Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Talk me out of a 40 S&W

My handgun use has been limited to 3 handguns over the last dozen years.... a 45 LC, a 1911, and a Colt Python in 357....

getting a CCW and was looking at the MP 40...use to a 45 ACP for knock down power.. and feel a 9mm is just too wimpy....

guys I know locally are trying to talk me out of that and going with an MP9 instead...saying a 40 kicks too much for extended shooting....

I am considering the 40 over the 45 ACP, just due to magazine capacity, 15 vs 10.... and over the 9mm, I like the heavier bullet weights used in the 40s...

appreciate some input of resident experts here...

I really can't put my finger on why, but I have never been a fan of the 40 S&W.

Admittedly, my only avenue of experience with the cartridge has been by way of Glocks, but I never felt it was as accurate at either the 9mm or the 45.

Obviously, the recoil impulse of the 40 is greater than the 9mm, but what I have also found, is that it is "Snappier" than a 45.

If I was most concerned with high capacity, I'd be happy with the 9mm. Today's ammunition makes it anything but wimpy. If I were looking for bigger bullets, I'd take flight with the proven 45 and never look back.

For me, the 40 is neither fish nor fowl.

I was in the same boat as Crimson Tide for many years and will add that I also felt like if I was gonna go .40 caliber then why not go with 10mm? Then I got talked into a .40 here on the fire. For one thing, the .40 is just damned common. Very easy to obtain, which is a big plus. But anyway, I became a fan and then promptly got out of it again because I have 45's and 9's anyway and I got a 10mm. But unlike CT, I remain a fan.

I think the platform you are going with matters. I've owned an M&P full size in .40 and it was fantastic. I've never shot a full size M&P in 9mm or 45 ACP. I've got a Compact M&P 9 though. I don't know about the 9 vs. the 40 in the Compact, but certainly the full size version in 40 was not bad at all. If I already had a 45 auto and just wanted a different platform and could use a full size gun, I'd not hesitate to get an M&P in 45 ACP. If I had no ACP gun or wasn't concerned in the least about the calibers I shot proliferating, then I'd get the .40 without hesitation.

I would not get a Glock in .40. See my current thread about Kabooms.

In the past you had the 9 and 45 having a leg up on the 40 due to being more common. The 40 is very common today though. There is so little difference between these cartridges in the best of loadings, that I would look at platform first and cartridge second.

Not an expert by any means here. I wouldn't talk anyone out of buying something new ( unless it is a 270). But yes the 40 is a little more snappy, but not bad, in my opinion. My 40 is a Glock 27. I tend to use 165 or 180 grain loads, in seems with those there is less muzzle flip.

I don't know about Smiths and XDs, but with Glock you can get a 357 Sig barrel a 9mm conversion barrel and someone is making a 22 TCM barrel also (with a shorter bullet to fit the mag length).

The last time there was an ammo shortage, the 9's flew off the shelf first, then 45's, then 40's and lastly the 357 sig. If that means anything.

I don't own a .40 caliber. Used to, but got rid of them.

I'll take the increase in diameter and energy of the 40 over the 9 and the inceeased capacity and smaller grip of the 40 over the 45 any day.

I have two .40's - one is a Springfield XD40 full size, the other a H&K USP Compact. The XD40 shoots and handles greats - I can point shoot it with reasonable accuracy quite aways out and target shoot pretty accurately farther than one would expect with this type of pistol. The H&K shoots fine as well, but kicks more and I can't seem to hit at distance as well with it. Which doesn't matter one iota at the distance one needs a carry gun for.

I like the 40. All that said, my everyday carry gun is a m9m due to the smaller size pistol available.

I keep a 40 around because it's never a bad idea to have a weapon that's capable of firing your enemies ammo, also, a handloaded 140 gr tac-hp at 1250 has to be relatively effective in a sd situation.

Like CT, I've not warmed up to the .40, either. Also like CT, don't really know why other than I don't really see a need to add yet another caliber to my arsenal.

Got plenty of brass for one, though.

What he said, ^^^, for the most part.

I'd also add that you should go try out a G-23 or an M&P in 40 S&W before you buy it.

(Hint: According to the guy I know who runs a shop & range, G-23's & 27's are the two most traded in guns around)

MM

Yep. No doubt it works, but other cartridges work, too. The 9 kicks less and has higher capacity. The .45 makes bigger holes. The 10 makes deeper holes

I have dabbled with it in the past, in a Glock, and a Colt Double Eagle. If a case of ammo fell into my lap, I'd probably go buy a .40 barrel for a 1911. Otherwise, I'd go 9mm or .45. Or full-house 10mm.

40 has a different recoil impulse, most say it is "sharp" and abrupt. I like my 40 and have no problem shooting it. Others say it is more difficult to learn than a 45 acp or 9mm?

If I had to do all over again I would stick to a 9mm or 45acp possibly. Nothing wrong with any of them and they will all keep you safe.

I agree. There certainly is enough room in between the 9MM and the 45 ACP cartridges too justify choosing the 40 S&W round.
Some years ago the 40 was hostilely trashed (along with the 380) by its detractors - but not so much any more.

The 40 is popular and the 40 ammo has been competitive pricewise with the 9MM ammo.
Also, I don't notice any significant recoil in the 40 chambered pistols I shoot.

I have two CZ's and a Browning Hi-Power in 40 S&W,
and I feel plenty comfortable and secure with what the 40 has to offer.

I have a 40 in a Sig 226, great gun, not much recoil for me, I also have a 1911 in 45ACP, can't say I can tell much difference.

I've given the 40 some thought, but am sticking in the 9 and 45 camp. My thinking is for what I'd have to tie up in dies, brass, bullet mold and a conversion for the 550B I can cast and load ~6,000 rounds for the 9mm.

To me the advantage of the 9 is either more ammo capacity or very compact guns, the advantage of the 45 is, well it's a 45.

For all of the self defense shootings you are planning to be in, the .40 will work just fine. In a micro pistol it takes volume (of practice) to make the gun manageable. Perhaps in a Micro you should consider a 9mm.

I have more than one .40. I have a multitude of 9mm, and a multitude of .45's.
magazine capacity? a springfield xd holds something like 14
about like a glock 23 in .40.
you can get 20round 9mm's.
it is correct that the lines blur in terminal performance between the rounds,, assuming the projectile actually works.
weight is a consideration.
I have fired a lot of stuff in .40, i never considered the recoil impulse, until i read about it.
It's an in between round, between the 9 and the .45. I have not found it difficult to reload, but one should understand the issues with it.
I also have .357sig.
Most of the stuff fired through the glock 23 was actually .357sig with a replacement barrel.
Buying ammo makes me shudder both casting and reloading. I do have boxes of factory ammo for the various calibers but don't like to burn them up. Too costly.
my personal bias it is a cartridge that didn't have to be except for the FBI dicking around and winchester/glock wanting to sell new stuff. and it did allow downsizing a bigger bullet into a small package. still with larger mag capacity.
Like upgrading the old .38wcf which is what a .40 ballistically really is.
One thing is true, you can get some pretty good glocks police tradin's for in the mid three's. Particularly out of california where they ship them over here for sale. I was looking at a gen three on my desk the other night, a glock 22. It was a police tradein bought in the mid three's. Brand new gun, no signs of wear anywhere. They had to have the gen 4's i imagine.
Probably never shoot it, but that ammo is wide spread these days. Pack a xd with three spare 14 round mags and a loaded pistol of .45 and it means you need to wear suspenders.
to blur it even more, a 155grain silvertip out of a 40 at 1200fps. That's getting into 10mm territory.
come to think of it, that is what i have in my baby glock which is a 357sig, with a 40kkm barrel currently installed.

i just pulled one of my glock 40 mags out, it holds 13, with a two round extender that's 15 plus one in the barrel.
or i could put in a glock 22mag which is from memory 15, and with a two round extender 18 counting one in the chamber. And how is this different than most 9mm's.

Seafire

I have more than one .40 and more than one .45ACP and more than one 9mm. My carry guns are a G27 and a G30. I tend to carry the G27 more and it is loaded with HST +P 180g. If recoil is more "snappy", I don't think I would notice it under a SD situation at all.

Knowing you and your reloading tendencies in the long gun arena my guess is that you would have your .40 up and running in the middle range of 10mm and loving every minute of it before too long. Not sure if RL-7 would be the go to powder though.....you might have to venture into strange lands and test out some Power Pistol.

Seafire

Make sure you run a number of rounds through a the .40 you are thinking about before you purchase, you might decide against it.

Personally I prefer a 9 for CCW and they ain't as wimpy as you might think.