Question about .40 S&W and it wearing out guns faster due to high pressure.

9mm and 40 run at the same pressure (high). Just as a 305 and a 426 engine might run at the same compression ratio but the energy from the larger capacity engine (case) is greater and can destroy the transmission (locking blocks) unless they are beefed up to take the extra pounding.

As others have said, it is not a pressure issue; it is an energy issue. I recall the early Berettas were breaking locking blocks in the 40 version.
 
9mm and 40 run at the same pressure (high). Just as a 305 and a 426 engine might run at the same compression ratio. but the energy form the larger capacity is greater and can destroy the transmission (locking blocks) unless they are beefed up to take the extra pounding.

As others have said, it is not a pressure issue; it is an energy issue. I recall the early Berettas were breaking locking blocks in the 40 version.

But with modern handguns this is not an issue, so why are people harping on the pressure thing, these are not my words, you can google it yourself and you will see all kinds of folks saying is due to the pressure, from youtube videos to forum posts.

And really how much extra energy does the .40 have that is gonna damage a gun significantly more?
 
Quick and dirty (read may be off by a fair bit)

155 gr .40 at 1300 fps approx. 580 ft/lbs

147 gr .355 at 1000 fps approx. 330 ft/lbs

A wee bit more ouch...
 
Last edited:
I think that the point here is that there were early failures on guns that were simply re-chambered in .40.

In a modern .40, there's no problem.
 
i shoot both 9mm and 40 in the same pistol platform and notice next to nothing in either felt recoil or wear on the guns.
but move up to 10mm and wowsers there is a difference.
isnt the 10mm considered a magnum load compared to the 9/40?
 
I think that the point here is that there were early failures on guns that were simply re-chambered in .40.

In a modern .40, there's no problem.

i wonder about that, take for example the M&P line of pistols.
there is no difference between the 9mm and 40.
you can even swap the barrels back and forth between the guns.
so either they are making all their guns tuffer or the premise that they are making 40's more durably is buckis.
 
.40S&W is the only handgun round that has enough pressure to not only shoot into space, but also be a suitable caliber for bear defence.


imagejpg1_zps9dab1a73.jpg
 
Quick and dirty (read may be off by a fair bit)

155 gr .40 at 1300 fps approx. 580 ft/lbs

147 gr .355 at 1000 fps approx. 330 ft/lbs

A wee bit more ouch...

that is pretty hot 40.

a lot of basic 40 has 180gr at 1000 ft/sec for 400 ft-lbs. ~10% diff compared to a lot of standard 9mm with 124gr at 1150 ft/sec for 368 ft-lbs
 
i wonder about that, take for example the M&P line of pistols.
there is no difference between the 9mm and 40.
you can even swap the barrels back and forth between the guns.
so either they are making all their guns tuffer or the premise that they are making 40's more durably is buckis.

I believe that the M&P pistols were originally designed for the .40 round...consequently they are overbuilt for 9mm.
 
Total force exerted would be greater with 40 because of greater surface area than 9 at equal pressure.

To have shot IPSC and done 50k + rounds per year, you need to work hard at wearing out a quality gun...unless it's a Norinco...my SIG p226 with 80k that only had recoil spring changes still looked new. My beretta 302, bought used, added another 100k to it in two years, still running...yet other brands aren't as reliable/durable.

Holy ####..80k through a P226? Do you have some pics of it? I'd love to see it, especially the frame rails.



The only gun that seems to take the .40 harshly is the Beretta. The 96 seemed to fall apart (according to the internet...but they did put a buffer into it).
 
Well this guy kinda explains it all. Now I get it. Ignore the stuff at the end, it was in poor taste but this video was a rebuttal to someone he doesn't like lol. If ya don't want to listen to it all just slowly skip forward and just read whats on the screen.


[youtube]CcVI8cbvEWw&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
 
I think that the point here is that there were early failures on guns that were simply re-chambered in .40.

In a modern .40, there's no problem.

Exactly.

