I know the .40 has lost its marketing footing and many manufacturers are stopping production in favor of the 9mm. With most buyers it's the higher cost to feed the .40 over the 9mm but the .40 offers a lot of performance over the 9mm - for those of us who care.
I have a batch of .40 ammo collecting dust so I thought about a new pistol and found the options are pretty darn slim. Sig dropped the .40 long ago so looks like S&W Performance Center M&P 2.0 is about the best option available.
The ammo folks say they will keep making the .40 but for how long and at what cost?
Always thought the .40 was a solution to a non-existent problem. In 9mm sized guns, it has more recoil than a .45 and those guns will wear out WAY faster than a 9mm. .40 S&W is a notorious gun killer. That said, it's a very capable cartridge should you be inclined, and it will get the job done just fine. I just don't think the trade off's are really attractive for that cartridge (and others). Handguns are rather unimpressive when it comes to "stopping"...they all kill just fine, but they don't stop well. So I think most have determined that more bullets is more beneficial than bigger bullets. Of course this is an argument that goes back a century or more, and they'll be debating this crap long after I'm gone. I have always favored hi-cap 9mm's...but that doesn't mean the other cartridges won't get it done just fine..
Like any in between cartridges there are trade offs on both ends. And GG says it well.
But I am/was a big fan of the 40 as I know it's a good cartridge. Have shot thousands of them in competition & carried them confidently. I have only gravitated toward the 9 the last few years due to age & arthritis. Otherwise, the 40 has served well, & factory ammo is likely be around a long time.
The Smith should be nice, & there are about a dozen models of Glocks still made. Used Police trades in those are the best handgun deal out there right now IMO.
Why no love for the 40? It's another awkward child of the 90's who is uncomfortable in social situations. and so spends its time in the basement looking at online pics of compact 9's.
When the .40 was introduced, I was working at an indoor range. We had an S&W Range day there, and Tom Campbell flew in to show off some of their wares. He happened to have his 4006 IPSC pistol with him, all built up by the Performance Center with a compensator, etc. He let me shoot a 20 round box of Winchester Ranger ammo thru it, and it was amazingly soft-shooting, and probably more accurate than I could shoot back then, when I was "pretty good". It was a nice pistol, but not nice enough to sway me away from my 1911s in .45.
However, the production guns never flipped any switches for me, in any way, not the 4006, or the Glock 22, or any other .40 I ever shot. I still feel the same way.
The problem with it is that handguns for it tend to be made in the same size as handguns in 9mm. The result is that they are quite snappy in recoil, which (though not painful) can be disconcerting to all but the most high volume shooters.
One problem that arises with a snappy recoiling gun is that, unless you are really focused on a tight squeeze throughout your string of fire, the gun will shift a little in your grip, which will, after a few rounds, make you want to reacquire your grip. Most people would rather (1) not need to be focused to that degree on the squeeze of their grip, and (2) would rather not have to readjust their grip within a string of fire.
The solution would be to build a whole new size category of handgun for the .40 S&W, halfway (for example) between the size/weight of the Model 19 Glock and the Model 21 Glock, but that would defeat the original purpose of the .40 S&W, which was to have a power increase over 9mm in the same size/weight handgun.
It is true, adapting a 9 into a 40 creates problems. But, some guns were later designed around the 40. The 40 S&W M&Ps are easy to shoot well.
I don’t know why this comes up in the SD/Tactical conversations. Why must there only be one? 9mm or 45 or 40 or 5.56 or 7.62, etc. There are at least 10 viable factory 30 caliber hunting cartridges that all work.
It turns out that the 40 was just another FBI hoax. I gave it the attention it deserved.
The FBI didn't invent the .40 S&W. I don't recall the FBI issuing the .40 until the late 90's. I don't think the FBI was even the first LE agency to issue the .40 S&W.
Perhaps it is true that the .40 S&W was created as a result of the FBI adopting a downloaded 10mm but to call it "Just another FBI hoax" is inaccurate - sorta like how lots of people shoot the .40 S&W.
Yeah, at full power it is a handful. Same pressures as a 9mm but heavier bullets? No wonder it kicks more.
I know the .40 has lost its marketing footing and many manufacturers are stopping production in favor of the 9mm. With most buyers it's the higher cost to feed the .40 over the 9mm but the .40 offers a lot of performance over the 9mm - for those of us who care.
I have a batch of .40 ammo collecting dust so I thought about a new pistol and found the options are pretty darn slim. Sig dropped the .40 long ago so looks like S&W Performance Center M&P 2.0 is about the best option available.
The ammo folks say they will keep making the .40 but for how long and at what cost?
Always thought the .40 was a solution to a non-existent problem. In 9mm sized guns, it has more recoil than a .45 and those guns will wear out WAY faster than a 9mm. .40 S&W is a notorious gun killer. That said, it's a very capable cartridge should you be inclined, and it will get the job done just fine. I just don't think the trade off's are really attractive for that cartridge (and others). Handguns are rather unimpressive when it comes to "stopping"...they all kill just fine, but they don't stop well. So I think most have determined that more bullets is more beneficial than bigger bullets. Of course this is an argument that goes back a century or more, and they'll be debating this crap long after I'm gone. I have always favored hi-cap 9mm's...but that doesn't mean the other cartridges won't get it done just fine..
^^^That^^^
It doesn’t do anything that a 9x19mm won’t do but at the expense of less bullets in the mag, more recoil and more gun wear. 9x19 and .45 ACP both have a lot of history behind them if that something that matters to you. The .40 doesn’t have the cool history and doesn’t offer anything over a 9mm.
I think the market has spoken on the 10mm short, popularized by the FBI adopting a female friendly version of the real 10mm. There was never anything wrong with the 9mm's performance that the 40 SW was a cure for. The 40 SW fugged up my favorite version of the Sig P226's that were made in Germany and were perfectly balanced for the 9mm. When the 40 was introduced to the P226 platform the slide weight was increased and beefed up to accommodate the added recoil energy. A 9mm P226 is now analogous to shooting a 20 ga. shotgun that was built on a 12 ga. frame.
Always thought the .40 was a solution to a non-existent problem. In 9mm sized guns, it has more recoil than a .45 and those guns will wear out WAY faster than a 9mm. .40 S&W is a notorious gun killer. That said, it's a very capable cartridge should you be inclined, and it will get the job done just fine. I just don't think the trade off's are really attractive for that cartridge (and others). Handguns are rather unimpressive when it comes to "stopping"...they all kill just fine, but they don't stop well. So I think most have determined that more bullets is more beneficial than bigger bullets. Of course this is an argument that goes back a century or more, and they'll be debating this crap long after I'm gone. I have always favored hi-cap 9mm's...but that doesn't mean the other cartridges won't get it done just fine..
^^^That^^^
It doesn’t do anything that a 9x19mm won’t do but at the expense of less bullets in the mag, more recoil and more gun wear. 9x19 and .45 ACP both have a lot of history behind them if that something that matters to you. The .40 doesn’t have the cool history and doesn’t offer anything over a 9mm.
Sigh. What a bunch of horseshit.
I've loaded some hot stuff for nines, but never have I been able to get a 200gr bullet close to 1100 fps. About 850 was tops. And I mean tops.
And history? You pick a semi-auto cartridge in a defense handgun for history? Interesting priorities. SMH
Always thought the .40 was a solution to a non-existent problem. In 9mm sized guns, it has more recoil than a .45 and those guns will wear out WAY faster than a 9mm. .40 S&W is a notorious gun killer. That said, it's a very capable cartridge should you be inclined, and it will get the job done just fine. I just don't think the trade off's are really attractive for that cartridge (and others). Handguns are rather unimpressive when it comes to "stopping"...they all kill just fine, but they don't stop well. So I think most have determined that more bullets is more beneficial than bigger bullets. Of course this is an argument that goes back a century or more, and they'll be debating this crap long after I'm gone. I have always favored hi-cap 9mm's...but that doesn't mean the other cartridges won't get it done just fine..
^^^That^^^
It doesn’t do anything that a 9x19mm won’t do but at the expense of less bullets in the mag, more recoil and more gun wear. 9x19 and .45 ACP both have a lot of history behind them if that something that matters to you. The .40 doesn’t have the cool history and doesn’t offer anything over a 9mm.
Sigh. What a bunch of horseshit.
I've loaded some hot stuff for nines, but never have I been able to get a 200gr bullet close to 1100 fps. About 850 was tops. And I mean tops.
And history? You pick a semi-auto cartridge in a defense handgun for history? Interesting priorities. SMH
I’m talking about for a defensive situation. Sure a .40 S&W bullet is bigger and heavier than a 9mm bullet. Duh 🙄. It doesn’t from a defensive standpoint work any better than a 9mm. Hence it doesn’t do anything that a 9mm doesn’t do.
Nope I don’t pick a defensive weapon for it’s history. I own a whole lot more than one defensive pistol and when buying/collecting others as range toys or just something to buy than history of the gun and its chambering come into play.
There’s nothing wrong with a .40. Two general comments to the the OP’s post as to why it isn’t more popular. Do you disagree?
I've had two .40cal autos, the first was a Glock 27 which was both snappy and chunky, so it went down the road. The second was a full-size XDM, purchased back when so many of the LEO departments were still using the .40cal. I still have it and find it to be a nice balance of power and "shootability". 16+1 doesn't hurt either. As others have said, most auto pistol rounds really aren't that impressive on aggravated/determined humans anyway, so I don't know that 9mm vs. .40cal really makes that much difference if you aren't hitting CNS or breaking down the skeletal structure.
Very little experience with it. Don't own one, rarely shoot other's guns.
A Sig was ok, didn't like the recoil.
A G22 was ok.
Someone has to mention...the G27 sucked donkey balls. The grip can pinch a nerve or tendon in my thumb. Thumb goes numb, but hurts like heck. My G19 can do it with hot loads, but not as bad.
I'd rather shoot hot 44mags or 45 Colts out of a Blackhawk. That gets sporty, but doesnt hurt from a single round.
If the 40 S&W did quantifiably "more" than the 9mm I doubt most agency's would have switched back to the 9mm and the military would have stuck with it. What is this "more" you speak of? Why would you need "more" to accomplish the task that the 9mm is capable of. Where does "more" end? .50 S&W?
I can’t tell any difference in the 40 from the 9 shooting paper. Other than a little difference in recoil. But I usually shoot plates. The plate rack trembles when shot with a 40 or 45. Barley shakes when shot with a 9. Hasbeen
No complaints with it. I have a couple. 40s left . Pair of G22s for house guns and a G23. I probably wouldn't buy another 40 unless dirt cheap but the ones I have aren't going anywhere. For what it's designed for it works well.
It turns out that the 40 was just another FBI hoax. I gave it the attention it deserved.
The FBI didn't invent the .40 S&W. I don't recall the FBI issuing the .40 until the late 90's. I don't think the FBI was even the first LE agency to issue the .40 S&W.
Perhaps it is true that the .40 S&W was created as a result of the FBI adopting a downloaded 10mm but to call it "Just another FBI hoax" is inaccurate - sorta like how lots of people shoot the .40 S&W.
Yeah, at full power it is a handful. Same pressures as a 9mm but heavier bullets? No wonder it kicks more.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
Or would you rather accept that the current handgun preference is the hoax?
And BTW, that hoax spread across the nation's LEA's and cost us all a lot of money.
No 40’s for me. Have plenty of .45’s and 9’s. A 40 would mean more dies, different brass and components. I didn’t think I needed or wanted one. Didn’t think it would add anything to what I already had.
With modern ammo, the old 9 shines. Not your Grand Dad’s 9.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
True. But so did the .45acp. Or the .357 FTM.
That's true, too. But, .357 was too much for most people to handle effectively and the word "Magnum" scared administrators. In .45 ACP, most of the guns of the era were single action and administrators did not like "cocked and locked" carry. Plus, the guns of the era weren't optimized for hollow points.
I bought a minty used S&W 4006 back in 2008 and really like it.
I was going to use it to shoot close in deer off a raised stand, using the ammo that Mackey-Sagebrush was selling a few months back. I ended up using the .45 ACP ammo that he was selling around the same time. The .45 ACP ammo performed exactly like he said that it would, like a .45 LC, hard cast bullet going through and through. The deer acted almost like an arrow shot deer, they humped up, ran off about 30 yards, started to wobble, and fell over dead.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
True. But so did the .45acp. Or the .357 FTM.
That's true, too. But, .357 was too much for most people to handle effectively and the word "Magnum" scared administrators. In .45 ACP, most of the guns of the era were single action and administrators did not like "cocked and locked" carry. Plus, the guns of the era weren't optimized for hollow points.
Rationalizations for the hoax.
You know I'm not seriously claiming it to be a deliberate and blatant hoax. It's what unrestrained bureaucracies do, without any thought of pulling a fast one. But then one thing leads to another, and here we are.
Seriously though.....it was nothing at the time to run 200gr SWC in a 1911. And how hard would it be to make a mild 357 load that still outperformed any 9mm at the time? They could call it the "FBI" load. Oh, wait.....
