I am a (guess it won't let me say that word)(kid with no dad) member of the Armory. I was swept over with the rest of the 10mmtalk crew, and have enjoyed the "expanded" experience ever since. That being said, I have noticed a great deal of hostility towards the .40 S&W. I am a die hard .400 fan. Notice what I said, not .40, but .400. The 10mm is really the only production semi-auto caliber I feel safe with tromping around the backcountry in Alaska with (but my G21 SF .40 Super would do). I have always carried 190 gr. Sierra FPJ's with a max load of AA #9 underneath it, and have been quite confident in the right regions (hiking near Anchorage)(N-frame .44's with Super Solids for everywhere else).

We have a great deal of hiking trails that start quite literally up the street from my home (where bears live), three major salmon streams that run right through the middle of town (where bears eat), and the random angry 1,000 lb. moose momma thrown in for fun. So when hiking, biking or skiing the laughably awesome trails in my town (a bit over 400 miles) connecting 10,000 acres of park (yes, that’s just in city limits, not the trails that start on the edge of town), a 10mm Glock has managed to cover most of them with me.

The .40 S&W seems to be that kid on the bus with the Velcro shoes and mis-matched gloves lately. I understand why my 10mmtalk brothers laugh and call it names (being the short, step brother of the 10mm), but I don't understand why the general population seems to loathe what I find to be the optimum personal defense caliber. I don't shoot 180 grain bullets. I don't shoot 165 grain bullets. I have found that the 155 grain Hydra-shok will both expand and penetrate, and shoot point of aim in both G22s and G23s. I had to switch to 135 grain Noslers (hand loads) for my G27 (not enough velocity from the 3.5" barrel).

Having recently learned about Double Tap, an order is underway to switch to 155 Gold Dots (22/23) and 135 grain Noslers (27). My preference is to use factory ammo for liability reasons, and having done a great deal of testing with both the 155 GDs and Noslers, I feel they will be perfect. The Gold Dots are claimed to travel at 1275 fps out of a G23 and 1310 fps out of a G22 (I believe them, but we'll see). The Noslers also do 1310 fps out of the G27's stubby little tube.

The Noslers are great for me, because the G27 is my "daily driver" and most of my days are spent in busy, people filled areas, and over penetration would be an issue. (I do find it funny when law enforcement worries about over penetration. They hardly ever hit anything anyway.)

Can anyone really say that these types of velocities in a .40 S&W with a premium 155 grain bullet (the Gold Dots) or the wildly expansive (is that a word?) Noslers are not going to be effective defense rounds?

AKMAN

(Next fall, I'm going to do some .40 S&W "doe season" ballistic testing when in the states. It’s pretty easy to get 10 yard shots. I want to have video and will post a full response.)

This post has been edited by akman: January 29th 2009 8:53 PM

For me it just does not make sense. I can get 20 rounds of 9mm HP in my Sig 226. If I need a bigger heavier round I have my Sig P220 in 45 ACP. If that don't do it i have my 44 mag. and .357 mag. I can also get a .357 Sig barrel for my P226 and that spanks .40 s&w. One more caliber I don't need. As interesting as .357 sig sounds I really don't want to stock any more calibers than I already have. Nothing personal just practical. I like my wheel guns and love 44 mag, but I really don't need to stock those calibers either(and only keep a handfull of ammo for those). I could be just fine with 9mm and 45 ACP.

If you like 40 cal don't let us get you down. It's your gun after all.

For hunting I have my Smith 629 ported in 44 mag. 240 grains at 1200 fps. Try that with a .40 s&w

This post has been edited by oak1971: January 29th 2009 9:48 PM

Nothing really from me, just have too many calibers as it is.

The debate about bullet size and muzzle velocity may go on for centuries but for the most part it was put to rest around the turn of the last century during the 1911 Military tests.

At that time, testing was done on flesh for impact of the bullet. The conclusion was basically a ratio V/M=V1/M1. V=velocity and M=mass.

When a fella scratches his head on that one enough, you realize there's all kinds of ways to skin the same cat. Most major calibers follow that pattern increasing velocity on smaller bullets and lower velocity on larger. The exceptions years back were called magnums where a large bullet was pushed out with a higher velocity.

When you run the numbers on 10mm and the .40 Smith, they really line up closer to the .44 mag and .357 mag performance wise. The 10mm has quite a bit less mass than the .44 mag and the .40 slightly more mass than the .357 mag.

This brings up the why bother then? Well, that's pretty simple too. Its in their common casing which is more suited for the semi-automatic handgun than the .357mag or .44mag which were revolver designed rounds originally. The 10mm not quite the kick ass of the .44 magnum is a much more manageable round than the .44 mag due to less recoil but nears its velocity, which is the opposite of the .44 special which is the same mass but lower velocity. The .40 Smith actually hits or surpasses the .357 mag in velocity with a slightly higher mass.

Its pretty easy to see why both rounds are attractive in the market especially for someone who's use to the .357mag or .44 mag.

A lot of folks try to compare the 10mm to .45 acp but really its apples to oranges. The .45 acp at its conception was to lean to mass over velocity and intended for a 230 grain bullet.

Tj

I kindof follow the same mind-set as Oak.

I stock 9mm and .45.

.40 does indeed give you a bit more "ummf" than 9mm, but my real turning point became the recoil. its snappier than 9mm and .45 - so I can do faster/more accurate followup shots with 9 or .45 than I can with .40.

FWIW - I am not really a big fan of .357 sig either. again, a bit snappy for my taste and not enough benefit over the 9mm, but if you don't look at capacity, than .45 it is.

Other thing is 9mm and .45 are a little cheaper and I am one cheap bastage!

