Is 40 S&W dead or not?

[94045]

It seems really premature to consider one of the big four center fire handgun calibers dead. Let's wait until it passes the other 16 calibers or so that I know people still carry before we decide it's dead. I saw a gentleman carrying a .32-20 Revolver the other day so it might just be a wait before it's truly dead.

Big Four
.380 ACP
9x19mm
.40 S&W
.45 ACP

 

[Bill460]

While I'm not a huge fan of James Yeager, this thread proves a statement he made a few years back.

"One of the biggest problems I have with students that come through my classes, is that so many of them have their ego's invested in their guns"....

So true.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Yesterday I seen gen4 Glock 22 with night sights in very good condition for 249.00 and 1000 rounds of ranger t ammunition for 200 shipped...... also seen a beretta storm with 4 mags for 250. Sig 229 or 226 for 389.
Im guessing there are more people (not agencies) shooting .40 now than ever. If not they are missing out.

 

[Robbins290]

I have been scrambling trying to get ahold of one of those glocks for 249

 

[Hartkopf]

I wonder what the difference in shot ratio is between a .40 and a 9mm for a good shooter?

Draw and shoot 4 shots of .40 in the time it takes to draw and shoot 5 shots of 9mm? Or is it something closer like 9 shots to 10?

 

[crestoncowboy]

I wonder what the difference in shot ratio is between a .40 and a 9mm for a good shooter?

For me as an above average strength powerlifter and and a guy with plenty of hand size, its minimal in any fullsize and I doubt I could get more than 10 vs 9 shots off even in a subcompact. That said, I have seen women (and some men) who limp wrist and fail to control recoil and there would be quite a bit of disparity between the two calibers I'd guess, simply from letting the gun do what it wants or having a poor grip.

 

[Hartkopf]

For me as an above average strength powerlifter and and a guy with plenty of hand size, its minimal in any fullsize and I doubt I could get more than 10 vs 9 shots off even in a subcompact. That said, I have seen women (and some men) who limp wrist and fail to control recoil and there would be quite a bit of disparity between the two calibers I'd guess, simply from letting the gun do what it wants or having a poor grip.

So for you there is no reason to carry a 9mm other than two less rounds and saving a few dollars per year? Maybe some people just wouldn't feel like training with a snappy .40 so a 9mm would be more enjoyable at the range.

In a self defense situation, we should fire as few shots as possible so 15 vs 17 or 13 vs 15 rounds is fine with me.

Maybe over penetration of the .40 is an argument for some but according to Lucky Gunner Labs, we can find many .40 choices that expand to .700+ and penetrate less than 18".

I can see why the 9mm is more popular with the masses but I'm glad we still have the option of a slightly more effective caliber in the same size platform.

 

[Bill460]

.......... I can see why the 9mm is more popular with the masses but I'm glad we still have the option of a slightly more effective caliber in the same size platform.

That is assuming the person buys into the hype that the .40 is actually "more effective". Most agencies are going back to the 9 MM because they found that was not the case.

 

[tbob38]

I have 2, a Glock 23 and a Sig P226. I bought them with the idea of converting them to 357 SIG. I did the Glock (KKM barrel) but I like shooting the P226 so much in 40 that it still has the 40 barrel in it, even though I have the .357 SIG barrel in a drawer ready to go. Easier to get 40 S&W than 357 SIG for me, although I handload both.

 

[WrongHanded]

That is assuming the person buys into the hype that the .40 is actually "more effective". Most agencies are going back to the 9 MM because they found that was not the case.

There's more than a little debated on that subject. The 9mm is now more effective, due to improvements in modern hollow point designs. The same design improvements in bullet technology apply to other cartridges.

There's more to it than that, but you can likely find a few threads on that very subject, through the search function.

 

[Bill460]

There's more than a little debated on that subject. The 9mm is now more effective, due to improvements in modern hollow point designs. The same design improvements in bullet technology apply to other cartridges. There's more to it than that, but you can likely find a few threads on that very subject, through the search function.

The .40 came about because the FBI found out many of their agents, (namely women agents), could not control the 10 MM. And several were failing to qualify with it. At the time the .40 was a good compromise. This was before the rapid advancement of 9 MM self defense ammunition, that took place through the new millennium.

Several law enforcement agencies, the FBI among them, changed back to the 9 MM because they simply were not getting the results they had hoped with the .40 S&W. Many other law enforcement agencies followed. They would not have, if the improved .40 ammunition performed as well as the 9 MM ammo did. The ammunition manufacturers poured far more resources into 9 MM R & D, than they did .40 S&W, because the .40 was already dying off, while the 9 MM was enjoying a large resurgence.

It cost these agencies a lot of money to make these caliber changes in there weaponry. They wouldn't have if they were satisfied with the .40. They were not.

 

[HPCadm17]

The .40 came about because the FBI found out many of their agents, (namely women agents), could not control the 10 MM. And several were failing to qualify with it.

