Thanks. I agree it's weird. The only comparable situation for me was comparing a Colt 1911 (Mk 4 Series 70) to a steel Commander, then a lightweight-framed Kimber Pro Carry (4"), and they performed as one would expect - couldn't control the shorties nearly as well as the full-sized.

I guess I could use G-22 mags in the G-23 if I need two extra rounds.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
I would argue from the other end of the stick.

Thanks for all that. It definitely gave me something new to think about.

After pondering the matter, though, I disagree that we can give Glock credit for the 40 S&W cartridge’s becoming popular or kept it going.

According to my (refreshed) memory, you are correct about Glock’s influence on the cartridge’s adoption by law enforcement as they were evidently the first to make pistols widely available in the chambering. But what if Glock hadn’t done that or had never existed? In the latter case the adoption of autoloading handguns by American law enforcement and then the general public would have probably been much slower. Not only was the gun an excellent weapon, the company’s brilliant marketing practices helped immeasurably. But there would have been no reason for Glock to produce and make widely available a gun for a new cartridge if there hadn’t been independent reasons for shooters to adopt the cartridge.

As has so often happened, the FBI’s adoption of the 40 S&W undoubtedly caught the attention of LE agencies, and then of the general public. The shooting magazines of the day focused much of their attention on the round as well. I even recall a comment by one author that St. Jeff [Cooper] himself opined that a cartridge with one centimeter bullet about 1000 feet per second would be an ideal defensive round.

And it’s important to remember that the 40 didn’t just throw a bullet that was heavier and larger in caliber than the 9mm Luger, it did so from a case that fit in pistols having 9mm sized frames. During the FBI’s brief experience with 10mm ammunition in the Smith and Wesson model 1076—both full power and down-loaded versions—not only did they experience terrible reliability issues with the pistol, but its size and weight made it difficult to conceal and, most important, difficult for some agents to qualify with.

With the development of the 40 S&W cartridge that mimicked the ballistics of the 10mm FBI load, the pistol grip could be made smaller while increasing magazine capacity.

So, how did Glock fit into all that? To reiterate, although S&W was involved with the development of the 40 cartridge, Glock was the first to make pistols chambered for the round widely available. That alone would have given them a market advantage, but also the advantage to agencies that were already issuing Glocks in 9mm. But those advantages would have mattered only if users wanted something to replace the 9mm.
If simply developing a new round that was improved in some ways over an older one that enjoyed long popularity and then putting it into a gun with the Glock name on it had been enough to ensure its success, we’d all be talking about how wonderful the 45 G.A.P. was.

I was an early adopter of the cartridge, and acquired my first pistol chambered for the round, the S&W model 4006, less than a year after the round was introduced in January 1990. That was in November of the year and was early enough that I even checked to determine whether 10mm cartridge cases could be modified when handloading for the 40.

But the cartridge continued to grow in popularity, and I don’t believe it was only because of Glock’s efforts. They certainly didn’t hurt, but when the FBI didn’t adopt the Glock until 1997, seven years after the cartridge’s introduction, they must have recognized its merits, but weren’t stampeded by an initial wave of enthusiasm either. They already had years of experience with the 9mm and other cartridges so even if they’d just decided to switch platforms, it would have made just as much—if not more—sense to bypass the 40 all together and simply settle on the 9 with its better bullets that had been developed in the 10+ years since the infamous 1986 incident.

One of the most commonly-cited reasons for preferring the 9mm over the 40 is that the 9 is “just as good.” Well, then I must ask, how did something like an LE agency know that? With no significant prior experience with the 9, that would be like my saying that Subaru’s brand new 2025 electric offering is just as good as the conventional model I’ve owned since 1999. When the Colorado State Patrol dropped the 40, that was long after the 9 had been adopted and therefore its decision makers may have thought there was enough information about the latter’s performance to justify the switch, but how true was that in 1990?

So, why has the 40 fallen out of favor with all the individuals and agencies that embraced it so enthusiastically before? We already know the reasons cited for why the 9mm is preferable in some ways, but law enforcement agencies in particular tend to be conservative and avoid doing things like changing ammunition. And so that brings me back to my original point: What if Glock had never existed, and shooting the 40 S&W cartridge hadn’t become so identified with being so unpleasant?

Anyway, thanks for the comments that gave me something to think about and as a consequence clarify and firm up my own views about the matter. Even though much of it may be speculation and of course doesn’t matter at all at this time, I can only wonder if anyone else has given it the same thought.
And one thing I know for certain is that shooting the Glock 22 hurt my hand.

Edited: Just reread this post and realized I used a wrong word at one point: A one centimeter bullet, not cartridge.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

quote:

Anyway, thanks for the comments that gave me something to think about and as a consequence clarify and firm up my own views about the matter. Even though much of it may be speculation and of course doesn’t matter at all at this time, I can only wonder if anyone else has given it the same thought.
And one thing I know for certain is that shooting the Glock 22 hurt my hand.

I yield to your depth of investigation and personal experience. I think your theory is solid, and after reading it, I agree that Glock did not start or self-sustain the movement toward the .40

However, I think their depth of commonality in service must mean that they did not "kill" the .40S&W round. (I actually think the improvement of available quality ammo in the +p variety in 9mm, and the improvements in modern ballistics testing, are largely responsible for the demise.)

