Ruger Forum

RockDoctor · July 6th, 2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrondo

There is a reason that most Police forces have gone to 40. One would be more knock power than a 9. If cost of ammo is the main factor it would be 9 hands down.

It is likely most police departments, and the FBI converted to the .40 was because of the FBI Miami shoot out.

1986 FBI Miami shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The subsequent FBI investigation placed partial blame for the agents' deaths on the lack of stopping power exhibited by their service handguns.

9mm and .38

Silversmok3 · July 6th, 2012, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrondo

There is a reason that most Police forces have gone to 40. One would be more knock power than a 9. If cost of ammo is the main factor it would be 9 hands down.

In most cases this isn't entirely correct. For the most part police agencies pick equipment like any other government agency; thats by using the lowest bidder. This is one reason why using Law Enforcement as a purchasing guideline can be deceiving, because in most cases its the bean counters in City Hall who pick the guns and not the line cops. If Glock's .40 S&W underbids S&W's 9mm, Glock gets the contract.

Personally, for civil personal defense I am of the mind the caliber is honestly irrelevant.As long as the shooter is competent with their hardware it won't matter if the gun employed is a .22 short or a .50 AE. A rimfire round to the brain or spinal cord will stop a fight as well as a .45 or 9mm to the same area.

MattD · July 6th, 2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silversmok3

Personally, for civil personal defense I am of the mind the caliber is honestly irrelevant.As long as the shooter is competent with their hardware it won't matter if the gun employed is a .22 short or a .50 AE. A rimfire round to the brain or spinal cord will stop a fight as well as a .45 or 9mm to the same area.

Yes, however there is a distinct and important difference between capability and probability. Both .22s and .40s are certainly capable of incapacitating an attacker, however the probability of incapacitation is certainly greater with the .40 (due to increased energy at impact and increased wound cavity) given the same level of competence on the part of the shooter and even the same shot placement.

Of course shot placement is the most important, but in the end it's a numbers game: what gives you the highest probability of survival taking all aspects into consideration (ie cost, availability, magazine capacity, "shootability", and terminal ballistics)?

For me, it's 40s&w.

showmebob · July 6th, 2012, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=guardjim; an evaluation of the round with mixed results, especially when reloaded. As a reloader of 9mm and .45acp I can't see a distinct advantage of the .40 over either one. I don't own a .40 and see no reason to. What do you think?
QUOTE]

I can easily attain factory ballistics while reloading 9 or 40's.

There are two reasons I bought a 40 that no one can argue with: 1. I wanted one 2. I have enough 9's

chrislind2 · July 6th, 2012, 12:54 PM

I first bought a Ruger P94 .40 in 2000 and I thought it was great. That's a heavy gun and really fun to use at the range. Now that I carry I have 3 small .40 caliber handguns and 9mm is easier to shoot in a small handgun. I carry a Beretta PX4 sub-compact .40. I just fired 120 of my .40 reloads through it last weekend. I loaded about half of them in the middle of the specs and half on the hot side. Could not tell the difference and they all shot really well with no problems. I am not as excited about .40 caliber anymore, but I have nothing against it either. Still reload it and use it in all 3 of my .40 pistols. I still think my favorite is .38 special in my Ruger GP100. That is fun to shoot.

leroy · July 6th, 2012, 01:22 PM

Shot 'em all. Reload 'em all.

I dont like the 9 mm (...too european...); about as good as a good 38 special plus "p". I do like the pocket 9's. They are a good idea.

I like the 45 acp in all flavors; but the 1911's are too pricey or too valuable as collectors to sit in a police evidence locker.

I Like the 40 s&w; but it's "old wine in new bottles". Take a look at the old 38-40 caliber ballistics. The 180 grain load @ 980 fps (..."40 short and weak"...) is basically the old 38-40 load. The 38-40 was the third largest seller in the old time colt single action army sequence. fourty five colt, 44-40, then 38-40 (...i think...).

There aint nothin new under the sun. Just new opportunities to do "new things" to make money.

By the way; i either carry a glock 27 (...40 sw...) or a glock 33 (...357sig...). Why? They are cheap, reliable, and fit in the hip pocket of my dungarees. If i wanted a 45 acp carry gun, i would hunt whatever the "baby glock" 45 acp model is (...glock 36; i think...) for carry.

Hope this gives a bit of a different perspective.

leroy

Lead Slanger · July 6th, 2012, 02:12 PM

My opinion has always been the same on semi auto calibers. The .40 is my #1 pick for a self defense caliber. The 9mm is my #1 pick for a range caliber and #2 pick for self defense caliber. The .45 doesn't make my list in any category. The .40 wins with me everytime!