This also applies to going from .40 to 9mm.

Several law enforcement agencies, the FBI among them, changed back to the 9 MM because they simply were not getting the results they had hoped with the .40 S&W. Many other law enforcement agencies followed. They would not have, if the improved .40 ammunition performed as well as the 9 MM ammo did.

It's not that the improved .40 ammo doesn't perform as well as 9mm (it does), it's that 9mm allows the shooters to perform better, plus it has more capacity and costs less. Win-win.

 

[Hartkopf]

Agencies were actually not satisfied with the effectiveness of wounding ability of the .40? Or that some officers had trouble effectively shooting it?

 

[Robbins290]

Hartkopf. I read it was about being effective shooting. and agents were shooting better with the 9mm. I am a 9mm guy but have about 5 or 6 40 S&W's. I can see the 40 being better then the 9mm, but i like the cheapness of the 9mm and lower recoil. 500 rounds in a few hours. And the 40 will start to hurt. 9mm will not.

 

[stchman]

That is assuming the person buys into the hype that the .40 is actually "more effective". Most agencies are going back to the 9 MM because they found that was not the case.

Hogwash. Yes, 9mm is more effective that it used to be because of improvements in bullets, powder, etc. Those same improvements were also made to the .40S&W cartridge. Do people think that .40S&W ammo today is the same as it was in 1991?

The ONLY reason that LEO agencies are switching back to 9mm is cost. Money is the overwhelming factor for the switch. It is a myth that 9mm is just as effective as .40S&W.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I can see why the 9mm is more popular with the masses but I'm glad we still have the option of a slightly more effective caliber in the same size platform.

I got into 40 because I was a 10mm fan. I had piles of bullets dies and progressive presses and 40 was cheaper to practice with if I wanted to buy ammo. Wrong or right I've fired 40 in my 10mms for many many thousands of rounds as have many others. So my getting into 40 was more logistics than actually caring about the benefits of "stopping power". From there I bought 40s instead of 9s. I do have a few collector 9s (and a glock 17) but they see next to zero usage. I actually know many more non-le shooters who use 40 than 9mm. I know more that use 357 sig than 9mm. Most of my LE friends have been switched to 9mm in the past year though so as an issued round I know that 40 is in decline. Maybe cyclical who knows.

 

[WrongHanded]

It cost these agencies a lot of money to make these caliber changes in there weaponry. They wouldn't have if they were satisfied with the .40. They were not.

As others have responded to most of your post, I'll just focus on this part.

How old do you think the average service handgun in law enforcement is? The G22 was introduced in 1990. Whilst some agencies may have held on to those first .40 Cal pistols since the early to mid 90's, I'm pretty sure most were replacing guns more regularly than ever two decades.

So when it comes time to replace issued duty weapons several factors come into play:

- Improvements in projectile technology bring 9mm up to an acceptable minimum performance level.

- 9mm is much cheaper ammo for duty issued carry, and for practice. And ultimately causes less wear per round on otherwise identical pistols than more powerful ammo.

- It's easier for many people to qualify with a lower recoiling weapon, and switching to 9mm is cheaper and faster than more training with a more power caliber.

So basically switch to (or back to) the 9mm, saves money and still gives officers enough effectiveness (as determined by, I don't know who) to get the job done. But that doesn't mean the 9mm is as good as the .40 Cal. That's a much more complicated issue.

 

[Bill460]

Hogwash. Yes, 9mm is more effective that it used to be because of improvements in bullets, powder, etc. Those same improvements were also made to the .40S&W cartridge. Do people think that .40 S&W ammo today is the same as it was in 1991? The ONLY reason that LEO agencies are switching back to 9mm is cost. Money is the overwhelming factor for the switch. It is a myth that 9mm is just as effective as .40S&W.

Cost is a factor, but it is far from the, "only reason". It is one of many. The .40 S&W was a solution to a non existent problem, period. .055 increase in bullet diameter does not make it a wonder cartridge. Especially with today's modern expanding self defense ammunition. It makes it what it is..... A "10 MM Special", nothing more.

Even more anemic than the pathetic, "FBI 10 MM Load" Federal concocted for them, that started the whole run away train that led to the .40 S&W in the first place. It's only accomplishment was to generate more recoil in 9 MM frame guns that tears them up faster. It is NOT difficult to shoot. Especially in full sized duty weapons.

So, where does that leave it?

1.) The ammunition costs more.

2.) It has NOT proven to be any more measurably effective, in hundreds of law enforcement analyzed shootings.

3.) It tears up guns faster resulting in a shorter service life.

4.) Pistols chambered for it hold less ammunition than comparable 9 MM weapons.

ALL of these factors have been PROVEN, and are NOT opinion or speculation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why the .40 is going down, while the 9 MM is going up. Everything else is nothing but a bunch of Saturday afternoon bar stool crap.

 

[Robert]

.40 may or may not be dead but we don't need another 10 pages of arguing.