I believe that the M&P pistols were originally designed for the .40 round...consequently they are overbuilt for 9mm.

Also true. The M&P was absolutely designed from the ground up to handle the .40 S&W cartridge. As were many newer designs. The days of a .40 cal version of a pistol bashing the gun to smithereens seem to be definitely behind us now.
 
Interesting article.


Why the 180gr Bullet is a Bad Choice for .40 S&W



The original design of the .40S&W cartridge called for a one hundred and eighty grain (180gr) bullet pushed down a barrel with a 1-in-16 twist to a muzzle velocity between 950 and 980 feet per second (fps). This matched the "FBI Lite" or "medium velocity" 10mm loads that were becoming popular at that time.
However, in the years that followed, experience and experiment have shown that the standard 180gr bullet weight is not the best choice for .40S&W handguns. Because of the relatively small cartridge case and long bullet, this particular combination does not maximize the .40’s potential.

The official industry pressure specification for .40S&W is 35,000 pounds per square inch, just like the 9mm.

THE CASE OF THE CASES
A 10mm brass case is approximately 0.992" long, while new .40 brass is only 0.850" long; the difference is 0.142 inches. Since the size of the 180gr bullet remains constant, there is significantly less space inside the .40S&W case than the 10mm case when loaded. That means there’s much less room for error, since pressures build more quickly in that small space. Also, the 10mm was designed for a peak mean pressure higher than the .40 … which means the 10mm brass is engineered to handle greater pressure than the .40 case.

CAN'T TAKE THE PRESSURE?
As mentioned above, the .40S&W was never intended to be a high-pressure round like the .357 Magnum, 10mm, or 357SIG. In fact, the SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) specification for the .40S&W is the same as the 9mm spec (35kpsi). Furthermore, there is no such thing as "+p" ammunition for the .40S&W. Manufacturers claiming to produce "+p" .40S&W ammunition are either lying (the ammo is really within standard pressure allowances) or taking risks with your life. Using ammunition rated over SAAMI spec in a .40S&W handgun is very dangerous and should not be attempted.

However, because of the deep-seated 180gr bullets, there is very little extra case volume left after powder and bullet are added to the case. Even the smallest variation in bullet seating or powder volume drastically affects the volume of space inside the case where the chemical reaction occurs which builds the pressure which sends the bullet down the barrel. These minor variations, therefore, make it very easy to get an overpressure situation with a 180gr bullet. The table below shows how dramatically peak pressures increase when the bullet is seated too deeply.




Overall Length
Pressure
1.140" 26,195 psi
1.130" 27,521 psi
1.120" 29,079 psi
1.115" 29,924 psi
1.100" 32,900 psi
1.075" 39,641 psi
1.050" 50,954 psi
1.040" 57,926 psi
1.030" 66,890 psi
1.020" 80,345 psi
1.010" 101,286 psi
1.000" 138,744 psi

Standard OAL for the .40S&W is 1.120" ... table data from "Handloading" by Charles E. Petty, American Handgunner Jan/Feb 1998, p41.

THE MANUFACTURERS KNOW THIS
For this reason, most factory .40S&W 180gr ammunition is loaded a little on the weak side. In order to keep a given load below SAAMI specification for mean pressure, the rounds have to be loaded below their optimal performance level. Why? Because factory ammo is subject to these same minor variations. If companies produced ammunition which was, on average, maximum pressure, every once and a while a round would be significantly OVER pressure. Because such over pressure rounds are unacceptable, the average round has to be "dropped down" a notch in power so there is a wider envelope of safe operation.

This "reduced power" problem is easily seen when the 180gr .40 is compared to the 165gr bullets in the same caliber. While experience tells us that, for any particular caliber and pressure standard, heavier bullets have more momentum (as measured by an IPSC Power Factor) than lighter bullets, this is not the case for the .40S&W – an average 180gr load moves at around 975fps and as a PF of 175.5; an average 165gr load at 1,130fps has a PF of 186.5, a VERY big difference denoting significantly greater momentum (as well as energy).

Some "average" Power Factors:




Load
PF

9mm 115gr 1160fps
133.4
9mm+p 115gr 1250fps 143.8
.40SW 135gr 1300fps 175.5
.40SW 165gr 1100fps 181.5
.40SW 180gr 960fps 172.8
357SIG 125gr 1300fps 162.5
.357Mag 125gr 1450fps 181.3
.38Spl+p 158gr 890fps 140.6
.45ACP 230gr 850fps 195.5
.45ACP+p 185gr 1140fps 210.9
.44Mag 240gr 1180fps 283.2

As a side note, the full-power 165gr .40S&W has about the same momentum as most factory .45ACP ammunition out of a barrel of the same length.

A TWIST IN THE STORY
Rate of twist affects how quickly the bullet spins as it leaves the barrel. A 1-in-16 twist means that the bullet will spin one full rotation in 16 inches. So, a 1-in-14 twist (bullet rotates once in 14 inches) is "faster" than 1-in-16. Barrels are designed this way because bullets are spin stabilized, just like a football when you throw a good spiral.

Some folks in the ammunition industry have mentioned to me that one problem with the .40 and 180gr bullets is related to the 1-in-16 barrel twist used in these guns. The experts have been able to perform their own tests with alternative barrels and, with the 180gr bullets, have achieved greater accuracy and velocity (one source safely and consistently made around 1,050fps with a 180gr bullet with a 1-in-14 twist) when using something other than the 1-in-16.

THE kB! PHENOMENON
Another bit of evidence pointing toward the mismatch of .40S&W and the 180gr bullet comes from Dean Speir’s extensive research into the kB! ("kaboom") phenomenon, especially with Glock handguns. Due to their partially unsupported chambers, .40S&W Glocks tend to work the web of brass cases more than usual. Constant reworking of the brass by reloaders (who put the brass through a cycle of expansion and resizing each time) weakens the web.

According to Mr. Speir, the vast majority of kB!’s reported with .40S&W handguns have occurred when firing 180gr bullets.

So here you have a chamber design which is not as supportive as it could be, and a load (the full power 180gr .40) which has a tendency towards major pressure fluctuations. Add to this mix brass which has been aged prematurely due to the extra work at the web and it’s easy to see that a particularly unlucky brass could be the unlucky home of one of the high-end pressure spikes and result in a kB!

For more information about the kB! phenomenon, see The kB! FAQ located at at this site.

MY ADVICE AND PREDICTION
Most manufacturers have begun producing 165gr loads for the .40S&W now. While some load them light for "reduced recoil" (such as Federal’s 165gr HydraShok and Speer’s 165gr Gold Dot), other companies are squeezing the maximum potential from the bullet by pushing it to the neighborhood of 1,100 to 1,150fps out of a standard 4" barrel. As mentioned above, this results in more momentum and energy downrange as well as less risk of pressure fluctuations. And because of the reduced variation in pressure, 165gr loads tend to be the most accurate in .40S&W handguns, as well.

In my humble opinion, the 165gr is the proper choice for people who normally choose the "slow and heavy" bullets for defensive use. The FBI apparently agrees, as they broke their long standing tradition of using the heaviest bullets available when they approved two .40S&W rounds for use by agents, both of them 165 grainers.

The 165gr is really the optimum choice for .40S&W shooters. It tends to be more accurate, have greater muzzle energy and momentum, and it significantly reduces the dangers associated with possible bullet setback (a bullet can, through normal handling, seat itself more deeply just by being loaded into the chamber of a gun, etc). I think you'll see the 180gr loads become less and less popular as time goes on, and within a few years the 165gr will be the standard for the .40S&W, while the 180gr will be all but extinct.
 
In an attempt to derail this discussion (rather than make fun of unsupported glocks), it's interesting that .45 230gr is a higher PF than the .357. Also that the 165gr .40 matches it.
 
I don't think it is really about chamber pressure.

It is more about recoil, and the firearm handling the forces put on it under recoil.

