slow death of the 40?

I think if I were to wilderness carry and used off the shelf ammo it would be .40 simply because all of the fmj is flat point..... but either way all 3 are weak sauce and don't really defeat barriers any better than the next one. the us militarys newest 9mm load is a flat points at 1300+fps might have the edge... but its still no 7.62x39 ect.
 
I understand why the .40 was adopted. What I do not understand is why so much modernization went into the 9 but not the 40. With the advancement of metals and powders, why did only the 9mm get the benefit? I have always been a 9 fan, so the answer is not going to matter to me, lol, but curious nonetheless.
 
maifire said:
I understand why the .40 was adopted. What I do not understand is why so much modernization went into the 9 but not the 40. With the advancement of metals and powders, why did only the 9mm get the benefit? I have always been a 9 fan, so the answer is not going to matter to me, lol, but curious nonetheless.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the 40 didn't benefit as well. The difference in diameter is only .046". This is hardly a significant difference. It just wasn't metallurgy. I believe tests demonstrated there was not any significant difference in wound results to offset the increased capacity the 9 gave the carrier. Costs I suspect was the main contributor combined with increased capacity, ammunition compatibility with sub guns and the military.

Take Care

Bob
 
guntech said:
Posting here hopefully you will see it...
Dennis
Click to expand...

An interesting (legitimate) reason for a necro thread.

And since several years have elapsed from when this thread began... the 40S&W? I hear a rumour that there will be a new pistol cartridge to which will be affixed the name "Creedmore" that will be boasted as being better at everything already in existence and because this will be heavily marketed, the learned shooters of tomorrow will suckle until that teat shrivels up exposing the tired old boar to which it's attached. :stirthepot2:
 
kelseyscooter1 said:
the 40 in my hands has a stinging recoil, the 9 and 45 do not have a stinging recoil. other people have noted this as well. this issue, along with durability problems with the early guns has lead to a decrease in popularity. modern bullet design has allowed the 9 to be more effective when compared to the 40 and 45, and the 9 will gain in LE sales because of this. I think the 40 will slowly decline.
Click to expand...

I find that is more a function of the gun design. I have numerous 9's and a couple of 40's (4046 And 226). I don't find them hard recoiling at all. - dan
 
Canuck44 said:
What makes you think the 40 didn't benefit as well. The difference in diameter is only .046". This is hardly a significant difference. It just wasn't metallurgy. I believe tests demonstrated there was not any significant difference in wound results to offset the increased capacity the 9 gave the carrier. Costs I suspect was the main contributor combined with increased capacity, ammunition compatibility with sub guns and the military.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

I believe it was Nick Vickers on spongeTube he was firing an MP-5(?) in 40 Smith.
Sure sounded alot like a 45 subgun to my ears.
 
New Camper said:
An interesting (legitimate) reason for a necro thread.

And since several years have elapsed from when this thread began... the 40S&W? I hear a rumour that there will be a new pistol cartridge to which will be affixed the name "Creedmore" that will be boasted as being better at everything already in existence and because this will be heavily marketed, the learned shooters of tomorrow will suckle until that teat shrivels up exposing the tired old boar to which it's attached. :stirthepot2:
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, awesome.
 
I have an all steel, full size Jericho in .40. I find .40 inherently accurate, and the pistol is 100% reliable.
 
I recently bought a Ruger GP-100 in 10MM. I have been working with Ranch Products to develop moon clips to allow me to use .40cqal brass in the pistol. Standard 10MM clips did not work consistently using 40 cal brass. They worked using 10MM brass, the cartridge they were designed for. The 40 cal brass require a clip .040" thick while the 10MM run .032". With more work to be done we are in the right track. There is not a lot of room to play with. Time has not permitted the necessary range work to say we are there but it looks promising.

If successful the clips would allow the use of 40 cal brass in the 10MM revolver. Just expanding the use for the cartridge. :>)

Take Care

Bob
 
Meroh said:
I have an all steel, full size Jericho in .40. I find .40 inherently accurate, and the pistol is 100% reliable.
Click to expand...

Lol ! The Jericho is a duty gun not a target gun. Then look at the shooter.
The .40 is used in competition by ipsc shooters and is a very accurate round.
It’s accuracy is proven time and time over.
Unfounded statement.
 
Last edited:
Janeau said:
Lol ! The Jericho is a duty gun not a target gun. Then look at the shooter.
The .40 is used in competition by ipsc shooters and is a very accurate round.
It’s accuracy is proven time and time over.
Unfounded statement.
Click to expand...

I think you misread, he said he finds it "inherently ACCURATE". 40 is popular in ipsc as it allows you to make major without sacrificing capacity.
 
I tend to think in simple terms sometimes. Since pretty well every duty cartridge is close enough to the others as to render the small differences irrelevant I default to the cheapest one. I am not against owning a .40, if it's all I had to carry I wouldn't be upset. I really don't see the point though. I shoot 10mm and if I wanted .40 type power levels I would just put less powder in my reloads.
 
B said:
I tend to think in simple terms sometimes. Since pretty well every duty cartridge is close enough to the others as to render the small differences irrelevant I default to the cheapest one. I am not against owning a .40, if it's all I had to carry I wouldn't be upset. I really don't see the point though. I shoot 10mm and if I wanted .40 type power levels I would just put less powder in my reloads.
Click to expand...

I agree you can download the 10MM brass. We who shoot a lot and are "cheap" or frugal if you wish see value in using, for the most part free 40 brass vs buying new 10MM brass. Now I have to admit shooting a revolve takes a bit of the sting out of the equation because you really have to work at it to lose your brass. I do practice a lot which also comes into play.

Take Care

Bob
 
Sassybee said:
I think you misread, he said he finds it "inherently ACCURATE". 40 is popular in ipsc as it allows you to make major without sacrificing capacity.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the accuracy component need is somewhat below Olympic Free Pistol in IPSC or IDPA. The latter really has no Division where the 40cal plays anyway.

Take Care

Bob
 
Its popularity is waning, and is a shadow of what it was, but it's never gonna be dead, the recent ammo crunch saw a small resurgence but it will continue to slowly decline.
 
Janeau said:
Lol ! The Jericho is a duty gun not a target gun. Then look at the shooter.
The .40 is used in competition by ipsc shooters and is a very accurate round.
It’s accuracy is proven time and time over.
Unfounded statement.
Click to expand...

I only shoot service type pistols, and target gun or not, it is accurate. Don't be an arrogant ass-hat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom