• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Why all the hate for .40s&w?

wacky_doug

wacky_doug

Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
2,765
Likes
523
Location
Location, Location
Feedback: 34 / 0 / 0
Every now and then when I'm wandering around on one of the gun forums, I see somebody saying something derogatory about .40s&w.

What gives? Did I miss some controversy about this caliber? Is it a bunch of .45 guys mocking the smaller and less powerful round? Is it the 9mm guys complaining about reduced mag capacity?

I'll admit to being out the community for a while. So somebody please fill me in.
 
wacky_doug said:
Every now and then when I'm wandering around on one of the gun forums, I see somebody saying something derogatory about .40s&w.

What gives? Did I miss some controversy about this caliber?
Click to expand...
The 40 S&W was developed as a replacement for a down loaded 10mm, that bothers some people.

It's the round for USPSA Limited and Limited-10, there is something nice about having 19+1 in the gun.[grin]

Respectfully,
jkelly
 
This is a repost, but here goes:

I dislike the .40 on principle, and also because of personal experience not related to the performance of the cartridge.

On Principle
The .40 is symbolic of the pussification of America. You see... in the past, someone at a firearms company took a look at a cartridge like the .38 S&W and said, "Hey... If we made this thing longer, we could get more powder into it and make it more powerful." Everybody within earshot said, "Let's do it!", and the .38 Special was born.

One night several decades later, Colonel D. B. Wesson and Phil Sharpe were sitting around on stools made from elephant legs, drinking straight whiskey and smoking Cuban cigars when the Col picked up a .38 Special and said, "Dude, we should make this thing longer, stuff it full of smokeless powder, and give it a cool name. It would kick ass!" to which Phil Sharpe replied, "You're a pussy if you don't", and Bingo! the .357 Magnum was born.

The same thing happened with the .44 - except Elmer Keith wouldn't stop whining about it so he was drinking whiskey alone, angrily writing magazine articles until Remington finally made his cartridge.

The .40 was developed backwards.

In April of 1986, the FBI was involved in a shootout in Miami with two heavily armed career criminals. The bad guys were killed, but not before they took the lives of FBI Special Agents Gerald Dove and Benjamin Grogan. The subsequent investigation placed partial blame for the agents' deaths on the lack of stopping power exhibited by their 9mm handguns, so the FBI adopted the far superior 10mm cartridge.

Field agents loved the additional firepower, but some of the sissy office staff complained about the 10mm's recoil. One day, some pale doughy accountant picked up a 10mm and said, "If someone else would make this smaller and weaker, it wouldn't hurt my little hand as much when I shoot it." His transgender assistant said, "That a great idea! They could even make the guns smaller to fit in my evening bag", and the .40 was born.

Personal Experience
I've been shooting since my early teens. When I was looking for a carry handgun, I made the mistake of asking a blowhard know-it-all former co-worker his opinion.

He had one gun - a Sigma in .40 S&W - which in his mind made him an expert on firearms - and since he had a .40, it had to be the best cartridge ever conceived. After that, every time he saw me he'd spend what seemed like hours expounding on the virtues of the .40 as "the perfect cartridge". As a result, I began to hate it.

The deal was sealed soon thereafter, when I had a bad gun shop experience with some crusty old fossil that tried to hard-sell me a .40. The non-conformist in me kicked into high gear and I said to myself, "I'm never going to own one of these friggin' things".

A side story about the know-it-all blowhard:

A couple of years ago I was talking to the know-it-all blowhard and I mentioned that I was reloading for my .500. He said, "There's no such thing as a .50 caliber revolver". I directed him to Google and told him to do his research. (He must've missed the release of the X-frames because he couldn't hear it over the sound of how awesome the .40 is).

After he decided that it existed, he asked if he could shoot my .500 because he was "proficient with big bore revolvers" and might be able to show me some tips on shooting it. So, I took Mr. Proficiency out to the range, put a single mild load in my 8" .500, he shot it, and dropped my gun! He grabbed his wrist and started hopping around crying like Nancy Kerrigan. He broke the fiberoptic front sight on my revolver and never paid for it. He still loves the .40 though.
 
The 40 S&W is the greatest cartridge ever designed, for competitive shooting. I shoot Limited with a .40 Para; tough to beat 20 plus one in the chamber. This round will give you the performance of a .45 in a 1911 pistol for a lot less money. I use a 155 gr lead bullet loaded to IPSC Major that is a lot cheaper to shoot than a .45 round. The bullets are cheaper (lead is expensive) and the brass is free on the ground at your local range.

In the real world the .40 was a compromise that didn't really deliver the goods. It has no advantage (IMHO) over a hot loaded 9mm. I am not, however, a fan of the 10mm. Loaded to its advertised performance of a 200 gr bullet at 1200 fps, it is a handfull to shoot and hard on the gun. I believe that the venerable .45 ACP is the superior service round.
 
