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.

Skip them all and get a 357 sig

This, I've had a few 40's but lost interest in the round, I've got 9mm and 45 ACP, and am happy with those. You only have so much money for ammo and I decided to limit my funds to 2 calibers, and have more of each of them. Even FBI is said to be coming back to the 9mm. Nothing wrong with being able to get more rounds in a mag for a gun being used for SD.

I don't know what sort of "carrying" you're planning to do, but day-in day-out carrying, as opposed to once-in-a-while carrying gets to be pretty tedious if your gun is too big or too heavy. Double stack autos are pretty thick and tough to conceal even with short butts. Autos small enough to conceal are likely to be pretty snappy, as they say, in .40. With good ammo, a 9 is plenty for social work and practice ammo is very cheap, so cheap that reloading isn't hardly worth your time. Cheap ammo and low recoil mean you'll practice more and enjoy it. A light, compact gun that's easy to conceal and comfortable will be on your belt or in your pocket if you ever need it instead of back home.

I carried a Kahr P9 for quite a while. It was light and absolutely reliable from the first, but the trigger pinched my finger a bit, which got to be annoying, and it was just a bit too big to put in a pocket. I replaced that with a J-frame .38 with laser grips which weighs about the same, but can be carried in my pants pocket, on my belt or in a coat pocket. If I'm wearing pants, I'm carrying it someplace. It meets my needs, but it is harder to shoot well and only holds 5. Someday soon, I'm going to get a really compact 9 along the lines of a Kimber Solo that will be just as easy to conceal AND easier to shoot. I'm going to put more thought into this one than I did the Kahr and be certain that everything about it is just right.

If I were only going to carry at times and on my belt, I'd probably get the new single-stack Glock. They just plain work, and holsters and other accessories will always be available.

there is just no need or advantage to the shorty 40...

because with good bullets the 9mm is about identical, muzzle flip with a 9mm is less allowing you to shoot twice faster or thrice, the 40 is more destructive on guns, and it costs more to shoot...there is nothing a good 9mm cannot do that a .40 can do except Kaboom a glock...

the service for this firearm is going to be kept in the vehicle mainly.....I have no desire to be carrying it into Walmart, etc...
not unless the Muslim problem becomes an American problem...and them looking to Jihad themselves down at the local supermarket or Wally World...

two of my other handguns are worth a lot more today than when they were new... a Colt Python and an 1873 Colt 45 3rd series production, made by Colt...not an Italian copy....

My 1911, was made in 1927 and carries some sentimental value also...

I also have a P89 Ruger in 9mm.. but it has spent the last 15 years in my wife's dresser drawer for her access when I am not at home and she needs to get to something she can shoot....

Seafire

If you are looking for a truck gun, a G17 gen4 is a great option in a 9mm with 17+1 rounds of improved 9mm +P ammo in it.

If the .40 tickles your fancy, and it should, a G22 with 15+1 .40 high performers in it should do the trick.

Plenty of firepower in those two pistolas and with the grip adapters in the gen 4 you can dial in your preferred grip size. As you probably know there is a plethora of aftermarket parts for Glocks to tweek it the way you want. Sights, barrels, springs are readily available and not that expensive to try out. Working on a Glock is surprisingly simple.

Why some are concerned that the 40 has more "muzzle flip" than the 9 is a puzzle to me. Of course it does. It's packing a bigger (both in weight and diameter) projectile at virtually the same speeds as a 9. More energy and frontal diameter used to be considered a good thing when the plan was to kill chit.

Think of the increase in recoil as putting on your big boy pants and jumping from a 38 special to a 357 magnum, and that's probably a bigger difference in recoil than 9 to 40.

Buy a police trade in Glock 22, send it to Glock and they will replace my worn parts and put in any new upgrades and don't worry about the kaboom stories, they have 65% of the entire US police market and who knows how many million Glocks have been sold in the US alone with a very, very small # of kabooms and most are operator induced.

Mike

A timer, a G19, and G23 is all you need to talk yourself out of a .40.




Travis

But for a truck gun?

Can buy a trade in, shoot several thousand rounds through it and sell it for almost what he has in it if not satisfied.


Mike

http://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/used-firearms

^^^This^^^

If you leave it in the vehicle, you're missing the point of concealed carry.

.357 Sig sucks as a reloading round though!

Mike

I bought this 40 S&W Para at a pawn shop when we were living in NE Houston, around 2008. Owner thought it was factory, I knew better given the Bomar. Left giving $500 for it. We moved to Calgary soon after and I landed a Bar-Sto 10 mm barrel. Shipped it north to a guy well thought of and he did the necessary fitting. It throws 17 180 gr 10 mm's very well and eats 40's to boot.

So.....,22LR semi-auto for the win, right?

I haven't seen too many 9mm rounds with 200 gr or 180grain projectiles for that matter.

factory 40 S&W is about the same price as 9mm and with it's fatter, heavier, flat pointed bullets will always pack more wallop than the parabellum.

Both 40 S&W and 45 ACP can be loaded to near 41 Mag. power in suitable firearms.

Go for it. Everyone needs a brief infatuation with the tweener caliber.

VERY well stated.

Factor in increased ammo cost, and real world stopping stats, and the full picture comes into view.

I have a S&W 4006 and like it. I don't find the 4006 any more difficult to hit with than the pistol that it replaced, a S&W 39.

Spot on.

Aside from just shot to shot recovery time, More likely than not you will find you can shoot substantially tighter groups with the 9mm.

Outside of USPSA limited, where due to rules it reigns supreme, I see little reason to ever have a .40.

After some nasty elbow problems over the last few years I have stuck all of my .40s in the back of the safe. They will stick around for use when 9mm is hard to find but that is about it.

I dont feel I give up anything at all regarding terminal ballistics in using similar rounds, and the advantages of round count, recoil reductions, cost of ammo and wear and tear on the platform are just some of the reasons.

The only reason I ran the .40 for years was because that is what was issued and I had the keys to the ammo room. Even in the rush to jump to the .40s from the 9mm subsonics in the late 90's I was one of the few that suggested simply switch from our crappy 147 Hydrashok to the better technology available in the 9mm.

i don't know about that, i have reloaded a lot of it.

true statement to the lower end of .41magnum, but not as to the upper end loads of .41magnum.

maybe its just me, but 147gr in a 9mm is saying to me a hi capacity 38special

another random comment. number of years ago talking to this fbi type of guy, prompted me to get some +P+ 9mm ammo running a 115 grain at about 1350fps. That sounded a lot like 38super to me. I bought a couple of boxes, fired a little, but then got to thinking it was also a lot like .357sig, another round i like.
One atvantage of a .40 tho is being able with replacement barrels to run 9mm, .40, and .357sig through the same gun.
If one was to buy a 10mm, you could probably run all the above calibers.

A lot of posts on here reference the lesser recoil impulse of the 9mm and from a strictly scientific point of view I wouldn't be able to argue that. Several years ago, however, my son and I were at the range together shooting (among other things) my Beretta 92 and his Beretta 96 side by side with ammunition of comparable intensity. We'd swap guns back and forth and after a while we both agreed the .40 just seemed to be a milder handling cartridge in that platform. Yes, it's all subjective and yes it doesn't make sense, but we both shared the same perception. For what it's worth.

And after he does that, he'll know exactly why a G-23 & G-27 are the most seen used Glocks around...............

MM

Buy a 40 S&W or 357 Sig Glock (I have them in fullsized Glock 22, mid sized glock 23, and mini Glock 27) and get the appropriate 9mm conversion barrel from Lone Wolf Distributors.

Then get some G17 mags from Magpul for $15 each and call it a day. Except, get a GLock 26+2 (12 rounds) for the Glock 27 conversion.

This covers virtually every conceivable ammo shortage, including the Zombie Apocalypse......

I'm not a fan of the 40 S&W, and in spite of the apparent size difference in the projectile, the FBI and others see no difference in terminal performance between the 40 and the 9mm.

So embrace the lower recoil and better carrying capacity of the 9mm.

I think the recoil gap narrows as people compare +P and +P+ 9mm to .40. As for me, I like 9mm because I reload jacketed round nose for 12.5 cents a shot (excluding brass).

since 9mm brass is all over the place, and i cast, for me the only cost is that for powder and a primer. Which puts plinking stuff at around 2.50 a box.
But i could say the same thing about 40, as i see the brass on the desert all the time.

[/quote] maybe its just me, but 147gr in a 9mm is saying to me a hi capacity 38special [/quote]

You nailed it. It's just you.

Yep.

Between a .40 and a .45, I've yet to find a .40 in a .40 sized frame that had less recoil than a .45 in a proper .45 frame. And .40's are hard on guns to boot.

It's a competent cartridge, but I just don't see that it really brings anything meaningful to the table anymore.

deleted

Do you have to lube cases?

The whole bottle necked thing you can't give cases away around these parts.

Mike

The 40 S&W is an excellent cartridge that not everyone seems to be able to shoot well. Everyone, except the 50 or so people of both genders I have trained with it.

I still shoot a 45, but the 40 has proven itself beyond reproach. I would take it any day over a pistol with a smaller bore.

