Nobody wants a 40 anymore

[Whiskey_Bravo]

My first .40 S&W. I was mulling over some used Glocks and M&Ps but they just didn't do it for me. Even as Glock user both professionally and personally. Saw this on GB and couldn't get it out of my head. $30 Safariland duty holster en route courtesy of eBay. Will be using this strictly for fun and to deplete a stockpile of .40 ammo.

I was in College in 2008 when Nutnfancy rose to power. His knife reviews and then gun reviews followed by the rise of zombie culture really made my childhood love of firearms crank up to 11.

I have to give credit where credit is due. He was one of the reasons why I never bought a .40 during the early days of my firearms journey and stuck to 9mm with decent hollow points and .45 ACP for 'murican reasons.

[Stephanie B]

I worked directly with Lenore (?) there; I called, left a voicemail, and she quickly called me back and took the steps needed that I'd have the ammunition in time for my upcoming match.

They're pretty responsive to voicemail if they don't immediately pick up when you call.

Best, Jon

I just checked and I was able to proceed.

[Ed4032]

Has the 40 become the 32 of yesterday? Just asking not trying to start a war. I think the 32 is a great self defense tool.

[JonInWA]

Has the 40 become the 32 of yesterday? Just asking not trying to start a war. I think the 32 is a great self defense tool.

No; in my opinion the .32 was and is of marginal effectiveness, and was predominantly used in Europe in the early 20th century as a police and military cartridge, where a gun was more of a badge of office than an effective fighting tool.

The .40 is a vetted, effective cartridge with dedicated and vetted defensive bullets, predominantly jacketed hollow points, and matched with appropriate cartridges/powders/powder loads.

The key difference is that for most urban/self-defense uses (particularly against humans) the 9mm cartridge in current available and proven combinations is equally effective, lighter, more manageable due to its lower recoil and different pressure curve-and less expensive.

That doesn't invalidate the .40, it just makes 9mm a more desirable choice for many. In addition to the .40's validity as a defensive round, the .40 also excels in a wilderness environment, where, with select loads, increased penetration and effectiveness against wildlife can be achieved.

My thought that for urban defensive use, .40 platforms like the HK and Glock Gen5 ones available are ideal, due to the combination of tailored RSA springing and heavier slides, mitigating against the harsh characteristics of many .40 defensive loads. It doesn't necessarily make them "better" than a quality, vetted 9mm load, but it provides comparative parity, so if one is looking for a "best" all-around gun for various venues, a .40 might be worthy of consideration and selection today.

Hopefully DocGKR, GJM and other p-f established and knowledgeable participants will chime in.

Best, Jon

[Bigghoss]

No; in my opinion the .32 was and is of marginal effectiveness, and was predominantly used in Europe in the early 20th century as a police and military cartridge, where a gun was more of a badge of office than an effective fighting tool.

The .40 is a vetted, effective cartridge with dedicated and vetted defensive bullets, predominantly jacketed hollow points, and matched with appropriate cartridges/powders/powder loads.

The key difference is that for most urban/self-defense uses (particularly against humans) the 9mm cartridge in current available and proven combinations is equally effective, lighter, more manageable due to its lower recoil and different pressure curve-and less expensive.

That doesn't invalidate the .40, it just makes 9mm a more desirable choice for many. In addition to the .40's validity as a defensive round, the .40 also excels in a wilderness environment, where, with select loads, increased penetration and effectiveness against wildlife can be achieved.

My thought that for urban defensive use, .40 platforms like the HK and Glock Gen5 ones available are ideal, due to the combination of tailored RSA springing and heavier slides, mitigating against the harsh characteristics of many .40 defensive loads. It doesn't necessarily make them "better" than a quality, vetted 9mm load, but it provides comparative parity, so if one is looking for a "best" all-around gun for various venues, a .40 might be worthy of consideration and selection today.

Hopefully DocGKR, GJM and other p-f established and knowledgeable participants will chime in.

Best, Jon

I have to agree with this. .25, .32, .380 and cartridges in that class were born out of a desire/need to make small guns with the technology available at the time. These guns then found their way into military service mostly because officers removed from the front line don't really need guns but they kinda need guns and also because WWI just created such a depereate need for anything and everything. It might have helped that humans 100 years ago were typically smaller than today.

.40 S&W on the other hand was developed for a totally different role and it served that role well and has proven itself to be effective against humans. It didn't have to make the comprimises the small calibers did.

