Why are so many people switching away from the .40cal pistols?

[bobzilla]

.40 was created at the same time men became women and could no longer handle the awesomeness of the .45. Add purple if your feelings are threatened and I invaded your safe space.

In all honesty I was nEver a .40 fan. Since I'm trying to consolidate .45 has been my choice.

 

[88E30M50]

It doesn't really work that way though. If you need a 10 foot ladder, a 20 foot isn't going to be an "improvment."

It is if you need to stop someone quickly. I'm not saying that 9mm is useless or that .40 is the end all, but you cannot disregard physics in making the point. bigger will always be bigger than smaller. Bigger bullets have more surface area. The larger the surface area, the greater (even if to a small degree) the chance of an incapacitating shot. What might be a nicked artery with a 9mm may be a cut artery with a .40. To that, add the greater energy in a .40 round. That energy goes somewhere. It does not just disappear and it could be that the energy may be the difference between being deflected by and passing through a bone.

If you are going to argue the merits of 9mm over .40, then do it based on the better ability to put a followup shot on target quicker than the .40 can. That's where 9mm has an edge. It simply comes down to whether or not you can inflict enough damage to an assailant before they do harm to you or a loved one. For some people, bigger bullets at a slower rate makes sense where as others prefer to do less damage with each round, but with more rounds in a given amount of time.

Isn't it great that we live in a country where we can have this discussion?

 

[churchmouse]

Isn't it great that we live in a country where we can have this discussion?

Yes sir. It surely is.....

 

[Dean C.]

Just curious, how did Glock screw over Sig or S&W? I'm guessing something to do with the 357 Sig and the 40 S&W rounds?

Smith and Wesson due to S&W actually creating the cartridge for the FBI, Glock just manufactured a pistol chambered in the new round quicker and cheaper than S&W could leading to the adoption of Glock by the FBI.

Exact same thing happened again with the most recent FBI contract. The solicitation specifically stated the gun must not have finger groves and be modular, this pretty much precluded the Glocks as my guess is the FBI wanted to purchase the new Sig P320's (an excellent choice IMHO) So what does Glock do? They just take the finger groves off the guns and sell it to the FBI cheaper than Sig could thus winning the contract. Because the only thing Glock does is make the cheapest pistols which is why they are so popular with LEO's, this LEO popularity makes them popular with civilians "Because every cop ever carries a Glock and so on". Thus endeth the "I hate Glock soapbox"

 

[MilitaryArms]

.40 was an answer to a question only the knee-jerk FBI asked. When their horrid Silver Tip bullet, not their caliber (9mm), failed them in Dade County they immediately went out to secure the most powerful conventional handgun caliber of the time -- the 10mm. Back then the full-house Norma loads were stout and FBI agents struggled with mastering it. So, the infamous "FBI load" came into being which was a pud-loaded 10mm. S&W realized with the reduced powder charge they could trim the case back a bit, make the round fit in 9mm sized guns and they could sell it to the FBI.

The FBI bought it... hook, line and sinker.

Qualification scores sucked. PD's around the nation followed the top law enforcement agency's lead and adopted it too... and their qualification scores suffered similarly. The cost of ammo went up, which means the cost of practice went up, and the effective hits went down with the qualification scores.

Decades later (agencies move at a snails pace) the FBI decided they should go back to 9mm as it produced better results at a lower cost. Soon, agencies once again followed their lead.

Now .40's are being dumped on the surplus market and the entire country is going back to 9mm.

I have (1) .40 S&W pistol. I only have it because I've not been able to secure it's 9mm variant (it's an oddball). Once I do, I will have zero .40 pistols.

9mm is by far the best all around fighting caliber for many reasons. 1) lower recoil, 2) lower cost, 3) higher capacity, 4) increased service life over .40 guns, 5) higher hit probability with most officers and civilians, 5) it's every bit as effective in shootings in terms of stopping the threat as .40 and .45.

