Ruger PCC in 40 S&W

Rei40c said:

I have some questions about the .40 vrs 9mm out of a 16 inch barrel. According to the ballistics by the inch website, .40 does not benefit nearly as much from a longer barrel as the 9mm does. I believe some loads in 9mm can get an increase of 200-300 fps ish. But the .40 has the heavier bullet. So I'm confused how this all shakes out in the end.

Is the .40 really more powerful in the 16 inch barrel than a 9mm that may be going 300 fps (or more) faster?
Is it even enough to make any really difference?

Thanks

Click to expand...

For the fans of the .40 , like me, I could spin this a number of different ways. But I wont.

I think the only way to actually know the actual velocities and calculate the energy, is by shooting thru a chronograph and decide for yourself. BBTI shows some expected velocities, "by the inch", but it also shows quite different results, fired from different actual guns.

The 200-300 fps increase in a 9mm, thru the longer barrels is not so pronounced when it's actually measured from a real gun. But in fairness, neither is the .40 .

I have compared published differences between the 9mm and 40, and depending on the brand of ammo, we can see quite different results depending on the brand and load. In other words, we can't always compare apples to apples between calibers and loads. The brand X 9mm might see a huge increase in velocity with the longer barrel, but the brand X in 40 might not. But brand Y could perform much better.

So every load, and its performance, in any one of many different possible guns are islands to themselves.

I have grueled over this, and it's enough to make my head spin. What I've discovered too, is I keep comparing the 180 grain .40 to any of the 9mm's, and although i still believe the 180 has an edge in the real world, if you drop bullet weights in the .40 to 135, 155, or 165 grain, then the calculated energy even more so gives the edge to the .40. And I'm not talking +P loads or home loads.

WAYNO said:

Rei40c said:

I have some questions about the .40 vrs 9mm out of a 16 inch barrel. According to the ballistics by the inch website, .40 does not benefit nearly as much from a longer barrel as the 9mm does. I believe some loads in 9mm can get an increase of 200-300 fps ish. But the .40 has the heavier bullet. So I'm confused how this all shakes out in the end.

Is the .40 really more powerful in the 16 inch barrel than a 9mm that may be going 300 fps (or more) faster?
Is it even enough to make any really difference?

Thanks

Click to expand...

For the fans of the .40 , like me, I could spin this a number of different ways. But I wont.

I think the only way to actually know the actual velocities and calculate the energy, is by shooting thru a chronograph and decide for yourself. BBTI shows some expected velocities, "by the inch", but it also shows quite different results, fired from different actual guns.

The 200-300 fps increase in a 9mm, thru the longer barrels is not so pronounced when it's actually measured from a real gun. But in fairness, neither is the .40 .

I have compared published differences between the 9mm and 40, and depending on the brand of ammo, we can see quite different results depending on the brand and load. In other words, we can't always compare apples to apples between calibers and loads. The brand X 9mm might see a huge increase in velocity with the longer barrel, but the brand X in 40 might not. But brand Y could perform much better.

So every load, and its performance, in any one of many different possible guns are islands to themselves.

I have grueled over this, and it's enough to make my head spin. What I've discovered too, is I keep comparing the 180 grain .40 to any of the 9mm's, and although i still believe the 180 has an edge in the real world, if you drop bullet weights in the .40 to 135, 155, or 165 grain, then the calculated energy even more so gives the edge to the .40. And I'm not talking +P loads or home loads.

Click to expand...

's
Thanks for the response Wayno, I do think it's valid that you mentioned BBTH testing methods by their own description as they list on their own website where they describe only some of the listed data was obtained using specific firearms. Although they did do some and list it separately. As I recall much of their process involved taking a long barrel then progressively downsizing it, at each step chronographing the results and then presenting the data.

I should have added in my first post my curiosity was specifically about a 180 grain bullet from the .40 compared to a 124 grain 9mm, both from a 16 inch barrel and how the actually results would present themselves. To pick a specific loading say a .40 180 grain Speer Gold Dot compared to a 124 9mm Gold Dot (non +p) although the +p results would be very interesting as well.

I'm biased in that I'd love to believe the .40 was superior simply because my main carry gun is the sr40c and I have a lot of fmj .40 laying around. But I haven't seen any specific data proving that. I do suspect the .40 carbine should be better at hard barrier penetration. Perhaps I'm overthinking all of this. I've already decided I really love the newest version of the Ruger PCC with the free floating barrel and aluminum hand guard and m-lok mount system. It's receiving a lot of hate online due to it's appearance. However I really love the looks of it. If Boba Fett where in a gun shop, this is the carbine he'd walk out with. :lol: It's a done deal for me and I really want one. I'm currently leaning towards the .40.

grobin said:

muzzle energy == ((muzzle velocity)²*bullet weight)/450400 so 200² is 20000 quite a difference! The 40 has a relatively smaller case capacity than the 9mm so the 9mm will eventually catch up. A difference of 50 fps MV for the 9mm over the 40 would be enough to make them equal. (Comparing Hornady Critical Duty Ammunition 9mm Luger +P 135 Grain to Hornady Critical Duty Ammunition 40 S&W 175.) Sticking with compriable commercial ammo to be fair.

Click to expand...

Thanks Grobin. The more I roll this around in my mind the more I think the answer on what version of the carbine to buy, the 9mm, or .40 comes down to what ammo do you stockpile and have the most of. You mentioned the Hornady Critical Duty, I love that that round it is was my main carry in the 175 grain version a couple of years ago. It's not loaded as hot as some other self defense rounds and is even fun to shoot at the range. Currently I carry HST's but may go back to them. I don't know if it's me or the load but I shoot them better.

As I read your post I suspect we may be splitting hairs and if the purpose is as a defensive carbine both will do. Still I wonder about these things.

While I would also like to see it in 10mm, I'm glad they're offering this in .40. I have a G23 and several mags for which this would make a good companion. I still really like the .40 cartridge, and I have 3 Sigs, an HK, and the Glock in the chambering. I don't think that the .40 is dying, or at least I sincerely hope it isn't. I will add this to my wish list for sure!

I think that the real deciding point here is that if you already have a 9mm buy the 9 mm or if a 40 buy the 40. Why? Convenience and logistics! In reality ME may be king but convenience is queen and the queen wins! If you use the same caliber you are likely to shoot better as you are more likely to practice!

If you don't have either then; if your needs are simple SD, CC or home defense go with the 9mm: less expensive ammo, more choice (guns & ammo), more ammo availability, better control, easier concielability. If you are looking to hunting or heavy use, then look at 10mm, 45, 357, 44, or 30-30 etc. Pretty simple!

The 40 isnt dead. You only hear of PDs switching to 9 because its unique, the exception rather than the rule.

And dont worry, Ruger will sell all the PCCs in 40 they can make.

Well around here most of the LEO have tight budgets and never drank the 10/40 coolaid. Several LEO in the Denver metro area went 10mm to 40 to 9mm!? A couple went 9mm to 40 to 9mm mostly because of "costs". But one because the 10mm would "tear an arm or leg off" and was "brutal"? The whole thing is an episode in incompetent management starting with the FBI and trickling down to the locals. Seems that local political boards can't keep their hands off what they don't know!

WAYNO said:

This is interesting the hate resurfacing with the .40 S&W cartridge. Adding to the hate, is now the .40 is thought to be way too powerful for recruits or other newer shooters? Give me a break.

But in the nearly same breath, folks claim to be in love with the 10mm combinations, in spite of most 10mm loads being reduced to .40 S&W levels. We can't agree on anything. :lol:

Click to expand...

Love the statement, so true.

I'm interested in the new 40 version. But I am interested in one in .45 & 10, too.

Is it possible that the 10mm is just too powerful for a blowback action?

Not really! Some of the first pistols were under engineered and poorly built. But the Glock, XD(M) are fine. A facilitated or delayed blowback system have obvious advantages but are not needed (may be desirable though).

A lot of the 10mm reputation for fearsome recoil was due to bad design and worse training. The 10mm takes considerable practice to get recoil control in a small pistol. IMHO it's just not usable for them! The Glock 20 I find unpleasant to shoot. The Glock 40 OTOH is pleasant as is the XD(M) and the Blackhawk is fun to shoot. So no, the 10mm is not the problem!

Not really! Some of the first pistols were under engineered and poorly built. But the Glock, XD(M), ... are fine. Gas operated or delayed blowback systems have obvious advantages but are not needed (may be desirable though).