I don't have any hatred of .40 though, I still have about 1K of .40 and the .40 barrel that came with my P229 Equinox, I can't bring myself to sell the barrel

If you have shot .40 and don't mind/feel the extra snap, then by all means, go for it

Contrary to popular belief I don't HATE .40 S&W. Just like I don't HATE XDs. My biggest issue with the .40 is the muzzle jump. It is definitely noticeable to me and co-workers I have shot with.
Then there is the whole story about how the FBI adopted the 10mm and that all the sissy limp-wrists cried for a more manageable cartridge and then the .40 was created. That just doesn't inspire confidence in me.
I do have some 40 rounds sitting around though, guess they are just waiting for me very last addition to the gun collection

Shit Plea, this post had me rolling in my chair. Sissies is why the .40 came about, now that's funny stuff there!

, that is funny.

I love my .40's and I can control the extra muzzle jump for quick follow up shots. I have yet to shoot a 10mm, but I will get one hopefully in the near future. I have no prejudice towards any cartridge, I love all of them! I'll admit though, some are more fun to shoot than other!

Muzzle jump could also be tamed by a heavier gun, better/higher grip....dare I say stronger wrists.

BTW- AKman, sounds like you know your .40 in and out, good choice! and this LEO can hit what he shoots at!

You found my secret, I have little sissy wrists, which is why I prefer the 10mm over the .40.

I kid, I kid!

eta: Didn't know that word was banned, my bad.

This post has been edited by pleaforwar: January 30th 2009 1:18 AM

Don't hate it, just a pointless caliber for me and in my opinion.

It's a compromise between 9mm and .45, something with modern projectiles I don't feel needs a compromise. 9mm, .40 and .45 have been shown to have no difference in gel tests. Penetration all surpasses 12", wound channel is about equal. Weight retention nowadays is about the same though I think .45 is the best. For me I'll take 3 more rounds and less recoil of a Glock 17 vs the 22.

.400 size itself isn't bad just the .40 S&W load for me isn't logical. It works no doubt, I just don't prefer it.

i use to have a g27.

good gun, because its a glock, but even with the pinky extension on the mag, so i could get 2 full hands on it, it just wanted to jump out of my hand. i had to do an occasional hand reposition like when i shoot .44mag or larger calibers (i have a lose grip, just what works for me) and it got annoying. i just think i should have gotten another 9mm or jumped up to .45

o well.

the .40s&w is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I don't hate the .40. In fact, I own two just because the deals on the guns were stellar deals, not for any love of the cartridge. If I had the chance, I'd trade them for their 9mm counterparts. My feelings have been expressed here already. 1. It's a neutered 10mm for people who couldn't control the real thing. 2. It does nothing that the .45 or 9mm can't do just as well. 3. In 9mm I can carry 3-5 more rounds per magazine. In .45, I can get at least another 50 grains of bullet weight. 4. The .357Sig made it obsolete. Same magazine capacity, in a MUCH more potent round, that most people shouldn't have an issue controlling.

Oak,

Just to clarify, I don’t “hunt” with the .40 S&W. These little Bambi’s will have to be sacrificed for my own freezer and ballistic knowledge.

AKMAN

I think I saw someone say that the .40 has more snap than a 9 MM and a .45.

Now I know the 9mm is true, but I will have to disagree on the .45 part. my 1911 kicks more than my PT100.

My nightstand gun is a .40. I keep it loaded with Federal Hydrashocks. And my car gun is a Kel Tec P11 in 9mm. The 1911 is a gun cabinet queen.

Simple.

It does not do anything better than a 9mm expect cost more, recoil more, brings a reduction of capacity, and a reduction of service life of the pistol, compared to a comparable 9mm. Also the .40 is more prone to KB and the .40's case is more prone to a catastrophic failure than a 9mm.

Yes the 9 use to suck, but todays modern bullet technology has the 9mm keeping up with the .40 and .357sig quite nicely. Better in some flavors.

What do you gain?

Thats a good chart.

All in the name of science. I think will research how much New Castle ale it takes for me to get buzzed later.

I am with you there, brother. Amen!

Well since you asked, a 200 grain bullet going at the same muzzle velocity as a 147 grain Gold Dot bullet +P 9mm.

Comparing Gold Dot to Gold Dot then its a 147gr 9mm vs a 165 grain with a 100 more fps.

That's why I used mass in my post because that includes weight as well as size.


That's why I posted they are closer to the big two magnum rounds which is the same basic concept rather than, smaller bullet faster velocity = larger bullet slower velocity, its more larger bullet faster velocity.

As anyone who shoots the magnum rounds knows, that would make the bullet type selection more critical to the application just like the 9mm does with the 147g Gold Dot by using a HP and picking up the muzzle velocity comes closer to the .45 230 grain FMJ, etc.

Tj

Force = Mass x Acceleration. In ballistic gelatin testing they have found that the right bullet design moving fast enough will create a nearly identical wound channel and penetration depth regardless of caliber choice and mass(for pistols).

If you look at rifles, a 55 grain .223 at over 3000 feet per second will give you 1300 ft/lbs of energy. That is one bad ass .22 Now at some point, you hit the wall performance wise(which is why you need a larger caliber and more powder fer pushing).

But for a combat pistol, the physical size of the chamber limits just how much powder capacity is available. Chamber pressures have to be kept in check as well. (kaboom) With modern materials, powders and bullet designs we can push the envelope a bit. But still, pistol manufacturer's continue to dance around the same basic sets of limiting factors that have been in place for 100 years. That is why 9mm and 45 acp still make sense today. Looks like those old guys at the turn of the century knew what they were doing.

This post has been edited by oak1971: January 30th 2009 7:30 PM

Yep.