Why is the .40 caliber losing popularity?

[allen-1]

I’m being ridiculed I know... but having my toys four states away is not ideal... it’s like having a girl friend, but she’s in Canada ... do you really have a girl friend?

I actually feel your pain. Sort of.
My permanent residence is now in Georgia, but I normally spend about five months of the year in Connecticut.
I have guns and magazines here in Georgia that I cannot legally bring to Connecticut.

 

[mbz4ever]

"bunch of others... that are illegal to bring to MA or the mags I have for them are illegal... or I just don’t have the space... "

First-World Problem Horror Stories

I had a true First-World Tragedy, today. Someone at work brought in a six-pack of Creme Brulee, today. This is one of my favorites. I looked forward to it, all day, to have with a nice cup of coffee, in the afternoon. The. Damned. Butane. Torch. Would. NOT. Light! I had to eat it, without...

www.northeastshooters.com

FN-5.7 is on MA approved roster now.

 

[Toast]

A few years ago .40 was the big thing. Everyone wanted it. Now it seems it’s losing its popularity to the point of people hating it. So why all the hate?

Pretty much this :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWcjWz7pxU

 

[DeadEyeDan]

FN-5.7 is on MA approved roster now.

It’s just the I don’t feel the need to buy a bunch of crippled mag for it so that I can bring it here... I have a few others that don’t have that issue.

 

[enbloc]

The two are inextricably linked, though. One can afford to train more with lower ammo costs.

This is true, but is it prudent to train with lower cost ammo even if that ammo is not the one best suited for your skills and needs?
That actually sounds more expensive...

Take .380 vs 9mm for example. In most cases 9mm is much cheaper to buy, but for some the .380 is far more manageable and repeatable.
Should they forgo the .380 and shoot only 9mm?

Cost is indeed a factor, but I think that is more fitting with competitive shooters who may shoot thousands of rounds a month.

Carry ammunition and competitive ammunition are vastly different.

 

[BrianWilson]

As far as shooting what you cary......I would offer up that when I started working hard on trying to get competitive in the pistol sports I was shooting a .45. 200 rds an eve on the way home from work, 5 nights a week. The other day I saw .45 Ball for sale....@ nearly $1000 for the case. How does the new guy, the guy who just started and therefore does not roll his own, how the heck does this guy shoot enough, even shooting "range" ammo, how does he/she shoot enough to get proficient?

 

[gerrycaruso]

I think the .40 lost ground for 2 reasons. It didn't live up to the claim that it was the greatest LE caliber ever. It's often but not always made in the same size gun that comes in 9mm and I think the .40 is hard on both gun and shooter in a small gun. I don't shoot.40 but I like the 10mm.

 

[teamRR]

Disregarding Armageddon ammo prices (where it all tends to suck) I don't think anything standardish, ie 9mm, 10mm, .40, .45, .380, is prohibitively expensive to shoot regularly.

I'm no rich guy, granted the lack of wife & kids helps alot, but I don't feel even .40/shot is close to prohibitive and all those typically fall under that cost.

Maybe you guys that talk about common calibers being expensive are very high volume shooters but at what I consider a "regularly practicing" use of say 1000 rounds a month we are talking $400 or $100/week. I probably spend that on coffee and easily do during one night at the bar

I guess if your range habit is 100/day that's the difference and basically 9mm at pre Armageddon prices is the only affordable centerfire at that run rate.

 

[chrbla2000]

I haven't read all the replies, but IMO .40 was a solution in search of a problem. Really no need for that round

 

[atmay]

This is true, but is it prudent to train with lower cost ammo even if that ammo is not the one best suited for your skills and needs?
That actually sounds more expensive...

Take .380 vs 9mm for example. In most cases 9mm is much cheaper to buy, but for some the .380 is far more manageable and repeatable.
Should they forgo the .380 and shoot only 9mm?

Cost is indeed a factor, but I think that is more fitting with competitive shooters who may shoot thousands of rounds a month.

Carry ammunition and competitive ammunition are vastly different.

You make a fair point, but when you’re trying to answer a question that has little compelling support in either direction (ie 9 v 40), the importance of ammunition costs increases significantly.

You also have to consider how big the difference is at the outset, and what it would take to overcome. Will your increased capacity for training overtake your apparent preference sooner rather than later?

It’s a complicated calculus, for sure, but price per round most assuredly has a place in it.

