40 Cal Recommendations Please

[Yosemite Sam]

I've gotten into and out of .40 S&W twice, including selling off hundreds of rounds of ammo each time. The 2nd time I did it it was because I had convinced myself it was the "best" caliber to carry because it's what the local cops use. It took me about 3 range visits to remember that I simply don't like shooting the caliber.

I've had a Sig P239, Baby Eagle (a CZ75 clone), and a XD subcompact. None were particularly inaccurate, in fact the XD was pretty impressive for such a small gun. I just don't like the recoil pulse at all. Would much rather shoot a .45 ACP in just about anything, and do (Ruger, Sig, Glock, DW, and RIA).

-- Sam

 

[Cholo]

I have 2 Kahr .40's. To me the best thing it has going for it is that it can be had in a package just slightly larger than a 9mm version. For a carry piece I believe it's worth it.

I don't believe anybody shot with a .40 will be whining that he'd wished he'd been shot with a .45ACP...or vice versa :wink:

 

[wixedmords]

There never was an argument for me shooting .40 vs .45, more power in the .40. Just my opinion though, having shot them both.

The control-ability of the 40 can be an issue, especially in the OP's scenario, but really more of an issue for going with a 9mm over anything else. Some have an issue handling the .40, but some couldn't handle the .357 mag either so a .38 special was a fine alternative. Never made me turn away from the .357 mag, but I understand physical limitations. A .357 mag might not be fun with a bum wrist. I don't have that type of scenario right now, but one never knows what the future holds.

It will come down to what the OP and his wife will shoot comfortably. Some can actually step up and shoot with recoil well. A test-shooting-session decision in the making. But that is how the decision should happen anyway.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Well, I can "shoot with recoil" pretty well, thank you, as .357s and .44 mags don't make me run for the hills, and .45 ACP is no pussycat. I just don't like the snappiness of the .40; I find it unpleasant.

It's not a matter of "stepping up" to .40, it's a question of finding out what you shoot well and/or enjoy shooting.

-- Sam

 

[wixedmords]

I love my P239 in .40, I find it surprisingly mild for a .40 in a small gun. My choice for carry.

I am sorry Sam you seem to be taking this personally for some reason. It wasn't meant to be.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Totally disagree on the .45 topping the .40. The energy of the .40 bests the .45. Everything else is just romance. The numbers are out there.

From Hornady website:

40 S&W 180 XTP 950 fps, 361 fps

45 auto 185 XTP 970 fps, 386 fps

Plug a few loads into this calculator: http://www.handloads.com/calc/quick.asp , it doesn't confirm any energy advantage to .40 comparing equivalent rounds.

Curious where your numbers come from. Links?

 

[wixedmords]

Hey there ArmedinAZ,

I've always felt the 180 grain load was the neutering of the the .40. I truly have always thought the 180 grain .40 load was for the guys who lean toward and like the .45 round more and are forced to likely by availability or duty choice to shoot. That's is what I call the "Let's make a .45 out of a .40 round, round". The strength of the .40 is its speed advantage. I would take the .357 Sig and 10mm over the .40, because of their ballistic advantage. Don't get me wrong, I like the .45, but not over the .40. I"ll take that percentage.

How's that 155 and 165 grain .40 load right there on your same links? Could you post those numbers?

 

[Cholo]

ArmedinAZ, you're comparing way heavy for caliber to way light for caliber bullets. Using your link, I get energy of 513 with a .40 155gr bullet and 452 with a .45 200gr bullet. Velocity figures are from Speer's manual # 12.

I'm not debating which one is better. I just don't get your very low energy figures. We need to compare apples to apples.

 

[Mike J]

PS .... Mike .... I'll shoot any one of my 45's (you pick it) against ANY .40 production gun you can come up with (you pick), and we'll see just how accurate the .40 is ....

