Now that the fed is getting back to 9mm, the 40 can be had cheap at the pawn shops and LGS.
This is a great time to be looking for a 40 S&W.
Did that with my XD, but of all the guns my nephew shot of mine he shot and liked the fourty the best, so I gave it to him. I did like the XD and eventually replaced it with an XDm in 9MM. Still have that.I have conversion barrels for each of them so I can burn 9mms at the range
Amen to that. Long gone though.Man, I picked up some (at least 3) very good (one almost perfect) Colt's and S&W's for $150 each.
"Those Were The Days My Friends".
Guess the .40 will go the way of .41 Mag and .41 Action Express ?
But, the .40 S&W had a much greater deal of acceptance than the two above.
Harder to shoot
More wear on most platforms
Cheaper ammo especially in bulk
All pistol caliber suck about equally with pros and cons vs each other that can be lost in the statistical noise.
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.
I am approaching 500,000 pistol round count (factory and reloads) and there were many comments made back 25 years ago when I switched from 9mm/45ACP to 40S&W as my USPSA match caliber that are still being made today.
- "40S&W is a passing fad that will not last" - Unless you have not been to a range for the past 25 years, I have seen just as many 40S&W spent brass at various ranges compared to 9mm and 45ACP spent brass on the floor. If 40S&W is a passing "fad" then we should not see any 40S&W spent brass especially since 40S&W ammunition costs more than 9mm.
- "40S&W is not a popular caliber" - Talk is cheap and action speaks louder than words. Despite what people post on the forums, if we continue to see 40S&W spent brass on range floors, it means people are continuing to shoot 40S&W. We can talk all we want and post our opinions but if people are continuing to shoot 40S&W as evidenced by spent brass on the range floor, should we not accept this fact as 40S&W remaining a popular caliber?
You, sir, rule.The second sentence is an understatement. Saying the 40 has more acceptance than the 41 Action Express is like saying sandwiches have much greater acceptance as a food in America than haggis.
I've shot many Sig P320s back to back in .40 and .45. .40 is noticeably more snappy than .45.I would wager that a lot of people who claim the .40 has sharper/snappier recoil than full-power .45 ACP haven't shot a lot of .45 ACPs. Equal weight pistols with equal recoil systems. Shoot both and get back to me.
It's all about efficiency. .40 offers slightly higher muzzle energy over 9mm, but at a big cost. 9mm already has more than enough power to get the job done, as evidenced by the fact that its penetration must be limited by expanding bullets to be deemed safe enough to use in a domestic setting. So when the rubber meets the road, .40 offers very, very little, if any, advantage, and comes with a whole host of disadvantages, including increased recoil, reduced capacity, reduced lifespan of parts and guns, lower range scores, increased cost, increased weight, etc.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?
It's all about efficiency. .40 offers slightly higher muzzle energy over 9mm, but at a big cost. 9mm already has more than enough power to get the job done, as evidenced by the fact that its penetration must be limited by expanding bullets to be deemed safe enough to use in a domestic setting. So when the rubber meets the road, .40 offers very, very little, if any, advantage, and comes with a whole host of disadvantages, including increased recoil, reduced capacity, reduced lifespan of parts and guns, lower range scores, increased cost, increased weight, etc.
Compared to .45, .40 makes a little more sense, but .45 has lost a lot of relevance. Don't get me wrong, it works, but it's just not efficient. It overpenetrates in tissue, yet it's a notoriously poor performer when it comes to light barriers. With that, it has most of the disadvantages listed above.
Long story short, get yourself a G19 and a 50 round box of Federal 124gr. HSTs, and life will be good. No agonizing over split hairs, no having to train around harsh recoil, and you'll have a lot more money for training ammo.
OP started the thread with 40S&W vs 45ACP videos with consideration of going back to 40S&W.Paul Harrell videos ... 40 vs 45 ... ballistics testing ... 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?
Before we turn this thread into 9mm vs 40S&W, let's review what the OP posted.
OP started the thread comparing 40S&W to 45ACP with consideration of going back to 40S&W.
Many times in America the price differential is pretty modest. The .40 has been supported by gigantic law enforcement purchases over the years, giving it military-round-like levels of mass efficiency. It uses some more materials, so it's a little more expensive than 9mm, but it's often not a gigantic difference.
Probably different across the pond.
Prior to the 1970's, wasn't .380 ACP the most common LE round in Europe?Definitely. Over here, and talking factory ammo, .40 can be as much as an 80% more expensive than 9 mm. I think it would be difficult to find a LE agency in the whole of Europe that uses other caliber that is not the 9, in fact. And the very few carry permit holders that you may find, usually opt for the .38 Special, .380 ACP or 9 mm.
Yea, I'd say all bullets rely on expansion to "work," at least as designed. Otherwise they're just quasi FMJ and will overpenetrate.It will be interesting to see what the thought on all this is in 10 years after the improved 9mm bullets like the HST have actually been in real world use for a while. Personally, I would not get too wrapped up in the 9mm/40/45 debate. All three will work well. At the end of the day though, a bigger bullet doesnt have to rely on perfect expansion to work, but this comes as a trade off of recoil and capacity. Also, it is reasonable to assume that improvement in 9mm hollow points are going to also be improvements in 40 and 45 hollowpoints. So to say that 9mm HST performs as well as a previous generation 40 or 45 hollowpoint isn’t necessarily a valid comparison, since 40 and 45 HSTs probably perform better still.
Yea, I'd say all bullets rely on expansion to "work," at least as designed. Otherwise they're just quasi FMJ and will overpenetrate.