• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

40 vs 45 Recoil?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matai

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
419
Location
Eastside of the Westside, WA
I've always been under the impression that .40S&W has a snappier recoil than a .45ACP. I've never been able to directly compare the two with a similar gun.

Which do you guys think has "more" recoil?

I know it's a subjective question, but is there any way to quantify the difference between the recoil?

Thanks
 
Some idiot left a .40 S&W on a bench with .45 rounds I was loading and I accidentally fired it out of my 1911.

I'd say ~60% of the recoil of the .45 ACP rounds. Also the slide only managed to get the hammer to the half-cock position.

(I never thought I'd bring that up again)
 
Last edited:
I think the .40 has a "sharper" recoil impulse than the .45, where the .45 is more of a good push, the .40 is similar to a quick shove
 
"More recoil" is subjective, and encompasses a lot of factors. Among them are weight of the projectile, speed of the bullet, style of gun (polymer vs. steel, auto vs. revolver), weight of the gun, and the height of the bore above the hand.

Having shot a Springfield XD40 and a Springfield XD45 side by side, (essentially the same gun in different calibers) using the same Winchester white box ammo from WallyWorld, I can say the following:

The .40 seems to have much more "snap" to it. It is more violent in it's recoil behavior and is like a "slap".

The .45 is more like a strong "push", and I find it more "satisfying" and pleasant to shoot a whole bunch of it.

The 45's disadvantage is that ammo is more expensive, and has been difficult to find the past few years.

On the other hand, I've always seen .40 caliber in stock at Walmart and the gun stores didn't go as wild on pricing it as they did on .45 (if they had it at all) during the height of the Obama Panic. You can also get .40 caliber sub-compacts for concealed carry, which puts a lot of power in a small package for social situations, but such a gun might not be what you want to use for an all-day plinking session...

I started reloading .45 because of the crazy prices and low availability, so this is less of an issue now, even though I'm starting to see .45 in stock locally more frequently this summer. I carry an 4" XD45 pretty frequently, but I'm fairly rotund and can conceal this size weapon without much difficulty.

Decide what your intended use is before contemplating calibers.
 
Last edited:
This is the best comparison I've got, using data, from "comparable" pistols.
Glock 38 GAP v. Glock 23
I know it's not 45 acp, but these two pistols are very similar and the 45 GAP produces approximately the same level of power as the 45 acp.
Glock 38 with 230 gr. Winchester Ranger T: 788 fps = 181 "power factor"
Glock 23 with 165 gr. Winchester Ranger T: 1,125 fps = 186 "power factor"
Power factor is bullet weight x speed / 1,000 and it's a comparative measurement for recoil out of similar pistols.
One more:
Glock 38 with 185 gr. Winchester Silvertip: 908 fps = 168 PF
Glock 23 with 155 gr. Winchester Silvertip: 1,090 fps = 180 PF

Assuming 45 acp loads are of equivalent power to those GAP loadings, I can see why people think the 40 is "snappy" and I share that opinion.

Out of a Glock 30 (which has a "fatter" grip making direct comparison a little less valid, but still close enough for most people)
Federal 230 gr. Hydra Shock 807 fps = 186 power factor
Glock 23 with Gold Dot (my direct comparisons are starting to fade :rolleyes:)
155 gr. Gold Dot @ 1,171 fps = 182 power factor
 
Subjectively,
I traded my G23(.40S&W) for a G30(.45ACP)(for sale btw :)) a while ago because I like shooting the G30 much better due to recoil and follow up. The G23 felt very snappy with lots of muzzle flip, the G30 on the other hand seemed to just "roll up" and right back on target.
 
My subjective impression is that .45 has more of a "push" recoil than the .40's "snap."
Click to expand...

I'm in this camp. Remember, too, that the level of felt "push" and "snap" are going to vary from gun to gun.

A Glock 22C (Compensated) has less felt snap than a G22, IMO, and certainly a lot less than a G23.

I've always felt that the .45 ACP has the right "feel" for recoil, regardless of platform. YMMV.

Take care,
DFW1911
 
When Glock first introduced their 9mm, it was a home run. The 9mm isn't that severe a round, add the weight of a hi cap magazine and the weapon was very easy to manage in recoil for follow up shots. As Glock began to make larger caliber weapons, the downside to a lightweight polymer weapon became evident. Much more felt recoil, much slower follow up shots. I have carried a Glock model 23 for a few years now and for a number of reasons, ease of shooting, and rapid follow up shots are not some of them. I recently traded it in for the Taurus OSS 45. It's a little heavier and a larger caliber and i find it much eaiser to shoot rapidly with better hit probability than the Glock. Lightweight big bore hand guns are great if you have to carry them alot and shoot them very little. This also depends alot on how big the person is using the gun. Bullet weight in hi-cap magazines also changes felt recoil as more shots are fired. The Glock now joins my Commander model 45 Colt, and others, on the inactive shelf in the safe.
 
After shooting full size .40 and .45 glocks to me the .40 is snappier and the .45 is more of a push. I'd say the amount recoil is about the same but, to me the .45's recoil is more pleasant and easier to shoot in rapid fire than the .40.
 
.40 is far to snappy for me, I went with a friend that had a XD40 and shot it next to my XD45 and in comparison the recoil of the .45 is much smoother.
 
