Longevity of .40 vs. 9mm pistols

[Mauserguy]

"some guns that were designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40 have a shorter life span."

This is my point exactly. What's more, if you use higher performance ammo in a 9MM to make perform like a 40S&W, then youre 9MM gun will wear out faster. Use a caliber appropriate to the gun and you'll be fine. The 40 really is better than the 9MM, but it requires a more massive arm.
Mauserguy


PS: You got to love a freindly debate.

 

[LiveLife]

I have shot Both Gen2/3 G17s and Gen2/3 G22s in excess of 100,000+ (individual and combined) rounds using match loads that met power factors with FMJ/JHP bullets.

Other than recoil springs and match barrel replacements, the pistols were still functional and accurate with factory barrels, although felt a little loose compared to new pistols.

The Gen2 G17 with 100K+ rounds was bought by another match shooter and he never complained about the accuracy of the pistol. I sold the pistol because I thought 100K+ was too many rounds. I bought 2 more Gen3 G17s but now no longer worry about round count.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Guns that were designed around the 40 will last a long time, some guns that were designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40 have a shorter life span. Not going to be much difference between a G22 and G17 but BHP 40s are notorious for battering themselves.

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say, "designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40..." Can you name a single .40 that was designed, from the ground up, for the .40 round? That beast may exist, but it's a rare beast if it does.

FN's .40 version of the BHP, when first introduced, did have problems -- but that was quickly fixed with a redesign, in which FN switched from a forged to a cast frame. The later cast .40s seem to be just as reliable as the 9mm models. (FN discontinued them, it appears, due to a lack of customer demand, not because of functional failures, etc.)

Nearly every gun out there today shooting .40 seems to have been based on either a 9mm gun or .45 gun; all of these .40s have been subtly enhanced or redesigned to accommodate the changes in forces generated.

 

[doubleh]

I'm sort of conflicted by the statement that pressure doesn't wear out a gun, friction and impact do. Without pressure you wouldn't have friction and impact, just an inert piece of machinery. Also it seems that more pressure would mean more friction and impact.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm sort of conflicted by the statement that pressure doesn't wear out a gun, friction and impact do.

Friction is a player, to be sure, but I'm less sure about impact. And things also BREAK, but it's not always due to impact. Springs loose their ability to do what must be done (as in recoil springs).

As far as I can tell, most .40 guns have been subtly enhanced, tweaked, and modified to work better with the heavier bullet used with .40 rounds. That generally means a slightly heavier gun made with more material or heavier springs. One of the write-ups on Wiki about the 229 talks about SIG using a milled steel slide rather than the stamped steel slide of the P228 -- because the stamped slide wouldn't stand up to the higher slide velocities of the .40 (and .357 SIG) rounds without a much heavier recoil springs; that heavier spring would make the slide very difficult to rack. It would appear that some .40 versions of 9mm guns are DIFFERENT.

The Glock 17 and Glock 22 have almost identical specs; the only measurable difference being that the G-22 is almost an ounce heavier than the G-17. That's NOT a big difference, so maybe the Glock 17 was "over-designed" in anticipation of higher calibers later. (I haven't heard about any Glock 22s falling apart due to impact or friction.)

If a .40 gun is properly designed, it'll probably last just as long as the 9mm gun -- but it'll probably be a subtly stouter weapon. (I'm less sure about guns running .357 SIG. )

 

[mavracer]

"designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40..." Can you name a single .40 that was designed, from the ground up, for the .40 round? That beast may exist, but it's a rare beast

Sig P229 was specifically designed to withstand the added abuse of the 40 as with most other new designs they are designed with the 40s thrust load in mind.

 

[mavracer]

Also it seems that more pressure would mean more friction and impact

Not really a 9mm at 35k psi produces less thrust and friction than a 21k psi 45acp, it's also why the 40 produces more wear on guns than the 9mm even though their pressures are about the same

 

[mavracer]

Friction is a player, to be sure, but I'm less sure about impact

Impact of the barrel lugs against the slide is what causes the lockup on a locked breach gun to loosen up, it's also why CZs and their variants break slide stops

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well Glock 17s are known to go past 100K (as I've done myself) but Glock 22s (.40 S&W) have been 'worn out', according to cop organizations, at 50k rounds. Now they may just be using that as an excuse want to trade up for all we know.

