Decline of the 40 S&W

[mmc45414]

I posted this in in response to a post in the Pistol section. Then I figured it may deserve its own thread....

Well, hell, I guess I should move my post over here:

The M&P is a great platform in 40 S&W.

I started out multi-quoting all of the M&P mentions but it got a little silly, then Kev summed it up.
I always liked the 40, even before I went all-in on M&P, then I probably liked it more.

I never unliked 40, but a few other factors crept in and I added in 9mm. At one point the mix of what I had was available in both and I didn't own any 9mm pistols.

Then 22LR got scarce and I could load CLB 9mm for not much more than the scalper price on 22lr, I bought a conversion barrel for my G-35, and that was the nose of the camel.

Then I really wanted some kind of PCC and got a Cx4 Storm. It had a trigger like a staplegun and wouldn't function with the 15rnd Mecgar magazines. I tried to figure out how to put together an AR in 40S&W (what I really wanted) and there was just no good option, especially the magazines. So I got a 9mm AR (Colt pattern) and proceeded to have a buttload of fun and a ton of practice with it.

I started to get a little more interested in competition again, and it seemed like most of that was evolving to favoring 9mm.

Then I decided I could have a 9mm 1911 and I could load one round and shoot strikers, PCC and 1911, one day I will get around to getting a 9mm revolver (probably an LCR) and have all bases covered with just one can of ammo.

And I like to reload, but I do not like to change over presses, and now I can have a RL1100 with a bullet feeder sitting there ready to load the next batch of 9mm 147gn Blue Bullets anytime they are needed (the only time I tamper with it is to size and swage a batch of 5.56). And the range brass is essentially free.

I sold off all of the pistols and only kept the full size M&P. I bought an optic ready Performance Center top half and put the 40 top half in a ziploc and put it in the ammo can with the ~1500 rounds I had loaded. After I had a 2.0 direct milled I sold the M&P40 to a buddy with both uppers. Then my cousin with the 96 Vertec asked me when would be the next time I might reload some ammo, and he ended up with the ammo (and the Mecgar magazines).

Now the only pistol left is a P-40. It is a bit of a wild ride and would be a better gun in 9mm, but the one I have has gone on a lotta adventure with me, so it stays.

Much mention of the recoil and there will always be more, but I think it was overstated. I think it is a bigger issue for agencies with common users that might weigh between 130-230. I had many compact and subcompact guns, even Shields in 40S&W and 45acp. Unpleasant but not unmanageable (I liked the 45 better than the 40).

Also mentioned was the pressures, and they might be the same, but I believe the 9mm has a much thicker case web. I also liked reloading 40 with 155gn bullets because there was more case volume. And I always used slower powders. I think many reloading problems combined bulged cases with thin webs with deep seated 180gn bullets with fast peaky powders.

I have also always been interested in the 10mm, but with 40S&W being only twenty grains lighter or a couple hundred FPS slower I never could make sense of it, maybe now it does for me. 500 rounds of 10mm would be plenty to keep on hand, 500 rounds is almost out of 9mm. One thing I always wonder about is the conventional wisdom of taking a more powerful gun into the woods where you might encounter a 150-200 pound unarmed furbag that is considered a more physical threat than a 200-300 pound armed dirtbag, but like everybody else I am packing 9mm.

So at this point it is more about the pew-pew than the cartridge. Well except for the P-40. And maybe the 10mm...

[steve]

There in lies your problem.

The 40 S&W sucks in all Glock pistols prior to the Gen5 (I have yet to shoot Gen5 40 S&W Glock and doubt I will because I doubt anyone around here will buy one).

Glock+40 S&W made me hate the caliber. Classic SIGs in 40 S&W I was more or less ambivalent about. Less snap/sting than in the Glock, but the 9mm version of the same gun had noticeably less recoil.

Then I was issued a S&W M&P 40 and it completely changed my perception of the round. Everything about that combo just felt right.

If you get a chance find the Glock rep with a Gen 5 .40. When you shoot it you will see they finally got it right. If they had that slide weight when they gave the prototypes, that were not supposed to be shot, to CHP in the early 90's the 4006 would not have gained any traction.

[farscott]

I had one of the first Glock 22 pistols sold, so I was a relatively early adopter. I still have a S&W 4006, a HK P30S, a STI Eagle 6.0, and a STI Trojan 5.0 in the caliber. I ended up with the latter two after I found a whole bunch of ammo I had reloaded for my Limited Ten days during the normal-capacity magazine production ban. I found the ammo in a safe when we were packing to move. I decided to take it with me and realized that, loaded long to be reliable in the 1911/2011, it would not fit the magazines for the S&W or HK.