Have a para ordinance 1911, 16, 40sw. Like it and sometimes carry it depending on what I'm wearing. Have enough components to reload for it that I'll probably never have to buy ammo from the store for it.
Before the .40 S&W, there was the .41 Action Express (AE). This was an earlier effort to put a .40 caliber bullet in a pistol designed for the 9mm. You only needed a conversion barrel for your 9mm pistol and (I'm assuming) a matching magazine.
The cartridge had a rebated rim to match the breach face and extractor of the 9mm, but the case and bullet was otherwise like the .40 S&W.
I had an EAA Witness 9mm (like a CZ-75, but made in Italy) that I converted to .41 AE long before there was any such thing as .40 S&W, back in the late 1980s. I just dropped in the conversion barrel. It's been so long ago, that I cannot remember if you needed a new magazine for it, as well, but if it was needed, I had one of those, too. Seems like that would have been a requirement, but I'm not sure.
The only issue was reliability. I'm not sure if this was common or not, but I quickly dropped the original 9mm barrel back in and gave up on the .41 AE.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
I’ve had 3 .40’s, shot several others, currently down to one, a Springfield Armory P-9 (CZ-75 clone, Tanfoglio-made parts, finished/built by SA back before you could get real CZ’s in the US. I’ve shot IDPA and Steel Challenge with it but not much now. Extended shooting with anything larger than 9mm is rough on the arthritis in my thumb joint.
Like so many things, the .40 is a compromise and probably not a bad one. I’ll hang on to the one I’ve got. I’d get another if I came across the right one at the right price at the right time, but I’m not going looking for one.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
Did one of his meat targets refuse to stop attacking?
I love my bargain cheap like new glock and m&p 40cal pistols. Why not? They fire 40 just fine and the Federal and Blaser 180gr FMJ are wonderful choices for my rural area. If I decide the 40 isn't my game then it's no big deal to convert them to 9mm and I've done so with one glock.
Glock22 Glock23 Shield 40
These were very cheap and they function fine. What's not to like.
I love my bargain cheap like new glock and m&p 40cal pistols. Why not? They fire 40 just fine and the Federal and Blaser 180gr FMJ are wonderful choices for my rural area. If I decide the 40 isn't my game then it's no big deal to convert them to 9mm and I've done so with one glock.
Glock22 Glock23 Shield 40
These were very cheap and they function fine. What's not to like.
Well, I look at it a bit differently. To me, the .40 is the compromise.
It’s not a .45, not a 9. High performance 9mm ammo ups the ante for the nine, giving the .40 a run. Neither the 9 nor the .40 are a .45, but a big gun may not be as handy. A smaller gun on your person beats the bigger gun at home or in the truck.
No love for the .40 S&W? Brother you ain’t lookin in the right places? I have 3, love them all. Trust my life to them every day. Occasionally I’ll carry one of my 10mm’s or the one 9mm I own, but my .40’s get 99.9% of the carrying, and the love. Do I care that new pistols aren’t being chambered for it? Nope. Do I care others aren’t fans of it? Again nope. Will I write paragraph after paragraph explaining why I like it best, or sit around hoping it will gain more public favor? Stand by…NOPE. 😎
No love or hate for the S&W 40, I have a S&W MP 40 with a 357 Sig barrel, an EAA Witness in 40 S&W with a 357 Sig barrel, a Glock 22. They all go bang and shoot well, the M&P seems to be more accurate and easier to shoot. Wait 20 or 25 years and it'll be popular again. I do carry a 1911 10mm in a chest holder when I go riding my s x s or 4 wheeler as there have been Bear and Mountain Lions seen within a few hundred yards from my house, some very large wild hogs have been taken here also. At one time I had a 40 Hi Power with a 357 Sig barrel also.
I’m considering a Gen 3 or 4 Glock 23 as a pistol to carry in the woods and hiking. It is no .44 Mag, but a hard cast .40 cal 200 gr bullet at 1,000 fps is pretty capable against critters small and a good bit bigger not to mention two-legged threats. In that role, the 13+1 capacity, subsonic velocity, and 23 oz empty weight are pretty appealing to me.
With various types of modern ammo one can tailor the ammo to the perceived threat ie Glaser Safety slugs versus HP versus Hardcast etc. I decided to switch our primary carry guns to 9mm because of its international popularity but not least of which its popularity here in the US. As far as my “heavy carry” I switched to 10mm and thus far over the years have shot hundreds or thousands of rounds through my Glock 20 with precisely ZERO malfunctions or FTF/FTE. I figure I have most bases covered this way. 😉
For the record, I don't hate the 40. I'm indifferent about it. I've shot some 40 S&W pistols that I liked a lot, but not enough to stop relying on my 9's and 45's. If I'm buying anything of .401 diameter, it's in a longer case. Even that is mostly out of curiosity.
I do though hate that government agencies spend too much of our money on hardware solutions to software problems, and this has been one shining example IMO. If the move to the 40 doesn't prove that out on its face, the move back to the 9mm certainly does.
Skip right to the meat target experiment, if you like.
It's pretty clear that, under certain rare circumstances, the degree of destructive penetration one gets from a 180 grain JHP .40 caliber bullet (from a .40 S&W handgun) is superior to any 9mm parabellum round from a similar handgun. This could result, in the case of a 9mm, in a failure to reach the heart, and the ability of an attacker to therefore continue in the fight against you.
It's a trade off, but you have to give the .40 S&W its props in those areas (rare though they may be) where it's actually the hands down favorite. I speak of penetrating the arm, ribs, lungs, and heart, after full expansion, from a lateral hit.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
STRSWilson: Who knows what the mental midgets at the ammunition manufacturing plants will do in the future? After seeing what bizarre things they have done (and NOT done!) over the last few decades NOTHING would surprise me! Unlike most here I have actually seen the results of "bad guys" getting shot with the 40 S&W cartridge - and believe me YOU do NOT want to get shot center mass with a 40 S&W bullet. I own several pistols in 40 S&W caliber and have used/carried them professionally and personally for 30 years now. I am NOT saying the 40 S&W is THE best pistol cartridge ever invented - but I am saying it does everything I need/needed done in a service and personal protection round. Long live the 40 S&W. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
I kind of like the .40. Hi-Power, Beretta 96, Sig-Sauer Match. 170 gr hard cast truncated cone at 1200 fps has equaled dead mule deer at 25 to 75 yards. Hi-Power is cool. Beretta to add oomph to my service carry experience. Sig is very accurate. Crimson trace on all.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
Great round, shoots like a Cadillac in a heavy P226 Sig, 16 rounds on board is fine too, just found another bag of old blue and white 40 S&W brass last month, loaded it with 7gr Longshot under what the bud that gave them to me thinks was Federal's attempt at a 180gr HST for the 10mm, it has two crimp grooves, gotta be a pretty tough bullet, that said, Hodgdon's max of 8 grs Longshot for 180's ran that bullet 1250 fps from my pistol, i loaded these at 7gr thinking 1150-1175 will be more than enough for what that bullet was designed for, may also let it penetrate a bit better than when driven at 10mm light speeds.
I have no experience with 40 S&W's in smaller lighter weight pistols.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
I figured you had made a slip but then nobody corrected you and I wondered what I had missed.
There was no "Hoax". The people that ran that program, at that time, seriously looked for a better solution. Who could have known that it was really a failure of a bullet design as opposed to caliber? (BTW, I am not claiming that was the only failure that day).
Additionally, caliber was not the only thing the FBI changed as a result of that incident.
The most significant thing to come out of that incident and the FBIs response to it was a scientifically repeatable method of comparing projectile performance. This led to ammunition manufacturers making better bullets.
The "best" bullets of today are a far cry better than the "best" bullets of the late 80s (like FreeMe mentioned).
I think all of us that are interested in firearms have benefited from the advancements that the FBI and its testing drove forward.
To the point of the thread, the .40 S&W is a fine cartridge that, in my opinion, is too much for most people to handle when loaded to capacity. Even among those that can handle it, many of them are more efficient and effective with a 9mm.
If one were to pick the best terminally performing loads in 9, .40 and .45 Auto, it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to scientifically rank one as better than another.
I like to remind people who say "LE is switching back to 9mm" that LE is actually "Switching forward to good 9mms".
Somewhere I recall a report from the late 80s that said something to the effect of "Expect this protocol to result in better performing bullets in all calibers. Expect the 9mm to gain more than the .45 because it has more growing to do".
I recall someone saying "Hate the bullet, don't hate the caliber" and "If not for the bullet, nobody would fear the gun".
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
"Post Orlando"? What happened in Orlando and when was it?
Sorry. Miami, not Orlando. Excuse the senior moment.
I figured you had made a slip but then nobody corrected you and I wondered what I had missed.
There was no "Hoax". The people that ran that program, at that time, seriously looked for a better solution. Who could have known that it was really a failure of a bullet design as opposed to caliber? (BTW, I am not claiming that was the only failure that day).
Additionally, caliber was not the only thing the FBI changed as a result of that incident.
The most significant thing to come out of that incident and the FBIs response to it was a scientifically repeatable method of comparing projectile performance. This led to ammunition manufacturers making better bullets.
The "best" bullets of today are a far cry better than the "best" bullets of the late 80s (like FreeMe mentioned).
I think all of us that are interested in firearms have benefited from the advancements that the FBI and its testing drove forward.
To the point of the thread, the .40 S&W is a fine cartridge that, in my opinion, is too much for most people to handle when loaded to capacity. Even among those that can handle it, many of them are more efficient and effective with a 9mm.
If one were to pick the best terminally performing loads in 9, .40 and .45 Auto, it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to scientifically rank one as better than another.
I like to remind people who say "LE is switching back to 9mm" that LE is actually "Switching forward to good 9mms".
Somewhere I recall a report from the late 80s that said something to the effect of "Expect this protocol to result in better performing bullets in all calibers. Expect the 9mm to gain more than the .45 because it has more growing to do".
I recall someone saying "Hate the bullet, don't hate the caliber" and "If not for the bullet, nobody would fear the gun".
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I never got into 40 because it took me long enough to get into 9mm. And I really didn’t want another caliber to load for. I was weened on 44 mag and 45 colt. The 45 acp. Helll I had a 380 before 9mm.
Remember forum twinkies, you only get equivalent 40sw performance from your wee little 9mm if you use hyper-expensive ammo.
I’m not sure that that’s true. A 7x57mm as one example will kill a deer just as dead just as fast as a bigger 30/06. Sure you could go to .460 Weatherby but at some point recoil, muzzle blast and more rounds in the mag become a real thing. I see a 9x19mm and a .40 S&W being on par with a 7x57mm and ‘06 for sake of comparison. Not much real difference in killing power.
Assuming that you’re correct you’d have to be a broke SOB for the price of good defensive ammo to be a factor IMO.
If you’re that big of a fan of the .40 why not carry a 10mm? No reduction in mag capacity and it should kill them even deader. Nothing wrong with the .40 S&W for a defensive weapon but it’s lost popularity for real reasons.
The 9mm seems to be the sweet spot for concealing, plus mag capacity, plus shoot ability, and being about equivalent in stopping power. I love the .45 ACP but it’s lost ground for the same reason that the .40 has. You reach a point where there isn’t much difference in stopping power. At that point more bullets, less bulk, and faster follow up shots matter more.
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I understand your position FreeMe and, based on what you've read, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. Had I read only the same stuff you've read, I'd likely hold the same opinion.
I have personal knowledge that there was more than "an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers". The firearm type/caliber was only ONE thing that the FBI addressed/changed.
Each person tolerate recoil quite differently for a variety of reasons.
This can be due to physical size, overcoming preconceived ideas about recoil, previous injuries, as well as advancing age and arthritis.
For some people, the .40 does have more recoil than they want to deal with, especially as the handgun gets smaller and lighter, thus magnifying the felt recoil to the shooter.
Same thing with the .45 ACP.
A 185 grain lead semi wadcutter Bullseye load that has a velocity of 725 FPS kicks substantially less than a 250 grain hard cast flat point being driven at 925 FPS, that is used for hunting and large animal defense.
Using the USPSA power factor formula (just as a generic measurement), the 185 grain load has a PF of 134. The 250 grain flat point has a PF of 231.
That is a substantial difference.
You can choose loads to meet your needs, and there are a variety out there, and some have quite a bit more recoil than others.
I produce a .40 S&W polymer coated 170 grain SWC load that has an average velocity of 1175 FPS. It requires that the user have a fresh, properly working (not worn out) recoil spring. Personally I run a bit heavier than stock.
It was developed for deep penetration, and you can tell a difference between shooting this load and your typical range/paper punching, Walmart ammo, in terms of recoil.
I wanted a load that would be appropriate for carrying in the mountains where there were large bears, then go to town and not have to switch guns. This gun/load combo met those needs.
Absolutely agree with all of that - except that everything I've ever read about it points out an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers. When I read detailed account of the encounter, it's pretty clear that tactics and marksmanship were the primary failings. I would argue that the 9mm round employed wasn't even the best at the time.
Anyway, I'd be the last to argue against the facts that we have benefitted from the science that resulted and that the 40 (10mm lite) was a significant improvement in effectiveness (over 9mm) at the time. My only argument is with the claim that a more effective caliber than what existed at the time (as opposed to what was employed that day) was needed.
I understand your position FreeMe and, based on what you've read, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. Had I read only the same stuff you've read, I'd likely hold the same opinion.
I have personal knowledge that there was more than "an immediate blaming of the existing guns and calibers". The firearm type/caliber was only ONE thing that the FBI addressed/changed.
Good discussion though.
I'll defer to your personal knowledge, and thank you. In my reality, it holds at least as much weight as anything I'm going to see in any source I am likely to see. Probably more. The fact that I can say that without even knowing you tells me what I think of journalism in general.
Nothing wrong with the .40 S&W for a defensive weapon but it’s lost popularity for real reasons.
Yes - cost.
That and bearded skinny jean-clad man boys don't want to feel like the pussies they are so they cling to the FBI's direction.
So by the same “logic” were you a pussy that bought a .40 when the FBI went from a 9mm to a 10mm and then to a .40 S&W (short and weak;) before going back to a 9mm?
Again nothing at all wrong with the .40 S&W but you could look at a .40 S&W being to the 10mm what a .380 ACP is to a 9x19mm. No mag capacity gain, same bore diameter and unless shooting a very small gun no benefit and (theoretically at least) less effective.
There’s real reasons why it’s less popular today but that doesn’t make it a bad cartridge.
That’s my take. It obviously doesn’t make me right. All of my comments are meant in good spirited fun. Arguments about killing power around a campfire no doubt go back to the Stone Age and the best spear design for killing a T-Rex.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
Did one of his meat targets refuse to stop attacking?
Interesting that he would use the light 115 gr. JHP in the 9mm instead of one of the the more commonly carried 124 gr. or 147 gr. loads. I'd like to see that test with a 147 gr. Fed HST or Speer Gold Dot.
Paul Harrell did a comparison between 9mm and .40 S&W in terms of terminal performance and concluded, after several tests, that the .40 was superior to the point where it could actually make the difference between stopping an attacker and failing to stop one. But that has to be balanced against the advantages of the 9mm, e.g., superior controllability and higher capacity.
Did one of his meat targets refuse to stop attacking?
Interesting that he would use the light 115 gr. JHP in the 9mm instead of one of the the more commonly carried 124 gr. or 147 gr. loads. I'd like to see that test with a 147 gr. Fed HST or Speer Gold Dot.
I thought the same. He used 115 grain run of the mill hollow point ammo similar to what was used in the Miami shootout rather than modern bonded and heavier bullets. Given basic cup and core bullets bigger and heavier has always been more reliable.
It was also interesting that with the second bullets chosen the 9mm had more penetration than the .40 but he seemed to arbitrarily decide that the 9mm hadn’t expanded enough based on nothing but his own opinion. None of it was based on anything scientific. He uses oranges for lung tissue…
I still think,as with many things in life, bigger is better. I still am very comfortable with a 9 round 45 acp. Don’t have to count on high tech bullet bullet performing to its potential. I am going to get nearly a 1/2 inch hole no matter what. So I will still take a forty over a nine if the platform fits my carry needs that day.
The *hoax* was the narrative that the FBI, post Orlando, needed an "upgrade" in pistol caliber. That was really only needed as a diversion from the sorry fact of bad training, among other things.
While I believe that this is true, the 115 grain cup and core bullets the police were carrying back then were not as good as the bonded and heavier bullets on the market today. Those were the result of a lot of R&D. The .40 S&W offered better performance with the bullets of the era in which it was invented and became popular.
I am not a .40 owner. Never wanted one. Never thought I needed one. But, I believe Cheyenne is right in his statement above. Current conditions, in the context of a bygone era, are often overlooked.
Only 40 S&W chambered pistol I had was a Star FireStar way back when. Lively smaller pistol! Haven't had a 40 S&W since then, but that's only because I'm really stuck on 45acp, nothing against a 40 S&W. Would I buy another 40 S&W? If the right "deal" came along I would...
Each person tolerate recoil quite differently for a variety of reasons.
This can be due to physical size, overcoming preconceived ideas about recoil, previous injuries, as well as advancing age and arthritis.
For some people, the .40 does have more recoil than they want to deal with, especially as the handgun gets smaller and lighter, thus magnifying the felt recoil to the shooter.
Same thing with the .45 ACP.
A 185 grain lead semi wadcutter Bullseye load that has a velocity of 725 FPS kicks substantially less than a 250 grain hard cast flat point being driven at 925 FPS, that is used for hunting and large animal defense.
Using the USPSA power factor formula (just as a generic measurement), the 185 grain load has a PF of 134. The 250 grain flat point has a PF of 231.
That is a substantial difference.
You can choose loads to meet your needs, and there are a variety out there, and some have quite a bit more recoil than others.
I produce a .40 S&W polymer coated 170 grain SWC load that has an average velocity of 1175 FPS. It requires that the user have a fresh, properly working (not worn out) recoil spring. Personally I run a bit heavier than stock.
It was developed for deep penetration, and you can tell a difference between shooting this load and your typical range/paper punching, Walmart ammo, in terms of recoil.
I wanted a load that would be appropriate for carrying in the mountains where there were large bears, then go to town and not have to switch guns. This gun/load combo met those needs.
I get it, I have actually never shot a 9 despite having a 19.
If recoil is that much less with the 9 than the 40 it must be a pussy cat. I have had several 40s in both sub compact and full sized, always shot Speer 180 Gold Dot or those Hornady American Gunner.
I know, not a hot load but I venture to guess most 9mm and 40 ammo that is shot by 99% of the people is cheap off the shelf stuff and wouldn't doubt what half of that is fmj stuff, probably why so many gunshot victims linger on before dying or actually survive.
Only small centerfire pistol I have messed with was one of those small Glocks in 380. Too much snappiness for power offered, down the road it went.
I need to get the 19 out and run all of the magazines through it with factory loaded 147 grain HP. If recoil is that much less it should be fun to shoot.
The Glock 19 is sort of a gold standard by which various other handguns are judged. It is small enough to be considered a compact, yet large enough to be considered an actual duty size pistol. It can be manipulated by the majority of people, regardless of hand size, is easy enough to shoot well, and has a good on board capacity at 15+1.
I was issued one for years by the .gov while working overseas, and think highly of them, simply in terms of the practical tool that they are. I switch back and forth between the G19 and G17 quite frequently for carry pistols. In the hottest part of the summer, I tend to carry the G19 more due to the nature of what I am wearing.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
With the .40 cal equivilant, G23 I still find that I perform better with the G19. It is when I get up to the full size frame that I find that the shooting performance is close enough to be acceptable, and I the heavier projectile it can deliver is worth the tradeoff.
I often keep my G19 set up for house duty, loaded with my +P 148 grain hard cast flat point load.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
Couldn't agree more & have taken that position for as long as I can remember. Pocket guns or mouse guns in 9mm or 380 just don't allow me to do what I can do with a bigger guns much more easily & if people are honest with themselves, it really doesn't for them either.
Most are much more concerned with ease of carry, not really concerning themselves as much with the consequences of too small of a gun should the real need to use it arise for them.
The only exception I will make is a J-frame that I sometimes carry as a BUG, or very occasionally, as my only gun for certain occasions, but with larger than standard grips so it has reasonable shootability compared to the very small stock grips.
It's just hard for me to rationalize the mouse guns being of much real use other than maybe touching distance & also just being better than totally unarmed.
Interesting that he would use the light 115 gr. JHP in the 9mm instead of one of the the more commonly carried 124 gr. or 147 gr. loads. I'd like to see that test with a 147 gr. Fed HST or Speer Gold Dot.
The Glock 19 is sort of a gold standard by which various other handguns are judged. It is small enough to be considered a compact, yet large enough to be considered an actual duty size pistol. It can be manipulated by the majority of people, regardless of hand size, is easy enough to shoot well, and has a good on board capacity at 15+1.
I was issued one for years by the .gov while working overseas, and think highly of them, simply in terms of the practical tool that they are. I switch back and forth between the G19 and G17 quite frequently for carry pistols. In the hottest part of the summer, I tend to carry the G19 more due to the nature of what I am wearing.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
With the .40 cal equivilant, G23 I still find that I perform better with the G19. It is when I get up to the full size frame that I find that the shooting performance is close enough to be acceptable, and I the heavier projectile it can deliver is worth the tradeoff.
I often keep my G19 set up for house duty, loaded with my +P 148 grain hard cast flat point load.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
Couldn't agree more & have taken that position for as long as I can remember. Pocket guns or mouse guns in 9mm or 380 just don't allow me to do what I can do with a bigger guns much more easily & if people are honest with themselves, it really doesn't for them either.
Most are much more concerned with ease of carry, not really concerning themselves as much with the consequences of too small of a gun should the real need to use it arise for them.
The only exception I will make is a J-frame that I sometimes carry as a BUG, or very occasionally, as my only gun for certain occasions, but with larger than standard grips so it has reasonable shootability compared to the very small stock grips.
It's just hard for me to rationalize the mouse guns being of much real use other than maybe touching distance & also just being better than totally unarmed.
JMHO, Other's MMV
MM
You'd be amazed at how shootable this "mouse gun" is:
The Glock 19 is sort of a gold standard by which various other handguns are judged. It is small enough to be considered a compact, yet large enough to be considered an actual duty size pistol. It can be manipulated by the majority of people, regardless of hand size, is easy enough to shoot well, and has a good on board capacity at 15+1.
I was issued one for years by the .gov while working overseas, and think highly of them, simply in terms of the practical tool that they are. I switch back and forth between the G19 and G17 quite frequently for carry pistols. In the hottest part of the summer, I tend to carry the G19 more due to the nature of what I am wearing.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
With the .40 cal equivilant, G23 I still find that I perform better with the G19. It is when I get up to the full size frame that I find that the shooting performance is close enough to be acceptable, and I the heavier projectile it can deliver is worth the tradeoff.
I often keep my G19 set up for house duty, loaded with my +P 148 grain hard cast flat point load.
Must be why I still carry my XD-M 40, a lot of ammo on board.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
Couldn't agree more & have taken that position for as long as I can remember. Pocket guns or mouse guns in 9mm or 380 just don't allow me to do what I can do with a bigger guns much more easily & if people are honest with themselves, it really doesn't for them either.
Most are much more concerned with ease of carry, not really concerning themselves as much with the consequences of too small of a gun should the real need to use it arise for them.
The only exception I will make is a J-frame that I sometimes carry as a BUG, or very occasionally, as my only gun for certain occasions, but with larger than standard grips so it has reasonable shootability compared to the very small stock grips.
It's just hard for me to rationalize the mouse guns being of much real use other than maybe touching distance & also just being better than totally unarmed.
JMHO, Other's MMV
MM
You'd be amazed at how shootable this "mouse gun" is:
That's why I added "JMHO, Other's MMV".........................lotsa superhero's out in zombie land who always say that.
Get on a clock & check accuracy & speed vs a larger gun & then (honestly) report back.
Not a jab at you really Hawk, but overall, the truth of what Mackay & I both said has been proven over time by lots of shooters, both average Joe's & pros.
While I'd not say I "love" the cartridge, a bunch of pistols and ammo for same do live at my house, though. Wisconsin Surplus Sales blew out a bunch of Glock 22s and ammo for same cheap four years back or so. They are much handier than a New Service launching the same weight- diameter bullet. A brazzillion times less cool, perhaps, but handier.
I never got into 40 because it took me long enough to get into 9mm. And I really didn’t want another caliber to load for. I was weened on 44 mag and 45 colt. The 45 acp. Helll I had a 380 before 9mm.
Ditto.
Speaking of .40's, here's a real .40, a G-40 10mm with 7" KKM barrel for cast bullets, RMR optics and a trigger job. If I was out where varmints with big teeth roamed, this one in a chest holster would be pretty good option, IMO. Grip work by Luke at Sinner's Mass in TX. I didn't care for the OEM finger grooves, like this slimmer configuration better.
For the lead free folks, this one from Cutting Edge sounds interesting. Not cheap, but should do the job.
About the smallest 9 I'd consider as a carry piece would be the Sig 365 XL. It's really accurate, has good round capacity and is fairly slim and compact for CCW. With the right ammo, nothing to sneeze at. Like I posted before, beats a sharp stick.
My bud, a retired SWAT LEO sniper, contends the handgun is to fight your way back to the car, get your long gun to terminate the discussion. Not sure that's always an option, but sounds good. In his hands, not a bad option.
The Glock 19 is sort of a gold standard by which various other handguns are judged. It is small enough to be considered a compact, yet large enough to be considered an actual duty size pistol. It can be manipulated by the majority of people, regardless of hand size, is easy enough to shoot well, and has a good on board capacity at 15+1.
