No love for the 40

[Booker]

My experience, pro & con, with 40 comes down to the actual gun!

It was a great round in my Sig 229 and M&P but hurt like a bitch in my Glock 27.  I disliked the Glock so much that I gave the gun away!

 

[fortyofforty]

In terms of handgun accuracy, nobody shooting to earn a living is choosing the .40 S&W.  The top competitors do not use it.  It's fine for minute of badguy accuracy, but for precision shooting it's not the round of choice.  Facts are facts.

[PNWguy]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 4:52 PM, fortyofforty said:

In terms of handgun accuracy, nobody shooting to earn a living is choosing the .40 S&W.  The top competitors do not use it.  It's fine for minute of badguy accuracy, but for precision shooting it's not the round of choice.  Facts are facts.

I haven't heard anyone say the .40 S&W is inaccurate since the 90's...

Do you have any evidence of such a claim?

Because apparently my G29 with LW .40 S&W barrel and my bone stock XDS didn't get the memo that they aren't accurate at 25yds...

 

[Sniffler]

28 minutes ago, PNWguy said:

 

 

 

What's up with that slide Vart?

[PNWguy]

It's got a custom camo paint job since it's my woods carry gun.

 

[Sniffler]

5 minutes ago, PNWguy said:

It's got a custom camo paint job since it's my woods carry gun.

 

 

 

Looks good.  Did you do that yourself?  Are you going to do the frame at some point?

[fortyofforty]

Did I mention 25 yards?  I have hit with the .40 S&W out to 100 yards, with little difficulty.  However, in terms of inherent accuracy, do a search for the weapons of choice of top competitors on bullseye, or IDPA, or IPSC, or any of the other competitions.  At fighting distances, the .40 has no problems.  At extended distances, or where extreme precision is needed, the choice is clear.

And what's with that flyer?  Is it the first round fired?

[PNWguy]

1 hour ago, Sniffler said:

 

 

Looks good.  Did you do that yourself?  Are you going to do the frame at some point?

Yep, I enjoy doing camo jobs on my hunting firearms.  Will not do the frame, though, on this one.

My turkey gun I did...

Edited October 23, 2017 by PNWguy

[PNWguy]

27 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Did I mention 25 yards?  I have hit with the .40 S&W out to 100 yards, with little difficulty.  However, in terms of inherent accuracy, do a search for the weapons of choice of top competitors on bullseye, or IDPA, or IPSC, or any of the other competitions.  At fighting distances, the .40 has no problems.  At extended distances, or where extreme precision is needed, the choice is clear.

And what's with that flyer?  Is it the first round fired?

I wasn't aware that bullseye, IDPA and IPSC matches shot pistols at 100yds.  I believe 9mm is more popular not due to accuracy, but due to recoil and ammo costs.  If you have any actual data that shows 9mm is inherently more accurate than .40 S&W, then I would be interested in seeing it.  I shoot in GSSF matches and started with my G29.  I bought a G19 thinking I would be able to use off-the-shelf ammo instead of my reloads and enjoy lower recoil and costs.  That has not been the case and my G29 is more accurate than my G19.

[fortyofforty]

Can you read?  Did I ever claim anything about bullseye, IDPA or IPSC shot pistols at 100 yards?  Did I ever say the .40 S&W was "inaccurate"?  Go back and reread what I wrote.  Then post where I said what you claim I said, or admit you either have a problem with reading comprehension or honesty.  For reloaders there is almost no difference in cost between the two rounds.  Recoil can be mitigated by reloading and recoil spring selection, as well.  And for top competitors, ammunition cost is irrelevant if a round helps them win thousands of dollars.  They shoot what helps them win, plain and simple.

I haven't heard anyone claim the .40 S&W is more accurate than the 9mm and .45 ACP since the early 1990s.  (See how it works?)

Do you know any precision shooters that compete for a living that shoot a .40 S&W by choice?  If so, please post their weapons and the competitions they've won.  I'm curious.

Here's the result of a quick search that took a couple of seconds.  I'm sure you can do the same to bolster your spurious claim.

The Top Pistols Used by Today's IDPA Shooters

[PNWguy]

13 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Can you read?  Did I ever claim anything about bullseye, IDPA or IPSC shot pistols at 100 yards?  Did I ever say the .40 S&W was "inaccurate"?  Go back and reread what I wrote.  Then post where I said what you claim I said, or admit you either have a problem with reading comprehension or honesty.  For reloaders there is almost no difference in cost between the two rounds.  Recoil can be mitigated by reloading and recoil spring selection, as well.  And for top competitors, ammunition cost is irrelevant if a round helps them win thousands of dollars.  They shoot what helps them win, plain and simple.

