with penetration tests and expanded diameters being about the same with some of the most popular 9mm and 40SW bullets and loads, will we soon see an end to manufacturers producing pistols for the 40SW? For instance the new Gen5 glocks are 9mm but no 40's have been released, there is a separate thread indicating that Taurus is dropping the 40 from their line. Is the 40 headed to the scrap heap?

9mm Horn 124 gr JHP-XTP 90249: 1102 f/s; 14.6" pen; 0.54" expanded diameter
9mm Horn 147 gr JHP-XTP 9028: 988 f/s; 15.2" pen; 0.56" expanded diameter
.40 S&W Horn 155 gr JHP-XTP 9132: 1091 f/s; 14.3" pen; 0.57" expanded diameter
.40 S&W Horn 180 gr JHP-XTP 9136: 966 f/s; 14.8" pen, 0.66" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn 185 gr JHP-XTP 9090: 912 f/s, 16.7" pen, 0.57" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn 200 gr JHP-XTP 9112: 844 f/s, 18.7" pen, 0.54" expanded diameter
.45 ACP Horn +P 230 gr JHP-XTP 9096: 881 f/s; 15.6" pen, 0.72" expanded diameter

Will it go the way of the .45 GAP or .357 Sig ? Never. Just because some top tier agency doesn't issue it to the rank and file doesn't mean it isn't a proven killer. It is too effective a caliber to regulate to the dust bin.

I doubt it. I can't see agencies like Alaska State Troopers dropping the 40 for 9's. IMO

I'm not arguing with you krupp, but consumerism is weird--products that deserve to be popular on their merits don't necessarily survive.


With the .40 S&W, it's hard for me to figure out why it hasn't been more popular/successful. A few guesses would include:

1. Recoil. People buy it, intending it as a step down from the .45 ACP but are disappointed in how much recoil there is. The .40 is a snappy pistol. Not unmanageable, but I think it's more than people are expecting a .40 to be (and that's the fault of consumers, not the round). Women who don't like the .45 don't find that the .40 is the solution.

2. Initial Accuracy When Testing. This ties in with recoil, but I thought I'd address it separately. The "everyday Joe" will shoot a 9mm better than a .40 S&W. When a few guys get together to do some plinking and one of the guys is in the market for his first handgun, he'll likely not want a revolver of any flavor, and he won't agree to start with a .22lr. He wants a self-defense gun. He's likely already narrowed his cartridge choice to one of the Big Three: 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. As the day of target practice continues, if his buddies even have a .40 for him to consider, he won't shoot it as well as the 9mm's available for him to try. If he ignores his accuracy results and just wants a "big gun" he'll likely go straight to a .45 ACP.

I think this scenario is more common than we realize: In the world of gun shopping, the .40 ends up as a 'tweener--that football player who is too big to be a linebacker but too small to play on the defensive line. So it goes with the .40 S&W...

3. Performance. As the OP mentioned, 9mm has made some huge strides over the years. It's not the same 9mm that the FBI declared ineffective in the wake of Miami 1986. The 9mm reputation (whether well-deserved or not) is that it is an effective self-defense round.

4. Ammo Cost. Brass-cased ammo for the 9mm can be shipped to your door for $9.29 per box. That means a lot to the bulk of consumers.

5. Ammo Capacity. Right or wrong, a lot of Everyday Joe's are impressed by the higher ammo capacity of a 9mm over the .40. More is better, right? For many, practicing regularly with whatever gun/cartridge you have never enters the picture. They just want a gun that carries a lot of bullets.

6. Law Enforcement Use. It appears that many agencies have gone away from the .40 S&W. That's probably due to combinations of #1-#5 above. The govt wants cheaper ammo. They can't "afford" to practice. Many cops are not gun guys and don't practice on their own. So, the .40 becomes as unattractive to LEA's as it does for average shooters. When Joe Public hears that LEA's are ditching the .40, he concludes that the round is "bad" and refuses to buy one.

In raising these points, I'm NOT saying that I necessarily agree with them. I'm simply addressing them as the perceptions that have led to the demise of the .40 S&W.

Well, that's my two cents. I'm sure I'll get change back...

I'd say it may have a case of the sniffles at the worst. Any number of manufacturers still make them. There are plenty on the used market. Ammo is still a Fleet Farm staple. They even have it on free standing displays. It's still a popular round.

To find a properly unpopular .40 cal pistol cartridge, go back to 1878. The 38 WCF sold very well in its day, its day is just long since over. This caused me no small amount of annoyance before the take off of Cowboy Action shooting. The two I have are among my favorite shooters.