But, I also concur wholeheartedly with your perceptions of shooting the G22. With anything even approaching warm ammo, they kick like a mule!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

...I even recall a comment by one author that St. Jeff [Cooper] himself opined that a cartridge with one centimeter cartridge about 1000 feet per second would be an ideal defensive round...

Now that you mention that, I remember the same thing, from back in the late 1970's or early 1980's, I believe.

I was and still am a great Jeff Cooper fan. Even picked up one of his pamphlets from a SigForum member a couple weeks ago, and bought three of his books from Gunsite Academy, they had them on sale for $1.00 each, if anybody else is interested.

Do you recall your source for his opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Do you recall your source for his opinion?

Unfortunately, no.
At the time the only more or less independent sources of information I had about guns, shooting, etc., were the magazines like Guns and Ammo, and I regularly read a variety.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Do you recall your source for his opinion?

Unfortunately, no.
At the time the only more or less independent sources of information I had about guns, shooting, etc., were the magazines like Guns and Ammo, and I regularly read a variety.

I seem to remember reading that also, perhaps 20-25 years ago. I did a search, and found this article referencing one book in the first sentence that may give folks a lead on it..

https://www.marksmanshipmatter...oper-on-40-handguns/

Thanks for that link. I skimmed it, will read it fully later, but many of the details came back to me in my brief review.

Thanks for the link. As short as the article was, I learned many things about the history of .40 caliber cartridges.

If I ever come across those Underwood loads with the 200gr. at 1000 fps that the Colonel preferred (as referenced in the article) I may have to try them.

I just tripped onto this thread. My agency has us carry Glock 22s because our Federal counterparts carry that firearm. That being said, we qualify a few times a year. Yes, the round is snappy in a Glock. With training and consistent range time, I score 240+/250 in qualifications.

It just takes time with the pistol and ammo to develop a good feel. It wouldn't/isn't my first choice to carry. The G23 is definitely easier to shoot, despite a few ounces lighter.

My P2000sk in 40 S&W is noticeably easier to shoot than my friend's Glock 27.

The grip angle of the Glock could be part of the equation as well. Also the report of kabooms.

FWIW I used to own a .40 S&W P226, I should never have sold. It shot surprisingly well.

All my reading on this topic tends to make me conclude that getting more bullets on target, rapidly, is what put the crown on the 9mm's head. It's about as low on the power scale as one can go and still reliably drop someone. Studies have "proven" that there is no blood and guts difference between 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, although I'm not absolutely sure I believe them.
And even that wasn't enough. Practically every new 9mm pistol these days is comped, in one way, or another. Some of the YouTube whizzes barely have the muzzle rise, and do accurate mag dumps in just a few seconds. Try that with a .40 or plus cartridge.

I don't think Glocks "killed" the .40. Its sharp, "snap" recoil affecting ability to make fast follow-up shots, along with improvements in 9mm Luger bullets, have caused it to gradually fall out of favor. You can see this in sporting goods shops, with shelves practically sagging under the weight of 9mm and just a few boxes of .40. I didn't like the .40 in the G27 (with its short grip aggravating the situation) I had circa 2006 precisely because of its recoil properties, nor in a full-sized gun (can't remember it for certain but think it was a Springfield XD) I tried as a rental.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: egregore,

I agree with bionic 218. Glock was the first to market with a 40, and at one point the glock 22 was the most popular police handgun in the country. These caliber debates are really a pendulum. One of the first agencies to adopt the glock 17 9mm was the NY state police, and after a couple of failure to stop incidents with 9mm the police union was insistent they needed a 45, and briefly adopted the 45 gap. They like everyone else it seems have gone back to 9mm.
I fully recognize there are simply far too many variables in armed confrontations to draw solid conclusions of any meaningful sort regarding the effectiveness of calibers. I can fairly predict it will take only a few high profile failures to stop with 9mm ( which will invariably not be the fault of the caliber but the result of the countless variables ) to see agencies scrambling to 40 357 sig or the next greatest wonder caliber

I have 3 P239s, 2 in .40 and 1 in 9mm. Houge grips on both calibers and I find the .40 smoother then then 9mm.

I know that I am in the minority here, but I am a true fan of the .40 cartridge. I get that there are cost and capacity benefits to the 9mm, but it irks me to hear people pretend like there is no difference ballistically. There is. There are also real world results that show an increase in effectiveness in police departments and civilian use of force incidents.

The PD I work for recently underwent trials for both duty pistols and ammunition. The final choice was going to be the S&W M&P metal frame in .40. The .40 out performed the 9mm in our tests, and the recoil difference was imperceivable for shooters that weren't tainted by the opinions of YouTubers. However, the decision was switched when representatives from ammunition manufacturers/distributors told the administration that .40 would be much harder to come by due to its dwindling popularity. The decision was made based on availability to switch to the 9mm version of the same pistol.

I truly believe that my PD would stick to our guns (pun intended), the Sig P226 in .40 if Sig didn't get in over their heads with the military contracts and polymer-striker hysteria. Don't get me wrong, I own dozens of polymer pistols, but I am a firm believer in the reliability and performance of the P226 and P229.

What did they decide on duty ammo in .40?

In .40 we went with the Federal HST 180gr.

I believe the final decision on the 9mm was a 124+p Gold Dot.

I'm stocking up on HST in 9mm based on availability of this respected round. Guess when I go back to stocking up .40 I'll HST as well, though I prefer the 165gr.

Thanks for your response.