 

[atmay]

Disregarding Armageddon ammo prices (where it all tends to suck) I don't think anything standardish, ie 9mm, 10mm, .40, .45, .380, is prohibitively expensive to shoot regularly.

I'm no rich guy, granted the lack of wife & kids helps alot, but I don't feel even .40/shot is close to prohibitive and all those typically fall under that cost.

Maybe you guys that talk about common calibers being expensive are very high volume shooters but at what I consider a "regularly practicing" use of say 1000 rounds a month we are talking $400 or $100/week. I probably spend that on coffee and easily do during one night at the bar

I guess if your range habit is 100/day that's the difference and basically 9mm at pre Armageddon prices is the only affordable centerfire at that run rate.

I think where a price difference is really going to factor in for most shooters is going to be freeing up the $20 for a magazine full of carry ammo to burn through.

 

[enbloc]

Thank you for that reply. It is compelling.

 

[TrashcanDan]

Rebrand it "10mm Special" and people would be all over it

 

[Quite_Exasperated]

.40 is the six iron of pistols..you have one in your bag but you‘re not sure why....

 

[TrashcanDan]

If someone made a .40 revolver that didn't s*ck, and had 8 shots, I would buy it.

I wonder what an 8 shot X frame would weigh in at

 

[Waher]

If someone made a .40 revolver that didn't s*ck, and had 8 shots, I would buy it.

S&W and Ruger make 10mm revolvers that can use 40 S&W with the proper moon clips. They are limited to 6. There is an 8 shot .357 version of the Redhawk which can be modified by Gemni Customs to .40 S&W. Falls into the BUT-Y-THO?!

And yes I own a for-tay....SR40. my first handgun actually. With a rubber grip sleeve it doesn't feel any different than a 9mm. Bit harder to control muzzle flip, that's about it.

 

[Broc]

You make a fair point, but when you’re trying to answer a question that has little compelling support in either direction (ie 9 v 40), the importance of ammunition costs increases significantly.

You also have to consider how big the difference is at the outset, and what it would take to overcome. Will your increased capacity for training overtake your apparent preference sooner rather than later?

It’s a complicated calculus, for sure, but price per round most assuredly has a place in it.

Talking about pricing, pre Covid retardation, 50 rounds of cheap 9mm for plinking/training was $8.99-$9.99.

How much cheaper was .40?

 

[atmay]

Talking about pricing, pre Covid retardation, 50 rounds of cheap 9mm for plinking/training was $8.99-$9.99.

How much cheaper was .40?

Was .40 cheaper? I’ve been pretty firmly entrenched as a 9mm guy for about the last decade or so, so I haven’t really compared them recently.

 

[drgrant]

Talking about pricing, pre Covid retardation, 50 rounds of cheap 9mm for plinking/training was $8.99-$9.99.

How much cheaper was .40?

It never was. Actually you're off by a whole dollar, at the trough, some "meh" 9 (like blazer brass 115) was available for $160/case or about 8 bucks a box. I doubt even at that time you could get 40 for less than 10-12 bucks a box.

 

[Waher]

.40 wasn't cheaper, it was slightly more expensive (more brass). It was more commonly available though because not everyone and their Tinder/Grindr date was banging it all day and night like that cheaper dirty European whore caliber.

 

[Broc]

It never was. Actually you're off by a whole dollar, at the trough, some "meh" 9 (like blazer brass 115) was available for $160/case or about 8 bucks a box. I doubt even at that time you could get 40 for less than 10-12 bucks a box.

I was buying 9mm Blazer in January for $8.99-10 depending if it was the aluminum stuff or brass. Tula was arpund $9.99. It was all plinking ammo.

So, people saying .40 was cheaper were probably getting ripped off on cheap 9mm.

.40 cheaper - another myth busted.

 

[atmay]

It never was. Actually you're off by a whole dollar, at the trough, some "meh" 9 (like blazer brass 115) was available for $160/case or about 8 bucks a box. I doubt even at that time you could get 40 for less than 10-12 bucks a box.

This is how I remember it being back in the day when I decided 9mm would be a better option (both were cheaper, but the 40 was ~20% more expensive). The savings on a case of range ammo would be enough to cover another box of carry ammo.

 

[grey]

40 has it's place. Those that say 9mm is just as effective, I say have never shot plates or pins with the 2 on the same day.
40 hits harder. Period. You can see it in solid targets.

