.40 S&W: Inherently inaccurate chambering?

R

Rick

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
BTW, by "inherently inaccurate", I mean in terms of precision like you might be looking for out of a PPC gun, bullseye gun, etc. The cartridge is obviously more than adequate for the purpose for which it was designed (but then, so are the .45 ACP and 9mm).

So, the question is if anyone has actually seen/shot a handgun in .40 S&W that had that level of target accuracy?

One of our board members is a fairly accomplished PPC shooter. His comment is that he couldn't get any of his .40 S&W handguns to deliver target accuracy (including a S&W Model 610 revolver). At the worlds, he talked with the S&W guys from the Performance Center who were in attendance. They told him that they didn't have much luck wringing target accuracy out of that particular caliber either. So where there are pistols out there in .38 Super, 9mm, etc that will shoot 10 shot groups at 50 yards that will have all shots touching each other, the .40 S&W doesn't seem to be able to do this.

This brings up the comment "inherently inaccurate cartridge". But really, the internal dimensions of all pistol cartridge are roughly the same - a cylinder - except for scale. The 357 Sig is a bit of an anomoly.

The .38 Super used to often be termed "inherently inaccurate", but obviously nobody would say that now. The same could also be said of a few other pistol cartridges. It seems to usually be about getting chamber dimensions standardized/just right, mechanical issues, availability of quality bullets, etc.

Given the lessons learned in the past with making other pistol chamberings that were never intended for target work deliver match grade accuracy, what's the problem with the .40 S&W? The cartridge was developed long after the knowledge of how to make .45 ACP, 9mm, .38 Super, etc deliver bullseye accuracy had been developed. And yet, even the S&W Performance Center (and after all, S&W developed the cartridge) will privately tell you they don't have a lot of success in the target accuracy department with the .40 S&W themselves.

So, why is that? And are there indeed some "inherently inaccurate" chamberings: chamberings that won't deliver accuracy even if fired out of a test barrel in a machine rest?
 
When the .38 super was new, it was designed to head space on the rim. Now they head space the cartridge of the mouth the way most other handgun cartridges (including the .357 Sig) head space. As to the .40 being "inherently inaccurate", thats the first I've heard of it. I don't think there are any good quality pistols out there that aren't accurate enough for ipsc etc. With the powder charge and bullet the case was designed for there shouldn't be a nickels worth of difference between it and anything else. People used to say 9mm wasn't an accurate cartridge either, but it seems to shoot pretty well for all the competitors that use it now.

my own .02$, take for what it's worth
 
I don't buy that. How come the 9mm and 45cal shoots but a tween cal doesn't?

As you said, the intended use does not require pin point accuracy so everything from bullets to reamers are cut accordingly.

HG couldn't shoot anywhere close to MOA at 100yds until some guys decided to tool up properly and they get SUB MOA using the full cylinder (5 chambers) shot of bags. Some of these revolvers used the 41 cal. 20+thou make a difference? Doubt it.

I have yet to find an inaccurate cal. Just alot of inaccurate components.

Jerry
 
Yeah, I'm not so sure I buy into the 'inherent accuracy/inaccuracy' of certain cartridges. There are a lot of other factors to consider, but I'm not convinced that cartridge design is one of them
 
It could be that early guns chambered for .40cal had a poorly fitted chamber leading to this claim. There is nothing new about design of the round that I am aware of.
 
I do find the 180gr TC .40S&W to be a very accurate round. I have no problems using this out of my XD40 for PPC, or bullseye shooting.

I have no problems putting 5/10 shots onto an 8.5"x 11" paper at 100 yards, and I regularly shoot at 8" gongs from 165 yards offhand. On the otherhand, my XD40 did not like the 165gr or 200gr bullets as much.

The .40S&W round is no less inherently accurate that a 9mm, or .45ACP.
 
Another thing to consider, most chambers in .40 are cut for service use, on the large side of the tolerance to enhance reliability. Most target barrels have the chambers cut to the tighter end of spec to enhance precision at some loss of reliability. (less room for crud, dirt and out of spec ammo).

For example, accurized 1911's can be remarkably accurate, but original GI issue ones where minute of barn door for the most part, esp war production.
 
prosper said:
Yeah, I'm not so sure I buy into the 'inherent accuracy/inaccuracy' of certain cartridges. There are a lot of other factors to consider, but I'm not convinced that cartridge design is one of them
Click to expand...
Which would mirror my feelings on the issue pretty closely.

However, as my buddy and fellow CGN member pointed out, the S&W Performance Center told him privately that they have a hard time getting target accuracy out of a 40 S&W - and this is the same Performance Center that built him a 9mm that outshoots his bull barrelled 1500 revolver. Is the Performance Center just dumb when it comes to building up a handgun around a cartridge they designed or what? They don't seem to have a problem with 9mm's, for example. I expect if they know how to cut a match quality reamer for a 9mm, they have a pretty good idea of how to cut a match quality reamer for a .40 S&W.

