Good argument for the .40?

[Smith]

So give me a good argument for why someone would choose a .40 S&W over a 9mm or .45 ACP. From the latest studies I've seen, the difference between 9mm, .40, and ,45 ACP (in apple to apple defensive round comparisons) are within 2-5 percentage points. If I want small and fast, I'm going 9mm. If I want big heavy and doesn't need velocity, I'm going .45. IMO, the .40 does some of what the 9mm does but not the bets parts and some of what the .45 does but not the best parts. I have no problem with the round and I have had several, but I can't seem to find a compelling argument to choose it over the 9mm or .45 ACP. I know folks like them but what is the edge it posses over the others? Is there something real or is it something perceived?

BTW - not intended as a caliber war, just a fun discussion.

[Jonnin]

a good reason to own one? To get to a different division in 3 gun and possibly idpa or other sports (??).

Ballistically there is no advantage. The 10mm really had something -- it can approach a 44 mag -- but the 40 is nothing special. The 40 is more impressive when reduced back to 9mm as a 357 sig, where a reloader can really have some fun with all the different bullet weights and shapes and so on --- its like a 9mm magnum and worthwhile. Having both a 40 and 357 barrel for the same gun gives even more options -- so you get a very flexible gun at that point if you are into playing with ballistics and load data.

[Smith]

a good reason to own one? To get to a different division in 3 gun and possibly idpa or other sports (??).

Ballistically there is no advantage. The 10mm really had something -- it can approach a 44 mag -- but the 40 is nothing special. The 40 is more impressive when reduced back to 9mm as a 357 sig, where a reloader can really have some fun with all the different bullet weights and shapes and so on --- its like a 9mm magnum and worthwhile. Having both a 40 and 357 barrel for the same gun gives even more options -- so you get a very flexible gun at that point if you are into playing with ballistics and load data.

Yeah, the 10mm has it going on. Good point on the .40 having the ability to cross caliber. Actually, now that I think of it, that's what I always did with the .40's I've had. I love the .357 SIG, outside of finding ammo and cost. Can't you replicate .357 SIG with +p/+p+ 9mm?

[JC57]

The main reason I own one (Glock 22) is that when I was shopping for a new full-sized home defense pistol, it was during the Great Ammo Shortage of 2010, and the only type of ammo I could reliably find in stock was .40 S&W. Another reason - due to large volume gov't purchases, you can often find good quality self defense ammo at good prices, often cheaper than similar quality 9mm. This is a minor selling point unless you plan on stockpiling SD ammo.

And with a simple conversion barrel and a couple of mags, I can switch back and forth between 9mm and 40 as I choose or as the availability of ammo dictates.

Other than that, I don't see it as a sufficiently superior round to the 9mm to make any significant difference.

Edited April 25, 2012 by JC57

[f3joel]

because I don't like the metric system

[Patton]

^Yes, also a lot of Police Departments use 40SW so if your in a self defense shooting your defense attorney can argue that you choose to equip yourself the same as the local police. After all gangbangers use a 9, and gun nut rednecks use a 45! I have seen numbers before saying the 40 had a slightly higher percentage of one shot stops than a 45, but 357mag had them both beat according to the FBI. The average 40 has a small edge of ft/lbs of energy over a 45 but it's marginal. There is a lot to be said for pure mass though.

[Guest CCI]

Good article.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html

[TNWNGR]

If you want a pistol with a high capacity 15 round count that’s still in the size range of a 9mm pistol you have the 40 S&W. Another reason is the .40 S&W ball round will penetrate and create a larger wound cavity than 9 mm ball. Of course that would only matter if you either a. had no access to HP ammo or b. were in a location where HP ammo was forbidden.

[Caster]

The .40 makes a poor .45 or 9mm. It's an attempt to bridge a gap that really didn't need bridging.

The 10mm is a bad boy but the 40 [to me] seems a lot like the 45 GAP. Superfluous and a poor replacement.

