Objectively speaking, why the 40 S&W hate / decline?

Deanimator said:

It can be a very unpleasant round to fire in the wrong gun.

Click to expand...

^^^this^^^
Gun design plays a big role in felt recoil and recoil control.
Glock basically just bore the hole in the barrel bigger to turn a 17/19 into a 22/23 they use the same slide and recoil spring.
My FNS40 doesn't have the scallops on the slide cut as deep as the scallops on a FNS9 as such the 40 weighs 27.2oz to the 9s 25.6oz. The FNS40 is a very soft shooting 40 and easy to control the additional recoil of 40 S&W.

I meant no offense to .40 cal lovers when I said I didn't see an iconic design in that caliber. It's just my own personal preferences. A S&W 4006, to me, is just a 5906 with a slightly larger bore. My 3rd Gen is a 9mm, I'm happy with it. I'm also happy with my other 9mm's.

In just my own humble opinion, this is the issue- 9mm and .40 s&w have a large overlap; .40 gives you a little more oomph, and 9mm gives you a couple more rds. The guns chambered in either have versions in the other. Again, in just my own take, there is no one gun that makes me say "oh, I have to have one, and it must be in .40", not for adding something to the collection. Sig P22x, Beretta 9x, Hi Power, CZ 75, 3rd Gen S&W... both in 9 and .40. I chose the 9. This makes my ammo purchases easier, because I have other 9's, and keeps me from having to buy different calibers, and carry different to the range.

Now, in contrast, I have a 1911, and that to me says .45 acp. I only own one 1911, and it's my only 45. That is my example of getting the gun as it was intended to be, or "iconic".

To be fair, I started out with 9 and built on that. If I were starting out now, the price of used .40s might sway me to go with .40 instead of 9. I don't think you could go wrong with either, but MY universal caliber is 9mm.

mavracer said:

^^^this^^^
Gun design plays a big role in felt recoil and recoil control.
Glock basically just bore the hole in the barrel bigger to turn a 17/19 into a 22/23 they use the same slide and recoil spring.
My FNS40 doesn't have the scallops on the slide cut as deep as the scallops on a FNS9 as such the 40 weighs 27.2oz to the 9s 25.6oz. The FNS40 is a very soft shooting 40 and easy to control the additional recoil of 40 S&W.

Click to expand...

I believe that the problems with .40 S&W induced Glock to change their recoil spring design to a dual spring unit.

I've heard (don't have direct experience) that the later generation guns are much more pleasant to shoot.

If I ever see a great deal on a 2nd Gen Glock 23, I'm going to buy one to see if the 22lb. spring treatment makes it worth having.

Back when CDNN had great deals on them, I had a choice between a steal on a Glock 19 or Glock 23. My experiences with my Glock 22 led me to buy the Glock 19. Between the availability of 9x19mm conversion kits and 22lb. recoil springs, I might have made a different choice today. Of course my neat VA Beach Sheriff's Dept. logo on my Glock 19 was a significant factor...

Deanimator said:

I believe that the problems with .40 S&W induced Glock to change their recoil spring design to a dual spring unit.

I've heard (don't have direct experience) that the later generation guns are much more pleasant to shoot.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure but I think at some point Glock added weight to the slide IIRC Gen 1 and 2 40s were actually lighter than their 9mm counterparts now current 40s are a little heavier.

mavracer said:

I'm not sure but I think at some point Glock added weight to the slide IIRC Gen 1 and 2 40s were actually lighter than their 9mm counterparts now current 40s are a little heavier.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I don't think there were ever any 1st Gen .40s. 2nd Gen was when they got the additional pin grip frame (for the .40).

!st Gens are the original 9x19mm guns without either finger grooves or ridges.

edit
M

ShootingIsFun said:

I am so tired of the description of "snappy" recoil of the 40... Maybe the users of that descriptor just don't like or shoot as well with 40. That's ok. Maybe it has greater recoil that the 9mm. That makes sense. Maybe the recoil of the (sloooow) .45 out of a steel 1911 is easier to manage... But to me the description of snappy recoil always sounds like a crutch excuse made in lieu of of a good argument against the 40.
9mm offers increased capacity and less recoil. No argument there. But it also has a smaller diameter and decreased penetration potential. Improvements to bullet technology that "made the 9mm more effective" were also applied to 40, making it more effective.
I like both and shoot them equally well. In a full sized service weapon I prefer the 40. In a smaller/ccw pistol I prefer the 9. They're different - not better or worse than each other.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. I would say that my M&P Shield 40 is "snappy" and less comfortable to shoot but my P2000 40 is execellent.

JTQ said:

Prior to the 1970's, wasn't .380 ACP the most common LE round in Europe?

Click to expand...

I guess it differs wildly from country to country. There is a 9 Luger standard currently in place, but in the past anything from .32 ACP up to 9 Largo (here in Spain) could be used. I know for certain that in countries as different as Sweden and Portugal some officers (supervisors, normally) used small .32 ACP pistols, and that patrol officers were issued larger calibers, but I'd say they seldom went up the 9 mm boundary.

Over here, I remember seeing, as a child, officers armed with .38 Special revolvers and large Star 9 Largo pistols. Those were later rechambered in 9 Luger, and currently it's almost all 9 Luger. There are times that you find .38 Special cases at the shooting range (some people and intel or investigation units still like them) but it's rather exceptional.

If your .40 is "snappy and hard to control, it is because you are making it that way. The .40 was originally loaded as a 180gr bullet doing around 950fps. That is the round the FBI found to be very effective in many different situations. Later when the "faster is always better" crowd realized they could add a few hundred feet per second to it, they created the "snappy" .40 that everyone whines about. The original round is still very effective (more so with modern bullets) and still very pleasant to shoot. So are the 165gr loads when loaded to around 980fps.

Check out how well the lower velocity .40 loads did in this extensive ballistics gel test compared to even the +P 45ACP loads:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#380ACP

Nordeste said:

I guess it differs wildly from country to country. There is a 9 Luger standard currently in place, but in the past anything from .32 ACP up to 9 Largo (here in Spain) could be used. I know for certain that in countries as different as Sweden and Portugal some officers (supervisors, normally) used small .32 ACP pistols, and that patrol officers were issued larger calibers, but I'd say they seldom went up the 9 mm boundary.

Over here, I remember seeing, as a child, officers armed with .38 Special revolvers and large Star 9 Largo pistols. Those were later rechambered in 9 Luger, and currently it's almost all 9 Luger. There are times that you find .38 Special cases at the shooting range (some people and intel or investigation units still like them) but it's rather exceptional.

Click to expand...

When I was in Germany in the late 1980s, small flapped holsters, the size of PP holsters, were typical for traffic officers. Since the compact 9mm wasn't a thing yet, I imagine they were still sporting .380 ACP pistols. I never saw an officer pull his sidearm, so I can't say for certain what was being carried.

I my opinion the .40 S&W is fine. Nothing wrong with it, but I'm not a huge fan either.

I have a couple .40's. One was given to me and I bought the other one for a winter carry pistol because I liked the stippling on the grip/frame and the Nickel Boron slide.

Started gravitating towards it during the panic. .40 was often the only ammo on the shelf that was left and it was shoot that or shoot nothing at all. So I bought a barrel for one pistol, had one given to me and bought the other shortly after that. They did what I needed to do. I got to keep shooting and to stay somewhat current when many often had to stay home and didn't get to go to the range.

I didn't feel underarmed while carrying or shooting it nor did it kill me with some kind of unmanageable recoil.

I don't really get either end of the argument. It's not my favorite, but I don't get the hate either.

I never wanted to get into .40 s&w. My wife had other ideas. She picked a .40s&w hp carbine out after using a local ranges 9mm rental version. We could only find a .40 at the time so we bought it. She shot the dang thing so much it started eating me out of house and home. I ended up reloading for the cartridge and even casting and powdercoating for it. Eventually I happened onto a Glock 27 and decided I like running the .40. Since then I have added a few more police trade in .40s and its just another caliber we like to shoot. Probably feel a little like I should have gotten into it sooner.

