1911Forum banner

9mm vs. .40 longevity

1697 55
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.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
14,262 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,262 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,262 Posts
The Gen 4 Glocks in .40 were specifically made for the .40 round from what I read. I guess that means the comparison would need to between the Gen 4 Glock and the M&P.
Yes, the Gen 4 with their dual recoil spring was Glock's shot at fixing their .40 S&W guns at that time.

Now they are on to a thicker slide for their G22 and G23. We'll see if that's the answer they are looking for.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,262 Posts
I didn't know the PX4 was designed around the .40. Are you sure?
Yes.


The PX4 uses a polymer feed ramp, last I heard.
Polymer coated, and there is almost no contact with the ramp as the rounds feed nearly directly into the chamber.

I also heard it wears out fast when using other than ball ammo.
I've never heard that. Since the guns were designed to shoot hollow point ammunition, that seems very unlikely.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,262 Posts
One LEO claimed he was on his 3rd PX4 due to the feed ramp getting chewed up by hollow points.
I can't say it didn't happen, because I don't really know. However, I've followed the PX4 pretty closely since it's introduction, and own a Langdon PX4 Carry (full size 9mm) and it isn't a problem I've seen mentioned over a handful of gun forums that I follow (one that includes a member with over 100,000 rounds through a .45 Auto PX4 and Langdon reporting on 50,000 rounds through a full size 9mm PX4 and 30,000 rounds plus through some 9mm PX4 Compacts), or in any gun magazine article, or on any YouTube video's I've seen related to the PX4.

From a logic standpoint, it would be extremely unlikely for a gun designed within the past 30 years not to be optimized for hollow point ammunition. Likewise, if it was an issue for the PX4, the gun was introduced in 2004, and they'd have enough input over the ensuing years they logically would have addressed such a major issue with a redesign, but I'm not aware of one.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top