Seeing sales on handguns and ammo in 40, perhaps losing favor in demand lately......seems a trend over to the 9s perhaps with newer ammo performance.

Curious who is running 40s - or have run them, what is the recoil like?

I have shot all the 357-44s in wheelguns....just wondering how the 40 is - especially in compact sized guns? Thanks.

Never liked them. They were designed for 9mm size/weight guns, but have quite snappy recoil for guns of that size/weight. Not that there's any pain or discomfort involved in shooting them, but controlling them for fast follow up shots is a challenge for most (even very experienced) shooters, at least in the size/weight guns they tend to be chambered in, which I find disconcerting. If I want more power than 9mm, I'd rather step up to a gun designed to shoot .45 ACP, which generally means a larger, heavier, gun. Even the Glock 30 is a noticeably easier shooter than a Glock 27, for example.

I like them. I got a G27 and G35

Forty, Short&Weak? Never had use for it either. Why shoot a .40, when you could have a .45 or 10mm?

Don't worry. The fans will be along soon, and they have their reasons....

Unless your mangina is sensitive - the recoil of the 40sw is inconsequential.
I like the 40 simply because I can load it to 500+ ft/lbs and have 14 rounds in a G19-size platform.

I'm relatively late to the 40 game. Liked the 10 so well early on that I saw no real use for the .40. Even without the 10, I have 45's and 9's, so had no real need. Then when the first Obama ammo shortage hit, 40 was something you could get plenty of. Again, I had no real need for factory ammo because I reload and had ample supplies on hand but I still ended up getting a couple of 40's and stocking ammo for them. I think I've had three and still have one.

I think it's a good caliber. Mine is a Smith M&P. Good gun. Recoil isn't terrible. Supposedly good stopping power. Ammo cheap and plentiful.

The .40 S&W is my second-favorite semi-auto cartridge after only the 10mm.

I’m not arguing that other cartridges aren’t super wonderful, but the .40 seems to cover a lot of bases. For example:

Im partial to the 40 S&W. I actually shoot it better than a 9mm believe it or not. Its a great tradeoff for size and capacity. Its decent for woods carry. Recoil is often considered snappy which most do not prefer. Its not horrible but is different from recoilf of a 9mm or 45acp. Border Patrol used 155 gr hp and shot a number of bad guys with it, successfully. Not sure if they still use it or not? Ive shot a few 40s in hk usp, sig 226, glock 22, glock 23, ect. I will admit when i started out with it I did not care for the caliber but now like it and am quite comfortable with it. It took close to 5000 rounds for me to really get comfortable and good with it.

I think we are over the hump on 40S&W, 1911s, and revolvers. The trend will continue downward on all three, regardless of the merits. The idea of keeping a 40 around because ammo might be available might be it's biggest plus going forward. Does anyone have a feel for the current breakdown for police use of 40 vs. 9mm?

I like the 40 cause the cheap hardball ammo is of flatnose form and will kill much better than 9mm ball for varmints around the farm

I also believe the 40 would be more effective if you were stuck using hardball in a defensive situation


the 40 also shoots flatter than 45 and that can be helpfull out in the open spaces


I find the recoil to be a non issue , unless you are using very light weapons like maybe some of the Kahr pistols

Great feedback folks - thanks for all the info.

6.5BR: I carried a "40" for many years as a paid professional.
I still carry and use them for self/home defense.
Don't let ANYONE denigrate the 40 S&W caliber!
Right at 25 years of "first hand" experience with this fine pistol cartridge now and I have NO intention of changing my preference.
Long live the 40 S&W!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I've go one .40. A police trade in Glock 22 that I got real cheap. It was in excellent condition, and I have no intention of selling, mainly in case of some future 9mm shortage. Like I say, though, I'm not a fan of the snappiness. Seems to slow down the follow up shot. I imagine, though, if I shot thousands of rounds of the stuff, I wouldn't notice that so much. No intention of switching from 9mm, so that's not going to happen. If I want more power than 9mm, I've got the 30 and the 21 Glocks, both of which I shoot about as well as my 9mm Glocks.

The 40 is a very versatile round, plane and simple.

I love that the .40S&W is on the "outs". This leads to an abundance of bargains on ammo and shooters especially in the used handgun sales. Police trade ins are a great bargain as the political forces are convincing departments to switch over to the 9mm.

As a reloader I can load it from mild to wild. Don't like the recoil.....load it mild. Like to hike/camp in the woods......load it wild. 16 rounds of hot cast lead 180's in a G22gen 4 are very comforting to carry and for the firepower a fairly light package.

I've taken a smaller mule deer buck with my Sig P226 in 40.

I find it hilarious that people believe the 40 S&W is on its “way out”. Ordinally rank the top three big defensive semi auto handgun cartridges... 9mm, 45 ACP, & 40 S&W. Now tell me which handgun auto cartridge is on the fringe of taking over the 40 in sales? What’s going to be the next 3rd place that’s “sooo close”?

The 40 is a excellent caliber, I don’t believe it’s going anywhere, it’s felt recoil is a non-issue for me. Like mentioned earlier if you hand load it can be loaded very mild or very hot :-)

Recoil difference is negligible. But a bit more power than 9. Got out of the 40 business lately due to just consolidating to 9 and 38/357 for carry.

I like them just fine. Nowadays with all the police trade-ins it's like Christmas year round if you like nylon guns.

I hadn't shot my .40 for awhile and took it out on the 4th to sow some freedom seeds. Was pleasantly surprised, I did pretty well with it. Been shooting the 9 and 10 lately, but the little Shield did well. Definitely noticeably more snappy after only shooting the 9 for a few months, but not too bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good posts folks, appreciate all. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's just me..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More great feedback, appreciate all.

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

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

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

Dinosaurs now.

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

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

The 40 punches a 15 % larger hole.

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

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

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

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

Never have shot the .40 much at all....maybe 100 rounds max...

Picked up a brand new 23 upper for my 19 and after shooting it can understand how a lot of non-shooter LEOs have a hard time qualifying. Recoil is a lot more than a 9mm. The other .40 I have is a multi-caliber Kimber Stainless Target II....in that gun the .40, even with heavy loads, is a pussycat....

The .40 story is kinda like the .41 Magnum... 210 grain bullet at 950 to be the be-all and end-all for LE firearms... The experts however failed to understand that because 90+% of the LEOs are not gun people and have little interest of becoming so on their own anything with more recoil than a 9mm or .38 Special just isn't tolerable....

...thanks God for the new Magic 9mm Bullets or where would we be....

Bob

I realize most if any don't, i load 200gr XTP and Nosler hp's in my 40 to 1030-1050 fps, was floored at the amount of penetration here in home made test media, pick 'any' expanding 9mm slug, it will be a fun contest.

.

Yes, correct.



See post above (https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...3951631/re-who-prefers-a-40#Post13951631). Can a 9mm pump out a 115gr slug at over 1,400 fps or a 155gr slug at over 1,300 fps? Not even close.

MMDV (my Mileage Does Vary).



9mm can’t do that.

I carry a 9mm Sig P938 95% of the time because it’s small. So, I’m not anti-9mm. Great round for what it’s worth, which is much.

But it does not come close to the versatility of the .40 S&W round, especially at the high end. With a full-sized pistol, the .40 S&W can exceed 600 ft-lbs and all kinds of other things that the 9mm can’t do.

LOL at this guy! Only "stronger load" if you aren't comparing apples to apples. Compare top end loads in both calibers and the .40 will blow it away on all counts. With the same weight bullet, 40 is faster, when using heavier bullets = more energy, yada, yada. I prefer shooting the 9 for lots of reasons, but will opt for the 40 if I am in the woods.

This whole debate is kinda like comparing a 300 WM to a 338 WM. Numbers are bigger obviously, but the percentage difference between the two and between the 40 and 9 are about the same.

Only problem is, fortunately or unfortunately depending on a how you want to look at it, Shooters have voted with their feet. Take a look at any big gun shop that's got a large inventory of used guns and you'll see tons of 40s compared to the number of 9 mm. And the smaller the guns are the more forties will sit on the shelf for a longer period of time.

It isn't that 40 isn't a great round the problem is the guns are all based on 9mmm platforms and just kick the snot out of people. And since 95% of the people who own handguns aren't what I would call Shooters the less recoil that they have the more they like it.

Bob

There are several 40 S&W living at the house, all of them shot regularly. Recoil isn't especially bad, though it's not as soft shooting as a 9mm. The main reason I prefer it would be its ballistic twin the 38 WCF. I'll allow as how the New Service is more pleasant to shoot than a Glock 22 for equal horsepower.

.40 S&W out of my Glock Model 20 (with or without the .40 S&W barrel installed) is a real pussycat to shoot. Out of my Model 22, however, I find it not nearly as capable of quick and accurate shot-to-shot placement, too often (unless I'm concentrating quite hard on preventing it) even requiring a readjustment of my two handed grip between rounds. Yet I don't have this issue whatsoever with my Glock Model 30, which is chambered in .45 ACP. I handle that about as well as my Glock 17 9mm.

That's an apt comparison.

Good info, so a 45 in say a Shield is easier to manage recoil, f/up shots, than a 40?

I don't know. The Glock 30 is built on the massive slide of the 21, just shortened, rather than having a Model 23 sized slide. That could be part of why I find the recoil more manageable than that of the .40 S&W in a Model 22. I'll have to compare slide weights to see if this could be the explanation.

Unless you are experienced on them any small, 40 or 45 pistol will require some effort to master.

For everyone else, there is the 9mm.

I taught frail little girls, for God's sake, to qualify--and shoot well enough to save one of their lives under fire--with 40 caliber duty guns.

Some of those G22's saw 8-9000 rounds of duty ammo over 11 years, and none of them broke.

