Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Who prefers a 40?

Yeah, nothing at all unpleasant about it. Just not as good as an equivalent gun in 9mm in terms of shot to shot recovery. You just need to decide if that's worth it to get the slightly greater energy impact. Then there's the slightly less capacity, too., to consider, given the same platform.

Have a CZ Rami in 40, a bit snappy but accurate. Never had a bobble in over 500 rounds. Much prefer the 40 to a 9mm, but that is just me. The 1911 is my favorite, but not really a carry pistol.

I used to have no use for semi auto handguns...I owned a grand total of one for many decades, and the one was a S&W 9mm that sat in my truck for the most part. A year or so ago I couldn't resist the temptation of the LEO trade in .40s, so I picked up a Glock 27. Turns out I really liked shooting it and I started carrying it as my first ever CCW weapon. Then I picked up a Glock 22, then a CAA MCK carbine kit, and now most of my range time is with the .40, and I carry it in the woods as well (leaving my .357 mag as my hunting sidearm).

The .40 certainly can kick more than the 9, but I have big hands and my Glocks shoot better than my S&W 9s (I picked up another LEO trade in S&W 9 mm). Whether the recoil means more stopping power, I have no idea. I do know, though, that I always grab a .40 and the best gun for self defense is the one you carry, so I'm more than happy carrying a .40.

one of the few good things about living in arizona, is when california lawdogs like to spend money upgrading, in their minds, as in going from gen 3 glocks to gen4 glocks, they dump those in the armory over here.
I have a glock 22 sitting in the safe, i have never fired it. Still has the gold grease inside, it's a police gun, never used.
it's still never used. but at the price i paid, i ain't gonna worry about it.
before the powers to be decided to move to 9mm, found a lot of .40 brass laying around on the desert. That an a few decent moulds for the bullets, never gonna worry about ammo.

I prefer the 9 to the 40 for defensive purposes. My times/scoring are better with the 9mm. I do wind up shooting carrying the 40 a lot though. The Glock 35 MOS is one of my favorite backpacking/hunting semi autos. Really a Glock 23 in a MOS would be sweet. I carry a 23 as well but like the optic for hunting.

Good posts folks, appreciate all. Thanks.

I have a CZ, M&P & a HiPower. I like the round & have since its inception.

I like the 40, no flies on it that I can swat, the real eye opener for me was the accuracy, penetration and soft shooting of my 200gr XTP hand load at 1050 fps with Longshot, phenomenal load.

Prefer is a strong term, for me - it usually comes down to what the current ammo market has for surplus ammo.

I like the .40, I have since it came out, and have Glock-ed it for many class and weekend play day.

End-all caliber? No - just another tool in the safe, next to the 9mm and the .45 ACP.

I've shot handguns of nearly every caliber/chambering there is - and still have about 15-20 to select from.. I had a .40 once... Once. In actually a rather heavy, all steel frame & slide; a Kahr K-40.. And I have several Kahrs.... But that K-40 was sold quickly and I've had zero interest in getting a replacement.. I swear a .454C had less recoil..

But that's just me..

A .40S&W is a fine choice in a full-size handgun for defensive purposes. In a compact, I'd rather have the 9mm for capacity and control. In an outdoors-ish scenario, I'd prefer the 10mm, especially now that it is making a resurgence regarding ammo availability and handgun models. My main truck handgun is a full-size XDM .40 and it is very easy to hit with, plus you have 16 chances to hit before you run dry.

I've got 10's of thousands of burned 40 under my belt.

"Prefer" would require some explanation. For outdoors applications I "prefer" it to the 10mm due to cost/weight/platform vs performance issues.

As far as a person shooting gun, I'd rather the 9 because you can shoot it faster with equal accuracy. Increased round capacity. Plus it fatigues you less during extended shooting sessions.

Lots of felt recoil comparisons are apples to oranges. If you want to compare .45 ACP ball to the .40, you should be shooting some 180 grain stuff @ 950fps or slower. You'll find this load pleasant and easy to shoot. But you won't find it faster than 147gr 9mm stuff in your split times. Same for the 115's.

If longevity of your sidearm is of concern (i.e. you shoot a lot) you can guesstimate life to start ending around the 10K round mark on most .40 frames. This is dependent upon ammo of course. The warp speed 155gr stuff is brutal. Not 125gr .357 mag brutal, but still brutal.

Another factor to consider is the size of the gun you prefer carrying. 100 rounds of 180gr stuff clocking 1100fps out of a Shield will have most people packing things in. Whereas they'd shoot the 9mm with ball 115's for another 200 rounds before leaving the range.

I've a plethora of handguns to choose from and usually carry something in the .380-9mm range unless I'm not in the woods.

If I'm in the woods, I prefer the .40 with some flat nose FMJ's.

Tell me how that 180 flat works on letting blood outa critters. Always figgered it should do fairly well but no experience at all. Matter of fact only thing I ever killed with a .40 was a car hit knothead buck. Between the eyes from about 2" with a 155 Silvertip factory. It stayed inside and the deer did a lot of flopping.

I really like the 40, but I also use the original: 4006

More great feedback, appreciate all.

If by "on its way out" one means going extinct, then yes that is probably hilarious. But if "on its way out" means continuing to lose ground to the 9 and the 45, then it is probably true. Third place is still third place, but it sounds like it is going to be an increasingly distant third place nevertheless.

Always had a 40....dies & components keep me keeping one too....

these two....VP40 & P30 H&Ks are my current ones

Dinosaurs now.

You need to rebarrel them in a non-extinct chambering.

The 40 can propel a 20% heavier bullet than a 9 at the same velocity as the 9.

The 40 punches a 15 % larger hole.

Any new bullet technology that makes the 9 better would make a 40 better.

A typical double stack 9 will hold 2 more shells than the same model in 40.
But, the total payload still doesn't offer as much combined energy as a 2 shells less 40.

A lot of wins for the 40. But I'll admit, as the shooter I like practicing/plinking with a 9 much better. I didn't notice much recoil difference 20 years ago, but I do now.

After shooting literally 1000s of rounds in a 40 and 1000s of rounds in a 9mm, I chose a 9mm. Reasons? Performance...The 9mm in a Winchester +P+ round runs circles around a 40+P...On penetration tests the 9mm far outperforms the 40 in any weight. Would I shoot a 40? If I had to but the 9 is a bit lighter to carry and a stronger load...YMMV