Zerodefect
member
I've found .40 to be more reliable. A Glock 19 will limp wrist far before a 23. More power to cycle the slide. Wear and tear is negligible.
Recoil is a joke. It's not a .44 magnum or anything. If we're talking larger 4" pistols like a 23, up to a fullsize 35, then .40 is a darn good fit with acceptable recoil. Modern 9mm is snappy enough. I expect way less recoil from 9mm, the way ya'll talk about that. But I am always disappointed. It's about the same.
USPSA is owned by .40. By the time I get setup to reload .40, they'll drop the major/minor rules. Murphys law. Many shooters are to the point where the amount of time that the slide cycles, actually matters. Guess what?.......
More power than a 9. Do your research on modern ammo. If 9mm expands a millisecond too soon, or too late, it's as anemic as anything was 20 years ago. That argument is simply justification for less recoil, or less cost. And l suspect that less cost is by far the best real reason for the movement towards 9mm. Every other reason is to justify this. Nobody wants to hear the lowest bidder bit. Nobody wants to admit to themselves, that they prefer it because it's cheap. And 40, 357, and 45 have also improved. So it's the same old argument, except that 9mm doesn't completely suck anymore.
Carry as much power as you can shoot well, not the other way around. 357sig seems to be the caliber that's dying off, not 40.
Recoil is a joke. It's not a .44 magnum or anything. If we're talking larger 4" pistols like a 23, up to a fullsize 35, then .40 is a darn good fit with acceptable recoil. Modern 9mm is snappy enough. I expect way less recoil from 9mm, the way ya'll talk about that. But I am always disappointed. It's about the same.
USPSA is owned by .40. By the time I get setup to reload .40, they'll drop the major/minor rules. Murphys law. Many shooters are to the point where the amount of time that the slide cycles, actually matters. Guess what?.......
More power than a 9. Do your research on modern ammo. If 9mm expands a millisecond too soon, or too late, it's as anemic as anything was 20 years ago. That argument is simply justification for less recoil, or less cost. And l suspect that less cost is by far the best real reason for the movement towards 9mm. Every other reason is to justify this. Nobody wants to hear the lowest bidder bit. Nobody wants to admit to themselves, that they prefer it because it's cheap. And 40, 357, and 45 have also improved. So it's the same old argument, except that 9mm doesn't completely suck anymore.
Carry as much power as you can shoot well, not the other way around. 357sig seems to be the caliber that's dying off, not 40.
Last edited: