Ruger PCC in 40 S&W
- Thread starter rangerbob
- Start date
The 40 is just about dead as a LE handgun, 9mm ammo is cheaper which equates to more training for the same money. The nines hold more ammo and are usually easier to teach new recruits how to shoot. Nowadays most new recruits have zero gun experience and expecting them to master a 40 is like expecting them to drive a vehicle with a manual transmission. When the 40 was first adopted and put in use, most scores at the range went down and a solid hit with a 9mm beats the hell out of a miss with a 40. During my 22 years of CC instruction, I've seen many clients with 40's simply because that what the cops used. I get fliers weekly advertising police trade in Glocks and Sigs in 40, a good buy if one is in the market. Ruger has more or less discontinued 40's in their own pistol lines and now the expect to sell 40 carbines? Now the 10mm is a whole other animal and they sell autos and revolvers in 10mm. I'm disappointed!!!!!!!!!!! 
Bob!
Bob!
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:
The new spin is the 9mm cartridge from a carbine will do everything a .40 will do. I guess I went to a different school. Given a 9mm 115 or 124 grain leaving the barrel at 1200+/- fps, and given the .40 180 grain leaves the barrel at roughly the same speed, my math gives the .40 S&W quite an edge. In fact, since that is the power level of a .357 out of a revolver, and a .357 from a revolver is considered the minimum for medium game hunting, the PCC in .40 should be an adequate truck gun or survival gun.
I've owned a number of the previous PC4 carbines and was well impressed with its shootability at 50 yards. I've also shot it successfully at 100 yards, but I'm being realistic here. If it's my SHTF gun and I have to use it for everything, I'd sure rather hit a medium size animal with a 180 grain bullet than a 115 or 124 grain bullet going the same speed.
That's why the gun companies continue to release new combinations. To keep everybody arguing what's best and to keep things interesting.
But, I'm old school. I still believe a .30-30 can kill a deer, and a .45ACP can stop a man. 8)
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:
The new spin is the 9mm cartridge from a carbine will do everything a .40 will do. I guess I went to a different school. Given a 9mm 115 or 124 grain leaving the barrel at 1200+/- fps, and given the .40 180 grain leaves the barrel at roughly the same speed, my math gives the .40 S&W quite an edge. In fact, since that is the power level of a .357 out of a revolver, and a .357 from a revolver is considered the minimum for medium game hunting, the PCC in .40 should be an adequate truck gun or survival gun.
I've owned a number of the previous PC4 carbines and was well impressed with its shootability at 50 yards. I've also shot it successfully at 100 yards, but I'm being realistic here. If it's my SHTF gun and I have to use it for everything, I'd sure rather hit a medium size animal with a 180 grain bullet than a 115 or 124 grain bullet going the same speed.
That's why the gun companies continue to release new combinations. To keep everybody arguing what's best and to keep things interesting.
But, I'm old school. I still believe a .30-30 can kill a deer, and a .45ACP can stop a man. 8)
I frankly see the 40 as good for one thing: CYA for the FBI's training failure! The whole mess started with the Maimi debacle. It was easier for FBI management to blame the 9mm than admit their training was inadequate. At that time common policy was that range time and in a few cases ammo were on the agent not the agency. So the FBI went to 10mm! Unfortunately the low bid pistols were under engineered and training not really improved. The agents did poorly, quell surprise! So to avoid admitting that they are incompetent management took the out of down loading the 10mm to ~9mm levels, birth of the 40. Depending on the commercial ammo the 40 is only slightly different from the 9mm muzzle energy. It's the energy transferred that does the damage-not the weight of the bullet. Testing after the Moro Rebellion showed that for FMJ 45 is the minimum caliber to reliably produce fatal wounds. That was because the channel it cut was wide enough to transfer sufficient energy. With hollow points the energy transfer is greater for smaller caliber rounds than for it is for FMJ. The failed 38LC had several cases where the bullet passed completely through the Moro with out incapacitating him! Lack of energy transfer!
Thus the muzzle energy is an indicator of the effectiveness of the round. Heavy clothing or fur and thick muscle can spread and partially mute the energy requiring a heavier load or bullet to compensate.
