"What? You Don't Have A .40 Caliber In Your Collection"?

[Ala Dan]

Hi Folks-

I get asked this question all the time, and when I respond "No Sir" they
look at me like I'm a little crazy. Then, I explain that I see NO
earthly use for this caliber; deferring to MY choice of 9m/m and .45ACP
to suit my needs. Further, I think the .40 is a over hyped cartridge
with more muzzle blast and recoil than necessary from small frame
self loaders. After all, it was the "fair haired child" from the 1986
Miami shoot-out between under armed FBI agents, and multi-gunned
bank robbers. Its NO secret that the .38 Special snubby is NO MATCH
against men armed with a Ruger Mini-14 and a 12 ga pump shotgun!
If the FBI agents had used a little fore thought (and considered all of
the possible risks), I believe they would have been better prepared.
So, I stand by MY decision to arm myself with two calibers of self
loader's; a) the 9m/m Parabellum, and b) the workhorse .45ACP. I
see NO need (and probably NEVER will) to add another* .40 caliber
to my collection.

*FootNote- previously owned these NIB .40 caliber's: Glocks 23 & 27,
SIGARMS P229. However, they are all long gone as we speak!

 

[TrapperReady]

I tend to agree. I like either the P228 or the P220 for defensive pistols. However, I am warming up to the 1911 platform.

Truth be told, for range use I prefer .38 and .357. I really dislike having to pick up brass... and those old Smith triggers are just plain fun to operate.

 

[CajunBass]

I'd thought about getting a 40, but 9mm amm is cheap. If I step up, it'll be a 45. Why? I don't know. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Brian Williams]

I have only thought about a S&W 646 to fill any need I would have for a 40, but there are too many variables in the Titanium cylinder.

 

[JohnKSa]

No .40 here--nor do I intend to get one.

 

[Harbinger]

Don't have, don't want.

 

[agtman]

Must be a slow night ...

The .40Swishy-Walker was designed for geeky nonshooters: those who couldn't handle the high-performance 10mm, i.e., "degreed" Bureau recruits (typically JDs, CPAs, PhDs & BSs), the marginally trainable everywhere, and those in need of a serious testosterone shot and two weeks at straight camp.

The early 180gn load @ 950fps was a joke, KABOOMs! were prominent, and the .40's accuracy was, and still is, nothing to write home about.

Today's 155gn & 165gn .40 JHPs do exhibit better terminal ballistics than the earlier 180gn loads, but most gunmakers simply took the .40 and stuffed its low-end 10mm "stopping power" into a 9mm-sized gun.

Result: lots of snappy recoil and muzzle blast that had many LE users whining for a 9mm again, when in fact the larger 10mms and 45s that were available actually had less felt recoil firing hot loads than the .40s.

But then, gee whiz, there was all that whining about having to tote around a large, heavy autoloader ...

 

[jame]

I've had three, and I could'nt shoot any of them well enough to keep. So much more muzzle blast and recoil "snap" than the other two of the big three. Been shooting the 9mm for awhile, but I'm moving up to the .45.

 

[Darkside852003]

I have a CZ40B my friend bought. He hasn't registerd it yet so its still in the safe. I fired 100 rounds through it and asked him if he wanted it.

I see no use for the .40

 

[Pointblank]

I had an early Glock 23 and a 27, sold em both. The caliber doesn't seem to offer much except high pressure and muzzle blast. I like my 9mm's, 45acp, .38 Specials and .357 Magnums. What more do you really need?

 

[SAWBONES]

Same experience as Pointblank; had a Glock 23 and a Glock 27, and sold 'em both.

I found that the .40S&W caliber offers NOTHING I don't already get in 9mm and .45ACP, and the .40 S&W is MUCH less accurate and precise than either the 9mm or .45ACP.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Only reason I have a .40 is to make the collection complete (S&W 5906, 4006, 1006, 4506). Otherwise, I have no use for one. I am a 10mm guy. I have owned and sold half a dozen .40's, which is 75% of the guns I have sold. I see them as good trading fodder, because others seem to like them and I hold onto guns better than cash.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Got .40 S&W and .45 ACP....No 9 irons, don't think I will ever buy on either.....

I qualified with .40SW in a Glock 23 for(CCW) and have no worries of accuracy Shoot what you like and have fun while you do it because, the world has...Too Many Choices!?

 

[rico700]

Bought one- shot it once- sold it to my Father for HD tool.

 

[wally]

I too used to think the .40S&W was a "useless re-invention of the 185 Gr .45ACP load" until I realized the importance of sectional density in penetration and the fact that for self-defense there was a good chance I'd need to shoot through my car door or window from the inside.

