SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Ammunition    Why has .40 cal fallen out of favor?
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: LDD, parabellum
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Why has .40 cal fallen out of favor? Login/Join 
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
Advances in defensive rounds in general have improved, and almost everyone would likely be hard pressed to tell you which of the big 3 caused a particular wound channel.

Factor in cost, controllability, capacity, and smaller defensive pistols and you at least know why the 9mm is pulling ahead again.

I agree that the .40 isn’t going the way of the dinosaurs yet, not by a long shot. In large framed duty pistols, it is still a pussycat. My 226 .40is a dream to shoot.




NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
 
Posts: 9074 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Expert308:
quote:
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! Cool

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.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,
 
Posts: 11085 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The .40 round was basically a face saver for the FBI. They wanted a 10MM but their personnel could not handle the recoil of the 1076 nor the size of it. They tried to remedy the recoil by requesting a down loaded 10MM round, the FBI load. It was quickly realized that the down loaded 10MM could be done in a shorter case. This allowed a 10MM, though downloaded, in a shorter case which could be fired from a 9MM sized gun. While changing the name from 10MM to .40 the FBI could still keep a similar round to their anemic 10MM loading AND put it into a smaller sized gun.

The main problem with the .40, for me, is that it has a "twist" to its recoil that does not allow me to keep on target with follow up shots like a 9MM or .45.

Basically it was the answer to a question that was never asked.

Simply my opinion.
 
Posts: 81 | Registered: January 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Originally posted by Expert308:
quote:
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! Cool

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.


You mean a Glock 23, right?
 
Posts: 2612 | Registered: January 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 357fuzz:
You mean a Glock 23, right?

Now I don't remember. It may have been. Was a rental. I'm not a Glock guy.
 
Posts: 11085 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I think the 40 is a top notch round , the good 180 stuff will take the wind out of a 280 pd gang banger better than the 9.
 
Posts: 777 | Registered: July 10, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Ammunition    Why has .40 cal fallen out of favor?

© SIGforum 2018