bihj
Member
EASY! You want it!
Where does .40s&w fit in for a carry gun??
- Thread starter Redcoat3340
- Start date
- Status
Buzznrose
Member
I’ve read that before, and I really like Tom Givens perspectives. My first Glock was a G23 and after a few thousand rounds and a couple Gunsite classes, I was hooked on both Glock and the G19/23 size frame. I put a lot of rounds through that gun. Only one round was bad...a Freedom Munitions reman round that went KABOOM! Gave the reman ammo away to a reloader buddy with a rundown of what happened. I also bought a KKM barrel for the gun. At least 3K rounds later, still going strong.
But after running a G19 and a G23 back to back up in several drills one afternoon, I set aside the G23 and as I said, it’s a boonies gun now. It generally lives up by my front door with a WML and a G22 magazine. After many thousand rounds, it has a wonderful trigger!!!
The only .40 I’ve shot that was smaller was the G27. I personally do not like that gun. I’ve shot G22’s and they are a good gun as well.
YMMV.
Ed Ames
Member
I’m generally the last person who should be telling others they are overthinking something, but, you are overthinking this.
If you are going to have a supply of SD ammo of a particular type it makes sense to have a carry gun (or guns) chambered for that cartridge. Doesn’t matter if the type is 9mm, .40, .22WMR, or whatever. If you will have the ammo anyway, having a carry gun that can use it just expand your options.
It might still make sense even if you don’t have a supply of SD ammo, but that’s getting into training proxies, competition, and so on.
Personally, I only ever bought one pistol in .40, a G22. It’s a reasonable carry gun for trips to the store or whatever, but not great for deep concealment. I was ok with that. I had other guns for more challenging carry conditions.
If you are going to have a supply of SD ammo of a particular type it makes sense to have a carry gun (or guns) chambered for that cartridge. Doesn’t matter if the type is 9mm, .40, .22WMR, or whatever. If you will have the ammo anyway, having a carry gun that can use it just expand your options.
It might still make sense even if you don’t have a supply of SD ammo, but that’s getting into training proxies, competition, and so on.
Personally, I only ever bought one pistol in .40, a G22. It’s a reasonable carry gun for trips to the store or whatever, but not great for deep concealment. I was ok with that. I had other guns for more challenging carry conditions.
OP
OP
Redcoat3340
Member
Many thanks to all who answered my query. Your opinions helped me to decide I'm not buying a .40 for carry; I'm sticking with my 9s and 45s (and a Smith 642 in +p .38 'cause everyone needs a J-frame).
I did come across, however, a Browning HiPower in .40 in a LGS. Price seems a tad high at $929 but the BHP is a favorite of mine and having one in forty seems like just the thing. Gotta do a bit of horse trading this week and see if the owner is interested in some trades ("spare" 9mm PX4, CZ75 transitional, and the PX4 in ,45 at my bedside, a Smith 645 or 4566 will do nicely there.).
Again thanks for the advice, it's much appreciated.
I did come across, however, a Browning HiPower in .40 in a LGS. Price seems a tad high at $929 but the BHP is a favorite of mine and having one in forty seems like just the thing. Gotta do a bit of horse trading this week and see if the owner is interested in some trades ("spare" 9mm PX4, CZ75 transitional, and the PX4 in ,45 at my bedside, a Smith 645 or 4566 will do nicely there.).
Again thanks for the advice, it's much appreciated.
What happened with the gun? Was it a loss or just the barrel? (The g23)
cc-hangfire
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 589
I found this thread too late to join in, but I’ll have to say that I really like your selection. I do love those S&W 3rd gen’s (1st & 2nd gen’s too). I’ve got 7 including a CS40 & also recently acquired 4006TSW/CHP. As you’ve decided, if you’re using .45acp and 9mm already, there’s no NEED for a .40S&W. Maybe a want, but no need.
Excellent firearms and ammo readily available. I carried .40 S&W p229 LEO refurb for years.
https://www.cdnnsports.com/firearms.html#manufacturer=SIG SAUER
https://ammoseek.com/ammo/40sw
https://www.cdnnsports.com/firearms.html#manufacturer=SIG SAUER
https://ammoseek.com/ammo/40sw
Last edited:
Buzznrose
Member
Actually, no part of the gun was damaged, including the barrel. Only thing that was damaged was my right hand suffered powder burns.
Offhand McFlan
Member
I've really never considered. 40 much at all.
9 is almost as good and you get a bjt more...and its more comfortable and accurate to shoot.
45 is a litt.le better for one shot stops and is also more comfortable and accurate to shoot, not to mention easier to reload.
Many 40 guns are built on 9mm frames...making them less reliable.
As many have stated before, I believe its a solution in search of a problem.