REV

Rev I know you have some nice 1911's & I also believe you are a better shot than me. When I am having a good day I can group 5 rounds in 1 1/4" with my XD-40 at 15 yards. I am not going to to lie & say I can do it consistently {that is my shortcoming not the guns} but I have done it enough times to know the gun is actually I believe capable of better. I do believe a 1 1/4" 5 shot group at 15 yards is acceptable accuracy for a production pistol.

 

[Welding Rod]

For you I would suggest crying once and springing for the Sig 226 in .40.

However, I doubt most wifes could reliably and effectively work the slide against the stout recoil spring.

 

[SamV]

Just a few comments and opinions. I really think we should all try the guns we are considering if that is possible. I have a P90 and it is a fine gun but I doesn't feel as right as a 1911. I shoot a 1911 better and it feels more controllable to me.
I have just one 9mm a P95, I think it is ugly but it shoots everything well andis very reliable. I like it more than some other 9mm guns, a little less than others.
I have a Taurus pt140 in their latest generation. I really am not supposed to like this gun. It is a Taurus and the rules on the gun forums are you are not supposed to like a Taurus. And I didn't want to like it, I didn't buy it( a gift). But, it actually has a wonderful trigger, light with no real overtravel, it is small and compact. Some don't like the Heinie sights, but they suit my old eyes well with a quick sight picture. I prefer a hjammer to a striker but it does have second strike capability. I REALLY wish it had a decocker especially with such a light trigger.
Snappy? Yeah I guess I would call it that. But it seems more controllable to me than the P90 and not significantly different than my P95. Maybe it is the gun/grip/angle/?? I can tell the difference in those three calibers, but to me, they are not that different in my guns. iIsee a much bigger difference in shooting .38 vs .357
Have fun in choosing. P.S. I like the CZ too.

 

[revhigh]

When I am having a good day I can group 5 rounds in 1 1/4" with my XD-40 at 15 yards.

I do believe a 1 1/4" 5 shot group at 15 yards is acceptable accuracy for a production pistol.

That's some good shooting, Mike, and all it takes to do it more regularly is more practice. The XD's are nice guns, too, IMO, but after 3 tries at .40 caliber guns, and about 25 tries at reloading recipes, I had had enough. I also agree about your acceptable accuracy statement.

By the way, there's no way that I can do groups like that all the time either. My general claim is that I can shoot billiard ball sized groups (never measured one ... I'd guess a little over 2 inches) generally all day long with any gun that I own. Caliber doesn't bother me at all ... I can shoot full-house 454 loads as easily into the same size group as 22's. I can also shoot any of my autos as well as any of my revolvers. Well, except maybe the KT P380 ... that's more like 5 inch groups at 50 feet, which is where I generally shoot.

That's why I say that if I shoot a gun for say ... 5 groups of 5 shots, and I can't shoot billiard ball sized groups ... it's the gun. I can usually pick up pretty much any gun and get fairly good sized groups immediately, but I shoot A LOT .... on average probably about 150-250 rounds a week, (usually on two different days). Probably more in the fall ... maybe 3-400 rounds per week. When I go to the range I usually grab 3 or 4 guns to take each time. Somehow the CZ75B is ALWAYS in my range bag, and certainly a 1911, and maybe a Python or one of my SRH's, or a GP.

My Beretta shot 5 inch groups at 50 feet, then I got the Ruger P91 ... the most horrible weapon I have ever owned (except maybe a S&W 39-2)... 8-10 inch groups, and the CZ40B was about 4 inch groups, it had the worst trigger of any CZ I've ever owned. I absolutely hated it.

You also have to realize that if you (or I) go 2 or 3 weeks without shooting, you really lose a lot during that time. It will take me 50-100 rounds or so to get back down to the billiard ball groups again.

REV

 

[revhigh]

For you I would suggest crying once and springing for the Sig 226 in .40.

Yeah ... that would probably work ....

My 226 in 9MM acts like it KNOWS where I want the bullet to go.

REV

 

[soldernut]

revhigh

Thanks for the info on Glocks.

I'm curious about your remark that there's no reason for a civilian to think they need more than a 9mm.

You say that, but you've owned 40s, and just issued an accuracy challenge with your 45s. Are you not a civilian?

And, if you aren't, can you articulate why a a non-civilian would need more than a civilian. What kind of non-civilian?

And, oh, as to accuracy: Have you seen the hickock45 video in which he uses a 40 to hit a metal target at 230 yards? Three hits out of 9 or ten rounds.

And that was with a "baby" Glock, not a full size.

 

[revhigh]

Hi SN !!!

First of all ... I'm biased against the 40 caliber in general. I've had three bad guns, and couldn't make a load that was accurate, although that could have been because of the guns LOL. That's NEVER happened before with any other caliber. I only bought the 40's because of all the hoopla about them and figured I should have one.

I think the trade off in violence of recoil for the slight increase in firepower over the 9MM is simply not worth it. 9's are easily controlled ... .40's aren't, IMO. 45's drop right back down for the sight to lie up naturally on the target ... .40's don't.

When I say civillian, I really mean non-leo. LEO's need a gun as a tool of their profession ... by the very nature of the job they are in potentially constant peril. They intentionally go places where more firepower is in order ... normal civillians typically intentionally go places where they are NOT in danger.

I think many people ... particularly newly minted CCW holders, get way too hung up on firepower, and ballistics, and calibers, and capacity than they should .... I know I did. I started out with a full size 1911 SOB, then went to no-carry at all for years, then went to a Glock 26 in my pocket, and now pretty much all I carry is a KT P380 in my pocket. It's about the size of a large cell phone.

I've never had to draw, brandish, or use my gun, thank God, and I'll play the percentages of having a nice small easily concealed gun like the P3AT, that is easy and comfortable to have with me. If someone is still coming after absorbing 7 .380 ACP rounds, I think I'll take that advantage.

Regarding accuracy ... I don't doubt that there ARE accurate 40's, but I never found one, and didn't think it was worth throwing any more money away on them. Virtually all the guys at my gun club have come to the same conclusion ... but they're not LEO's either.

PS ... I KNOW that baby Glocks are accurate beyond what they should be ... my G26 proves that. Can't imagine a hot 40 round in a baby Glock platform ...

REV

 

[Pinecone]

For what it's worth, I once owned an Astra A-100 .40 S&W (a clone of the Sig P-226) and had absolutely no issues with it at all. I completely disassembled it and gave it a good cleaning when I first aquired it. Found no burrs or anything out of spec. A buddy (deputy sherrif) came along who really liked it and having way too many guns for my gun safe, parted with it. Look around as you can probably pick one up "cheap" as a lot of people seem to think Astra's are junk! Astra has made good guns for a long time in this gunsmith's opinion!.........................Dick :wink:

 

[soldernut]

ArmedinAZ,

>Curious where your numbers come from. Links?

I got my numbers from a spreadsheet I put together. I wanted to compare 357 Mag, 40, and 45 ACP.

I included the 357 simply becuse I regularly shoot one (GP 101), and was curious.

I used the formula for kinetic energy which, I realize, doesn't tell the entire story.

For comparisons, I used the loading data at Hogden's site, choosing the highest of muzzle velociteis for the "never exceed" charge for several bullet weights. Granted, I might never load anything that hot, but it gave me something to measure.

Where there were same weight bullets for all three calibers, the results were pretty consistent. The 357 Mag was always at the top, often by a stunning margin. The 40 was second, and the 45 ACP third, though not by much.

Example:

180 gr bullet

357: MV 1422, Energy 808
40: MV 1159, Energy 537
45: MV 1024, Energy 419

Kinetic energy doesn't mean much, though, unless you know how much of it gets delivered to your target. This is where expansion comes in. If a bullet fully expands, rather than penetrating, pretty much all the energy gets dumped in your target.

My understanding is that, generally speaking, a bullet needs to be moving close to 1,000 fps to reliably expand. So, looking at just the numbers above, and factoring in that one probably won't be loading at the "never exceed" level, it looks like the 40 has an advantage over the 45.