I was issued one for years by the .gov while working overseas, and think highly of them, simply in terms of the practical tool that they are. I switch back and forth between the G19 and G17 quite frequently for carry pistols. In the hottest part of the summer, I tend to carry the G19 more due to the nature of what I am wearing.
It is also the smallest pistol that I am willing to get into a stand up gunfight with against 1 or 2 bad guys who are also armed. So it is where I draw the line terms of carry guns. Any smaller (such as the G26/27) and my performance drops off considerably to the point that I do not find it acceptable.
With the .40 cal equivilant, G23 I still find that I perform better with the G19. It is when I get up to the full size frame that I find that the shooting performance is close enough to be acceptable, and I the heavier projectile it can deliver is worth the tradeoff.
I often keep my G19 set up for house duty, loaded with my +P 148 grain hard cast flat point load.
Are the finger grooves filed down on that 19?
Yes,
I prefer a smooth frontstrap so I removed the finger grooves. Not a fancy job from a cosmetic perspective, but (for me), the gun is simply a utility tool so I did not care too much about trying to make it look pretty, only that it met my needs.
Here is another pic. You can sort of see the frontstrap a bit better.
Speaking of .380's, this one is cute, IMO and pretty accurate. I set up my Dillon 550B for .380's. Not necessarily a carry piece, but interesting. Has rosewood grips carved and checkered by Errol Case in MO.
I found this used S. D. Myers pig skin lined flap holster on line for a lot less than retail.
Those Springfield EMP’s are great little guns. Accurate, Reliable, and easy to conceal. I traded my 9mm version for the .40 version when they became available. Springfield claimed they were going to offer a .357 Sig drop in conversion barrel as an option for the .40. Unfortunately, they never did. There still a great little carry gun with all the feel of a true 1911, but at a slightly reduced size.
I can't believe how much back and forth exists among self-proclaimed gun nuts when it comes to chamberings.
The evolution of the .40 S&W is very well documented and far from ancient history. The infamous Miami Shootout lead America's premiere law enforcement agency to pursue the optimal law enforcement cartridge. A lot of people recognize that, that pursuit ended with the 10mm. But they fail to recognize that, that pursuit was lead by the recognized "experts" in handgunning at the time and were furthered by people that fully accepted those "experts" were the be-all, end-all, in pistolering. Hindsight being 20/20 (if you're inclined to look at these things objectively) will quickly reveal none of those people were experts in anything. Except themselves.
The 10mm that was propositioned to be the cure-all for all things law enforcement was not a new concept. The same ballistics and performance were achievable via the 38-40 for a long, long, time. But some loud mouth know-it-all's found a way to get it into a rimless case and a gun that was (until being adopted by the FBI) viewed as a ginormous piece of fugking schit. Because it was.
But this pursuit of ballistic nirvana was seized by a number of salesmen. Not the least of which were the disciples of a guy named Jeff "Scout Rifle" Cooper. They convinced the FBI that bigger was better and the FBI took this info hook, line, and sinker. Development of a pistol that wasn't a complete piece of fugking schit became a priority for the FBI and that meant it was a priority for the premiere firearm's manufacturer (for LEOs) in the country. The result was a massive framed pistol that could handle the true ballistics of the 10mm. Please note the italicized text. It was made to handle the true ballistics of the 10mm, at that time.
It doesn't take somebody as genius as Jeff Cooper and his disciples to figure out that there is no way in fugking Christ a bunch of FBI agents were going to be able to wield this cartridge/handgun combo effectively. Matter of fact, you'd need to do some very creative comic book writing to find a pack of mother fugkers that could wield that combo effectively. It was a stupid idea then, and it would be a stupid idea today. But what did that stupid idea bring the LEO community to?
You guessed it. A slightly less stupid idea. Because egos and lack of data weren't going to make a buncha know-nothings announce to the world that their idea was fugking stupid.
Enter the .40 S&W....
Now consider what the .40 S&W truly is. It's the solution proposed by cultists, gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers to collaborate on an idea that they had already sold but watched fail. The solution was to take the buck & snort of the 10mm, out of the 10mm, and squeeze into a pistol frame that was never designed to handle the buck & snort of a watered down 10mm. Great idea, right?
Wrong.
But the biggest factor in all of these happenings really needs to be viewed through the window of pre-internet. This was a time when anybody anywhere could claim expertise in all sorts of fields and be taken seriously. Nobody was out there to call them on their bullschit. This was the era of Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayboob, and Frank Dux. Nobody really knew better and those that did had no voice to debate absurd concepts. I mean after all, Guns & Ammo only had so many openings and they sure as fugk weren't going to give them to anyone that said the accepted form of gun Bibles were full of fugking schit.
But the brakes were ultimately pumped on this steady stream of bullschit and this was largely (OK, completely) due to the wide stream use of the internet. So much information was being pumped into the real world that it made the real world take a step back and question a lot of previously accepted nonsense. Not to mention the United States had (kinda still is) been at war since 2001. When in the history of man have you seen this quantity of certified and stamped combat vets coming back and being able to disseminate their real world experiences in the capacity that they can today? The answer is never.
All of this lead to the questioning of a lot of things. Some really good questions like:
-How fast can you accurately shoot a 9mm, versus a .40? -Why do you think less ammo is an advantage? -Who has compiled real world information regarding terminal effect of respective chamberings? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .40? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .45? -What is the service life (this means reliability for all you that don't habla) for a sidearm chambered for a watered down 10mm, that was built to withstand a 9mm? -If adequate lethality is acceptable for long arms used in combat, why is the same not pursued for sidearms? -Who the fugk is Jeff Cooper?
The end result of these questions being asked, and answered, is that there is no real reason for most law enforcement entities to deviate from a properly loaded 9mm. That doesn't mean the .40 S&W isn't a great idea, because it is. Matter of fact, it's probably the most overlooked and underrated sporting cartridge out there. Whether you're considering handguns, rifles, or shotguns. It takes one of the greatest people shooting cartridges ever devised (the 38-40) and consolidates it into a pistol that's the size of a Glock 17 and has 15 +1 capacity.
That's a pretty incredible round and should always be recognized for its benefits. But if you think those benefits outshine a 9mm when discussed in the context of law enforcement or military applications, you're high on fugking bat schit and have much to learn regarding all things sidearms. Not only in their use, but their history.
My take on it is that had bullet technology been what it is today when the Miami shootout occurred, there never would have been so much questioning of the 9MM's effectiveness (and the 10mm may never have been born). But then again, maybe the selection made for duty ammo at that time was ill advised...I wouldn't know thing about what was available in 9mm at the time...but what I've read about the shootout gives me the distinct impression that the performance of LE's guns and ammo was pretty bad and the right thing to do was look for something better.
FWIW, I think the .40 S&W is actually a great self-defense round.
I find a .40 in a Glock 22 or 23 is a good thing to have around and the right tool for most jobs when needed. Small enough to conceal, light enough to carry while working, powerful enough to take down a deer or pig or put down a cow, and I suspect it work just fine for self defense.
I like that much of the heavier (180-grain and up) factory ammo is flat point FMJ and around 1000 fps. That should work well for all the above uses and I suspect, but haven't tested, may out penetrate most .45 ACP loads.
The only downside I see for all-around use is that recoil is a little snappier than a 9mm in a light Glock-size gun. That's a trade-off I'm willing to accept. Though, I have migrated from a Glock 23 to a slightly larger police-trade-in Glock 22 to help with control.
Helluva dissertation, even for you, but pretty accurate.
Only thing you forgot to add was that too many pussies, either in name onl,y or in the literal sense, across all agencies, couldn't qualify & manage a 40 in the issued guns.
Only thing you forgot to add was that too many pussies, either in name onl,y or in the literal sense, across all agencies, couldn't qualify & manage a 40 in the issued guns.
MM
If you want to type out your thoughts and include your own bullschit feel free to do so.
Because as noted far above the .40 S&W is a little hard to hold on to in a minimum sized pistol and in a full sized pistol other cartridges show IMHO clear superiority - a just right pistol might make the .40 S&W the just right cartridge. A local mainly rural (big animals and far away backup) agency issued .40 S&W but had one person who couldn't keep the pistol from moving in the hand during qualifications so the whole department went to 9x19.
In a full sized 1911 my Platonic ideal is a 9x23 and I would choose a full .10mm over a .40 S&W. In a smaller pistol I can handle a .40 S&W assuming a good trigger and other amenities but I can't compensate for deficiencies in the pistol - compared to small improvements in carry customs - nearly so well as I might in 9x19 so no deep affection.
I have a switch barrel pistol originally .40 S&W with a .357 Sig and 9x19 conversion barrel. The .40 does twist, the .357 Sig is loud, the 9x19 is Goldilocks with far more available premium ammunition.
I have given thought to putting together a .40 S&W pistol to suit adding a long slide and maybe threaded barrel but the only way to get the 5"+ .40 S&W barrel I want (to my knowledge; I miss Storm Lake) is from Barsto where you get what you pay for but you do pay for it. I was actually happy to hear that my last Barsto order would be delayed a day (after some weeks) when the company told me shipping would be delayed one day from promise because Mr. Stone had been called away and their policy is nothing ships until he has at least given it one last look.
Only thing you forgot to add was that too many pussies, either in name onl,y or in the literal sense, across all agencies, couldn't qualify & manage a 40 in the issued guns.
MM
If you want to type out your thoughts and include your own bullschit feel free to do so.
Don't try to add your bullschit to my facts.
I can’t shoot a pistol because I have no thumbs. Nugget
I have an XD in 40 that is more accurate than it ever should be ,bigger frame though So not as advantageous for concealed carry
Absolutely love my XD 40. It is far more accurate than I am these days. I started my love affair with the.40 cal in 1998 with the SW 4006 which is my all-time favorite semiautomatic pistol. Probably due to the extensive range and practice time that was dedicated to the 4006. I just feel very capable and confident when shooting the 40 cal. Welp as circumstances are aught to happen, I got rid of the SW 4006 which I regret to this day. In 2012 I shot a buddies XD40 and was really impressed with the feel of it in my hand and at how well it shot! I went the next day to Academy Sports and bought the XD40. Yes the 40 is bulkier and heavier than a 9mm for concealed carry but as with everything it's a trade-off. For me it boils down to what I feel comfortable and confident with and the .40cal fits the bill perfectly. So yeah some people live it, some people hate it and some people just fine know. But ain't that how it is with most things? What is the world's best handgun and cartridge? I will tell you, it's the one you have when the SHTF.
When the .40 S & W was introduced many law enforcement agencies rushed to equip their officers with the new round. Fast forward a few years and the love affair was over. I know of several gun shops who won't even take a .40 S & W in on trade, the internet is flooded with police turn in guns. My LEO son in law who went thru the .40 for 9mm transition was glad to get rid of the .40. His only comment on the .40 was that it was weird.
When the .40 S & W was introduced many law enforcement agencies rushed to equip their officers with the new round. Fast forward a few years and the love affair was over. I know of several gun shops who won't even take a .40 S & W in on trade, the internet is flooded with police turn in guns. My LEO son in law who went thru the .40 for 9mm transition was glad to get rid of the .40. His only comment on the .40 was that it was weird.
I'm a wigger. I smoke Newports, drive a car with dubs, drink 40s and carry a Foh-Tay. If you talk smack about the Foh Tay, you're just a privileged, toxic white male trying to colonize BIPOCs.
I can't believe how much back and forth exists among self-proclaimed gun nuts when it comes to chamberings.
The evolution of the .40 S&W is very well documented and far from ancient history. The infamous Miami Shootout lead America's premiere law enforcement agency to pursue the optimal law enforcement cartridge. A lot of people recognize that, that pursuit ended with the 10mm. But they fail to recognize that, that pursuit was lead by the recognized "experts" in handgunning at the time and were furthered by people that fully accepted those "experts" were the be-all, end-all, in pistolering. Hindsight being 20/20 (if you're inclined to look at these things objectively) will quickly reveal none of those people were experts in anything. Except themselves.
The 10mm that was propositioned to be the cure-all for all things law enforcement was not a new concept. The same ballistics and performance were achievable via the 38-40 for a long, long, time. But some loud mouth know-it-all's found a way to get it into a rimless case and a gun that was (until being adopted by the FBI) viewed as a ginormous piece of fugking schit. Because it was.
But this pursuit of ballistic nirvana was seized by a number of salesmen. Not the least of which were the disciples of a guy named Jeff "Scout Rifle" Cooper. They convinced the FBI that bigger was better and the FBI took this info hook, line, and sinker. Development of a pistol that wasn't a complete piece of fugking schit became a priority for the FBI and that meant it was a priority for the premiere firearm's manufacturer (for LEOs) in the country. The result was a massive framed pistol that could handle the true ballistics of the 10mm. Please note the italicized text. It was made to handle the true ballistics of the 10mm, at that time.
It doesn't take somebody as genius as Jeff Cooper and his disciples to figure out that there is no way in fugking Christ a bunch of FBI agents were going to be able to wield this cartridge/handgun combo effectively. Matter of fact, you'd need to do some very creative comic book writing to find a pack of mother fugkers that could wield that combo effectively. It was a stupid idea then, and it would be a stupid idea today. But what did that stupid idea bring the LEO community to?
