.40 S&W

[Dale]

Yes the 10 meter is the only cartridge that has enough stopping for me.  I just can't find an IWB for it.

[Eric R Shelton]

Chem, that was hilarious!  Thanks!

Curt, when I reposted the link to ToddG's post it was in reference to you saying "more stopping power".  Just teasing you, man.  Now, you're probably wrong when you say you're "not near as good as..."  I spend way too much time on the podcast, Old Pueblo Security, my day job, etc. to do as much shooting as I'd like.  And carrying one "just in case" is exactly what I advocate- after all, we don't wear our seat belts only on days we think we'll crash the car, do we?  Like I say, just razzing you.  

Fire Tracer, nobody said the .40 wasn't useful, did they?  LOL.  Just because I don't care for the .40 doesn't mean I'm declaring it a bad round!  Although if we want to be honest, when it comes to handguns we've already compromised and they're all bad rounds compared to a carbine or other choices.  When there's an 85% survival rate, regardless of caliber...?  I'm just sayin'...

[bshupe]

Hey Eric, Im not sure why you say that the .40 is the same just because it went about the same distance in the gel photo. If nothing else that would show that the round is better because you are getting greater mass into the target the same depth with the same or greater expansion. Im not sure how thats the same or worse. If Im on the street and need to take down a BG, I will take any advantage I can get and for the cost per round bought or reloaded the .40 is an advantage no matter how slight.

I can see that you may be making the point that this is all hair splitting as the rounds are very close etc. etc. and leaving the "every round is ass clownish" post by Chem I think I would have to say that if the worst is separated from the best by 2 degrees then having one that is better by 1.8 degrees is an advantage and not hair splitting when taken in context.

Thanks for your great post, that is a really cool photo.

Shupe

[squidly]

Now THIS is funny.

.32ACP: Inadequate for anything more thick-skinned than Northeastern squirrels or inbred Austrian archdukes.

[glock23cc]

Curt, when I reposted the link to ToddG's post it was in reference to you saying "more stopping power".  Just teasing you, man.  Now, you're probably wrong when you say you're "not near as good as..."  I spend way too much time on the podcast, Old Pueblo Security, my day job, etc. to do as much shooting as I'd like.  And carrying one "just in case" is exactly what I advocate- after all, we don't wear our seat belts only on days we think we'll crash the car, do we?  Like I say, just razzing you.   

Thats what I figured Eric.  I listened to enough of your podcasts to know deep down you really are a nice guy.  

And chemsoldier I didnt see the .50AE on that list.  If I could carry a desert eagle on my hip I would.   Cant go wrong with something thats barely controllable and holds like what 6 rounds.  You open carry that baby on your hip and I doubt anyone would ever give you a problem, or even dare to look your way.

[Chemsoldier]

And chemsoldier I didnt see the .50AE on that list.  If I could carry a desert eagle on my hip I would.   Cant go wrong with something thats barely controllable and holds like what 6 rounds.  You open carry that baby on your hip and I doubt anyone would ever give you a problem, or even dare to look your way.

Ha! They should have done a .50 AE entry.  The gun isnt why people wouldnt look at you though.  It would be politeness because they dont want to stare at a person with club foot, which would be there immediate conclusion to your limping gate caused by the anvil on your hip.

-Chem

[Eric R Shelton]

If nothing else that would show that the round is better because you are getting greater mass into the target the same depth with the same or greater expansion.

Does more mass into a target really mean anything if you still miss hitting something vital?   

[Chemsoldier]

If nothing else that would show that the round is better because you are getting greater mass into the target the same depth with the same or greater expansion.

Does more mass into a target really mean anything if you still miss hitting something vital?   

It does if it really is 10 Meters...

-Chem

[Eric R Shelton]

<------- spit coffee out laughing

OW!  LOL!

[bshupe]

If nothing else that would show that the round is better because you are getting greater mass into the target the same depth with the same or greater expansion.

Does more mass into a target really mean anything if you still miss hitting something vital?   

If the round has a larger diameter then you have a better chance of hitting something vital. Thats why the Army uses artilery.

[glock23cc]

If nothing else that would show that the round is better because you are getting greater mass into the target the same depth with the same or greater expansion.

Does more mass into a target really mean anything if you still miss hitting something vital?  

Usually true I would say. If more mass equals larger size(diameter) that should increase  the probablity of hitting something vital.  Plus larger wound channel, loss of blood, which would send the body into shock quicker.  Throw your target off balance, slow him down, give you an extra second for an more accurate follow up if necessary.
  But then again I hate math, so I could be wrong.

[Eric R Shelton]

1 mm in diameter difference, guys.  LOL.  I was waiting for the "larger wound channel, loss of blood".

Let's just say a person has been shot in the heart, and it has ceased to function as a pump.  Said individual has 4-7 seconds to avenge their own death, and that's standing upright.  Supine, it could be 20-30 seconds.  This is without a functioning heart.  Arguments of expansion aside (only because expansion results vary so wildly from load to load, bullet type, etc.) I'm just not willing to say that 1mm in diameter (0.5mm in either direction from the center of my shot) is really going to drain a body measurably faster.  Not enough to justify the increased recoil, and loss of one round.

I should clarify, I also find the .45 ACP to be far more comfortable to shoot and more controllable- which is why I don't care about the "lack of capacity" in that caliber.  That's really my gripe- I don't believe the .40 is any more effective, but I dang sure believe it's more abusive to the shooter.  Please note, I still have not said .40 was less effective- I just don't believe it's more effective either.  And heck, I'll still probably own a .40 when I find a good deal on an old, full size USP.  But I'm not going to walk around carrying it thinking I'm any "better" armed.  It's shot placement, no matter what caliber we're carrying.

[savagesteel]

I agree with Shelton's shot placement remark. For myself, I love the .40 S&W!  I have confidence in that round after two officer involved shootings in my department in the last month where the Glock 22 loaded with 165 grain Golden Saber BJHP stopped the bad guys with a minimal amount of rounds fired. In the first case an Officer shot an armed bad guy once at about 7 yards with a shot to the sternum, missing with the second as the bad guy fell. In the second case, the bad guy immediately bent over and crumpled to the floor of a bus after taking two rounds to the chest, third shot missed, at about 3 yards.

Of course, if the officers were armed with 9mm maybe they wouldn't have missed any shots! I do find 9mm to be more controllable and wouldn't feel under armed if we were issued Glock 17's with some of the more potent ammunition out there. About two months ago an officer was shot by a thug on a traffic stop with a 9mm, I'm not sure what ammo or gun he was using but one round struck the officer in the chest and knocked him down. Thankfully he was wearing his vest! 2 other rounds struck his lower legs with 1 ricochet off the asphalt into his leg. He said it felt like getting hit with a baseball bat in the chest and there was lots of bruising.

I don't have any street experience with the .45 ACP. I don't think you can go wrong with either 9mm or .40 S&W caliber as long as you spend the bucks for quality defense ammunition in your carry magazines. A lot of recoil and controllability issues are going to be based on each individual, such as how big your hands are, finger length, muscle density, age, and etc....

[hunterman652]

I should clarify, I also find the .45 ACP to be far more comfortable to shoot and more controllable- which is why I don't care about the "lack of capacity" in that caliber.  That's really my gripe- I don't believe the .40 is any more effective, but I dang sure believe it's more abusive to the shooter.  Please note, I still have not said .40 was less effective- I just don't believe it's more effective either.  And heck, I'll still probably own a .40 when I find a good deal on an old, full size USP.  But I'm not going to walk around carrying it thinking I'm any "better" armed.  It's shot placement, no matter what caliber we're carrying.