Jim's description of the history of the .40 S&W compared to other cartridges is correct (with acceptable literary license), except for one detail. The nancy boys at the Hoover Building really didn't know enough about guns to come up with any modifications on their own. They had been whining to the suppliers to please give them ammunition that didn't make their fingers all tingly and ruin their manicures. After a while somebody at S&W said, "Hell, if that's all the powder those wussies and going to use in their ammunition, there's no need for a real cartridge. We can give them a smaller case and still get more power than they can handle."

Ken
 
EddieCoyle said:
A couple of years ago I was talking to the know-it-all blowhard and I mentioned that I was reloading for my .500. He said, "There's no such thing as a .50 caliber revolver". I directed him to Google and told him to do his research. (He must've missed the release of the X-frames because he couldn't hear it over the sound of how awesome the .40 is).

After he decided that it existed, he asked if he could shoot my .500 because he was "proficient with big bore revolvers" and might be able to show me some tips on shooting it. So, I took Mr. Proficiency out to the range, put a single mild load in my 8" .500, he shot it, and dropped my gun! He grabbed his wrist and started hopping around crying like Nancy Kerrigan. He broke the fiberoptic front sight on my revolver and never paid for it. He still loves the .40 though.
Click to expand...

bsmeter.gif


I don't believe this ever happened, Jim. I don't think that you've EVER loaded something "mild" for that hand-cannon of yours!! [laugh]
 
I shoot .22, it's "fun", I shoot 9mm, bleh. I shoot .40 S&W, I love it.

As far as stopping power, I would not want to get hit with anything, from .22 to Eddie's .50, so as far as I am concerned, they are ALL good.[smile]
 
EddieCoyle said:
One night several decades later, Colonel D. B. Wesson and Phil Sharpe were sitting around on stools made from elephant legs, drinking straight whiskey and smoking Cuban cigars when the Col picked up a .38 Special and said, "Dude, we should make this thing longer, stuff it full of smokeless powder, and give it a cool name. It would kick ass!" to which Phil Sharpe replied, "You're a pussy if you don't", and Bingo! the .357 Magnum was born.
Click to expand...

This is the best paragraph ever written on NES.

EC has shamed me into wishing I never bought my Sig 250 compact in .40. I'm going to order the .357 Sig conversion kit and throw the .40 barrel in the tampon disposal bin in the airplane bathroom next time I fly!!

Wait... the .357 Sig is a pretty gay looking round too... maybe I have to toss the whole gun???? SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
 
Typically, as metallurgy, machining and chemistry improved over the last hundred years many new rounds have been more power full then their parents. But there has always been children created to fill a niche that were less powerful.

I think the 40 S&W has filled a huge niche within the law enforcement community (and gamming community). The 40 S&W addresses the issues of revolver capacity, 9mm performance, 10 mm recoil and ergonomics (frame size).

I would think an indicator of their relative merits would be their popularity among the shooting community. The 10mm, which never developed a large following, seems to have all but disappeared.

Respectfully,
jkelly
 
Gammon said:
The 40 S&W is the greatest cartridge ever designed, for competitive shooting. I shoot Limited with a .40 Para; tough to beat 20 plus one in the chamber. This round will give you the performance of a .45 in a 1911 pistol for a lot less money. I use a 155 gr lead bullet loaded to IPSC Major that is a lot cheaper to shoot than a .45 round. The bullets are cheaper (lead is expensive) and the brass is free on the ground at your local range.

In the real world the .40 was a compromise that didn't really deliver the goods. It has no advantage (IMHO) over a hot loaded 9mm. I am not, however, a fan of the 10mm. Loaded to its advertised performance of a 200 gr bullet at 1200 fps, it is a handfull to shoot and hard on the gun. I believe that the venerable .45 ACP is the superior service round.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Secret Service prides itself on being on the cutting edge of firearms and tactics. They went straight from the 9mm to the .357 SIG, bypassing the .40 S&W altogether. The .40, however, is the most popular LE round today in the United States.
 
I'm happy with my 9mm and .45ACP, I can't justify buying another gun just to say I also have .40SW. I think the 9mm is one of the greatest carry rounds every created and this forum can't support the bandwidth of all the great things I can say about the .45ACP. Just because I don't like the recoil of the .40 doesn't make me a Nancy, I just happen to like the cartridge size to ballistics ratio / recovery time of the 9mm better.

FWIW I still think it's funny that Glock beat S&W to the punch on creating a gun for SW's own cartridge.
 
I hadn't thought much of the 40's and happy with my 45's. Last year we were given a deer one of the cops had to put down after it got hit by a car and leg broke. He asked us for the bullets. One passed right through in and out. Doubble lung shot. Second shot through the sholder and ended up inside the other sholder. We were impressed with how it mushroomed and penetrated.
 