But 50k rounds of .40 S&W, at $20 a box of 100, comes out to 20 cents a shot and 10,000 bucks in ammo!

I'll say this, one can get a .40 S&W, hand load it down to 9mm power, and because of the lower pressures, it last even longer than the original 9mm in that size gun due to lower pressures than even 9mm give.

Deaf

 

[peacebutready]

Can you name a single .40 that was designed, from the ground up, for the .40 round?

S&W M&P. That may be the reason they had issues with the 9mm version.

FN's .40 version of the BHP, when first introduced, did have problems -- but that was quickly fixed with a redesign, in which FN switched from a forged to a cast frame. The later cast .40s seem to be just as reliable as the 9mm models. (FN discontinued them, it appears, due to a lack of customer demand, not because of functional failures, etc.)

I always liked the .40 BHP. Seemed like a good choice in states with hi-cap mag bans where a traditional steel pistol was desired. The mag held 10 rounds.

Well Glock 17s are known to go past 100K (as I've done myself) but Glock 22s (.40 S&W) have been 'worn out', according to cop organizations, at 50k rounds. Now they may just be using that as an excuse want to trade up for all we know.

But 50k rounds of .40 S&W, at $20 a box of 100, comes out to 20 cents a shot and 10,000 bucks in ammo!

The first statement is interesting, if true. It would mean the .40 decreases lifespan in the Glocks by half. OTOH, I think the Gen 4 Glocks in .40 were designed to handle that round, so the worn out by 50K wouldn't apply if it is reference to the Gen 3 models.

The second statement about $10K in ammo costs makes the durability comparison moot, I guess. I suppose concerns about low durability in .40 pistols are the past.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Sig P229 was specifically designed to withstand the added abuse of the 40 as with most other new designs they are designed with the 40s thrust load in mind.

The P220 was first built in .45. A 9mm version soon followed. Several governments in Europe wanted a new 9mm gun -- many had been using the SIG P-210 (M49) -- and it was too expensive. SIG downsized the P220 and came up with the P6. A commercial version, the P225, followed soon after.

In 1984, the US DOD asked gun companies to offer them a replacement for the 1911 and SIG created the P226, a double-stack version of the P6/P225 for that competition. Beretta won.

SIG then built the P228, which was a smaller version of the P226 in 9mm only. SIG then created the P229, which was an upgraded version of the P228 (to run 9mm, .40, and .357 SIG), with a milled rather than folded slide. SIG had found that the P228's folded slides wouldn't work well with the .40 round, unless they installed a very heavy recoil spring to reduce slide velocity -- which made racking the slide too difficult. The 229 (like the P228) is simply a downsized P226 which. None of these guns were designed to shoot .40, but the P226 and P229 have been modified to handle the round -- and .357 SIG, too.

I'll agree that the S&W M&P 40 came first, but I would notethat just because the .40 version of the M&P came out before the 9mm, that doesn't mean it was expressly designed for the .40 round. But, for this discussion, let's say it was...

I suspect S&W produced the .40 first because S&W needed a polymer-framed striker-fired gun in .40 S&W to compete with Glock in the LEO market in the US. S&W and Glock both sold a bunch of those guns in throughout the US through sweetheart deals with LEO agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if the M&P Pro was really designed to sell to LEO agencies in the US, and that simply required them to offer it in .40 first! .40 S&W was the flavor of the year for several years! Some seem to be moving back to 9mm, now.

My son has been a NC State Trooper for a number of years; he was issued an M&P Pro in .357 SIG several years ago. The NCHP could never get those guns to work well or reliably -- despite a lot of S&W technicians working with them to get them right -- and the NCHP recently switched to the SIG P226 in .357 SIG. If THE M&P Pro in .40 was expressly designed for .40 (and .357 SIG), they may have a problem. That said, I've got M&P Pros in both 9mm and .40 and like them a lot.

With the M&P Pro being the only exception cited thus far, the other guns cited here as being DESIGNED FOR .40 are simply existing models first made in other calibers that have been BEEN upgraded or adapted to handle a different round! THOSE GUNS (i.e., gun upgraded or adapted) are NOT guns designed for .40, but gun adapted for .40.

