TexasCHLforum.com

Just a followup in relation to my comments on the .40 S&W round and kabooms.

Cowtown Cop has a new entry about a recent kaboom. The weapon: a Glock 22 in .40 S&W. Factory ammo, Remington Golden Sabre to be specific.

http://observationsofanoldcop.blogspot. ... aboom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My lack of desire to own a .40 S&W firearm remains.

Excaliber wrote:

Ncongrunt wrote:My opinion is that it was the gun. It's my experience that S&W autoloaders aren't a pleasure to shoot in general, and I've not seen any spectacular reviews of them. When I was first looking into getting a handgun, I borrowed a friend's S&W 457S - a .45 caliber all-metal pistol - to try at the range. Conventional thinking would now lead me to believe that an all-metal bulky gun like that would be pretty easy to shoot. Not so. The gun was difficult to control, and the muzzle flip was quite excessive, IMO. It wasn't until over a year later that I shot a .45 again - this time a 1911. The difference was night and day, with the 1911 not being much more to handle than my 9mm Hi-Power. I've not shot a S&W M&P yet, so perhaps those are better, but the other auto pistols from S&W really leave much to be desired for me.

My agency issued S&W autoloaders for a number of years, so I am very familiar with what you experienced. The muzzle flip issue comes more from the height of the bore above the hand than from any other factor. Regardless of caliber, the higher the bore is above the hand (and alignment with the bones in the forearm) the more muzzle flip you'll experience due to the physics of leverage.

The 1911 and many of the polymer guns (Springfield XD, Glock, and S&W M&P series) have bores positioned about as close above the hand as possible, and they are much more controllable and easier to shoot well than the earlier S&W autoloader series that used the decocker / safety lever.

Yeah, it was obviously the design of the gun, in hindsight now. Back then, I didn't know all the technical workings behind pistols, so it was pretty much an off-putting experience. I went from somewhat excited about the gun (my friend offered it to me at a very good price) to wanting nothing to do with it. What you describe makes sense, and probably accounts for LarryH's experience with the .40 S&W gun as well.

LarryH wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Personal preference all the way. The actual ballistic differences are not significant.

I carried the .45 ACP, 9mm and now the .40 S&W (carried, and shot all of these on a regular basis). I have found that shooting the .40 S&W is the "easiest" experience. So I stick to what works for me.

I'd be interested in some detail on why the 40 is "easiest" for you. I shot all three at the range yesterday (admittedly my 9 and 45 (plus my wife's 45), someone else's 40) and thought the 40's recoil was about the same as (if not greater than) either my 45 or my wife's (her's is RIA full-size, mine is Kimber Pro Carry). The 40 is a S&W model, I believe. Definitely preferred the grips on my guns to his.

My opinion is that it was the gun. It's my experience that S&W autoloaders aren't a pleasure to shoot in general, and I've not seen any spectacular reviews of them. When I was first looking into getting a handgun, I borrowed a friend's S&W 457S - a .45 caliber all-metal pistol - to try at the range. Conventional thinking would now lead me to believe that an all-metal bulky gun like that would be pretty easy to shoot. Not so. The gun was difficult to control, and the muzzle flip was quite excessive, IMO. It wasn't until over a year later that I shot a .45 again - this time a 1911. The difference was night and day, with the 1911 not being much more to handle than my 9mm Hi-Power. I've not shot a S&W M&P yet, so perhaps those are better, but the other auto pistols from S&W really leave much to be desired for me.

I've shot only an XD in .40, but my impression is that it tends to be a bit jumpy for me. It's nothing I can't control, and to be fair - I generally don't shoot polymer guns. It just isn't all that steady, and I've had the same impression from another polymer gun in 9mm, so I don't have a fair basis to compare. Unfortunately, most .40 guns seem to be polymer-framed (they do exist in the 1911 and Hi-Power, and other formats, but very few people seem to care to buy those), so going with a .40 may limit your choices if you don't want to buy a plastic gun.

As mentioned above, there is the issue of the unsupported chamber. I can't give you personal testimony here, but you can do a search on and "kaboom" and find mostly accounts of .40 S&W glocks blowing up, and lots of discussion about the unsupported chamber. The round runs at very high pressures for a relatively heavy round, and many people will argue that the margins for disaster are greater because of this.

Personally, I have no desire to own a .40 S&W gun. Ammunition costs too much, and I'd sooner go with the time-proven .45 ACP if I'm going to go larger than 9mm. If you're debating between these two, take into consideration that it's going to cost quite a bit more to practice with .40 S&W than 9mm - .40 S&W is generally going to cost 50% more, and not much less than .45 ACP. That eats into your ammo budget, and if you're going to hit what you shoot, more ammo means more practice. More practice means you can improve your shooting skill. To me, .40 S&W adds too marginal an increase in bullet size and effectiveness for the cost it commands. Beyond that, 9mm ammo is considerably more common and easier to find and in greater variety than .40 S&W.