You guessed it. A slightly less stupid idea. Because egos and lack of data weren't going to make a buncha know-nothings announce to the world that their idea was fugking stupid.
Enter the .40 S&W....
Now consider what the .40 S&W truly is. It's the solution proposed by cultists, gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers to collaborate on an idea that they had already sold but watched fail. The solution was to take the buck & snort of the 10mm, out of the 10mm, and squeeze into a pistol frame that was never designed to handle the buck & snort of a watered down 10mm. Great idea, right?
Wrong.
But the biggest factor in all of these happenings really needs to be viewed through the window of pre-internet. This was a time when anybody anywhere could claim expertise in all sorts of fields and be taken seriously. Nobody was out there to call them on their bullschit. This was the era of Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayboob, and Frank Dux. Nobody really knew better and those that did had no voice to debate absurd concepts. I mean after all, Guns & Ammo only had so many openings and they sure as fugk weren't going to give them to anyone that said the accepted form of gun Bibles were full of fugking schit.
But the brakes were ultimately pumped on this steady stream of bullschit and this was largely (OK, completely) due to the wide stream use of the internet. So much information was being pumped into the real world that it made the real world take a step back and question a lot of previously accepted nonsense. Not to mention the United States had (kinda still is) been at war since 2001. When in the history of man have you seen this quantity of certified and stamped combat vets coming back and being able to disseminate their real world experiences in the capacity that they can today? The answer is never.
All of this lead to the questioning of a lot of things. Some really good questions like:
-How fast can you accurately shoot a 9mm, versus a .40? -Why do you think less ammo is an advantage? -Who has compiled real world information regarding terminal effect of respective chamberings? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .40? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .45? -What is the service life (this means reliability for all you that don't habla) for a sidearm chambered for a watered down 10mm, that was built to withstand a 9mm? -If adequate lethality is acceptable for long arms used in combat, why is the same not pursued for sidearms? -Who the fugk is Jeff Cooper?
The end result of these questions being asked, and answered, is that there is no real reason for most law enforcement entities to deviate from a properly loaded 9mm. That doesn't mean the .40 S&W isn't a great idea, because it is. Matter of fact, it's probably the most overlooked and underrated sporting cartridge out there. Whether you're considering handguns, rifles, or shotguns. It takes one of the greatest people shooting cartridges ever devised (the 38-40) and consolidates it into a pistol that's the size of a Glock 17 and has 15 +1 capacity.
That's a pretty incredible round and should always be recognized for its benefits. But if you think those benefits outshine a 9mm when discussed in the context of law enforcement or military applications, you're high on fugking bat schit and have much to learn regarding all things sidearms. Not only in their use, but their history.
9mm has undoubtedly recently been experiencing a resurgence in popularity with law enforcement and civilians alike. At the same time testosterone levels have been dropping amongst western men. Coincidence??
The only .40 I own is a drop in conversion barrel for my Glock 20. It's a pussycat to shoot and has served well on all kinds of critters. For me the minimum requirement I have for a serious handgun is what I'd feel comfortable with crawling on hands and knees through thick Texas brush in the dark after potentially wounded and pissed off hogs. I've done it with the .40 and it's gotten the job done. I wouldn't trust a 9mm for that unless it was loaded with boutique, heavy +P hardcast. Even then I would hesitate.
I prefer the 10mm but the .40 is right there nipping at it's heals performance wise. I've killed enough animals to know that there's not enough difference to make a difference between .40 and garden variety 10mm defensive loads. It's also nice to know that in a pinch I can use .40 ammo in a factory 10mm if I needed too.
Back in the late 90’s I bought a Smith 1076 off a retired FBI agent that had traded it in at a LGS.
It came with his paddle holster and 6 mags. After firing it. I tried to carry it as a concealed weapon for several days.
Yeah, that was a horrible idea. I traded it in on a Sig Sauer P225.
I love my Glock G20. Obviously, the difference between shooting a Glock 20 compared to a Smith 1076 is day and night.
I’ve owned a few 40 cal pistols. I really liked my Kahr Tactical, in 40 cal. I shot and carried that pistol for several years. Aside from the long trigger pull of the Kahr. It was a nice carry weapon. Recoil and recovery for multiple shot strings, even in a smaller pistol package was somewhat mitigated by the steel frame of the Kahr Tactical.
The pistol(s) I regret selling are two West Germany Sig P225’s, that back in the day new, set me back around $550 bucks. Single stack 9mm, accurate, ran through most all ammunition without a glitch. And easy to hide for me.
I really like the 40 S&W.....in a 610, 310, and a G20 with a conversion barrel. The 310 can get a little snappy. Everyone who shoots it loves the 610 with 40's.
I'd be happy with .45's and 9's. But I have a couple boxes of .40 so I'm happy with it too.
I've shot a lot of different .40s from a lot of different makers. I thought the CZ 75 was the perfect platform for it, till I bought my M&P. I may buy a 2nd to try out the red dot thingies that Clarke is always ranting about.
I'd be happy with .45's and 9's. But I have a couple boxes of .40 so I'm happy with it too.
I've shot a lot of different .40s from a lot of different makers. I thought the CZ 75 was the perfect platform for it, till I bought my M&P. I may buy a 2nd to try out the red dot thingies that Clarke is always ranting about.
Yep. I pulled the trigger on a Performance Center M2.0 Pro 5" CORE. Now I'm looking for a red dot and a SIG .357 swap barrel for it. At least I have plenty of ammo to feed it.
I can't believe how much back and forth exists among self-proclaimed gun nuts when it comes to chamberings.
The evolution of the .40 S&W is very well documented and far from ancient history. The infamous Miami Shootout lead America's premiere law enforcement agency to pursue the optimal law enforcement cartridge. A lot of people recognize that, that pursuit ended with the 10mm. But they fail to recognize that, that pursuit was lead by the recognized "experts" in handgunning at the time and were furthered by people that fully accepted those "experts" were the be-all, end-all, in pistolering. Hindsight being 20/20 (if you're inclined to look at these things objectively) will quickly reveal none of those people were experts in anything. Except themselves.
The 10mm that was propositioned to be the cure-all for all things law enforcement was not a new concept. The same ballistics and performance were achievable via the 38-40 for a long, long, time. But some loud mouth know-it-all's found a way to get it into a rimless case and a gun that was (until being adopted by the FBI) viewed as a ginormous piece of fugking schit. Because it was.
But this pursuit of ballistic nirvana was seized by a number of salesmen. Not the least of which were the disciples of a guy named Jeff "Scout Rifle" Cooper. They convinced the FBI that bigger was better and the FBI took this info hook, line, and sinker. Development of a pistol that wasn't a complete piece of fugking schit became a priority for the FBI and that meant it was a priority for the premiere firearm's manufacturer (for LEOs) in the country. The result was a massive framed pistol that could handle the true ballistics of the 10mm. Please note the italicized text. It was made to handle the true ballistics of the 10mm, at that time.
It doesn't take somebody as genius as Jeff Cooper and his disciples to figure out that there is no way in fugking Christ a bunch of FBI agents were going to be able to wield this cartridge/handgun combo effectively. Matter of fact, you'd need to do some very creative comic book writing to find a pack of mother fugkers that could wield that combo effectively. It was a stupid idea then, and it would be a stupid idea today. But what did that stupid idea bring the LEO community to?
You guessed it. A slightly less stupid idea. Because egos and lack of data weren't going to make a buncha know-nothings announce to the world that their idea was fugking stupid.
Enter the .40 S&W....
Now consider what the .40 S&W truly is. It's the solution proposed by cultists, gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers to collaborate on an idea that they had already sold but watched fail. The solution was to take the buck & snort of the 10mm, out of the 10mm, and squeeze into a pistol frame that was never designed to handle the buck & snort of a watered down 10mm. Great idea, right?
Wrong.
But the biggest factor in all of these happenings really needs to be viewed through the window of pre-internet. This was a time when anybody anywhere could claim expertise in all sorts of fields and be taken seriously. Nobody was out there to call them on their bullschit. This was the era of Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayboob, and Frank Dux. Nobody really knew better and those that did had no voice to debate absurd concepts. I mean after all, Guns & Ammo only had so many openings and they sure as fugk weren't going to give them to anyone that said the accepted form of gun Bibles were full of fugking schit.
But the brakes were ultimately pumped on this steady stream of bullschit and this was largely (OK, completely) due to the wide stream use of the internet. So much information was being pumped into the real world that it made the real world take a step back and question a lot of previously accepted nonsense. Not to mention the United States had (kinda still is) been at war since 2001. When in the history of man have you seen this quantity of certified and stamped combat vets coming back and being able to disseminate their real world experiences in the capacity that they can today? The answer is never.
All of this lead to the questioning of a lot of things. Some really good questions like:
-How fast can you accurately shoot a 9mm, versus a .40? -Why do you think less ammo is an advantage? -Who has compiled real world information regarding terminal effect of respective chamberings? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .40? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .45? -What is the service life (this means reliability for all you that don't habla) for a sidearm chambered for a watered down 10mm, that was built to withstand a 9mm? -If adequate lethality is acceptable for long arms used in combat, why is the same not pursued for sidearms? -Who the fugk is Jeff Cooper?
The end result of these questions being asked, and answered, is that there is no real reason for most law enforcement entities to deviate from a properly loaded 9mm. That doesn't mean the .40 S&W isn't a great idea, because it is. Matter of fact, it's probably the most overlooked and underrated sporting cartridge out there. Whether you're considering handguns, rifles, or shotguns. It takes one of the greatest people shooting cartridges ever devised (the 38-40) and consolidates it into a pistol that's the size of a Glock 17 and has 15 +1 capacity.
That's a pretty incredible round and should always be recognized for its benefits. But if you think those benefits outshine a 9mm when discussed in the context of law enforcement or military applications, you're high on fugking bat schit and have much to learn regarding all things sidearms. Not only in their use, but their history.
You're welcome, Flave
damn good write .. me personally I like a 9 I want to hit harder I go to a 45.. the best thing to come from the 10 mm 45 to me is a 357 sig..
I can't believe how much back and forth exists among self-proclaimed gun nuts when it comes to chamberings.
The evolution of the .40 S&W is very well documented and far from ancient history. The infamous Miami Shootout lead America's premiere law enforcement agency to pursue the optimal law enforcement cartridge. A lot of people recognize that, that pursuit ended with the 10mm. But they fail to recognize that, that pursuit was lead by the recognized "experts" in handgunning at the time and were furthered by people that fully accepted those "experts" were the be-all, end-all, in pistolering. Hindsight being 20/20 (if you're inclined to look at these things objectively) will quickly reveal none of those people were experts in anything. Except themselves.
The 10mm that was propositioned to be the cure-all for all things law enforcement was not a new concept. The same ballistics and performance were achievable via the 38-40 for a long, long, time. But some loud mouth know-it-all's found a way to get it into a rimless case and a gun that was (until being adopted by the FBI) viewed as a ginormous piece of fugking schit. Because it was.
But this pursuit of ballistic nirvana was seized by a number of salesmen. Not the least of which were the disciples of a guy named Jeff "Scout Rifle" Cooper. They convinced the FBI that bigger was better and the FBI took this info hook, line, and sinker. Development of a pistol that wasn't a complete piece of fugking schit became a priority for the FBI and that meant it was a priority for the premiere firearm's manufacturer (for LEOs) in the country. The result was a massive framed pistol that could handle the true ballistics of the 10mm. Please note the italicized text. It was made to handle the true ballistics of the 10mm, at that time.
It doesn't take somebody as genius as Jeff Cooper and his disciples to figure out that there is no way in fugking Christ a bunch of FBI agents were going to be able to wield this cartridge/handgun combo effectively. Matter of fact, you'd need to do some very creative comic book writing to find a pack of mother fugkers that could wield that combo effectively. It was a stupid idea then, and it would be a stupid idea today. But what did that stupid idea bring the LEO community to?
You guessed it. A slightly less stupid idea. Because egos and lack of data weren't going to make a buncha know-nothings announce to the world that their idea was fugking stupid.
Enter the .40 S&W....
Now consider what the .40 S&W truly is. It's the solution proposed by cultists, gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers to collaborate on an idea that they had already sold but watched fail. The solution was to take the buck & snort of the 10mm, out of the 10mm, and squeeze into a pistol frame that was never designed to handle the buck & snort of a watered down 10mm. Great idea, right?
Wrong.
But the biggest factor in all of these happenings really needs to be viewed through the window of pre-internet. This was a time when anybody anywhere could claim expertise in all sorts of fields and be taken seriously. Nobody was out there to call them on their bullschit. This was the era of Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayboob, and Frank Dux. Nobody really knew better and those that did had no voice to debate absurd concepts. I mean after all, Guns & Ammo only had so many openings and they sure as fugk weren't going to give them to anyone that said the accepted form of gun Bibles were full of fugking schit.
