The .40 cal. trade-off...

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,791
Location
Granbury, TX. USA
Throughout my many years shooting, in my personal experience, I have noticed something. The most important thing about the shot you fire, is shot placement.

I was a fan of the .40 for many years. I was sold on everything about it. I felt that it offered a significant improvement over the 9mm, and at one point in time it may have. But at what cost?

Their exist several factors that come into place. I have come to call this the .40 cal. Trade-off. Let me start out by saying this: The 9mm. Will get the job done, very quickly in some cases, as documented in the past. So why the love affair with the shorty 10mm?

Well it generates more energy! But at what cost? Any trade-off would dictate you have to give a little to get a little. Well with the .40 cal. you have to give up a lot. Do the higher chamber preasures, lowered capacity, more muzzle flip, in a (for its intended purpose) compact carry pistol or even duty sized weapon, justify the minor performance gain?

I have come to the conclusion, that with the advancement of modern bullet technology, and the effectiveness of well placed shots, more capacity=more chances to hit critical, the minor perfomance gain offered by the .40 s&w, cant outweigh the sacrifices you have to make.

I would like to hear everyones takes on the subject.
 

LaneP

Single-Sixer
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
268
Location
New England
That's pretty much how I feel about the .40. I understand what drove its origins, but I just can't get on board with it for many of the reasons you mentioned.

The 9mm is a global standard for free world armies meaning it will be available in both commercial and surplus form for eons, whereas .40 distribution is limited to the US. The 9mm will always be more economical and available, all factors being equal.

I use the 9 for compact CCW and when I feel the need to "step up" it's to the .45ACP which gives me a soft shooting big bore (in a steel frame 1911) for which I have metric tons (well it feels like I do) of reloading components.

I've never reloaded for the .40 but most who I read of that do all say that .40 is at the upper end of its pressure potential in standard loads and is not very tolerant pressure-wise, of variations in bullet seating depth.

I bought one .40 some years ago (a G22) and that's it. I won't get another. I'm sure those who favor the .40 will offer many valid reasons for doing so, but it's just not for me.
 

FergusonTO35

Hunter
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,420
Location
Boonesborough, KY
I don't at all like the .40 as it is commonly loaded. Too much pressure, creating too much muzzle jump and recoil in most guns. Now, I have been tempted to get a Ruger SR40 and make some nice cast bullet loads for it. I imagine a 175 grain flat point slug at 900 fps or so would be a dandy fight stopper and pretty easy to shoot.

I don't see why the ammo companies insist on hot rodding this cartridge. Most .40 S&W guns are adaptations of previous 9mm designs and may even be marginal in that cartridge. The .40 caliber bullet is usually significantly heavier than a 9mm bullet and has a higher sectional density. It doesn't need high pressure or high velocity to perform well. It seems to me that the main thing which existing .40 S&W ammo does is make guns more difficult to shoot and gobble up more brass, copper, and lead.
 

modrifle3

Buckeye
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
1,128
Location
NC
The .40 was a reaction not really a solution. It was further made popular by companies like Glock. It only really serves a good civilian use in countries where military standard rounds are banned. I still prefer the .45 as my large caliber auto. The .40 challenged convention and offered advantages, but very little. I still feel the round is unstable in most platforms and produces less accurate groupings. Why ... Who knows. Is it me ... Maybe?

I doubt I will ever buy another one
 

Rei40c

Blackhawk
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
976
I still like my sr40c alright, it is as small as I'd go with it though. I notice many subcompacts offer a 9mm/40 version. If I ever got a gun say the size of a Shield or the Nano I'd really not want to shoot 40 out of it.

Many will disagree with me but I really feel the .45acp is most at home in a full sized pistol. That's what it's always been good at and we've only recently been chopping barrels down on them. I think they've gone too far with that in some cases such as the XDS .45 which I've seen chronograph self defense loads at only 690-720 ish FPS or so. The low velocity out of these tiny .45acp barrels bugs me, a lot. Maybe its silly but it does.

So I suppose that's how I came to the .40 in the first place. A large diameter heavy 180g bullet moving at velocities you never have to worry about, even out of the short barrels that are now standard in most carry guns, say around 3 to 3 and 1/2 inch barrels that seem to be the most common now.
 

Mike J

Hunter
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,204
Location
GA
I own a couple of .40's and I like them just fine. If I had done as much research before buying them as I have now I may have went with 9mm. I already own them though & I'm not much on changing. I do have a subcompact in 9mm. I really would not want to shoot a .40 in that size package but I find it acceptable in something the size of my XD-40 or a Glock 23. My only .45 is a SR 1911. I like it too but the XD or the Kel Tec get carried most because of size & convenience.

FWIW For defensive ammunition in a .40 I prefer a 180 or 165 grain JHP. The 155 grain & lighter rounds are noticeably less pleasant to shoot to me.
 

Idaho Spud

Bearcat
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
45
Location
Idaho
I always felt the 40 was a compromise choice, that is until I bought one. Now I have two but never shoot factory ammo. I reload my own plinking, target and SD ammo to the velocities I want. My wife thinks the 40 is wonderful, only because she's never fired a hot factory round. I agree with FergusonTO35 that a 175 gr. 900 FPS load would work well. I load a cast 183 gr. TC bullet at 900 FPS or so, and a 180 gr. XTP at 950. Easy to shoot and I don't feel like I'd be under-gunned if the need arose. I never load the 40 hot, I've heard all the stories. I like my face and hands. And I keep a close eye on my brass.
 

