Size with-in the caliber

OldePhart said:

I don't shoot .45 but I do shoot and load .40 S&W and in the past 9mm and .357. In general if you are using a compensator or a ported barrel then a lighter, faster bullet will make the muzzle device more effective (faster gas expansion) but if you are not using a recoil reducing device then a heavier, slower bullet will generally tend to offer less perceived recoil for a given muzzle energy (i.e the recoil will feel more like a push than a slap).

A lot of long-time .45 shooters think the .40 is too "snappy" primarily because of the blast and the sharp nature of the recoil...whereas most people who transition from 9mm or .357 to the .40 don't seem as sensitive to the "snappiness" of the .40 because the recoil of the .40, while significantly greater than the 9mm and somewhat greater than the .357, is of the same nature...i.e they're already accustomed to a slap...the .40 just slaps a little harder.

Beyond that, you also have to find out what your particular gun "likes." Sometimes a short-barreled gun, especially, may not be able to spin a heavy bullet up fast enough for good accuracy, and so on.

Bottom line, experiment!

John

Click to expand...

Rei40c said:

OldePhart has it right on. I didn't know this starting out and "discovered" this myself with my .40 s&w when it became clear I seemed to shoot 180 loads better and noticed less recoil in my shooting. I think this is a more noticeable difference in the .40 then the 9mm or .45 you are shooting.

One thing to watch out for in factory ammo I've noticed. -
Whenever you see a self defense ammo advertising above average velocities or even expansion there's usually a cost for that, and often times it's a very hot round that can (depending on how hot they load it) be beyond your personal comfort level for recoil. It sounds great on paper but if your flinching every round where you may not have been before in my opinion it's not worth the trade off.

One misconception I had was I thought- "Well, if 165 grain is good, 180 grain must be even better!" But this is not true. In all 3 calibers the lighter or medium range bullets tend to develop better records on the street. This is true of the 9mm where 124 grain seems to be the ideal weight, in the .40 where the 165g bullets seem to have a better record then the 180, and even in the case of .45acp where there are many well respected rounds that are below 230 grains, however most people I know prefer the 230g because of it's better shooting characteristics.

So what it comes down to for most is deciding between an easier round to shoot that may be a heavier bullet outside the "optimal" but you may shoot better, or the hottest thing that will recoil more and give a slight increase in effectiveness. Very slight in my opinion but that's an open debate.

That's a decision you'll have to make on your own. The decision I made was some of these rounds where too hot for me to fire well, or outside my personal tolerance limits for recoil. The first I discovered like this was the PDX1 165g in .40 for example which is a great round, does everything you'll see in an ad for it, but they fail to mention how they get the rather exceptional results, it usually means more powder or a different type of powder or both. It's not magic and usually you can get a strong hint by reading the listed muzzle velocities.

So to sum up after my experiences shooting these, I shoot heavy for caliber, I avoid all +p ammo. The one exception to my heavier bullet preference is the 9mm. I do not like the 147 grain loading in this caliber. Some say it was really developed for sub machine guns such as the MP5 for instance, and is not well suited for a smaller pistol or even standard sized pistol with a 3-4 inch barrel. It's kinda taking the 9mm and making it into something it was never meant to be, a heavy bullet. On top of that there are many reports of some smaller pistols having trouble cycling it.

Click to expand...