The muzzle energy of the 40 commercial loads is similar to that of the 9mm +P high performance loads. If a need for more power is evident or a heaver load wanted going to 45 or 10mm makes far more sense than the 40 does.
Unless you are LEO with the 40 required a 40 PCC makes nonsense.
Thus the muzzle energy is an indicator of the effectiveness of the round. Heavy clothing or fur and thick muscle can spread and partially mute the energy requiring a heavier load or bullet to compensate.
The muzzle energy of the 40 commercial loads is similar to that of the 9mm +P high performance loads. If a need for more power is evident or a heaver load wanted going to 45 or 10mm makes far more sense than the 40 does.
Unless you are LEO with the 40 required a 40 PCC makes nonsense.
bentblade said:
http://shopruger.com/SR40-SR40c-15-Round-Magazine/productinfo/90350/
No hate here, just stating the way things are in the local shops. I have no way of knowing if that is a national trend, or merely regional.
I've owned .40s, 10mms and .357 Sigs, but for my uses 9mm and .45 do just fine, so they were what survived my personal down-sizing.
I've owned .40s, 10mms and .357 Sigs, but for my uses 9mm and .45 do just fine, so they were what survived my personal down-sizing.
Not really statistically significant, but last year in October I was shopping for a 10mm. Went to 3 local stores, two had the Glock 20 and one had a SIG they had just sold. One of three had all the available 10mm pistols including a Glock 40 which I bought. I'd fired the 20 and found it unpleasant. The Glock 40 was fine, but I now have a Blackhawk convertible that's a lot more fun.
No plethora of used 40s for sale here, but none of the local LEO went that route. Two of the stores were really pushing the 40 at big discounts.
Is the 40 dying? Don't know, but I don't see much use for it! For hunting it's not legal in a lot of states (357, 41mag, 44mag, 10mm, even 22lr in some areas). Not great for CC or DC. Why bother?
No plethora of used 40s for sale here, but none of the local LEO went that route. Two of the stores were really pushing the 40 at big discounts.
Is the 40 dying? Don't know, but I don't see much use for it! For hunting it's not legal in a lot of states (357, 41mag, 44mag, 10mm, even 22lr in some areas). Not great for CC or DC. Why bother?
I think Ruger will have a challenge to sell many of these, a 10MM or 45ACP version would have been a much better choice....we shall see, it doesn’t excite me in the least.
YMMV
YMMV
Sugar River
Buckeye
NH Rugerman said:
Pretty much what I'm thinking.
I was hoping for a 10 or 45.
mpalm
Single-Sixer
Lots of Glock 22's out there that will pair nicely with the PCC40.....(sadly my Original 1997 PC4 just went down in value today)
The 40S&W is alive and well. Yes, many agencies have moved back to the 9mm. Many are keeping the 40S&W for many reasons. This is a natural progression to see the 9mm to 40S&W with the PCC. I too have desire for a 10MM. I wonder what type of numbers as far as velocity the 40S&W will produce out of a carbine length barrel. I have fingers crossed for a 10mm. Lots of 40S&W mags out and about for a 40 PPC.
I am very interested in this PCC chambered in .40.
Interesting too, as we've seen so many times, the release of this model has been announced, but I don't see anybody having them available for sale.
Interesting too, as we've seen so many times, the release of this model has been announced, but I don't see anybody having them available for sale.
This seems to be an easy extension of the PCC line-up.
Haters will hate, but there are a LOT of .40 shooters out there with magazines that will fit the PCC. Hopefully it's another win for Ruger.
Can't wait to get my paws on one!
Haters will hate, but there are a LOT of .40 shooters out there with magazines that will fit the PCC. Hopefully it's another win for Ruger.
Can't wait to get my paws on one!
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
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
muzzle energy == ((muzzle velocity)²*bullet weight)/450400 so 200² is 40000 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.
Rei40c said:
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.
'sWAYNO said:
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:
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.
Old RugerFan
Bearcat
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 55
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!
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!
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!
Lateck
Single-Sixer
Love the statement, so true.WAYNO said:
I'm interested in the new 40 version. But I am interested in one in .45 & 10, too.
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!
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!
Similar threads