I haven't heard anyone claim the .40 S&W is more accurate than the 9mm and .45 ACP since the early 1990s.  (See how it works?)

Do you know any precision shooters that compete for a living that shoot a .40 S&W by choice?  If so, please post their weapons and the competitions they've won.  I'm curious.

Here's the result of a quick search that took a couple of seconds.  I'm sure you can do the same to bolster your spurious claim.

The Top Pistols Used by Today's IDPA Shooters

Why so angry?  Just trying to have a discussion.

 

You claimed the .40 S&W is not accurate.  Be honest.  How else can anyone think otherwise with your words? 

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 4:52 PM, fortyofforty said:

In terms of handgun accuracy, nobody shooting to earn a living is choosing the .40 S&W.  The top competitors do not use it.  It's fine for minute of badguy accuracy, but for precision shooting it's not the round of choice.  Facts are facts.

Minute of badguy accuracy?  Not the round of choice for precision shooting?  That sounds a lot like you're saying it's not accurate.

15 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

At fighting distances, the .40 has no problems.  At extended distances, or where extreme precision is needed, the choice is clear.

Again, you are inferring that the .40 is not accurate at extended distances.  And you are also saying that because more competitors choose the 9mm, they do so because of it's superior accuracy.  I think you are wrong and that they choose 9mm because of the lower ammo costs and lower recoil. 

Your list of IDPA guns means nothing in terms of accuracy.  IDPA is all about speed and follow up and not precision.  I never said that 9mm wasn't popular by top shooters in matches.  I simply said I didn't think that 9mm is more accurate than .40 S&W.

I asked for you to provide data that shows that .40 S&W is inherently less accurate than 9mm because I would be very interested in learning the facts.  But you didn't.  You just got all huffy and insulting.

Bullseye matches, BTW, are dominated by .22 rimfire and .45 ACP, and not by 9mm.  That is the only match you mentioned where precision accuracy actually matters, and 9mm is not used.  IDPA and IPSC matches do not require precision accuracy but rather fast shooting.  Of course the lower recoil 9mm will dominate.

Again, not trying to intentionally piss you off or argue.  I'm genuinely trying to find evidence that the 9mm is superior to the .40 S&W in terms of accuracy.

[ranger99]

I've owned .40 S&W caliber guns since the first S&W 4003 hit my LGS back in STL over 26 years ago.  Some I didn't like, some I did.  Right now I have a Beretta PX$ Storm and a SIG P229 in .40 S&W, and like them both a lot.  Somehow they both seem to impart a lot less felt recoil to me than the last two or three .40s I had.  I can shoot both as fast and as accurately as I can my Glock 19, they have about the same capacity, and I feel more confident sending 180 grain slugs at a bad guy than I do 124 grainers.  Of course, how I feel about it isn't scientific at all, but I also know that confidence is as important as anything else when it comes to putting rounds on target in a hurry.  

 

None of that means I don't have a place in my carry rotation for 9mm or .45 auto for that matter.  But for myself, I'd rather carry 13 rds of .40 than just 8 rounds of .45 auto, and I don't think I'll miss the extra 3 rounds of the less-powerful 9mms.  But that's just me.

[fortyofforty]

10 hours ago, PNWguy said:

Why so angry?  Just trying to have a discussion.

 

You claimed the .40 S&W is not accurate.  Be honest.  How else can anyone think otherwise with your words? 

Minute of badguy accuracy?  Not the round of choice for precision shooting?  That sounds a lot like you're saying it's not accurate.

Again, you are inferring that the .40 is not accurate at extended distances.  And you are also saying that because more competitors choose the 9mm, they do so because of it's superior accuracy.  I think you are wrong and that they choose 9mm because of the lower ammo costs and lower recoil. 

Your list of IDPA guns means nothing in terms of accuracy.  IDPA is all about speed and follow up and not precision.  I never said that 9mm wasn't popular by top shooters in matches.  I simply said I didn't think that 9mm is more accurate than .40 S&W.

I asked for you to provide data that shows that .40 S&W is inherently less accurate than 9mm because I would be very interested in learning the facts.  But you didn't.  You just got all huffy and insulting.

Bullseye matches, BTW, are dominated by .22 rimfire and .45 ACP, and not by 9mm.  That is the only match you mentioned where precision accuracy actually matters, and 9mm is not used.  IDPA and IPSC matches do not require precision accuracy but rather fast shooting.  Of course the lower recoil 9mm will dominate.

Again, not trying to intentionally piss you off or argue.  I'm genuinely trying to find evidence that the 9mm is superior to the .40 S&W in terms of accuracy.

For precision shooting it's not the round of choice.  It sounds like you can't read.  Nor can you dispute that fact.  All you can do is spew spurious claims.  I mentioned the .45 ACP as being used by precision shooters.  Of course you don't remember that, BTW.

I can't find any widespread use of .40 S&W pistols by any level of competition, in any sport.  If it were more accurate than the .45 ACP or 9mm, it would surely be chosen for that capability.  So, we can deduce that it is at best equally accurate.  Given that, and its previous widespread use by law enforcement and CCW shooters, you would think there would be more in use by competitors.  Why buy a new pistol when you can use what you were issued?  Ammunition is often free or reloaded at just about equal cost.

This, from 2012, right smack dab in the middle of the .40 S&W supremacy in LEO and CCW circles, with the FBI issuing .40 S&W pistols by the thousands and state and local agencies passing them out by the hundreds of thousands:

Of the 142 Glock pistols used at the World Shoot, the Glock G34Interview with 2015 NPSC Champion Robert Vadasz was the most popular model with 62 shooters (16.3%) competing with the longer slide competition model. Right behind it was the G17 which had 57 shooters (15%) campaigning with the company's flagship pistol.

A Border Patrol officer uses .40 S&W on the job, but chooses 9mm to win precision shooting competitions.

Interview with 2015 NPSC Champion Robert Vadasz

Not much more I can do for you here.  Believe whatever you want.

[Jason D]

23 hours ago, PNWguy said:

Why so angry?  Just trying to have a discussion.

 

You claimed the .40 S&W is not accurate.  Be honest.  How else can anyone think otherwise with your words? 

Minute of badguy accuracy?  Not the round of choice for precision shooting?  That sounds a lot like you're saying it's not accurate.

Again, you are inferring that the .40 is not accurate at extended distances.  And you are also saying that because more competitors choose the 9mm, they do so because of it's superior accuracy.  I think you are wrong and that they choose 9mm because of the lower ammo costs and lower recoil. 

Your list of IDPA guns means nothing in terms of accuracy.  IDPA is all about speed and follow up and not precision.  I never said that 9mm wasn't popular by top shooters in matches.  I simply said I didn't think that 9mm is more accurate than .40 S&W.

I asked for you to provide data that shows that .40 S&W is inherently less accurate than 9mm because I would be very interested in learning the facts.  But you didn't.  You just got all huffy and insulting.

Bullseye matches, BTW, are dominated by .22 rimfire and .45 ACP, and not by 9mm.  That is the only match you mentioned where precision accuracy actually matters, and 9mm is not used.  IDPA and IPSC matches do not require precision accuracy but rather fast shooting.  Of course the lower recoil 9mm will dominate.

Again, not trying to intentionally piss you off or argue.  I'm genuinely trying to find evidence that the 9mm is superior to the .40 S&W in terms of accuracy.

You will see a lot of 9mm used for Bullseye by the military pistol teams and it is remarkably accurate, but most any round can be made to shoot that way for a price. The Beretta's they are shooting cost a couple thousand bucks to get them there. You can get a lot of accuracy out of a decent barrel set up. 

 

You can't judge a round's accuracy on what guns are shot in differing competitions, because it really is an unfair comparison. You would need multiple guns of the same kind, the highest quality match grade ammo you can find in quantity, nice weather, and a ransom rest to prove or disprove. There are just way to many variables.

 

[minervadoe]

On 10/23/2017 at 2:39 AM, PNWguy said:

Because apparently my G29 with LW .40 S&W barrel and my bone stock XDS didn't get the memo that they aren't accurate at 25yds...

I put a Lone wolf .40 S&W barrel into my Glock 29 and put a box of Winchester White box ammunition through it.  I was quite pleased with the accuracy at seven yards.

[fortyofforty]

If a round isn't accurate at 7 yards, it belongs in the trash can.  You can start to tell at 25 yards and back if a round and pistol are accurate.  You wouldn't shoot a rifle at 25 yards and declare it accurate based on those results.  The same is true with handguns, but with distances reduced.

[Brad]

On 9/30/2017 at 12:01 AM, Tahmail said:

G23. Accurate, powerful and reliable. What's not to love?

I've carried the same G23 since 2000. 14 rounds at 485 ft-lb each, and I can conceal it owb under a t shirt. Seems like a good combination to me.

