Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 9mm v. 40, but a new question

What (if any) pistols were designed from the ground up at a .40 instead of a converted 9mm?

Does this matter?

Yes.

I thought they were shortened 10mm's, and no, it matters not to me.

Yes the USP was I believe designed around the 40.

Despite widespread opposing views, the . 40 S&W is a substantial cartridge and was made popular by gun manufacturer's ability to house a cartridge that nipped at the heels of a 10mm inside a 9mm framed pistol.

The drawbacks to a cartridge of this magnitude being limited to a frame size designed for the 9mm, is a loss of shoot-ability and a shortened life span of the frame.

From an engineer's standpoint the trouble in defining how big a .40 S&W frame should be to keep it shootable, and increase longevity would be enormous. If you're going to weigh such things you may as well cut your losses and return to the original concept which is a full house/size 10mm. And truth be told, most full size 10mm's ever see a steady diet of loads exceeding the .40 S&W.

But to answer the question, yes. There would be gains in chambering a large frame pistol for the .40S&W.

The first pistol specifically designed for the .40 S&W round was the Smith & Wesson Model 4006.
Glock issued a re-worked 9MM model to .40 S&W - just previously to the Smith & Wesson 4006.

[According to a 60 second random internet search]

We had a customer who bought a Colt Delta Elite from us and complained that it kept jamming and wouldn't feed or cycle. It worked fine for us but he insisted that we send it back to Colt. They couldn't find anything wrong with it. It turns out that all he fired in it was Federal American Eagle 10mm FMJ that only has a MV 40fps more than the same bullet in their 40S&W load. We tried to explain to him that it really wasn't a 10mm load. He wouldn't accept that and sold the gun back to us at a loss. According to him, if it said 10mm on the box, it was all the same.

That's a great post.

I think you're right. That's what I was going to say. I'm not sure the Glock chambering the 40 as opposed to the 9 was any different than the 4006 vs. the 5906 though.

I have a Lone Wolf barrel conversion from 10mm to .40S&W for my Glock 20. Since getting the Glock 22, though, I have put the original 10mm barrel back in.

The 4006 weighs 37 ounces, could handle 10mm, and would and dance on the G23's grave.

I was a Missouri LE firearms trainer with access to NLETS and NCIC teletypes, from the .40 S&W's inception until I retired in 2016. I was a Glock Armorer from 2009 to 2016. This notion that 40 caliber Glocks were breaking under the strain of that cartridge is not consistent with my experience. There were some early problems with chamber support that were addressed by the mid 90s, Beyond that, I saw G22s and 23s stay in trouble-free service over 10 years, with quarterly qualifications using full power duty ammo and 50-100 rounds of Speer Lawman FMJ issued between those quarterly quals. All those pistols got was a thorough cleaning.

In fact the only credible complaint I recall was that early RTF guns were eating State Trooper uniform jackets at an alarming rate.

I don't like Glocks myself, but the point I was making had nothing to do with Glock vs. Smith and Wesson. Back when they were made, the 4006 didn't have to do any dancing because it was made alongside the 1006 and the 5906.

IIRC though, PWeed was correct, the 4006 was the first 40.

this makes me wonder about the lighter guns like the shield? I have not heard of any problems with the 40 SW shields? They seem to be a lighter gun and firing +P 40SW might be tough on them, still you don't get any reports of them failing.

A lot of the newer guns are designed around the bigger cartridges.

Not sure, but at least some of the XD series guns have very similar
specs for 9/40/45. Which should make those who question a 40's
strength feel good.

But why would you want to carry a 45 size 40 or 9?
I think the Shield may be designed the same way.
I know it has a deep grip for a 9. Like it is the same as a 45.

Ironic. How you ask a question.

Bad to use the same frame across chamberings, strong enough?

Or,

Why build such heavy 9's?

Aside,

Had a buddy trade into a Mark V in 378 Weatherby.
He wouldn't shoot it, because the action wasn't any bigger than
the 270 and 300's he had. He was convinced that they had crammed
that monster cartridge into a "too small" action. He traded it.

I tried and tried to tell him he was backwards. That the action was built for the
378, and just bigger and heavier than needed for the smaller rounds. No dice!

I had two officers carrying them as off duty/backup guns during the last couple of years before I retired. Of course they weren't shot as much as the duty guns but they did fine through 300-400 rounds of full snort 40. I faniggled some trigger time with both and my impression was they were nearly as accurate as the full size M&P and substantially more comfortable to shoot than a G27 with comparable loads.

My wife & looked at 40 Shields vs the Compact and settled on the latter. The Compact grip is a tad shorter and the marginal increase in width spreads the recoil out better. YMMV.

Coming from someone who knows first hand, that means a lot.

I had a bunch of G22's break the extractor hook at about the 1500 round mark. Glock said they were a bad batch and immediately sent replacement extractors and ejectors. That would have been about 1995 I think.

As mentioned, the HK USP 40 was engineered as a 40 from the ground up.

I had one in 9mm (HK USP 9) for a few years. It was a great pistol, but seemed enormous for a 15+1 9mm, especially when handled directly beside a Glock 19.