This is a post in another current thread:

quote:

Originally posted by XLT:
I had the Glock 32 in 357 sig and it hurt my hand enough that I sold it ....

That comment reminded me of a similar experience and prompted this train of thought (yeah, yeah: cue the “derailing” jibes ).

A long time ago I had a chance to fire a Glock model 22 chambered for 40 S&W. After a single magazine it hurt my hand so much that was the end of the session with that gun, and never again. By way of comparison I’ve had extensive experience for decades with various models of SIG handguns chambered for 40 S&W and 357 SIG: all the Classic line models, including P239, and full and Carry size P320s. My first SIG was a 40 P229 followed by a 357 P229, and I fired many thousands of rounds with both before acquiring other models.

The two cartridges, 357 and 40, have similar recoil characteristics and for training I therefore tend to shoot 40 more than 357 just because of ammunition availability and cost. But although my hands and wrists are many years older now than when I shot the Glock, shooting my SIGs doesn’t bother me at all. My most recent session was with a Carry using the 40 barrel in a 60 round session just a couple of weeks ago.

The Glock 22 weighs somewhat less than my Carry with its 40 barrel and Wilson Combat grip module. Unloaded, the 22 weighs 645 grams (according to the Internet), whereas my Carry weighs 735 grams. I don’t, however, believe that difference should matter much in how the two guns feel to shoot.

If, therefore, the cartridges are the same and the weights are not that much different, why can I shoot a SIG chambered for 40 S&W with no problem in extended sessions, but couldn’t bear a single magazine with a similar Glock? The obvious answer is that the guns are different and what’s significant is their grip designs. And that leads (finally) to the point of this discussion: Does the design of the Glock grip make shooting the 40 S&W cartridge so unpleasant that it had a significant effect on the popularity of the round?

My personal knowledge of what shooting a Glock with the 357 SIG or 40 S&W is like is limited to my single experience and the report cited above, but are we the only two shooters who found that to be unacceptable? That seems unlikely, especially as both of us are hardly handgun shooting novices.

One of the reasons that’s frequently cited as the reason why the 40 fell out of favor with shooters, especially law enforcement officers, is its supposed very unpleasant recoil. And yet that’s something that has long puzzled me. The 45 ACP has likewise fallen out of the (more limited) favor it enjoyed at one time, but even though it generates more momentum and felt recoil than the 9mm, 357 SIG, or 40 S&W, in the SIG P220 that my agency issued for many years I never heard anyone complain or felt myself that it hurt our hands to shoot.

The point of all this, then, is that it seems probable that because it was popular for a time for LE agencies to issue Glocks (the most popular LE handgun) chambered for 40 S&W, the fact that such guns are unpleasant to shoot ultimately may have led to a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the combination. But of course not all Glocks are unpleasant to shoot, and therefore what would get the blame? Not the gun, but the cartridge—and despite the fact that the cartridge isn’t that bad to shoot in other guns, but most shooters wouldn’t know that. Once LE agencies started dropping the round, that, as so often has happened, led to a trend that spread to other users.

To summarize my contention: The 40 S&W was recognized as being a good self-defense round and was therefore picked up by Glock. Because Glocks were already popular, it was natural that agencies and other users would assume that they would be a good combination and adopted the combination. In time, though, it was found that shooting the round in a Glock was very unpleasant for many people, and because it was easier or perhaps more natural to assume it was the fault of the cartridge, it got the blame and the word spread that the 40 S&W had ferocious recoil making it unsuitable for anyone but posturing masochists. Ergo, that’s why Glock was responsible for killing the cartridge.

In my speculative opinion, of course. I don’t have any supporting evidence for most of that, but if we can speculate that Bigfoot and Nessie’s love child conspired to lure Putin into invading Ukraine for the purpose of making American arms manufacturers rich, why not that?

I am also of course familiar with the arguments in favor of the 9mm Luger cartridge for self-defense purposes: easier to shoot, cheaper, and just as good as anything else. But none of those reasons explain why we don’t all carry pistols chambered for the 380 Auto or even the .32 cartridges the Olympic shooters use (or used to use, anyway). And even if unpleasant-to-shoot Glocks weren’t the only reason for the 40’s fall from favor, perhaps they were part of it—?

