TexasCHLforum.com

I've made similar decisions on .40, which is why I was interested in hearing GigAg's reasoning from an LEO perspective (especially because the push for .40 as a defensive caliber was driven largely by its use in so many LE departments). And I agree with his assessment. Now that I've shot numerous rounds with all three "big" cartridges, .40 is my least favorite. But that's not to say .40 is a "bad" round. Learn to control that snappy recoil, and it's as good as or better than a 9mm +P, and much more potent than a regular pressure 9mm. But for MOST of us, 9mm or .45 is probably a better choice because 9mm factory ammo is cheaper and .45 reloads are easier and more forgiving.

I originally purchased in .40 S&W for the same reasons as most - it was the ultimate compromise caliber. Better than 9, almost as good as .45 and more rounds in the gun than .45. I still think that applies for the most part, but with quality +P 9mm loads the difference is negligible. What surprised me the most - after more than a decade of shooting .40-cal almost exclusively - is how much easier .45 is to shoot. Not just in a 1911 platform, but in a comparable platform (as GigAg mentions Glock 22 vs. 21SF, or in my case M&P in both calibers). I never understood folks who complained about .40-cal - after all, it was the only caliber I shot and I shot it well enough ... until I tried .45

I still think there's a good use for .40-cal, likely as a 180-grain FMJ military round in the near future (much better ballistics than 9mm NATO ball ammo). If I was forced to use ball ammo for self defense, I'd carry a .40 or .45 exclusively. But for my personal CC needs, with quality JHP rounds available, I too will be sticking with 9mm and .45.