Ask any Cabela's Library manager. Their national inventory of .40 S&W is way over stocked. See what they will offer. Nothing. They don't want them.

Maybe as a favor to a good customer trading guns. Maybe.
That's what my local Cabela's Library Manager told me.

The market is stagnant due to the proliferation of cheap police trade-ins. As long as people can buy a perfectly functional pistol for $300 and change, there will be little demand for a new gun costing $550+ in the same caliber.

There is plenty of high-performance 40 ammo available for those who appreciate its versatility.

Ui sold my last one in 2008

Its interesting to see those tout the advancements in the bullet design of the 9mm to make them now having "made huge strides over the years".

I don't think that those same ammo companies applied their improvements only to the 9mm. Seems like .40 ammo has" made even huger strides over the years"

This is true. Mainly bullets for the .45 ACP that will expand well at 700-750fps. Years ago that did not happen.

Of course .051" does make a difference already.

JB deigned the .45 ACP to put down horses too. You know way back then.

Think Calvery

^^^This^^^

It's funny because 9mm is easier to shoot but I'm more accurate with a 40 S&W? Crazy how that works.

Steel on target. So long as you can do that, cartridge is irrelevant. Within reason.

An excellent, well thought out assessment.

It was the darling for a decade.

Now it isn't.

In another decade or two people will go retro and exclaim how great the 10mm Special was/is.




Travis

Yep, Waders wins the chicken dinner.

The 1994-2004 assault weapons ban with its 10 round magazine limitation played a role in the popularity of the .40 S&W. The Wondernines had lost their edge in ammo capacity and the trend was to go bigger. The same trend would occur if a ban was put in place today.

The .40 S&W gained a lot of momentum in those years, and combined with being an effective round in the first place, will be around for a long time.

I see lots of used Glock 22s and 23s for sale everywhere i go

Sarcasm here. But maybe the 5.7 and 22 TCM will surpass the 9mm with the next generation.

Those of us who have been around awhile have also seen surplus 9mm's, 10mm's, and sundry 38.357 revolvers clog the used market.

When the FBI releases flatulence, lots of local agencies sniff it, analyze it via gas chromatography and then empty the coffers in an attempt to procure FBI Magic Beans.

how can a 180 at 966 not out penetrate a 147 at about the same velocity when both produce about the same diam final product. Odd stuff.

How do the sectional density numbers match up Jimmy?

The 40 is one of the most popular calibers on the market. It's not dead nor will it be for a long time.

Who was it that said . . .

'The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,
but it can never forget what the 40 Caliber S&W round did here!'

If I had to pick a semi auto to keep it would be the 45acp.
Got two 40s that Ive shot regularly. A Glock 23 and a FN40. Prefer the longer
barreled FN to the shorter Glock. The Glock has a snappyness to get used to.
Triggers on both suck and the ergonomics don't feel good either.
I like the ergonomics of my Walthers and CZ75s. Both seem to melt into my hand and
the triggers on both are crisp.

Ain't that the truth.

they are about the same, .166 vs .161 however momentum must be a bit better with the 180

To me it all boils down to efficiency and economics. The 40 is effective and as noted there are a ton of good used pistols to be had on the cheap. That is a win-win in my book.

True, but with greater recoil and less capacity.

The recoil of any conventional service pistol round is inconsequential in the grand scheme of handgun recoil. I have taught literally dozens of females to manage 40 Smith & Wesson recoil with top shelf duty loads . So forgive me if I find it a little bewildering that men, particularly those in their prime, complain about its recoil.

I don't think the 40 is going anywhere. It's a good proven round.

I do think the handgun market is very saturated right now though, and a lot of folks prefer the smaller pistols for CC, where the 9mm is easier to handle.

It boils down to the latest and greatest.

The Real Hawkeye: Your "less capacity" contention has me thinking.
I have used the Glock 40 caliber Model 22's professionally for 25+ years and have yet to see the "limited capacity" of the high capacity magazines for the Model 22 ever create a detriment to a Model 22 user/carrier!
Fill that Model 22 with 16 bullets and carry it along with another 15 round magazine at the ready and that is a LOT of firepower at hand!
If, in a self defense situation, a person can not get himself defended with 31 bullets then said person has found him or her self in an EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY rare situation.
So rare in fact that it need not be considered IME/IMO!
I completely discount magazine capacity as a reason to choose the 9m/m over a 40 S&W!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I'm not "complaining" about it. I'm simply noting that it's a physical reality that has some measurable affect on repeat shots. However good you are at handling recoil, you will be better at handling it in a 9mm than in a .40 S&W. Perhaps it's a small margin, but it's there. You can't argue with physics.

One of the best rounds for a midsize pistol.
Common retail 40 S&W loads (Winchester white box, etc.) are more powerful than their 9mm and 45 ACP counterparts.
Handloaded, the 40 S&W energy exceeds any 9mm P. and matches 357 Sig. and 45 Super.

Again, a small margin, but for what it's worth, it's there.

What's your difference on a timer?

I'd take a nine for a small plastic single stack carry type pistol, or even in a CZ75 or Browning High Power. Then a .45 acp in a 1911 or Ruger convertible, along with the 45 LC. And a .357 in a double action. And then a double stack Beretta Cheetah.380 for a plinker.

And hope I'd never need the theoretical superiority and versatility of the .40s&w. I hear that for some there is no other choice, but it just doesn't speak to me.
Not sayin I'd never own one though.

The 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP have all had a good run at each other. I think it would be hard at this point for people to psychologically accept there are only 2 big choices to make. Of course this really comes down to ordinally ranking sales. If the forty was in 3rd (not sure if it was) and dropped off, then something else would be 3rd.

The .40 was the latest and greatest. Nothing new has replaced it.

Does anyone know of any current data/statistics on LEO involved shootings in the last few years. It would be nice to see some data since all the improved bullets have been in use.

I bet the 40 cal is still one of the best out there, and the 357 Sig. That shooting in Austin a few years ago by dismounted horse cop at over 100 yards still impresses the hell out me. I believe he was using a 40, I don't know what load though. Maybe some locals on here might know.

I wasn't busting your chops TRH and I'm sorry if it came across like that. And yes the nine is available in some excellent little pistols that have, for all intents and purposes, surpassed the J frame.

Except for the .357 Mag thing...

I'm down to one 40, a Shield. I enjoy shooting my 9 Shield more, but the 40 has its place.

I saw somewhere that failure rates between 9, 40, and 45 were basically the same, and so were one-shot incapacitations. The bighest difference is incapacitation through center-mass hits, and even then its not a huge difference. I think the spread was less than 4% with 40 and 45 doing a bit better than 9, but not by a huge margin.

Annecdotally, I’ve witnessed 6 shootings in my career. One shooting with an officer carrying a Sig P220 in 45 resulted in a single round fired with a hit to the head, instantly fatal. Two with a 40, one a single shot fired to the chest and the other was four rounds to the chest. Both shootings were fatal. The other three were with 9mm and they all survived, one of which was hit 16 times. At face value, that makes 9mm look horrible. When you look at it for what it really was...good shooting vs schitty shooting.

I don't have them but that is the data the FBI used to come to their conclusion. They reviewed all documented shootings from across the country. And they didn't discover anything most hunters didn't already know. The pistol's chambering doesn't give a one shot stop, CNS hits provide that.

They also account for cost and the amount of service life a .40 S&W provides vs. the 9mm or the .45 ACP. Obviously the .40's are built on 9mm frames and they don't last as long. I don't think any armorer is going to dispute this.

While I agree the FBI as a whole shouldn't be viewed as any sort of be all, end all, in the weapon's department, I find it hard to find fault with any of their conclusions in their latest report. Matter of fact I think most agencies and departments already came to those conclusions, the FBI just went full nerd and explained their stance in an analytical way.



Travis

I know this article is a few years down and an example of one, but it provides a good example of why LE in general is steering back toward the 9mm.

https://www.policeone.com/police-he...p-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

I for one love the .40 but I don't think it is an easy cartridge to learn to shoot with especially if you get into Shield sized pistols. Of course it can be done but it is done at the expense of more time and more ammunition. And even the fastest shooter will be more faster with something that snaps less. All things being equal.

As good of a LE round as the 40 is, I personally I think the .40 has really missed its mark in the outdoors world. The 10mm's get a lot of love while the .40 still seems to be considered "Short and Weak." I probably carry a .40 in the backcountry as much as I do my .44's.



Travis

Good article, thanks for posting.

Oh flave, I forgot to ask, what load do you carry in the backcountry. What other loads do you carry for the 40.