If you see this thread in a section of the forum that doesn’t get a lot of attention, please notice its question: Did Glocks kill the 40 S&W cartridge? All opinions welcome about a somewhat less than totally serious question.

I’m also curious about other shooters’ experiences with Glock “fotays.” If you have/had one chambered for the round or the 357 SIG, what did/do you think of it? Is it only wimps like me (and possibly one other) who are too sensitive to handle them?

They don't call them "Block"s for no reason, you know.

I don't have any experience with them in .40S&W, but my P229 in .40 is somewhat easier to shoot than my G-19 9MM. I suspect weight is not the issue, but design.

quote:

Did Glocks kill the 40 S&W cartridge?

It's NOT dead!
I just bought a case...

quote:

My first SIG was a 40 P229 followed by a 357 P229, and I fired many thousands of rounds with both before acquiring other models.

The two cartridges, 357 and 40, have similar recoil characteristics and for training I therefore tend to shoot 40 more than 357 just because of ammunition availability and cost.

I have a Sig P229 with both barrels. I prefer the .357 Sig, but like you I'm finding 40 S&W a lot cheaper these days.

Which raises the question: Is the .357 Sig cartridge dying a slow death?

As for Glocks killing the 40 S&W cartridge??
You make a good argument. But I don't know... I don't like them so I don't shoot them.

Sigfreund, I think it boils down to physics. I have a similar experience with a friend of mine that has a M&P shield in 45acp. I hate that gun. I feel like someone smacks the palm of my hand with a sledge hammer every time I shoot it. Too much bullet and powder for too little gun in my opinion. My P220 in 45 I can shoot no problem. Some guns just aren’t fun to shoot. I can see where folks won’t want to shoot 40 or 357sig from a small frame gun. I don’t.

And too add, maybe we just are wimpy lol..

Shooting full power 357 Magnum ammunition from an S&W 340PD is no fun at all, and I doubt that either 357 SIG or 40 S&W would be much more fun from a P365.

But a “standard” size Glock isn’t what I’d call a small frame gun any more than a P320 with full size or Carry grip modules. I found that shooting 40 S&W ammunition from the former to be painful while using any of my 320s isn’t.

My point is that it’s not the ammunition or even the size and weight of the gun that’s the difference: it’s the design of the pistol. As has been mentioned, the Glock doesn’t have the nickname of being a “Block” for no reason. But I wasn’t going to comment on that myself, so I won’t.

IMHO, the 40S&W came at a time when LE was looking for both capacity and stopping power. Following the 1986 FBI shootout, the failure of the 9mm brought about the creation of the 10mm. Loaded to spec, it proved too much to handle for the average agent for qualifications. Hence the loaded down and shortened 40S&W round which was capable of fitting in a 9mm size frame was created. It was a compromise that fit the niche right between 9mm and 45acp. Capacity and firepower. It wasn’t Glock that killed the 40S&W it was the advancement in 9mm bullet technology, a push to add more women agents/officers to diversify LE agencies, and the poor qualification results of 40S&W and 357Sig rounds. If you talk to any LE firearms instructors that have been through the conversion away from 40S&W and back to 9mm they will most likely tell you about the dramatic difference in the ability to qualify personnel.

It wasn’t the Glock that killed the 40!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

As has been mentioned, the Glock doesn’t have the nickname of being a “Block” for no reason. But I wasn’t going to comment on that myself, so I won’t.

I don't have that many guns, but the greatest number are Glocks. Size, weight, reliability, cost, parts and mags availability on the one hand; on the other hand, I hadn't fired a gun in many years before I took my 19 to the range and was surprised that it was uncomfortable to shoot that first time. I got used to it.

You may be onto something, sigfreund.

My first semi-auto center-fire handgun was a Glock 22. I found it unpleasant to shoot and never could hit the broad side of a barn with it. (And the Lord knows it certainly wasn't for lack of trying.)

Christmas, 2005, my wife gifted me a Sig P239 SAS. I shot that pistol both faster and more accurately than that Glock right out of the gate.

I finally reluctantly traded in that Glock to acquire my first 1911 five years ago. I do not miss that G22 in the least.

In the meantime I'd acquired a Glock G34 to be my "race gun." After my experience with that G22 I had my doubts, but, with a bit of practice I was able to knock pins down nearly every bit as quickly with that G34 as I could with my .22 cal. Ruger MkI.