Beyond that, "IPSIC accuracy" is certainly not a par with what is required for PPC, Bullseye, and similar events. That kind of accuracy requires a handgun that can keep all its' rounds inside a circle of 1.7 - 1.9" at 50 yards. So how many .40 S&W's are doing that right now?
 
Cocked&Locked said:
Another thing to consider, most chambers in .40 are cut for service use, on the large side of the tolerance to enhance reliability. Most target barrels have the chambers cut to the tighter end of spec to enhance precision at some loss of reliability. (less room for crud, dirt and out of spec ammo).

For example, accurized 1911's can be remarkably accurate, but original GI issue ones where minute of barn door for the most part, esp war production.
Click to expand...
All well and good. But we're talking about pistolsmiths like the S&W Performance Center who are reporting having problems. I imagine they spec the same match barrels, reamers, etc when building a .40 S&W as they do when building a 9mm. Same models of guns, same gunsmiths... so what's the problem?
 
.40 S&W inherently inaccurate? A guy in my unit says his USP is pretty dang accurate. He claimed 2 inches at 25 meters, but I'm not sure if that's exaggerated.

-Rohann
 
The .40 Short & Weak was designed for girls in law enforcement who didn't have big enough hands to shoot the 10 mm.

Why full grown men insist on messing with it is beyond me. The 10 mm shoots far better, and with greater effect. I've rarely seen a 10 mm that won't shoot 2" at 25 m., and I've rarely seen a .40 that will keep 'em in the size of a frying pan at the same range. Why mess with the girl gun?
 
Popurhedoff said:
I do find the 180gr TC .40S&W to be a very accurate round. I have no problems using this out of my XD40 for PPC, or bullseye shooting.
Click to expand...
So... what kind of scores/grouping are you getting at 50 yards on that X-ring? Will it hold the X-ring with all rounds at that distance?

I haven't done much competing the last few years for various reasons, but as I understand it, the .40 S&W is rarely seen in pistols being fired in the 1500 match. And if that is the case, I would suspect that the serious Distinguished competitors are using something other than a .40 S&W, even if their department issues them a .40 S&W of some persuasion or other. But, I could be wrong...
 
Tumbleweed said:
The .40 Short & Weak was designed for girls in law enforcement who didn't have big enough hands to shoot the 10 mm.
Click to expand...
This is a sentiment generally put forward by those who somehow or other believe that the .40 S&W is proving to be a dismal failure on the streets, which was what it was designed for. Very few of these people actually work in law enforcement, and none of them to date can point to a body of evidence that the .40 S&W is ineffective.

Most of these people are shooting enthusiasts (like everyone here as well, naturally), and it is incomprehensible to them why police and police forces don't spend a majority of their time on the range, practicing and shooting. The reality is that range time, ammunition, etc is a limited resource for police forces - like so many other aspects of the job - and that kind of obsession with shooting just isn't going to happen in the training plan for general duty members.

What might be equally startling for many of these people is the vast majority of police just aren't that interested in shooting for fun and/or to master a much higher powered handgun. That leads into another long, separate discussion, of course, but the bottom line is that general duty members think the .40 S&W performs as expected and if they're competent enough to use it effectively at 15' (or whatever), then they have other things to worry about.

Why full grown men insist on messing with it is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Police firearms trainers of today find it equally puzzling that some people seem to think rhino roller calibers are the only proper way to train and arm police - just as their predecessors did back in the day when the same cry went up that police would not be adequately armed unless carrying .41 and .44 magnums (or at least a .44 Special).

We have numerous past and present police firearms trainers who are regulars on this board. Perhaps those who feel that police aren't carrying enough gun as far as their sidearms are concerned should start a thread on this and ask why our police are inadequately armed with weak sister cartridges like the 9mm and 40 S&W.

What would be particularly germane to that discussion is if they would start it by posting their list of shootings in the five years or so where a Canadian officer has shot his assailant to no effect with a 9mm or .40 S&W. That would be a good place to start an argument as to why what is really needed is the 10mm. The problem with that of course, is that the list would almost certainly prove to be a remarkably short one - meaning that the discussion would be over before it ever began.

The 10 mm shoots far better, and with greater effect.
Click to expand...
Indeed it will, and it is a fine caliber - even though it still isn't a .41 Magnum.

However, police are not concerned with hunting down 600 lb critters or engaging in gunfights at 100 meters or so with their handguns. And as a result... they probably consider it irrelevant. Now for conservation officers, there may well be a very good argument to carry 10mm's. Never having worked as a CO or knowing any well enough to discuss the issue with them, I really can't say.

Anyways, I'm kind of aiding in the hijacking of my own thread here, so back on topic. I'd be interested in knowing how many people actually have X-ring accuracy (or anything approaching it), at 50 meters out of a .40 S&W. That means something in the area of 2" for ten rounds.
 
Until a shooting game is set up to favor accurate 40's in pistols or revolvers with decent triggers, it is unlikely to happen. The reg. battle/service pistol simple isn't going to do that type of accuracy. Some have a hard enough time doing 2" at 30ft.