Having taught more than a few people to shoot identical plastic pistols in both .40 and 9mm, I couldn't disagree more. I've seen scores increase by nearly 30%, just by handing them an identical pistol in 9mm, immediately after firing the .40. And I've seen terrible anticipation problems literally disappear within firing three rounds with a 9mm.

Conducting back to back, immediate, testing with identical pistols shows that it does matter.

The recoil of the .40 can be managed, but to say that it doesn't harm the shooter's ability just isn't so.

Ya know it seems to me that anything an improved 9mm is going to do an improved 40 is going to do that much better. And lets not forget that Glocks are lightweight pistols. I've never been a fan of the Glock but I can't fault it for what it is. And if there's a bunch out there going cheap then maybe now's the time to get one.

Blue,

What cartridge would you recommend for a service pistol if magazines were limited to 10-rounds?

A 9mm.

Thanks.

Wow, that 9mm ammo should be marked “Contains Marksmanship Fundamentals” right on the box!

FWIW, I always allowed 9mm as an approved duty option for folks (usually females with tiny hands) who had trouble qualifying with anything else. They might pickup 5-10 points but I never say anything like 30% or magical transformations within the first magazine, much less three rounds of 9mm. Of course I never had the luxury of having duplicate 40/9mm duty pistols handy on range day, or the time to conduct comparisons between them if they were available. So I guess our experiences in this differ greatly.



Every time this article gets mentioned in the context of caliber selection, I am obligated to quote the following from it-

Yeah.

After he perforated kidney, lungs and the heart. Amongst other portions of the body.

With Gold Dots.




Dave

Not a problem, Sarge. It would take a lot for you to fall off my good guy list.

I'd like to know, too. Thought about trying out the .40 version of the round that Shoemaker used to kill a grizz with a 9 last year, BB outdoorsman I believe.

what Phil accomplished in that situation is nothing short of cool, calculated skill--with nerves of steel.

for those inclined to go out into country inhabited by dangerous critters that might be inclined to scratch and bite--whilst armed with smaller rigs--consider Tim Sundles--who manufactures the Buffalo Bore ammo. he usually ventures forth with one of the bigger revolvers--and that says a lot...and might be the summary fulfillment of his slogan, "strictly business"...

despite the fact that the 40 simply is no better than a 9mm, I think out of sheer foolishness I will continue to carry mine with a +2 pierce grip extension when I hike in the smoky mountains this next spring.

I saw that and I'd sure like to read that coroner's report. Some people are annoyingly reluctant to admit they've been killed.

Several years ago a day shift officer from a sister agency got dispatched to ChinaMart, on a report of an older W/M sitting in a pickup, drinking whiskey from the bottle and making lewd suggestions to women walking across the lot. Our boy arrives and puts the guy in the front seat of his cruiser w/o patting him down. Backup is scarce due to call volume. The perp reaches across and cuts the officers throat with a Leatherman and exits the vehicle, knife still in hand.

Officer gurgles 10-38 into the mic and exits the vehicle, holding his throat with one hand and drawing with the other. The dumbass makes another run at the cop who is hirt, scared and pissed by now; so he opens up. Perp runs back for his truck (where he had a stolen, loaded Charter Undercover under the seat) at a crouch. Cop catches him below the bottom rib with a 40/180/Hydra Shock which penetrates his torso diagonally knocking a "one inch defect" through everything that matters including his heart and solar plexus- the round was found expanded, hanging in his T shirt. Perp staggers but walks another 20 feet where the dog-catcher nails him with a Ford Ranger. That one did the trick.

So what I really want is an 18 shot 9mm with bullets that turn into Ford Rangers six feet from the muzzle

I carry this in the backcountry.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...-w-180-grain-full-metal-jacket-box-of-50

But I usually stagger it with a 180gr. HP of some variety. As long as they chronograph close to 1K I'm happy. Give or take 100fps.




Dave

I recently bought my wife a Glock 23. I think it's a good pistol and round. I used it to take my concealed carry and scored 250 out of 250. I personally think plastic guns are ugly, but it is fairly easy to conceal and was easy to shoot well with. Just a sample of 1 but like it enough to probably end up with another.

The only .40 S&W I would buy would be a Mark III Hi-Power. Rare. I found one but the fella's son said he shot it a lot so I did not buy it.

Still looking.

If I find one, I plan on shooting only moderate hand loads just for $h!ts and giggles so I can shoot it without tearing the damn thing up.

Would not use it for business purposes. Just to shoot.

Already have a fine set of grip panels to replace the stock plastic ones. Plastic is for Tackle boxes, not for guns.

I have a few "T' models and one "C" model, but a .40 Mark III would round out my collection.

I does not look like Glock is going to make the Gen 5 pistol in 40SW, seems we would have seen some news of this by now if it were going to happen. I believe HK offers the VP9 in 40 but they have not made the VP9 SC in 40SW.

All this talk about 40's reminded of some 40 cal Underwood ammo I shot years ago. A late friend of mine ordered some, at the time I never even heard of underwood ammo (09?). We shot it out of a Glock 22. I don't recall what bullet weight but that felt like you where shooting a 10mm. Rather spicy.

I chronographed a bunch of 10's vs 40's one year and the moral of the story was to be sure and chronograph your 10's because you may just be shooting a long cased .40 S&W.

But of course Photophaggot took a schit so the thread is now worthless.




Dave

I nearly traded into a G20 last year and I looked for chronographed 10mm ammo reviews by reputable folks as opposed to ammo companies. Figured if I was going to acquire a Ten the safest bet was to just load my own ammo.

Military Arms Channel chronographed both from same length barrels, and even the standard range ammo showed a significant velocity advantage for the 10mm, though, naturally, not to the full extent originally intended by the designers. For that, you need to go with boutique ammo companies or handload.

Not in my experience. Matter of fact I have found handfuls of factory .40 to EXCEED factory 10mm ammo.




Travis

That's a good story but I still wouldn't Monday morning QB the cop in that article. He put 17 of 33 rounds on target in a 56 second gun fight.

He was cognizant enough to opt for a CNS in the end but that doesn't mean he wasn't making hits from the start of the fight.




Travis

In reading the latest FBI evaluation on the 9mm, ammo effectiveness seems to have been a minor consideration. As long as they felt the ammo was going to perform "adequately" that was good enough...

Ease of training, hit probability, cost of ammo, handgun service longevity seemed to have as much if not more importance than the effectiveness of the round.

As to round effectiveness, my major concern isn't weather or not a round will kill someone. What is important to me is what the "shootee" does between the time the bullet hits him and he hits the ground...

Bob

Only factory stuff I have found that is real 10mm loading is Sig ammo.


Buffalo Bore in my gun never met up with their specs. Dirty too.

I prefer the Ford Ranger to the Winchester Ranger T any day of the week for that application.

Now you have done it! The 10mm boys will be along shortly to tell you have wrong you are...40 makes infinitely more sense outdoors than the big framed 10 if your actually doing anything other than taking selfies with your gun. I now will sit back and wait for the Grizzly Bear to be mentioned.

My Delta weighs 39oz. and the .460 Rowland weighs 41 oz. No big frame there. Pretty handy for me outdoors. I carry one or the other every damn day on the farm. Mostly the Delta because it is Stainless. Don't forget sometimes the various .45 ACPs. Does that work?

Never seen a Grizz myself in the wild. Lot of big hogs and Whitetails.

With the right load, it seems, even 9mm loads can handle a griz.

I just 50 rounds of 357 sig Remington bonded. Time to convert the 35 into my truck gun. LOL

in a similar fashion as 'Flave mentioned earlier, I've also found in my own comparisons between the .40 S&W and the 10mm using regular Federal factory loads in 180 gr weight, there isn't a real significant difference in velocity. in some examples, as much as 80 fps--but a guy expects a lot more when firing the 10mm--like at least 200 fps more, and preferably more...

other than some select "boutique" ammunition, to take full advantage of the 10, you've really have to roll your own, and in doing so, a person can tailor the pill--and charge--for a given purpose.

in digression, between the 10mm and the .45 Super, I prefer the Super (250 gr pills at 1050+ is some good medicine, and one can achieve it at about 9500 psi less than the 10mm). nevertheless, the advantage of the 10mm is definitely higher velocity--which is a good thing, and depending upon the platform--higher capacity too.

No one can predict the future, but I don't figure the .40 S&W will fade into obscurity...

Based on everything said here, I think the .40 is a viable caliber in the correct gun. Why not have one if you wish?

It is a performer. The one limit it has it seems is bullet weight. At 180gr things go south by my research compared to the other .400" .

If you have one, shoot it and enjoy it.

With the right load, it seems, even 9mm loads can handle a griz. [/quote]

So can an empty can of beer.