So it wasn't the Glock ergonomics or trigger, but that G22.

Nor was it strictly the recoil. My first .45 ACP pistol was my Sig P320F. I almost immediately shot that pistol faster and more accurately than anything save my G34. Then came the Rem. 1911 R1 Enhanced in .45 ACP the G34 financed. Even faster and better, yet. That was followed by a Colt Defender in .45 ACP, which I shot nearly as well as the Remington.

I remain convinced the .40 S&W is the ideal self defense handgun cartridge. More snot than 9mm and higher capacity than .45 ACP. If I wasn't pretty much out of the firearms acquisition phase I could see myself looking for something like a Springfield EMP in .40 S&W.

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
Sigfreund, I think it boils down to physics. I have a similar experience with a friend of mine that has a M&P shield in 45acp. I hate that gun. I feel like someone smacks the palm of my hand with a sledge hammer every time I shoot it. Too much bullet and powder for too little gun in my opinion. My P220 in 45 I can shoot no problem. Some guns just aren’t fun to shoot. I can see where folks won’t want to shoot 40 or 357sig from a small frame gun. I don’t.

And too add, maybe we just are wimpy lol..

I carry a .45 Shield and while it has some kick, I don't shoot it a lot at one time so it's manageable. Like the full house .357 from the lightweight 340 PD, it's no fun but handy to have in a pinch. These days I carry my P365 more than anything though.

I think it had more to do with the internet.

45 shooters didn't like the 40 because it wasn't 45.

9mm shooters didn't like it because it recoiled more.

10mm shooters called it 40 Short and Weak, which was catchy.

Police shooters weren't crazy about it because it recoiled harder, was harder to train with, and cost more than 9mm while not really doing anything good 9mm couldn't do.

The only thing all those groups agreed on is that shooting anyone with anything less than 9mm would only annoy them. 380? Only out of a tiny gun that no real internet gunfighter would admit to owning. 32? A joke.

All that reverberated and echoed on the internet for years. Then we had new waves of fairly decent testing that showed what a lot of people had been saying for years. Handguns suck pretty much equally. Carry the one you are comfortable with and can make multiple holes where holes need to be at speed. Folks who liked small fast bullets gravitated towards the 9. Folks who would rather make less but bigger holes gravitated towards the 45. The 40 just got left out.

It's not dead and won't be any time soon. Even with PDs and feds moving away from it there are untold thousands of .40 caliber pistols out there. I daresay it will outlast the mighty 357 magnum. It's certainly easier to find ammo for.

Now 357 Sig? That's a dying cartridge. It's a shame too because it's a damned fine one.

I don't know that they killed it, but they definitely aren't the best platform to shoot .40 out of.

I can't say that a Glock has ever "hurt" me, but the recoil out of my brother's G23 is noticeably harsher than my P229 and harder to control. My first Baby Glock experience was with a G27, and it almost made me swear off the platform it was that bad. I ended up with a G26, though, which was night and day better...almost like an entirely different gun when shooting 9mm, although they're essentially the same design.

The Glock 22 also had some serious reliability issues when you strap a weapon light to the rail. Something about frame flex under recoil and the light's clamp changing the characteristics enough to cause it to malfunction. I'd read about it on the internet, and actually witnessed it in person this past year when I was qualifying a guy from another agency. His gun wouldn't get through a mag without a stoppage, and I told him to try taking the light off. It was flawless for the rest of the day.

From my experience with the 22, 23, and 27, I can definitely see how Glock shooters would not have a good opinion of the cartridge.

I would argue from the other end of the stick. Glock’s prolific sales to law enforcement and the commonality of the 22/23/27 platform are the only thing that kept the .40S&W alive as long as it has been.

To my hand, barrel length plays into the actual shooting enjoyment of the caliber more so than brand. 226 in .40 is hot garbage, but the 229 is fine. Similarly, I share your dissatisfaction with the G22, but shoot a G23 quite well.

I can find no rational explanation of why this should be the case, but the target doesn’t have an agenda.

And to ward off the suggestion of bias, a used gen2 G22 was my first semi-auto handgun. I shot that one a lot - back when 9mm was $10/box and .40 was $13. When it was all I had, it didn’t seem that bad.

