.40 Caliber is it losing favor with Law Enforcement?

[stemoo01]

The only way I could see .40 being less accurate is if you take some new shooters & compare group sizes with different calibers. I.e the caliber itself isn't inherrently less accurate, rather it's snappyness tends to increase the error rate of the shooter.

Balistically I just can't see anyway that there could be a relevant difference.

Lockhart, were you talking about shooter related accuracy? Or balistics?

 

[Bithabus]

I know it's all cutesy to call it that, but -- seriously, you are aware, are you not, that the .40 is just as powerful (in terms of kinetic energy) as both the 9mm+P and the .45+P, right? And it's notably more powerful than the standard-pressure 9mm and .45 (which is why it gets complaints about recoil). The 9mm generally develops 350 to 375 ft/lbs, and the .45 generates about 385 to 407. The .40 S&W develops 388 to 491 ft/lbs according to the standardized SAAMI publications.

I still just can't follow the logic behind someone wanting to denigrate it; I mean, the .40 is a round that is bigger, heavier, as fast or faster, and more powerful than the 9mm, and yet folks call it "short and weak". And no, I'm not a fanboy of the .40, I prefer .45 and 10mm. But there ain't nothing wrong with the .40, at all. It is what it is -- a bigger, heavier, more powerful 9mm.

You are confusing slightly higher numbers with increased lethality. "More powerful" doesn't mean anything useful in your context. There is no evidence that, shot for shot, a 9mm and .40, using , say, HST rounds, will cause significantly dissimilar wounds in human targets.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Not sure how it can be. I mean, does that imply that the 10mm is also inherently inaccurate? They use the same bullets, after all.

Tell you what, I've got a Ransom Rest, and grips for my Springfield XD40. I also have a 9mm barrel for the XD. Someone ship me a box of match-grade 9mm and an equivalent box of match-grade .40 S&W, whatever's optimized for each caliber, and I'll run 'em through the Ransom at 25 yards, the same gun, and we can then compare the group sizes. If there's something inherently wrong with the .40's accuracy, that should answer it, right?

That would be sufficient for me.

 

[Whistler]

Dude, i shoot in competition, this aint my first rodeo, Im sayin that
the round is not as accurate as the 9mm, or .45 acp. If you wanta carry
your little .40 short & weak, be my guest! The .40 is NOT as accurate of
a round that I want to carry in MY self defense pistol. And, there IS a
reason the police are moving away from it. Read the article in Shotgun
news about it.

Quantify "not as accurate". Not liking the caliber or personally shooting better with one than the other doesn't mean it's inferior or inherently inaccurate, you're extrapolating personal ability to support your conclusion.

 

[LOCKHART]

Shootingthebull, I dont know the answer, I only know that my Ruger SR-40 wont shoot as
tight of a group as my Ruger SR-45, and my buddys Glock wont either. More like BIG groups.
I have a Smith & Wesson .500 that shoots clover leaf groups at 50 meters, and I dont think
the recoil of the mighty .40 s & w even comes close to it! The .40 short & weak doesnt scare
me at all. You might read the article in Shotgun news, it explains more about the situation.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

You are confusing slightly higher numbers with increased lethality. "More powerful" doesn't mean anything useful in your context. There is no evidence that, shot for shot, a 9mm and .40, using , say, HST rounds, will cause significantly dissimilar wounds in human targets.

I never said anything about increased lethality. I referred only to the power of the round, specifically in response to someone calling it "weak." My argument was that it is not weak, it is in fact as or more powerful than the other service calibers.

How that energy is harnessed and utilized to cause damage is a matter for the bullet designers to address. The issue at hand that I was addressing was the inherent power in the cartridge to do the necessary work. The power is there, the .40 is not "weak". (at least, it's not weak in comparison to any other service/duty handgun cartridge).

 

[ShootingTheBull]

You might read the article in Shotgun news, it explains more about the situation.

I went to the site and looked at the headlines, and in the handgun section, and in the ammo section, I didn't see anything that looked related to .40 accuracy. Do you have a direct link?

 

[LOCKHART]

Shootingthebull, I dont, but I was reading it again this morning. I will get the
volume number when I get home this afternoon, and post it on here in the
morning. The actual subject the author was talkin about was the new FBI
info that was released regarding wounding statistics. The .40 s & w was
referenced in the article because police departments all over the country are
going back to the 9mm, based on the new FBI info. Thats why you see in the
J & G sales ads in Shotgun news, all those Glock .40 trade-ins. I was wondering
if they also were going back to 9mm because of accuracy problems. I have shot
a few different makes of .40 cal pistols, and I and a few of my friends have found
that the .40 s & w does not shoot as tight groups as say our .45 autos.

 

[Younggun]

Sounds like that article has nothing to do with .40 S&W being inherently inaccurate.

 

[Brojon]

My understanding is that the 40 and 357 sigs are in review to get replaced by quite a few departments around the country.
Apparently the ammo is hard on the guns with increased slide and other wear.
Also from what I've read the qualifications scores have gone down because these guns are "harder" to control.
Couple that with vast improvements to 9mm ammo with higher capacity mags and there you have it.

 

[Brojon]

If you actually read this article, the study he did shows that .22 has a higher fatality percentage than any other caliber other .357. .25 acp was statistically about equal to 9mm and .380 was better than 9mm and in some areas better than .40 or .45.

That's it, mouse guns from here on out.

LOL - but there is some truth to that. Apparently the Israeli Defense Forces got a bunch of Ruger 10/22's as non-lethal deterrence. Guess what? They got rid of them because they were proving lethal out to 400 yds!

 

[Saltyag2010]

I never felt that the 40 cal had a significant enough advantage in ballistics over 9mm to be considered worth it considering costs, follow up shots, recoil and capacity. 9mm is easier to shoot, costs less, performs negligible worse in ballistics but is easier to shoot and carries more rounds in a similar sized gun.

I hate 40 s&w.

 

[LOCKHART]

Plus the fact that lots of pistols chambered for it, have unsupported chambers.
It sure wakes you up when you have that round blow out the bottom!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I own 6 .40 cal (Glock & HK) & have never had a kaboom...

 

[LOCKHART]

Good for you! ALOT of other people HAVE!

 

[breakingcontact]

I never felt that the 40 cal had a significant enough advantage in ballistics over 9mm to be considered worth it considering costs, follow up shots, recoil and capacity. 9mm is easier to shoot, costs less, performs negligible worse in ballistics but is easier to shoot and carries more rounds in a similar sized gun.

I hate 40 s&w.

Stop bashing cops.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Good for you! ALOT of other people HAVE!

And you have had other calibers kaboom, correct??

 

[Younggun]

No other caliber has ever gone KABOOM except .40 S&W.

 

[LOCKHART]

Yes, like I mentioned earlier, a Colt .38 Super that I was using back in 1971. I was
using some really hot loads with a 150 grain lead bullet, meant for .357 mag, sized
to .355 and hot load of red dot powder. I was shooting at a whitetail, fired 1 shot, went
under the deer, held up a little, next shot KABOOOM! Blew the mag out the bottom, felt
like somebody had hit me in the palm with a baseball bat! I gave up on that particular load!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

No other caliber has ever gone KABOOM except .40 S&W.

That's what I thought, but evidently it has happened at least once.....