I see regular news stories, some dating back several years, documenting the switch back to 9mm by PD’s nationwide. The reasons given for the switch to 9mm vary, but most PD’s feel the .40 S&W lowers hit probability and are concerned with the reduction in capacity. Back in 2011 the Wichita (KS) police made the switch back to 9mm from .40. Their tactical firearms instructor at the time said that “many officers’ shooting scores have been bad ever since the department armed with the .40-caliber handguns.”
It seems .40 S&W continues to fall out of favor with more people coming to the realization the 9mm offers higher capacity, lower recoil, lower training costs and solid terminal ballistics when compared to the .40 S&W. During the last gun buying craze every caliber from .22LR to .45 ACP was absent from shelves around the country, however most people reported ample supplies of .40 S&W sitting around. Obviously this is a bonus for the .40 S&W since in times of crisis you might have a better shot at finding ammo, but does this single point outweigh the other benefits of using 9mm? That doesn’t appear to be the case as it seems not only the police and trainers are moving away from the .40 S&W but the general gun buying public is too.
I've never really liked the .40 myself due to the same reasons stated in the article. The recoil is less predictable (jumpy) they cost more than 9mm and with todays technology in HP self defense ammo you really don't need anything more than a 9mm. Now do I only own 9's no.... there's a feeling i get from my .45 1911 on my hip that a 9 just doesn't give but more often than not it's easier to conceal my sig than my kimber.
"Our houses are protected by the Good Lord and a gun, you might em both if you show up here not welcome son" Josh Thompson- Way out here (best song ever) "eventually all citizens will become criminals with enough legislation....."
With the number of Law Enforcement Agencies that have committed to the 40 S&W I really doubt the 40 is in danger of going away any time soon. There are a lot of non LEOs who use the 40 myself for one. I used to be all wrapped up about the .45 ACP and 1911 until I bought a 9mm I found the 9mm to be a comfortable gun to shoot then I bought a 40. All of a sudden I could have a round that starts with 4 and a high round count in my magazine. I tried all the different ammunition combinations until I settled on either CorBon DPX 140 grain ammo or Federal HST 155 grain ammo. Neither recoil excessively and both have an excellent performance record.
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Texas and Louisiana CHL Instructor, NRA Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor
MoJo wrote:With the number of Law Enforcement Agencies that have committed to the 40 S&W I really doubt the 40 is in danger of going away any time soon. There are a lot of non LEOs who use the 40 myself for one. I used to be all wrapped up about the .45 ACP and 1911 until I bought a 9mm I found the 9mm to be a comfortable gun to shoot then I bought a 40. All of a sudden I could have a round that starts with 4 and a high round count in my magazine. I tried all the different ammunition combinations until I settled on either CorBon DPX 140 grain ammo or Federal HST 155 grain ammo. Neither recoil excessively and both have an excellent performance record.
My two goto weapons:
Glock 23 at home and in the car.
XDs .45 for CC.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
I'd rather carry a 9x19 (for the mag capacity, lower recoil, better accuracy) or a .45 ACP (larger bullet, lower recoil, better accuracy) than a .40. It's stuck right in between the two, offering a little of the advantages of both, but fulfilling the potential of neither.
So of course, I'm issued a .40, and my department doesn't allow for us to carry our own weapons on-duty.
JSThane wrote:I'd rather carry a 9x19 (for the mag capacity, lower recoil, better accuracy) or a .45 ACP (larger bullet, lower recoil, better accuracy) than a .40. It's stuck right in between the two, offering a little of the advantages of both, but fulfilling the potential of neither.
So of course, I'm issued a .40, and my department doesn't allow for us to carry our own weapons on-duty.
The weapon I am most accurate/comfortable with is a Glock 23. Given the abundance of conflicting statistical data, I believe it simply comes down to personal preference and the expertise of the individual.
I do carry a XDs 45 but only because it wasn't available in .40.
I find the title of this thread laughable. That being said, anyone who feels their .40 pistol or ammo is no longer trendy, feel free to give them to me. Shoot, for a small fee I'll even drive a little ways to take it off your hands.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
We should practice and train with the system that we carry, if you can draw and accurately fire you gun on demand, that's a good start. I believe shot placement will trump horsepower most of the time...
Why don't we see more .40 caliber in competitive shooting?
In the endless pursuit of perfection, we may achieve excellence.
Texas LTC and School Safety Instructor and NRA Training Counselor
thatguy wrote:We should practice and train with the system that we carry, if you can draw and accurately fire you gun on demand, that's a good start. I believe shot placement will trump horsepower most of the time...
Why don't we see more .40 caliber in competitive shooting?
