Problems with .40 cal.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to be clear, when I started this thread, it wasn't to knock the.40 caliber cartridge. I'm personally not a fan of it, but that's just me. I shoot 9mm and .45 ACP better, and so I prefer those two calibers. So my point wasn't to trash the .40 S&W. The reason I posted it was simply to urge that those of you who do like and carry this caliber to be sure to pay special attention to the condition of your firearms over the years, so as to avoid a catastrophic failure through complacency.

[WildBill]

Just to be clear, when I started this thread, it wasn't to knock the.40 caliber cartridge. I'm personally not a fan of it, but that's just me. I shoot 9mm and .45 ACP better, and so I prefer those two calibers. So my point wasn't to trash the .40 S&W. The reason I posted it was simply to urge that those of you who do like and carry this caliber to be sure to pay special attention to the condition of your firearms over the years, so as to avoid a catastrophic failure through complacency.

I have a Sig 40 S&W which is a well-built and an absolutely reliable firearm.

Originally I bought it as my primary ECD, but ended up switching to a 9mm.

It's probably due to my flinching, but I just can not shoot it accurately.

[harrycallahan]

When I saw this thread my first thought was 'I don't have any'.

[carlson1]

My EDC is a G23 Gen 4. I have a LW conversion to 9mm. I shoot a lot of 9mm through mine. I have also shot plenty of .40 S&W Federal HST through both of my Glocks. I have had zero problems. It did take me awhile to convert to the Generation 4. I have never like the G27.

[Cardinal7]

Over the years, I've seen references to problems with .40 caliber and unsupported chambers. When I Google the topic, all of my hits involve Glock. Is this a problem specific to Glock or have there been incidents with this cartridge in other manufacturer's products?

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to be clear, when I started this thread, it wasn't to knock the.40 caliber cartridge. I'm personally not a fan of it, but that's just me. I shoot 9mm and .45 ACP better, and so I prefer those two calibers. So my point wasn't to trash the .40 S&W. The reason I posted it was simply to urge that those of you who do like and carry this caliber to be sure to pay special attention to the condition of your firearms over the years, so as to avoid a catastrophic failure through complacency.

I have a Sig 40 S&W which is a well-built and an absolutely reliable firearm.

Originally I bought it as my primary ECD, but ended up switching to a 9mm.

It's probably due to my flinching, but I just can not shoot it accurately.

I had much the same experience. My only ownership experience in .40S&W was with a HK USP Compact - a wonderful pistol which I would still miss today (more likely, would have never sold) if it had been chambered in 9mm or .45. I eventually mastered it, but only towards the end before I sold it (to a respondent in this thread). For me, 9mms are fine because they mitigate high slide velocities with light bullets, taming the recoil impulse; and .45s are fine because they mitigate heavy bullets with slow slide velocities, taming the recoil impulse. But .40s combine heavy bullets with high slide velocities, yielding more muzzle flip, which translates (for me) as harder to follow through and get back on target. That USP was a fine carry gun, I just was never very good with it.....because of the caliber. But again, that was my experience, and I am not criticizing it as a solid pistol round with an excellent self-defense track record.

Over the years, I've seen references to problems with .40 caliber and unsupported chambers. When I Google the topic, all of my hits involve Glock. Is this a problem specific to Glock or have there been incidents with this cartridge in other manufacturer's products?

Glocks are great guns, and they are no more problematic in this regard than a lot of other platforms. The standard 1911 platform has an unsupported chamber for instance, as do a number of other firearms. 1911s can be modified to provide a supported chamber, but then you have to deal with feed-reliability issues because of the feed ramps. The meaning of an unsupported chamber is that the chamber does not fully envelope the cartridge base right at the point where the feed ramp integrates with the chamber. There is a "lip" there where a semi-circular area of the base of the case is not supported and is "hanging out" over empty space above the feed ramp. See image below:

Normally, this is not too much of an issue. However, the .40S&W cartridge is a high-pressure cartridge in its normal state, so it is by definition closer to case failure at the point where there is no support than either the 9mm or .45 ACP cartridges are. All things being equal, this would not normally present a problem. But when you factor in bullet setback during administrative handling and manufacturing variances during commercial ammunition production, or from handloading, the .40 caliber cartridge is more likely to result in a kaboom than the other two.

The reason there are so many reports of Glocks with .40 caliber kabooms is because .40 caliber Glocks outsell any other .40 caliber pistol by a considerable margin. More Glocks = more kaboom reports. .40 Caliber 1911s are fairly rare. Fewer .40 cal 1911s = fewer kaboom reports.

[JSThane]

Beretta PX4 .40
Beretta PX4SC .40
Browning HP .40
Glock 27 .40
S&W M&P .40
S&W M&PC .40
S&W Shield .40
Sig P250SC .40

Love the .40. I got interested in it during the time the then Border Patrol was having great success with it.

Like the Border Patrol then, I carry 155 grain JHPs by Federal, Speer, Remington, or Winchester. They only used the Remington and Federal loads, and there was always plenty available at gun shows for some reason.

I never had any interest in the 180 grain loads. The 155s chrono from +/- 1200 fps in my longer barreled pstols to +/- 1100 in the shorter ones.

Great combination of power and capacity.

I don't reload the .40, so am shooting new cases each shot.

No concerns here, even with my Gen 3 G27.

Minor correction: I believe the Border Patrol has switched to a 180g load. I'm sure there's still some 155g out there, but most of them are carrying 180g now.

[WinoVeritas]

I'm split about 50/50 between 9 & .40 in my pistol covey and both have been reliable. I do shoot the .40 better than the 9's probably because I'm holding on for dear life! While .40 isn't my favorite on the range (they get about 50% less down range than my 9's) it is my preferred CCW / SD/HD caliber. I use 165 or 180 gr. mostly the latter.

[HadEmAll]

Beretta PX4 .40
Beretta PX4SC .40
Browning HP .40
Glock 27 .40
S&W M&P .40
S&W M&PC .40
S&W Shield .40
Sig P250SC .40

Love the .40. I got interested in it during the time the then Border Patrol was having great success with it.

Like the Border Patrol then, I carry 155 grain JHPs by Federal, Speer, Remington, or Winchester. They only used the Remington and Federal loads, and there was always plenty available at gun shows for some reason.

I never had any interest in the 180 grain loads. The 155s chrono from +/- 1200 fps in my longer barreled pstols to +/- 1100 in the shorter ones.

Great combination of power and capacity.

I don't reload the .40, so am shooting new cases each shot.

No concerns here, even with my Gen 3 G27.

Minor correction: I believe the Border Patrol has switched to a 180g load. I'm sure there's still some 155g out there, but most of them are carrying 180g now.

I'm sure you're correct about now, notice I said "during the time".

[G.A. Heath]

One of the reasons that Glock developed the .40S&W Gen 4s first is so that they could address the issues seen in earlier models chambered in .40S&W. To my knowledge the Gen 4 Glocks do not suffer from cracked frames when chambered in .40S&W any more than Gen 3 models chambered in 9mm.

When shooting factory ammunition the unsupported area of the Glock chamber is not an issue. The unsupported area becomes an issue when shooting reloads, or trying to reload brass fired from the Glock Pistol. Comparing the unsupported chamber in a .40S&W Glock to the unsupported Chamber in a .45 1911 is like comparing Oranges to Lemons, and only valid if you are considering that they are both citrus. The .45 ACP is a low pressure cartridge and the .40S&W is a high pressure cartridge. Reloaders usually have no issues with .45 brass fired 1911s, and other .45 ACP handguns while there is a vibrant market for "Bulge buster" and aftermarket barrels for reloaders with .40S&SW firearms. Keep in mind that never fired brass used in factory.40S&W cartridges is almost perfectly safe (nothing is perfectly safe) when fired in all production .40S&W firearms.

[The Annoyed Man]

(picture of two 1911 chambers, one supported, the other not — TAM)

Normally, this is not too much of an issue. However, the .40S&W cartridge is a high-pressure cartridge in its normal state, so it is by definition closer to case failure at the point where there is no support than either the 9mm or .45 ACP cartridges are. All things being equal, this would not normally present a problem. But when you factor in bullet setback during administrative handling and manufacturing variances during commercial ammunition production, or from handloading, the .40 caliber cartridge is more likely to result in a kaboom than the other two.

One of the reasons that Glock developed the .40S&W Gen 4s first is so that they could address the issues seen in earlier models chambered in .40S&W. To my knowledge the Gen 4 Glocks do not suffer from cracked frames when chambered in .40S&W any more than Gen 3 models chambered in 9mm.

When shooting factory ammunition the unsupported area of the Glock chamber is not an issue. The unsupported area becomes an issue when shooting reloads, or trying to reload brass fired from the Glock Pistol. Comparing the unsupported chamber in a .40S&W Glock to the unsupported Chamber in a .45 1911 is like comparing Oranges to Lemons, and only valid if you are considering that they are both citrus. The .45 ACP is a low pressure cartridge and the .40S&W is a high pressure cartridge. Reloaders usually have no issues with .45 brass fired 1911s, and other .45 ACP handguns while there is a vibrant market for "Bulge buster" and aftermarket barrels for reloaders with .40S&SW firearms. Keep in mind that never fired brass used in factory.40S&W cartridges is almost perfectly safe (nothing is perfectly safe) when fired in all production .40S&W firearms.

If you re read what I posted, we are actually on the same page. And the fact that there is an aftermarket for dealing with .40 fired from unsupported barrels tends to support rather than dispel the notion that even factory .40 ammo is closer to the design limits of the cartridge than lower pressure rounds, and while this isn't a reason NOT to own a .40, it IS a reason to keep a closer eye on the condition of your firearm and ammunition than you might otherwise be inclined to.

[Glockster]

I'm split about 50/50 between 9 & .40 in my pistol covey and both have been reliable. I do shoot the .40 better than the 9's probably because I'm holding on for dear life! While .40 isn't my favorite on the range (they get about 50% less down range than my 9's) it is my preferred CCW / SD/HD caliber. I use 165 or 180 gr. mostly the latter.

Yup, my Glock .40 has been my favorite since I had it, and as I've replaced other guns that I didn't like as much, I kept that one.

[Maxwell]

This is one of the reasons I don't care for .40 in small guns like the PPS or Shield. My M&Pc handles it just fine as does the PX4 Storm. Anything smaller or lighter and I'm going 9mm.

[TBJK]

I've seen case bulges in some brass that I've picked up at the range. Couldn't say what weapon they came from but I've seen them. On a side note 1/10" of an inch is a lot, I mean a .100 is wow, I'd like to think I could easily dis earn that between the rounds while loading. At which time I would remove that round to be disassembled.

[Glockster]

For what it's worth, the article called out that they also hadn't done any maintenance on their guns and from the date of purchase sounds like they were Gen2's. I myself have a Gen4 and have put a lot of rounds down range. I do like the .40 SW round and also shoot .45 ACP, but as originally posted that is I think in many ways a matter of preference.