TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:there is no Glock model 40

Then what did this guy shoot himself with?

this is a Glock 40

[youtube][/youtube]

If there's a .380 vs. Silly String duel at 10 paces, I'll take the .380. At any distance really.

Of course, if it's a Jennings/Bryco .380 that might be a fair fight because both the Saturday Night Special and the can of silly string probably weigh about the same and can he thrown equally well.

But if it's a quality .380, I'll take it over no gun at all.

lkd wrote:

Ameer wrote:

lkd wrote:If you want to say the 10mm is great, that's fine, but you don't get to just drop _opinions_ on a caliber, disguised as fact, and get away with it.

lkd wrote:I know what it can do, but I personally remain unconvinced that .380ACP is a good defensive round.

Well, it's not a contradiction -- I'm saying that I _personally_ don't like the .380. The other poster washed off the .40S&W as something that was merely "popular" because the FBI liked it. There's a difference.

Now if you'd said the .380 was "popular" just because James Bond uses it, that would be a contradiction

Incidentally, if you get a moment, go re-watch "Dr. No" ... when M (this is before the Q character) hands Bond his new Walther PPK in "7.65mm" that "hits like a brick through a plate-glass window" - and that's only a .32-caliber.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Dr._No#Beretta_M1934" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpringerFan wrote:I have owned more pistols in .40 than any other caliber. While I like the 9mm and love the .45, the .40 just fits my needs better than the other two. I do have smallish hands which is part of it, but also enjoy the higher round count over the 45 and power upgrade over the 9mm. That said, I carry a .380 more than anything else.

The old joke used to be that guys talked about their .45s or large-frame .357s, but actually carried snub-nose .38s

I guess the new version is guys talk about their .40s but actually carry pocket .380s

Takes one to know one

Kevinf2349 wrote:I don't have a 40 but I did consider getting one for one simple reason....that was about the only ammunition that didn't disappear from the shelves a year or so ago!

Good point.

HarleyDave wrote:Sorry, didn't mean to start a caliber war but glad I did with all the great discussion on personal preferences it is interesting to say the least. But, again, and let's just look at 9mm for a minute, what about the 9mm with the Winchester Ranger (old talon) type of round vs say a .40 or .45 in just hollow point. Wouldn't that make a difference in our caliber war discussions? "LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE" Sorry, just couldn't help myself?

I tested Winchester Bonded PDX1 (the newest in the line of "talon" JHPs) in both 9mm and .40 out of short (3-inch) barrels last year and both performed very well, but .40 obviously had the edge.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=32400&hilit=+milk+jug" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The two most important reasons, IMHO (all of which have been addressed above):

1. More powerful cartridge in same frame size as 9mm (though some 9mm +P premium JHP rounds approach the ballistics of .40). A perfect example of this is the Glock line up. In each size (large, medium, small - or full-size, compact, subcompact to use Glock's nomenclature) the .40 version only holds one or two fewer rounds but the rounds are generally more powerful. Even when compared to a single-stack .45 (the only frame size of .45 that many people can hold/shoot effectively), the .40 wins easily. A Glock 23 holds 13+1 rounds of .40 in very close to the same overall size as the single stack Glock 36 that only holds 6+1 rounds of .45. A full-size double-stack .45 like the Glock 21 or Glock 30 is a non-starter for many shooters because the grip is simply too large. Other double-stack .45s like H&K and S&W M&P are easier to hold, but still larger/heavier than comparable .40s by same manufacturers.

2. Police use .40 - this is a huge factor. The mid 1980s FBI ballistics report and the FBI pushing for the development of this cartridge are also huge factors that led not only to local police department use, but also CCW use. Police use is is the same reason .38/.357 revolver rounds are popular - this is what police used for decades. The reason .45 and 9mm are popular is because of military use. Combined 9mm, .40, .45 are by far the three most popular semi-auto rounds and .38/357 are the most popular revolver rounds. Because of wide-spread police and military use, these rounds are plentiful and relatively inexpensive. A good example of the opposite effect that proves my point is the .357 Sig. In most ways the .357 Sig is a better round than the .40, but it was developed later and is used by fewer police agencies (the US Secret Service being the only agency for a while). Texas DPS now uses .357 Sig and if it gains in popularity like the .40 did, it could become more popular in civilian sales as well. But as of now, it's much more expensive - often 50% more for .357 Sig target ammo than .40

lkd's third reason below is interesting to me and I'd love for lkd to expand upon this either here or in another thread:

lkd wrote:3) Flexible bullet weights/loads are great for competitive shooting (i.e., hitting "Major" power floor)

Having just now started in competitive shooting (a handful of IDPA matches), as well as starting a CHL instructor side business, I find myself gravitating to 9mm instead of the .40 I've carried for more than a decade. The reasons:

1. 9mm FMJ substantially cheaper than .40 - about $10 or $11 per 50 for 9mm vs. about $15 per 50 for .40-cal = i difference of 5 to 10 cents per round. It adds up quickly if shooting 150 rounds every weekend in competition and/or practice, not to mention 250 rounds in a small 5-student CHL class
2. 9mm easier for new shooters to shoot than .40-cal (this + cost factor are important when loaning guns to CHL students)
3. In IDPA competition, the "power floors" seem to favor either 9mm (low end) or .45 (high end) with .40 sort of stuck in between and usually shooting against easier-to-shoot 9mm guns.
4. As I get older and what is likely some early signs of arthritis start showing up, I'm finding the snappy .40 more "painful" to shoot than 9mm. I used to roll my eyes at talk of .40-cal being harder to shoot because a .40-cal Glock was all I had and I was used to it. But now that I've shot many 9mm guns and own a few, I can see the distinct difference in felt recoil and especially muzzle flip. 9mm is hands down an easier and more comfortable round to shoot. Not that .40 cannot be shot equally as well, just requires a bit more hand/wrist strength and concentration. I've now shot both in competition, and if there was a middle-ground category carved out in IDPA rules for .40 S&W and .357 Sig I'd be interested in shooting it. But when competing against 9mm, it seems a distinct disadvantage.

lkd, is .40-cal flexibility more useful under USPSA rules than IDPA? Does meeting the upper power floor with a .40-cal require special hand loads to achieve, or is there a way to shoot USPSA with factory .40 loads against .45-cal competition?