Why is 40 considered an "in-between" round?

[madland]

First gun we ever bought was an XD9. However, I took the wife to the range and set out an XD9 XD40 XD45. Told her this was the gun we were going to buy but I wasn't sure which caliber until she shot them too. She picked up the 9.. ran some rounds through it. Loved it. Ran the 40..liked it too. One shot from the .45 and she set it back down and said "Nope". Her groupings were only slightly better with the 9 vs the 40 but I had less 40 ammo to test with. She shot the 9 and was real comfortable with it so we went with that as our first HD purchase. She said the 40 didn't bother her at all. Hmmmmm. My .02

[geoint]

The .40 is an OK round. The facts are it does no more in the real world than the 9 MM, but at a much higher cost in noise, recoil and dollars. The true believers can argue energy transfer, velocity and dollar value all day, but it does nothing that is not done equally well or better by both the 9 MM and the .45 auto.

^^^ THIS ^^^

And Id love to have one perfect round for everything but there isnt. And IF there was, it sure as hell isn't 40. It'd be a tossup between 9 and 45.

Ballistics tests prove 40 is no better than 9 with modern ammo, higher ammo capacity, lighter recoil, cheaper ammo.... So far, 9 has won every category. The only reason Ive ever seen for 40 that I couldn't immediately dismiss was "well it was still on the shelves after Sandy Hook for months after 9, 45, 22LR and 223 dried up". Which may be true (i didnt check). But consider something: IF everybody in a panic is buying other stuff (you know when prioritizing is important), that should tell you something.

Lots of PDs use 40 cuz the chief or old timers (current old timers) were young when 40 was the hot new thing. Since they are the ones setting policy, thats why their depts use 40. Funny thing, even the FBI has ditched that crap.

[Bill Steele]

I shoot all three calibers along with 10mm but I own mostly 40s. Why? 40 bullets can be loaded into either 10mm or 40 S&W. 40 is cheap and readily available. It is always available in value packs at my Walmart but 9 and 45 aren't always there. My 40 guns can can accept 9mm barrels. My 10mm can shoot 40. 40 shoots flat and has very good ballistics. The only advantages of 9 over the 40 are the possible extra rounds (not in CA) and slightly lower cost per round. Keep in mind, during the last panic 40 was cheaper per round than 9 in my area. I use 9 for range blasting, 40 for defense/SHTF, 45 for competition, and 10mm for wilderness adventures. For me, 40 is the best all around.

Sounds right to me.

[ChuckDizzle]

9mm is cheap. but the .22 is still cheaper. and, according to the post i quoted, very effective as long as you hit the right "place."

so if it's all about shot placement and easier follow-up shots due to low recoil, shouldn't the .22 be the self-defense round champion?

just my thoughts.

It might be. Given the popularity of firearms in .22 LR over the last century I would suspect .22 to be in the top 3, of cartridges used in defense.

If I could only afford one gun it would be a 10/22, and I wouldn't hesitate an instant to use it for self defense. I can fire 10 rounds into a soda can at 25 yards in under 5 seconds because it is so easy to shoot. And I'm not that great of a shot tbh.

[71MUSTY]

.40 +p+ shot through a 16 in or longer barrel is pretty impressive.

[Mossy Man]

at that point a .223 is probably a little more useful

[pauloween]

In this statement you say that rimfire is less reliable than centerfire.



In this statement you say that rimfire is equally reliable as centerfire.

And I don't know anyone who could say with a straight face that .22 is equally reliable as 9mm.

i stated that my personal and actual shooting experiences with the reliability of the .22's and 9mm's are just the same. that is correct. for the record, i compared the reliability of my 22's only to my 9's. my .40's beat both my 22's and 9's in terms of reliability many big hands down.

however, i still agree that, in general, overall reliability of 9mm's (and most centerfire ammos for that matter) is still better than that of the .22 (or other rimfire.) as you stated, you "don't know anyone who could say with a straight face that .22 is equally reliable as 9mm." neither do i. in my case, maybe i'm just as lucky with the .22's as i am with the 9mm's.

let's try to make this simple. if manufacturers made the .22's as reliable as 9mm's, would you dump your 9mm in favor of the .22?

[Mossy Man]

If unicorns could poop, would you eat it?


Prorip: unicorns don't exist so the question is moot.

[elSquid]

If unicorns could poop, would you eat it?


Prorip: unicorns don't exist so the question is moot.

Do you have proof that unicorns don't exist?

-- Michael

[stormvet]

If unicorns could poop, would you eat it?


Prorip: unicorns don't exist so the question is moot.

But if they did they would shoot 9mm, because it's soft and gentle and everyone knows unicorns squat when they pee.

[Lonestargrizzly]

No they dont. They fart rainbows, just like girls do.

[pauloween]

If unicorns could poop, would you eat it?


Prorip: unicorns don't exist so the question is moot.

so, the answer is no? you wouldn't dump the 9mm for the .22 even if they're just equally reliable, right?

to answer your question; no, if unicorns could poop, i wouldn't eat the poop. just as i would not dump the 9mm for the .22 even if .22's were just equally reliable.

[pauloween]

Do you have proof that unicorns don't exist?

-- Michael

But if they did they would shoot 9mm, because it's soft and gentle and everyone knows unicorns squat when they pee.