If magazine availability were the barometer, .40 Smith has lost favor.
As far as longevity. I know of zero examples of people having to be worried about wearing out a firearm.

 

I guess it is moot because even the .40 pistol will last longer than the number of rounds a person will shoot through it.

IIRC, when the .40 cartridge was first gaining popularity, there were some guns that wore out. I guess that was due to manufacturers using almost the same exact gun for .40 as they have been using for 9mm.

 

How much less is the lifespan of a modern .40 (not .45) pistol compared to a modern 9mm?

There's the Glock 17 in 9mm and the Glock 22 in .40, for example. S&W makes the M&P in both 9mm and .40 the last I checked. I think Sig makes both polymer and steel/aluminum pistols in .40. There was the CZ 75 in .40 but the don't make them anymore. I don't recall is Springfield makes their polymer guns in .40 anymore.

In the original post I should have added possible choices like the .40 pistol will last half as many rounds fired as the 9mm. Or one-third as many rounds, etc.

 

Where does this half as many or 1/3 as many come from?

 

If you can afford to shoot it beyond it’s useable life, you can afford to replace it. The .40 S&W will wear them more and more quickly, but not enough for most people to ever imagine wearing one out.

 

Asking this question is like asking your doctor how many cheeseburgers you can eat before you get heart disease. The answer is, it depends. There are far too many variables to put any kind of realistic number on it. All else being equal a .40 will beat itself to death before a 9mm will, but then again how many people do you know who have ever worn out a handgun of any sort?

 

I haven't known any but I know it did happen when the .40 was gaining popularity.

 

I think it first depends on if the gun is built around the 40 caliber or originally a 9mm bored out and modded to shoot 40. IME, most 40cal guns are designed around the 180gr round. Shooting something hotter like a 165gr round can definitely stress and break parts more frequently. At one point I broke practically every part on my issued G22 shooting Speer 165 GD, except the barrel. It was sent back to Austria at their request and they came back with….stop shooting the Speer, it was designed to shoot 180gr.

 

Interesting. I didn't know most .40 guns were designed around the 180gr bullet.

I never heard of a manufacturer telling a gun owner to avoid certain grain bullets except for very light bullets through a .357 magnum revolver. What generation was your G22?

 

More power equals more wear...it is universal.

 

The .40 generates more chamber pressure than the 9 mm but not by a lot around 2,000 psi IIRC. The earlier Glocks had some reported case head separations in some rounds in those guns because the chamber was unsupported. It was bullet setback in the .40 which caused pressure spikes in the round from loading and reloading. Glock redesigned the barrel on the gun so you don’t hear about the Kaboom like some of the earlier pistols. I personally don’t care for the round but I never thought it was as big a deal of control as some made it out to be. Back not too long ago you could pick up used.40 pistols pretty cheap. I think some police departments still use the 40. Some older history:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | The .40 S&W

Sometimes described as a shortened 10 mm, the .40 was developed as a compromise between size and capacity.

www.americanrifleman.org

 

The .40 generates more chamber pressure than the 9 mm but not by a lot around 2,000 psi IIRC. [/URL]

SAAMI maximum chamber pressures for standard pressure 9mm and for .40 S&W are the same. Of course, simply comparing average maximum chamber pressures across calibers doesn't necessarily tell you anything.

 

The .40 is certainly more intense, but then again most .40 autos have a much heavier recoil spring and a few (as I recall) have a more massive slide. AS noted by more than one person above you would have to WORK at it to wear out a modern semi-auto by shooting it. I remember reading some years back about a Glock 17 that had a million rounds thru it with zero breakage. I don't know if they have done that with a .40 or not. The NYPD test for approval was 10,000 rounds.

 

I knew the Glock 17 was good for 100,000 rounds, but not 1 million. They probably did preventive maintenance on it like new barrels and other parts.

FWIW, the NYPD does use +P ammo, the last I heard.

 

This recoil table might help the OP:

