TexasCHLforum.com

[quote"Ncongrunt"]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.[/quote]

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.

DoubleJ wrote:

LarryH wrote: 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.

you may also consider that a RIA full-size is an all steel frame/slide, and a Pro carry is also steel, but with a shorter barrel (so, one would reason that the Pro Carry would have more recoil).
then factor in that most guns in .40S&W are 4", polymer framed guns. I believe, and this is merely my own conjecture, that this would factor into why recoil is different.

course, if I had the oppurtunity to shoot a Beretta 96 (.40S&W) and a Beretta 92 (9mm), I may be able to tell differences in recoil, based solely on cartridge/caliber.

The weight of the gun is certainly a major factor in perceived recoil.

For me, given similar weight guns, the recoil characteristics of the 9mm, .40 and .45 stack up this way:

9mm - Low recoiling, easy to shoot round.

.45ACP - Moderate recoil round that "pushes" rather than "kicks" - also very easy to shoot well.

.40S&W - Moderate recoil round that "kicks" rather than "pushes" - meaning the recoil is subjectively somewhat sharper than that of the .45 (due to higher operating pressure and velocity), and just a little more challenging to learn to shoot well.

All 3 are readily controllable by the average shooter with a good grip and firing stance.

Purplehood wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Purplehood wrote:For the past 33 years or so I have found that I have the best control with the pistols in .40 S&W caliber. The .45 I shot well with, but was never comfortable with the grip (small paws). The 9mm always felt like I wasn't able to control it. I keep on target with the .40 cal.

The .40 S&W cartridge was developed at the request of the FBI after the disastrous 1986 Miami shootout with rifle armed bank bandits. After extensive development and testing, it was released in January of 1990. That would make the cartridge 19 years old.

How did you manage to get your hands on this ammo 14 years earlier?

Didn't say that I did. Just look at Military usage and you will know my history. When they used the .45, I shot that. When they changed to the 9mm, I shot that. When I started buying my own pistols, I shot the .40 S&W. I apologize for the confusion.

I had read your first sentence as meaning you had shot the .40 S&W for 33 years, while apparently your intent was to say that in 33 years of shooting you've come to prefer the .40 over the 9mm and .45.

Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense.

Purplehood wrote:For the past 33 years or so I have found that I have the best control with the pistols in .40 S&W caliber. The .45 I shot well with, but was never comfortable with the grip (small paws). The 9mm always felt like I wasn't able to control it. I keep on target with the .40 cal.

The .40 S&W cartridge was developed at the request of the FBI after the disastrous 1986 Miami shootout with rifle armed bank bandits. After extensive development and testing, it was released in January of 1990. That would make the cartridge 19 years old.

How did you manage to get your hands on this ammo 14 years earlier?

Stupid wrote:

Excaliber wrote:
Comparisons between handgun rounds and rifle rounds based on caliber alone are not valid.

The much higher velocities of rifle rounds bring temporary wound cavity effects that damage tissue well beyond the actual projectile path through tissue. This dynamic doesn't occur with 9mm, .40 and .45 handgun rounds because the bullets don't travel fast enough to cause this effect.

Inside 100 yards while the .223 is still running hot enough to cause the bullet to yaw and break up upon entry, this round is a highly satisfactory man stopper. It loses effectiveness beyond that distance as it slows down and just punches .22 caliber holes which are often adynamic wounds, but that battlefield reality is not generally a concern to a civilian. If someone is more than 100 yards away, you probably don't have any business shooting at him anyway.

I am curious about the statement that a .308 is a poor man-stopper. Most folks hit in the torso with this round go down right then and are not in any condition to continue the fight. Where did the "poor man stopper" rating come from?

I was just making a generic statement which is probably too broad. People survived small calibers shots left and right. There's no-one-shot-stopper/focus on shot placement was my point.

I would agree that there is no hand fired projectile that can be counted on to achieve a one shot stop unless it destroys a critical part of the central nervous system. Any caliber round that does that will deliver instant incapacitation, but a hit anywhere else has lots of variables and maybes.

Bullet placement is much more important than caliber.

Given hits in the identical spot, larger caliber projectiles do generally cause faster incapacitation than smaller ones due to more rapid blood loss through larger holes. This is an incremental advantage, not an order of magnitude.

Anyone armed with a 9mm/.38 or larger has what is needed to get the job done if he or she does his part.

Stupid wrote:Welcome.

This topic has been debated to death without any conclusive result. General consensus is anything from 9mm, 40 and 45 is more than adequate; however some will lay down their dead bodies to defend the superiority of 40 or 45.

The thing is with small calibers including even .223 and the mighty .308 are poor man-stoppers. Shot placement is the key. So, I would say, shoot all 3 calibers and see which one you shoot the best, then carry that.

Comparisons between handgun rounds and rifle rounds based on caliber alone are not valid.

The much higher velocities of rifle rounds bring temporary wound cavity effects that damage tissue well beyond the actual projectile path through tissue. This dynamic doesn't occur with 9mm, .40 and .45 handgun rounds because the bullets don't travel fast enough to cause this effect.

Inside 100 yards while the .223 is still running hot enough to cause the bullet to yaw and break up upon entry, this round is a highly satisfactory man stopper. It loses effectiveness beyond that distance as it slows down and just punches .22 caliber holes which are often adynamic wounds, but that battlefield reality is not generally a concern to a civilian. If someone is more than 100 yards away, you probably don't have any business shooting at him anyway.

I am curious about the statement that a .308 is a poor man-stopper. Most folks hit in the torso with this round go down right then and are not in any condition to continue the fight. Where did the "poor man stopper" rating come from?