Sal1950 · July 6th, 2012, 08:00 PM

The "Handguns" article got it right on the money. The .40 offers a cartridge that can fit in a 9mm sized weapon only giving up a couple rounds of mag capacity. It also offers knowdown power very close to a 45 ACP, again in that 9mm sized package.
Using the somewhat mean recoil in a compact sized gun as a negative it really foul play, its just part of real world physics. THAT is why it got the nickname Short &Weak, because when the 10mm was introduced to the FBI as their standard issue weapon, qualifying scores fell threw the floor cause the average agent just couldn't handle the recoil of the 10mm. So the idea dawned on them if they cut the case .140 they could tame the recoil a bit and at the same time get it to fit in all the existing 9mm frames. So the .40 S&W is the Short & Weak version of the 10mm.
Long story short the .40 is a great round and fit a much needed niche for a defensive sidearm of reasonable size and sufficient knock down power.
This argument has been going on for since the introduction of the .40 and will continue well after I'm gone.
But I will say this, there been a lot of new calibers introduced in the last 25 years or so and the .40 is the only one that really took off commercially. It's use in the field has proved it filled a need that the 10mm, 357sig, 45Gap, 41 mag, 327 mag, etc, etc, etc; didn't. All these people aren't victims of some mass hypnosis or con game. To me, in many ways, it's the defensive semi-auto equivalent of the .357 mag, not too big, not too small, it's just right "said the baby bear" LOL
Let the flames continue.
Sal

dw1911 · July 27th, 2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guardjim

I don't own a .40 and see no reason to. What do you think?
Let the lead fly!

have you ever shot a 40sw? what brand/make firearm and ammo?

guardjim · July 29th, 2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal1950

The "Handguns" article got it right on the money. The .40 offers a cartridge that can fit in a 9mm sized weapon only giving up a couple rounds of mag capacity. It also offers knowdown power very close to a 45 ACP, again in that 9mm sized package.
Using the somewhat mean recoil in a compact sized gun as a negative it really foul play, its just part of real world physics. THAT is why it got the nickname Short &Weak, because when the 10mm was introduced to the FBI as their standard issue weapon, qualifying scores fell threw the floor cause the average agent just couldn't handle the recoil of the 10mm. So the idea dawned on them if they cut the case .140 they could tame the recoil a bit and at the same time get it to fit in all the existing 9mm frames. So the .40 S&W is the Short & Weak version of the 10mm.
Long story short the .40 is a great round and fit a much needed niche for a defensive sidearm of reasonable size and sufficient knock down power.
This argument has been going on for since the introduction of the .40 and will continue well after I'm gone.
But I will say this, there been a lot of new calibers introduced in the last 25 years or so and the .40 is the only one that really took off commercially. It's use in the field has proved it filled a need that the 10mm, 357sig, 45Gap, 41 mag, 327 mag, etc, etc, etc; didn't. All these people aren't victims of some mass hypnosis or con game. To me, in many ways, it's the defensive semi-auto equivalent of the .357 mag, not too big, not too small, it's just right "said the baby bear" LOL
Let the flames continue.
Sal

Sal wins the cigar. This is pretty much the answer I had in mind when I thought I would stir the pot.
To dw1911, no I haven't but would like to.
Thanks to all for your responses.

NuJudge · July 30th, 2012, 01:49 PM

I have pistols in all 3 calibers. I find the .40 to be more unpleasant to shoot than either the 9mm or .45 acp. I am also slower shooting the .40 than the other two.

ExArmy11b · July 30th, 2012, 02:20 PM

If you want more power, use the 10mm, the round from which the .40 evolved from......the .40 is just a shortened and downloaded 10mm. Properly loaded 10mm is a very powerful defensive round and some people even hunt whitetail with it.

10mm revolvers will also shoot .40.

Like was said above, the 10mm was supposed to be THE law enforcement round, and the FBI was all over it as a duty round. It was found that some women and smaller stature persons couldn't handle the recoil and blast of the 10mm (which isn't even that bad). And so, the .40 was born as an "in between" round, more power than 9mm but less recoil and more capacity than .45 ACP. .40 has become the standard for law enforcement for these reasons, almost anyone can handle it, and it has good stopping power.

Sal1950 hit it head on, the .40 is no "fad" round and it is 2nd to the 9mm in popularity for total sales of handgun rounds.

I own two Tanfoglio Witness(CZ75 clone) pistols in 10mm, I only bought these because CZ doesn't make a 10

They are both great guns, and even the hot 10mm doesn't kick much more than a .45 ACP +P.

I carried a Glock 22 .40 for almost 4 years as an armed security guard at a nuclear plant, and these pistols were accurate and easy to shoot, and .40 seemed to be an adequate duty round.But I have no interest in Glock and I traded my only one, a Glock 17 for a Speed Six.

If I were to buy a .40 pistol it would be a Ruger P94 or a CZ75.

As a revolver nut I don't shoot my autopistols much, and when I do my primary range round is 9mm just because it's cheaper and easy to find. I also have a .45 ACP Ruger P90 and a Springfield Armory Inc. 1911A1 and I recognize that .45 ACP has been around for over 100 years for a reason, it's a big slug with big stopping power.

refugeepj · July 30th, 2012, 02:36 PM

all the major pistol rounds with modern ammo are fine. i carry the SR40 because they don't make an SR45. i also own an SR9 and it is a solid performer. the SR series just seems to fit me better than anything else.

Sal1950 · July 30th, 2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExArmy11b

10mm revolvers will also shoot .40.

Sorry ExArmy but that's not true. Rimless semi-autos headspace on the case mouth and length is critical. Trying to fire a .40 in a 10mm could be potentially dangerous.
Sal

DCypherThis13 · July 30th, 2012, 03:24 PM

I really don't understand this whole caliber war. Getting hit by a 9mm is pretty much like getting hit by a car. If you throw a 45 at somebody, you might as well punch them in the face before they get hit by the car. Basically, there's not a huge advantage, in my opinion, to using a bigger caliber.