There is a noriceable difference between 9mm, and 49 S&W in my experience, and on the same frame the .40 S&W will wear out quicker no doubt.

The Beretta 96's and the locking blocks cracking is a good example.
 
I'll agree it's a bit warm, but it's from those folks who I'm convinced sport tutu's while working up a load...Hornady. I just picked max load for 9mm 147 and .40 155 as they are similar weight. I'll go out on a limb and say a lighter load isn't going to stress a gun to failure.

that is pretty hot 40.

a lot of basic 40 has 180gr at 1000 ft/sec for 400 ft-lbs. ~10% diff compared to a lot of standard 9mm with 124gr at 1150 ft/sec for 368 ft-lbs
 
In an attempt to derail this discussion (rather than make fun of unsupported glocks), it's interesting that .45 230gr is a higher PF than the .357. Also that the 165gr .40 matches it.

True, but PF is an arbitrary calculation early IPSC shooters developed to force people to shoot 45, as IPSC was started in america where of course, only the 45 is a serious caliber. You could just as easily create a calculation that would favor a faster lighter bullet but it's a moot point.

But to the OP's point. If the firearm is properly designed for the round it's chambered in, there's no real reason it should wear out any faster then the next firearm of equal quality in another caliber. Some pistols have a much more stressed design, such as the browning HP, which trades off long term durability for light weight. This results in a much higher slide speed then say a 1911. More battering and wear. But if you take the example of a M&P designed for 40, you'll probably never run enough rounds thru it to put an appreciable amount of wear on it unless you a seriously competitive IPSC shooter.

Others are built with poorer materials, such as the GSG. These will wear much faster. In 3-4000 rounds, mine shows much frame and slide wear, and a measurable increase in slide slop. In comparison, the High Standard I inherited from my grandfather shoots like the day it was new with at least 10 times that round count.
 
Exactly.



Also true. The M&P was absolutely designed from the ground up to handle the .40 S&W cartridge. As were many newer designs. The days of a .40 cal version of a pistol bashing the gun to smithereens seem to be definitely behind us now.

Yes and no. Glocks in .40 still continue to lag behind their 9mm counterparts in both reliability and durability, to name one example.

In an attempt to derail this discussion (rather than make fun of unsupported glocks), it's interesting that .45 230gr is a higher PF than the .357. Also that the 165gr .40 matches it.

Neither of these cartridges fit into 9mm-sized auto pistols. The whole point of the .40 is to shoehorn a larger cartridge into pistols with comparable external dimensions to their 9mm counterparts. It turns out that in many cases, the envelope has been pushed too far; the .40 is just too much for many pistols that were originally designed as 9mms.

.40 S&W sort of made sense when it was introduced in 1990. Few, if any, of the available 9mm loads produced then could meet the FBI test standards. Since then, improved bullet designs have considerably narrowed the gap to the point where the tradeoffs of the .40 compared to 9mm simply aren't worth it.
 
Yes a .40 is a necked down 10mm but thats not the question that I asked in the beginning. I want to know why so many call the .40 S&W a high pressure round that will wear out guns faster then the 9mm that operates at the same pressure. With modern guns, the springs, supported cases in the barrels ect have been fixed. So why are folks still saying that the .40 S&W is harder on guns?

If people were saying 9mm was cheaper and had more capacity and does pretty much the same thing as .40 s&w then I would agree. Instead they keep calling the .40 a high pressure round thats is hard on guns. I have seen several videos on youtube claiming this, as well as several other forums.

There is also a consencous out there that the FBI is considering switching back to 9mm as .40 was harder on the guns and wore them out faster. I think it would be cause 9mm is cheaper, has more capacity and with todays ammo can do just as good a job. But most still are saying its due to the .40 wearing out the guns faster.

I suspect that the "experts" saying why the FBI is doing anything probably aren't FBI top brass. More like people who spend to much time repeating stupid nonsense they heard from the friend of a friend who heard about it on Facebook.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom