1KPerDay
Member
I would wager that a lot of people who claim the .40 has sharper/snappier recoil than full-power .45 ACP haven't shot a lot of .45 ACPs. Equal weight pistols with equal recoil systems. Shoot both and get back to me.
The "strikes" against the .40 are increased ammo cost, decreased pistol service life and decreased on board ammunition capacity. At least that's the way I see it at the current moment in time.
<- w-w, who agrees that "9 is fine" but is a big-bore handgun shooter at heart.
I would wager that a lot of people who claim the .40 has sharper/snappier recoil than full-power .45 ACP haven't shot a lot of .45 ACPs. Equal weight pistols with equal recoil systems. Shoot both and get back to me.
Ask any military personnel who have close quarter combat experience whether they prefer 17 rounds of 9mm or 15 rounds of 40S&W or even 8 rounds of 45ACP. Their answers may surprise you on the "modern" performance of 9mm.
I find the recoil of light for caliber bullets much more snappy than heavier ones, that includes 115s in 9mm, 155s in 40 SW and 185s in 45 acp.Since bullet mass is the big contributor to recoil there's nothing wrong with firing 155 or 165 out of a 40 instead of 180.
There is not that much of energy difference between the 9 and the .40 to justify the price difference,
I don't wanna open a can of worms here, but with due respect, I never saw what's the point of the .40. Other than the guys that shoot IPSC Major, you won't see a firearm chambered in this caliber at this side of the pond. Of course, there is always the matter of personal preference, what every individual shoots better and what makes one feel more confident/confortable with. There is no discussion when you just like it better over other calibers, different strokes for different folks. I have shot the .40 and never liked the snapiness of it, but, I have to admit that I absolutely love the .45 and I find the 9 mm competent enough to carry out what is expected from a handgun round. If you do need more "power", perhaps it's time to just switch to a long gun. There is not that much of energy difference between the 9 and the .40 to justify the price difference, but, again, if you can afford it and like it better, go ahead. It's your gun and your money .
many mfg. just tried to stretch their 9mm frame to accommodate the 40, which (I've heard) led to some durability problems.
I had been shooting .45 ACP for about two decades before the fourty came out. It isn't "snappier", it's torques sidewise, just feels weird. My lightweight subcompact XD was unpleasant with full loads, while my 3" aluminum framed 1911 was not with full power .45. Maybe subjective, but that's all that matters. The .40 was a pussycat in my full sized Witness Elite Match. But I still preferred 9MM and .45, and since it cost me nearly the same to load fourty as forty five, I chose .45.I would wager that a lot of people who claim the .40 has sharper/snappier recoil than full-power .45 ACP haven't shot a lot of .45 ACPs. Equal weight pistols with equal recoil systems. Shoot both and get back to me.