Why so may fireams in .40

[HarleyDave]

Just curious, I find a lot of folks on this board with 40 caliber's, just curious what is the attraction. Shot it personally and would rather shoot a .45 so just curious what the thought process is for some of the .40 folks
Maybe ignorance on my part just trying to find out, never know may go out and purchase one for the right reason? Of course, I guess you don't really need a reason for a new firearm, now do ya
Thanks for any and all input.

[OldCannon]

A few thoughts from my perspective:
1) Defensive ballistics are very good
2) Smaller round (than 45) means I can carry more rounds in same space
3) Flexible bullet weights/loads are great for competitive shooting (i.e., hitting "Major" power floor)

That being said: Carry what makes you comfortable!

[G.A. Heath]

For me the .40 is a compromise cartridge. You compromise some size from the .45 for more capacity than the .45 while still performing better than a 9mm although with less capacity than said 9mm. I own two handguns chambered for the .40S&W and have carried both, although my .45s see much more carry time than the .40S&W guns.

[CC Italian]

Well all that was said plus many of the .40 S&W guns are built on 9mm like frames, meaning that you can get your hand around the gun grip in a double stack. Many of the double stack .45 acp grips are just way to big for even the average man. You need to have very large paws to hold some of these double stack .45acp guns. I think that is one of the main reasons the 1911 still sells like crazy, the single stack. Once you factor in that most single stack .45acp guns hold no more then 10 rounds many just buy a double stack .40 that holds 15-20 rounds and almost puts down as much power as the .45acp. This has been the trend in law enforcement since the 90s. More and more agencies are going to the .40.

Also, I don't think it is really a compromise .40 or .45. 9mm maybe but with modern hollow point ammo a 9mm is more then adequate to stop a threat against a human if you place your shots correctly. Some people don't like the recoil of the 9mm or .40 and love the .45acp. That is because the .45acp is a lower pressure cartridge and to me is easier to shoot then 9mm. I really don't like the 9mm recoil. It is not as forceful as the .40 but I just never seem to shoot a 9mm as good as a .40 or .45acp.

Increased velocity seems to be the trend within the last century. Most of the handgun cartridges like .357, .40, .357 sig and 10mm auto have much higher pressures then the .45acp or .38 special.

[yerasimos]

Like CC Italian alluded to, many police departments issue or mandate the use of handguns chambered in .40 S&W. Some folks, for whatever reason, like to use the same guns or ammunition as the police. And as others posted earlier, there may be perceived advantages in competitive shooting, or they want to split the difference between the two traditional choices (9mm and .45 ACP).

I would not choose to carry a weapon in .40 S&W unless it was engineered specifically for that cartridge and not simply a bored-out 9mm, and I was satisfied with the weapon's manual of arms and other handling characteristics.

9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP are all capable of decent penetration in ballistic gelatin (which is simply a standardized test medium), but by default I prefer heavier and wider bullets over smaller and lighter ones for whatever slight terminal ballistic edge the former may offer.

[CC Italian]

Also, put a 9mm, .40 S&W and .45acp side by side. There is definitely a feeling that the 9mm just looks so pathetic. Of course its not but when you put .40 next to a .45acp nobody really says that is a small bullet or cartridge. Even though I knew the 9mm was more then adequate for self defense I couldn't get over how tiny it looks. That is probably why I just bought my first 9mm and why many still prefer the .45acp, it’s just bigger!

[A-R]

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:

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?

[HarleyDave]

Thanks to all. this is been some great input and learning for me and I'm sure other readers. I own more 9's, 1 45 and 1 380 but looking for one more caliber to use, so again appreicate all information plus any other thoughts to come.

[dicion]

As said above, it meets the 'Caliber starting with 4' requirement, as well as allowing you to carry more rounds than .45



9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP

Personally, I still prefer .45ACP any day though

[gigag04]

I'm probably in the minority but I hate the .40. It's so snappy that it annoys me. When we were issued G22s, fast, surgical strings of fire were possible but troublesome. As soon as we got our 21sf guns (.45acp) in and qual'ed, almost everyone shot better (...except those that already maxed out even on the .40s ;)....)

I don't buy the grip size argument because of what I've seen. A girl on my team is barely 5-00 100lbs. She has tiny hands and shoots the bulky G21sf better than the G22. And likes shooting it better too. Smaller grip size in theory would be better, but the gains are ofset by firing the snappy cartridge.

[HarleyDave]

gigago4. Do you think on the qualifying; was it the grip size on the 21sf or the .45 caliber that made a difference?
Do you think your feeling towards the .40 is mirrored by others within the dept and other department's or agencies due to it being .40?

[CC Italian]

I own a Glock 20 SF which is the same frame as the 21SF just in 10mm and it is a lot easier to hold then a non SF model. The standard non SF Glock 20 and 21 are the models that austinrealtor and I were talking about. They are pretty hard to hold if you do not have large hands. The SF is almost as easy to hold as a standard Glock like the 17 or 19. As for shooting a 21 it is a .45acp and is easier to control IMO then a Glock 22 which my father owns.

[OldCannon]

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?

I can't speak for IDPA, but USPSA shooters (in Limited Major) will opt for .40 often with low PF ratings (.40 is min caliber). Shooters in Open will opt for .40 unless they're really avante garde and show off shooting .38Super on their tuned 2011 STI rigs (.38/9mm is min caliber). Since there's no Major designation for production, you can go to 9mm/38 if you want. My point is that I can shoot .40 in all 3 with no disadvantage, and can tweak my loads/bullet weights to suit the power floor (and there's lots of combinations you can use for .40 - I like using titegroup powder because I can run some amazingly light poweder quantities and still get good velocity, but hte downside is that you could also wind up with a double-charge in your casing and take risk of a nasty KB)

P.S. -- I suffered a very major injury to my right wrist in the military and fractured my joint in about 13 pieces (one of the contributions to my military disability pay, but I have other broken up parts too), so _every_ time I shoot, I suffer pain. I've long since learned to work through that pain, but the key point for me is that I would _never_ carry 9mm as a defensive round. I just can't do it. I know people say it will work, but I want that extra 50gr of weight and 200fps of velocity that I can get from my defensive .40 rounds. Just for my own piece of mind. Some people insist on the 2x more than 9mm weight of .45 for their own piece of mind. You gotta stick with what you have faith in

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm probably in the minority but I hate the .40. It's so snappy that it annoys me. When we were issued G22s, fast, surgical strings of fire were possible but troublesome. As soon as we got our 21sf guns (.45acp) in and qual'ed, almost everyone shot better (...except those that already maxed out even on the .40s ;)....)

I don't buy the grip size argument because of what I've seen. A girl on my team is barely 5-00 100lbs. She has tiny hands and shoots the bulky G21sf better than the G22. And likes shooting it better too. Smaller grip size in theory would be better, but the gains are ofset by firing the snappy cartridge.

I don't think you're in the minority. I don't like the cartridge either, and I'm worth any 10 men.

Seriously though, I had a USP Compact .40, and it was a good pistol, but I hated the cartridge. I owned that gun for almost 2 years, and I didn't begin to settle down and shoot it reasonably well until just before I sold it. I'm not recoil sensitive. I enjoy shooting my .44 magnum revolver, which has olympian recoil by any rational measure. It was the character of the .40 cal recoil that put me off, which is real snappy recoil. I shoot my wife's G19 very well, and it has snappy recoil too; but the recoil from a snappy 120 grain 9mm load is not nearly as disconcerting as the recoil from a snappy 180 grain .40 cal load.

I understand the value of capacity and I don't mind having it, but a lot of small caliber shooters claim that shot placement is more important than hitting power. But if that is true, then why is 15 rounds of a smaller caliber better than 9 of a larger caliber in a world where the number of shots exchanged by both parties in the vast majority of gunfights is less than one 8 round magazine? That is why I don't particularly feel under-armed with a single stack .45. In fact, that is why I don't feel particularly under-armed with a 5 shot .357 snubbie (which lends a whole new meaning to "snappy").

[HarleyDave]

Great discussions and I'm learning a lot, so thanks to all for posting and still need more input to increase knowledge which increases wisdom