40S&W making a comeback

[Jeep]

The facts support very little of the anti-2A legislation. Look at anti gun sentiment that's spreading. Consider demographics and don't overlook large urban populations(Seattle is an example)whose progressive voting habits dictate policy to the rest of the state. Much maligned fuds who are knee jerk gun rights supporters are dying out. Fewer persons are buying hunting licenses so this is another segment that will have reduced influence. View the enormous list of Democratic financial supporters, reflect on their billions, reflect on their influence, and then speculate on how this force will impact firearms policy. Last, calculate the number of airheads and snow flakes.

I have no idea what will happen politically in the future, but I do know that putting all your eggs in one basket can be a bad idea. Thus, I continue to own a few .40's and am not about to sell them.

[beenalongtime]

I was referring to .40 cal. The 147 grain would be the equivalent 9mm load.

There are noticeable differences in time performance and “shootability” between various .40 cal loads. Shooting 135 or hot 155 vs 180 grain is similar to shooting .357 mag vs .38 spl out of the same gun.

With 9mm I have not experienced or observed any real difference between various 9mm bulletin weights or between standard and +p loads.

With my .40, after using up some free ammo I had, all my shooting has been with 180, and it sights well across the guns with different size barrels.
With the 9mm, I did see a huge difference between ammo weights and barrel lengths to hitting POA/POI. While nine may be cheaper for initial practice, it ends up costing more if I have to have different weight and quantities for each gun.

[HCM]

With my .40, after using up some free ammo I had, all my shooting has been with 180, and it sights well across the guns with different size barrels.
With the 9mm, I did see a huge difference between ammo weights and barrel lengths to hitting POA/POI. While nine may be cheaper for initial practice, it ends up costing more if I have to have different weight and quantities for each gun.

POI is not an accuracy and accuracy not under time pressure has no application to the real world.

If your various 9mm pistols shoot to different POI that is a zeroing /sights issue. If they group well with one weight but not others, like the Gen 1 M&Ps that would only group with 147 grain, there is something wrong with your gun.

9mm >40 when time is a factor and in any practical application it is always a factor.

The only cogent argument I’ve seen for 40 vs 9 is slightly better performance when shooting into vehicles.

[beenalongtime]

POI is not an accuracy and accuracy not under time pressure has no application to the real world.

If your various 9mm pistols shoot to different POI that is a zeroing /sights issue. If they group well with one weight but not others, like the Gen 1 M&Ps that would only group with 147 grain, there is something wrong with your gun.

9mm >40 when time is a factor and in any practical application it is always a factor.

The only cogent argument I’ve seen for 40 vs 9 is slightly better performance when shooting into vehicles.

POI should be close to POA, should it not? To me that is an accuracy thing, when determining what you may be liable for using.
Also, it is a subcompact gun, so I expect it is the same issue that a 357 verses 38 has (not full burn before leaving the barrel).

[HCM]

POI should be close to POA, should it not? To me that is an accuracy thing, when determining what you may be liable for using.
Also, it is a subcompact gun, so I expect it is the same issue that a 357 verses 38 has (not full burn before leaving the barrel).

Guns are not magically zeroed. You need to adjust or swap sights to your chosen ammo/ammo type and chosen sight picture.

This is also part of why proper selection of a service pistol starts with selecting duty and training loads.

Expecting a gun to shoot to POI with a variety of ammo is unrealistic. So unrealistic that they make these thinks called adjustable sights to compensate for it. Not to mention with iron sights lighting and vision can play a part.

Since you want to pick nits:

[beenalongtime]

This is also part of why proper selection of a service pistol starts with selecting duty and training loads.

Expecting a gun to shoot to POI with a variety of ammo is unrealistic. So unrealistic that they make these thinks called adjustable sights to compensate for it. Not to mention with iron sights lighting and vision can play a part.

Bolded my point exactly. I found what works well with the .40 and have stuck with it. Bonus, It works well in both size guns.

The same gun, in nine, my last go around as I am still trying to find range ammo, (that works well with carry ammo/cost effective), the subcompact was shooting at least six inches below my point of aim. I have not had the same luck with the brand of ammo, that works in the forty, in the nine.
In my range toy guns, the nine that I have, works fine (full size barrels). So the ammo search continues.

[10mmfanboy]

This reminds me I need to pick up a 10mm to 40 conversion barrel for my G20.

Why? I shoot 40 cal out of my g20 and 29 barrels all the time.

[jeep45238]

In general, you could scoop a used 1.0 in 9mm and do some accuracy testing. If it sucks, do Apex’s match grade barrel and drive on. Unsure if the 2.0s exhibit the same issues or not, but I’ve heard a few grumblings, but nothing I can substantiate.

If I happened across a 1.0 or 2.0 used in .40S&W or .45Auto at an insane price, and I had the cash for one, I’d be tempted to scoop it if in decent condition. The .40 with a thumb safety would be a great field pistol. The .45 with a thumb safety is basically a poor man’s polymer 1911.

I actually did this to compete in CDP for a while, just didn't load the mags beyond 8. It also has the effect of a built-in magwell due to the width difference at the top and bottom of the mag. I performed a lot better than I should have, looking back on it, with 200gr SWC over W231 out of that gun.

I was referring to .40 cal. The 147 grain would be the equivalent 9mm load.

There are noticeable differences in time performance and “shootability” between various .40 cal loads. Shooting 135 or hot 155 vs 180 grain is similar to shooting .357 mag vs .38 spl out of the same gun.

With 9mm I have not experienced or observed any real difference between various 9mm bulletin weights or between standard and +p loads.

Benefit for the handloading out there - a 135 grain .40 can recoil so little compared to a 9mm, but you do have to go below the min. recommended powder loads to achieve it, and it was still spitting fire from unburned powder (and at the higher charges too). I think it has something to do with a 9mm weight bullet, but a 1mm larger dia and running a lower operating pressure due to that, but this was way back in the day before I had a chrono. 155/165 grain loads were hot, 180 was what I expected, 135 was a walk in the park.

Why? I shoot 40 cal out of my g20 and 29 barrels all the time.

I've always heard that it makes the cartridge headspace off the extractor - never made sense to me, since during firing the case head is pushed against the rim, and then the extractor snags the rim. Not saying that it's good to have a gap there, but one of my 9mm 1911's has a larger gap than the other and it runs like a freaking top.

[HCM]

Why? I shoot 40 cal out of my g20 and 29 barrels all the time.

Just be asuse you can doesn’t mean you should.

[HCM]

I actually did this to compete in CDP for a while, just didn't load the mags beyond 8. It also has the effect of a built-in magwell due to the width difference at the top and bottom of the mag. I performed a lot better than I should have, looking back on it, with 200gr SWC over W231 out of that gun.



Benefit for the handloading out there - a 135 grain .40 can recoil so little compared to a 9mm, but you do have to go below the min. recommended powder loads to achieve it, and it was still spitting fire from unburned powder (and at the higher charges too). I think it has something to do with a 9mm weight bullet, but a 1mm larger dia and running a lower operating pressure due to that, but this was way back in the day before I had a chrono. 155/165 grain loads were hot, 180 was what I expected, 135 was a walk in the park.



I've always heard that it makes the cartridge headspace off the extractor - never made sense to me, since during firing the case head is pushed against the rim, and then the extractor snags the rim. Not saying that it's good to have a gap there, but one of my 9mm 1911's has a larger gap than the other and it runs like a freaking top.

Factory 135 grain loads as supplied to DHS were loaded to try and duplicate 125 grain 357 magnum.

Handloading below min powder levels presentsits ownsadety Issues.