I'm this --><-- close to getting a .40 - convince me one way or the other.

[Hal]

I'm no fan of the .40S&W.

I can honestly say the same about the 9mm, except to a lesser degree. At least 9mm ammunition is cheap.

.45acp? Well, yeah,,honestly I like the .45acp the best of all.

Problem is,, the guns I want the most for carry,,,my real short list,,are either 9mm or .40S&W.
I'm still not convinced the .40S&W is right though. I need a push one way or the other.

 

[mete]

I've found the 40 performs about the same as a 45 on 4 legged creatures, both being noticably better than the 9mm. In addition most cops are now carrying the 40. There aren't too many cartridges that have been so widely accepted so quickly. And the choice of small carry guns in 40 is impressive.

 

[klover]

Never shot 40.
CZ Rami followed me home yesterday with 50 rounds for $9.95 of practice 180 fmj. I think I paid about the same for a small amount of 9mm.

The Gold Dots were $14.00 for 20 rounds about. I really doubt there is a lack of fire power here.



The Rami is just WAY ____ COOL . can't wait to shoot it!

 

[cratz2]

Assuming equal shot placement, I feel that 40S&W offers about a 2% to 3% increase in effectiveness over very similar bullets in 9mm... say 124 Gr +P Gold Dots vs 165 Gr Gold Dots... due to the larger bullet diameter. In the real world, if you can't hold the shots to a 2% to 3% variation in placement, they're just about equally effective. This assumes quality modern HPs from service length barrels.

But for many folks, the 9mm is consistantly easier to hit with and from the looks of your post, you aren't swimming in money right now (who is?) so the 9mm would offer roughly twice the practice time for the same cost.

Honestly, I have no problem with either the 9mm or the 40S&W. They are probably the two most generally most available rounds as far as carry guns chambered and the ammo is everywhere. I'd feel adequately protected with either but I can shoot the 9mm more effectively at speed.

 

[dakotasin]

hate the 9, love the 40.

'bout the only gun i've ever sold was a 9mm... the 40, in my guns, has been more accurate, and just as easy to shoot. when i was making the decision on my newest gun, i went 40 because it is more powerful, and makes bigger holes than the 9, yet is very affordable to shoot. the clincher, though, was when the shop showed me the stats on the percentage of one-shot-stops of various cartridges... sold me on the 40.

if you are a huge 45 fan, though, there are some nifty ccw guns out for 45 nowadays... mebbe have a look...

 

[mr. e]

I like the 9mm for slowfire accuracy and carry a 9mm P239 in the summer when clothes are light and concealment is more difficult.

I shoot well enough with the 40 auto and prefer to carry it in the larger Walther P99 when possible.

Based on the recoil of the 9mm in the smaller gun vs. the 40 in the larger, there's no question in my mind that the 40 hits harder, lots harder.

In the same gun with a magazine limitation of 10 rounds, I think carrying the 40 is a no-brainer.

 

[Preacherman]

In terms of actual shooting results (I have access to Federal LEO after-action reports), the .40 S&W in the best loadings seems to be markedly superior to the 9mm, irrespective of the latter's loadings. Top performers in .40 seem to be the 155gr. to 165gr. hollowpoints, with the Remington Golden Saber and Speer Gold Dot leading the pack. Performance in actual shootings seems to be equal to or better than the best .45 ACP rounds.

The 9mm. is not bad at all - don't get me wrong - but it doesn't seem to produce the same shock effect as the larger round. In fact, a number of my LEO colleagues are comparing the terminal effects of the 165gr. Golden Saber JHP to the old .357 Magnum 125gr. JHP - a sort of "hit-by-a-lightning-bolt" effect. The same is said of the 125gr. 357 SIG round, BTW. The 9mm. in +P and +P+ loadings comes close, but there seems to be that remaining "edge" that the larger and/or faster rounds hold.

 

[orangeninja]

I'm not a cop, but I play one on T.V.


haha


Seriously. I love the .40, I own 4 of them. I also love the 9mm, I own 2 of them. My readings and comparisons go somthing like this.

The 9mm is about 96% effective in the whole one shot stop thing (not starting a debate guys, just what I've been taught) but the 9mm lethality takes a little longer.

The .40 is about 98%, but the test shootings are much lower because compared to the 9mm...its a brand new round.

My dept. issues the .40 because it was a compromise between the rapid fire capability and accuracy of the 9mm meets the punch and pomp of a .45. Think about it, all you're giving up is .05...not much yet the round goes much faster.

The 9mm is still a very viable law enforcement round and is probably the most popular round used in law enforcement today. The .40 is catching up, however the .40 took a hit when the Dept. of Homeland Security decided to issue .357 Sigs to all of their FLEOS except the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, who use the .40 and 9mm respectively. A few treasury dept. have also made the switch from 9mm to the 357 Sig. Essentially the 357 Sig is a real hot 9mm.

I believe that if I were going to defend my life in 1 or 2 shots, the .40 would be my pick, BUT, if I were going into someplace like Iraq where I may be forced to get into a knock down drag out take cover fire fight, then the capacity of a 9mm would attract me. If I were looking for a backup or hideout gun, the 9mm would be my first choice. If I were making a dynamic entry with a SWAT team, the .40 would be my choice. It really depends upon application. Lastly, if I wanted to shoot the eye out of a paper Osama Bin Laden target at 55ft. the 9mm would be my choice.

Hope this helps.

 

[PO2Hammer]

One thing about Marshall and Evans stopping percentages is they only include perps that were hit with one round. They throw out all shootings that required multiple hits or perps hit anywhere other than a clean one shot torso hit. The Defabbio crowd only looks at permanent wound channels in gelitin where all calibers look the same. With high quality hollowpoints the .40 has greater velocity, diameter and weight compared to the 9mm. The extra power is insurance, or that little edge that MIGHT save your bacon. For CCW, I'll take the extra power. For a home gun, I go with a 10mm 135 grain @ 1400 fps. For CCW class this spring I'm having a hard time deciding between a g-29-10mm or a G-27 .40. I'm tall and skinny so I can conceal any short butt pistol where my right butt cheek should be!

 

[itgoesboom]

I personally carry a 9mm, but will probably get a .45 before too long. I can understand many people wanting to carry something that is more powerfull than a 9mm, but I don't understand why those people don't than go with a .45.

I know that a .40 is atleast as effective as a 9mm, and usually more effective, however, I feel that that comes with a price, and that price is quick follow up shots.

I would rather be able to put 2 rounds into a BG rather than 1, 4 rather than 2, and I feel that is what I would be giving up. I know that I would be slower using a .40 than a 9mm. While I know that there are plenty of people that can shoot as fast or faster than me while they are using a .40, and I am using a 9mm, I know that *I* am quicker with a 9mm than a .40.

With that said, I don't feel that a .45 slows me down that much, and so would be worthwhile for its increased stopping power.

Just my feelings on the subject.

I.G.B.

 

[orangeninja]

I've gotten quite fast with a .40. It is not as recoil heavy as people think and fast follow up shots can be had with a little practice, same as the 9mm.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's Hal My Friend-

I have deleted all three of my .40 caliber weapons from
my inventory; simply because the .40 caliber round did
not out perform my current daily carry .45 ACP rounds!
Maybe I set expectations too high; I don't know? In
looking for the ideal police service round, I settled on
the Federal 230 grain JHP "Hydra-Shok". Launched from'
the platform of my SIG P220 its BIG, SLOW, and HIGHLY
ACCURATE! So, what more does one need?

And if ever I decide to carry a 9m/m, I can always fall
back on the P220's cousin the SIG P228. Same type of
operating controls; from a "compact SIG platform". With
that said, I doubt very seriously whether I will ever own
another .40 caliber weapon!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[wally]

I ignored and poo-pooed the .40 S&W for years saying they re-invented the 45ACP in a marginally smaller package.

I was wrong. For CCW, a gun like the Kahr PM40 is tough to beat The sectional density of 180 gr .40 is the same as that of the 230 gr .45 and you get about 100 fps more velocity from the .40 in the same barrel length for a bit better penetration.

My PM40 made me like the .40 S&W enough to get a full size CZ75B in .40. Real sweet shooter.

1911 is still my first choice, but I don't feel I'm giving up anything when the Kimber Ultra Carry is just too big and I go with the PM40 instead. Actually PM40 is usually my third carry choice as I usually go with my SC360 "scandium" .357 for its super light weight and the fact that it and the Kimber have CTC lasergrips which are not an option for the PM40 :-( But for some clothes the cylinder bulge is too much, so the PM40 is a great option to have.
The Kahr's night sights help, but my eyes ain't what they used to me and that bright red laser dot is a nice point and click interface


IMHO only virture of the 9mm is cheap ammo. I shoot lots of 9mm, but its my 4th choice behind .45, .357, & .40.

--wally.

 

[Marcus]

I`m not a "fan" of .40 S&W either...BUT...IMO it`s not a bad compromise cartridge. 9mm sized guns with .45ACP-ish stopping power can be a great thing for CCW. Marcus

 

[ddj8052]

hate the 9, love the 40.

I agree. The only two guns I have ever sold are the S&W 910 and Tauras 92. And I sold the Tauras in order to finanace a Tauras 100 in .40 ( wich turned out to be a bad I dea as the 100 is not on the CA approved list.)
I simply shoot .40's better that nines. I think it is a psychological thing as I have more fun shooting the .40. Although I just picked up a Kimber and that .45 sure is a lot of fun

 

[caz223]

I'm gonna buck the trend here.
I have similar experiences as Ala Dan.
The guns I tend to keep are of the higest quality, I have no room in my safe for guns that don't perform.
I have noticed some tendancies.
I can shoot .45 and 357SIG exceptionally well.
I can shoot nines quickly and accurately, and they are cheaper to shoot, allowing the frequent practice sessions, which make you a better shooter, gotta love that...
The only .40 I've ever been happy with is a smith 610, which isn't really a .40, and isn't an auto.
For what it's worth (Not much), I have nothing bad to say about 10mm or .41 magnum, but the .40 just doesn't rock my boat.
I currently have 2 guns that can shoot forty caliber fodder, one is the aforementioned 610 which is chambered in 10mm, and the other is a conversion barrel for a gun I like that was chambered in 357SIG, and still sees most of it's use in that caliber.
Very little investment, and no room taken up in the safe. Not a bad deal.
I still prefer almost any caliber other than .40 s&w.
Whatever.
Different strokes.

 

[mattx109]

My first carry gun was an HK USPc in .40. It was a great gun, but I found the .40 to be uncomfortably snappy (much more so than a 9mm), and not as "smooth" as a .45. After I sold the USP, I bought an HK USP Tactical .45, and loved it (wasn't the most concealable piece for my small frame, however...later replaced with a 1911). It was very accurate, had the power of the larger round, and felt much better to me (I'll take a good steel auto over plastic any day, which was another reason for the 1911 switch).

Now I've found a new carry pistol (a few months since I bought it), which I carry anywhere it's legal. It's a SIG P226, standard capacity (15 9mm rounds). I practice with it weekly using cheap ammo, but every range trip ends with a few rounds of my preferred carry round for familiarity. I've never been able to fire so accurately, so quickly. My shot placement during double-taps and rapid fire are better now than they ever were, and it's nice to know I have 31 rounds on me, should the need arise.

Maybe this is just a result of heavy practice with a lighter round (I shoot a lot of .22 as well), but I absolutely love that pistol. Debates about stopping power are useful, but no more useful than correct, accurate, fast shot placement IMHO.

 

[cratz2]

Not to be argumentative or anything, and I'm not talking about people that can consistantly put a couple hundred rounds a month through their guns, but you guys that are saying a 40 with reasonably hot loads (not reduced gaming loads) is just as quick and easy to shoot as the same gun in a 9mm... are you guys serious?

Using my previous comparison - 124 Gr +P Gold Dots vs 165 Gr Gold Dots - in the G19 and the G23 respectively... You guys can really fire the 40 as fast into roughly the same sized group as the 9? I grew up shooting 1911s and have probably fired more 45ACP total than any other centerfire round. I'm not recoil shy and I've shot the lightest weight 357s and I've shot 44 Magnums and a 454. I'm not afraid of recoil, but I've also shot my G23 and my friends G19 back to back on the same day and I can put 5 rounds of 9 into a 5" group at 10 yards (at about two shots per second) much more consistantly than I can with my G23.

Am I crazy?

Am I beyond hope?

Do I have the least accurate G23?

I just mean for most folks that are going to buy and gun and a box of ammo and will be lucky to get to the range three times with it, shooting at some distance rapidly seems easier with the 9 than the 40. On the other hand, something like 95% of shootings are done within 7 feet not yards and I guess if you empty a 40 into a man-sized target a 7 feet and you fail to hit him, you're just unlucky and having a very bad day.



Still, I feel safe with either cartridge assuming quality HPs.

 

[wunderkind]

All of the FBI tests I've seen online show virtually no difference in bare/clothed performance in 9mm/.357 Sig/.40/.45.

Nice thing about the caliber controversy is you're a winner either way--in a premium factory load there's almost no bad choices anymore.

The coolest thing about the .40 is the weight range from a smokin' 135 gr to a brutish 180 grainer.

 

[WonderNine]

I'd rather have the few extra shots of the 9. I'm not going to go into the other reasons. And ammo cost is not a reason I consider as they're pretty close together in this respect.

That said I would probably be pretty tempted by an 11+1 .40S&W BHP after the AWB sunsets...

 

[tc300mag1]

I prefer a 9mm over the 40 myself . Being a 45 man would seem to be other way but its not just dont care for the 40..Also would rather have the few extra rounds of 9 over the 40

 

[sm]

Never warmed up to the .40

I prefer 9mm and 45ACP
I choose guns based on platforms, prefer SA like BHP and 1911.

Yes I know the BHP is avail in .40..., still prefer the 9mm in a BHP... 'sides it ain't the same - to me- that JMB feeeling is missing...

Besides , I don't like sorting the .40 brass out of my 9mm and 45ACP

 

[CZ-100]

Never shot 40.
CZ Rami followed me home yesterday with 50 rounds for $9.95 of practice 180 fmj. I think I paid about the same for a small amount of 9mm.

The Gold Dots were $14.00 for 20 rounds about. I really doubt there is a lack of fire power here.



The Rami is just WAY ____ COOL . can't wait to shoot it!

.40 S&W $14.95/100 rds at Wal-Mart

 

[Baba Louie]

Hal,

Just go for the real deal, 10MM and be a happy, but marches to a different drummer, camper.

Or, get a .357 SIG and a 10mm lite barrel to go with it.

It ain't never gonna be a .45acp (United States Armed Forces for how long? kinda round) nor some NATO round.

The .40 is an American Cop's round and if it works for them, it'll work for you.

But always remember the FBI first went with the 10MM till they decided to lighten up a bit for some reason or another. I've heard it said that when a .40S&W grows up, it wants to be a 10MM.

Course, a lot does depend on the platform you're gonna launch it/them from now don't it?

I've also heard/read interesting things about the BHP in .40 (they say it converts to a really nice 9mm)

Whenever I face this type of moral dilemna, I always go out and buy some more .45 ammo. Then I don't worry about anything else... for awhile.

So if you were GOING to get a .40, which one would it be, huh? Why?

edited to add... Did that help any?

 

[Hal]

So if you were GOING to get a .40, which one would it be, huh? Why?

S&W99 is leading the pack in the .40 S&W.

The 10mm is an interesting round. Plenty going for it. 10 years ago or so I probably would have been all over that round like Clinton on an intern. The problem with the 10 is mostly in the platforms. The only platform I've really taken a shine to is the S&W 610(?)(I believe that's the N frame Smith revolver rgiht?- It's been a while since I looked at one). Now there it gets sticky. If I'm going to go Smith N frame, the I'm going whole hog and going for the .44 Rem Mag. The I also get to thinking that the 10mm is more or less the modern version of the venerable .41 mag....and go off on a .41mag revolver tangent.

re: .357 Sig,, again,,,maybe 10 or 20 years ago It would have tickeled my fancy. *sigh* "Old Fartism" is creeping in these days, and along with it a lessening desire to plow new territory. I'll let the young pups work out all the "bugs" there.

Back to the S&W99 - from everything I've researched, the S&W99 is the better .40 and the Walther is the better 9mm. The 2 guns are basicly the same thing function-wise,,,so my plan is to get a "to die for" Titanium slide Walther in 9mm, ad a S&W99 in .40 S&W - along with possibly a compact S&W99, again in .40 S&W. I already picked up a Walther P22 as a cheap practice gun, and am in the process of getting one of the Walther CP99(?) air pistols for basement use. All in all, it seems like a good system.

If it doesn't pan out, I can always sell the whole shebang and pick up a Smith Scandium Commander when they come out