Is .40 cal a dying breed?

[trackcage]

So I'm supposed to believe 9mm++p is just as powerful as .40 ++p but magically less stressful on guns?

And seriously by the time you cycle enough rounds for the wear to matter...

There is no +P SAAMI spec for .40S&W.

Agree on the last point though.

[KrisDSA]

40 S&W Getting more more popular in foreign countries

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2018/06/07/glock-22-becomes-official-duty-pistol-sao-paulo-brazil-mps/

[crufflers]

Well sure but they probably don't just test on gel block there and actually have measurable grip strength.

"The extensive testing for the solicitation included endurance testing, parts interchangeability testing, precision testing, and drop testing. The endurance testing consisted of 10,000 rounds on each of four test pistols without cleaning or lubrication during the test. The drop testing was conducted from a distance of 2 meters to simulate pistols being dropped from mounted units and was done from six different angles, totaling 64 drops."

Only 10,000 rounds with no lube? Geesh. 64 drops?? These Glocks sell themselves with tests like that. No offense to the shi&&y range guns out there.

[76Y40]

Glock brand

Overheard at the local gun store from a couple twenty somethings in slacks and button-ups: "So Glocks are like Hondas?"

[stormvet]

.40 is not going anywhere, there are still plenty of men that stand when they urinate.

[strakill]

.40 is dead. All of you just send me your ammo and I'll be generous and give you .50 cents per working firearm chambered in .40 S&W. It's a very good offer for guns and ammo that is useless.

[Milsurp1]

I enjoy shooting 40. For those able to order ammo it is not much more expensive than 9.

[jtv3062]

I hear this on the web all of the time. The 9mm with all of the advancements in bullet technology it's better than the 40.
My question which hasn't been answered yet. Hasn't that same technology also improved the 40?

[stormvet]

I hear this on the web all of the time. The 9mm with all of the advancements in bullet technology it's better than the 40.
My question which hasn't been answered yet. Hasn't that same technology also improved the 40?

Of course it has, as well as 45 and any other caliber being made today.

Modern munition technology has made 9mm good enough, not better.

Much of the 9mm popularity resides in its low cost and low recoil. If you are a professional shooter or run a trianing school you need to look and shoot at a certain level and your students need to eventually shoot well also. Nine makes that easier to do while costing less to do it and still makes holes in paper, albeit a little smaller.

[RobG]

The lower cost makes sense when you pay 1000+ for a G5 Glock, VP9, etc. Gotta save money somewhere

[NapalmCheese]

I hear this on the web all of the time. The 9mm with all of the advancements in bullet technology it's better than the 40.
My question which hasn't been answered yet. Hasn't that same technology also improved the 40?

Ugh, 4 pages in and the obvious answer still hasn't come to you all?

Handgun bad guy stopping performance is much like a 'need to be this tall to ride' sign in the park. If you make the minimum height requirement, that's all that matters. Being taller than necessary doesn't make the ride more fun.

Advancements in bullet technology have brought that 9mm up to the necessary height, with the added advantage of being easier to shoot accurately quickly. Sure, .40 and .45 have improved as well, but it doesn't help.

DocGKR has said at one time or another that the wound produced in a human by good bullets in a .45, .40, or 9mm are practically indistinguishable and that bullet placement trumps bore size (at least among those three).

Putting three rounds on target instead of 2 or 1 is objectively better, and since 9mm meets all the necessary minimums, AND is easier to learn to shoot quickly and accurately, it's better.

If you're limited to 10 round magazines anyway, and if you shoot a .40 as quickly and accurately as a 9mm, then carry a .40; otherwise carry a 9mm as it almost certainly won't matter in the end.

[crufflers]

Ugh, 4 pages in and the obvious answer still hasn't come to you all?

Handgun bad guy stopping performance is much like a 'need to be this tall to ride' sign in the park. If you make the minimum height requirement, that's all that matters. Being taller than necessary doesn't make the ride more fun.

Advancements in bullet technology have brought that 9mm up to the necessary height, with the added advantage of being easier to shoot accurately quickly. Sure, .40 and .45 have improved as well, but it doesn't help.

DocGKR has said at one time or another that the wound produced in a human by good bullets in a .45, .40, or 9mm are practically indistinguishable and that bullet placement trumps bore size (at least among those three).

If you're limited to 10 round magazines anyway, and if you shoot a .40 as quickly and accurately as a 9mm, then carry a .40; otherwise carry a 9mm as it almost certainly won't matter in the end.

How about everyone shoot what they want and experts quit telling them they are wrong? Some people don’t buy that an improved and larger heavier faster caliber doesn’t help. I think it is hilarious that people get worked up about something supposedly inconsequential like .40 vs 9mm especially since it is someone else’s gun. You want to shoot a .22 short single-shot ? Go for it. Oh yeah, that’s not “tall enough” hahaha.

[NapalmCheese]

Well, if you want to bring the .22 into this; I'll leave it to Hemingway to describe its efficacy:

The .22LR, fine for people and horses, no good for grizzlies.

[crufflers]

Well, if you want to bring the .22 into this; I'll leave it to Hemingway to describe its efficacy:



The .22LR, fine for people and horses, no good for grizzlies.

Well, yeah. Hitmen do like a .22LR at least in movies. I bet most people (myself included) who can rapid fire a Ruger MK-II into a little circle have wondered how a little target plinker would do - ten forehead, eye socket, nose shots stacked up on a bad guy. Hitmen in movies sneak up on someone and do it from the back or to the temple point blank... like you would kill a poor unsuspecting horse I imagine.

Maybe not so good against someone moving where a .22 in the shoulder or arm might not drop someone (maybe they would not even notice). I would bet it would not. Most would use something bigger than a tiny .22. Some would use something bigger than a little 9mm. If you want to use a .22 feel free.

[NapalmCheese]

Most would use something bigger than a tiny .22. Some would use something bigger than a little 9mm. If you want to use a .22 feel free.

I'm not Hemingway (who is declaring he has nerves of solid steel in the face of impending and immediate disaster/death), and I don't live in a county where I can carry anyway...

Though, part of his point is that a gun you can shoot accurately very quickly (assuming you have the nerve to aim accurately and precisely) is a viable choice, the implication being it is a better choice than one you cannot.