[minervadoe]

Quote

....  veteran police officer Dick Fairburn, now a trainer for the Illinois State Police, was commissioned by the Police Marksmen Association to answer this very question. Mr. Fairburn’s original quest was to try and answer the stopping power debate of the time, in which he failed because the database of 241 shooting incidents was too small. However, what he did develop were some interesting trends that showed what officers did when they won the confrontation. One of the most interesting was the distances involved. While the FBI statistics show distances as being around ten feet, the PMA study showed the average distance being more like twenty.

It's nice when the bullets all go through the same hole.  Fifty rounds through the same hole is even better.
Read more: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-training/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/#ixzz4wZc3Ds9T

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by minervadoe

[Brad]

Urinating contest.

Of course the .40 is accurate enough. For defensive purposes, it is being shot off-hand with a relatively short sight radius with open sights. I bet the round isn't the weak link here.

I guess one could put a scope on there and show that typical .40 rounds can't achieve 1 moa at 300 yards like a rifle, but who cares?

[Exit Plan]

This topic got jjohnson'ed in a hurry

[Jason D]

33 minutes ago, Brad said:

Urinating contest.

Of course the .40 is accurate enough. For defensive purposes, it is being shot off-hand with a relatively short sight radius with open sights. I bet the round isn't the weak link here.

I guess one could put a scope on there and show that typical .40 rounds can't achieve 1 moa at 300 yards like a rifle, but who cares?

Yeah, but you get that with pretty much everything.

You will always have one side that picks light and fast, and another that advocates for slow and heavy. The nice thing that light and fast get you are a round that a broader spectrum of people can shoot well. Shooting well is what some equate to accuracy.

I can't attest to whether the .40 caliber is inherently accurate, or inaccurate for the simple fact that I have never accuracy tested the round like I have other calibers. I don't have any .40 caliber guns that I would consider match accurate, but it seems to do as well as 9mm out of factory stock guns. I personally don't have a problem with shooting it well, but I understand not everyone is me. 

People need to decide for themselves what works for them. 

[fortyofforty]

On 10/24/2017 at 10:59 PM, Jason D said:

You will see a lot of 9mm used for Bullseye by the military pistol teams and it is remarkably accurate, but most any round can be made to shoot that way for a price. The Beretta's they are shooting cost a couple thousand bucks to get them there. You can get a lot of accuracy out of a decent barrel set up. 

 

You can't judge a round's accuracy on what guns are shot in differing competitions, because it really is an unfair comparison. You would need multiple guns of the same kind, the highest quality match grade ammo you can find in quantity, nice weather, and a ransom rest to prove or disprove. There are just way to many variables.

 

Well, that is partially true.  If the .40 S&W was more accurate than 9mm, competitors would choose it over that round.  They don't.  There is no minor additional expense that would negate the difference in accuracy given that the top competitors are provided ammunition or reload.  Add this to the fact that, for several decades, the .40 was the top choice of law enforcement officers around the country.  They had the pistols.  They had the magazines.  They had the ammunition.  They had the reloading equipment.  Yet, they chose to use a different caliber to win.  Is it all recoil?  Again, with the top competitors able to tailor rounds specific for their own purposes, not a factor.  Larger diameter means better chance to break the line, so it would give an inherent advantage.

For the record, I've happily carried a .40 S&W since 1992, and have gone through many doors with one in my hand.  Shot for shot, I think it has a slight edge in terms of stopping power over the 9mm, but I don't think it's equally accurate.  It's plenty accurate enough for most purposes, though.  If you only shoot out to 25 yards, you're missing out on half the picture, though.  I understand if people think there is no difference if they can't shoot well enough to discern those differences.

[Old School]

My LGS says 40s are moving painfully slow.  My full size USP in 40 is one of my favorites, it feels right and I shoot it well.

A few .40 loads chrono under 1000 fps (below sound barrier).  That makes for a nice combo with a suppressor.

[Jason D]

52 minutes ago, Old School said:

My LGS says 40s are moving painfully slow.  My full size USP in 40 is one of my favorites, it feels right and I shoot it well.

A few .40 loads chrono under 1000 fps (below sound barrier).  That makes for a nice combo with a suppressor.

I bought two new ones this year. They both had sat on a shelf somewhere and collected a lot of dust on the boxes. The M&P I bought from Bud's had shell casings in the box, and box code for 2012 manufacture. The FNS had casings from 2013. 

[Happyguy]

My PX-4 Compact in .40 is the only gun I will carry AIWB.

 

I don't have much confidence in 9mm with a 3-3.5 inch barrel.

 

Regards,

Happyguy