Graybeard Outdoors banner

What happened to the 40

10K views 68 replies 35 participants last post by  rosewood 
#1 ·
Went to the LGS to swap some pistols and they didn't even want to look at my 40 caliber. Said that they cannot sell them. Nobody wants to buy 40 cal. anymore. They took a 9mm and a 38 snub nose. What happened! When did the 40's popularity crash. I thought it was a pretty good round. Guess I'll stick with 9mm and 45's from now on. Has anybody else heard of this? Redcap
 
#29 ·
I can remember back when the new kid on the block was the 10mm. That is until the FBI came out and said we need a cartridge that doesn't kick so bad. Bren 10 with Sonny on Miami Vice,(I think it was that show). That pretty much pushed the .40 along. I'll go along with Lloyd on this one, if a LE officer is having problems with the recoil of a full size pistol in .40 cal, more range time is needed. I can understand if a person has arthritis in the hands and has difficulty hanging on. As far as why the gun shop didn't want it, no doubt because the market is flooded with guns of that caliber. Supply and demand. gypsyman
 
#30 ·
i tested the two pistols to see which would be more effective at 10 yds using the 9mm NATO 125 FMJ and the 40 cal 180 FN FMJ in a very simple test. 2 litter coke bottle filled with water and capped. The 9mm split the bottle a couple of inches and the water poured out, the 40 exploded the water bottle and got me wet from the blast. Which is better for CCW?
It is reassuring to know the .40 is scientifically proven better for ccw when defending against water filled 2 liter Coke bottles.:p
 
#31 ·
I finally accepted the .40 Smith & Wesson, partly because it wasn’t going away; but mostly because it just makes sense. I have used a lot of handgun cartridges over the years and I’m impressed with how well its ballistics overlaps many of them. For example:

Proponents of the 9mm cite reduced ammo costs, and suggest that the +P+ 9mm can do anything the .40 S&W can. The first argument is flattened by the fact that many .40 S&W autos can easily be converted to 9mm- but the reverse is not the case. I personally don’t think that a 147 grain 9mm does the same damage as a 155 grain .40, at significantly higher velocities; but I’ll admit to being predisposed in favor of bigger, heavier bullets.

The 125 grain .357 hollowpoint is widely thought to be the standard by which defensive pistol cartridges are judged; from packable revolvers, it achieves around 1350 fps. The .40 can match this with a larger diameter 135 grain bullet. Typical 158 grain loadings of the .357 generally run about 1250 fps; the .40 will do it with 155’s. On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska Backpacker’s 200 grain hardcast .357 load produced 970 fps from my 2 1/4″ Ruger SP101. Double-Tap offers a 200 grain .40 S&W load, with a similar bullet, that does 1050 fps from a Glock 23. Unless you load the .357 heavy, from a long barreled revolver- it’s a fair statement to say the .40 S&W can run right along side of it.

In my own unscientific tests, the .40/180/JHP compares quite favorably to the .45/230/JHP. I was surprised to find that even Remington’s UMC 180 grain flat-point FMJ load (pictured above) disrupts water jugs significantly better than .45 hardball- and it often ‘riveted’ to about 45 caliber in the process. I just wish DOD would pull its head out of its ass and catch on to this fact. Flat-point FMJ in the .40 S&W would make a perfect military pistol cartridge, generating considerable ‘thump’ while retaining significant

Lots of truth in this statement. bottom line is the military went to the 9 and now the police are because most people today are raised with little to no exposure to guns. What we get now in the enlistment centers and police accademys are experts in video games. Soft mamas boys. Back in WW2 and korea the recuits came from urban areas where they killed game to eat and had to actualy split firewood instead of turning up the thermostat and the only games they played were football, baseball and basketball. They add to that that we allowed women in combat and as troppers. Nothing wrong with that but on average there just not as strong and even less exposed to guns. So the 9 was a natural. All of this is nothing they couldn't fix with an additional week of boot camp or academy actually learning to shoot there weapons. I had to chuckle the other day. I picked up a glock 22 at a good price. Took it home and wanted to test fire it to make sure it ran right. Loaded it up with some factory 40s I had on the shelf and shot a clip into the snow bank. Now even shooting it I had to chuckle. If an adult state tropper or soldier cant handle a full sized glock 40 then I'm awful nervous putting my safety in there hands. Funny thing is those same people will go and buy a glock 43 or shield in 9 that recoils even more then a full sized 40. Tell you what and I might catch some flak for this but if you cant handle shooting a glock 22 or a fullsized 40 of any manufacture then maybe you should consider that your times spent on handgun fourms on the internet should be used to do a bit of arm exercises.
 
