• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Why don't people like the 40 cal?

I personally love the 40. I have carried one as my primary duty weapon for 20 years. I have a few that rotate as my back up and EDC. My department is now transitioning to the 9mm. I’m not 100% sold on the 9mm round even though I have a few of them laying around also. I understand that bullet technology has came along way over the years but can’t seem to forget why we have a 40 caliber in the first place. After the Miami shootout in the early 80’s the FBI dropped the 9mm for the 10mm. Agents couldn’t hit their target with the bigger cartridge and complained about recoil and the 40 was born. Still in my mind, the bigger the hole the better! I know the bullet placement comments are coming, but proper bullet placement with a bigger bullet seems to make me feel better.

Why buy a gun like the 9mm and then have to buy the "right" ammo to make it perform like the .40 or .45? Thanks I got my answer.
 
Beats me... I don't have an issue with .40 because guns are cheap on the secondary market and ammo is always available. I don't carry anything in .40 but it's not bad as a range toy.
 
I like 40's. But I also like 9's, 10's, 45s, 357 mags, 38s, 44s, and 22lr. I had a Glock 27 for many years and it shot great. Does anyone who has shot a 9 and a 40 side by side actually believe a 9 is as effective as a 40? Don't believe me, do it yourself. That being said, I prefer a pocket rocket in a 9. Don't get me wrong, i am not saying that there is anything wrong with a 9.

Yes-- there is no significant difference between a .40 and a 9mm wound, everything else being equal. There, I said it.

And that's why everyone's moving back to 9mm-- the new bullet designs (HST, etc.) make 9mm statistically as effective as .40 and .45. But cheaper to shoot, more capacity, less recoil, etc.

This is one of those cases where what's "obvious", is wrong.

(I too like a 9mm pocket rocket, with HST 124 gr. ammo. It'll expand reliably after clothing, from a 3" barrel.)
 
My first carry gun was a .40 HK USP compact. Bought it the day I turned 21 and carried it till I was about 27. One of my best friends got the exact same gun in 45acp and I realized I shot his gun a lot more accurately than mine. 230 grain bullets and no real noticable difference in recoil between the two. Then I started trying out different high cap compact 9mm's. Found out I could shoot them faster with more accuracy, and ammo was a lot cheaper. I started experimenting with different 9mm's and ultimately settled on a Glock 19 like many others and have been carrying it for 4-5 years.

The extra cost of ammo, slight loss of capacity, and little added recoil, just isn't worth a little performance bump to me. It might be worth it to others, I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Ultimately I think @NWSharpshooter is spot on, nobody wants to trade for a .40 cause the used market is flooded with them and you can pick one up cheap whenever you want.
 
So bullet technolgy has improved the poor little 9mm so much that now it can play with the big boys, but somehow that technolgy has not improved the 40 projectile at all??

Pass the popcorn!

Of course it has!

But the difference is that the 9mm did not work before-- almost none of the 9mm hollowpoints on the market in the 90s would expand except under perfect conditions, and from duty-length barrels. Now the best 9mm hollowpoints expand after all sorts of intermediate materials, still penetrate deeply-- and do it from 3" barrels. That performance did not exist last century. The FBI and so forth realized that; to get decent performance you had to have the .40 or .45 or 10mm. But technology has changed since that decision was made.

Twenty years ago 9mm was not in the league with .40 and .45. Now it is. All are better-- but the 9mm improved dramatically more than those others.
 
Back
Top Bottom