9mm is great for "realistic" plinking / carrying. i've done it / do it / use it

45acp is a great round. my only gripe is capacity, outside of a G30, or similar sized packages (non Para O) can carry more than 8 or 9 rounds...

.357sig - difficult to find (sometimes), a little expensive

10mm - haven't tried it yet, also a little expensive

why i carry .40?
i can have close to 9mm capacity in a relativley small package (G23) with a little more ooomph. 13rds (or 15 w/ +2 base pad)

then, i can also buy a 40 to 9mm conversion barrel and plink / train on the same gun and swap out the barrel for a .357 sig barrel as well w/o modifications.

3 different rounds out of one gun... can't beat that!

i have two .40 handguns which i shoot .357 sig out one and 9mm out the other

a dedicated 9mm (alone) and a dedicated .45 (alone)

[wink] versatility.

9mm is great, so is .45!

but what do LE and Military use for their handguns?

for SHTF, I want 9mm, .40 and .223 / 5.56 [wink]
 
All of what Jim said... plus this....

For those that own 9mms and .45s, the .40 ends up being "all dressed up and no place to go." If you own the other two calibers you'll end up gravitating to either of them, or so it seems. I have ONE handgun in .40 S+W left. if that's any indication. I find its overkill for steel plates and too wimpy to shoot bowling pins with (although I will say, it's WAY better than 9mm!) and overkill for plinking.

I don't hate the cartridge but for a lot of shooters it has limited usefulness.

I think a lot of newbs also get soured on .40 S+W after some jackass gun shop commando type or well meaning "friend" prods them into getting a .40 S+W by trying to get into petty arguments about how the 9mm isn't good enough to do the job" or some crap.

Then that newb takes that gun to the range, shoots it, does poorly with it, because they're too distracted by the snappy recoil of the cartridge to focus on fundamentals. The only upshot of this is you can often pick up used .40 S+W handguns rather easily, in great condition, because they probably have the highest turnaround rate of any of the major calibers. [laugh]

.40 S+W is not my favorite cartridge but it's still way above crap like .25/.32/.380 ACP. And it will destroy that frigging
glorified "level 2 kevlar enrobed woodchuck" hunting cartridge, the 5.7 x 28mm, any day of the week. [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
dwarven1 said:
bsmeter.gif


I don't believe this ever happened, Jim. I don't think that you've EVER loaded something "mild" for that hand-cannon of yours!! [laugh]
Click to expand...

I'll vouch for it. He did load up some plated bullets with a mild load just to see how they would work. I've shot some. I think they managed to scratch the paint on the target in my avatar.

As for my opinion on the .40...

I was blessed with smaller hands and gripping a .45 is usually difficult (although I found a new love with the M&P 45 that JUST fits) and I've never been impressed with the 9mm. Yea, the .40 is snappy, but I've never had any issues. For the longest time it was the only semi-auto I could really get a quick and effective grip on. Toyed with the .357 SIG for a short period (thanks to a BarSto drop in barrel for my SIG .40) but ammo was expensive. Right now, my semi-auto pistols are pretty much down to .22 .40, and .45. I have others, but they are only safe queens or teaching tools. Probably don't have more than a few hundred rounds lying around for them either.

In teaching women, I can start with a .22, move to a 9mm, and then if they want to go a little larger, I can fit just about anyone with a .40. Larger than this and proper grip, trigger squeeze, and recoil control tend to become poor if they have smaller hands. Or, we move to revolvers.

In my case, I'm soured on the 9mm not only because of ballistics, but the fact that I had a 'friend' who never stopped trying to tell me how 9mm was the ONLY caliber that mattered. ("why else would the military adopt it?") So, on principle I avoided them until I picked up one for training.
 
Last edited:
I've had several 9mms and their .40 equivalents -- Kahr K9 and K40, Sig P239 9 and P239 40, Glock 17 (I have never fired a 19, which is the more correct comparison) and 23.

My uniform experience has been the .40s have significantly more felt recoil than the equivalent 9mm. With modern, high performance 9mm ammunition, the performance advantage of the .40 is minimal, so I just don't see the point.

If I want a bigger round, I'll carry a 1911 (which is what I usually do). I find that .45s typically have less felt recoil than a .40. And if I decide I really want something with a diameter of .40, I'll carry my Delta Elite with real 10mm loads and 180 gr bullets.

As a result, I've sold my P239 .40, I've sold my HK USPc .40, and I would consider trading my Glock 23 for a 19.

YMMV.
 

Similar threads

From Newsweek. Price Increases on the way.
Replies
1
Views
203
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
WTS/WTT 303 British
Replies
0
Views
78
yellowstone
yellowstone
Range pickup 10.4 x 28 case. What is this thing?
Replies
10
Views
218
wcorey
W
Where are all the Velocitors?
Replies
14
Views
708
MaxStravinsky
MaxStravinsky
. 22 Rimfire Ammo With "Boxer Primer" ?
Replies
5
Views
229
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Back
Top Bottom