Lehigh has changed my idea of a field pistol

[El Cid]

I've been meaning to work up and test a 10mm Lehigh load for the Glock 20...

I've been very happy with the Underwood loading in my 10mm G40. I'm trying to set up some testing.

[Lester Polfus]

I'm just not a fan of the .40 for many reasons. One of them is watching other people blow up .40's in the 90's and early 2000's, usually Glock. I think that had alot to do with the fact that you can get by with some sloppy reloading practices and using the book max load as a starting point when it comes to turn of the century cartridges like 9mm and .45 in modern guns.

There's just not that much "room" in the .40.

[JHC]

I have a couple of Gen 4 G22's. They are fine with very standard ammo. They don't like hot loads. I had an (admittedly early) Gen 4 G23. That is back when they were saying that the Gen 4 .40 guns were fine and the only problem with the 9mm's was limp wristing. It choked on hot loads and was finicky about regular ones.

From my perspective, if those Lehigh rounds penetrate, and if your pistol will reliably fire 140 grain loads at 1200 fps, that is an about ideal combination. No brutal recoil so you can follow up rapidly and I think it will get more penetration than most .45 loads.

And, as an increasingly old guy, I like polymer pistols because they are lighter and cause less back pain.

My Gen 4 G22 will have to blow up before I'd part with it. It is one I think a KKM barrel would be wasted on. Fantastic specimen.

In the context of .40 Lehigh loads as a field pistol; that's in lieu of what? Magnum revolvers?

Just as GJM isn't running 5 figures worth of training volume .45 Super, folks don't drill magnum wheelie loads like that either. If my G22 has a service life of 30K vs whatever 9mm's have I'll probably never find out.

During a lot of comparisons this year, I've proven to my satisfaction that in a "contextual" shooting challenge my G22 doesn't give up enough to my 17s to really worry about. It's the same thing GJM has demonstrated with his USP FS between the ACP+P and Super.

.40 seems to have a new niche as a service pistol caliber, field pistol in a carry friendly form factor vs horse pistols.

[JonInWA]

While we were never a .40 agency, we were a big .45 one. The +P .45 HST was really hard on the older SIG's, Glock 21's and 1911's. My guys reported back to me after retirement that the one gun that they had zero issues with with the +P loads were the HK USP .45's.

My broke in half Glock was a Gen 3. I simply do not trust a 9 mm made into a .40, versus things built as .40's first and foremost.

Again, while I agree with HK as probably being the strongest in terms of managing higher-pressure loadings, I do think that Glock has surmounted the 9-converted-to-.40 concerns with the Gen4 G22, which if anything over-compensated in the role, given the initial issues with the 9mm G17 Gen4s using the same RSAs and the .40 G22's initially.

But from what we're seeing here from trusted p-f members, it would seem that there's a greater likelihood of an HK running without operational issues with these higher-pressure loads than Glocks per se, although some Glocks seem to be running fine. It would seem that the prudent thing to do would be to test one's individual Glock with such loads prior to carrying them in harm's way in the wilderness (and, for that matter, any pistol, if only to establish familiarity with the load characteristics and POA/POI).

Best, Jon

[Dagga Boy]

The "some Glocks seem to be running fine" is the issue for me. Having had a bunch of running great Glocks, and a few complete fricking abortions, the "Generations", variants on Generations, and constant "evolvement" of parts is what has turned me off of basically conducting an experiment every time I have bought a post early Gen 3 Glock.

JHC...in the context you present, I agree. For someone buying a field pistol intending on a typical big bore Revolver Round count, they are likely viable, especially if set up and modified specifically for the task at hand. If it was me.....find a .45 GAP, convert it to .40 and that would be my .40 Glock Field Pistol.

[BigDaddy]

All this talk about G22 and G23 blowing up or failing make me love my 229 all the more.

[OlongJohnson]

My broke in half Glock was a Gen 3. I simply do not trust a 9 mm made into a .40, versus things built as .40's first and foremost.

I ran the numbers on hoop stress for the thin part of the chamber on the sides for a 9mm vs .40. Measured my G34 barrel, assumed the .40 chamber has the same clearance as the 9mm. It works out to ~32% more stress on the material for the same pressure due to the reduction in thickness of the thinnest part of the barrel.

A CIP proof load is 30% over max pressure.

So shooting .40 in a Glock is, at least with regard to the barrel's containment of the pressure in a hoop stress mode, slightly more severe (by a few percent) than running nothing but CIP proof loads in a 9mm. Given this analogy, it's less surprising that there seems to be a small but noticeable percentage of the population that reaches failure and splits the chamber vertically, even without defective loads or all the other excuses given.

Also of note, the stress is greatest on the ID of the hoop, so cracks will begin to form in the chamber wall, rather than on the external surfaces that are more easily inspected.

Personally, I wouldn't own a Glock in .40.

[Jeep]

All this talk about G22 and G23 blowing up or failing make me love my 229 all the more.

The 229, being built for the .40 handles it well. But there is that high bore axis issue for an already snappy round.

[Jeep]

The "some Glocks seem to be running fine" is the issue for me. Having had a bunch of running great Glocks, and a few complete fricking abortions, the "Generations", variants on Generations, and constant "evolvement" of parts is what has turned me off of basically conducting an experiment every time I have bought a post early Gen 3 Glock.

^This.^ The .40 is a useful round for many purposes but why go Glock and risk problems when there are numerous pistols built for the cartridge, including the UPS, M&P and 229?

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

This is precisely why I have landed at .40 S&W for all around use, as I cannot own more than a couple solid pistols at any given time to get more specialized niche filling. Very versatile cartridge, but again as others have said I will only own a small few pistol models in this cartridge. USP, P229 are likely the two best choices, but anything H&K would be solid also.