The Lone Haranguer said:
Quite true. My subjective impression is that .45 has more of a "push" recoil than the .40's "snap." There is greater muzzle rise, but more slowly and easier to recover from.
Click to expand...
Add me as another person who agrees with this description.

But there is some objective reason for this, being the difference in pressures of the two cartridges.

But that said, it doesn't mean one is any "better" or "worse" than the other. It still comes down to which you prefer. I'm more a .40 man myself, but the recoil has little to do with that choice.
 
""Some idiot left a .40 S&W on a bench with .45 rounds I was loading and I accidentally fired it out of my 1911.

I'd say ~60% of the recoil of the .45 ACP rounds. Also the slide only managed to get the hammer to the half-cock position. ""

This makes me laugh!!!
 
Having shot a heck of a lot of 44 magnums in my days, I don't find recoil out of either the 45 or the 40 to be substantial. Speaking of shooting a Colt 1911 or Glock whatever the model # is. I don't have one presently.

I've got 40 in a G-23, Sig P229 and just Friday a Kahr MK40. None of those are in any way punishing AFAIC. Same with a 10mm G-20 or Delta Elite. They ain't mouse guns but I could shoot 50 to 100 rounds and enjoy it with any of the above. Not so with a 7 1/2" bbl model 29 S&W with full house factory loads.
 
I'm selling my G23 today, I just can't shoot it as good as I want to and I believe it is mainly due to the sharp snappy recoil. I'm keeping the G21 as it is so pleasant to shoot. I think I'm going with a Vaquero that comes with a .45acp cylinder.
 
I find the .45 to have very little recoil.
OTOH I'm really starting to dislike the .40 the more I shoot it out of my converted G20.
There is no question the .40 has very good external and terminal ballistics, but the recoil it has is so unpleasant, like the others have described it, its snappy and harsh, the one exception to that was the SIG 226 .40 I shot, but that is undoubtedly because that gun is built like a tank.

The .40 was supposed to be a watered down 10mm cartridge, somehow they dropped the power but kept the recoil. :confused:

As much as I want to like the .40, I'm now really having a hard time seeing an advantage to it over the 45 or 10 other than price.
 
When the 40 was first out, many said the recoil was less than the 45's recoil.

I had two 5" Para Ordnance pistols, one in 40 the other in 45. I shot them both.
I sold the 40 and kept the 45. Nothing gained except mag capacity.
 
I think the perceived recoil depends on the platform. I've owned a G23 and FNP 40 and both were quite "snappy" compared to a 1911, but not much different than the HK 45 USP Compact that I once had. I've also owned a Sig P229 in 40S&W and the recoil was mild compared to a 1911. Snappy, not snappy, we need to compare apples to apples when doing this comparison and do so with pistols that are on similar platforms....all plastic frames compared to all metal frames. Just my $0.02 :).
 
I've always LOVED how all my .45ACP handguns felt during recoil and how easy it is to rapidly get back on target. It is just a firm push.

OTHO, shooting the 40S&W out of both pistols AND a S&W Model 646 Performance Center revolver was less satisfying, recoil wise.

Today I lack owning any Forty Short & Wimpies . . . choosing instead to stick to my .45ACP round that I've come to love and admire through years of shooting and competitions.
 
I actually prefer the snappier recoil of .40 S&W because it helps me get back on target more quickly, or so I sense (i.e. the faster a round pushes back on my arms, the faster my arms tend to snap back into place). Obviously it doesn't work the same way for everybody, but we're all different.
 
Im a .45 guy for many reasons, But a big one is the push recoil and not snappy wrist bending recoil it has. Put a .45acp in a small polymer subcompact it does start showing its tendency to want to be snappy and push both.
Lightweight and a small grip is the reason imo.

By far the 1911 is my favorite carry gun, But in the summer i find a good SC is needed for easier concealment and weight. .45 in a gun that small doesn't thrill me unless its in a 3" 1911 with some weight to it, That can be expensive.
I don't like 9mm and i don't/wont carry it.

That leaves me with the .40 in a subcompact and its not "fun" to shoot at the range like the 1911 is. But i didn't buy it to be fun. It fills a void i needed filled and does it well.
But its not a gun im in love with either.
I feel the gun will do the job i need it to and still be able to get repeat shots off just a tad slower than if i was shooting my 1911.
But comparing a SC .40 too the same gun in .45 its a toss up as both have very similar recoil. I owned a Taurus PT745 in 45acp which was a single stack with a very small and thin grip.

Its all about trade off's unless your bank account is large, Or have lots of time to save up the money.
But in the end id rather have a snappy .40 than a 9mm any day.

I will add i used to own a G20 10mm which i loved and only would shoot full power loads from and it was alot of fun. I bought a LoneWolf .40 conversion to save on ammo costs and i hated shooting that gun with the .40 in in. It made it snap at the wrist even when a full power 10mm wouldn't.
The 10mm had the push like a .45acp does and not so much wrist snap of a .40
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JeffDilla
  • Locked
How does .40 s&w recoil compare to .45acp recoil in the same brand/make gun?
Replies
12
Views
1K
MMCSRET
MMCSRET
A
  • Locked
How does the .357Sig compare to the .40S&W?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
EBRDude
E
P
  • Locked
Perceived recoil of polymer vs. steel pistols
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
JONWILL
JONWILL
Spec ops Grunt
  • Locked
.40 S&W recoil.
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Surefire
S
B
  • Locked
recoil: HK vs glock?
Replies
2
Views
689
HKIWB
H
Back
Top