But the brakes were ultimately pumped on this steady stream of bullschit and this was largely (OK, completely) due to the wide stream use of the internet. So much information was being pumped into the real world that it made the real world take a step back and question a lot of previously accepted nonsense. Not to mention the United States had (kinda still is) been at war since 2001. When in the history of man have you seen this quantity of certified and stamped combat vets coming back and being able to disseminate their real world experiences in the capacity that they can today? The answer is never.
All of this lead to the questioning of a lot of things. Some really good questions like:
-How fast can you accurately shoot a 9mm, versus a .40? -Why do you think less ammo is an advantage? -Who has compiled real world information regarding terminal effect of respective chamberings? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .40? -Why are we using light for caliber in the 9mm, and heavy for caliber in the .45? -What is the service life (this means reliability for all you that don't habla) for a sidearm chambered for a watered down 10mm, that was built to withstand a 9mm? -If adequate lethality is acceptable for long arms used in combat, why is the same not pursued for sidearms? -Who the fugk is Jeff Cooper?
The end result of these questions being asked, and answered, is that there is no real reason for most law enforcement entities to deviate from a properly loaded 9mm. That doesn't mean the .40 S&W isn't a great idea, because it is. Matter of fact, it's probably the most overlooked and underrated sporting cartridge out there. Whether you're considering handguns, rifles, or shotguns. It takes one of the greatest people shooting cartridges ever devised (the 38-40) and consolidates it into a pistol that's the size of a Glock 17 and has 15 +1 capacity.
That's a pretty incredible round and should always be recognized for its benefits. But if you think those benefits outshine a 9mm when discussed in the context of law enforcement or military applications, you're high on fugking bat schit and have much to learn regarding all things sidearms. Not only in their use, but their history.
I have 2 Glocks and both are in .40. A model 23 and a 35. I see no reason to get rid of either one. I had a 4046 Smith but it had a horrible long trigger pull. I did trade it off. I will have the Glocks until I die.
I have 2 Glocks and both are in .40. A model 23 and a 35. I see no reason to get rid of either one. I had a 4046 Smith but it had a horrible long trigger pull. I did trade it off. I will have the Glocks until I die.
kwg
3 for me, 27,23,35 (conversion barrels for all of them). And a Ruger PC Carbine in 40. It’s just the way my collection expanded over the years.
If y’all shoot/carry the way you train? Do you wait for the beep if chit is going down? lol
I have 2 Glocks and both are in .40. A model 23 and a 35. I see no reason to get rid of either one. I had a 4046 Smith but it had a horrible long trigger pull. I did trade it off. I will have the Glocks until I die.
kwg
3 for me, 27,23,35 (conversion barrels for all of them). And a Ruger PC Carbine in 40. It’s just the way my collection expanded over the years.
If y’all shoot/carry the way you train? Do you wait for the beep if chit is going down? lol
“Train how you fight” is one of the stupidest phrases that can fall out of an instructors mouth.
I have a couple .40 Glocks, a 22 and a 23. Carried both on duty at times and have confidence in both. IMO .40 is a great caliber. Recoil might be a bit more than a 9mm but to me an insignificant difference. Have seen some females with very small hands that transitioned from 9mm to .40 without any real change in proficiency.
In a gunfight I would prefer a 180 or 165gr .40 diameter bullet entering a body over a 115gr .35 diameter bullet.
I have a couple .40 Glocks, a 22 and a 23. Carried both on duty at times and have confidence in both. IMO .40 is a great caliber. Recoil might be a bit more than a 9mm but to me an insignificant difference. Have seen some females with very small hands that transitioned from 9mm to .40 without any real change in proficiency.
In a gunfight I would prefer a 180 or 165gr .40 diameter bullet entering a body over a 115gr .35 diameter bullet.
Yeah, we all know that 5/100’s of an inch is a real game changer.
I dropped the 40 for a decade or so to simplify things but realized that since I'm already loading and casting for 10mm a 40 makes sense too. A few years back there were some awesome deals on 40s and 40 ammo. I picked up Winchester police ranger t 180g, basically black talon, for $15.99/50. My only regret is only buying two cases. That led to me buying a S&w m&p compact 40 that I love and then a glock 22 mint gen 3 for only $229 that stays in my truck. I also got a deal on an FNx I believe that shoots great.
Casting again has brought me back to liking a flat nose on a solid bullet which most 40 stuff comes with automatically. Also loading with Longshot let's me take 180g 40 loads to 1150fps. Given the flat nose bigger diameter and extra weight I feel better with a 40 in the woods than a 9mm. I still like my 9mm 365 for daily carry but for mixed woods use like my truck pistol you'll usually find me with a 40 or a 10mm if not a 44 revolver.
I really want to stock up on once fired 40 brass while it's still available cheap. I think it's fading and my normal once fired brass source hadn't had any in a few years. I'd also like a kkm 40 barrel for my xdm 10mm like the one I have for a glock 20. It allowed me to seat heavier bullets to 10 mm length in 40 brass and run them at 10mm speeds. Bought a bunch of 40 brass for 2 cents each and only loaded them once and didn't worry about picking up brass.
I have a couple of .40 Glocks, a 23 and a 22 and I don't find them unpleasant to shoot. However, I shoot lots of 9mm, and it's a little easier to control. For normal defensive purposes I carry a 9mm with Federal HST ammunition.
Where I prefer the .40 is for hiking in the mountains where you might have to deal with large animals. For that, I like a Glock 23 with a stout load (Buffalo Bore) using 200 grain hard cast bullets. A 10mm is probably better, but with the right load, the .40 is a step up over the 9mm and it's still light and compact to carry.
For those discussing the Gen 5 Glock 40 cal models having a thick slide vs Gen 4 variants. This picture is worth a thousand words…..
Gen 4 on left, Gen 5 on the right.
Mark in GA
The weight of the Gen5 is 28.43 ounces vs Gen4 at 25.57.That extra 3 ounces is mostly in the slide. My 22-5's fit perfectly in my model 20/21 holsters.
I have a couple of .40 Glocks, a 23 and a 22 and I don't find them unpleasant to shoot. However, I shoot lots of 9mm, and it's a little easier to control. For normal defensive purposes I carry a 9mm with Federal HST ammunition.
Where I prefer the .40 is for hiking in the mountains where you might have to deal with large animals. For that, I like a Glock 23 with a stout load (Buffalo Bore) using 200 grain hard cast bullets. A 10mm is probably better, but with the right load, the .40 is a step up over the 9mm and it's still light and compact to carry.
Agreed. That's a reasonable approach to the two calibers.
For those discussing the Gen 5 Glock 40 cal models having a thick slide vs Gen 4 variants. This picture is worth a thousand words…..
Gen 4 on left, Gen 5 on the right.
Mark in GA
Wow. Looks almost the thickness of a 20 or 21. I bet that does indeed tame the snap in the .40 S&W. I think they have finally put the .40 S&W in the right sized/weighted gun. Tempting.
40 works fine for me. Heavier bullets than a 9mm, more capacity then a 45 acp. It is in fact a compromise but works fine. I have shot some very accurate 40s but seems the 9mm is just as accurate or slightly more.
Pretty easy to push a 200 grain cast to a thousand fps in my 5” forty. Two five gallon buckets of brass is a lot shooting. I don’t pick them up like I do the precious 10mm. Put a timney trigger in my M&P, really makes a wonderful difference. Burley boy, I can get more brass whenever the weather allows us a trip to the Midwest. I’ll share some of what I have now if your in need
I have a couple .40 Glocks, a 22 and a 23. Carried both on duty at times and have confidence in both. IMO .40 is a great caliber. Recoil might be a bit more than a 9mm but to me an insignificant difference. Have seen some females with very small hands that transitioned from 9mm to .40 without any real change in proficiency.
In a gunfight I would prefer a 180 or 165gr .40 diameter bullet entering a body over a 115gr .35 diameter bullet.
Is there some kind of Internet requirement to always refer to the lightest 9mm lead load when comparing to the 40?
9mm's also have a choice of twist rates, IIRC, a Browning HP has a twist rate of 1-10" and a typical Smith 39-2 had a rate of 1-18 and change. Sorta like the difference between a Colt .357 (1-14) vs. the Smith's 1-18+. I have no idea what the twist rate of current Smith 9mms is, or those of other makers, but I never worried any about twist rates, figuring it was hard enough to hit the target in the right place first, then worry about the other stuff (just like when deer hunting, HITS count, misses don't).
I used to be a heckuva pistol shot, and didn't worry about these piddling things. Still don't. Aim right, shoot right, and get on with your life.
9mm's also have a choice of twist rates, IIRC, a Browning HP has a twist rate of 1-10" and a typical Smith 39-2 had a rate of 1-18 and change. Sorta like the difference between a Colt .357 (1-14) vs. the Smith's 1-18+. I have no idea what the twist rate of current Smith 9mms is, or those of other makers, but I never worried any about twist rates, figuring it was hard enough to hit the target in the right place first, then worry about the other stuff (just like when deer hunting, HITS count, misses don't).
I used to be a heckuva pistol shot, and didn't worry about these piddling things. Still don't. Aim right, shoot right, and get on with your life.
I was unaware of the earlier Smith 9mms having a different twist than 1:10. Thanks for the info.
With respect to "worrying about these piddling things", sometimes they are piddling, sometimes not. I used to have to worry about them cause it was my job.
Re: the twist issue, if a combo is accurate, then the twist is sufficient. As to how it affects terminal bullet performance, I AM a Fan of fast twist in rifles for many reasons, and they have a place in say revolvers shooting heavy for caliber slugs in magnum class rounds, assuming your cylinder accommodates said COAL.
All that said, I would have to see expansion test in bullets from typical handgun rounds like a 40 to be convinced there is a difference. I believe the construction has more to do with expansion etc. than anything else.
Personally, I just cannot fathom a meaningful different, at speeds say 1000-1200 fps - in how various twist rates change expansion. Anyone have any solid test info, I will be happy to review it.
I'm feeling a strong urge to order a Gen 5 G23. Some good deals out there right now, well below MSRP. I have the police trade in 22, lots of mags, and a bunch of ammo. My hope is that the recoil reduction will be more to my liking than the Gen 4 G22. The Gen 5 G23 is actually only one ounce heavier than the Gen 4 G22, but who knows. That might provide a noticeable improvement. I'm right on the edge.
PS Of course, if I opted for the G22 Gen 5 instead, that would be a 3 oz increase in weight. Haven't decided.
I don’t see how twist in a handgun makes a meaningful difference in terminal performance. As has been stated, as long as the projectile stable in flight, I would think differences in twist would be essentially undetectable in terms of terminal performance.
1/16 vs 1/10. If your target is 15” thick the slow-twist bullet makes roughly 1 revolution in target and the fats twist one makes 1.5. That’s before slowing down due to resistance. It’s not like it’s in there spinning like a buzz saw or anything.
Even if it makes some theoretical difference I would imagine it is minuscule compared to all the other factors. Heck, most 1911’s are left twist while most non-1911 .45 ACP’s are right twist. Spinning the bullet the ‘wrong’ direction would seem to be a bigger design challenge than the twist rate differences discussed above, yet the same bullets perform well out of both twist directions.
I don’t see how twist in a handgun makes a meaningful difference in terminal performance. As has been stated, as long as the projectile stable in flight, I would think differences in twist would be essentially undetectable in terms of terminal performance.
1/16 vs 1/10. If your target is 15” thick the slow-twist bullet makes roughly 1 revolution in target and the fats twist one makes 1.5. That’s before slowing down due to resistance. It’s not like it’s in there spinning like a buzz saw or anything.
Even if it makes some theoretical difference I would imagine it is minuscule compared to all the other factors. Heck, most 1911’s are left twist while most non-1911 .45 ACP’s are right twist. Spinning the bullet the ‘wrong’ direction would seem to be a bigger design challenge than the twist rate differences discussed above, yet the same bullets perform well out of both twist directions.
I don't speak from theory. While I'm not foolish enough to claim that gelatine is a perfect substitute for tissue, I had enough experience with both to say it is the best that I know of.
Yes, I've seen twist make a difference in the terminal performance of handgun ammunition.
The question of its importance to you is one that only you can answer.
It does make for an interesting discussion, though.
Heck, now you've thrown a wrench in the terminal performance equation! Don't bullet mfg. engineer the skives in bullets for Right Hand Twist?
Ok, that was just a joke.
Actually, not a joke, at all. Look at some of the fluted, solid projectiles. When I first saw them I asked "What happens if you shoot it from a Colt?".
The Mfg. looked at me and said "Why would it matter"?
"Left hand twist", I said.
Everything matters. The key is in knowing when it matters enough to be a consideration.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
Very interesting thread. Anybody shed some light on the old "one shot stop" criteria where the 357 magnum 125HP was the supposed #1 stopper and that is why the 357 Sig with the same bullet weight was designed? Also, does the Secret Service still use the P226/357? Also, when Gulf War#1 started, virtually ALL the 1911s in layup at the Crane Arsenal (Navy) in Indiana was depleted, by operators in the field. In 2003 during OEF, the SEAL Team deployed with us on JFK either had 1911s or HK 45s (suppressor capable).