[Fourtyfive]

Just got my 4th Kahr the other day , it's a .40 ....

[I_Like_Pie]

People have made the same argument about .380 recently too ...and just about every other caliber over the years.

The answer....Why not?

At my range here in Chattanooga I believe that I am now picking up more .40s&w than I am 9mm these days. It isn't a bad caliber as the chest pounders will lead on. My glock 27 holds an incredible amount of horsepower for such a small gun. Why would I complain about it?

[Patton]

Brass is very plenty some but it's got a few issues keeping it from being a popular reloading round.

[Jonnin]

Yeah, the 10mm has it going on. Good point on the .40 having the ability to cross caliber. Actually, now that I think of it, that's what I always did with the .40's I've had. I love the .357 SIG, outside of finding ammo and cost. Can't you replicate .357 SIG with +p/+p+ 9mm?

Hot 9 is close enough to 357 yes -- the bad guy will not know the difference. +p+ is meaningless, there is no pressure limit on this marking and it is not regulated, make/use/buy it at your own risk. You can get the two rounds close, but the sig will always have an edge and making 9 that hot is hard on the guns over time. I do not know how hot you can make the 357 sig --- but for the .40 it was not recommended to try to increase the power over the known load data as it is already a pretty hot cartridge. That allows the 9 to catch up a bit, if you are willing to make hot loads that stress the gun.

[Volzfan]

The 40 is my favorite although I also have a 9mm and love it too. 45's are too expensive for me.

[gunsablazin]

The .40 is a fine duty round/ carry round. I have Glock 35 I bought for IDPA, with my reloads it's like shooting a .22! With full power ammo it's s great HD gun. If I didn't reload I would rather have a 9mm because practice ammo is cheaper.

[Duck]

I have decided that a 40 is what I want. It seams like the recoil is more like than a 45 so wouldn't that make it more lethal?

[Guest Victor9er]

The main reason I own one (Glock 22) is that when I was shopping for a new full-sized home defense pistol, it was during the Great Ammo Shortage of 2010, and the only type of ammo I could reliably find in stock was .40 S&W. Another reason - due to large volume gov't purchases, you can often find good quality self defense ammo at good prices, often cheaper than similar quality 9mm. This is a minor selling point unless you plan on stockpiling SD ammo.

And with a simple converstion barrel and a couple of mags, I can switch back and forth between 9mm and 40 as I choose or as the availability of ammo dictates.

Other than that, I don't see it as a sufficiently superior round to the 9mm to make any significant difference.

Similar points I was going to make... the .40 S&W caliber is widely used among LEO's in the US... much more so than the .45 acp... as a result ammo is pretty readily available. Especially during a zombie apocolypse if you have to scrounge for ammo. With the G22 I can quickly and easily swap out the barrel, throw in a mag of 9mm and go to town. Since I also own a G19 (9mm) that's convienient... you know, in case of zombies...

Also, I can still use the same holsters for my G22 that I use for my G19... the .45 caliber Glocks are a little wider and I'd need to buy a new holster for those. And this is very "not a big deal" but I like symmetry so... my G19 mags hold 15 rounds. My G22 mags hold 15 rounds. No matter which gun I decide to grab, I know exactly how many rounds I have available. (It's also easier to count by 15's than it is by 17's lol)

[Guest bulluck533]

I love the 10mm outside finding ammo, its hard to beat. A lot of power without alot of weight. Glock 20 gives you 15+1 just like the 22 gives you 15+1 of 40.

But they are both excellent calibers.

[greyofk]

It was year 1990. Israeli Jericho 941 was may be the only high capacity high power pistol in mass production. Americans had to do something or loss the leadership in gun design. Smith & Wesson and Winchester made .40 cartridge. It got the energy equal to Israeli .41 Action Express. S&W designed the first pistol for new cartridge 4006 based on full size 4506. The cartridge was intended for rigid large frame guns specially designed to handle high pressure and muzzle energy. Original load was capable for 180 gr at 1200 fps.