If there is someone with the pistol and cash to play, I bet a bullseye quality 1911 with a proper match Bar Sto or similar barrel in 40S&W will shoot every bit as good as in 9mm and 45ACP. You would need a match speced reamer as well (2 to 3thou larger at the mouth, 1thou larger at the base of a FL sized and loaded cartridge, short throat with an appropriate leade).

I read about a custom shop S&W pistol that was built for some game that needed a 9mm. I think it was for PPC (?). This pistol had it all from match barrel, vault type lock up, spherical barrel bushing, tuned trigger, the works.

With handloads, it shot 2" and under at 50yds. Some groups were in the 1" ish range. Very impressive. That is the type of platform to prove or disprove the accuracy of any cal or cartridge.

Sorry, but my XD is only good for min of pop can at 50yds. But I have shot the occasional shotgun shell at 35yds and milk jug size boulders at 200yds.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
mysticplayer said:
Until a shooting game is set up to favor accurate 40's in pistols or revolvers with decent triggers, it is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
The same could have been said about the 9mm - but it has made the transition to PPC at least quite nicely. I don't know how much is theory and how much is real benefit to the higher class shooters, but a .40 is going to get you more biters than a 9mm. Where one or two points/X-count in a 1500 match can make the difference between first and also-ran, I can see that being of sufficient interest that at least a few shooters are talking to the S&W Performance Center and other pistolsmiths about building guns for the wider diameter .40's.

If there is someone with the pistol and cash to play, I bet a bullseye quality 1911 with a proper match Bar Sto or similar barrel in 40S&W will shoot every bit as good as in 9mm and 45ACP. You would need a match speced reamer as well (2 to 3thou larger at the mouth, 1thou larger at the base of a FL sized and loaded cartridge, short throat with an appropriate leade).
Click to expand...
Well, that's what's intriguing. If you have the pistol and the cash to have the Performance Center build you a tack driver 9mm, just why do they experience difficulties building tack driver .40's? It is, after all, their cartridge and their handguns. And if they have the knowledge and ability to build match reamers for 9mm and others... just why wouldn't they have the ability to do the same thing for handguns chambered .40 S&W?
 
Why do US manf have problems building cars? After all, it was pretty much their invention and they live in the largest marketplace :)

When the 9mm became the NATO rd, I read so many articles about how poorly it shot and how it would never do well in the accuracy game against the likes of the 45ACP.

I think we can agree that thought has been proven false. The 9mm and all the various longer cases do just fine. I mean we even have a 9x19 making major in IPSC - yikes.

Let's start with the first problem. Are there any match quality 40cal bullets? If yes, then the ability to build a tack driving 40S&W is well within the realm of possibility.

Not saying the techs at any major ammo or firearm manf aren't smart but look at how many 'factory' rifle cartridges started out as wildcats from handloaders and competition shooters. How many are ground up designed by a factory that were NOT requested by a major army (purely for hunting/sporting or competition use)? Not alot in the last 25yrs. 204Ruger, 450Marlin, 376Steyr, ??? Sorry, but the RUM/WSM/RSAUM are based off wildcats and boutique manf proprietory cartridges.

The 357SIG, 40S&W, 45GAP and arguably some of the big bore cartridges came exclusively from a manf. Alot more came from shooters wanting a better mousetrap.

If there is a game for an accurate 40S&W, it will likely be a privateer that figures out how to make it work.

Jerry
 
Well my CZ75b in .40s&w have a test target of 4" at 25m unsupported.
CZ Usa told me they only test for Zero and proof test and most will easy do 2" off hand.
It's not 1" at 50yrd but still, I'm sure a tweaked .40 1911 by Les Baer could do some wounders.
 
Vic777 said:
This is still somewhat controversial but ... the .357 SIG should headspace on the shoulder, a lot of reloading manuals are wrong on this....

To be precise, the shoulder sets headspace when referring to the MAXIMUM length

www.realguns.com/archives/001.htm

www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar65.htm

www.glockmeister.com/357sig.shtml
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm, every manual and/or article I've read indicates case mouth. It's to late now to read all your references but I'll be diging into them tomorrow! Ah, another chance to learn something new! I love this place
 
The 357SIG may have a factory design to headspace off the case mouth. That would follow the custom with straightwall HG cartridges. The reason is that the shoulder is considered too small to be effective.

however, there are a number of competition/wildcat cartridges that mimic the SIG that do headspace of the shoulder with no ill effects. Some of these are very toasty offerings too.

For any bottleneck cartridge, using the shoulder to headspace ensures cases will not balloon excessively during firing. This matter only if you plan on handloading and reusing the case.

From the SIG stand point, the ammo specs are held so that the case cannot fail even if there is a slight gap between the shoulder and chamber. The case is fired and is discarded.

If FL sizing is done on this case to return to factory specs, future firings will likely lead to case head separation. Not good for us reloaders.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom