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.
21 - 40 of 56 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
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.
There were some teething issues with some .40 models that were based on the older 9mm frames. BHP was a good example, many of the early .40 models were cracking the forged frame. Browning changed to an investment casting and the cracks quit happening, so much for the myth that forged frames are stronger. Browning had already strengthened the .40's action with a thicker slide and extra locking lug as part of its upgrade from the 9mm version. Only the decrease in .40 popularity (and decrease in sales) stopped the .40 BHP production.
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.
I always considered a 155 grain as the best for .40S&W. It's a natural progression up from 9mm, where I consider a 115-124 as best. You get a bit more velocity and much more energy from a heavier bullet than 9mm. 180 to 200 grain I feel is better for 10mm, although I also load 155's for my 10mm loads. I shoot a ton more .40 than I do 9mm, and a fair amount of 10mm. .40 is my EDC, and when I compare my .40 EMP4 pistol to my 9mm EMP4 pistol, I can see no difference in wear between them, when the .40 gets 10X the use. Prior to my EMP4, I had a SR40c Ruger, and had it longer, and it was still in prime condition when I sold it, so even the polymer guns, when properly engineered do well with the larger caliber.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
80,882 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Levian and FDM1

· Registered
Joined
·
2,086 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,404 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
...My SWAG is if you shot a constant diet of NATO 9mm +p+ and 40, the failure rates would be similar because you’re basically shooting two rounds that are loaded to max SAAMI specs/pressures.
The latest NATO 9mm rounds (which use flat nose, 115gr bullets) are the equivalent of commercial +P+ rounds? I thought they were +P, though I remember thinking the listed velocity was high.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
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.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Yeah, It's a little on the snappy side and starts to suck to slightly unpleasant after around 150 rounds or so. But easily manageable, and still fun on range day if you're not going for high round counts. You can still find used police trade-in .40s on the cheap from time to time. My LGS seems to knock a lot off the price of .40 S&W anything, so used .40 S&W are often particularly cheap. I was kind of on the fence about the round until I fired it out of a 1911, it's a whole other animal out of a gun with a heavier slide that's hammer fired. Kind of has a push like a .45 ACP.
I've seen .40 trade-ins for $329. They were M&P models. Glocks go for more than that, from what I saw. I never priced them at the LGSs, though.
 

· 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
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
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.
I heard about the thicker slides on Gen 5 Glocks but don't know whether that is just for the .40.

Gen 5 also got rid of the finger grooves.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
...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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
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?
In other words, if a 9mm will last 90,000 rounds, will a .40 last 45,000 rounds, or 30,000 rounds. I know it is difficult to tell and thus speculation.
 

· 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.
 
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
Top