Handgun Recoil Table

Cartridge (Wb@MV)	Pistol Wt. (lbs.)	Recoil E. (ft. lbs.)	Recoil V. (fps)
.25 ACP (50 at 800)	0.75	0.9	8.7
.30 Carbine (110 at 1400)	3.0	4.9	10.2
.32 ACP (71 at 910)	1.0	1.7	10.5
.32 S&W Long (100 at 700)	2.0	1.2	6.2
.32 H&R Mag. (100 at 1100)	2.0	2.7	9.4
.32-20 Win. (100 at 1018)	2.0	2.8	9.4
.380 ACP (90 at 1000)	1.5	2.5	10.4
.380 ACP (95 at 900)	0.6	5.4	24.2
9mm Makarov (95 at 1025)	1.5	3.0	11.2
9x19 (115 at 1100)	1.0	7.4	21.8
9x19 (115 at 1155)	1.5	5.2	15.0
9x19 (115 at 1155)	2.0	3.8	11.1
9x19 +P (115 at 1250)	1.5	7.3	17.7
9x19 (124 at 1125)	1.5	6.0	16.0
9x19 (124 at 1157)	2.0	4.4	11.9
9x19 (147 at 1000)	2.0	4.6	12.2
.38 Super (125 at 1250)	2.25	4.9	11.9
.357 SIG (125 at 1350)	1.75	7.4	16.6
.38 Spec. (125 at 850)	1.0	5.6	18.9
.38 Spec. (130 at 819)	2.25	2.2	8.0
.38 Spec. (130 at 950)	2.25	3.1	9.5
.38 Spec. (140 at 825)	2.25	2.7	8.8
.38 Spec. (148 HBWC at 738)	2.25	2.1	7.8
.38 Spec. +P (110 at 1150)	2.25	4.0	10.7
.38 Spec. +P (125 at 975)	2.25	2.9	9.2
.38 Spec. +P (158 LHP at 900)	2.25	4.3	11.1
.357 Mag. (110 at 1300)	2.75	4.1	9.8
.357 Mag. (125 at 1209)	1.75	8.9	18.1
.357 Mag. (125 at 1220)	2.75	4.6	10.4
.357 Mag. (125 at 1450)	2.75	7.2	13.0
.357 Mag. (140 at 1022)	2.75	4.0	9.6
.357 Mag. (140 at 1323)	2.75	7.9	13.6
.357 Mag. (158 at 925)	2.75	4.0	9.7
.357 Mag. (158 at 1070)	1.75	9.4	18.6
.357 Mag. (158 at 1250)	2.75	8.7	14.3
.40 S&W (155 at 1200)	1.5	10.6	21.3
.40 S&W (165 at 1080)	1.5	9.3	19.9
.40 S&W (180 at 1027)	1.5	10.4	21.2
10mm Auto (180 at 1295)	2.25	11.4	18.1
.41 Mag. (210 at 925)	2.75	6.6	12.4
.41 Mag. (210 at 1300)	2.75	15.6	19.1
.44 Spec. (240 at 750)	3.0	4.5	9.9
.44 Rem. Mag. (200 at 1000)	3.0	6.7	12.0
.44 Rem. Mag. (200 at 1219)	4.1	6.3	10.0
.44 Rem. Mag. (200 at 1295)	4.1	7.2	10.6
.44 Rem. Mag. (200 at 1326)	3.0	11.9	16
.44 Rem. Mag. (225 at 1239)	3.0	12.4	16.3
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1144)	4.1	8.0	11.2
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1172)	4.1	8.4	11.5
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1200)	4.1	8.9	11.8
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1271)	4.1	10.0	12.5
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1450)	3.0	22.5	21.9
.44 Rem. Mag. (300 at 1187)	3.0	22.6	22.0
.45 ACP (185 at 1000)	2.25	7.7	14.8
.45 ACP (185 at 1047)	2.5	6.8	13.2
.45 ACP (200 at 1010)	2.5	7.6	13.9
.45 ACP (230 at 850)	2.25	7.9	15.0
.45 ACP (230 at 916)	2.5	7.5	13.9
.45 Colt (200 at 945)	2.75	7.0	12.8
.45 Colt (200 at 1081)	2.75	8.2	13.8
.45 Colt (230 at 936)	2.75	7.9	13.6
.45 Colt (255 LRN at 860)	2.75	8.2	13.8
.45 Colt (255 LFP at 914)	2.75	10.4	15.6
.45 Colt +P (250 at 1200)	2.75	17.0	20.0
.45 Colt +P (300 at 1150)	2.75	23.9	23.7
.45 Win. Mag. (260 at 1200)	4.0	10.6	13.1
.454 Casull (260 at 1800)	3.2	39.0	28.0
.454 Casull (300 at 1650)	3.2	38.6	27.9
.460 S&W Mag. (250 at 1400)	4.5	12.8	13.5
.460 S&W Mag. (260 at 1590)	4.5	20.0	16.9
.460 S&W Mag. (300 at 1784)	4.5	32.1	21.4
.475 Linebaugh (385 at 1525)	3.0	52.2	33.5
.475 Linebaugh (400 at 1300)	3.2	38.1	27.7
.480 Ruger (325 at 1330)	3.3	23.1	21.2
.480 Ruger (325 at 1477)	3.3	33.3	25.5
.50 Action Express (325 at 1294)	3.2	29.3	24.3
.50 Action Express (325 at 1431)	4.4	25.5	19.3
.500 Linebaugh (400 at 1550)	3.0	62.3	36.6
.500 S&W Mag. (350 at 1446)	4.5	25.2	19.0
.500

 

I think a good side by side would be comparing longevity between the Glock 22 and the S&W M&P in 40. As I understand it when the the >40S&W was announced Gaston rushed to get the 22 out and simply increased the bore size on the Glock 17, whereas the M&P was designed around the 40S&W.

