I just dont get the 40 cal.

[TheHoneyBadger]

IMO one of three reasons
1) ignorance or
2) department issues them and you get free ammo
3) did not know better got a lot of .40s so now it's cheaper to stick with .40s than buy superior 9s

I'm biased to 9s because I read/study data and shoot often. There's 0 data to make me wanna buy another .40 all my
current pistols will be chambered in 9 or 22

 

[Skiney]

I love my Glock 23. I am confident and accurate with it. I have 45s and 357s, they are great guns. My Glock is the one when something goes
bump in the night, as well as my daily carry. I think it is good combination of size and capacity.

Exactly +1

Look back at post #10

Buy all the 9 & 45 and leave the 40 on the shelves for me and my G23:}

When availability on ammo gets tough again you'll be suprized of the converts that will beguin to LOVE .40 lol

Ignorance will then be IN......

BS gotta love it:}

 

[OneStory]

There is no more right or wrong with the 40cal than the other "popular" calibers.

To each his own.

 

[Jack]

When availability on ammo gets tough again you'll be suprized of the converts that will beguin to LOVE .40 lol

Which is why the prepared man keeps stock.

 

[Glocker]

.40 is a compromised cartridge in my opinion, and I don't like the way it shoots. Much prefer my 9's or 45's. If I was stuck with hollowpoints I'll take one of my Glock 19's, if stuck with ball ammo I'll take one of my Glock 21's. I'll use one of my .40's if I'm forced to haha. None of them are a magic bullet, just a way to make it to my long guns.

 

[dantheman]

Which is why the prepared man keeps stock.

That's my plan .

 

[jdindadell]

I have a few guns that seem to handle the 40 cal just fine, the best being the baby eagle (all steel no rail model).

I do not really see much difference when shooting 9mm or 40 in the full size / tactical glocks. However I always felt like I shot the 19 better than the 23. Now that I have a gen4 23 I do not mind 40 in the size. Guess the new recoil spring works different than the gen3 23 spring.

Given the option I guess I would choose 9mm over 40 as I get a few more rounds in the same size gun. 40 can be had with heavier bullets, maybe that is a consideration for certain scenarios?

I did get rid of a few guns in 40 cause they did not seem to handle the round as well as the glocks did.

Just boils down to personal preferance I guess.

I remember when 9mm was quite a bit cheaper than 40, so all I had was 9mm. Now that the prices are about the same that is not really a consideration any more.

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

You know how when you go to the chineese buffet,they always have that soft serve machine with three choices...vanilla,chocolate and swirl.....? That's it.

 

[aleks61]

I prefer to carry my Glock 23 because it offers more firepower or "knock down power" than my glock 19. Im a small guy, 5' 7" 145 pounds, an I carried an XD45 for about a year and the gun and ammo were uncomfortable to carry because of weight. I loved the XD45, but I just find my Glock 23 to be lighter and more comfortable than anything else I have tried. I know they have some really small .45's out there, such as Springfield's new XDS, but I feel more comfortable with 14 rounds as opposed to 6 rounds. But, to each his own, carry whatever you are comfortable with carrying every day. Somebody once told me, "A .22 in the pocket beats a .45 in the safe."

 

[Sin-ster]

One of the reasons I carry .45 is that my chosen pistol/platform shoots it the most accurately-- regardless of weight, manufacturer, bullet profile, etc. In 9 and 40 both, that's not so much the case across the ammo spectrum.

Keep in mind that the common trend is for 9 and 40 to share the same frame, internals and even slides in a lot of the more popular pistols these days. In some cases... this causes problems. If your gun is built in the US, it's probably designed around the 40 first; if it's at least DESIGNED in Europe, 9mm. That may also effect your decision.

I know that I shoot the .45 better than the .40-- I've tested it. Paper, timer, Hit Factor-- plus a larger diameter hole t'boot. Seemed like a no brainer at the time.

 

[tim9lives]

I know most people feel the need for having a high capacity handgun. But personally, I just don't see the need unless you are Law enforcement or military. For personal self defense, IMO a 5 shot revolver is all one ever needs. If one prefers a semi auto, then a 8 or 9 shot firearm is all one would ever need. Most self defense shooting encounters are a done deal after the first few rounds have been fired. Of course....as I said...that's just my take on things.
Now...if I was a cop or military....then yea....I'd want a high capacity side arm.

 

[Skiney]

I like DAT me:}

I know most people feel the need for having a high capacity handgun. But personally, I just don't see the need unless you are Law enforcement or military. For personal self defense, IMO a 5 shot revolver is all one ever needs. If one prefers a semi auto, then a 8 or 9 shot firearm is all one would ever need. Most self defense shooting encounters are a done deal after the first few rounds have been fired. Of course....as I said...that's just my take on things.
Now...if I was a cop or military....then yea....I'd want a high capacity side arm.