Some here seemed to think that is an issue. If it is, they've got a problem -- as darned few ARE designed as .40s. I said it originally and I'll say it again: if they're properly adapted or modified, they should be fine. If the .40 M&P Pro was designed to shoot .40, its about the only one out there!! (A lot of the other guns were based on 9mm designs first created for military contracts -- as the military doesn't seem to like .40 cal.)

Glock 22s (.40 S&W) have been 'worn out', according to cop organizations, at 50k rounds.

Every LEO I've known (and it's several) and every LEO agency I've been around, would laugh if I told them a department's Glock 22s were wearing out at 50K rounds. A police agency that shoots 50K rounds in ANY gun is a very unusual agency -- for several reasons:

1) Glock or S&W or SIG will be at them every 3-4 years to trade in their existing guns, and they almost always do it! The deals are too good. A worn-out police handgun is sort of like a unicorn: a mythical beast.

2) Most police agencies will have their officers fire a couple of hundred rounds a year, during periodic qualifications, and it's a rare agency that requires more. Firearms are important, but the vast majority of LEOs will go through an entire career without every firing a duty weapon except during periodic qualifications.

3) It's even a more rare agency that can AFFORD more than a few thousand rounds per officer (if that many!). I can't imagine any local police department having a budget that would allow a 50K level of ammunition to be used by officers over a span of several years. You're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in a small-medium department! Budgets are tight!!

If you ever get a police trade in -- and I've had a number of them -- they typically show a lot of holster wear but are like new internally!

I have heard -- through the LEO grapevine -- of problems with some Glocks shooting .357 SIG, but that's a different topic and like the NCHP's M&P Pros in .357 SIG it happened long before 50K rounds...

Impact of the barrel lugs against the slide is what causes the lockup on a locked breach gun to loosen up, it's also why CZs and their variants break slide stops.

A lot of these guns, like the S&W M&P Pro, the SIGs and the Glocks, don't have barrel lugs. And some of the newest CZs don't either (CZ-97B, P-07, P-09). But the problem, when the lugs are wearing or are being damaged isn't so much an impact issue, as the results of a poorly-fit barrel.

CZ slide stops do break, but it is sometimes a user-induced problem. I've got a CZ-85 Combat with 10K+ rounds through it without a problem. One reason some slide stop break is that folks install heavier recoil springs "to protect the gun," and that just causes the slide to SLAM back against the slide stop with extra force. The cure is worse than the illness.

.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The first statement is interesting, if true. It would mean the .40 decreases lifespan in the Glocks by half. OTOH, I think the Gen 4 Glocks in .40 were designed to handle that round, so the worn out by 50K wouldn't apply if it is reference to the Gen 3 models.

The second statement about $10K in ammo costs makes the durability comparison moot, I guess. I suppose concerns about low durability in .40 pistols are the past.

Note I said 'worn out' with quotes. That was a hint the LEO organizations used it as an excuse.

I have no doubt .40 glock 22s last well past 100k.

Deaf

 

[9mmepiphany]

The 229 (like the P228) is simply a downsized P226 which. None of these guns were designed to shoot .40, but the P226 and P229 have been modified to handle the round -- and .357 SIG, too.

It seems we recall the events a bit differently.

The 228 and 229 were once both in production at the same time. It was only later that the 9mm version of the 229 was produced...with the different contoured slide and different frame (wouldn't take .40/357SIG mags)

The 228 is indeed a downsized 226, but the 229 was engineered, adding the heavier milled slide specifically to accommodate the .40 cartridge...at least that was what the SIG folks were telling us when they were trying to get our department to adopt it

If THE M&P Pro in .40 was expressly designed for .40 (and .357 SIG), they may have a problem.

While the M&P was designed for the .40, and the 357SIG does share the same parent case, the recoil characteristics were different enough that accommodation had to be made for reliability.

However, before the M&P, other pistols were designed from the ground up to handle the .40 cartridge; they were then adapted to handle the 9mm. Just off the top of my head, the H&K USP and H&K P30 come to mind

 

[JTQ]

Walt Sherrill wrote,
The P220 was first built in .45.