Eric,

You said it better than I did. I feel the same way. To me any .45 (and by that I mean every 45) I've handled is easier to shoot than a 40. I haven't found a .40 that feels appreciably better than a comparable 9mm to make we want to lose the capacity and up the recoil, I guess if the CZ 75 or the Ruger SR9 only came in 40 I would change my mind. All in all I don't think that 40 is worthless or useless but I can't help but see it as a 10mm Short and not better than anything else in a way that makes me want to buy it.

If ammo was the cost of .22 LR than I would succumb to that argument but when it's not a big difference then it's like someone saying:
   "I want a Hi-Point (or other similarly priced gun) for self defense because if I have to shoot someone and the Cops take it away I don't want them to take away my good guns"
  The argument then is not based on merit of the caliber but on the price. I know that we all are affected by ammo prices and such so please don't misunderstand me, but I personally can't base my caliber selection primarily on cost per round when that cost is slight.

Sean L.

[Jerome from California]

Here's my opinion (worth "post-stimulus package"  2 cents).
The original intent for the .40 cal may have been create a "gentler" 10mm for the FBI folks. However, it seems to me that the true appeal of the .40 cal now is that it can be made to fit in a 9mm sized frame. That makes it appealing to people whose hand fit a 9mm "high-capacity" frame but want more oomph than the 9mm can deliver. Some people just have a hard time holding a Glock 21 or Para 14-45.

[bshupe]

One significant advantage to it for me is that I can carry a full-sized pistol with a great mag load-out in a light weight package. I carry my M&P .40 full size every day and it is perfectly comfortable (for me). I would/could not carry a .45 as I would feel at a significant disadvantage in firepower due to the reduced mag capacity and, the additional weight of the pistol due to the need to build the pistol to live through the power of the .45 round. I know all the 1911 fans will try to flame me with all your $1500-2000 pistols that are carryable .45s but still leave you a sitting duck after 7 rounds where my <$600 M&P will shoot circles around a 1911 in every way but prestige and cult following.  lol And, in case you are ready to say that you can get the job done with shot placement let me remind you that it is not uncommon for a highly trained police officer to empty one or more mags towards a bad guy trying to get the job done. I feel like it would be the height of arrogance for me to think that I would perform better with 1/50 the training and practice as an LEO.

Now for all the people who have been waiting to say "but thats why I carry a 9mm"....... Everything you say you carry a 9mm for I get in the .40 with the bonus of that little balistic edge we were talking about earlier in this thread. I know Im a nobody bla bla bla but I can assure you that I did my research prior to going with the M&P and in my humble opinion, this pistol will rise (slowly perhaps) to be one of the finest side arms ever released to the public and/or LEO markets. It REALLY does bring the best of so many great pistols together and synthysize them into a very fine package... and it even looks good. Well, it looks good on me anyway, your results may vary.

I have connections within local LE here in my area and the M&P is very highly regarded. The general perception about its adoption is that the XD beats it out because of budgetary concerns and some safety concerns in places where the grip safety has a following. For me, the safety is between my ears and as long as that is functioning correctly the rest is added/redundent complexity and oportunity for malfunction and/or breakage.

I know this is likely going to come accross as highly opinionated and thats good because that means you're reading it correctly. LOL In the end it is only my $0.02 and you get what you paid for. I look forward to the continued great discussion in this thread. Thanks Eric for bringing it up. Oh, and by the way, I havent seen 9mm in my local Wally world for months abut I pick up a box or two of .40 every week there. (They have tons of 223 for cheap too!)

Out -

Shupe

[Christopher Burg]

I know one of the questions mentioned in the podcast was the purpose of the .40 S&W.  I have a theory although it's based on gut instinct and basic observation of similar events.

We all know the FBI wanted more firepower and invested into the 10mm design.  We also know the 10mm was too much for their officers to shoot so they kept loading it down to make it bearable.  By the time they got it lowered to a point of usefulness they figured they might as well chop the 10mm down and save some space.  BAM!  We have the .40 S&W.

