.40 S&W "Too much recoil" embellished statement..

[Ninjaflip11]

Did you have full power factory 40 S&W rounds? I really don't understand how your mom their felt the 40 S&W is softer. The Gen 3 40 and 9mm Glock pistols share the same recoil spring system. Both caliber have similar working pressures, but the 40 S&W usually has a heavier bullet thus increasing recoil impulse. Unless your 40 loads have 135 grn bullets and the 9mm rounds were 147 grain.

I don't know it honestly surpised me as well. The rental seemed newish.

[stormvet]

Actually the smaller the projectile, the more felt recoil you will have. A 155 gran 40 round will kick more then a 180 gran round(type of ammo being equal). The larger round will be at roughly 950 ft per sec, while the smaller round will be moving along at around 1250. Makes a difference in felt recoil.
When I train with my carry ammo, 9mm 124+P or 147 gran, 40 165 or 180 gran. The difference in recoil between the two calibers are minimal, practice ammo there is more of a difference. The performance drop off of 9mm practice ammo is large, not nearly as much with .40 ammo.

[timmyboy450]

I'm thinking the reason she felt the 40 was softer could probably be the ammunition used like stormvet has mentioned. Please elaborate on ammunition used in both.

[Troy35]

Apples to apples .40 has more felt recoil than 9mm or .45 any one who says otherwise is not using a standard benchmark for their comparisons. Those who choose to shoot .40, go for it, train often and become proficient with your choice. Those who shoot 9mm and/or .45, train often and become proficient with your choice.

The only time someone should have this conversation is with a new shooter. I would always tell a new shooter to choose 9mm for one reason, cost. Cheaper ammo = more shooting = more proficiency. The lesser recoil is an added bonus.

My first pistol was a .40, a Browning Hi-Power, I wanted to like it. I wanted to like a Glock 22 and Glock 23 (back up gun) as service pistols. These are the only three guns I have ever sold. I'm a .45 shooter that has a few 9mm's. I would never question an experienced shooter who prefers .40 though.

I think I'll go find a weekly installment of "Who thinks Glocks suck?' now since I've weighed in on this weekly topic. These threads are silly as no ever changes anybody else's mind on these topics. One must learn what they prefer by shooting, that's it. Let your personal experience shape your choices.

[Iknownot]

Any time I've tried the 3 rounds, my simple impression is that 9 has flip, 45 push and 40 has both. I'd rather have one or the other, not both. That is why I haven't really been that interested in 40 when I've tried it.

[Pupulepeter]

To each their own. I've owned 9mm glocks and .40, but found I was best at any speed with my G23. It stayed, the rest went. It could be the particular gun, but it seems to be independent of ammo. It's the only .40 I currently own and so far has been a unique experience. I haven't liked other platforms in .40.

[MontClaire]

I would only trade .40S&W for 10mm or I keep it.

The new HK VP 40 is very manageable gun if anybody wants to give it a try.

[duc748bip]

If the G19 is a rental it might have a worn recoil spring.

[someoneeasy]

I guess 30+ years of firearms training isn't enough in my case.



^^^This^^^

The results on target doesn't lie. At 7, 15, 25yds I'm more accurate with the 9mm over the .40 cal. And for me, the faster I shoot, the greater the discrepancy between the calibers.

Feeling "smoother" doesn't say anything about accuracy and precision.

practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect

[someoneeasy]

Apples to apples .40 has more felt recoil than 9mm or .45 any one who says otherwise is not using a standard benchmark for their comparisons. Those who choose to shoot .40, go for it, train often and become proficient with your choice. Those who shoot 9mm and/or .45, train often and become proficient with your choice.

The only time someone should have this conversation is with a new shooter. I would always tell a new shooter to choose 9mm for one reason, cost. Cheaper ammo = more shooting = more proficiency. The lesser recoil is an added bonus.

My first pistol was a .40, a Browning Hi-Power, I wanted to like it. I wanted to like a Glock 22 and Glock 23 (back up gun) as service pistols. These are the only three guns I have ever sold. I'm a .45 shooter that has a few 9mm's. I would never question an experienced shooter who prefers .40 though.

I think I'll go find a weekly installment of "Who thinks Glocks suck?' now since I've weighed in on this weekly topic. These threads are silly as no ever changes anybody else's mind on these topics. One must learn what they prefer by shooting, that's it. Let your personal experience shape your choices.

cheaper by...... 4-6 cents?

[ifilef]

I find the .40 S&W to definitely be snappy compared to 9mm. The only time that I sort of enjoyed shooting it was in a CZ-75B in .40, and I only purchased it because I am left-handed shooter and it has the ambidextrous safety. Ended up selling it and I only shoot 9mm presently, but would choose a .45 over a .40 any day. Anyone who purports to claim that a .40 is not snappy needs to get an education in reloading and ballistics. The frame is usually identical for the 9mm and .40, as in the Glock 26/27, M&P Shield, or the Kahr PM series. So just use one's common sense if you are not a reloader or ballistics afficionado.

[meno377]

.40 S&W "Too much recoil" = shooter with not enough training

This ^^^

[ifilef]

I think it's the gun more than the caliber.

My 226 tacops is WAY softer than my USP compact. And it's also softer than my Dad's 9mm shield. I personally don't find a very big difference in similarly sized guns.

That's funny because I found the felt recoil and muzzle flip in a 9mm Shield to be perceived as less than with a Beretta M9A1. Go figure...at least one guy on the Beretta Forum agreed with me, and it wasn't even the topic of the thread. He just noted my comment and agreed with me. I think the 9mm Shield is a great joy to shoot. And the .40 Shields are apparently not, witness all the guys trying to get rid of theirs for the 9mm version of it or to get something else, if they can actually get their .40 Shields sold.

Why is that so? Perhaps because .40 S&W is indeed 'snappy' and not as controllable nor capable as 9mm in lining up sights for subsequent shots.

This talk about training is a bunch of hogwash. All that training does, after many rounds fired, is make the shooter 'think' that it's no big deal. Fine, spend a bunch of money training with hundreds if not thousands of .40 S&W rounds. 9mm HP is just as effective as .40 or 45, and more pleasant and accurate and cheaper to shoot than .40 when 'push' comes to 'shove'.

With that said, to each his own, but the following quote should not surprise anyone here:

My department recently switched over from the 40cal to the 9mm. Our collective range scores have improved dramatically and I've not met a single person who desires to go back to the 40cal...

[FireCloud9]

I wonder what these guys were using 83 out of 84 misses.

[Garand1911]

Ive shot a glock22 a few times and had no problems with recoil, shot a glock23 and hated it.
Ive shot a hk p2000 in 40 a ton and have no problem with its recoil.

But ammo plays a big part in the felt recoil equation.