1911Forum banner
21 - 40 of 272 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
Source? A 180 gr HST is as improved as the 147 gr HST. I use both. Why would an ammo manufacturer skimp on applying improvements across the board?
This is indeed has been stated by multiple experts in ballistics. Manufacturer's aren't skimping. There is enough real ballistic data to show the differences between wounding properties of 9 and 40. 40 makes a bigger hole. 9 makes a smaller hole but before the technological changes it was doing even less. As G22Dude alluded to above, larger initial deficiencies in performance also allow for larger gains later.
Personally I think the 40 is a better round. For the same velocity as 9 it throws a bigger and heavier bullet that expands no worse than 9. Even though 9 closed the performance gap, I still think 40 makes a larger permanent cavity. I use 9 for four reasons. First, I don't know that theoretic advantage makes a difference in outcomes. Second, I couldn't shoot 40 worth a damn. Third is a relative cost. Fourth is that by now I am so invested in 9 that even though maybe I can shoot 40 ok now, I don't see a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger4 and G22Dude

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
I still have several .40's, two of them I'll keep for sentimental value.

I first jumped on the .40 in 2001. Back then, I was all .45 for pistol, then came some .40's and now the 10's have arrived.

Seeing how much I like the 10MM, .45 will never die for me. I consider the 10MM to do what the .40 can do...and more.

If I could only pick two large calibers for pistol, it would be .45 and 10MM...FTW.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
79,846 Posts
This is indeed has been stated by multiple experts in ballistics. Manufacturer's aren't skimping. There is enough real ballistic data to show the differences between wounding properties of 9 and 40. 40 makes a bigger hole. 9 makes a smaller hole but before the technological changes it was doing even less. As G22Dude alluded to above, larger initial deficiencies in performance also allow for larger gains later.
Personally I think the 40 is a better round. For the same velocity as 9 it throws a bigger and heavier bullet that expands no worse than 9. Even though 9 closed the performance gap, I still think 40 makes a larger permanent cavity. I use 9 for four reasons. First, I don't know that theoretic advantage makes a difference in outcomes. Second, I couldn't shoot 40 worth a damn. Third is a relative cost. Fourth is that by now I am so invested in 9 that even though maybe I can shoot 40 ok now, I don't see a point.
In the early days when hollow-point handgun ammo generally sucked the only way to get reliable expansion was with a plain lead bullet, like we saw with the .38 and .357 158gr police loads. Semi-auto bullets had to be jacketed for feed reliability, and that's where the 9mm got its miserable reputation as a poor stopper as they rarely expanded. Neither did most JHP .45 bullets, but at least you still got a .45 caliber hole out of the deal. Nowadays virtually any name-brand JHP bullet in a decent caliber can be expected to both expand and penetrate sufficiently, which has made the question of initial bullet diameter less important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger4

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29 Posts
I really like the snappy recoil of the 40 with my XDm 5.25. I use it for Limited Major in USPSA and run it at 175 to 180 power factor. The 5.25 is really fun to shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
I had 2 40 cal guns & simply didn’t enjoy them the way I do 9 or 45. I found the recoil impulse snappy and as stated earlier 8 dont see a performance gain for my needs.

if 40 floats your boat, you won’t get an argument from me- more power to you- it’s just not a round I prefer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
In the early days when hollow-point handgun ammo generally sucked the only way to get reliable expansion was with a plain lead bullet, like we saw with the .38 and .357 158gr police loads. Semi-auto bullets had to be jacketed for feed reliability, and that's where the 9mm got its miserable reputation as a poor stopper as they rarely expanded. Neither did most JHP .45 bullets, but at least you still got a .45 caliber hole out of the deal. Nowadays virtually any name-brand JHP bullet in a decent caliber can be expected to both expand and penetrate sufficiently, which has made the question of initial bullet diameter less important.
My understanding is that 9 mm was particularly poor because it flew out at higher velocities when talking +p and that caused jacket separation. Development of bonded projectiles that prevented jacket separation was what stopped 9 sucking more than others. Before anyone asks for a link, this is from personal communications with "people".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgedWarrior

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,557 Posts
The .40 S&W suddenly became less popular when Law Enforcement changed to the 9mm. The main reason as I see it was political with the police department budgets. They were on tight budgets. .40 ammo costs more than 9mm ammo. Thus PDs started changing over to the 9mm almost overnight. The PDs got better deals for 9mm handguns and nice deals for lower cost 9mm ammo was easy to get too. so the 9mm won out, not because it is better than the .40, just lower cost for budget limited law enforcement agencies. Thus it was the accountants and the politicians driving it. Not ballistics, performance or whether one is better than the other. You see the same thing happened with the .357 Sig too. The 357 Sig is even more expensive than the .40 S&W too.

