Why "Not" 40 Caliber?

[Whistler]

Honestly don't think much about it, caliber is the last thing I think of (if at all) when purchasing a pistol. I reload all of them so just not a concern to me. Weird I know but I don't think about shoelaces much either.

 

[TexasFlash]

I have a glock 27 in .40; I keep thinking I'll get rid of it, since it is my only .40, but then I go shooting; nevermind. I like it too much.

 

[Charlie]

Substantial enough for me to pick a 45 over a 9mm based solely on the caliber? Nope. To each their own, but I do not feel that the added size, weight, and recoil of a 45 ACP, along with the smaller magazine capacity is worth the supposed advantages a 45 ACP offers.

I pick the 45 (which I shoot regularly) based solely on the caliber (and knock down power).

 

[easy rider]

I wonder if a 10mm could be called a 40 S&W Mag?

Case .142" longer. 180gr @ 1250 vs 1100 FPS (Hornady Reloading Manual)

From what I understand, the .40 was developed from the 10mm. And actually it was said that it is a better round than 9mm, due to research developed after the FBI Miami shootout.

 

[DyeF9]

So you think a .45ACP doesn't have substantial enough "knockdown power" over a 9mm? With all due respect, that is not correct.

I'm not sure what the hell "knockdown power" is, but .45 and 9mm have essentially the same chance of incapacitation or causing a mortal injury. They both require good shot placement, otherwise they do basically the same thing.

Get a .45 ACP moving at around 2500 fps and it's a different story.

 

[zaitcev]

I mean, all the calibers should have improved equally, no?

As a gross over-simplification, imagine that each caliber has a measure of goodness, such as E. So, with FMJ bullets, E(40) was 24, E(45) was 23, E(9) was 21. Clearly .40 is the best, right? But what if the users of these calibers only need E of 23? Before, they have no choice but using 40. But let's say that new bullets of JHP type increased E for all calibers, as you say above: "all the calibers ... improved equally". Now, E(40)=26, E(45)=25, E(9)=23. The .40 is still be best! But... nobody cares. They only need 23, so 9mm is good enough. And, but switching to 9, users reap the advantages in better follow-up accuracy, better capacity, less wear and tear, lower ammunition cost.

 

[DyeF9]

Facetiousness is lost on you.

It's text, yes sarcasm is often lost.

 

[Maverick44]

I pick the 45 (which I shoot regularly) based solely on the caliber (and knock down power).

This is a good read. I have no interest in dissuading you from carrying and shooting what you want, but I feel that this will give you a better level of insight into my own views on caliber.

https://www.policemag.com/374542/a-trauma-surgeon-talks-about-wound-ballistics-and-stopping-power

Vail's argument that the stopping power of handgun ammunition is not based on caliber has elicited howls of protest from members of the firearms community who are devotees of particular cartridges, especially the .45 ACP. Vail says he enjoys the debate and he reads the comments on his articles, but he stands by his conclusions about ammo performance based on his experience as a scientist, a surgeon, a shooter, and a tactical medical provider.

POLICE: Is there really a significant difference in terms of wound ballistics between a 9mm, .40, and .45?

Vail: Other than the size of the ballistic projectile, nope. Because unless you hit something vital, it doesn't matter what you hit them with. You could hit them with a .45 in the shoulder, they're gonna survive. You hit them with a 9mm in the shoulder, they're gonna survive. You hit them with a .22 in the brain they could die. So, stopping a threat really does not come down to caliber, it is shot placement.

Handguns are lousy stoppers; it doesn't matter the caliber, they are just not great at stopping threats. Because of the ballistics profile and the amount of energy that a rifle round carries with it and dumps into the body, a rifle is a much better instrument to stop a threat.

Carry and shoot what you want as long as you can shoot it well. Don't put so much stock in caliber alone.

 

[Charlie]

Larger calibers inherently have more "knock down" with all things being equal. If speed is vital, shoot a .22 Mag. or .357 Mag., etc. Each to his own opinions. A well placed shot with a 9, 40, or 45 will work fine. I shoot my 45 with confidence.

 

[Charlie]

Everyone should shoot what they feel comfortable with.

 

[Charlie]

dupe

 

[Texasgordo]

no2gates,

Fwiw, I'm planning SOON to buy yet another SIG. The next one will be one of the nice "police trade-ins" in .40 S&W that GT in Austin often has for sale.

yours, satx

I got my P229 and P226 in .40 S&W from GTs a few years back for around $320 each. Both were hardly shot and are 2 of my favorites.

The last time I was in GTs was back in November. The only Sigs they had were P229 DAK models in .357 Sig. Hopefully they got what you are looking for.

 

[easy rider]

I like my S&W .40, about as much as my sig P320 in 9mm, but I practice more with my S&W .45 and feel most comfortable with it, so that's what I carry. Of course my back up is a S&W .357 magnum.

 

[Charlie]

Ammunition cost is not a factor for me (I handload, but even if I didn't, the difference is extremely minimal). If I wasn't shooting a 45, I'd shoot a 40, and if I couldn't get a 40, I'd get a 9, and so on.

 

[V-Tach]

They make 1911's in 380, 9mm, 40, 38 Super, 10 mm and of course 45.....

Doesn't matter the caliber....you will be superior just by carrying the 1911........


















<sarcasm>............

 

[easy rider]

If my .44 magnum wasn't so big, that would probably be my back up.

 

[majormadmax]

The .40 never offered anything special, and was a compromise in the first place.

Not that it's a bad round, it really just doesn't provide any real improvement over the .45 or the 9mm.

Think .45 GAP...

9mm is simply easier and cheaper to use, and provides enough rounds per magazine that help compensate poor shooting.

Or you can man up and carry a .45!

 

[DyeF9]

Larger calibers inherently have more "knock down" with all things being equal. If speed is vital, shoot a .22 Mag. or .357 Mag., etc. Each to his own opinions. A well placed shot with a 9, 40, or 45 will work fine. I shoot my 45 with confidence.

The ballistic effectiveness is not based on any single variable. Bullet diameter does not = "knock down power". Knock down power is not even a defined unit of anything. It's a meaningless colloquialism that's only defining characteristic is the level of bias someone attributes to something based on the girth of the cylinder. If you place .45 ACP shots poorly, they do no better than 9mm. Chances are one well placed shot with a .45 ACP will take down a person in a defensive situation just as well as a 9mm or .40. On the same note, 4 well place shots from any of those calibers may not even slow down some attackers in the slightest. Humans are variable in that way, and it is not predictable.

I do agree with you on the shoot what you like and what you shoot well. It makes fairly little difference, as long as it's reliable and goes bang when you pull the trigger.

 

[Texasgordo]

I've never had a problem with the .40S&W. During the first great ammo shortage, it was readily available while the other calibers disappeared.

 

[Charlie]

This thread is supposed to be about why not shoot a 40 instead of a 9? Not an argument.