The 180 gr .40 has the same sectional density as the 230gr .45, add the fact that it delivers 100-150 more ft/s velocity from equivalent barrel lengths and I see it as a very good option for sub-compacts where .45ACP velocities become marginal. Love my little Kahr PM40.

If you consider only full size guns, then I agree .45ACP is all you need, but in sub-compacts .40S&W picks up the slack .45 loses from short barrels.

--wally.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Same here. Used to have a couple of .40s. Now I own none. I have a .45, several 9x19mms, and a 10mm auto. The .40 is not a bad round at all, IF you have just one semi-auto handgun. But when you expand to niche guns, it seems the 9mm or .45 do it better, IMO, eliminating the need for .40. The niches are hi-capacity (9mm), big-hole-macho-man-desire (.45), and hand cannon/penetrator/hunter (10mm).

 

[Dorrin79]

In my opinion...

There's nothing wrong with the .40, but it lacks a significant point of advantage to the old standbys, 9x19 and .45ACP.

Less capacity/more recoil & noise than 9x19 (as well as higher priced target ammo) and no real power advantage to the .45ACP.

If somebody gave me one I wouldn't complain, but I see no need for it in my collection.

 

[dakotasin]

i divested myself of all things 9mm, and am sure glad i did. now, my only semi's are 40 and 45. in fact, only 1911's are 45, all other semi's are 40. i didn't like anything about the 9mm, and as a defensive gun, i don't need the higher cap. if i want high cap, i go 40. if i want regular cap, i go 1911 in 45.

 

[StrikeEagle]

What a great thread!

I don't have a .40 either and I have a pretty good collection. Once in a while I'll think about getting one but never do. Let me see if I can explain why not.

1) It's another caliber... I'd have to buy dies, bullets, molds, maybe another powder, etc etc.

2) I certainly wouldn't CARRY it. I've been having a 35 year love-affair with the .45 auto that's showing no signs of cooling off. Buy a .40 that sits in my safe? It's not the greatest range gun, either.

3) High pressure. VERY high. I don't trust that. 9mm is hot too, but the problems containing it have been solved for almost 100 years.

4) Most of the .40's are REALLY 9's that have been beefed up. I don't trust that kind of Rube Goldberg arrangement either. I mean... even the great BHP is kind of iffy in .40.

5) The ammo just ain't cheap. I have surplus 9 and .45 ammo. But .40?? Forget about it!

6) The idea of a few extra rounds per mag just doesn't move me. I can launch 8 .45's for sure... the idea that it isn't enough doesn't occur to me.

7) There are NO classic .40 guns that I can tell... everyone NEEDS a 9, just to fire the BHP, the P-08, the P-38. And even more so with the .45/1911 combo. But .40...?

I carry no brief against the .40... I guess I'm glad when ANY new caliber or firearm is produced. But it just isn't for me.

StrikeEagle

 

[Tom Servo]

Don't have one. Don't need one.

In my experience, too much recoil and muzzle-flash for too little payload. If I want a fast round, I'll pack one of my 9mms, if I want a cannon, I'll go with a .45. I see the .40 as a compromise round with no real advantage.

Some folks really like it. Then again, some folks like reality-television and Pabst, too.

 

[Jeff]

My friend shoots better with his USP .40 C than I do my USP .45 F, and I shoot more often. I doubt the difference is with the gun, but the reality is the reality.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

I'm a 9mm man myself. I certainly don't care if others carry a .40 or not, I just don't see MY need for it. I do intend to pick up some sort of .45 eventually, probably a Sig 220.

 

[hillbilly]

I don't yet own a .40, but I am sure that someday, I will.

I've shot one that I'd like to have.

It's a ParaOrd LDA, or something like that. In the full-sized 1911 package, the recoil was light. And I could hit reliably with it at 25 yards (steel diamond-shaped targets, five inches square).

Plus, that thing held something like 15 shots, I think. Maybe it was only 13. But the full capacity was high.

Like I said, don't own one yet, but will probably wind up with one someday.

hillbilly

 

[SIGarmed]

SIG SP2340 in .40 with a .357SIG barrel. Also a P226 in .357SIG that I can swap the barrel on too. I like to keep the .357SIG barrel on the P226 though.
Oh and I have a P220 .45 so I got that covered.

I guess it's true. SIG's are like patato chips. You can't have just one.

 

[Chupacabra]

Ah, come on guys! What's with all the .40 hate?

It completes the holy trinity of autoloaders! 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP.

And it really doesn't have as much kick as everyone thinks it does. I wouldn't shoot it out of a subcompact, but in compact pistols it does fine. Load the same gun chambered in 9mm with +p ammunition and I'm willing to bet the recoil profile is very similar. Double taps and mozambiques aren't too hard either with a little practice.