If the FBI had simply invested money in improving existing calibers instead of inventing a whole new genre, it would have been much less complicated....and a whole universe of server space would not have been wasted on these debates over the last 30 years as it has been.
Notice how the military has always been either 9mm, 45...or both...but never 40. Even the FBI went back to 9mm after improvements were made.
40 S&W is the result of an experiment in eugenics gone wrong, producing a mutant which is neither here nor there, whose father the 10mm doesnt even want to acknowledge its existence.
They should have simply built more guns in .38 Super and improved the bullets instead of embarking on that ridiculous odyssey which became the 40 S&W. There would never be anything else neccessary for a LE handgun, ever.
9 is almost as good and you get a bjt more...and its more comfortable and accurate to shoot.
45 is a litt.le better for one shot stops and is also more comfortable and accurate to shoot, not to mention easier to reload.
Many 40 guns are built on 9mm frames...making them less reliable.
As many have stated before, I believe its a solution in search of a problem.
If the FBI had simply invested money in improving existing calibers instead of inventing a whole new genre, it would have been much less complicated....and a whole universe of server space would not have been wasted on these debates over the last 30 years as it has been.
Notice how the military has always been either 9mm, 45...or both...but never 40. Even the FBI went back to 9mm after improvements were made.
40 S&W is the result of an experiment in eugenics gone wrong, producing a mutant which is neither here nor there, whose father the 10mm doesnt even want to acknowledge its existence.
They should have simply built more guns in .38 Super and improved the bullets instead of embarking on that ridiculous odyssey which became the 40 S&W. There would never be anything else neccessary for a LE handgun, ever.
Thanks for that.
.40 S&W less reliable? I dunno about that. The military is a poor reason for handguns. Almost no one carry’s in the military sidearms. And if they do chamber empty. Yes some are well trained in handguns but most aren’t. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If you don’t like 40 that’s fine. A lot of choices out there.
Offhand McFlan
Member
If the gun is originally designed around 9mm then I think in most cases reliability wanes, is all. That's just a "corner reason".
Snappier recoil and higher pressure do produce more hiccups in general too. I think it's just easier to build guns on 9 mm and 45 ACP. Usually the river of utilty finds its own natural paths. The rest humans do by force. Doesnt mean they dont make good sometimes, but usually its just not neccessary.
There's another thread in progress about calibers that just dont need to be. Most of them are rifle calibers. Some are created by someone's perception of necessity. Others by the impatience of marketers and inventers.
Since the 40 S&W seems to also accompany so many years of stupidity in government and sociological progress, I consider that a strong reason for rejecting it and sticking to the tried and true niches. Better things have come and gone. We should go back to them.
38 Super for instance.
Snappier recoil and higher pressure do produce more hiccups in general too. I think it's just easier to build guns on 9 mm and 45 ACP. Usually the river of utilty finds its own natural paths. The rest humans do by force. Doesnt mean they dont make good sometimes, but usually its just not neccessary.
There's another thread in progress about calibers that just dont need to be. Most of them are rifle calibers. Some are created by someone's perception of necessity. Others by the impatience of marketers and inventers.
Since the 40 S&W seems to also accompany so many years of stupidity in government and sociological progress, I consider that a strong reason for rejecting it and sticking to the tried and true niches. Better things have come and gone. We should go back to them.
38 Super for instance.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Wow! This isn't personal, but I see a lot wrong here.
Almost as good? That depends very much on the ammunition, particularly the bullet design. Remember .40 of the late 90's passed the FBI tests. 9mm of the same era did not. So premium 9mm might be almost as good, depending on what "good" means. .40 still makes a bigger hole, and tends to penetrate more at the same time.
One shot stops are widely considered a myth these days. Current doctrine is to shoot until the threat is not a threat any longer. And as far as reloading goes, and you talking about on a press? That's pretty subjective don't you think? Even if it is easier to reload, so what? Most shooters don't reload ammo.
Names some duty guns chambered in .40 S&W that are built on 9mm frame and recently in production. I think you'll find most were either designed for .40 and adapted to 9mm, or have been modified appropriately for .40 and so are overbuilt for 9mm.
The FBI doesn't develope ammunition, or bullets, or guns. They have manufacturers do that. If the manufacturers could have made 9mm pass the FBI tests back in the 90s, they would have. They couldn't.
What the military chooses if based far more or NATO and international laws than on what's best. The military doesn't use HP ammo because they're not legally allowed, not because FMJ is superior. The military uses 9mm and 5.56 because it's NATO friendly. The FBI went back to 9mm once the manufacturers could make ammo that passed the tests. 9mm caters to the lowest common denominator and is cheaper, but it's not ballistically superior to .40.
.40 S&W is a direct result of the FBI asking for a shorter and weaker 10mm, because a weaker 10mm still passed the tests, and a short case means a magazine that is shorter front to back. Which is turn means a small grip on the pistol that fits smaller hands.
"They" who? The FBI didn't want a longer cartridge like the. 38 Super. And why would you assume bullet technology at the time would make that cartridge perform any better than the 9mm in the FBI tests? No reason to think that. The .40 S&W was the right answer at the time. Now technology has progressed, and the 9mm can do what it couldn't do before. The. 38 Super won't ever be a LE cartridge in the future. No reason to even bring it up.
Almost as good? That depends very much on the ammunition, particularly the bullet design. Remember .40 of the late 90's passed the FBI tests. 9mm of the same era did not. So premium 9mm might be almost as good, depending on what "good" means. .40 still makes a bigger hole, and tends to penetrate more at the same time.
One shot stops are widely considered a myth these days. Current doctrine is to shoot until the threat is not a threat any longer. And as far as reloading goes, and you talking about on a press? That's pretty subjective don't you think? Even if it is easier to reload, so what? Most shooters don't reload ammo.
Names some duty guns chambered in .40 S&W that are built on 9mm frame and recently in production. I think you'll find most were either designed for .40 and adapted to 9mm, or have been modified appropriately for .40 and so are overbuilt for 9mm.
The FBI doesn't develope ammunition, or bullets, or guns. They have manufacturers do that. If the manufacturers could have made 9mm pass the FBI tests back in the 90s, they would have. They couldn't.
What the military chooses if based far more or NATO and international laws than on what's best. The military doesn't use HP ammo because they're not legally allowed, not because FMJ is superior. The military uses 9mm and 5.56 because it's NATO friendly. The FBI went back to 9mm once the manufacturers could make ammo that passed the tests. 9mm caters to the lowest common denominator and is cheaper, but it's not ballistically superior to .40.
.40 S&W is a direct result of the FBI asking for a shorter and weaker 10mm, because a weaker 10mm still passed the tests, and a short case means a magazine that is shorter front to back. Which is turn means a small grip on the pistol that fits smaller hands.
"They" who? The FBI didn't want a longer cartridge like the. 38 Super. And why would you assume bullet technology at the time would make that cartridge perform any better than the 9mm in the FBI tests? No reason to think that. The .40 S&W was the right answer at the time. Now technology has progressed, and the 9mm can do what it couldn't do before. The. 38 Super won't ever be a LE cartridge in the future. No reason to even bring it up.
Offhand McFlan
Member
Let's think about all the times we created a new caliber because another one didn't cut the mustard, and what it created.
Bigger?
Faster?
Better BC?
Better SD?
Cheaper?
Easier to design fuctional firearms around?
Less recoil?
"It's what the military uses"?
How far did we really have to go to make it better without creating a new genre altogether? that's really my beef with the 40 Smith & Wesson
Bigger?
Faster?
Better BC?
Better SD?
Cheaper?
Easier to design fuctional firearms around?
Less recoil?
"It's what the military uses"?
How far did we really have to go to make it better without creating a new genre altogether? that's really my beef with the 40 Smith & Wesson
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,990
Yeah, I think it's a farce to believe every pistol chambered in .40 the past 30 years has been built up solely for 9mm and .40 was an afterthought for all those decades. One of the majors reasons Glock made the Gen 4 series was to increase reliability with the .40 caliber.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
True.
If I recall correctly, the Sig P229 and S&W M&P were both designed specifically for the (at the time) new .40 S&W cartridge.
p229
Based on your information, you could go with something in .40S&W about the size and weight of the 4513 but that holds more rounds.
Accepting, for the sake of argument, your belief that a bigger bullet has "more 'stopping power'", then the .40S&W would be superior to the 9mm (in the same way you believe the .45ACP is) but would hold more rounds than a similar-sized gun in .45ACP.
So, based on what you want to do and on your beliefs about 'stopping power' and caliber, you could either use a .40S&W gun to replace your .45ACP carry guns and get significantly more capacity without paying too much penalty in 'stopping power', or to replace your 9mm carry guns without paying much penalty in terms of size or weight to get more 'stopping power' with only a small reduction in capacity. Or, you could do both and standardize on fewer carry gun types and a single caliber to simplify practice, ammunition logistics, and the decision of what to carry each day.
rdnktrkr
Member
I bought a few 40 M&Ps that were LE trade ins, one I don't think was ever issued, and a few SD40VEs and use them for home defense guns and take them when walking the hunting property or anywhere concealment is not a priority. The small frame 40s didn't impress me.
I feel the 40 has a little more knock down power than the 9mm and as bullets have improved for the 9mm the have also improved for the 40. Recently at a LGS there was no 9mm ammo on the shelf but a few different brands of 40, usually 40 runs about $1 a box more than 9mm but goes on sale less often. I reload and enjoy the larger bullet size when loading the 40 or 45,
I feel the 40 has a little more knock down power than the 9mm and as bullets have improved for the 9mm the have also improved for the 40. Recently at a LGS there was no 9mm ammo on the shelf but a few different brands of 40, usually 40 runs about $1 a box more than 9mm but goes on sale less often. I reload and enjoy the larger bullet size when loading the 40 or 45,
The advancements in 9mm defensive ammo, and a lack of advancements in .40S&W defensive ammo do not argue in favor of the .40S&W for defensive carry purposes. My personal preference is for 9mm over .40S&W in compact service pistols. And for full size service pistols, I prefer 9mm in heavier bullet weights, and standard bullet weight 45ACP, over 165 gr .40S&W, although some of the better quality factory ammo in 180 gr. bullet weights are fine to shoot in my P226/40, the only gun I still own in the caliber. That is a partial argument for the forty, but not a particularly strong one. So it’s hard for me to figure out an intended purpose to acquire another forty in any size.
Last edited:
tactikel
Member
Ammunition truths established in the '90s likely don't hold up today. I like the .40 , but what can it do that a '9 or a 45 can't do? Bullet technology has come so far that IMHO they are a wash.
Get a 9mm and premium ammo.
Get a 9mm and premium ammo.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
I'm not a 40 fan at all, but it does humor me when 9mm guys say "9 has lower recoil than the 40", then turn around and go "you don't need a 40 when you can have modern 147gr 9mm ++++P".
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,990
Yeah, I've never understood the argument of .40 recoil being "worse" than .45 as I've found the recoil to feel almost the same, at least in full size pistols. Haven't shot a subcompact .45 yet, but can imagine that it's not that much different from .40, but in a subcompact I'd rather have a 9mm anyway.
People want to argue that you can find loads in 9mm and .45 that overlap with the .40 and thus make it obsolete and I'll agree to a certain extent, but I've yet to find a .45 factory JHP ammo that costs less than $35 for a 50 rd box, while I was able to get proven .40 JHP for $22/50 rd box before the pandemic panic.
I know, I know, we're never supposed to factor the price of defense ammo because of the "Is that all your life is worth to you?" argument or the "You're gonna have a hard time finding a reason to shoot 50 rounds in a defensive gun use and/or convince a jury you're not a criminal at trial" argument.
Hey, if you didn't watch the riots like I did, then you clearly have no concept of how fast the "civilized" world can fall apart. Imagine how much faster society can when the police are defunded. If you're not able to find ammo with the panic buying going on, there's a reason stocking up and keeping a large quantity is never a bad idea. It's not easy to keep more than a few boxes of ammo that costs $1 a round, but when it's half that price, it's a lot easier.
9mm, great choice for smaller handguns, but in full size even a 9mm, be it +P (not much of a velocity increase) or +P+ (9mm that exceeds +P SAAMI spec is getting harder to find) is no match for what a .40 can do and a .45 doesn't do much more than what a .40 can in a smaller gun that holds a lot more ammo.
Yeah, there is the Glock and the FN that hold 13 and 15 rds respectively, but if you don't like Glocks and the FN is too pricey for you, are you really gonna take 10 rds of .45 over 15 rds of .40? I'm not...
People want to argue that you can find loads in 9mm and .45 that overlap with the .40 and thus make it obsolete and I'll agree to a certain extent, but I've yet to find a .45 factory JHP ammo that costs less than $35 for a 50 rd box, while I was able to get proven .40 JHP for $22/50 rd box before the pandemic panic.
I know, I know, we're never supposed to factor the price of defense ammo because of the "Is that all your life is worth to you?" argument or the "You're gonna have a hard time finding a reason to shoot 50 rounds in a defensive gun use and/or convince a jury you're not a criminal at trial" argument.
Hey, if you didn't watch the riots like I did, then you clearly have no concept of how fast the "civilized" world can fall apart. Imagine how much faster society can when the police are defunded. If you're not able to find ammo with the panic buying going on, there's a reason stocking up and keeping a large quantity is never a bad idea. It's not easy to keep more than a few boxes of ammo that costs $1 a round, but when it's half that price, it's a lot easier.
9mm, great choice for smaller handguns, but in full size even a 9mm, be it +P (not much of a velocity increase) or +P+ (9mm that exceeds +P SAAMI spec is getting harder to find) is no match for what a .40 can do and a .45 doesn't do much more than what a .40 can in a smaller gun that holds a lot more ammo.
Yeah, there is the Glock and the FN that hold 13 and 15 rds respectively, but if you don't like Glocks and the FN is too pricey for you, are you really gonna take 10 rds of .45 over 15 rds of .40? I'm not...
Last edited:
- Status
