.40s&w 165gr bullets.

Status
Not open for further replies.

GooseGestapo

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
6,145
Seems I took a 10yr nap. The 165gr bullet in the .40s&w became a go-to choice.
I was around when the .40 became a “thing”. Shot prototypes of both Glock and S&W’s. Owned a couple of 10’s, too. I’ve been fond of the 155’s, preferring them over the 180’s. Less fond of the 135’s. 200’s just too big/long for the short case...

so, what’s the deal with the 165’s?
 
Before I moved predominately over to the 9mm from the 40 the 165’s were the sweet spot in my opinion for the caliber. Much like the 124’s in the 9mm.
 
I agree, 165 seems like the sweet spot for .40 in terms of energy and flexibility. I've shot a lot of Zero JHPs and they're good. Would like a lead option, but most of what I see is 155 or 170gr.
 
Yes, they’re 10gr heavier, and 100fps SLOWER.
I had two lot#’s of Winchester 155gr SilverTips factory ammo. One consistently chrono’d over 1,200fps from my G22. It’s what I carried.
I shot two deer with them. Both completely penetrated leaving exit wounds. Both one-shot kills.
I later duplicated the load with Hornady 155gr XTP’s. This is essentially .357mag performance. 16rds vs 6rds.

Excessive penetration seemed to be issue with the 180’s, not having enough velocity to expand from the compact/sub compact short barrels...
 
I found a screen shot on my phone of an article but Idk who wrote it. Maybe Mas? I'm not sure.

"Tulsa found the Golden Saber 165-gr. .40 much more effective than the 180-gr. subsonics they used before."
 
The 165gr bullet in the .40s&w became a go-to choice.
I started shooting USPSA with 155/180 gr FMJ bullets in the 90s.

While lighter 155 gr bullets were cheaper, it had shorter bullet base and produced sharper recoil impulse compared to 180 gr bullet which produced greater accuracy that I attributed to longer bullet base (bearing surface) which resulted in greater neck tension and better engagement with rifling.

Like many other match shooters, I migrated to 165 gr bullet, especially JHP (Many claimed shifting of center of gravity back towards bullet base improved rotational stability), as a good compromise between cost vs accuracy vs recoil impulse.

While I prefer 180 gr FMJ for longer bullet base, 165 gr FMJ/JHP with comparably long enough bullet base seemed to produce better accuracy over 155 gr bullet.
 
165s are more forgiving than 180s or heavier w.r.t. seating depth, a necessary consideration in 40S&W. :eek:

This misconception was perpetuated by Glock's failure and has stuck in the mind of reloaders ever since.
 
so, what’s the deal with the 165’s?

Some of it is fad. Some of it is performance. Some of it is preference. Some of it is splitting the difference.

Most 40S&W handguns have a sight height that is set for 180gr bullets at approx 980fps. Some handguns shoot great with 180's, while others will shoot closer to the sights with 155's. It depends on whether it is set up for a center hold or driving the dot. Most reloaders typically adjust the powder charge so that the POA is the POI at a certain distance. (more than 7 yards - haha).
For some, the POI shift for 165's is not as drastic as 155's, when a handgun is set up for 180's.

Additionally, every bullet has a velocity window. If you're below it, there's little or no expansion. Then, there's the optimal range. Then, over a certain velocity there could be overexpansion, however, this isn't a 40S&W issue, but is possible with some of the same bullets in 10mm. The notable exception would be Remington Golden Saber losing their jackets, but that is typical for their design.
Most 155 JHP's get great expansion due to the additional velocity. Some 180gr JHP's don't have good expansion due to their lower velocity. For some, 165's were seen as a happy medium between having enough velocity for expansion without the stout recoil of 155's, with the POI being close enough to the sights.

Also, ten years ago, manufacturers were promoting the lightweight 135gr .400" bullets to make their 40S&W handguns into 9mm-like performance for some shooters. It is rather ironic that today's return to 9mm has brought interest in .355" 147gr JHP bullets, which usually chrono under 1000fps.

Excessive penetration seemed to be issue with the 180’s, not having enough velocity to expand from the compact/sub compact short barrels...

If you've been napping under a rock for 10 years, many today are quick to note the improvements to 9mm JHP's. This technology is not lost on 40S&W. Without listing them all and leaving out someone's favorite JHP, there are a lot of excellent choices. Well known brands make 12-18" of penetration and expand into diameters over 0.70", even in short barreled firearms. If you peruse this source: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#40SW it is easy to see that bullet weight alone does not directly correlate to over penetration or lack of expansion. There are more winners than losers across 155/165/180 when it comes to 12-18" penetration and full expansion.
 
This misconception was perpetuated by Glock's failure and has stuck in the mind of reloaders ever since.

That's not to say it can't be safely done. I load 180s extensively (165s, too). You just have to be mindful of the seating depth. And I often load 180s at longer COAL than SAAMI specs with satisfactory results.

See attached...
About the author: Todd Louis Green has worked in the firearms industry since 1998, including instructing for the NRA Range, Beretta, and SIG-Sauer. He has over 1,000 hours of formal firearms and combatives training. A 3-time “Advanced” rated shooter at Rogers Shooting School, Todd is also a graduate of the NRA Tactical Pistol Instructor Development program and a 3 division Master-ranked IDPA competitor. Todd is a certified Beretta, Glock, Heckler & Koch, SIG-Sauer, and Smith & Wesson armorer; certified Simunition force-on-force instructor; and certified Emergency First Responder. He is a long time member of IALEFI, IDPA, and USPSA.
 

Attachments

  • Why the 180gr Bullet is a Bad Choice for 40 S&W.pdf
    29.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
That's not to say it can't be safely done. I load 180s extensively (165s, too). You just have to be mindful of the seating depth. And I often load 180s at longer COAL than SAAMI specs with satisfactory results.

See attached...
About the author: Todd Louis Green has worked in the firearms industry since 1998, including instructing for the NRA Range, Beretta, and SIG-Sauer. He has over 1,000 hours of formal firearms and combatives training. A 3-time “Advanced” rated shooter at Rogers Shooting School, Todd is also a graduate of the NRA Tactical Pistol Instructor Development program and a 3 division Master-ranked IDPA competitor. Todd is a certified Beretta, Glock, Heckler & Koch, SIG-Sauer, and Smith & Wesson armorer; certified Simunition force-on-force instructor; and certified Emergency First Responder. He is a long time member of IALEFI, IDPA, and USPSA.
I have had a print out of his article for a few years. I agree that 180 gr. can be loaded safely. I think I would recommend for a new reloader to start with a 165 gr. until they understand neck tension and seating depth to pressure awareness.
 
I'm a fan of using heavier bullets in a particular cartridge. I like the greater momentum that a heavier bullet provides.

I get good results with 180 grain bullets in my 40 S&W guns.

But, I'll admit, I have not tried any 165 grain bullets. 165 grain hollow points might be worth a try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top