quote:

Originally posted by MWC:
It is the answer to a question that was never asked. It is the solution to a problem that never existed. It is a compromise between two calibers that already perform well and the downloading of a third caliber to make it controllable for the tender-handed weenies. It is marketing hyperbole at its grandest.

Couldn't it be argued that it combines the best aspects of the .45 and 9mm? Namely, it has nearly as much punch as the .45, and has nearly the capacity of the 9mm in most guns. Really, the only knock against it I can come up with personally is the snappiness of the recoil. Obviously some feel stronger about the argument than I do.

quote:

Originally posted by CurlyShuffle:
I've never owned a .40 or a 9mm. Damn, I must be old and set in my ways.

You need one of each . You won't regret it!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:
Really, the only knock against it I can come up with personally is the snappiness of the recoil.

I think it depends on the handgun. In my Sig P229R .40 I have nominal recoil and have accurate follow-up shots. I also have a G27 and .40 in it has snappiness to it.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
It's bo-ring.

Stand in front of one while it's moving. It'll knock you on yo' azz.

I think the .40 S&W is a good caliber but when it came out I already had 9's and 45's along with ammo and reloading equipment. I tried out the caliber at the range with a rented SIG and found no advantage in getting a .40 and having to get set up for a new cartridge that split the difference between what I already had so I have yet to buy one.

If I was new to the shooting game then it certainly would be a viable option.

quote:

Originally posted by Support4Firearms:

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
It's bo-ring.

Stand in front of one while it's moving. It'll knock you on yo' azz.

LMFAO

I have .40 & 9mm Sigs and SA. Also a 9mm Bersa Thunder Pro HC...I think any of these will do the job at sometimes much less the cost of .45. If .45 ammo were cheaper, I'd have one by now.

I agree with the folks who say it is where you put the shot that matters. There is not a caliber that hasn't killed, nor a caliber that hasn't taken several pops to kill or stop. I see a lot of chest thumping about the .45 being a man stopper....except for the feller who took six and kept coming til he got one in the head.

It's about what you enjoy shooting, what you are most comfortable shooting, what you most afford to shoot enough of to become proficient.

Give me an unlimited budget and appropriate weapons and I can become proficient with whatever you choose for me.

Once I shoot a .45 that may well become my favorite...we'll see one day. I have no real desire to try the 10mm, but I really want to try the .357 Sig. At this point in trying to find ammo, I am thinking I need at least one of each caliber so that I can throw something downrange on any given day.

I'm seeing a lot of empty shelves again, just when I thought the ammo shortage was easing up.

But I digress, another reason I have not ventured into .45 is because back in the day I was maturing as a shooter, most folks from the military were coming home from Vietnam talking about how they hated their unreliable, inaccurate 1911's....tales of throwing them at the VC cause that was all they were good for. In hindsight, I realize they also were not properly loved and cleaned as they should have been...but the rep stuck in my mind...

I am happy with my 9mm and .45. I saw no need to compromise between these rounds.

I like my .40. It has a nice selection of different bullet weights, and like many have said it has close to .45 performance and close to 9mm capacity. Oh and I can actually find it on Walmart's shelves. The other thing I like about it is that once I save up enough money I can get a 357sig barrel(no additional springs or mags needed) and shoot a whole different caliber.
.40 for when there isn't much between me and human tissue.
357 for when some steel gets in between us.

Perfect combination of calibers for those of us who haven't gotten enough money together to buy all the different guns we want

I have a 229.40 and also a P6 9mm along with a Beretta 92f 9mm and a S&W 5903 9mm I like the .40 and shoot it just as good if not a little better than my 92 which I qualified with and as has been mentioned prior the .40 ammo now is mucho bucks cheaper than the 9mm. I do however rotate carry my P6 and my 229. I love my 229.

I have 9's and 45's 38's and 357's and still bought a S&W Sigma .40 and a Sig 226 .40/357Sig. I like the .40 and shoot it a lot I carry 357Sig mostly but would trust the .40 more than 9mm however as stated before #1 is placement.

If I want to go big, I go 45. If I want rounds, I go 9MM. Besides, I feel fine with the modern 9MM JHP loads that 40 just isn't for me. Less accurate, snappier recoil... I just don't get it...

Not saying it isn't a valid choice, it just isn't mine...

I really like the 40 S&W for it's potential in rap lyrics. I mean there is so much more that rhymes with "Forty Smith and Wesson" than "Nine Millimeter" or "45 Automatic Cartridge Pistol". If it wasn't created I'd have to beat box dope @ss lyrics about the 38 Super. How weak is that? Sure you can throw down "nine" or just "forty five" but that will get you little credibility at the mall in my suburbs. Besides "forty" still sound cooler. The simple fact is that you sip "forty's" and cap "forty's" at fools...."you feel me".