Has any ever shot the 135 grain ammunition? Or the 155’s?
I’ve pretty much only shot 165 and 180’s. That’s usually the weights on shelves..
The 155 grain loads are, in my experience, noticably snappier than 180s; to be expected as they are loaded hotter, notably higher ME levels. In Marshall and Sanow's data (somewhat dated now) The 155 grain load was the only semi-auto ammunition that equaled the 125 gr. .357 for one-shot stops. The .357 Sig did not yet have sufficient data points for it to be included.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
Has any ever shot the 135 grain ammunition? Or the 155’s?
I’ve pretty much only shot 165 and 180’s. That’s usually the weights on shelves..
Originally Posted by viking
Has any ever shot the 135 grain ammunition? Or the 155’s?
I’ve pretty much only shot 165 and 180’s. That’s usually the weights on shelves..
I had a Heinie compensator on my old Delta Elite for awhile, and when I used the brand-new Nosler 135s in that thing, loaded hot, it really made that thing shoot flat, and the front sight rarely moved off the target at any range. The gases behind that little bullet made the comp function to it's best, but damn it was LOUD. Like, .38 Super LOUD, and it was pretty uncomfortable from that aspect. It was a lot of fun, though.
The 155 grain loads are, in my experience, noticably snappier than 180s; to be expected as they are loaded hotter, notably higher ME levels. In Marshall and Sanow's data (somewhat dated now) The 155 grain load was the only semi-auto ammunition that equaled the 125 gr. .357 for one-shot stops.
Agreed, though the 155s are fairly comfortable when shot from a relatively weighty 4006. I’ve clocked the 155 Silver Tips at 1200 from the 4” barrel:
When shot from the lightweight Kahr P40, on the other hand, the 155s can truly be a handful:
Following this target, as I recall, I wasn’t much interested in doing another real soon.
I’ve still got their books, and spoke with Evan Marshall about them on a couple occasions at SHOT Shows.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
RA! RA! SISBOOOMBA! SHAKE THOSE POM POMS JWP475!
I just love the forum cheerleaders...
Still the illage idiot. Buford job was test the ammo and tracking in field results
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
RA! RA! SISBOOOMBA! SHAKE THOSE POM POMS JWP475!
I just love the forum cheerleaders...
Still the illage idiot. Buford job was test the ammo and tracking in field results
And you are his bitch? Let him defend himself. Your sideline cheering adds no value.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
RA! RA! SISBOOOMBA! SHAKE THOSE POM POMS JWP475!
I just love the forum cheerleaders...
Still the illage idiot. Buford job was test the ammo and tracking in field results
And you are his bitch? Let him defend himself. Your sideline cheering adds no value.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel. If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference. Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage. MM
It's not hypothetical, Buford Boone knows what he is talking about, because he has done the research to know.
RA! RA! SISBOOOMBA! SHAKE THOSE POM POMS JWP475! I just love the forum cheerleaders...
Still the illage idiot. Buford job was test the ammo and tracking in field results
And you are his bitch? Let him defend himself. Your sideline cheering adds no value.
You think your moronic posts do. Idiot
Yet another otherwise interesting thread cluttered up with obnoxious insult exchanges.
Unless a bullet is manufactured non-symmetric, as in twisted fluting in a given direction, it matters not whether it's shot from a left or right twisted barrel.
If twist really matters on target impact & performance, & I really can't say either way, someone post up some test results in gelatin that shows the difference.
Absence of some controlled testing it's just hypothetical & what someone thinks the observed in tissue damage.
MM
I agree with the first sentence in the quote, above. I was just pointing out an extreme example when I posted.
Sentence two, with respect to rate of twist (not direction) I've seen it. I don't have test results as they are all back at my old place of employment - I retired in 2012.
I have 500 of the Nosler 135gr HP’s. Gonna load them all up with 7.5gr of WSF, and we will see how they shoot. I imagine they will remind me of shooting a 357. Have 500 of the Nosler 150’s too. Those will be next followed by 180’s, both powder coated cast and XTP’s.
The 155 grain loads are, in my experience, noticably snappier than 180s; to be expected as they are loaded hotter, notably higher ME levels. In Marshall and Sanow's data (somewhat dated now) The 155 grain load was the only semi-auto ammunition that equaled the 125 gr. .357 for one-shot stops.
Agreed, though the 155s are fairly comfortable when shot from a relatively weighty 4006. I’ve clocked the 155 Silver Tips at 1200 from the 4” barrel:
When shot from the lightweight Kahr P40, on the other hand, the 155s can truly be a handful:
Following this target, as I recall, I wasn’t much interested in doing another real soon.
I’ve still got their books, and spoke with Evan Marshall about them on a couple occasions at SHOT Shows.
I have a Kahr CW40, basically the same pistol, and yes. it is a bit much if I want quick recovery, although accuracy is very acceptable. I'm not sure the CW40 frame was originally designed for the .40, and especially sceptical about it being for the hotter 155gr. loads. I have decided to use only 180s in it.
The H&K USP and Compact were designed for the .40, then adapted for the 9mm, therefore an acceptably stout design. There is not nearly as much."snap" in it with 155gr. loads. I really like my compact with the 155s.
I've been using a S&W M&P .40 Shield; it's still snappy, but slightly different grip design makes it much better than the Kahr, and S&W says it's designed, not adapted, for the .40. I find it controllable with the 155 gr. loads, though understand YMMV.
I just ordered 1,000 rounds of PMC 165 gr FMJ. I'm going to give my police trade in Glock 22 a little workout, and see if I can get comfortable with the snappiness. Might try the medium backstrap insert, rather than shooting it without a backstrap insert, and see if that helps any.
I just ordered 1,000 rounds of PMC 165 gr FMJ. I'm going to give my police trade in Glock 22 a little workout, and see if I can get comfortable with the snappiness. Might try the medium backstrap insert, rather than shooting it without a backstrap insert, and see if that helps any.
When shot from the lightweight Kahr P40, on the other hand, the 155s can truly be a handful.
I have a Kahr CW40, basically the same pistol, and yes. it is a bit much if I want quick recovery, although accuracy is very acceptable. I'm not sure the CW40 frame was originally designed for the .40, and especially sceptical about it being for the hotter 155gr. loads. I have decided to use only 180s in it.
I once tried Speer 180 GDHP “Short Barrel” rounds in my Kahr P40. They were so unpleasant, most of the 20 round box has remained unfired on the shelf for the last couple years. So, I’ve been using the standard 165 GDHPs in my P40, which seems to me just about right, though certainly not for plinking.
I just ordered 1,000 rounds of PMC 165 gr FMJ. I'm going to give my police trade in Glock 22 a little workout, and see if I can get comfortable with the snappiness. Might try the medium backstrap insert, rather than shooting it without a backstrap insert, and see if that helps any.
180s to me are more pleasant to shoot.
I don't doubt it. I remember back when I was carrying my three inch S&W Model 13, and I was shooting Magnums at the range with it, I noticed that the 158 grain loads were much more pleasant to shoot than the 125 grain loads.
Well, the 180s are certainly pleasant to shoot outa this guy:
What is that thing?
I THINK it's an early Performance Center 4006, with a 5" barrel/slide combo. Back when the Performance Center actually built custom guns. I got to shoot one they built for Tom Campbell when he was on their shooting team (around 1990), and it was a helluva pistol.
I have a couple .40 Glocks, a 22 and a 23. Carried both on duty at times and have confidence in both. IMO .40 is a great caliber. Recoil might be a bit more than a 9mm but to me an insignificant difference. Have seen some females with very small hands that transitioned from 9mm to .40 without any real change in proficiency.
In a gunfight I would prefer a 180 or 165gr .40 diameter bullet entering a body over a 115gr .35 diameter bullet.
Is there some kind of Internet requirement to always refer to the lightest 9mm lead load when comparing to the 40?
I THINK it's an early Performance Center 4006, with a 5" barrel/slide combo. Back when the Performance Center actually built custom guns. I got to shoot one they built for Tom Campbell when he was on their shooting team (around 1990), and it was a helluva pistol.
You nailed it, ratsmacker. Very limited production. Bought mine new at retail about the time you mentioned. I’ve heard it variously called Comp 40 and Tac 40. But, I’ve seen a copy of a Roy Jinks letter on a duplicate pistol, with serial number very close to mine, in which it was referred to as the Model 4006 Competition 40. Its features include: A Bar-Sto marked 5-3/8” barrel with a Briley spherical bushing, a 3 pound trigger spring, polished lower front hammer surface for smoother D.A., one-sided 745-ish safety/decocker, oversized mag release, and absolutely superb fit and finish. I replaced the standard S&W low Novak 3-dot fixed sights with an MMC adjustable rear and a .245” Novak front. I’ve successfully resisted the temptation to sell it, even after seeing this:
It’s just too damned enjoyable to let go. I think of it as sorta like a .40 caliber DA/SA SIG P49 (P210).
I have an old Springfield XD .40 that I really like. It is butt ugly, kind of heavy and too big for concealed carry. It does however make a good nightstand pistol and I shoot it better than my 9’s or 45.
My first handgun was chambered in .40 S&W and I still have it. Great shooting gun and never a problem with it. Last summer I carried it with hard cast bullets for bear protection while out ATVing. I have a Glock 20 as well, and now Springfield XDM Elite in 10mm, but I like shooting the .40. I also have a couple of 9mm pistols as well, and I carry them for 2 legged critters. Now that being said, lots of factory loaded ammo is too lightly loaded in my opinion. I have not loaded for the 10mm or .40 yet, but that’s changing as I have dies for it now. Also as others noted, during the last 2 ammo shortages, I was able to find ammo for the .40 S&W quite easily and was shooting while others couldn’t find ammo.
Had the stock Novak sights back on the Comp-40 for a while:
Then switched yet again to the MMCs:
Took it out yesterday to re-establish its standing, two handed, 50 foot zero:
While elevation remained unchanged, gotta tickle it just a little bit more to the right. An advantage to adjustable rear sights which are only drift-adjustable for windage is the tiny adjustments possible. The windage correction needed here would equal maybe half a click, or less, on a factory S&W adjustable rear sight.
Aside from its deeper than average notch, an unusual and unexpected benefit of the MMC adjustable rear sight comes from the fact that its elevation is adjusted via an eccentric cam, so that the higher it’s adjusted, before it reverses direction and starts back down again, the amount of elevation change per click gets very small. The .245” front sight keeps the rear sight up within this fine adjustment range.
Started when I fuuuuuked you up 2 yrs ago down here. Destroyed your stoopid fuuucking sockpuppet. Even the few rubes who fell for your dumbschit down here look at you now like a mutant kitten that just needs a good curb stomp to its noggin.
It is a nice cartridge. I have 2 of them. A Glock M27 and a Springfield XDm
^^^^^^^^ Sure you do... Sure you do..... " pics or it never happened" of both with a bottle of water, peice of paper with current DTG on it, a pencil and pen, a peice of fruit or sandwich meat package all in the pic......
A pic you can't lift from the internet.
Once again Dr stupid aka maser Fuuuuuks up...
Anyone that knows anything fuuuking thing about Glock Pistols.
Knows they use G in front of the numerical designation of their pistols not a M you pinhead..
Stick with a subject matter you know... Airsoft replica pistols.....
Come on up on the general forum and play. Bring along your multi screening sockpuppets for support.
Where has your other mentally ill quadruple polar sockpuppet persona "Slavek" aka: slave to cock been lately. About time for "his" stoopid azz to drop some " nuggets of knowledge " you found on the web ain't it....
Kinda like you were earlier this year when everyone was hammering your azz unmercifully on here.... Or do you hope everyone has " forgotten" all of that. Newsflash..... They haven't......
I take it that by “everyone,” you’re referring to yourself and your sophomoric homies, who spend their days moving from thread to thread, cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with grade school level insults, without ever offering anything of value.
I take it that by “everyone,” you’re referring to yourself and your sophomoric homies, who spend their days moving from thread to thread, cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with grade school level insults, without ever offering anything of value.
Yep.... You nailed it as usual Zippy.😏😏😏🥴🤣🤣🤣
You have a selective memory at best. Lotta peole earlier this year were throgging the schitt outta you on this forum. Now you don't seem to remember huh??? Pfffffft......
I take it that by “everyone,” you’re referring to yourself and your sophomoric homies, who spend their days moving from thread to thread, cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with grade school level insults, without ever offering anything of value.
Yep.... You nailed it as usual Zippy.😏😏😏🥴🤣🤣🤣
You have a selective memory at best. Lotta peole earlier this year were throgging the schitt outta you on this forum. Now you don't seem to remember huh??? Pfffffft......
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Arrrrrgh....