Because your life is not on the line in competitive shooting.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:I've never really liked the .40 myself due to the same reasons stated in the article. The recoil is less predictable (jumpy) they cost more than 9mm and with todays technology in HP self defense ammo you really don't need anything more than a 9mm. Now do I only own 9's no.... there's a feeling i get from my .45 1911 on my hip that a 9 just doesn't give but more often than not it's easier to conceal my sig than my kimber.
Well, I'm not as fired up over the word "NEED" as JP171 is, but it is true that once we start defining for one another what the other person "needs," the libtards won't be far behind using our own arguments against us.
That said...... I used to own a .40 S&W pistol. I loved the pistol—an HK USP Compact—but ultimately could not reconcile myself to the caliber for several reasons.
One reason was availability. During the previous ammo famine (2008/2009), .40 S&W was rare as all get out for a while....worse even than 9mm and .45 ACP.
Another reason was that I also owned pistols in .380, .38 Special, .357, 9mm, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum. I could afford to dispense with .40 S&W, and I wanted to simply my caliber inventory picture.
Yet another reason was that I never did like the way .40 S&W recoiled. Light and snappy (9mm) is easy to shoot, and heavy and slow (.45 ACP) is easy to shoot. But heavy and snappy (.40 S&W) is more difficult and requires more range time to maintain competence with it.
Lastly, the .40 S&W is already loaded from the factory to very near +P pressures. You can buy +P loads for it, but I wouldn't recommend shooting too much of that in any gun. Most of the kabooms I've seen in otherwise perfectly reliable pistols such as Glocks have been .40 S&W guns. Don't need it.
I bought that USP Compact in .40 S&W on the recommendation of a friend, without having fired one before. I thought to myself, I have no problem with any of the other calibers I own, including .44 Magnum, so why would I have a problem with .40 S&W? It's not so much a "problem" as I just didn't like the way it felt in the hand when shooting. So ultimately I sold that pistol to a forum member and bought myself an M&P45. If I had bought that USP Compact in .45 ACP instead in the first place, I'd likely still have it today and I would have not likely bought the M&P45. Not that there's anything wrong with the M&P.....just that I liked the USPc, and it fulfilled my desire for a polymer framed, increased capacity pistol (compared to a 1911).
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I wear custom inside the ear plugs and Howard Leight Impact Sport electronic muffs over my ears and I was still left with ringing in my ears after shooting a 40 - not for me.
thatguy wrote:We should practice and train with the system that we carry, if you can draw and accurately fire you gun on demand, that's a good start. I believe shot placement will trump horsepower most of the time...
Why don't we see more .40 caliber in competitive shooting?
Because your life is not on the line in competitive shooting.
The question was actually rhetorical. The reason we don't is because it is more difficult to control muzzle flip from a .40 caliber for some shooters, thus costing time and accuracy which is important in competition and when your life is on the line.
In the endless pursuit of perfection, we may achieve excellence.
Texas LTC and School Safety Instructor and NRA Training Counselor
JSThane wrote:I'd rather carry a 9x19 (for the mag capacity, lower recoil, better accuracy) or a .45 ACP (larger bullet, lower recoil, better accuracy) than a .40. It's stuck right in between the two, offering a little of the advantages of both, but fulfilling the potential of neither.
So of course, I'm issued a .40, and my department doesn't allow for us to carry our own weapons on-duty.
The weapon I am most accurate/comfortable with is a Glock 23. Given the abundance of conflicting statistical data, I believe it simply comes down to personal preference and the expertise of the individual.
I do carry a XDs 45 but only because it wasn't available in .40.
I find the title of this thread laughable. That being said, anyone who feels their .40 pistol or ammo is no longer trendy, feel free to give them to me. Shoot, for a small fee I'll even drive a little ways to take it off your hands.
Well said. I prefer the Glock 22 for on duty use, but due to back injuries I now carry the 23 since it is 3 oz' lighter. It is a great weapon and very accurate. Having 1st hand experience with .40's both personally and with other LEO's in incidents I responded to they stop the the threat. I know when we converted from 38/357 model 66's they briefly tried 9mm glocks but realized real quick that people were not going down or staying down. With the .40 and 185 grain rounds the threat was stopped. Everybody has their preference, but .40 works for me and I know it has saved my bacon (couldn't resist)
I like the .40, consider it my primary "carry" caliber and have absolutely no desire to change. I do believe that there were outside factors in it's rise in popularity with citizens, mainly the mag cap limits of the old assault weapon ban. If you were limited to 10 might as well carry a bigger bullet right? I don't think that had much at all to do with the LE adoption and that there will ever any serious reduction in the use of the .40 overall.
(couldn't resist)