Nothing more than a personal preference. I am neither as accurate or as fast with follow up shots with the 40. I am admittedly fastest with the 9mm, but my split times even with the 45 are still quicker than the 40. In addition to that, I have tons of guns in 9mm & 45 and have not any good reason to get a 40, and my dislike for the caliber just helps to anchor that position. Any of them will kill a person grave yard dead and in reality there is not enough difference in stopping power to argue one over the other.Vic wrote:I am interested in why people say that. I've seen that sentiment expressed on may forums all over the Internet.Mike from Texas wrote:... I am an admitted non fan of the 40 S&W caliber.
Before the threat of turning this into a 9mm versus .40 S&W versus .45 ACP debate, I like all three calibers, as I noted in my original post. I would have been happy with any of the three. For me PERSONALLY, I wanted a bit more "punch" than the standard 9mm (even though I am fully aware that a modern JHP 9mm cartridge will deliver effectively), but more capacity at the same weight as a .45 ACP. The .40 S&W is a "compromise cartridge", but that's precisely what I was looking for. That is what led me to choose the .40 S&W. The recoil does not bother me. I have most of my handgun experience with the FEG PA-63, a Dan Wesson .44 Magnum, and my father's off-duty gun which is a J-frame S&W Airweight with .38+P. Needless to say, I am more used to recoil than not. I think the Glock 23's recoil will feel like a gentle tap to me, given what I am used to!
I'd still be interested in all opinions on why others are not a fan of the .40 S&W cartridge.
It all boils down to shoot what you are comfortable with, and I just happen to not be comfortable with the 40.