quote:

Originally posted by CAR:
I think there will be a resurgence of this caliber at some point

Although I avoid making predictions, I wouldn’t be the least surprised.

All it would take would be something like the 1986 Miami gunfight whose unfavorable outcome the FBI blamed on the 9mm cartridge and a decision to switch back to the 40 S&W. At that point LE agencies all over the country would fall in line and it would become the cartridge of choice for many years again. That’s not too likely these days because of generally better law enforcement tactics and weapons availability, but it’s not impossible.

Another possibility, albeit even less likely, would be if an elite military special operations force got approval to use the 40 for its operations. “Oooh: The Space Force ninjas have adopted the 40; I need to get some of that!”

I would just like something like that to happen with the 357 SIG: No great expectations, but one can dream.

Well, allegedly, one well known top secret special operations group went from 1911s to G22s. They've supposedly gone to 9mm Glocks since.

.40 isn't my favorite, but it's the only caliber I can get right now. I'm sitting on a good bit of 9 and 45, but I don't want to shoot it up if I can't replace it. My job provides me with an steady supply of 40 range ammo at pre panic pricing, so if I want to shoot, that's what I shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by copaup:
.40 isn't my favorite, but it's the only caliber I can get right now. I'm sitting on a good bit of 9 and 45, but I don't want to shoot it up if I can't replace it. My job provides me with an steady supply of 40 range ammo at pre panic pricing, so if I want to shoot, that's what I shoot.

I bought my first pistol chambered for .40 a few years ago. During the Obozo panic year, when 9mm and .45ACP disappeared.
Still could find .40. Mind switches gears, and tells me "go .40".

I'm not hurting for ammo, but about a month ago, I did my now normal stop at places that might have ammo.
Just because I might get lucky. On the bare ass shelf (NO centerfire ammo other than) three boxes of .40 Hydra Shok.

Unreal. Bought. Three boxes of .40 S&W was like an oasis in the desert.

It's interesting that Sig doesn't even list .40 in their caliber drop down menu.

Probably just a website glitch.

https://www.sigsauer.com/firearms/pistols.html

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
It's interesting that Sig doesn't even list .40 in their caliber drop down menu.

Hmmm ....
I suspect it is no glitch—at least for the time being.

quote:

Originally posted by CAR:
I like the .40 S&W, I think there will be a resurgence of this caliber at some point (even if it is just from nostalgia).

I grew into firearms during the "Brady era" and always thought that the .40/.357sig was perfect for a 10rd magazine.
To me, it started falling out of favor after the sunset, and capacity became everything again.
I suspect that if there were to be a magazine restriction again, the .40 and .357sig will make a large resurgence again.

quote:

Originally posted by Gibb:
I suspect that if there were to be a magazine restriction again, the .40 and .357sig will make a large resurgence again.

I hope to never learn if you are correct, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were.

And that’s one of those odd things about defensive handgun shooters. Now that higher capacity handguns are generally legal and available, we’re told that projectile power doesn’t matter, or that all cartridges perform the same in defensive roles. By believing that, a majority of shooters can select the 9mm because it’s easier and more pleasant to shoot. During the Dark Decade, though, when all magazines were limited to 10 rounds and therefore there was little or no difference between the capacities of 9mm pistols and those chambered for more powerful cartridges, then more power was more commonly considered to be an advantage.

The conclusion I’ve drawn from thinking of all that is that, admit it or not, many shooters believe that having more (a lot more) rounds available somehow makes up for lower projectile power. Of course, many of the fans of the 9mm will quickly add something about better bullet designs, but while studiously ignoring the obvious fact that better bullets don’t just benefit the 9mm Luger cartridge. And many of the same ones will still mouth the ridiculous “Handguns are poor defensive weapons” mantra and be oblivious to the fact that they’re saying a poor weapon should be made even poorer by relying on a less powerful cartridge.

Interesting stuff.

Everyone is going to 9 ,agency wise, because it is cheaper, number one reason..40 IS a better round for penetration, lastly, the cop who shot folks 7, 8 or even 10 times to stop the threat, will be sued and sooner or later they will look for a quicker more efficient round..js

I think a more accurate way to describe it is that better bullet design has significantly narrowed the performance gap between those three cartridges. I don’t believe anyone given the exact same number of bullets, with their life on the line, wouldn’t choose the biggest bullet going the fastest (energy). Given that you don’t have to carry the same amount of bullets the equation becomes more favorable for the smaller round. More bullets that are NEARLY as effective is a tough argument to beat.

Objectively speaking most people can put more bullets quickly and accurately on target with a full power 9 than the same gun in full power 40. People will disagree but if you put the timer on them, well...

If magazine round restrictions came back into existence I'd go to .45 or 10mm. I owned a 40 S&W back in the day and found it fine to shoot, a little sharper than 9mm, but not much. But if I'm going to a bigger cartridge, I figure it's better to go much bigger. Then I can build an AR pistol in the same caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I think a more accurate way to describe it is that better bullet design has significantly narrowed the performance gap between those three cartridges. I don’t believe anyone given the exact same number of bullets, with their life on the line, wouldn’t choose the biggest bullet going the fastest (energy). Given that you don’t have to carry the same amount of bullets the equation becomes more favorable for the smaller round. More bullets that are NEARLY as effective is a tough argument to beat.

