40S&W making a comeback

[TNK]

It is not making a comeback, but it is settling into its place as a niche cartridge for purposes described above in several posts. Yes, there a few pistols that are good for the cartridge: The HK USP, Beretta 96A1 and PX4, and I would now toss in a late arrival, the HK VP40, if you are so inclined. Enjoy.

[Dave T]

Is the 40 S&W making a comeback? One can only hope! (smile)

Dave

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

So it's anecdotal of course... but until earlier this year I was a sales rep for (among other things) a large domestic ammunition manufacturer with a territory that covered two and a half western states. As a result, I darkened the door of just about every place in the area that sold guns and ammunition.

I'd hesitate to call the .40 "dead"... but it certainly ain't what it used to be. My customers reported sales of new and used .40 pistols being virtually nil. Ammunition orders were an order of magnitude higher for 9mm. Heck, even .45 guns and ammo outsold .40 by a significant margin. The guys I worked with that covered other lines or territories reported much the same.

[claymore504]

I would not say it is making a comeback. I think all the hating on it has just died down. When everyone decided 9mm was the way to go, 40SW bashing was cool. Overall it is a great round. Harder on weapons maybe and little more snappy. I think the M&P is excellent in 40SW and I wish I had my M2.0 5 inch 40SW still. I am down to two handguns in 40 and will not let them go, a P229 and P226.

I was much more in to 40SW when the Obama panic was going strong. I could always count on 40SW being available to buy when 9mm and 45 was always out of stock.

[OlongJohnson]

Is the Beretta 96 slide beefed up enough now to handle the .40?
I seem to recall that there were problems with the 96 in the past.

The problem with .40 was never the slide, as those were just temporary metallurgy issues that were resolved before .40 was invented. As I understand it, the 96's problem was with straight dust cover frames and .40. They would crack, which led to the slanted dust cover as a means of adding material in that area. 9mm frames will reach massively greater round counts before cracking in that area, if they ever do. AFAIK, the frames are interchangeable, so if one had an straight dust cover .40 and wanted to shoot it more, swapping frames with a slanted dust cover 9mm would result in two functional firearms.

[HCM]

The problem with .40 was never the slide, as those were just temporary metallurgy issues that were resolved before .40 was invented. As I understand it, the 96's problem was with straight dust cover frames and .40. They would crack, which led to the slanted dust cover as a means of adding material in that area. 9mm frames will reach massively greater round counts before cracking in that area, if they ever do. AFAIK, the frames are interchangeable, so if one had an straight dust cover .40 and wanted to shoot it more, swapping frames with a slanted dust cover 9mm would result in two functional firearms.

The dust cover was one issue with 96s, the other was the slide weight with .40.

You are correct that the issue of slides breaking in the 92s was a temporary and isolated issue caused by both inappropriate ammo and some bad metallurgy. It was WAY over blown.

The standard 92/96 slide was just way too light for 40 cal as was the recoil and locking system. This basically caused the guns to break parts and generally beat them selves to death.

[OlongJohnson]

So what I should do is fit a 9mm barrel and extractor (if they are different) in my 96D and use it as the practice backup for a real 92D.

[JonInWA]

So what I should do is fit a 9mm barrel and extractor (if they are different) in my 96D and use it as the practice backup for a real 92D.

True, but then again, as long as you judiciously lube, replace the springs and locking block on the 92 at prescribed (or even more conservative) intervals, and periodically clean out the extractor channel, your 92D should hold itself together pretty well over time. If nothing else, the XM9/XM10 trials of the 1980s ensured that some intrinsically good pistols were made even better. Beretta 92s, SIG P226s, and Ruger P89s are all noted for having viable longevity well beyond most forecasted expectations.

Of course, creating a 92D out of your 96D would even further the projected lifespan of you "real" 92D...As HCM said, the figurative gun junkyards are littered with 1990s manufacturers' .40s that were in many cases nothing more than re-barrelled 9mms with slightly revised springing (if that). The result was the perception that the .40 would beat a gun to death in relatively short order. Firearms specifically designed around, or thoroughly modified for the cartridge can have excellent durability-but there's no free lunch. One of the siren songs of the .40 was that you could achieve utilization of a higher-powered cartridge in the 9mm platform. While technically true, for real-world longevity, significant re-engineering was required-particularly, heavier slides with concurrently properly calibrated springing seems to be a winning formula.

Best, Jon

[Trooper224]

While at the range for my usual Wednesday session, I had a look at the store inventory.

9mm handguns took up a good 2/3 to 3/4 of the space. The rest was equally shared by pistols in .380, .45 and .22, with one lone .44 mag. The .45s were mostly 1911s, because 'murica. There wasn't a single .40 to be found, new or used. The situation was essentially the same at both Cabela's and Academy, with one lone .40 Beretta 96 at the former.

If you like your .40 by all means, rock on with it. On the other hand, if one is looking for some kind of personal validation that their .40 is what the cool kids carry, go grow a neck beard and get some sleeve tats. Your gat won't get it done.

[JonInWA]

I think the best, most likely to be drama-free and excellent performing .40s out of the box are HKs.

Best, Jon