I found the Eagle 6.0 first and later came across the Trojan 5.0. I purchased those pistols for a fraction of the costs of the same models chambered in 9x19. In those heavy pistols, the snappiness of .40 is reduced if not entirely alleviated. I shot the Eagle in some informal USPSA matches when I dug out my old Limcat and DAA holsters and magazine holders. I was not very competitive, but I enjoyed myself. The Trojan would make a good trail gun as it is easy to carry, easy to shoot, and very reliable with my handloads.

I have dies, brass, and bullets, so .40 is not in decline for me. I have played with the limits of the round loaded long and to high velocities in the six-inch Eagle. It would be more than sufficient for deer.

I expect the pendulum swing will make .40 popular at some time tine future as everything old is new again.

[UNM1136]

I always thought the .40 Short and Weak was a solution in search of a problem. And I was required to carry the .40 for more than a few years.

Meh. I also carried .357 Sig, .45ACP, .38 Special, .357 Mag, 32ACP, and 9mm.

Singer, not the song....

But, if you like the round, March on!

pat

[DocGKR]

Good commentary KevH!

180gr .40S&W offers good intermediate barrier capability coupled with reasonable magazine capacity in a service pistol--something not available in other service pistol calibers in the 80's and 90's.

And yes, the prior Glock 40's and Beretta 96 were highly problematic, while the M&P40 was not.

This day and age, barrier blind 124-147 gr 9mm's loads are reasonably effective, soft shooting, and offer long service life in the average duty pistol, so .40 does not have quite as much an advantage as it offered 20-30 years ago.

While I still have a couple of .40S&W test pistols, I primarily use a G19, with occasional M&P45 forays if I get free .45Auto ammo somewhere or need a 10rd mag for some reason.

[HeavyDuty]

I have a 27.5 that I picked up when I was in critter country doing backwoods photography. I don’t feel poorly protected by .40 at all.

[DMCutter]

I bought my first USPc 40 in 1996 and I've had at least one ever since. I have a stainless with a Gray Guns action job and a well worn early 2000s model with match trigger springs that's every bit as smooth. They're extraordinarily accurate, especially with Gold Dot, and I like the snap of the 40 in limited doses. I have more than a lifetime supply of range fodder and SD ammo. I carry them in the winter sometimes in case I'm attacked by someone in a really big puffy coat. They may not be the current hotness but I know they'll work every time I pull the trigger, so I have no compelling reason to dump them. But I also like piston ARs, so my taste is obviously questionable.

[Basher]

I’ll just leave this meme from “fromtheguncounter” on Instagram right here lol…

[paherne]

Good commentary KevH!

180gr .40S&W offers good intermediate barrier capability coupled with reasonable magazine capacity in a service pistol--something not available in other service pistol calibers in the 80's and 90's.

And yes, the prior Glock 40's and Beretta 96 were highly problematic, while the M&P40 was not.

This day and age, barrier blind 124-147 gr 9mm's loads are reasonably effective, soft shooting, and offer long service life in the average duty pistol, so .40 does not have quite as much an advantage as it offered 20-30 years ago.

While I still have a couple of .40S&W test pistols, I primarily use a G19, with occasional M&P45 forays if I get free .45Auto ammo somewhere or need a 10rd mag for some reason.

I could not miss with your .40 S&W M&P Gen 1 at the Pat Rogers carbine class in 2007? I will always remember that the trigger was like a staple-gun but I should have bought one, after that performance.

[Oldherkpilot]

Then you stepped over to 9mm JHP where the soft shooting 115gr. loads underpenetrated and the 147gr. pills often didn't expand at all. So +P and +P+ attempted to launch a 147gr. bullet hard enough or a lighter bullet of sturdier construction to get deep enough. So you had dudes doing timer work on 115gr. range fodder, complaining to the .40 shooters that their guns recoiled too much, and packed around carry loads that kicked about as much as a bog standard forty.

Related to above, you also had to make sure that your 9mm JHP worked with your gun in a real way compared to the assumptions we can make, now. A lot of them, to include most 2nd generation G19s I've met, didn't play nice with wide meplat bullets. So you had hot loads in relatively finicky guns in an era where many 9mm shooters just gave up and ran Federal's 9B or the +P+ version because the profile fed well in almost everything, it was inexpensive, match accurate, widely available, reliably expanded in at least fullsize pistols, and didn't under-penetrate as bad as some.

Versus the 40 S&W that worked as intended from the design board but people who stick with something that has always done what it says on the box are somehow seen as the crazy ones. As nice as it is to have the 180 grain HST or whatever modern wonderbullet, there is a quiet reassurance in a caliber that also performs well with Winchester White Box and the Remington equivalent from a G23 barrel on up to a carbine. Surprise, a cartridge designed to make old bullet technology meet a modern standard still does just that.

You put that quite nicely. The recoil impulse on my Kahr K40 (steel frame) is virtually the same as the impulse on my CW 9 with 124 gr Gold Dots. Nobody seems to remember that there's no +P .40s. Its all the juice, all the time. Long live the .40! (as I holster my 9mm)😁