 

I think a good side by side would be comparing longevity between the Glock 22 ...

Or track Glock Generation changes.

The .40 S&W was introduced in the Gen 2 guns.

The Gen 3 guns added an additional cross pin for more rigidity. Probably specifically for the .40 S&W guns.

The Gen 4 guns got a dual recoil spring to help with the .40 S&W guns. This caused problems with the early Gen 4 9mm guns.

The Gen 5 .40 S&W guns now have a thicker slide.

Glock is probably on Gen 5 only because of the problems they've had with the .40 S&W guns.

 

Also look at the Beretta 90 series of guns.

Over the years Beretta changed the dust cover from straight to slanted, to help with .40 S&W, offered a Brigadier slide, to help with .40 S&W, offered a frame buffer, to help with .40 S&W. None of these things were needed for the 9mm 92 guns, but only for the 96 guns in .40 S&W.

Today is probably the heyday of the Beretta 90 Series guns, with more models and options than ever before. In all those models, the only gun they offer in .40 S&W is the 96A1, a gun with a different frame and a frame recoil buffer. I suspect the 96A1 is still in the line-up because Beretta must have some LE/MIL contract somewhere in the world where the user wants to shoot .40 S&W out of a 90 Series gun. If that requirement ever goes away, I expect the 96A1 and 92A1 to go away.

I get the feeling, if you want to shoot .40 S&W out of a Beretta handgun, Beretta would rather you chose a PX4 or APX, guns designed around the .40 S&W round.

 

...I get the feeling, if you want to shoot .40 S&W out of a Beretta handgun, Beretta would rather you chose a PX4 or APX, guns designed around the .40 S&W round.

I didn't know the PX4 was designed around the .40. Are you sure?

The PX4 uses a polymer feed ramp, last I heard. I also heard it wears out fast when using other than ball ammo. I'm guessing they don't have a life time warranty. Nevertheless, they get good reviews. I wonder why they haven't sold really well. Maybe because it isn't striker fire.

 

What I hated about the .40 was its very snappy recoil. I tried a Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glock 23, and both torqued harshly in the hand and the triggerguard abraded the bottom of my trigger finger. I sold those and later tried a S&W 4006, but it was a tank by comparison and not practical as a carry gun. The only .40 I ever had that I liked was an H&K USPc, but the DA trigger on that one was virtually unusable so I ended up selling it as well. I'm now done with the .40 completely and probably won't ever get another one.

 

Those G23 guns were just Glock 19s with a .40 barrel in them. Lightweight guns for sure. I have shot them before even bought a used one some years ago and ended up trading it off. So much for Glock perfection. I do like the G30 and G21 variety though.

 

I never found the 40 S&W to be snappy at all. My carry guns include 10mm which I find very manageable.

I have shot a Glock G20 with Buffalo Bore 180 grain JHP and a G21 with Winchester PDX1 230 grain 45 ACP in each hand at the same time. It was very hard to tell the difference in felt recoil. I have done the same thing with my 1911s in 10mm and 45 ACP.

I also shoot 41 magnum, 44 magnum, and 454 Casull handguns.

 

I never found the 40 S&W to be snappy at all. My carry guns include 10mm which I find very manageable.
I also shoot 41 magnum, 44 magnum, and 454 Casull handguns.

I never considered it "snappy" either. Once you get used to large bore magnums, it doesn't bother you much at all. I also shoot 10mm and .41magnum, and .40 is like a .38 Spl next to them.

 

I remember reading somewhere that Delta Force used Glock 22 40 cal; but shot them so much they were not lasting very long so they switched to the 9mm Glock 17. The only soft shooting 40 is the HK USP which was designed to lower recoil by 30% and around the 40cal. Love mine.

 

The only soft shooting 40 is the HK USP which was designed to lower recoil by 30% and around the 40cal.

Negative. The Beretta PX4 is a very soft shooter in .40, thanks to the rotating-barrel action. I find it even softer shooting than the USP.

(Assuming you meant to refer only to polymer .40 S&W pistols, by the way. There’s a ton of metal-framed pistols that fit the bill.)

