Originally posted by kkina:
Originally posted by Expert308:
Originally posted by Brianm14:
The only shame right now is that our military did not decide to go for .40 or .45; when mandatory use of FMJ is concerned, a heaver, larger diameter bullet has the decided advantage. There, .40 might just have been a nice compromise. We have had ample opportunity to try this out in field operations -but there I go, opening another can of worms.)
A nice compromise between what and what? Between bullet diameter and recoil? Every .40 I've ever shot has had nastier recoil than any .45 I've ever shot. 1911 in .45 FTW!
I think of .40 as a clumsy
compromise between 9mm and .45ACP. 9mm is snappy; .45 is shovey. .40S&W is a snappy shove. The sharpness makes it harder to control, while the push makes it, well, harder to control. The cartridge completely does what it was designed to do, so in the engineering sense is a success. But rather than combine the advantages of the other rounds, I'd say it more combines the disadvantages.
I have no trouble controlling .40 from a Glock 19, but I don't enjoy it much. I'd rather shoot 9mm, or go the complete other end of the spectrum and shoot .45. Snap or shove yes, but snappy shove, not for me.