When I was doing police work the .357 magnum was the gun we used. The PD range had their own reloading equipment and would load .38 Special wadcutter ammo for practice and qualification too. The PD round was Remington .357 magnum 158 grain JHP. You were issued 18 rounds for duty. But women officers who couldn't handle the .357 magnum were allowed to use a Remington .38 spcl JHP round instead. Interestingly enough I didn't know any women officers who could not handle the .357 mag though and some of them were pretty small too. Heck I knew some women who loved to shoot the 500 S&W magnums too. They were giggling and snickering happily as they blasted off a couple three boxes of ammo each. That was using the snub nose revolver too.

So I beleive everyone like the FBI and PDs going with the 9mm and people not being able to handle the 10mm or .40 S&W was a lame cover story. It was tight budgets and cost cutting. If people have become that wimpy God help us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
I have NEVER been a fan of the 40S&W.
I purchased my first 1911 in late 80's and it was a Colt Delta Elite. I fell in love with the 10mm right from the start. Shot a butt load of rounds thru that gun and carried it for over 9 years.
Never saw the need for the 40. I personally knew a PA Trooper who was involved in the selection of their new handgun back in the 90's. He spoke well of the 40 and told me it was a front runner. I just never saw the need for it. I still look at it as the modern day 38 Special.
I've told the story a few times here of a best bud of mine from the academy who couldn't stop a pit bull with his department issued Glock 40cal with Federal HS's. First 4 rounds he put in the animal were in the vitals and center of mass. Heck they barely even phased the dog he said. 5th round he put in the skull to stop it.
Don't get me wrong, I sure as heck don't want shot with one. Of course I don't want shot with a 22 either.
I just have NO faith in the 40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
The .40 S&W suddenly became less popular when Law Enforcement changed to the 9mm. The main reason as I see it was political with the police department budgets. They were on tight budgets. .40 ammo costs more than 9mm ammo. Thus PDs started changing over to the 9mm almost overnight. The PDs got better deals for 9mm handguns and nice deals for lower cost 9mm ammo was easy to get too. so the 9mm won out, not because it is better than the .40, just lower cost for budget limited law enforcement agencies. Thus it was the accountants and the politicians driving it. Not ballistics, performance or whether one is better than the other. You see the same thing happened with the .357 Sig too. The 357 Sig is even more expensive than the .40 S&W too.

When I was doing police work the .357 magnum was the gun we used. The PD range had their own reloading equipment and would load .38 Special wadcutter ammo for practice and qualification too. The PD round was Remington .357 magnum 158 grain JHP. You were issued 18 rounds for duty. But women officers who couldn't handle the .357 magnum were allowed to use a Remington .38 spcl JHP round instead. Interestingly enough I didn't know any women officers who could not handle the .357 mag though and some of them were pretty small too. Heck I knew some women who loved to shoot the 500 S&W magnums too. They were giggling and snickering happily as they blasted off a couple three boxes of ammo each. That was using the snub nose revolver too.

So I beleive everyone like the FBI and PDs going with the 9mm and people not being able to handle the 10mm or .40 S&W was a lame cover story. It was tight budgets and cost cutting. If people have become that wimpy God help us.
There are training issues for officers who refuse to put the necessary time in on the range. In my agency we've had multiple shooters request to change caliber thinking that this would fix their lack of fundamentals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Keep in mind to, before the bean counters were concerned about the cost of the 40 and looking into the 9mm, the 357 Sig was developed to be a better stopper and to drop right into 40cal guns with just a barrel swap. Mainly because the 40 was not performing in the LE field. It just wasn't penetrating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,690 Posts
Yet again the insular thinking of the forum neglects to realize that not all LEO's nor civilians are "gun people". Most people have great difficulty in conquering their sympathetic nervous responses to heavy recoil and several posters in this thread have even remarked how they dislike the "snappy" recoil of a .40 S&W.

Another unmentioned factor in LE adoption of the 9mm is the more inclusive/diverse police forces today that include females and other minorities who are not culturally and historically familiar with firearms. At least not in a legal fashion. :whistle: ;) Depts./agencies are forced to be inclusive and to pass these types, hence the bar has been lowered.

That's not to say that 9mm in the past has not been effective. The Fed. 115 gr. JHP +p+ (BPLE) was legendary for being a "channel changer".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tophop1

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
When I retired in 2019 the Bureau was still allocating the same amount of $$$ per agent in training ammo as they had budgeted in 1998. The amount of ammo one could purchase for X dollars in 1998 was certainly far more than one could buy in 2019 for the same outlay of cash. So which cartridge is cheaper?

Training agents is expensive, and to lose them near Academy graduation due to failing to pass a firearms qualifications costs a lot of time and money. Which cartridge recoils less and is easier to control, leading to more passing qualification scores, more agents being sworn in, and saving money?