Analogkid said:

I never wanted to get into .40 s&w. My wife had other ideas. She picked a .40s&w hp carbine out after using a local ranges 9mm rental version. We could only find a .40 at the time so we bought it. She shot the dang thing so much it started eating me out of house and home. I ended up reloading for the cartridge and even casting and powdercoating for it. Eventually I happened onto a Glock 27 and decided I like running the .40. Since then I have added a few more police trade in .40s and its just another caliber we like to shoot. Probably feel a little like I should have gotten into it sooner.

Click to expand...

Yup I’ll bet a 155 grain .40 is pretty tough out of a carbine. Good choice by the wife.

I also have a HiPoint 4095. It's a sweet carbine alright.

My wife shoots a P229 and P239, both in .40 and really likes them. She doesn't think .40 is snappy.....because I've never let her shoot a 9mm.

She didn't much like the recoil of a newly acquired G23, and refused to shoot a second round of .44 mag out of the Redhawk. But she likes those .40 Cal Sigs plenty.

WrongHanded said:

My wife shoots a P229 and P239, both in .40 and really likes them. She doesn't think .40 is snappy.....because I've never let her shoot a 9mm.

She didn't much like the recoil of a newly acquired G23, and refused to shoot a second round of .44 mag out of the Redhawk. But she likes those .40 Cal Sigs plenty.

Click to expand...

Looks like she is a lot tougher than a lot of the guys posting here!

I don't hate the .40, but never felt the need to own one.

OK I think there is a difference between a 9mm and a .40. A bigger , heavier and faster bullet makes for bigger holes and more damage. I love my .40. I just picked up an M&P Shield in .40 and love it! All I have to do is watch my wifes 9mm bullet hit and then watch mine. Yes there is a real difference

It’s funny I have found my way back to the .40 as others have walked away. I like the penetration characteristics and the 165/180 grain HSTs are beasts.

That being said pistol calibers suck......kinda period / across the board. Pick one or three/learn to shoot them and keep squeezing until they stop wheezing so to speak.

Platform matters a lot in .40. Glocks kinda suck in .40. HKs and SIGs are kinda awesome. Not a dig t Glocks as they are awesome in 9mm just pointing out that platform does matter.

9mm is the most efficient of the martial calibers. Good power, good capacity, light recoil, light weight etc. probably the best all around self defense caliber for two legged threats. I still gravitate to my .40 HKs.

But hell.....40....DA/SA.....Hammer fired.....I might as well be using an atlatl as much of a caveman as I am.

I always chuckle at the caliber debates as there are plenty of .38 supers, 9mm makarov, .455 Webley and any number of other calibers in nightstands that are plenty adequate to defend home and hearth.

Objectively speaking, why the decline of the .40? Because human nature is such that we’re always looking for something better. This isn’t a ballistics issue, it’s a psychological issue. We’ll forever be implementing change and calling it progress, even when we go back and forth between shades of gray.

I guess it's all very dependent on the individual. My FiL has the Glock 22, the full-sized S&W (M&P?), the full-sized Springfield (no clue on the model #), and the CZ P09 in 40 caliber.

I have a Beretta 96, a Beretta PX4, a polymer Witness, and a double-stack 1911.

We both shoot all of them with no trouble at all. They don't feel "snappy" at all to either of us. (In the big steel 1911 the round is laughably gentle.)

Maybe it's because we're big guys? Maybe it's because they are all largish pistols? I probably wouldn't like the round in a small polymer handgun. In a service pistol it doesn't feel much different than a 9mm or 45acp, to me anyway.

This guy never jumped on the 40S&W bandwagon.
No hate just no interest 9x19, Luger, Parabellum or whatever seemed suitable for a pistol.
I have more powerful revolvers and lots of nice rifles. As another fellow said pistol calibers are not too effective, as compared to shotgun or rifle rounds.

I shoot both 9mm and 10mm, and generally carry .45ACP, and so have absolutely no use for the .40. I've always said, however, should the popularity of the .40 wane enough to drop it's ammo to near 9mm prices, I'd introduce myself to it in a hurry.

I like 40 better than 45, but if I needed more power than what hot 9mm is packing, I would go straight to 10mm or 357 magnum. These days, a lot of high quality expanding 9mm is over 400 ft lbs. They say 40 is better with barriers, so maybe it has it's place in LE, but I'm fine with modern 380 auto defense loads much less 9mm.