1911Forum banner

9mm vs. .40 longevity

1706 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.
41 - 56 of 56 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
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 was disappointed when the .40 BHP was discontinued. They had 10 round mags which I think made them excellent guns for states that banned hi-cap mags. The new FN one only comes in 9mm.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Yes.


Polymer coated, and there is almost no contact with the ramp as the rounds feed nearly directly into the chamber...
One LEO claimed he was on his 3rd PX4 due to the feed ramp getting chewed up by hollow points.
Yes.



Polymer coated, and there is almost no contact with the ramp as the rounds feed nearly directly into the chamber.


I've never heard that. Since the guns were designed to shoot hollow point ammunition, that seems very unlikely.
One LEO claimed he was on his 3rd PX4 due to the feed ramp getting chewed up by hollow points.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
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.)
 

· 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,590 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.
Well, no if your base of comparison is the 44 magnum it's not snappy. But when you compare it to 9mm and .45 ACP it does have a sharper recoil than either of those 2 rounds. Particularly so in a striker fired pistol. It's a bit of an oddball in that regard because if you just set the 3 side by side you would think recoil would go 9mm > 40 S&W > 45 ACP but the trend is more 9mm > 45 ACP > 40 S&W. It kinda breaks the logical progression.

I like it for what it is, and it's my second favorite carry round. But I also acknowledge that I'm an oddball because I also like the 44 magnum (recently got one just for the fun of having a big bore magnum revolver).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I was disappointed when the .40 BHP was discontinued. They had 10 round mags which I think made them excellent guns for states that banned hi-cap mags. The new FN one only comes in 9mm.
I have one, a 1985 vintage. I looked a long time to find one. I'd rather it had been a blue model, but the silver chrome looks sort of like a brushed stainless (never made the BHP in stainless). First thing I did was remove the magazine disconnect, 2nd thing was put the Hogue grips on it.
Air gun Trigger Wood Gun barrel Gun accessory
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Well, no if your base of comparison is the 44 magnum it's not snappy. But when you compare it to 9mm and .45 ACP it does have a sharper recoil than either of those 2 rounds. Particularly so in a striker fired pistol. It's a bit of an oddball in that regard because if you just set the 3 side by side you would think recoil would go 9mm > 40 S&W > 45 ACP but the trend is more 9mm > 45 ACP > 40 S&W. It kinda breaks the logical progression.

I like it for what it is, and it's my second favorite carry round. But I also acknowledge that I'm an oddball because I also like the 44 magnum (recently got one just for the fun of having a big bore magnum revolver).
I just bought a long slide 1911 in 10mm and it's a tough gun not to love. I'll hunt White tail with it this fall, cuz (out to 100 yards) it shoots like a carbine but hits like a tank.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,555 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
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.
A person may like the more expensive option.

Many, including myself, would like to know which guns you wore out and about how many rounds it took to wear it out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
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
 
41 - 56 of 56 Posts
Top