold it well. In that case I'd want the 26 in 9mm, but for me with my hand size I wouldn't want either, but that's just me.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yes, we'd rather you start a new thread about a topic that interests you rather then refresh an old one. That way we can be d-bags and berate you for not using the search function. How dare you!

There is a reason we keep threads around and if someone finds interest in something previously discussed I don't see a problem with them adding to it. They aren't sacrosanct or anything. As you can see, a lot of people are finding new interest in an old post.

Thank you.

 

[BroncoFan]

Get some glasses, LOL.

I'm waiting for you to dump a .45 powder charge into a 9mm.

That's why God gave us the powder checker die!

 

[Key-Hay]

Never had one, always been a 45 auto and 357 revolver guy. Bought a 9 just to have one cause ammo is cheap (sorta). Guess if I had to have one caliber and could not reload I might go with the a 40.