Yep. Guess he forgot all about Mackay Sagebrush handing him his ASS. 🤪
It is a nice cartridge. I have 2 of them. A Glock M27 and a Springfield XDm
^^^^^^^^ Sure you do... Sure you do..... " pics or it never happened" of both with a bottle of water, peice of paper with current DTG on it, a pencil and pen, a peice of fruit or sandwich meat package all in the pic......
A pic you can't lift from the internet.
Once again Dr stupid aka maser Fuuuuuks up...
Anyone that knows anything fuuuking thing about Glock Pistols.
Knows they use G in front of the numerical designation of their pistols not a M you pinhead..
Stick with a subject matter you know... Airsoft replica pistols.....
Come on up on the general forum and play. Bring along your multi screening sockpuppets for support.
I dare you bytch.......
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Arrrrrrrgh you dumb fuuuk....
LOL ! Maser / Fake Preacher Jason Cardenas is an Eggspurt on posing with Airsoft guns while wearing DIAPERS. 🤪🤪🤪 😂😂😂😂😂
I take it that by “everyone,” you’re referring to yourself and your sophomoric homies, who spend their days moving from thread to thread, cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with grade school level insults, without ever offering anything of value.
Yep.... You nailed it as usual Zippy.😏😏😏🥴🤣🤣🤣
You have a selective memory at best. Lotta peole earlier this year were throgging the schitt outta you on this forum. Now you don't seem to remember huh??? Pfffffft......
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Arrrrrgh....
Yep. Guess he forgot all about Mackay Sagebrush handing him his ASS. 🤪
Only carried a G22 for 14 months during my stint as a deputy sheriff jailer. I was "let go" for use of excessive force. You ever been 48 to 1 unarmed in a pod ???
I thought this was interesting. Delta carried G22’s for a bit.
Very worthwhile viewing. Thank you. The interviewee has most certainly given a good deal of intense thought to what he was describing. Got a kick outa how much budget influenced caliber selection. I found it intriguing that he said the effective difference between .40 and 9mm is small, yet he didn’t elaborate on the idea that there is a difference. I was particularly taken by his notion of the conversation one should have with one’s self - extremely insightful.
Only carried a G22 for 14 months during my stint as a deputy sheriff jailer. I was "let go" for use of excessive force. You ever been 48 to 1 unarmed in a pod ???
You mean your charming personality wasn’t enough?
Steve Anderson my charming personality is enough to know tha6 when people selective quote. They do it as if the stuff said in the OP is somehow nullified in their minds. It's a sign you are annoyed and losing. Next step of you losing will be going English nazi mode. Grasping at straws type of stuff.
Don't worry old man... Your reputation preceeds you with many on this forum.
Everyone knows and remembers how you got you azz handed to you baaaaaad on here earlier this year. Caught in numerous bullschit lies, tall tales, and over all douche baggery....
Maybe you 2 old farts outta hit that little flag icon.
And tell Sysop or Bin I hurt your little feelers while I was down here hunting out and antagonizing maser sockpuppets to get em to react . And then along came you 2 screwing schit up, having no fuuuking clue I,m doing hitman work for the Bin.
DeFlave is most accurate in my opinion. The 40 loaded with hard cast is a great outdoors carry gun. The G23 solves many problems on a hiking trail while a G20 10mm struggles to keep out of sight from the casual observer. OTOH I cannot see any reason the .40 is better for every day carry, but again all of them can be lethal if applied correctly.
While there is no doubt that 9mm has improved tremendously since the FBI shootout in Miami, it just defies logic to conclude, strictly in terms of terminal ballistics, that it's now the full equal to the .40 S&W. Where 9mm likely surpasses the .40 S&W is in shootability and (at least by a small measure) in capacity using flush mags.
So, it's a trade off. You just have to decide on which side of that tradeoff you fall. For an agency having to supply one handgun model/caliber to every armed agent/officer, there's a preference for a one-size-fits-all approach, i.e., the best common denominator, which seems to be the 9mm. That doesn't mean, however, that the 9mm is the best choice for you.
You might be someone who shoots the .40 as well as you shoot the 9mm. In which case, now you are down only to capacity as the factor favoring the 9mm, which might push you over the edge into the category where .40 S&W is the slightly better choice (even despite giving up a couple of rounds of capacity), due to its superior (and we don't know to what extent that's the case, but it's certainly the case to at least some extent) stopping power.
The difference for someone who shoots .40 S&W as well as he shoots 9mm is likely marginal, but it may favor the .40 S&W just slightly, all factors considered.
The .40 S&W was my favorite go-to round until a lot of fine pistols started being produced in the 10mm. Though my main carry gun is a 9mm because it's small enough to conceal and fit comfortably in my front pocket.
Still thinking about what the interviewee said about how much the adoption of the 9mm was influenced by budget considerations.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
While there is no doubt that 9mm has improved tremendously since the FBI shootout in Miami, it just defies logic to conclude, strictly in terms of terminal ballistics, that it's now the full equal to the .40 S&W. Where 9mm likely surpasses the .40 S&W is in shootability and (at least by a small measure) in capacity using flush mags.
So, it's a trade off. You just have to decide on which side of that tradeoff you fall. For an agency having to supply one handgun to every armed agent/officer, there's a preference for a one-size-fits-all approach, i.e., the best common denominator, which seems to be the 9mm. That doesn't mean, however, that the 9mm is the best choice for you.
You might be someone who shoots the .40 as well as you shoot the 9mm. In which case, now you are down only to capacity as the factor favoring the 9mm, which might push you over the edge into the category where .40 S&W is the slightly better choice (even despite giving up a couple of rounds of capacity), due to its superior (and we don't know to what extent that's the case, but it's certainly the case to at least some extent) stopping power.
The difference for someone who shoots .40 S&W as well as he shoots 9mm is likely marginal, but it may favor the .40 S&W just slightly, all factors considered.
You certainly have a point there. Sure seems like most folks shoot a .22LR better than a 9mmP, a 9mmP better than a .40S&W, and a .40S&W better than a.45ACP. Don’t think that tells us much about which is best.
I have the most trigger time of any caliber with the Glock 40 cal. I never shot anyone with it but was very close a few times. I have seen it used and only one person survived it. i have no complaints. now we are transitioning back to the Glock 9mm. As someone has determined that it is a better can opener. with newer ammo it may well be just that. Time will tell. To me a handgun is still a big nail small hammer situation. But, that's what's on your hip 90 % of the time so, it gets used often.
"Still thinking about what the interviewee said about how much the adoption of the 9mm was influenced by budget considerations."
Agreed. Budget is prime consideration.
Place I work for issued new .40 because old ones were wore out. Their "Break In" and qualification with new gun consisted of 62 rounds because of ammo costs. Grossly insufficient.
"Still thinking about what the interviewee said about how much the adoption of the 9mm was influenced by budget considerations."
Agreed. Budget is prime consideration.
Place I work for issued new .40 because old ones were wore out. Their "Break In" and qualification with new gun consisted of 62 rounds because of ammo costs. Grossly insufficient.
Don't know how one can reasonably wear out a Glock .40.
Budget considerations was one of the factors in my agencies decision to go to 9mm. But it took almost a year to get our order of 9mm ammo for the transition which will begin at our in-service training which starts in march of 2023. We are going with the Fed HST 147gr as our duty load. Plain 115 gr ball ammo for range use. Glock 45 will be the issue 9mm gun.
Don't know how one can reasonably wear out a Glock .40.
A little grease on the rails, Bbl, and hood?
Good for tens of thousands of rounds.
GR
Hickok45 said that what eventually broke on his Gen 2 Model 23, after firing untold tens of thousands of rounds through it, was the locking block (which cracked in half), which naturally disabled it. Easy repair. He just replaced the part, but he noted that it was a good thing it didn't happen in the middle of a gun fight.
Hickok45 said that what eventually broke on his Gen 2 Model 23, after firing untold tens of thousands of rounds through it, was the locking block (which cracked in half), which naturally disabled it. Easy repair. He just replaced the part, but he noted that it was a good thing it didn't happen in the middle of a gun fight.
I don't have tens of thousands of rounds through any of my numerous handguns, But, if I did, I wouldn't use that one for self-defense.
I do not profess to say that the 40 cal. is any better or worse then any other caliber. I just have a ton (approx. 25 years) of trigger time with that platform. Literally thousands of rounds of 40 cal. sent down range 99 % of them by Glock pistols. It works just fine, when applied in the proper place at the proper time. However, so is a 22 mag, on a 2000lb steer! Under the right circumstances!
Hickok45 said that what eventually broke on his Gen 2 Model 23, after firing untold tens of thousands of rounds through it, was the locking block (which cracked in half), which naturally disabled it. Easy repair. He just replaced the part, but he noted that it was a good thing it didn't happen in the middle of a gun fight.
I don't have tens of thousands of rounds through any of my numerous handguns, But, if I did, I wouldn't use that one for self-defense.
That was the gun he carried as a volunteer Deputy Sheriff.
Hickok45 said that what eventually broke on his Gen 2 Model 23, after firing untold tens of thousands of rounds through it, was the locking block (which cracked in half), which naturally disabled it. Easy repair. He just replaced the part, but he noted that it was a good thing it didn't happen in the middle of a gun fight.
I don't have tens of thousands of rounds through any of my numerous handguns, But, if I did, I wouldn't use that one for self-defense.
Bingo! Hickock shouldn't have even said something silly like that. Worse than entering your sisters tired Monte Carlo in the Daytona 500.
Don't know how one can reasonably wear out a Glock .40.
A little grease on the rails, Bbl, and hood?
Good for tens of thousands of rounds.
GR
Hickok45 said that what eventually broke on his Gen 2 Model 23, after firing untold tens of thousands of rounds through it, was the locking block (which cracked in half), which naturally disabled it. Easy repair. He just replaced the part, but he noted that it was a good thing it didn't happen in the middle of a gun fight.
Might have been an early single-pin as well.
I actually put a bit of grease on the Bbl./locking-block interface, to reduce the metallic "click" to a damped "thunk".
Expect Hundreds of thousands of rounds service life.
Hickock shouldn't have even said something silly like that. Worse than entering your sisters tired Monte Carlo in the Daytona 500.
Poor Hickok45. He didn't know he wasn't supposed to say what happened.
"Untold tens of thousands of rounds & it broke." Saying what happened.
"IT'S A GOOD THING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A GUNFIGHT" The statement I questioned, is not saying what happened... just makin a silly assed comment. I didn't watch the vid, so could I have missed obvious sarcasm?
Which part of what he said is problematic? That he shot his Glock 23 that many times, or that it's a good thing the part breakage didn't occur during a gun fight? Or both?
Which part of what he said is problematic? That he shot his Glock 23 that many times, or that it's a good thing the part breakage didn't occur during a gun fight? Or both?
I thought the statement that I put into parentheses was making it clear as to the comment in question. But obviously my syntax ain't the best on the block, or even in the room for that matter, as there is a cat in here with me. Sorry for the confusion.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/pT9qX6t1/74-FFBC28-060-D-429-B-98-B9-B1-A5841-D995-B.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/t4S3ZND0/19961-BD6-1-BA2-4916-ABA4-8-F8-DFA99-FC59.jpg)
![[Linked Image from 4b1e874935ea5d25a97e-f099844d0e354c7ab50c55a966be6870.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com]](https://4b1e874935ea5d25a97e-f099844d0e354c7ab50c55a966be6870.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/product/F1Glk23NGen4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/77/0f/71/770f71de6830cbb3e9223b40246b07b9.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/baiNz6Il.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Abi5ewOl.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/185310.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/11uObz8.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/WdedtfH.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/fjsLmJ1l.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/LK0IVsi.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/46QAlvs.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/c124/huntsman22/guns/IMG_2139.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/c124/huntsman22/guns/IMG_2188.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/184989.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/cHszdTn6/8-D5-F2-F58-FD79-4-EEF-8-BD9-F8-D22-E359-AAE.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/HnrBLNsW/5537-DB50-8-B68-488-D-9720-13-F66-C396280.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Y28ZtkqP/357-Si-G-Picture-008-1024.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/xjLT0m6D/C30-D6-E66-A82-D-4861-B899-E063043-AED70.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/kGP8htyN/08737897-FB00-481-E-BC0-B-29-CE81-D71011.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/HsdSThSy/68-E1-C481-D6-C6-41-D2-92-F7-5873-CC2-DCA68.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/gGJCqrg.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/3IbaYbl.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/7LvtzFtr/4-A9-AAC36-43-F2-499-A-8195-4-BADE47177-E3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0yXv19tQ/57-FACEC9-DA84-44-B4-A425-71-C0370-B6-EBA.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/XqYBqj0P/04-C0-D91-A-954-F-4613-8-E90-EA47-E973-D20-C.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/CxG8c6Jm/EBA4567-D-DA70-4252-B91-F-7-E3-C1-D8-B031-E.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tJ7MGn4R/B74-D205-A-0-ABD-4-C9-B-9-FB2-3-BE2-D0107-C01.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/SKzfFNN6/AB1-DAEBE-C991-48-FB-A8-E7-4-C4-A9-D8-CCBEF.jpg)