Ethang

Blackhawk
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
759
Location
Michigan
I started with a 45 ACP for carry and for competition. When the 40 started to dominate Limited class I switched to one, but never really cared for it. Then with the job switch I HAD to carry a 40 and still never liked it. With modern bullets in a self defense or law enforcement capacity I think your right, 9mm is a good way to go. Being old school though I can't wait till I can retire and carry a 45 again. Is it better? maybe, maybe not, but it still works very well.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
9,933
Location
missouri
Due to the condition of my hands, I'm pretty much restricted to using a 9mm. A while back, a relative showed up with a matching set of XDM pistols in 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP. I shot each a few times and found that I could tolerate the 45 better than the 40. If I were to choose a bigger caliber, I'd skip the 40 and go to the 45.
I shot my SIL's S&W 4006(?) 3-4 times and that was all I wanted.
 

DonD

Single-Sixer
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
201
I've had a couple .40 Glocks and shot them well. Got a little spooked when Sandia National Labs (sister lab to Los Alamos) where I was working had a .40 barrel peel back like a banana during a security force practice session. Metallurgical testing said the barrel was OK, Glock sent a rep to participate in the review/investigation. No suggestion of a fouled bore followed by a second shot. Suspect was the ammo.

Probably an over reaction on my part but I got out of the caliber.

When my wife decided she wanted a CCW gun, I showed her a SR9C in 9mm. She liked it and shoots remarkably well particularly considering how little she shoots. Glad I didn't go with the .40 for her. Don
 

TRanger

Blackhawk
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
814
Location
Florida
DA_TriggR4Ruger said:
Throughout my many years shooting, in my personal experience, I have noticed something. The most important thing about the shot you fire, is shot placement.

I was a fan of the .40 for many years. I was sold on everything about it. I felt that it offered a significant improvement over the 9mm, and at one point in time it may have. But at what cost?

Their exist several factors that come into place. I have come to call this the .40 cal. Trade-off. Let me start out by saying this: The 9mm. Will get the job done, very quickly in some cases, as documented in the past. So why the love affair with the shorty 10mm?

Well it generates more energy! But at what cost? Any trade-off would dictate you have to give a little to get a little. Well with the .40 cal. you have to give up a lot. Do the higher chamber preasures, lowered capacity, more muzzle flip, in a (for its intended purpose) compact carry pistol or even duty sized weapon, justify the minor performance gain?

I have come to the conclusion, that with the advancement of modern bullet technology, and the effectiveness of well placed shots, more capacity=more chances to hit critical, the minor perfomance gain offered by the .40 s&w, cant outweigh the sacrifices you have to make.

I would like to hear everyones takes on the subject.

Pretty much in agreement.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Messages
6,242
Location
Oregon City, Oregon
Boy, we sure do overthink this stuff. If ya really like the 9mm, and ya can't handle the .40, then shoot what ya can.

The .38/9mm was considered marginal as a man stopper for many decades. Better bullets and more velocity sure does improve on things.

But at the same time the 9mm and .38 was being improved, so was the .40 and .45. So improving the 9mm/.38 does not make it as good as the .40 or .45, cuz the .40 and .45 was also being improved, (even though the .45 needed no improvement.) :mrgreen:

So, rationalization is not necessary. A gun or cartridge you can handle trumps any gun you cannot handle.

But alas, even I will rationalize when necessary. When my attire requires a little tiny gun, it just may include a little tiny cartridge, like a .38. I just don't tell anybody how underpowered it is.

And more of my opinion...The .40 S&W is an incredible little cartridge.

WAYNO.
 

modrifle3

Buckeye
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
1,128
Location
NC
Handling and finding a use are two very different things. I have no trouble with the recoil etc of a 40 or a 10mm.

I just never found a platform that I could get good results out of a 40 with. I think the longer barrel the better with a 40 though.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
3,948
Location
Northern Illinois
When I decided to buy a compact semi-auto I debated with myself over an sr9c and an sr40c. Because of the common use of the 40 by law enforcement, I bought the sr40c. I must admit that I do not enjoy firing this gun, but at self defense distances I am reasonably confident that I can be effective with it. My bigger issue is with trust and reliability. The sr40c works very well, but there is an occasional hiccup. I find that I carry a j-frame revolver with 38+p and feel I have enough to get the job done if ever needed.
 

chefrob1

Single-Sixer
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
356
Location
az
i recently picked up a Walther PPQ .40 and after 15+ yrs of shooting and caring the P90 there are certainly differences in the 2 calibers but in fairness this is not an apples to apples comparison. the p90 is a much heavier platform and absorbs the recoil/muzzle flip much better. is it enough to not let me make a good 2nd shot placement? that's hard to say......right now I have 10,000 + rounds through my p90 while I only have less than 500 through my PPQ. I will say the trigger in my PPQ is outstanding and with a short reset and more practice double taps, I will get much better. I also reload for .380, .45 and .44mag and like Idaho Spud, I plan on reloading for the .40 and I expect similar improvements like I experienced with the other calibers. just a few thoughts..........
 

pjvrefugee

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
275
Location
south bend in
larger diameter than the 9, higher capacity than the 45. I shoot 40 and 45 both better than I shoot 9. have no clue why but I do. the compromise means I can have almost as many rounds as the 9, and a bullet almost as heavy as a 45.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,791
Location
Granbury, TX. USA
Yet your .45 generates less chamber pressure, less muzzle flip, and hits harder than the .40. At the same time the 9mm. gives you a higher capacity than the .40, less chamber pressure, less muzzle flip and is almost ballistically the same as the 40.
 

Latest posts

Top