My recollections are the P220 started life as a 9mm gun, but as you correctly say, as a replacement for the P210. The gun was later modified to shoot .45 Auto largely for the American market.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The P220 was first built in .45.

My understanding is also that the 220 started life in 9mm...specifically to replace the SIG 210 with the Swiss military...as the Pistole 75. They did however size it to accommodate the .45ACP, .38 Super and the .30 Luger rounds

A 9mm version soon followed. Several governments in Europe wanted a new 9mm gun -- many had been using the SIG P-210 (M49) -- and it was too expensive. SIG downsized the P220 and came up with the P6. A commercial version, the P225, followed soon after

The P6 came into being in response to the German Police pistol trials following the Munich Olympics...it competed with the Walther P5 and the H&K P7...many of which had been issued .32 caliber pistols

 

[SDGlock23]

I suppose that if one had enough money to spend on ammo to wear out a .40 then they could surely drop the cash to buy a new gun. I don't expect a .40 to last longer than a 9mm within the same platform, but it's a non issue really.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree that pressure isn't what wears out a gun during normal operation.

In an autopistol, what's going to eventually cause a major component to break or loosen up to the point of being problematic is slide velocity/momentum. The projectile imparts a certain amount of recoil momentum (recoil velocity) to the slide and that momentum must be deal with in some manner.

Given that it takes about the same amount of force to eject an empty .40 vs an empty 9mm and given that the slide velocity in a .40 is going to be higher (for the same weight slide), it follows that there's more velocity that must be stopped when the barrel is unlocked and stopped and there's more velocity that must be stopped when the slide bottoms out.

Some of that (but not much at all) can be dealt with by installing a heavier spring, but that comes with a penalty too since it means more force applied when the slide/barrel are stopped after being driven into battery by the spring.

A heavier slide will help with slide velocity, but not slide momentum. So you can increase the weight of the slide to keep the velocity down, but you still increase the slide's momentum and that means it takes more force to stop it when it bottoms out.

In theory that means that if you take two guns that are identical except for the chambering, one in 9mm and the other in .40S&W, it would be reasonable to expect the 9mm to last longer. In practice, there are many other factors that figure into the equation.

Given the amount of time and ammo cost it takes to wear out a good quality, properly maintained autopistol these days, I'm not sure it's a worthwhile question.

Assume that you'll get 50K rounds through a good quality .40S&W before it wears out. So put $1 in a bottle for every 50 round box of ammo you put through it. By the time you wear it out (if it really does wear out in 50K rounds) you'll have $1000 in the bottle for a new gun.

 

[TestPilot]

It's not the pressure for a pistol.

If pressure wears out a gun, then 9mm should wear out faster than a 45ACP. That makes no sense does it?

 

[rskent]

That makes no sense does it?

Sort of, yes.

The question is does a 40 wear out faster than a 9? I'm pretty sure it does.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

RE: P220 first developed in 9mm and THEN .45...

I stand properly corrected. But that correction of my original error seems to reinforce my original point: that it's wrong to say a gun designed for 9mm can't be adapted to run a higher (or in the case of the P226/229, a hotter) caliber. THAT -- guns adapted weren't as good as guns designed to run .40 -- was the original point of debate. If that was the original point, then the P220 is the basic design used in all of the class P-series guns, and the various models just incorporate changes (adaptations) appropriate to the application.

I responded to mavracer's commment: Guns that were designed around the 40 will last a long time, some guns that were designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40 have a shorter life span.

My point in all of this was that a GUN DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP to fire .40 really doesn't exist (although the M&P Pro may be an exception.) All of the the other .40 guns cited-- including some that are available only in .40, are fundamentally the same designs as other models offered by the same gun makers, with adjustments made to allow these "upgraded" 9mm guns to handle a different (sometimes HOTTER) caliber. My original point -- and I cited the BHP as an example -- was that making adjustments made the upgraded guns suitable. Changing the slide on a SIG isn't the same as BUILDING IT FROM THE GROUND UP to fire a different round: it's TWEAKING THE GUN'S SLIDE where adjustments are needed. That's like changing from a forged to a cast frame in the BHP... changing what needs to be changed in the basic design. SIG .40s don't have a reputation for short service lives...

