I DO NOT want to start a caliber war. I'm honestly trying to figure out (read: justify) buying a .40 for a carry gun.
Here's my question: I have a couple of "carry size" (IWB) pistols in .45 -- a Shield, a S&W 4513TSW that's been smoothed out, and a Sig 245. I also have a couple of 9mm for IWB carry -- S&W CS9, S&W 6906, and a Beretta PX4 Compact that I sent to Langdon and is darn near perfect.
I just added two 40's to the safe -- a Beretta 96 Centurian (too big for IWB but sorta compact) and a S&W 4006TSW CHP in honor of my friend, a retired CHiP who just passed away.
So where does a .40 fit into a carry rotation? If I want pocket carry I can use the .45 Shield and for a bit bigger but still handy the 4513. If I want lots of bullets the PX4 is perfect and for size and comfort the CS9 and 6906 are perfectly suitable.
So why should I carry a .40 when I can carry a .45? Or why use .40 when 9mm rounds are perfectly adequate for self protection.
I'd like to get something like a Smith 4013, PX4c in 40, .40 Shield, or an M&P compact....but I can't seem to justify spending money on a gun I probably won't carry as the .45 is bigger bullet (more "stopping power?") and the 9s can carry more rounds.
Opinions?
Nice representative collection of some well-proven (albeit some older) CCW-type pistols.
Some thoughts ...
The 4013 is becoming harder to find, and since it was built on the early compact aluminum .45 frame, it's not going to be thinner than your 4513, and only about half an inch shorter. If you like your 6906, you might find a 4013TSW to be a nice example of a compact .40 pistol (especially if fitted with the Hogue finger-groove grips).
I have a few .40's, myself. A 4013TSW, SW9940, G27, M&P 40C and a 4040PD (think 3913 into which they shoe-horned .40), and as a firearms trainer I've handled and used a lot of other makes/models over the years. If I had it to do over again, today I'd replace the M&P 40C with the subcompact Shield 40, as the T&E sample I tried out on our range was surprisingly comfortable and controllable using our 180gr duty ammo. Thinner and slightly smaller than the G27 and 4040PD, too. Handy and accurate diminutive .40 pistol.
I will
not be getting rid of my .40's, even though I have the same number of 9's, and have 9 pistols chambered in .45ACP.
(
Longtime .45 shooter.)
The .40 being able to be chambered in a grip frame the same size as a 9mm (versus the chunkier and longer .45ACP) is ... handy.
The .40 S&W was originally designed (by Winchester, working with S&W) around a 4" barrel. Thus, it never needed the longer barrel lengths to deliver the ballistics and "performance" it was designed to deliver. That can't be as easily said for the .45ACP, which has really required better designed JHP bullets to make it "work better" when fired out of shorter barrels. (Some of my .45's have 3.25", 3.5" & 3.75" barrels, so I started using some of the more modern, optimized .45 JHP ammo many years ago.
)
Combine
that with the JHP bullet advances being delivered by the major American ammo makers, looking to provide viable JHP choices for the increasingly more compact pistols favored by both LE and private CCW carriers, and the .40 seems to provide a "sweet spot" when it comes to being a pretty good "compromise" in a defensive caliber. (And
all calibers are a compromise, at the end of the day.
) Top that off with the ability to carry an extra round compared to a similarly sized .45 compact or subcompact, and it's not a bad deal.
Sure, that compromise comes with a bit more felt recoil and muzzle snap, but anyone who's acclimated to shooting .45 probably won't be overly bothered by it. Novice, occasional or "average" shooters who don't wish to invest a lot of time to training/range practice might be better off using a 9mm, which could include the "average " LE shooter. After all, if you're responsible for training a few hundred (or thousands) of professionally armed folks who aren't particularly "gun people", the 9mm makes sense as an "acceptable" duty caliber choice ... just like the .38SPL did many years ago for LE users who found the .357MAG too difficult to master.
Despite the hoopla and recent trend of "the return of the 9mm" in LE, the .40 didn't suddenly become "less effective". It simply offered an easier option for shooters who aren't particularly interested in spending any more time than necessary to learn to run their handguns, the instructors who have the responsibility of training them ... and the armorers/techs who have to support and maintain high-use pistols over extended round counts and service lives.
Pick your compromise. The .40 S&W isn't a bad one, all things considered. It did earn a respectable service record since it first entered LE use in '90. It simply isn't as "easy" to shoot as the lesser recoiling 9 for the "average" shooter, and it can accelerate wear & tear on some guns, although newer revisions of makes/models that have been designed around the .40 from the drawing board up have helped address the service life considerations.
Another benefit of the .40? The more some practices and trains with a .40, the better the average shooter seems to do when shooting their 9/.45's.
Luck to you.