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post.html

There seems to be a great disparity in .40 loads that can really make or break its shootability.

Loaded to 9mm power it seems to shoot a bit easier than a 9mm. I've shot a good bit of down loaded .40 and it is incredibly soft. Atlanta Arms offers .40Minor loads at the same cost of regular ammo.

Among factory loads you can go all the way up to Speer Lawman ammo, which I shoot more of than anything else, pushes a 165grain bullet at 1200fps. And THAT load is a world of difference from any 9mm I've ever shot. It's ridiculously difficult to shoot for some people.

ETA: I shoot and watch others shoot an obscene amount of that .40Lawman load. The difficulty some people have with it is very real, and IMO very understandable. I think loads like that are where the .40 gets much of its bad reputation.

When I shoot WWB 165s it's mild compared to Hornandy critical defence.

See, we simply do not obsess over these things.

I buy a bulk load for 'burner' exercises, might be Privi, Tula or whatever fits my budget constraints in the highest volume.

Then I buy a duty load--Federal 165 HST whenever possible--for qualifications, night shoots and general issue.

We have qualification standards. We have policies and procedures. You get X number of attempts to qualify. You fail? So sorry. So long.

We do offer the 9mm option to members. Almost none have chosen it and I am happy with that. We shoot several attack dogs per year, mid-charge, who apparently do not read the latest FBI propaganda. Their skulls, necks and shoulders require breaking and bigger, heavier bullets get that done more reliably than smaller/lighter ones.

Not trying to change anybody's mind here, just making an observation.

Since this will be a ccw is suggest picking the platform first and then deciding from there. I favor the 9mm due to my practice times and economy. As far as "stopping power" I don't think the 9mm gives up anything to the 45 and 40 in regards to human assalients. I am a firm believer in what you do before, during, and after a gunfight is far more important than the choice between a 9mm, .40, or 45.

Same here. Both were Glocks.

Yeah, it means that it's less popular than 9mm and .45.

I believe (now) you are correct:

> > http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Caliber-Popularity1.jpg < <

I have always used a simple test to see if a hardware or software change had a real ability to affect performance in my tool selection. I had the whole glock family, a 17, 22 and a .22lr conversion kit and I wanted to examine the effects of ammo selection on external performance, ie, how fast and how accurate.

There are plenty of test such as the bill drill, 5x5x5 etc but this works for me. Two sheets of 8x11 paper spaced three feet apart at five yards. I started with the gun up and on target, I did not want to measure my ability to be consistent on the draw, just shot to shot and target transitions. I fired three separate strings, one with both hands, one strong hand and one running a white light. One shot on the left target, two on the right and then three on the left again. The .22 kit allows me to understand how fast and accurate I can be with the platform when all I have to worry about is trigger control. With the 9mm I ran white box 115 fmj, 147 hydrashok (best way to get rid of it) and Corbon 115 at 1300 fps. In .40 I ran the 165 whitebox and our duty load, a 165 SXT at 1200fps.

With both hands the .22 were .11-.13 between shots and .13-.16 between targets. 9mm fmj was .12-.16, 9mm corbon was .15-.17 between shots. .40 whitebox was .15-.17 and .40 SXT was .16-.18. Fair to say that when I was fresh, good grip and focused there was really not that much difference.

Moving to one handed and light techniques (hand held, not weapon mounted) the .40 was significantly worse and when I looked at the targets afterwards the shot placement was much better with the 9mm. With the .40 I used the entire 8x11 to keep all of the shots on target, with the 9mm the groups were about the size of a fist. Switch the target to a 3x5 card for the same drill and the 9mm is a big winner.

I am a firm believe in not just hitting center mass, but hitting my target within the center mass and the 9mm does it all much better for me. As always buyer beware, your results may vary etc.

Seafire: Go with a 40 S&W for concealed carry and home protection.
I am sold on them having seen them in use and using them for 28 years or so now!
I would NOT even consider the 45 ACP or the 9 m/m for the above useages anymore!
For many years I got to shoot top quality "man stopper" 40 S&W ammo out of my Glock high capacity pistol FOR FREE!
I fast fired countless high capacity magazines full of this top quality ammo and 95%+ of those rounds were kill shots on man size silhouette targets - don't let ANYONE tell you you can't rapid fire with accuracy, a 40 S&W full size Glock.
You CAN!
I know - I done it.
And now I also have the medium frame size Glock in 40 S&W and I am equally as happy with it.
Go with the 40 S&W - don't let anyone try and talk you out of one.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

This is a great example of someone who knows what they're talking about and someone who thinks they know what they're talking about.