Dave

There was a decent looking (honest minor holster wear) M&P 40 in the case at the LGS today. Came with one mag and "a box and a half" of ammo, suggesting it was a consignment gun. Price on the tag was $265, which seemed pretty low to me, but whether that's primarily a reflection on the demand for 40s, or something else, remains to be seen. I haven't seen a reasonably new semi-auto that low recently but maybe I'm not paying enough attention.

It's interesting to note that much of the .40 S&W FMJ is a flat point design. Most 9mm and .45 ACP FMJ is round nose. I suppose the round nose is to accommodate older handguns that might be picky about feeding. I would think the flat point .40 FMJ would transmit more shock and penetrate straighter than the 9/.45 round noses.

If im not mistaken, the flat point was so the round would fit 9mm length magazine.

Simply put, the 40 is the jack of all trades, master of none. If one wants more capacity, lighter recoil or a very compact pistol, one chooses the 9mm. If one wants a big bore, one chooses the 45 acp. To me the 40 doesn't have the strengths of both the 9 and the 45, it has the weaknesses of both.

If you have 20 minutes this is a pretty interesting video. https://youtu.be/LTTDgZZZFa0

I've got handguns in most of the popular chamberings, 22 rimfire, 9mm, 357 Mag, 357 Sig, 40SW, 44Mag, 45ACP, 45 Colt.

The 40 is pretty much in the middle ground.

I could get by pretty easily with a 22rf, and a 40SW.

The 180gr at 1000 fps is no slouch, and I like the ability to stuff 15+1 into a G22 size pistol.

Your right, that is simply put.

But true.

That would be correct from what I have read from several sources.


The flat point does do better with a hole in it.

Actually, the flat point does better (more damage) that round nose period. RN was used for feeding in the early days of semi-autos. Flat Point or JHP are better at pretty much everything.

Mark in GA

So “Is the 40 SW dead?” Ordinally rank the sales of the top 3 auto handgun cartridges. Not sure of the order but I am thinking it’s the 9mm, 45acp, and 40. How far behind is the next highest in sales? If the 40 is dead what replaced it in sales? Nothing.

I thought the feds were the only ones buying up 40 ammo

380 is probably on the list somewhere

That same Cabela's Gun library manager said most traded for a 9mm or the .45 ACP. For various reasons. The snappy recoil of the .40 was the main thing they did not like in the .40 S&W. They did not shoot as well with the .40 S&W. Novices and experienced shooters alike.

Yeah, that's by far the most popular round for pants pocket guns. You have to wonder why they don't make enough of the stuff so as to be more competitive with 9mm in price. Maybe those who carry such guns tend not to do much shooting.

Is the .40 dead? no, its just less popular than it has ever been but it will not go extinct.

It still has the same advantages over other service pistol calibers that it had when it was introduced:

More energy delivered to the target in standard loads over the 9 or .45
Better intermediate barrier penetration than either (which is why it is still in favor with law enforcement).
Fits in 9mm platform sized pistols and magazines.
Much higher capacity than a .45 pistol of equal size.
Less cost to shoot than the .45.

At least he shot some meat. He also established what hunters have known for years. Bore diameter and bullet weight absolve many sins of bullet construction.

Seems to me that the small pistol for concealed carry has caused the biggest resurgence for the 9mm, and the going away from the 40. Also, for target shooting I think it's more fun to either shoot a full sized 9, or a nostalgic 1911 in .45, or even most revolvers, than it is to shoot the 40 s&w.

Now I'll agree with deflave that a .40 in a full size pistol would be a good choice for an outdoors/trail/utility open carry handgun that generally comes in a lighter package than a magnum revolver.
And with others who condone the virtues of the powerful.40 in a full size duty weapon.

I think that I could have a use for one as a truck gun or for home defense.

But I'd like to see that guy in the video simulate a scenario where he was shot in the left arm or was otherwise forced to shoot one handed from around the corner of some kind of protection from gunfire that he had afforded himself instead of assuming he'd be able to always take his stand-up-straight two-hand stance when someone might be firing an AR at him. And then see if the recoil with one hand made a difference between accuracy for the 9 and 40.
I realize that his arms are bigger than a ham, but still...
And that video was made with law enforcement in mind, not your average Joe who might have a concealed carry license and can't always hide a larger gun.

Nope.

Excellent point.

🔨☠🐴

I totally agree. My 5'2" wife, 17 years ago at age 55, shot my first 40 S&W quite well and very accurately... I told her upfront to expect a sharp recoil but that it wasn't anything she couldn't easily handle. Four boxes later she was all smiles at how well she obliterated her "cans" target at 25 yards (indoor range).