But why did they do all that work to chop it down and create a new caliber similar to existing calibers.  I believe this is due to project single-sightedness.  I've observed this in the computer industry many times.  People invest so much time and effort into a project that they are unable to see outside that said project.

In the case of the 10mm the people working on the caliber spent so much time on it that they forgot to look at other options when it was apparent the 10mm was going to be too much.  Instead of looking at another similar caliber when they downloaded the 10mm they decided to chop the case because they failed to see outside of the project once again.  It's common and happens to everybody.  You simply get wrapped up so much into a project you are unable to see anything else.  In essence that hammer you used to pound in those 500 nails is a great tool and now that you have to apply that single screw you're going to use the hammer.

Of course I like the .40 S&W for one main reason.  It gives more power than the 9mm and fits in a 9mm frame.  The .45 auto gives more power than the 9mm but you need a larger gun for that noticeably larger round.  Likewise since the .40 S&W is smaller you can pack more of them into a magazine than you could a .45 auto gun.  Yes it's not as much power at a .45 auto but it's also not as big and holds more ammunition.  It certainly has a valid place in my opinion (and I carry a .45 auto with me every day).

[Chemsoldier]

Smeg it, I am playing my cussedness card.  I have carried a .40 S&W for the last 6 or so years.  I flirt with the 10mm, I flirt with the .44 Magnum...but the .40 I have carried, shot matches with and trained with still points better for me than anything else.  It aint the caliber its the shooter and what they are used to.

So until they release a regular factory 5" M629 with a half underlug, make mine a .40 S&W (Glock 23 specifically)!

[Eric R Shelton]

I would/could not carry a .45 as I would feel at a significant disadvantage in firepower due to the reduced mag capacity and, the additional weight of the pistol due to the need to build the pistol to live through the power of the .45 round. I know all the 1911 fans will try to flame me with all your $1500-2000 pistols that are carryable .45s but still leave you a sitting duck after 7 rounds where my <$600 M&P will shoot circles around a 1911 in every way but prestige and cult following.

An alloy frame goes a long way to reducing weight on a 1911. Poly guns come in .45 as well, which further negates your first sentence. And even if one stuck with the 1911, the mags are so thin that there's no excuse for not carrying spares.  My Kimber cost me $700, actually.  8+1 rounds, with a Wilson Combat 47D.  And out-shoot a 1911?  Up to the shooter, so kind of a foolish presumption.

"Live through the power of the .45 round"?  Dude, it's not artillery.  LOL.  I find it recoils far easier, and suspect it's because it's such a lower pressure round than the .40. 

Having said all that, the M&P is an excellent gun, and I salute your choice.

Chem, I'm not ripping on your gun, but I'll point out that they admitted at my Glock Armorer class that strapping a light to the underside of a 22/23 significantly increases your chance of stoppages.  Just FYI.

[ARtistinCA]

I carry a GLOCK 22 on duty and either a GLOCK 27 with G23 mags (that's if the wife isn't carrying it) or - my favorite - my GLOCK 29.  We got the info from GLOCK about failures with tac lights.  I have an M-3 on both my GLOCK 22 and my GLOCK 29 (I use a Bladetech holster).  I use my GLOCK 22 for matches and have put MANY rounds down range and have not had any problems.

The only problems I've experienced with GLOCKs is with my GLOCK 29 and reloads.  If using "light" charge reloads the 29 would short cycle and not pick up a round from the magazine.  

Duty ammo for the G22 is 180 gr. Hornady XTPs and my approved rounds for my 10mm is 180 gr. Hornady XTPs.  In 10mm the Hornady is a handfull but I'm also a big guy with big paws.

BTW - I'm a fan of 9mm (best 9mm I ever shot was a SIG P-228) and .45 ACP but if I had to choose between the two I would choose the 9mm.

And +1 for shot placement!