Very few people here seem to carry .40 S&W. I'm curios why.

[KhanRad]

I used .40 for many years in LE work, just as I have used the .45 and 9mm. Of the 3, the .40 has over time become my least favored. It looks great on paper.......good capacity, bigger hole than 9mm, and excellent barrier penetration. As others have stated though, it is hard on guns over time, I find it to be the least accurate of the 3 calibers, its recoil impulse causes more recoil anticipation, and its recoil impulse keeps you off target longer reducing the speed and accuracy of followup shots.

The .40S&W was a good alternative 25 years ago when ammo technology made the 9mm impotent, but with modern 9mm loads equaling the terminal effects performance of .40 loads there isn't enough incentive for me to go back to .40. I'd rather go back to .45acp than go back to .40.

[GuanoLoco]

That's a highly unlikely potential advantage for 9mm, but if having 17/ 9mm rounds instead of 15/ .40 rounds is deemed "compelling" then that's certainly a reason for 9mm preference, even though 15 rounds of .40 has more tissue disruption potential than 17 rounds of 9mm.

Sure, given 15 roughly equivalent 9mm vs .40 holes. Or misses. But if the 40 is empty and there are 2 more rounds of 9mm left over, then I suspect the pendulum swings pretty hard in favor of the 9 user.

[El Cid]

I still don’t buy that the modern 9mm is ballistically equivalent to the .40. Shooting at gelatin blocks is not the same as something with muscle, skin, and most importantly bone.

The 40 may perform better in gel, but on the street, in actual shootings there is no advantage to the 40 over 9. The research from actual shootings bears this out. The experience of medical personnel supports it. They all basically do the same thing and irrespective of caliber, most people shot with a handgun survive. It amazes me people are still trying to claim otherwise. If someone wants to shoot 40, 357, 45... go for it. But pretending it's more potent than 9 is folly given what we can prove.

[QED]

Sure, given 15 roughly equivalent 9mm vs .40 holes. Or misses. But if the 40 is empty and there are 2 more rounds of 9mm left over, then I suspect the pendulum swings pretty hard in favor of the 9 user.

Sure, if one misses with all 15/.40 rounds in the magazine and then has no ability to reload -- it's better to have 17/9mm rounds in the magazine and then hope to hit something very vital with the 2 rounds left. Apparently that particular 9mm advantage is compelling to quite a few.

[Jeep]

The 40 may perform better in gel, but on the street, in actual shootings there is no advantage to the 40 over 9. The research from actual shootings bears this out. The experience of medical personnel supports it. They all basically do the same thing and irrespective of caliber, most people shot with a handgun survive. It amazes me people are still trying to claim otherwise. If someone wants to shoot 40, 357, 45... go for it. But pretending it's more potent than 9 is folly given what we can prove.

Might this slightly overstate the issue? I think the 40 is--overall--marginally more potent than the 9 when both are using normal duty ammo because it can make slightly larger holes (and tends to be better on barriers). It's just that that marginal improvement makes very little practical difference (in other words, you would not expect for medical personnel to be able to normal detect the difference), and all of the other factors discussed previously militate towards using a 9.

[Screwball]

Carry the .40? Not really...

I do have a M&P40 Compact, which I could carry. I picked it up along with my 5” M&P40 Pro. Didn’t have a .40 pistol back in 2012 (did have a 96G Centurion conversion slide), so bought a pair... would have either been those or a Glock 35/27. While it is a nice setup, I just preferred other guns.

I did pick up a .40 SUB-2000 that took M&P magazines, as I wanted to see how .40 performs out of a longer barrel. I like it, but not a go-to carbine.

Not getting rid of the .40 guns. They aren’t prized possessions, but if there ever is a run on guns/ammo again, I like having an odd caliber that people don’t like. Allows for some extra shooting. .40 likely isn’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future, especially if there is movement back into 10mm. Still people out there with smaller hands. [emoji6]

[jondoe297]

However, you do see it time and time again, people claiming that they are in fact ballistacally or terminally equivalent in all aspects.

As for "it doesn't matter", well it doen't until it does. Statistically it doesn't, but that one time when a little more is needed, it's there or it's not. However, the consensus seems to be (and probably rightfully so) that the downsides in preparing for that highly statistically improbably doesn't warrant its use. Even more so for non LE carriers.

I would (and I feel many others would, too) contend that the likelihood of any realistic situation actually occurring, that could be solved by having .40 instead of 9mm, is so unlikely that it borders on fantasy.

[QED]

The 40 may perform better in gel, but on the street, in actual shootings there is no advantage to the 40 over 9.

Isn't terminal performance in gel at least somewhat correlated to what happens in tissue?

The research from actual shootings bears this out.

Did anyone publish any research that shows no terminal advantage of expanded JHPs that have significantly more mass at similar velocity as a lighter bullet, in any peer-reviewed journal?

The experience of medical personnel supports it. They all basically do the same thing and irrespective of caliber, most people shot with a handgun survive. It amazes me people are still trying to claim otherwise. If someone wants to shoot 40, 357, 45... go for it. But pretending it's more potent than 9 is folly given what we can prove.

One well-known terminal/wound ballistics expert and combat surgeon, who had quite a lot of relevant experience and published quite a bit in peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Fackler, maintained that handgun bullets that disrupt more tissue are more effective, assuming adequate penetration. While it is very difficult to attempt to scientifically quantify the difference in probabilities of incapacitations as a function of caliber, it doesn't mean that there is no difference.

[tanner]

I would (and I feel many others would, too) contend that the likelihood of any realistic situation actually occurring, that could be solved by having .40 instead of 9mm, is so unlikely that it borders on fantasy.

I don't carry a .40, but the same argument could probably be made concerning any realistic situation where 14 rounds of .40 would be a failure but 16 rounds of 9mm would be a success.

That is a very narrow window there statistically speaking, if it has even ever happened.

[JRB]

I hate .40 S&W discussions because it always brings out contrived and highly unlikely scenarios in which .40 would somehow be preferable to 9mm or .45 ACP.

In virtually any other more relevant variables, such as cost, recoil, or mag capacity or making the best of limited mag sizes, being limited by derp and politics to FMJ only, etc - 9mm or .45 are clearly superior over .40

.40 S&W is engineered ballistic mediocrity. It is 'the best' at absolutely nothing.