Why are people anti 40 ?

I'm anti 40 because every time I throw range brass in the tumbler, those #%^$% 40s end up in a dirty three-way with a 9 and 45 that won't come apart without pliers. I have heard that Frog Lube prevents it, or at least lets the 9 enjoy it more.


And, 40 won't kill bears.
 
And, 40 won't kill bears.

I shot a bear once with a fortay. He dropped like a rock and I cautiously inched forward to see if he was dead. As I got closer, I could see his chest heaving and water streaming from his eyes. He calmly combed the bullet out of his fur with his claws. He was laughing so hard he was crying. Slowly he collected himself and asked if I could shoot him again because he had not has that much fun in many moons ...
 
a lot of people think the 40 is silly because it sits between 9 and 45 and all three have similar TB. I've seen people argue that the 45ACP is ab obsolete cartridge because the .40 is a small but noticeable step up from 9mm in energy on target and nothing more is gained in terms of energy from leaping from .40 to .45. They argue all you get by going from a .40 to 45 is less capacity and the same (more or less) energy.

Personally, I find it all to be silly horseshit. Shoot what you like, don't worry what other people like. I like all three calibers and have several guns chambered in each. If someone tied me to a pole and said I'm going to shoot you in the chest, would you like to be shot with 9, 40, or 45?...I don't think my answer would make any difference.
 
a lot of people think the 40 is silly because it sits between 9 and 45 and all three have similar TB. I've seen people argue that the 45ACP is ab obsolete cartridge because the .40 is a small but noticeable step up from 9mm in energy on target and nothing more is gained in terms of energy from leaping from .40 to .45. They argue all you get by going from a .40 to 45 is less capacity and the same (more or less) energy.

Personally, I find it all to be silly horseshit. Shoot what you like, don't worry what other people like. I like all three calibers and have several guns chambered in each. If someone tied me to a pole and said I'm going to shoot you in the chest, would you like to be shot with 9, 40, or 45?...I don't think my answer would make any difference.
Now if you can convince them to shoot you with FMJ....
 
This is entirely subjective but I don't think the .40 offers anything over a 9mm, does it? And the 9 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. I like my .45 but I'm going to get a 9mm soon too; the .40 just isn't on my radar really.
 
I don't think people are as much anti-.40 as they are pro .40 pro 9mm or pro .45. Its a chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry question. If you ask people its part preference and part stats they've either read or heard from someone else or if they're a GEARDO and have to have whatever "police" unit they are dreaming of their imaginary world they are a part of. The round as was stated earlier was created to have the best of the 9mm/.45 combination. The only bad thing that I have read (repeatedly) in most of the gun magazines out there is that many police agencies have said over time it really wears on barrels, but if you are an average shooter it shouldn't be an issue.
 
I owned a Kahr K40 for a while. It was the only .40 I ever owned. It was reliable but I could not get satisfactory groups with it. I attributed that to Kahr's loooong trigger pull (and me just not taking the time to get used to that platform). I sold it mainly because of that trigger pull, but also to cut down on calibers I shoot. I don't have anything against the round itself. It's an adequate self defense round and it's not going away any time soon.

IMO, the worst part about the .40S&W is the time wasted on arguing about whether it sucks or it's awesome.
 
No anti .40 here, two of my pistols are .40. The reason why is when I got my license all that was really on the shelves with any regularity was .40, no sense in buying a 9mm or a .45 if I couldn't feed them.


Ding Ding Ding!!!! We have a winner!!
What is a point of an effective round that you can not buy!!

Besides - if you can shoot 40 well, you can shoot damn near anything.
 
.40's & L.E.O.'s

In the early 90's it was shown by numerous instances that the 9mm was not adequate in a gun fight, and the .45acp was too much for for some officers (plus .45's held less rounds)

Now-a-days L.E.O. Carry Ammo has come a long way and the 9mm is far more capable to achieve adequate penetration even after going through thick clothing, and some barriers. While still achieving good penetration.

With the reduced recoil the
"second shot" usually ends up being more on target that with larger rounds with more recoil.

In my personal opinion and I find many (but not ALL) L.E.O.'s agree with this "IF" the 9mm is NOT enough for the Department / Officer(s) standards they prefer a .45 over the .40... A .40 is more recoil & $$$ w/o being a large enough improvement over a 9mm.
 
Hi everyone, I am very new to firearms and my first gun is a Glock 23. Now that i have been on this forum it seems like a lot of people are anti 40. My question is why.

Thanks everyone.

Gdbrz [grin]

Because Reasons:

ruJacFU.jpg
 
I'll have a Ruger PC4 carbine with me at the Pumpkin shoot. If anyone wants to try it, bring ammo and watch what it does to pumpkins. Its probably the only firearm in .40 that bought a smile to Jim's (Eddie Coyle's) face when he shot it.
 
Excluding super magnum revolvers I've never felt much a difference in recoil amongst autoloaders of different calibers

I really do not notice between 40 and 45, but can feel a difference with 9mm vs. 40 or 45.

It is not quite the difference between 38 special and 357 mag, but it is discernable, to me any way
 
Back
Top Bottom