#32 ·
Don't get me wrong. I love shooting 9s. I probably shoot 3 times as many 9s as 40s. Why? because there fun to shoot and are a 1/3 cheaper to shoot. Less lead, less powder and brass is cheaper. Reality today with the price of 22 shells if a guy has brass (which I have tons of) its almost cheaper to shoot 9s then 22s. 3 grains of powder and a primer is what it costs me. That said ive never had to kill a man so I'm no expert on what it takes to do that but ive killed enough game with enough different guns to know that a smaller round is NEVER better or even as good as a larger one. To me that's like saying a 223 is as good of a deer gun as a 243 or a 243 is as good as an 06 or a 357 will kill anything just as well as a 44. Aint happening!!


If I was in a serious situation id take a 40 over a 9 any day and would probably wish I had a 45 on me that day. Theres two cops on here I know. Both of them like the 40 over the 9. Both of them have seen the differences personally. The fact the military uses 9s because there the nato round and women are in combat now which by the way is why the berretta is going down the line. There just to big for a small women to get a grip on. Or that police are going back to it because there getting wimpy guys and again are getting more and more women sure isn't an argument for the superiority of the 9. they can talk till there blue in the face about modern 9 ammo being much better but every bullet technology improvement in the 9s has also been used in the 40s and plus p 9mm ammo has been around for YEARS. It not some new thing that just came out. Thing is our poor soldiers are not only stuck with a small caliber but saddled with having to use ball ammo too! No show me something that proves that 9mm ball is superior to 45acp ball that it replaced!!


Sure a clip holds 3 or 4 more shots but how many police officers do you know that have shot that many rounds in a gun fight and I believe most police carry extra mags if they do. probably 80 percent of the handguns issued to our troops (other then special forces) are issued to officers and security people that probably wont even fire the gun in 20 years. I don't know of to many soldiers that go into battle and leave there rifle behind and rely on a 9mm to get them back home safe. As to it being nato round so what. We are the biggest player by far in nato. We are in about every fight that's started anywhere in the world. We should be worried about our troops not whether are guns and clothes color match the rest of nato. Trump should step in and tell nato heres the way it is. We are switching to 40s or back to 45s. If you want to use our ammo on the battle field id suggest you do the same. I don't have any statistics to prove it but id bet that in the past 30 years theres been a few soldiers killed fighting because there pathetic 9mm ball ammo didn't stop an enemy soldier fast enough. Even if it were just ONE it sure justifys going bigger to me.
 
#33 · (Edited)
A lot of the military's reasoning is likely logistics based.
For the same weight/area, you can carry/store more 9 than 40.

Similarly you'll see that choice of survival weapons is not a 30-06, but a 22 pistol or 22 Mag rifle.

I think the .40 is probably a great choice for use as a trail pistol where it can be open carried.
But I don't think it's always the best choice for everything everywhere.
 
#34 ·
yup that's a legit argument for a gun used in battle like the m-16 vs the m-14 but very few handguns are used by main line troops. most are issued to rear echelon troops, officers and security guards. Your not going into battle and shooting 200 pistol rounds off. The logical choice is to leave the handgun behind and just carry that weight in additional rifle ammo. Personaly if someone is trying to kill me id rather have two 15 round clips of 40 then two 18 round clips of 9 anyway especially if I had to use ball ammo and would take two 10 round clips of 45acp over either. Weight difference between a 10 round 45 mag and an 18 round 9mm mag is nothing, and Id take two or three more 30 round mags for my rifle over any handgun. . I don't think the 40 is the best choice for EVERYTHING either. Heck summer carry usualy sees me with a 380 in my pocket or a iwb holster with my glock 43. But I'm not going to war or going to work in an environment that includes being shot at.
A lot of the military's reasoning is likely logistics based.
For the same weight/area, you can carry/store more 9 than 40.

Similarly you'll see that choice of survival weapons is not a 30-06, but a 22 pistol or 22 Mag rifle.

I think the .40 is probably a great choice for use as a trail pistol where it can be open carried.
But I don't think it's always the best choice for everything everywhere.
 
#38 ·
and of course, that goes back to the other posts- training, practice, familiarity with one's firearm,
the ability to put the first one in the right spot, not spraying and praying, etc.

also as much as anything, hiring law enforcement officers and recruiting military personnel
based on qualifications and an affinity for the job instead of gender and racial quotas and
politically correct feel-good agendas, and not lowering hiring/recruiting standards so the less
qualified can make the grade.
 
#39 ·
I'm not sure if your perception is actually the truth or not but, I, for one, hate the .40. I have carried one daily for near 30 years and just really don't like it. I am not even able to say what I don't like about the 40 but, I only own one myself and never use it. I will probably get rid of it when I retire and buy something else. My preferred semi-auto handgun is the 45 but, I like 9mm a lot as well. I am almost afraid to say what I carry daily because too many people think it isn't enough gun (380) but, I would prefer to have any CCW when I need it, rather than having a 9mm or .45 sitting at home because it is too hard to conceal.
 
#44 · (Edited)
I find it funny some complain the 40 kicks to much and use a 9 on someone that might actually shoot back at them and kill them, or worse yet a member of there family but think nothing of taking a 3006 or 44 mag handgun out to kill a 100lb whitetail. If a 40 sw recoils to much for you you need some range time not a smaller gun. Im not beyond carrying a 9. I carry one as often as I do a 40. But its sure not because the 40 is to powerful for me to handle. Neither are even on my list of handguns that are hard to master. there both pop guns when compared to hunting handguns.
 
#47 ·
I can see that. Same people who don't like gluten in there bread or eat vegan and don't own a pair of jeans might find it a bit to much :tango_face_wink:
But Lloyd, it’s snappy. Folks can longer condone snappy any more than they can condone gluten in their bread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#49 ·
They can say what they want, but I shoot armadillos on the ranch with my wife's 9mm, with my .40 S&W, with my .45, and with my .357 Sig and I can tell you with no uncertainty that 9mm 124gr JHP +P is not as effective at stopping Dillas as any of the others with any load. 125gr JHPs in .357 Sig will sometimes result in toting two chunks of dilla out of the hay pasture. I don't see where shooting two legged varmits would be any different.
 
#50 ·
The 9mm is more popular now due to the advancement in carry ammo that works better in certain conditions. The same changes that make the 9mm better are going to be used to make the 40 and 45 better also.

I think the LEO community, with the dislike of having to qualify and carry in general, make the 9mm more suitable for their requirements. Less time on the range, lower cost ammo, $$$ saved. That plus a lot of officers now have access to a shotgun or a carbine, typically an M4 type, that is better than a handgun for when things go really bad fast,

You as an individual will not, most likely, have backup, a rifle close by or anything remotely similar to what an officer will have. Something to think about...
 
#53 ·
You have a good point, in theory. I know I may be an oddball here, but here is what I do. Now for full disclosure, I am an officer in a small town, with limited resources, and all equipment except the vehicle is personally provided. My primary handguns are .357 Mag, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, my rifles are .223 and .308, and shotguns are 12ga and 20ga. What goes with me depends on the plan that day. Standard is the .45 on my hip, the .357 as backup in my pocket, and the .40 in my bail out bag, with the 12ga Mossberg 500 and .308 FAL as my primary long guns. The .223 is a suppressed SBR and sees very little use except when serving warrants on meth labs due to the suppressor decreasing the likelihood of igniting flammable gasses and blowing the place up if any shots are fired. So I carry, use, and trust all the above pistol calibers, but definitely prefer the .45 and .357.

Now being in a small town with just one of us being on duty at a time, my backup is at least half an hour away, and often an hour or more, and that is IF I have radio or cell phone reception to even call for help. So really, my main advantage on duty is my vest, which is of limited utility in a rural area with most vehicles having deer rifles instead of handguns. So there's really not much difference between me on and off duty, or me now vs before I had a badge. We provide our own weapons and ammo at my department, so duty weapons are also what gets carried off duty. In my case, it's still the same .45 on my hip and the same .357 in my pocket, with the same rifle and shotgun in my vehicle.

I have one officer who carries nothing but a .40 and refuses to keep a long gun. Two who carry 9s, and one of them uses an AR-15 in .223 and the other uses an AK-47 in 7.62x39. It's all in what we each shoot best, but we all keep these things in our vehicles, so still have to rely on our handguns to get to the long guns if needed, just like everyone else.

I know this is different for larger agencies with more resources, but just wanted to give a small town perspective just as a way of saying that the tools each of us carry every day, regardless of if we have a badge or not, are what we depend on, and are really nothing special in the grand scheme of things. But we each need to practice and be able to use them to the best possible effect if needed. I really don't care what anyone carries or how, as long as you all carry something you trust and are proficient with. We can always argue the bigger vs faster vs more rounds vs whatever other argument over a couple cups of coffee while we wait on the lawyers to show up and the criminal to cool down to room temperature. I'm happy as long as it is the good guy who is left standing after an incident.
 
#51 ·
they keep saying the 9 is better now because of advanced bullets available. Seems to me every bullet available for the 9 is also available for the 40. Common sense would tell me if it was superior before these bullets came to market using the same bullet its still superior. Funny thing too is I had my 22 out at the range this morning and put about a 150 rounds through it and about the same amount of 9s in my 19. topped it all off with 50 rounds of 44 mag. No doubt more then most police officers shoot in a year. Crazy thing is I tortured myself like that and don't even need an orthopedic surgeon. I love 9s. I probably shoot more 9s then everything else put together but I do it because there cheap to shoot not because 40s kick to much. Now if the argument was that a 475 or 500 kicked to much so a guy uses a 44 mag I could see it. But a 40!! give me a break. I sure hope theres a pile of guys who buy 40 police trade ins and find they cant handle it and they end up at the gun shop real cheap! Probably even pick one up for my wife and granddaughter. But then that might be grounds to call protective services for abuse
 
#54 ·
When my sister decided to get a pistol, I let her shoot my 380 and my 40. The 380 is a Llama made in the early 70's, the 40 is a Star Starfire with a 3 inch barrel; both based loosely on the 1911. Both she and my bil preferred the feel of the 40 over the 380. My wife prefers the 380, says the 40 is worse than the380 but not bad on recoil. Anybody who complains about a 40 should stick to a 22.
 
#55 ·
Ah what a wake up it will be when you guys get old and arthritic.

I've owned and shot all the big stuff for a great many years. Never thought the recoil was an issue. Well now it is. I bought a Shield .40 and my old arthritic hands just couldn't hold onto it. I lost my grip on each shot and had to adjust and get a new grip for every shot. Since it was intended for a CCW gun for defense that just plain didn't cut it.

My every day carry gun is still a .40 it just isn't a tiny little .40. I carry a full size S&W M&P. Recoil with it is no issue for me. But with the arthritis in my hands I just cannot handle a Shield .40.

One of these days you just might also have arthritis and not be able to hold onto a small .40. A small 9mm is not a problem and neither is an even smaller .380. I've never shot a small .45 so can't speak to whether I could or couldn't deal with that. My full size .45s are not a problem.

I just don't have the hand strength I used to have and the .40 recoil is a really sharp snap that my arthritic hands just cannot hold onto in a small gun like the Shield.
 
#56 ·
I can see old age and arthritis making it tough to shoot ANY handgun. That said the difference in real recoil between the 40 with standard loads and the plus p 9 stuff guys are using to claim its as good as the 40 is very little. You use a mid or full sized 40. Id bet if I loaded up my 43 with plus p stuff your 40 would be just as confortable if not more to shoot. I have a 40 shield and a 43 glock and can tell you that there isn't a whole lot of difference when shooting plus p level 9 loads.
Ah what a wake up it will be when you guys get old and arthritic.

I've owned and shot all the big stuff for a great many years. Never thought the recoil was an issue. Well now it is. I bought a Shield .40 and my old arthritic hands just couldn't hold onto it. I lost my grip on each shot and had to adjust and get a new grip for every shot. Since it was intended for a CCW gun for defense that just plain didn't cut it.

My every day carry gun is still a .40 it just isn't a tiny little .40. I carry a full size S&W M&P. Recoil with it is no issue for me. But with the arthritis in my hands I just cannot handle a Shield .40.

One of these days you just might also have arthritis and not be able to hold onto a small .40. A small 9mm is not a problem and neither is an even smaller .380. I've never shot a small .45 so can't speak to whether I could or couldn't deal with that. My full size .45s are not a problem.

I just don't have the hand strength I used to have and the .40 recoil is a really sharp snap that my arthritic hands just cannot hold onto in a small gun like the Shield.
 
#57 ·
At 68 and a little arthritis, the 40 is still not a problem. Some days are tylenol days but most aren't.
 
#58 ·
LG1894, understand your world as it is. I grew up in a small town, officers purchased approved revolvers from a list, back in the day. 38 or 357 mag, the armourer had to work on the mix from the list. It must have worked ok for them at that time. I don't know what they carry now. I know a lot of a local city PD qualification is both handgun and 223 , from the brass left on the ground.

Greybeard, understand what you're saying on the limits imposed by aging, also what can be handled well or without pain. For those who have to limit themselves the best is what you can use well.

I think the general selling point for the 9mm is the newer ammo, hi cap mags and the number of new firearms available. Some folks need the newest, latest and greatest to keep up with the shooters at the range. Remember also this was the case in the mid 1980's, when the 'wonder 9's' were the hot ticket.

Here in the northeast, with magazine bans especially, if you're going to carry 10 rounds then they may as well be bigger, if it works for you. In NY and Ct you cannot carry with anything more than a 10 round capacity. Hi cap for range use and home only\, if you had them before the ban.
 
#60 ·
Back in WW1 the Germans fielded a 9 mm round with a profile like a 40 ball round. They were told any soilder caught with them would be shot. They went to round nose bullets. The new super 9's are bringing back that profile. The 40 has had it because the bullet has to be made that way to work in the 40 guns and magazine. I have read that several different times. So lest see you pay over thirty bucks for the super 9s in a 20 round box or around 25 for 50 , 40s .
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top