Ballistics
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23
I’ve seen a couple YouTube personalities in recent years totally trash the 40... calling it “short and weak” — talking about how the FBI ditched it, saying it offers no advantage over 9mm nor 45, snappy recoil makes follow up shots more difficult. After you watch enough of those videos, one starts to think that 40 has no place.
I recently watched a couple Paul Harrell videos (really like him) on YT and in a 40 vs 45 video, during ballistics testing, he reminded me that the 40 has basically the same energy as a 45, but with higher capacity like a 9mm... best of both worlds. Also he demonstrates follow up shots are just as fast and accurate with a 40.
Sure, the 10mm is clearly the energy leader above them all, but with more recoil and higher ammo cost. His videos have me warming back up to the 40 as offering energy benefits compared to 9 and capacity to the 45, giving it an edge to both. Thoughts?
I recently watched a couple Paul Harrell videos (really like him) on YT and in a 40 vs 45 video, during ballistics testing, he reminded me that the 40 has basically the same energy as a 45, but with higher capacity like a 9mm... best of both worlds. Also he demonstrates follow up shots are just as fast and accurate with a 40.
Sure, the 10mm is clearly the energy leader above them all, but with more recoil and higher ammo cost. His videos have me warming back up to the 40 as offering energy benefits compared to 9 and capacity to the 45, giving it an edge to both. Thoughts?