Design of a new gun is long and costly task. Glock took first shortcut and put .40 S&W into standard Glock 17 frame. Glock 22 was born.

Quite a few manufacturers designed dedicated .40 guns. Taurus PT 100, Slovak K 100, H&K USP I do not remember any others. Wast majority of .40 pistols are 9mm on steroids. Due to multiple failures recommended load for .40 was reduced. Now we know it as .40 Small and Weak round with 240 MPa maximum pressure.

If you'd like to feel what it was in its days of glory, fill the case full with Norma R-1 powder and put 180gr bullet. Keep overall length < 29mm

[1pointofview]

So give me a good argument for why someone would choose a .40 S&W over a 9mm or .45 ACP. From the latest studies I've seen, the difference between 9mm, .40, and ,45 ACP (in apple to apple defensive round comparisons) are within 2-5 percentage points. If I want small and fast, I'm going 9mm. If I want big heavy and doesn't need velocity, I'm going .45. IMO, the .40 does some of what the 9mm does but not the bets parts and some of what the .45 does but not the best parts. I have no problem with the round and I have had several, but I can't seem to find a compelling argument to choose it over the 9mm or .45 ACP. I know folks like them but what is the edge it posses over the others? Is there something real or is it something perceived?

BTW - not intended as a caliber war, just a fun discussion.

I went 40 because I was not sure if I was going to buy a number of pistols or not. I bought 40 because it had more rear than a 9 but the ammo was cheaper than 45. Plus, I would get 1 or so more rounds per clip than 45.

It just depends on what you want. to me, it is up to comfort. there is not much difference in performance so I went the cost rout. a 40 was less expensive than 45 and my per round costs are less as well.

[DWARREN123]

I like it!

[Hershmeister]

because I don't like the metric system

+1

[McAllyn]

Because .39 is silly and .41 is overkill?

Best answer is posted above, why not? There will always be someone out there developing a round to fill a specific (or general) purpose they have in mind... See wildcatting. Sometimes that round picks up a following, like the .40S&W, sometimes it falls flat, like the .45GAP.

I prefer 9MM and most of my weapons are chambered in that calibre, but I have a couple competition pistols built on the .40. I went .40 with those because of power factor requirements, magazine capacity vs .45, and standardized reloading components(I don't have to change the primer system) I know I could use small primer .45 brass, but it's rare to find that as range pickup.

Mac

[tnhawk]

I've begun to carry a .40 more often than a .45 during the last year due to size and weight.

[LngRngShtr]

Historical Note : Whitt Collins father of the 10mm partnered with Paul Liebenberg to come up with the.40 as a competitive replacement for the .38 Super for USPSA shooting called the Centimeter it made major without having to use rifle primers and wasn't as hard on the guns.. back in 86-87

http://www.pistoldynamics.com/AH_1987_Carttridge.html

I was able to spend a day at the range with Paul back when he was with S&W Performance Center at the 1991 Area 7 IPSC match ROing the try gun range got to run some of the early S&W PC .40s and a .356 TSW gun and the prototype of what later became the scandium J Frame no factory markings and 5 cylinders (.356TSW .38Super .38SPL 9mm and .357 Mag)

Truly a gentleman patiently answering all the questions a 20 year old kid would ask thats what I love about the shooting community most. I remember asking him about the .40 as a defensive round his answer "It worked fine in South Africa"

good enough for Paul good enough for me and my G23 I used a 10mm for USPSA open class and shot to a National B ranking. the shooter I bought it from got to A

I wouldn't want to try stopping any round (9 .40 10mm .45 )and as far as the bad guy is concerned, they won't be able to tell the difference if the shot is placed properly the real question in my mind is "which caliber can you put rounds on target with the most accurately and quickly ? "

John