Does the .40 S&W perform better in the FBI protocols? Yes it does, but only marginally. For a marginal improvement in terminal ballistics, does it makes sense to spend so much more money and have less training? I know what cartridge I would get behind and where I would spend my money in this circumstance. Draw your own conclusions.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
79,846 Posts
I've owned four .40 pistols in the past. Two were Glock 23s, a 2nd gen and 3rd gen. Both torqued in my hand during recoil and they would rub the bottom of my trigger finger raw after a few magazines due to frame slap. The 9mm Glock 19s I owned never did that. It took a S&W 4006 (all-steel and heavy as a tank) to tame the .40 to the point where it felt soft and controllable. By contrast I can shoot a .45ACP 1911 all day long and never get tired. I also shoot hundreds of rounds through my tiny 9mm SIG P365s at a time with no discomfort. There must be something about the pressure curve of the .40 that gives it such unusually sharp recoil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boge

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
I've told the story a few times here of a best bud of mine from the academy who couldn't stop a pit bull with his department issued Glock 40cal with Federal HS's. First 4 rounds he put in the animal were in the vitals and center of mass. Heck they barely even phased the dog he said. 5th round he put in the skull to stop it.
Don't get me wrong, I sure as heck don't want shot with one. Of course I don't want shot with a 22 either.
I just have NO faith in the 40.
Anecdotal at best. I had a friend on the Narcotics Task Force, a Sergeant on the SO, was working a meth lab. One of the City PD members had the misfortune to have a pit bull latch onto his forearm. He emptied his 9mm into the pit bull but it would not die nor let go. My Sergeant friend ended the issue with one shot from his .45 ACP 1911 by shooting the pit bull in the base of the skull. Does that mean .45 ACP is better than 9mm? Not from one anecdotal story it doesn't.

I was investigating an OIS where the bad guy was hit by a 9mm, a .40 S&W, and a 5.56 NATO round...he lived just fine.

I know of failures to stop the bad guy with .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 magnum, 9mm, etc. Sometimes bullets work, often they don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,340 Posts
I've owned four .40 pistols in the past. Two were Glock 23s, a 2nd gen and 3rd gen. Both torqued in my hand during recoil and they would rub the bottom of my trigger finger raw after a few magazines due to frame slap. The 9mm Glock 19s I owned never did that. It took a S&W 4006 (all-steel and heavy as a tank) to tame the .40 to the point where it felt soft and controllable. By contrast I can shoot a .45ACP 1911 all day long and never get tired. I also shoot hundreds of rounds through my tiny 9mm SIG P365s at a time with no discomfort. There must be something about the pressure curve of the .40 that gives it such unusually sharp recoil.
It is definitely an entirely different round out of a hammer fired gun. Particularly a steel one. My M&P .40 isn't bad, but it does have some snap. But .40 S&W out of a 1911 has less snap and more push. The 1911 is more enjoyable than the M&P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
I think it got some bad press and a reputation. It was a badly conceived round brought about by the geniuses at the FBI. I have no problem shooting the round like I have heard so many report. It works for people that can shoot. It should not be that much more than a 9mm price wise yet it is. As you well know it is a watered down 10mm cartridge. The beauty of the gun you had was you can shoot 3 different calibers out of it. .357 Sig, 9mm and .40 S&W. With a conversion barrel. The ,357 Sig is a great flat shooting round. The real advantage of the .40 was it was still on shelves long after .45 and 9 mm were gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Anecdotal at best. I had a friend on the Narcotics Task Force, a Sergeant on the SO, was working a meth lab. One of the City PD members had the misfortune to have a pit bull latch onto his forearm. He emptied his 9mm into the pit bull but it would not die nor let go. My Sergeant friend ended the issue with one shot from his .45 ACP 1911 by shooting the pit bull in the base of the skull. Does that mean .45 ACP is better than 9mm? Not from one anecdotal story it doesn't.

I was investigating an OIS where the bad guy was hit by a 9mm, a .40 S&W, and a 5.56 NATO round...he lived just fine.

I know of failures to stop the bad guy with .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 magnum, 9mm, etc. Sometimes bullets work, often they don't.
You misunderstood my statement. I was not intending to show one round is better than another. I was giving a few of my reasons for I, myself, having zero faith in the round.
Basically giving the OP exactly what he asked, why I turn my nose up at the 40S&W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
We were a .40 agency forever until 2007 (glock 22) We had two shootings. Lady took eight center mass rounds and was able to finish reloading her shotgun before dropping dead. Another guy took a glancing shot to the temple. Went in the front and glanced off his skull and out the back. He still ran across 5 lanes of traffic, a big parking lot, 5 more lanes of traffic then crawled under a van. He’s still alive today.

Chief wasn’t happy so in 2008 we switched to 357 sig (glock 31). haven’t had to shoot anyone since. We got new 357 sig guns in 2018 (still glock 31). Winchester owes us ammo from 2020, 2021 and 2022. they cannot tell me when they’re going to make any.

Tuesday I am meeting with the chief with a quote to get rid of our 357 stuff and switch us to 9mm because I can get 9mm ammo from our vendors.

So since 1950, our agency was 357mag, .40s&w, 357sig and probably 9mm next year. We’re not going back to 40s because we would need new holsters if we got the gen5 glock 22mos. If approved, we’re ordering the Glock 45 MOS-5 (rmr cut).

our three female officers have no issues shooting 357sig.
 
21 - 40 of 272 Posts
Top