I'm not out to convince anybody of anything, mostly because I don't GAS.
But if somebody wants to see what people mean when they discuss the longevity of 40's stuffed into 9mm frames, put 10K through a Beretta 96 and 10K through a Beretta 92.
Let me know what happens.
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
Some guns are best in their original format and the Beretta is a great example. I'm still kicking myself in the ass for trading off a stupid-accurate 92G Centurion. I did have a 96 Centurion a couple of years later, which lasted long enough to trade it for a filly. Four legged variety
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Because .40s beat up plastic guns. And because 9mm is cheaper to buy. And mostly because anyone who says it's a "non-issue" doesn't know what they're talking about.
Thank you for that point of view. The video did not address that and you made two important points. thanks again.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Don't usually agree with Blue...but I know the last department I worked for started issuing G22s after I retired. Officers have to qualify twice a year for a total of 144 rounds per year...if the officer kept the gun for 20 years it would be 2880 rounds. RARELY did any of the officers fire a shot not in qualification... Take initial training of probably 800 rounds and the occasional combat course and it is doubtful that a gun issued to one of these officers would see 5K rounds in the life of gun....
As to the .40 itself...an excellent round but unfortunately it does recoil more than the average non-shooter can shoot well.....and 95% of LEOs are non-shooters.
In the department above, the previous policy allowed an officer to buy their own firearm in either 9mm or .45 ACP as long as it wasn't a SA like a 1911. S&W, GLOCK, SIG, Kahr, Walther...whatever you wanted to carry. 95% could pass the qualifier without much problem. From what I was told when the department went to the ISSUE gun 50% had a hard time passing...mainly because 40% were women for whom the gun was too big and recoiled too much...
Bob
If you can not deal with reality, reality will deal with you....
Interesting points of view, I don't own plastic pistols so that ain't a concern. 9's are easier to shoot faster in a pistol the same size as a 40 because it weighs more. Mag dumps with a 9 on a perp only LEO's are gonna get away with "rationalizing it as neutralizing the threat only flys for LEO's" Joe A Public thinks the rest of should only shoot once then get shot for our trouble. Which favors the 40 if you can shoot it well. I am patiently waiting for PH to make a you tube video on how to select women based on their underware choices. You all have a great day! MB
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
They didn't notice a problem because there wasn't one.
Jesus Blue, listen to yourself. You get all dogmatic like this and sound about half as smart as you apparently are.
I'm dogmatic about what I've seen with my own eyes. And you're usually dogmatic that what you haven't seen doesn't exist.
I've seen slide release levers broken that "average" shooters didn't notice. And I broke a frame pin on a Glock 22 that caused occasional malfunctions and wasn't diagnosed until the 3rd Glock armorer looked at it (the first two were Glock reps). They diagnosed the recoil spring, magazine springs, magazines, poor grip, and bad ammo. The 3rd had seen the problem before in other .40s and knew what to look for. So IME .40 ammo in plastic guns can cause problems that aren't noticed or diagnosed correctly.
I think there are a few who in mu opinion missed the point. First, the guy on the video's credentials are pretty solid. Second, he is clearly on point and even more so, he DEMONSTRATES there is virtually no difference when it came to a lot of issues, his point was, if there is virtually no difference (with the exception of increased, albeit slight increase in recoil, hence my "for teh wimmins" quip), why go through the expense of having to train whole departments on it? As to ammo cost, surely economies of scale would offset that. But I see my intent on ruffling feathers had an effect....
Jorge,
IMO what he demonstrates is what a world class shooter with 30" triceps can do with the 40. Most shooters don't have those beef quarter triceps he does, which greatly aids in controlling recoil.
For the rest of us, we are probably better off with a well stoked 9mm.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
So it begs the question, aside from the 2" of extra penetration during the FBI shooting (where the 9mm failed) and the 40 is SUCH a burden, why did half the known world go to the 40 in the first place, over a bullet? Once again government bureaucracy and feathermerchants rule the roost... BTW, Paul Harrell has a BUNCH of really good videos. I highly recommend him.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I saw a group of Gen 2 Glock 22's break extractors pretty consistently once they hit about 1,500 rounds. Glock told me it was a known issue and they redesigned the extractor for the .40 S&W guns. To their credit the new extractors gave us no issues. There were some other issues, ejector breaking, front sights coming off.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Jorge, this is just my opinion, but I think that half the known world transitioned to the 40 S&W because the FBI did. They were following the FBI's lead.
Jorge, this is just my opinion, but I think that half the known world transitioned to the 40 S&W because the FBI did. They were following the FBI's lead.
exactly! Here's another curve ball; the Secret Service uses the 357 SIG....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Jorge, this is just my opinion, but I think that half the known world transitioned to the 40 S&W because the FBI did. They were following the FBI's lead.
exactly! Here's another curve ball; the Secret Service uses the 357 SIG....
Why do they use the .357 SIG?
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
So it begs the question, aside from the 2" of extra penetration during the FBI shooting (where the 9mm failed) and the 40 is SUCH a burden, why did half the known world go to the 40 in the first place, over a bullet?
Overreaction. A bunch of FBI agents died or were badly wounded in a shootout with two bank robbers due mainly to the failure of a 1980s designed hollow point 9mm to penetrate through a perp's shoulder, all the way through his heart. Their first overreaction was to adopt the full house 10mm, not the .40 S&W. That was a flop, because so many couldn't shoot well with it. Then they toned it way down, and most of them could handle it, so someone came up with the idea of shortening the 10mm to fit in a 9mm pistol, while keeping the toned down 10mm power level.
They didn't jump directly from 9mm to .40 S&W.
The correct solution was to urge ammo makers to improve their 9mm bullet designs and powder charges using scientific testing, which is what happened anyway, thus shrinking the gap between .40 S&W and modern 9mm in terms of terminal performance potential.
Jorge, this is just my opinion, but I think that half the known world transitioned to the 40 S&W because the FBI did. They were following the FBI's lead.
I'm not out to convince anybody of anything, mostly because I don't GAS.
But if somebody wants to see what people mean when they discuss the longevity of 40's stuffed into 9mm frames, put 10K through a Beretta 96 and 10K through a Beretta 92.
Let me know what happens.
I^^^^THIS 100% The Beretta 92, Sig 226, Glock 17, S&W 5906, etc. were all designed around the 9mm Parabellum. When the 40 S&W was shoe horned into those pistols, Beretta 96, Glock 22, S&W4006 etc and things started to break sooner. Most of the newer polymer striker fired pistols that were designed after the 40 S&W came out and designed specifically for the 40 S&W cartridge and then adapted to the 9mm hold up much better. The cartridge that is probably the toughest on pistol frames is the 10mm Auto, Glock designed their Model 20 around that cartridge and from what I here there are no breakage issues with it. From what I hear it runs like a sewing machine.