Or.......

 

[SpeedRacer]

I know most people feel the need for having a high capacity handgun. But personally, I just don't see the need unless you are Law enforcement or military. For personal self defense, IMO a 5 shot revolver is all one ever needs. If one prefers a semi auto, then a 8 or 9 shot firearm is all one would ever need. Most self defense shooting encounters are a done deal after the first few rounds have been fired. Of course....as I said...that's just my take on things.
Now...if I was a cop or military....then yea....I'd want a high capacity side arm.

What's the difference between being a cop in a gunfight and a civilian? That's terrible logic.

 

[Jack]

I know most people feel the need for having a high capacity handgun. But personally, I just don't see the need unless you are Law enforcement or military. For personal self defense, IMO a 5 shot revolver is all one ever needs. If one prefers a semi auto, then a 8 or 9 shot firearm is all one would ever need. Most self defense shooting encounters are a done deal after the first few rounds have been fired. Of course....as I said...that's just my take on things.
Now...if I was a cop or military....then yea....I'd want a high capacity side arm.

Do you really want to count on most?

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

Man, there's nothing WRONG with .40 at all. It's not for everyone, obviously, but it works. The best fighting .40 for me is the G27 just like the best fighting 9mm for me is the G26. I don't know what else could be said on this thread.

 

[LouisianaRebel]

I know most people feel the need for having a high capacity handgun. But personally, I just don't see the need unless you are Law enforcement or military. For personal self defense, IMO a 5 shot revolver is all one ever needs. If one prefers a semi auto, then a 8 or 9 shot firearm is all one would ever need. Most self defense shooting encounters are a done deal after the first few rounds have been fired. Of course....as I said...that's just my take on things.
Now...if I was a cop or military....then yea....I'd want a high capacity side arm.

Woww. Yeah because all bad guys carry a 5shot. 38...

Sent from Samsung S3 on the toilet.

 

[Sin-ster]

AFAIK, the HK USP was the first pistol to be designed around the .40 S&W cartridge; ditto the Compact model. Of the serious service pistol contenders, I believe most of the remaining examples are modified 9mms, except for the S&W M&P. I think that one was designed around the .40 as well. I have some question regarding the HK P2000 and P30; its a "chicken or the egg?" thing. I suspect they were originally intended to be 9mms, but HK designed enough extra meat into them so they could handle the .40.

Despite its success, that cartridge is hard on guns.

.

Doh-- I should have read up on HKs!

You are correct-- the M&P was built around the .40, with the (alleged) notion that if it could stand up to that battering, it could stand up to 9mm and .357 Sig as well. As it's the only true American design on the (short) list, I believe it's the only one-- in regards to polymer stuff, at any rate.

That's really interesting about the USP. Was it intended to be in some US LEO trial at its conception?

 

[Hardballing]

Only "40" I'm interested in has "mm" behind it.

Have 9mm's. Shoot LOTS of 9mm's. Hit very well, very fast, where I want, with 9mm's. Don't even own any .45's anymore but that could change in an instant if a sexy 1911 crosses my path. But I doubt it. Been there, done that and am happy where I've landed.

MANY loadings in 9mm will duplicate .40 loadings if you want to go there. Me? I'll take rapid controlability, less wear and tear on the systems, and cheaper practice ammo.

Your choice? Make it yourself. Don't care. Don't have to.

 

[JR1572]

I've heard it both ways:

1. It was designed specifically for the American market and the .40 cartridge.

2. It was modified from a near-complete 9mm design that was originally produced to compete for the Bundeswehr (German army) contract.

I'd tend to believe #2; in the form of the P8, the USPf has been the German military's main service pistol for a long time now. The Compact 9mm serves them as the P10 (I think; there's a P12 in there too, somewhere)

Interesting question that I'm not sure of the correct answer. But I know who to ask... stand by.

.

P12=USP Tactical .45

JR1572

 

[tim9lives]

Do you really want to count on most?

No...but my main point was that most self defensive shootouts are a done deal after 2 or 3 rounds are fired. Furthermore....yes, I am making a compromise for the sake of conceivability and for the sake of not having to deal with safeties or misfires. Revolvers are just no brainers IMO.


Below is a very interesting article on stopping power...etc.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

Submitted by cbaus on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 15:00. Education
by Greg Ellifritz

I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915.Some interesting findings:

I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.
Conclusion

This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!


LINK TO THE FULL ARTICLE WITH DATA AND RESULTS OF SHOOTINGS

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power