Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So the first pistol i ever bought was an XD40 service. Liked the platform, didnt care much for the snap of the .40, so I sold it and have been shooting .45s and 9mms (with the occasional .357 sig/magnum thrown in) ever since. But lately I have been wanting more capacity than the .45 can give me comfortably but more power than a 9mm. Now i know i know there's alot of 9mm fans here, but the general concensus is that one should carry the most powerful thing they can control.

Anyway I'm thinking that over the time period since my first offending .40 experience my pistol shooting skills have greatly improved. I enjoyed the .357 sig G33 but did not enjoy the price of ammo to feed that sweet little shooter. So I'm thinking about giving the .40 one more try to impress me, probably in the HK P2000SK platform.

The point of the post however is to hear from you fans of the .40. I have basically ignored the round since that first XD and dont know much about it. SO give me the skinny on the .40 please!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
I have two 40 cal. handguns, a Sig P226 and a CZ 75B. The CZ handles the 40 very well, so well that my 13 year old son likes to shoot it. Both are bigger framed guns and probably wouldn't conceal that well.

One of these days I am going to build a 1911 chambered in 40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
I don't feel that there is an amazing difference between the 9mm and the .40. In diameter there is only a .045 of an inch difference, the 9mm is .355in and the .40 is .400in. Also the heavy end of both bullets are fairly close, the 9mm shoots a 147gr bullet and the .40 shoots a 200gr bullet.
I like .40, I think it's a good round, time tested and proven, but so is the 9mm. Just ask all of Europe and the u.s. troops who carry it. My final thought is shot placement and speed. I can empty a 16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet. With a forty it takes me longer to empty the mag even though it has less rounds, but the groupings are about the same. the .40 is a good round, but I haven't been converted yet.
 
G

·
scott.pete06 said:
I can empty a 16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet. With a forty it takes me longer to empty the mag even though it has less rounds, but the groupings are about the same. the .40 is a good round, but I haven't been converted yet.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can match or better the "16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet."performance by scott.pete with a .40, so I guess it really just depends on how good you are and your purposes for the gun. In defensive situations, most self defense applications are at distances shorter than the 20 feet mentioned and a lot of people's accuracy goes to crap anyway in those situations. In the end, I guess shoot whatever works for you, but also, there are reasons why the .40 is so widely used now and accepted by the general population and law enforcement agencies
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
I have a Sig 239 in .40 and feel like I can control it as well as my previous SA 1911. I fired the XD in .45 and felt like I was all over the place with it. I think I like a heavier gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
xRapidDavex said:
I have a Sig 239 in .40 and feel like I can control it as well as my previous SA 1911. I fired the XD in .45 and felt like I was all over the place with it. I think I like a heavier gun.
having a heavy gun does help with recoil and control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
sculptingmyguns said:
scott.pete06 said:
I can empty a 16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet. With a forty it takes me longer to empty the mag even though it has less rounds, but the groupings are about the same. the .40 is a good round, but I haven't been converted yet.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can match or better the "16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet."performance by scott.pete with a .40, so I guess it really just depends on how good you are and your purposes for the gun. In defensive situations, most self defense applications are at distances shorter than the 20 feet mentioned and a lot of people's accuracy goes to crap anyway in those situations. In the end, I guess shoot whatever works for you, but also, there are reasons why the .40 is so widely used now and accepted by the general population and law enforcement agencies
I never said that my shooting was a the bar to which all others should aspire to shoot at. There are many other shooters that could beat me with their eyes closed. I agree that the .40 is a good round as I said in my post. But show me how it is worth the extra money. Show me the data where it is a "far superior" round. why should I pay more for a round that doesn't do more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
scott.pete06 said:
sculptingmyguns said:
scott.pete06 said:
I can empty a 16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet. With a forty it takes me longer to empty the mag even though it has less rounds, but the groupings are about the same. the .40 is a good round, but I haven't been converted yet.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can match or better the "16 round mag of 9mm in 4-5 seconds and keep a six inch group at twenty feet."performance by scott.pete with a .40, so I guess it really just depends on how good you are and your purposes for the gun. In defensive situations, most self defense applications are at distances shorter than the 20 feet mentioned and a lot of people's accuracy goes to crap anyway in those situations. In the end, I guess shoot whatever works for you, but also, there are reasons why the .40 is so widely used now and accepted by the general population and law enforcement agencies
I never said that my shooting was a the bar to which all others should aspire to shoot at. There are many other shooters that could beat me with their eyes closed. I agree that the .40 is a good round as I said in my post. But show me how it is worth the extra money. Show me the data where it is a "far superior" round. why should I pay more for a round that doesn't do more?
Ya show me that too...please
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
Wouldn't the impact from that bigger round equate to a better knock down round?
 
G

·
scott.pete06 said:
I never said that my shooting was a the bar to which all others should aspire to shoot at. There are many other shooters that could beat me with their eyes closed. I agree that the .40 is a good round as I said in my post. But show me how it is worth the extra money. Show me the data where it is a "far superior" round. why should I pay more for a round that doesn't do more?
I wasn't insulting your shooting, In fact, it seems perfectly acceptable for defensive purposes, but I was illustrating that the same performance is obtainable in a .40, a more powerful round. i guess if you don't believe the 40 to be more powerful, you can take a look at practically any ballistics comparisons between 9mm and .40, I am really not sure it is even debatable anymore which is more powerful. I really don't see anywhere in my post where I indicated the round was "far superior" perhaps you are quoting someone else? But it does have a power advantage. I presume that if you were truly interested in learning of the advantage, you would not be counting on us to show you but would research it for yourself.

As far as the "test" results posted in this conversation, they are certainly not inclusive of a lot of different rounds and even if penetration was similar, there was a certain advantage in the size of the wound channel where the extra energy of the .40 is dispersed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
9mm averaged .60472" in the tests.

.40 S&W averaged .60766" in the tests.

Negligible.

I took the expanded diameter of all of the rounds in these tests, and averaged them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
thx997303 said:
9mm averaged .60472" in the tests.

.40 S&W averaged .60766" in the tests.

Negligible.

I took the expanded diameter of all of the rounds in these tests, and averaged them.
Why do I feel like a sucker now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
I read that since the 9mm, .40, .357 sig and .45 are all so close in bullet size, it's really best to get what holds the most rounds.... so in that case, the 9mm would be the one to choose, since usually, (all other things being equal), a 9mm gun will hold more rounds than a .40, .45, etc....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Yeah, now don't get me wrong guys, with the right rounds, the .40 S&W has an advantage, but it's only in the tenth of an inch range.

I guess my real point is that shot placement and capacity are the real deciding factors for me.

Maybe I should go back and average the penetration? Ah, it took a long time to do the first one, anybody else want to do it?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top