Agreed Sarge, that tank P226 40 of mine continues to neatly pile brass 4 or 5 yards off my right shoulder, and that's with 200gr XTP's at 1040 fps, makes a damn good garden pest control gun too ; ]

That's cool to know.

PS Just to clarify, I can do just fine with a .40 S&W Glock 22. I just find that a lot more concentration on maintaining the grip, shot to shot, is required than is required with any of my Glocks chambered in 9mm or .45 ACP. This is why I don't particularly like shooting or carrying my Glock 22. Not because I can't easily put rounds where I want them to go, which I can, just as easily as with a 9mm Glock.

I'm not saying everyone should carry/shoot a 40. It was an issue item and that's what we trained with. It is a bit much for some folks and when we updated the policy, I plugged a rider in to allow personally owned 9mm's as an option, within certain parameters of course. I think two officers (both younger males) used that option for duty guns in the 8 years I was there. We always had people qualifying with 9mm backup/off duty guns.

I'm retired and my personal guns are all 45 ACPs these days. I find a 230 flat point at 850-900 fps does 95% of what I need from a handgun. And the brass is a damn sight easier to find in the mowed strip of hayfield I use for a range

Its easy to shoot but IMO when you get used to the dependability of a wheel gun a semi auto is a hard pill to swallow. It "probably" won't jam when your life depends on it so odds are "mostly" in your favor!

I did own a CZ999 9mm that I fired 1000 consecutive rounds thru without cleaning or jamming. My custom 1911 Springfield 45 was extremely dependable though it did jam a couple times. Ive owned a 40 glock and 10mm glock! Both glocks jammed on occasion.

My 686 Smith and Wesson has not had a FTF since I bought new it in 1994


Trystan

I've owned a total of fourteen Glocks since the early 1990s. Today I have ten. My experience on the reliability question is that if a Glock shoots without a hitch on the first range trip, it will simply never malfunction. Just my experience. I know that eventually, given an infinite number of rounds fired, it will fail in some way or other. But my experience is 100% reliability, if it has no issues on its first range trip.

Here are the three Glocks I've had that had issues: An early edition of the Glock 42, which was 100% fixed with the latest rendition of the magazine (Glock admitted that their first magazines for it caused issues); a Glock 21 that malfunctioned from day one, which was sent back and returned to me 100% reliable; and a Glock 30S, which had the issue of locking open before the mag was empty, which Glock wasn't able to fix, so the gun got sold. On the last one, Glock insisted that I must be contacting the slide lock under recoil, which I wasn't. All the others have been 100% since purchased, several of them having been fired untold thousands of times.

I'd compare their reliability to any wheel gun you have.

PS I've also had revolvers that failed at the range, one locking up from pulled bullets, one from residue accumulation under the star, one from a damaged firing pin port, others from action lock ups of unknown cause, at least one of the last type was brand new from S&W and required sending back.

Semi autos have there virtues and thats why many gravitate toward them. As reliable as a wheel gun? Your not going to convince me of that and I think its a hard sale to most who have experiences with both.

As far as who prefers a 40. I'd take a 40 over a 9mm every day of the week. I put thousands of rounds thru my 9mm but only 6 rounds into an animal. My wife shot a deer with a reduced recoil 270 load that didn't kill the deer but made it very sick. After 5 shots to the temple from 10 feet away I was starting to wonder if a 9mm could kill a deer. Thankfully the 6th shot made it thru! And to think I'd been carrying that little 9mm around for bear protection 😅 JMO



Trystan

What ammo?

I don't trust autos as much as revolvers either.
Irrational? Maybe, but, I am spooked by the occasional top-tier jam-o-matic that even the manufacturer has trouble diagnosing.

Just remembered another revolver fail, i.e., the ejector unscrewed itself and locked the cylinder.

Yes, but I can check a revolver in 2 minutes, then, fire 2 cylinders and call it good (or bad).
The automatic requires a more extensive proving.

Do I prefer .40? Let's see, I have 5 right now, 2 9mm, and 2 .45 so yeah, I guess I do. I love the ease of handloading it and the versatility of it. I can tell very little difference in what some call "snappy recoil" between the .40 and 9mm +P+ loads, which was our issued load. So, with roughly the same amount of snap, I'll take the bigger hole every time and the heavier bullet will likely break bones better.
All this doesn't imply I don't like my 9's or .45's for general shooting but, I always reach for a .40 for social purposes.

I have carried the same Glock model 27 .40 cal. for the last 25 years. With a Pierce grip extension it fits my hand perfectly & recoil has never been an issue. This has been my off duty and occasional on duty gun. While the 9mm has gained popularity because of better bullets, those same bullets are available in the .40 also. There are similar size guns with a little higher capacity in 9mm but I have always liked the 27 and it's 9 rounds sure beats the old 5 shot revolver. I admit, I still have and occasionally carry my old S&W .38 though.
I know, I'm old.

I always reach for a .40 for social purposes.


"Social Purposes" I like that.







[/quote]