Since then, I’ve been back to the well more than I care to admit, but .40 just isn’t for me. Only took 30 years to figure it out.

I have no conclusions, but I do have some experience.

In the early 2000's, I was fully convinced of the "carry a handgun in a caliber that starts with .4" stuff, and my first handguns were a P220 and P229's. Around 2012 or so, I traded one of those P229's for a Glock 22 RTF2. I don't know how many rounds I had put through those P229's, but it was enough to where that first range trip with that G22 was a bit of a shock. It was incredibly uncomfortable to shoot. I had only made the trade in the first place because I got to shoot a Glock for the first time, and shot it very well. It was a G20, and it was less uncomfortable to shoot than the G22 was.

Shortly after that first range trip, I did some serious thinking about my need for a handgun caliber starting with .4, and decided that since I actually shot a Glock and did better with it than I did my SIGs, that further scientific testing was required. I went to a rental range with all my various SIGs and Glock, and rented every polymer 9mm they had, including a G17, G19, and G26. I shot those three far better then everything else, including my worked-over P229.

I didn't have that G22 for very long after that. It turned into a G19, and over the next few years, I sold or traded away every SIG, and for a long time, I had no guns in .40. A number of gun and ammo panics happened over the years where 9mm vaporized and got expensive while .40 lingered on store shelves. Then my father passed away, leaving me a sizable chunk of ammo in .40, most of it Remington's Border Patrol contract duty round. Seeing the potential value to me in having a gun that would shoot all that stuff, I traded a Gen 2 G19 to a friend for his Gen 3 G22. I shot it for the first time last Friday, with that duty ammo. It was every bit as unpleasant as I remember. That Remington load was designed around the Beretta 96D, and out of the G22, it is... stout. I mentioned having second thoughts about my logic to a friend and he reminded me of the dozens of Gen 3 G22 police-trade pistols he's linked me to over the last couple years, the more recent of them being listed for sale in the low $200 range. Those guns didn't exactly sell quickly, either. He's right, I've come at long-last to the endpoint in a long series of trades that led to this gun. Maybe I'll find a G34 slide that's milled for a red dot or something.

The G22 is very uncomfortable to shoot. I don't like it, I don't see myself shooting it much, or carrying it, and if I again run into an ammo situation so dire that I can't buy 9mm, I'll at least have this. I wonder at the wisdom of that plan.

I personally like the 40sw but don't know that ballistcally that its that much better then a 9mm... besides that nato is 9mm still so ammo for the 9mm is just more available.. IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

...The G22 is very uncomfortable to shoot...

I was thinking of picking one up. How does it compare to a G23?

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
I was thinking of picking one up. How does it compare to a G23?

Couldn't tell you, I've never shot one. I read someone earlier in the thread who said it was more comfortable to shoot and that raised my eyebrows. I just can't see how it would be the case, personally. If I had to guess, it's the same recoil as a G22, but with more muzzle flip because of the shorter slide and barrel.

One would think so. I haven't shot my G-47MOS yet and it isn't likely in the near future, even though I got it with a 10-rd magazine. The Illinois law against mags over 15-rds is still being challenged and nobody I know is risking a range trip with their 17's or 47's. Guess I'll put off getting a G-22 for the immediate future. I wanted it for the 15-rd capacity.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

...Similarly, I share your dissatisfaction with the G22, but shoot a G23 quite well.

I can find no rational explanation of why this should be the case, but the target doesn’t have an agenda.

In your case, do you find the G23 easier to shoot than the G22?

I shot a gen3 g23 once upon a time and didn't care for it at all. Harsh.

Allegedly the dual coil spring on gen 4 and 5 helps some.

That said I have a gen 4 g20 and find it perfectly comfortable to shoot, even with full power SD rounds. Larger frame and dual coil spring make a difference.

quote:

In your case, do you find the G23 easier to shoot than the G22?

Yes I do. As I mentioned, I find it easier on the compacts than the full sized or sub-compact guns. It’s an odd take, I know, and there doesn’t seem to be a rational reason why. It also seems to hold true for me across brands.

I’ve not fired a gen 4 or 5 G22, so perhaps the dual sprung RSA addresses this, but the Sigs don’t have those, and the 229 is - in my opinion - many leagues ahead of a 226 in .40 caliber.