[Joe in PNG]

Historical nitpickery time: It's interesting to consider that the French army's preferred gun for trench raids during WWI was a .32 ACP semiauto- they weren't too picky about the brand, and used Brownings, FN's, Colts, Rubys, and whatever else was available. And this wasn't officer's holster guns- this was people knowingly going into action.

I suspect that it is because there weren't a lot of 'service' sized automatics generally available during that period, or that European military revolvers suck. Most were based on the Belgin Nagant pattern, which means a big but underpowered revolver that is slow and complicated to load.

After the war, the French took that experience, and went with new guns in .32 French Longue.

Note also that there were a fair number of .32 S&W Long revolvers in police holsters back in the day, including the NYPD (as personally selected by Teddy Roosevelt).

[HCM]

Historical nitpickery time: It's interesting to consider that the French army's preferred gun for trench raids during WWI was a .32 ACP semiauto- they weren't too picky about the brand, and used Brownings, FN's, Colts, Rubys, and whatever else was available. And this wasn't officer's holster guns- this was people knowingly going into action.

I suspect that it is because there weren't a lot of 'service' sized automatics generally available during that period, or that European military revolvers suck. Most were based on the Belgin Nagant pattern, which means a big but underpowered revolver that is slow and complicated to load.

After the war, the French took that experience, and went with new guns in .32 French Longue.

Note also that there were a fair number of .32 S&W Long revolvers in police holsters back in the day, including the NYPD (as personally selected by Teddy Roosevelt).

I can’t speak to the French, but Teddy Roosevelt did not have any particular insight into pistols or terminal ballistics of pistol ammunition. It’s also worth noting that at the time NYPD officers wore their revolvers, concealed even in uniform.

[Bigghoss]

Historical nitpickery time: It's interesting to consider that the French army's preferred gun for trench raids during WWI was a .32 ACP semiauto- they weren't too picky about the brand, and used Brownings, FN's, Colts, Rubys, and whatever else was available. And this wasn't officer's holster guns- this was people knowingly going into action.

I suspect that it is because there weren't a lot of 'service' sized automatics generally available during that period, or that European military revolvers suck. Most were based on the Belgin Nagant pattern, which means a big but underpowered revolver that is slow and complicated to load.

After the war, the French took that experience, and went with new guns in .32 French Longue.

I suspect it was just that they were the least-worst option available to them. I'd rather have a decenttly reliable .32ACP for super cramped fighting than a bolt action rifle or cluncky revolver. I mean, it was common to leave their rifles behind and take knives and clubs for a trench raid so any semi-auto with a detahcable mag would be a welcome improvement and the French bought up a lot of .32 pistols because that's what was available.

C&Rsenal did a video recently on what they think were the best fullsize, locked breach, marshal pistols that were used in WWI by any country and then shortly after Forgotten Weapons responded with his picks. Obviously the 1911 was #1 for both but that wouldn't have been available to a French soilder in 1916. Watching those videos it's apprent that full size handguns were not super common as well as most of them being kinda kludgy and also being made in Austria or Germany. .32 ACP pistols were just the most common handguns, and the best handguns, that French troops would have been able to get their hands on at that time.

[Joe in PNG]

I suspect it was just that they were the least-worst option available to them. I'd rather have a decenttly reliable .32ACP for super cramped fighting than a bolt action rifle or cluncky revolver. I mean, it was common to leave their rifles behind and take knives and clubs for a trench raid so any semi-auto with a detahcable mag would be a welcome improvement and the French bought up a lot of .32 pistols because that's what was available.

C&Rsenal did a video recently on what they think were the best fullsize, locked breach, marshal pistols that were used in WWI by any country and then shortly after Forgotten Weapons responded with his picks. Obviously the 1911 was #1 for both but that wouldn't have been available to a French soilder in 1916. Watching those videos it's apprent that full size handguns were not super common as well as most of them being kinda kludgy and also being made in Austria or Germany. .32 ACP pistols were just the most common handguns, and the best handguns, that French troops would have been able to get their hands on at that time.

And honestly, I'd probably take a .32 auto over pretty much any revolver under those circumstances.

[Joe in PNG]

I can’t speak to the French, but Teddy Roosevelt did not have any particular insight into pistols or terminal ballistics of pistol ammunition. It’s also worth noting that at the time NYPD officers wore their revolvers, concealed even in uniform.

It's one of those surprising historical facts that OG man's man Teddy picked that particular cartridge. One would think he'd go with .44 Russian or .45 Shofield.