.40s&w pistol longevity and reliability

Back in time the only pistols designed around the .40S&W were the HK USP, the SIG-Sauer P229, the S&W Sigma and a couple others. I think the .40 Glocks proven themselves as well as the steel framed EAA Witness (Tanfoglio).
Ruger American, Remington RP, Beretta APX, Pardini GT40, Grand Power P40, Mauser M2, Steyr M40 look like pretty sturdy designs to me.

I think my Beretta 96A1 is a very robust, accurate and properly sized 40 cal.

I;m considering a second 40 cal and looking at the Springfield EMP. It's a bit smaller than my Beretta but nothing but excellent reviews on the net.

Buzznrose said:

Guys who plan to shoot 20/30/40 thousand rounds of ammo, be it in an AR, hunting rifle, or a handgun, and worry about the cost to replace the gun, barrel, etc., it makes me chuckle, no insult intended.

The simple fact is if you buy commercial ammo, 20K rounds at a bargain price of $0.22 per round, you’d spend $4,400 on the ammo alone. I have no idea how much reloading would save.

If you are really worried about the gun lasting, buy a Glock and don’t worry. If you ever wear the gun out, send it back to Glock, and they will very likely repair or replace the gun at no cost. I’ve heard of them replacing rental guns with many thousands of rounds....I’m sure they will do the same for you.

Click to expand...

/\ this.
If you wear out a handgun, it doesn't owe you a thing. Want a good test? Go buy a $150, 40 cal hi-point and do your best to wear it out. Good luck.

Obturation said:

/\ this.
If you wear out a handgun, it doesn't owe you a thing. Want a good test? Go buy a $150, 40 cal hi-point and do your best to wear it out. Good luck.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s impossible to wear out a Glock, it happens with the 9MM’s, so definitely doable with a .40. But I have heard of a lot of folks who show up at the Glock factory in Smyrna GA without warning or appointments and drop off several Glocks, regardless of age or version. They are told to go get something to eat and come back in a couple hours, and upon their return, their guns are like new. All are inspected, cleaned, and all worn parts are replaced. All at zero cost.

I'd love to have enough range time available that I could even try to wear out a gun!

The last I heard some of the the G22 at the Police Academy were above 75,000 rounds.

94045 said:

The last I heard some of the the G22 at the Police Academy were above 75,000 rounds.

Click to expand...

Very believable. MarkCO, a Glocktalk moderator, forensic engineer, pistol competitor says some of his Glock 40s have made it to 100,000 rds.

M

5-SHOTS said:

Back in time the only pistols designed around the .40S&W were the HK USP, the SIG-Sauer P229, the S&W Sigma and a couple others. I think the .40 Glocks proven themselves as well as the steel framed EAA Witness (Tanfoglio).
Ruger American, Remington RP, Beretta APX, Pardini GT40, Grand Power P40, Mauser M2, Steyr M40 look like pretty sturdy designs to me.

Click to expand...

Ruger does not make an American pistol in 40S&W. You can get the Ruger SR40.

If the gun is designed to use 40S&W ammo, it should have the same reliability as the one that shoots 9mm.

I dont think the alloy framed 229 or 226 will outlast the Glock or HK. The stainless frame versions likely would. The barrel and the slide are just as good. I also dont think the barrels will outlast the frame. All of my higher use sigs show a decent amount of frame wear even though they have always been properly greased and recoil springs replaced. My beretta doesn't even show the same wear with similar round count. They are among my favorite handguns of all time and I greatly prefer them over my HKs but Sigs frames just werent hard enough. That said I think any of them will last to close 100k as far as frame/barrel/slide go if the springs are kept in good shape. That's 15k in ammo even at today's cheap prices. Even reloaded that's 3k dollars just in primers plus bullets and powder. The other parts and springs and such that typically break will break regardless of caliber but I've seen no issues with any of the duty guns around here and those have been the 226, 229, USP, and Glock 22s. All in 40 except a few sigs in 357 sig which are relevant here I believe. Very very few people ever wear out a gun. Those that do know how much the ammo costed to get there and dont feel cheated nor worry about a 500-1000 dollar gun.

I'd bet it's a fraction of a percent of the Glock, Sig, HK, Smith, and other quality guns that were sold since the 90s when .40 was introduced that arent still going today.

If I had to bet on one gun it would be a HK USP. But I am not going to worry about wearing out any guns at my age and lightweight rate of fire.

How about a 4506? I sure like the third generation Smiths.

Anchorite said:

How about a 4506?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure That's a 45...no fair. Maybe 4006

crestoncowboy said:

Pretty sure That's a 45...no fair. Maybe 4006

Click to expand...

Yes, you’re right.

Anchorite said:

, you’re right

Click to expand...

The only one I have is a 10mm but you're right they were built well.

In my experience, you'll be going through small parts quicker on a .40 vs. the same platform in 9mm. .40 does beat on the gun harder than 9mm; that is just a fact.

Is it enough to trash a frame, slide or even barrel? Not for 99.99% of all shooters. And as noted, if you can do that, the cost of the gun is a drop in the bucket compared to ammo.

I'd still buy the gun that is ergonomically best for me and my mission for for said gun, buy spare small parts, and then shoot away. If you ever break a major component, cross that bridge when you get there. Thinking that the frame of gun (A) will last 50k longer than the frame of gun (B) is not a good reason to buy gun (A).

94045 said:

The last I heard some of the the G22 at the Police Academy were above 75,000 rounds.

Click to expand...

They probably had the original recoil springs too.