.40 is a compromise caliber that exceeds at nothing but does "ok" across the spectrum. People are tired of compromises... finally. It took long enough for people to realize what I've been preaching for a couple of decades now. Get a 9mm and forget about the decades old hype of a caliber that no one really needed to begin with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

bigger will always be bigger than smaller.

Maybe. Bullet construction, presence and type of intermediate barriers, etc. come in to play. Bullets do weird things. Just because a bullet leaves the barrel bigger doesn't mean it stays that way.

All the duty calibers have slight edges here and there, but slight is the key word. Is it more likely that 0.06 inches will make a guy bleed out faster or that the faster followup shot will let you get a round on a second attacker .15 seconds faster? Will either matter? Recoil two handed or strong handed is easier to control than recoil with an off hand or a grip compromised by injury. Does that play in more than a tiny bit of expansion? What are the odds you'll have to fight injured vs that slight bleed advantage? How do you know?

 

[Butch627]

I have read several times that advancements in 9mm have brought it to virtually equal status with 40 and 45. If that is the case than why cant those same advancements be applied to 40 and 45?

 

[phylodog]

It is if you need to stop someone quickly. I'm not saying that 9mm is useless or that .40 is the end all, but you cannot disregard physics in making the point. bigger will always be bigger than smaller. Bigger bullets have more surface area. The larger the surface area, the greater (even if to a small degree) the chance of an incapacitating shot. What might be a nicked artery with a 9mm may be a cut artery with a .40. To that, add the greater energy in a .40 round. That energy goes somewhere. It does not just disappear and it could be that the energy may be the difference between being deflected by and passing through a bone.

If you are going to argue the merits of 9mm over .40, then do it based on the better ability to put a followup shot on target quicker than the .40 can. That's where 9mm has an edge. It simply comes down to whether or not you can inflict enough damage to an assailant before they do harm to you or a loved one. For some people, bigger bullets at a slower rate makes sense where as others prefer to do less damage with each round, but with more rounds in a given amount of time.

Isn't it great that we live in a country where we can have this discussion?

During the testing of the Federal 9mm & .40 HST rounds, my test results showed a difference in expanded diameter which was less than the thickness of a dime and a difference in retained weight which was less than the weight of a dime. The 9mm penetrated 1.5" deeper than the .40. (147gr 9mm vs 180gr .40)

The bottom line is that there comes a point where a particular bullet, pushed at a particular velocity is sufficient to reach vital organs and begin to shut the human body down. Once that performance criteria is met, other factors begin to take priority (recoil, capacity,etc.) Higher velocities, additional kinetic energy, heavier weight, deeper penetration aren't going to make someone more dead than a well placed shot with a lesser performing but sufficient round.

To stop someone quickly grab a rifle. When it comes to "stopping power" all handgun rounds are poor performers.

 

[foszoe]

I have read several times that advancements in 9mm have brought it to virtually equal status with 40 and 45. If that is the case than why cant those same advancements be applied to 40 and 45?

My guess has always been the M in F=ma but I too would like to hear an "expert" answer on that question.

 

[phylodog]

My guess has always been the M in F=ma but I too would like to hear an "expert" answer on that question.

The advancements have been applied to all three calibers. There have not been advancements in reducing the recoil of the .40 to 9mm levels nor cramming 15 rounds of .45ACP into a 9mm frame however.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have read several times that advancements in 9mm have brought it to virtually equal status with 40 and 45. If that is the case than why cant those same advancements be applied to 40 and 45?

They have been. Modern rounds are more barrier blind, more consistent in expansion, etc then previous generations. The 9mm HST performs as well or better, depending on circumstances, than older .45. There are .45 that expand even more and/or penetrate deeper. The question is, in the context of people shooting, is that actually making a difference? Maybe. Like my previous post, depends on the circumstances.