Objectively speaking most people can put more bullets quickly and accurately on target with a full power 9 than the same gun in full power 40. People will disagree but if you put the timer on them, well...

I agree that with the improvement in 9mm rounds, there is less reason to choose .40 or .357 SIG, round for round. 9mm with good new bullets is damn near as effective, and, as Stalin said: "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

The other reason a lot of agencies went back to 9mm is most cops,agents, etc aren’t shooters, twice a year 50 or 100 round qualification. Unless needed doesn’t leave holster. Was same when I went on carrying a revolver, a lot of cops not into guns and shooting. 9mm easier to shoot and control. Plus the biggest motivation cost and what the agency gets for free.

I wish I knew (or even had known) about that ammunition that LE agencies get for free.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I wish I knew (or even had known) about that ammunition that LE agencies get for free.

Maybe he's referring to the 1033 program:

https://www.dla.mil/Dispositio.../JoinTheProgram.aspx

However, there is a push from - shocker - Demokrats to limit this:

Johnson's bill would prohibit the Pentagon from sending police departments controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades including stun and flash-bang grenades, explosives, certain controlled vehicles including mine-resistant vehicles, armored or weaponized drones, combat-configured or combat-coded aircraft, silencers and long-range acoustic devices.

Complete article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...o-police/ar-BB1fmoip

Hmmm .... Never knew that ammunition was available ever. And now those effing Democrats are at it again just as I was about to try to get a half-dozen bayonets for our ARs.

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Matteo1371:
These days there seems to be a strong concerted effort by "9mm enthusiasts" to utterly kill off the 40. Like it's their life mission. It gets beyond tiring to hear ad nauseam about how much 40 sucks. I hear, 40 is an answer to a question no one asked, without fail in nearly every 40 discussion. I look at it this way. If you don't like it? Don't shoot it. But I see people actively trying to drive others away from it. And the way they go about it is beyond reminiscent of what the liberals do when you disagree with them on anything.

That's because 40 S&W lives rent free in those guys heads and I just find it humorous really.

TR

The "better bullet" argument is equally as humorous.

The best 9mm bullet around used to be the gold dot. Today? The gold dot.

The bullet hasn't "narrowed the distance" one iota. One either hits the target or doesn't.

"Better bullets" didn't make the 9mm any better.

9mm is less expensive to shoot. The better bullet crowd should simply admit that it's about being cheap. And less recoil. And higher capacity. Why the constant need to justify, however, is just...weird.

Economics and .gov agency HR Departments.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
The best 9mm bullet around used to be the gold dot. Today? The gold dot.

That's a matter of debate. The HST is a newer design with a broad velocity window for adequate expansion. Because it achieves jacket retention via mechanical locking rather than the chemical bonding in the Gold Dot, the core of the HST is a harder antimony than the GD. So, the answer is, it depends.

I think the improved effects of 9mm now days has more to do with the greater ease in making accurate shots for the average officer/civilian due to modern equipment and training. When I first started police work at the end of the 1990s, our duty 115gr+P+ JHP, 124gr JHP, and 124gr+P JHP loads did just fine when accurate hits were made, but not so great when the shots didn't hit something important. We avoided using 147gr, except in our 10" MP5s in which it also seemed to work fine when good hits were made. My agency, along with our sister agencies went from using Beretta 92s to Glock 17s/22s with better sights and not only did our qual scores significantly improve, but so did our OIS results. Improved hit accuracy, as a result of easier to use equipment and training was more significant than our adoption of newer ammunition designs.

I'm still a student of OISs, and today we have even more options of easier to use shooting platforms. More ergonomic polymer striker guns with single trigger conditions, very high visibility sights(and RDSs), easier/faster to manipulate duty holsters, weapon lights/lasers.....etc. All contribute to making hits more accurate and thus, more effective.

That being said, if you compare many 9mm OISs from the 1990s to those of today I still see similarly poor results when less than precise hits are made. Particularly with longer ranged OIS engagements where shot precision breaks down(and potentially JHPs become less effective), we are still seeing suspects take plus-or-minus a dozen 9mm JHP hits and often they still have fight in them or survive the encounter. I'm not saying modern 9mm JHPs are ineffective, nor that they are not more effective than 1990s designs, just that from observation non vital hits seem to show marginal results even today. As side note, my CCW of choice is a P365XL 9mm, and my duty gun is a G21 with RDS.

We don't have as much shooting data now days for .40 and .45, but we used to have a lot. What OISs that we did have in .40/.45, regularly ended with favorable results if reasonably close to COM hits were made regardless of JHP type. Even though we did not have the ergonomic, easier to shoot platforms of today, it was rare that those larger calibers gave unsatisfactory results if reasonable hits were made. Generally the push for us to switch to 9mm in years past was from management to improve the qual scores of struggling officers, and financial savings. Of course much of this is not quantifiable data points for someone's scientific, peer reviewed paper, but for long time field personnel those observed experiences carry weight.