If the P220 was originally designed in 9mm, and it's the basis for the P226 and P229, it is the UNDERLYING DESIGN -- properly adapted and modified to handle a different cartridge.

The point that .40 is harder on a gun than 9mm is true, and .357 SIG is apparently harder on a gun than .40 S&W. That, as noted above, will have a negative effect on weapon life.

 

[mavracer]

If you're going to be so simplistic as to say that all P series Sigs are the same then then no guns currently made were designed for either caliber since all the guns mentioned basically just adapted JMBs tilting barrel from the 1911.
I guess I could have been more specific as to my differentiation between design and adaptation but to me when they redesigned the P228 slide to use a heavier milled slide that would indeed be designed to be a 40. If they'd have just thrown a heavier spring in a 228 that would be an adaptation and wouldn't be as durable as a 229 is.
And on a Sig the square part of the barrel that locks into the slide serves as the lug this would be the surface that would wear causing a loose lockup.

 

[doubleh]

Deleted

 

[doubleh]

Pressure is what drives the process of firing a gun. Without pressure absolutely nothing happens so no wear and tear and failure of components will occur. Like I stated before without pressure you simply have an inert piece of machinery. So, no pressure, no failures.

The higher the pressure created by the firing of the firearm the more stress is placed on all the components that make up a firearm. Less robust components for a given amount of stress means quicker failure.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Do you guys know the Ruger P89 was first designed for 10mm?

Yep and it was actually produced in 9mm.

And that is why it is so big, blocky, and durable!

Deaf

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If you're going to be so simplistic as to say that all P series Sigs are the same then then no guns currently made were designed for either caliber since all the guns mentioned basically just adapted JMBs tilting barrel from the 1911.

That's a gross oversimplification, to be sure. There's a lot more to a gun's design than just how the barrel moves during recoil. We seem to attach different values to the term "design."

That's the real issue we're having a problem with: the difference between "redesign" and "adapated." maybe it's just semantics. We all come into these discussions with different experiences and different understandings of what words mean.

Maybe your original comments were a bit simplistic, too? To wit: "Guns that were designed around the 40 will last a long time, some guns that were designed for a 9mm and adapted for 40 have a shorter life span." If the P229 is the compact version of the P226, and the P226 was developed for the DOD contract, which it didn't win, that was a 9mm gun. The differences between the 226 and the 229 are mostly in how the slide is made and it's weight. Was that a gun truly designed to shoot .40, or a gun orignally designed for 9mm and adapated (upgraded) to shoot .40?

I guess I could have been more specific as to my differentiation between design and adaptation but to me when they redesigned the P228 slide to use a heavier milled slide that would indeed be designed to be a 40. If they'd have just thrown a heavier spring in a 228 that would be an adaptation and wouldn't be as durable as a 229 is.

I'll agree that the slide for the P229 is different, but I would argue that the major difference is how it's made and what it's made of -- like the change from forged frames to cast frames with the BHP -- and not how it works. (I don't know, but suspect there were other changes to the BHP slide, too.) The design (as I interpret the word) is little changed, but in one case the slide is more robust, and the other the frame is more robust.

Had SIG chosen to just change the P228 to use a milled Stainless Slide, would it be correct to say that that the P228 was REDESIGNED to shoot the .40? Or would we simply say they made changes (adaptations) that allowed the P228 to use .40? And what are the differences between the P228 and P229? They are VERY similar. I'd argue that you see as many differences -- maybe more -- between the various P226s, including the SAO models and those that use steel frames (rather than alloy), than you do between the P228 and P229. Yet they're all (those many different types of P226s) considered 226s. We're back to semantics -- and we're disagreeing about words, and not really disagreeing about the guns.

I have wondered why SIG DIDN'T just modify the P228. Being realistic, I suspect it would have caused SIG great problems with existing military contracts and military buyers, etc. with some versions in the field in one form and newer ones in a different form. It would have been an Armorer Problem -- with problems of interchangeability! Having the P229 does give SIG another product to sell to police and military units around the world, but darned few of the military units are using the .40 version -- as NATO likes 9mm. As best I can tell, only the US Coast Guard uses the P229 in .40, and that's based on WIKI info. The P229 in 9mm and the P228 in 9mm are very similar guns -- except for the slides.