 

In most cases, the cost of the ammo that it will take to wear out most good quality pistols easily exceeds the price of several new pistols. I just don't see it as a economic based decision.

More power equal more wear, true, BUT also true, machines can be designed to handle the stress and reduce the wear.

A diesel motor, the stresses are many times that of gasoline motor, yet diesel motor last much longer (it also costs a lot more) if you take them apart you'd see why. Someone that bolts turbo on a motor not designed to be turbo'ed will wear out that motor much faster than a motor designed from the ground up to be a turbo. I don't think you can say, one brand/model of a less powerful round will out last another brand/model of a more powerful round. There are many more factors involved in how long a pistol will last than just the power of the round.

Only factor I'm aware of, is the barrel erosion, and that would be for Rifles. I don't "think" this affects pistols because of the difference with rifles. The smaller the bore and greater the power, i.e. the greater the muzzle velocity, the greater the barrel erosion will be. I think that is what is behind the Military chrome lining barrels, its not to prevent rust in humid/wet environments, its to reduce the barrel erosion of certain rounds to get barrels to last a requisite amount of time.

 

There are good cheap guns out there too. Certainly, a pistol that lives under your pillow and hasn't eaten even a single box of rounds is perfectly fine for home defense. But as a competition piece where you easily go through 500 rounds (reloads generally) you can expect to see degraded performance first, then the malfunctions increase. But buying a $3,000 Python is just silly,
unless you are a serious collector.

 

How much less is the lifespan of a modern .40 (not .45) pistol compared to a modern 9mm?

There's the Glock 17 in 9mm and the Glock 22 in .40, for example. S&W makes the M&P in both 9mm and .40 the last I checked. I think Sig makes both polymer and steel/aluminum pistols in .40. There was the CZ 75 in .40 but the don't make them anymore. I don't recall is Springfield makes their polymer guns in .40 anymore.

Question never made sense to me, if you can afford to shoot enough to wear out a gun you can afford a new gun.

 

if you can afford to shoot enough to wear out a gun you can afford a new gun.

This never really made sense to me. If I can have a gun that equally suits my needs, but the ammo is noticeably cheaper and the lifespan is double to quadruple the number of rounds...why would I purposely choose the more expensive option? Why would I set myself up to have to buy parts or a new gun (or two) when I could just shoot more?

I have worn out a few guns...I don't buy any more of those guns.

 

I've got a .22lr pistol, several of each of 9mm and .45ACP. I don't need to keep stock of even more calipers of ammunition. So, if anything, I'm inclined away from getting another pistol of different caliper, but I don't rule it out completely.

 

When I was in LE we blew up more .40 caliber Glocks than any other gun ... but we likely had more .40 Caliber Glocks than any other gun (though we did have plenty of others including 1911s in .45 and even some 1076s in 10mm, and a bunch of Sigs in both 9mm and .40). All the blow ups were with Factory ammo, mostly Federal. I do not mean to imply there were all that many. A fellow officer (SWAT Commander) blew up his G-21, but he was shooting some sort of steel cased Russian ammo in it for training - I've only seen pictures of that one and so cannot tell what actually caused it.

I'm not saying anything there against either Glock, nor .40 S&W nor Federal. I'd say the average person would not have to worry about wearing out a pistol (unless it was a really cheap example) and the average LEO would not either. Glock did replace all the pistols (even though they did not accept responsibility for the "kaboom" - which is only right as far as I'm concerned - it is hard to tell what happens in one of those at least to a legal degree of liability).

I also ran a range for a little while and have worked with people who ran ranges - the only stand out (in a bad way) was a Beretta 96 - the range owner told me he replaced 6 locking blocks in one year and just pulled the gun - but that was before they changed the design of the locking block. I know we broke one every so often in our military classes with the M9 but the incidence was not what I would call extremely high - certainly not as high at the M-96. One of my guys did break two in one week of the new design during a 500 round class! (but I wouldn't say that was typical).

I'm a .45 guy (but I shoot a bunch of handgun calibers), but if you happen to like .40 S&W then I think it is an excellent round and the quality guns - even with plastic frames - will give decent service - have at it!

Riposte

PS - I did see a 1911 "kaboom once" - it was at Gunsite and the student was shooting remanufactured ammo - it was a very weird situation - the Marine Force Recon guy had mixed a 10mm round Jeff Cooper gave him with his .45 ammo and it actually fired - but the case did not eject and the shooter chambered a .45 behind it and fired it with the case stuck in the barrel! Didn't hurt the Marnie any but the gun was pretty much toast