TexasCHLforum.com

koolaid wrote:I agree that "compromise" rounds should be avoided at all costs which is why I recommend that you only carry guns in 22LR and 50BMG.

Brilliant observation IMO.

Vandelay Ind. wrote:I have seen all the evidence, and rule we all go buy glock 32s (357sig) and see how they feel.

Maybe USA1 can hook us up.

Gross...all the problems of the .40 for twice the cost.

Nobody said faster was better...?

CC Italian wrote: why would I not carry the heavier, bigger, faster bullet?

9mm is faster than all the above, except the 10mm.

lkd wrote:

stash wrote:I wonder if the standard issue for the FBI is still the Glock in .40, I think the 23 and 27? I think their SWAT and HRT guys have some type of 1911.

SWAT and HRT are SMG/Rifle-response type teams. What sidearm they carry is far less important than their main weapon. Field officers, however, only have one weapon on their body.

I think these "caliber wars" never play out well. The 40S&W has a LONG record now of being an effective defensive caliber. So does the 9mm and the 45ACP. You don't have to like any or all of them, but if you want to say one is statistically less effective than the other, you better be willing to drag up a LOT of empirical evidence. Agencies all over the US use a variety of calibers, from the 5.7mm to the 45ACP. It's true the .40S&W is popular, and economies of scale will certainly have an effect on caliber selection with a lot of agencies. Ballistics-wise though, the difference isn't very much between it and the 9mm or 45ACP in defensive loads.

Which is exactly why issues like felt recoil and ammo cost weigh heavily in this discussion.

A-R wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Thats because the .40 is the worst round ever.

Requesting expanded explanation in separate thread (honestly curious your thoughts/reasons).

Disclaimer: this discussion is only limited in scope to the .40 S&W round compared against 9mm and .45ACP for defensive use, and store bought, manufactured ammo.

The .40 has more perceived recoil, less capacity, and only a marginal improvement of ballistics vs 9mm. 45 has less felt recoil IMO, than a .40 and is thus easier to shoot, and makes a bigger hole in the target. The litmus test for this opinion was when my 130+ ish department switched from the Gen 3 G22 to the Gen 3 G21SF (.40 to .45). Qualification scores improved for those who struggled with qualifying with the G22. Even one of my partners who is 5-00 100lbs shot the 21SF better, and she said it was "easier and more comfortable" to shoot. I, like many others, find the .40 to be quite snappy, leading to slower follow up shots.

9mm is the cheapest of these three, and allows an average shooter to practice more frequently, which is more important that the slight increase in "ballistics" (all those fancy numbers that we have discussed in other threads), in my opinion. I find the recoil of the 9mm, the wound ballistics it can cause (w/ good defensive ammo), and the price of training ammo, to be a great combination for a newer, or smaller shooter.

The widespread usage of the .40 in the LE world was as much of a financial decision as it was a tactical one. Where the 9mm used to dominate, the .40 took over, but now we are seeing trends of more and more departments returning to .45acps, though as striker fired polymers instead of 1911s (which...I can understand, but I love me some 1911).

I've owned and shot numerous .40S&W pistols, and have since liquidated them all for something that is either more preferable to me in a fight (a .45acp), or more shootable (since 9mm is cheaper). I feel like the .40 is a compromise in cost/ballistics which is great, but the step up in recoil, I find silly, and off putting to smaller, and even newer shooters.