A lot of the 10mm reputation for fearsome recoil was due to bad design and worse training. The 10mm takes practice to get recoil control in a small pistol. IMHO it's just not usable for them! The Glock 20 I find quite unpleasant to shoot. The Glock 40 OTOH is pleasant as is the XD(M) and the Blackhawk is fun to shoot. So no, the 10mm is not the problem!

What 10mm pure blowback guns are currently in production?

Deleted

Frankly I have a SIG 9mm for my pillow gun, use a Springfield Armory XD for SD and general use and my Blackhawk 10mm for trail and hunting. Light 40 loads are about the 380 level and full up better, but not much than the 9mm that has far more ammo choices (better or worse than the 40). The 10mm is far better (unless with stupid loads then it's a 40) for hunting and trail work.

I will give the 40 folks that for CC the 40 is easier to deal with-but not as easy as the 9mm. Frankly around my part of Colorado the 9mm is selling well, the 40 is being pushed with big discounts and the 10mm largely ignored (like the 41 mag).

grobin, like you, I find that the 10mm is at its best in the G40, the XDM, and in my case the GP-100 MC. If I had to go back into uniform patrol tomorrow, I would have no problem packing the XDM or the MC. I suspect that the 40 is a regional thing as far as LE use and I know civilians like to use what the cops carry. I'm sure that most are familiar with the FBI report published in 2014 explaining why the FBI was going back to the 9mm, mostly for costs and training reasons. Bob!!

40 pistols are a tough sell these days. If you have one, then keep it, it's not worth eneough to trade it in. Buy a Ruger PCC 40 and have handy carbine to share ammo(and mags) with your pistol. I believe Ruger will sell them all, since there are so many cheap ex-leo Glock 22's for sale everywhere.

I sent an email to Ruger on the 9mm, 40 S&W, conversion kits between calibers and 10mm PCCs. Here is their reply--I understand what/why they are saying what they did but it wasn't very helpful/informative. IMHO, they had to make the 40 S&W before they made the 10mm(learning curve) and then the 45ACP will follow the 10mm:

Thank you for your inquiry. Here at Ruger, we are always working on exciting new products and will introduce them as they are ready. However, as a publicly traded Company, we are mindful of applicable laws and regulations regarding disclosure of inside information and therefore are careful not to disclose any new product plans in advance. Candidly, we also find that it occasionally takes longer than expected to get a new product across the finish line, and our plans and priorities change over time, so we would be reluctant to talk about product plans in any event.

In sum, we are not able to respond to your question, but hope you understand that it is simply due to applicable laws regarding public disclosures. Please be advised, Newport Customer Service will be closed on Monday May 27th, 2019. We will do our best to respond to emails and voicemails as quickly as possible upon reopening on Tuesday May 28th , 2019. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

I sure hate to hear all the bad talk about the .40. I dearly love my SR40c. I use it often in Bullseye practice. Even in a compact model like mine the recoil isn't bad at all. I've heard several people complain about "snappy" recoil from a .40 but mine is not unpleasant at all. I've had this .40 and a couple of .45s and much prefer the handling and recoil of the 40c. I carry it often in cooler weather.

I could see the 9mm to 10mm transition for the PCC or 45 but I really don't see the point of 40. It's kind of in between and not really a big deal. Particularly if the new loads for longer 9mm barrels (Federal PCC) become successful.

exavid said:

I sure hate to hear all the bad talk about the .40. I dearly love my SR40c. I use it often in Bullseye practice. Even in a compact model like mine the recoil isn't bad at all. I've heard several people complain about "snappy" recoil from a .40 but mine is not unpleasant at all. I've had this .40 and a couple of .45s and much prefer the handling and recoil of the 40c. I carry it often in cooler weather.

Click to expand...

Me too. My most recent handgun purchases were a Sig 226 and a Springfield XD, both in .40.

I have an old PC4, which was kind've part of my retirement portfolio ( :mrgreen: ) when they quit making them and the prices skyrocketed, but the values of the old PC9/PC4 have taken quite a hit now that the PCC's are on the market. And speaking of that, if the new PCC in .40 would have been available when I bought my PCC in 9mm, I would have bought the .40 first.