But, no, I woudn't want to be hit be either one!

 

[Yosemite Sam]

I am sorry Sam you seem to be taking this personally for some reason. It wasn't meant to be.

Not taking it personally, it just seemed you were implying that those of us who don't like the .40 were recoil shy. I was trying to articulate that it's not the intensity of recoil, but the feel of it.

Sort of like, I don't mind loud music, but I don't like screechy-loud treble.

But then, to each his own. You like fast bullets. I like big, slow bullets. Luckily we both have lots of options.

-- Sam

 

[wixedmords]

I am sorry Sam you seem to be taking this personally for some reason. It wasn't meant to be.

Not taking it personally, it just seemed you were implying that those of us who don't like the .40 were recoil shy. I was trying to articulate that it's not the intensity of recoil, but the feel of it.

Sort of like, I don't mind loud music, but I don't like screechy-loud treble.

But then, to each his own. You like fast bullets. I like big, slow bullets. Luckily we both have lots of options.

-- Sam

You know YS, your experience could really help someone trying to get more comfortable with the .40, and not finding it very comfortable. I am sure you learned some things in your travels with the issue that can be passed on to avoid others frustration.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Wixed, thanks for the kind words, but I'm honestly not sure I can contribute much to the ongoing question of "which caliber is best?" I feel it's a very personal decision one makes by weighing the available data and going with what is most comfortable to the shooter; "Comfort" both in the physical, as well as the emotional sense of protection one gets from their gun. IE, if one has it set in their mind that a .40 S&W (for instance) is the be-all and end-all best caliber, they're not going to be comfortable carrying a 9mm just because someone on a forum said it was just as effective, even if all the data in the world supported that conclusion.

Personally I take the boring old approach of saying that any caliber of .380 and up is sufficient to do the job of civilian personal protection, as long as the shooter can put the bullets on target in a stressful situation.

Beyond that, I feel one should get a gun that you enjoy shooting, can be carried comfortably, and is reliable. The particular gun or caliber doesn't matter all that much, as long as you can use it well.

The gun may also have some bearing on caliber choice: If one is shooting a heavy, steel gun it may very well damp out the recoil pulse of a heavier caliber making it more acceptable to the shooter. I don't particularly "enjoy" shooting my LCP (or even the blowback-operated Sig P232) all that much, since these light guns don't dampen the .380 recoil. But those guns serve a specific purpose, and "fun to shoot" isn't very high on their priority list.

Then there are oddballs like the Glock 30 and Walther PPS (9mm), that seem to absorb more recoil than you think they would, considering the mass of the gun and the caliber it's shooting. (I've never shot a .40 S&W PPS, so can't comment on that.) Grip shape and ergonomics will have some affect on "felt" recoil too, of course. Again back to that "comfortable" thing.

The reason I like big, slow bullets as mentioned above is that I think there's a greater risk of over penetration with fast, light bullets. Yes, hollowpoints will expand (hopefully), but I've read enough wound ballistics stuff to realize you never know what's going to happen. I feel I have a better chance with a bullet that starts out bigger, and that a heavier bullet has a better chance of not being deflected off course once penetration does occur. But I also have several carry guns, in .380, .38, 9mm, .44 Special, and .45 ACP, so I'm not wedded to one platform.

I'm also not a LEO, so don't worry about things like shooting through car doors or at fleeing suspects. For similar reasons I don't put a premium on capacity; I'm not going to laying down suppressive fire, or taking on a group of highly trained ninja assassins in my daily travels. In fact, we don't even have significant gang activity in this area. Again, personal situation and choices contributing to a final decision that makes sense for the individual.

Some people really enjoy reading all the numbers, "doing the math" and coming up with these great rating systems for terminal performance, etc. That's great! Another aspect of the sport to be enjoyed. If that gives one "comfort" in carrying a particular round or gun over another, it's as valid as any other criteria. Hopefully you're never going to have to use that CCW gun for its intended purpose in the first place.

-- Sam