Ok, this post has little value...

With the subject it sounded kinda ghetto to me and I'm a f$cking smart-@ss. People get way too bent out of shape about inSIGnificant details around here anyway. Have a good weekend people.

I bought my first 40 last year when I realized that I have picked up hundreds of pounds of 40 brass over the years. I now have several 40s. I like it. Almost as powerful as the 45, more rounds. The 9mm is for pocket pistols.

quote:

Originally posted by MWC:
It is the answer to a question that was never asked. It is the solution to a problem that never existed. It is a compromise between two calibers that already perform well and the downloading of a third caliber to make it controllable for the tender-handed weenies. It is marketing hyperbole at its grandest.

I thought the 40 can trace its roots back to the 1986 Miami FBI shootout, and the subsequent overreaction (IMO) that lead to the 10mm adoption. Then the subsequent pull-back with the "FBI" 10mm loads, and S&W saw the opportunity to duplicate the 10mm lite performance in a smaller package. I suppose that's what you mean by "downloading for tender-handed weenies," but the length of the 10mm was also a problem with female agents. The 10mm cartridge makes for a large grip for agents with smaller hands. The 40 solved this by putting the same performance into a 9mm length cartridge.

A similar charge could be levied against the .357SIG. What does it offer that the 38Super+P does not? Modern 38Supers can achieve velocities into the 1400's with 124grn bullets. You'd also have larger mag capacities than with the 357Sig. Reliability is good with modern rimless 38Super brass. So why not say the .357Sig is unnecessary? Because it produces similar external ballistics in a smaller grip size, just the same way the 40 did for the FBI 10mm load. (There's the argument for the .357Sig bottle-nose configuration increasing feeding reliability, but this argument indicts all straight walled pistol cases, including 9 & 45, so I will disregard it in this 38Super/.357Sig comparison.)

Like it or hate it, it seems the 40 was created to address a valid problem the FBI was having in the early 90's, not just as a solution to a problem that didn't exist. That would be the 45GAP.

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:
Link

In reading the above post, I couldn't help but notice the number of responders who have no use for or love of the .40 S&W. Why? Granted, it's not the ideal range load, but it's a great SD round IMHO. Maybe it doesn't have the power of the .45, but it's got a lot of juice and generally comes in fairly high capacity guns.

I'm not interested in hearing why the 9mm or .45 ACP or .357 SIG are superior. I just want to know what's wrong with the fo-tay.

I think you already answered your question. It is a great SD round and the LE round of choice (no facts ~ just an observation). I would say it is not that there is no love for it ~ just that 9mm is a top choice because of ammo prices and 45acp is a well entrenched round because of 1911's and a host of other reasons. If thinning the herd then I can see 40sw not making cut in many cases. I still like it and shoot it along with 9mm, 45acp, 357sig. However, I would boot 40sw before 9mm or 45acp if it ever came to that ~ in a heartbeat. .02

Or, more likely, a combination of the good characteristics of the two calibers while minimizing the weaknesses that those calibers have.

quote:

Originally posted by MWC:
It is the answer to a question that was never asked. It is the solution to a problem that never existed. It is a compromise between two calibers that already perform well and the downloading of a third caliber to make it controllable for the tender-handed weenies. It is marketing hyperbole at its grandest.

I have a 9 and a 40. I shoot the same scores with both, and when shooting don't notice the difference in recoil unless I am concentrating on that. I don't have a .45, but that is next on my list, unless I get a CMP Garand first.

I own .22s, .380ACPs, 9mms, .357mags, .38specials and .40S&Ws. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Bigger and faster is usually used in SD and costs more. As you go smaller you swap size and weight for stopping power. My .22 pistols would never be used for self defense unless there was no other choice. I use them for low cost fun. I personally don't carry my 9mm (Taurus 92) for SD only because I have smaller pistols (Kahr K40 and G23) with more comfortable conceal carry holsters. My 229 is usually on my hip when I OC. This is an endless debate with as many good answers as personal opinions. To me, cost and availability of ammo would be a big deciding factor on which caliber to use. I have a lot of components to reload .40, so I can train with .40 and carry a .40. I love guns, and the differences between the many, many variations just make them more interesting. If they were all the same, I would only have two, one to use and one spare.

I have never shot a .40 pistol that I enjoyed. Beretta, Glock, Sig, H&K - none of 'em. Maybe it has good ballistics, maybe its a good SD round etc..., but I just don't like the way it shoots. Makes the gun all flippy on recoil. The gentle straight back nudge of a .45 or the small straight up rise of a 9mm are much more my cup of tea.

Smokey, I'd agree with you.
any polymer frame can be " snappy "

but an all steel gun like the Browning High Power I just bought is the right platform.
steel frame over aluminum or polymer is better for me.

not that aluminum doesn't work, but steel tames it more.