 

[223 Gunner]

I only have one .40 caliber weapon, a Glock 23 that I bought on here from another member, I think I have put maybe 50 rounds through it.
The original owner barely shot it as well. I'm not sure how many rounds it will take to "wear out" my Glock quicker than a 9mm Glock, but they are fairly inexpensive firearms to begin with. I'm quite sure I will never wear it out, I just don't dump thousands of rounds through anything I own.

A few hundred rounds a year. It seems like lately I just don't keep any of them long enough to dump a bunch of rounds through them.
I think the .40 is still a viable round. The only other Glock I own is in .357sig, another round that will wear your gun out quicker.
I guess I just don't worry about that kind of stuff, I'm not sure what parts wear out quicker, but if I ever have that issue, I guess I will send it back to Glock and have them go through it.

 

[BuckBranchHunter]

I sure don't mind the surplus of trade-in 40's the gun shop has had recently, my checking account and wife are another story!

 

[WestSider]

Because Yeager /thread

This.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess I just don't worry about that kind of stuff, I'm not sure what parts wear out quicker, but if I ever have that issue, I guess I will send it back to Glock and have them go through it.

Keep on top of recoil spring changes, and you'll probably get 80k+ rounds through it before anything remotely major goes wrong. While not disputing that 9mm is easier on guns, it's again a difference without a real difference in outcome for the vast majority, as few people are putting 5k-8k rounds or so through a given gun to the point it's time for a new recoil spring, let alone 80-100k.

 

[223 Gunner]

Keep on top of recoil spring changes, and you'll probably get 80k+ rounds through it before anything remotely major goes wrong. While not disputing that 9mm is easier on guns, it's again a difference without a real difference in outcome for the vast majority, as few people are putting 5k-8k rounds or so through a given gun to the point it's time for a new recoil spring, let alone 80-100k.

Exactly, most of us are not putting that amount of ammo through our guns, sure some guys are, the ones lucky enough to have free time and free ammo.
Hard core reloaders and competitive shooters may put that many rounds down range. But they are most likely aware of changing springs when needed.

 

[Sniper 79]

I sure don't mind the surplus of trade-in 40's the gun shop has had recently, my checking account and wife are another story!

I plan on picking one up and putting a 9mm barrel in it if it's cheap enough. Never cared for the foe-tay.

 

[JoeG1]

9mm so much cheaper to shoot, thats why they are chaging.

 

[88E30M50]

Where are you guys seeing info that shows 9mm having similar ballistic characteristics as .40? From what I'm seeing, current 9mm is good, but it still is not performing the same as a .40. For instance, TNOutdoors9 did a comparison of Federal HST in .40, 9mm and 9mm +P. When you compare the areas and penetration of both expanded and projectile size before expansion, the .40 is always bigger. Per his results, a .40 has 27% greater frontal area passing through the target before expansion. A standard 9mm has only 94% the surface area after expansion and a +P has 87% the frontal area. When you calculate the volume of the damage path that a .40 Federal HST has, it comes to about 3.64 cubic inches of damage path. The standard pressure 9mm will pass through 2.95 cubic inches and the +P will pass through 2.72 cubic inches. That means that a .40 Federal HST passes through more than 23% volume than a standard pressure 9mm and 33% more than the +P 9mm round.

Those are not insignificant differences. Mind you, I'm not a .40 zealot. I like shooting the .40 and I like reloading for it, but I carry a 9mm and a .45 more than I carry a .40. I understand the point that on rounds 2 and up, you will probably see more accurate placement of a 9mm round than a .40 round, but I don't think the .40 is outside of combat accurate.

My question is, where is the data that shows a 9mm round produces a near equivelant amount of damage as a .40? Granted, TNOutdoors9 should not be considered the be all, end all of testing but his scientific rigor is not bad.

Again, I'm not arguing the point, just trying to understand if the data is accurate or if we are just hashing internet lore regarding the capabilities of a 9mm pistol round.

 

[dross]

40 SW in 135 grain bullets comes very close to the ballistics in a 125 grain 357 magnum, the most proven manstopper in a pistol round. I'm a fan.