40 recoil is so close to 45 that I can't tell the difference. If 40 is to much then 45 is also to much for you.

My favorite caliber is 45 but most days I carry a 9mm. 40 and 45 are not very well suited for compact and sub compact guns. Recoil doesn't bother me, but follow up shots are quicker in 9mm with a sub compact or micro pistol.

Different tools for different jobs. It's why they make hammers of varying size. Cobblers don't use 20 oz framing hammers on shoes.

I noticed a significant difference during pin shoots. .40 would punt the pins better than the 9s. Thats why i used .45

 

[Mountain]

Given the advancement in modern propellants and increasing amounts of soy in the American diet, .380 will be the new 9mm within the next 5 years. I heard a rumor that the FBI sees an increase in qualification scores with .380. Secret Service dumped .357 Sig for 9mm, so it's only logical that the FBI will follow suit via switching to a caliber that's more effective when objectively measured.
Factor in the advancements in projectile technology and 9mm just doesn't have enough advantages to justify the excess recoil and target reacquisition time.

(sarc, BIG sarc)

 

[Sterg]

Are these prices going back down after the covid-Biden hoard?

 

[Mountain]

Are these prices going back down after the covid-Biden hoard?

Not until the supply pipeline is completely full and is overstocked at each stage.

 

[Sterg]

Not until the supply pipeline is completely full and is overstocked at each stage.

So there is hope.

 

[Broc]

So there is hope.

You have a better chance of seeing prices come down than seeing the IRS defunded or an ATF raid thet doesn't end with a dead dog.

So yes, there is hope.

 

[DeadEyeDan]

Compliments of EC.
I dislike the .40 on principle, and also because of personal experience not related to the performance of the cartridge.



On Principle

The .40 is symbolic of the pussification of America. You see... in the past, someone at a firearms company took a look at a cartridge like the .38 S&W and said, "Hey... If we made this thing longer, we could get more powder into it and make it more powerful." Everybody within earshot said, "Let's do it!", and the .38 Special was born.



One night several decades later, Colonel D. B. Wesson and Phil Sharpe were sitting around on stools made from elephant legs, drinking straight whiskey and smoking Cuban cigars when the Col picked up a .38 Special and said, "Dude, we should make this thing longer, stuff it full of smokeless powder, and give it a cool name. It would kick ass!" to which Phil Sharpe replied, "You're a pussy if you don't", and Bingo! the .357 Magnum was born.



The same thing happened with the .44 - except Elmer Keith wouldn't stop whining about it so he was drinking whiskey alone, angrily writing magazine articles until Remington finally made his cartridge.



The .40 was developed backwards.



In April of 1986, the FBI was involved in a shootout in Miami with two heavily armed career criminals. The bad guys were killed, but not before they took the lives of FBI Special Agents Gerald Dove and Benjamin Grogan. The subsequent investigation placed partial blame for the agents' deaths on the lack of stopping power exhibited by their 9mm handguns, so the FBI adopted the far superior 10mm cartridge.



Field agents loved the additional firepower, but some of the sissy office staff complained about the 10mm's recoil. One day, some pale doughy accountant picked up a 10mm and said, "If someone else would make this smaller and weaker, it wouldn't hurt my little hand as much when I shoot it." His transgender assistant said, "That a great idea! They could even make the guns smaller to fit in my evening bag", and the .40 was born.



Personal Experience

I've been shooting since my early teens. When I was looking for a carry handgun, I made the mistake of asking a blowhard know-it-all former co-worker his opinion.



He had one gun - a Sigma in .40 S&W - which in his mind made him an expert on firearms - and since he had a .40, it had to be the best cartridge ever conceived. After that, every time he saw me he'd spend what seemed like hours expounding on the virtues of the .40 as "the perfect cartridge". As a result, I began to hate it.



The deal was sealed soon thereafter, when I had a bad gun shop experience with some crusty old fossil that tried to hard-sell me a .40. The non-conformist in me kicked into high gear and I said to myself, "I'm never going to own one of these friggin' things".



A side story about the know-it-all blowhard:



A couple of years ago I was talking to the know-it-all blowhard and I mentioned that I was reloading for my .500. He said, "There's no such thing as a .50 caliber revolver". I directed him to Google and told him to do his research. (He must've missed the release of the X-frames because he couldn't hear it over the sound of how awesome the .40 is).



After he decided that it existed, he asked if he could shoot my .500 because he was "proficient with big bore revolvers" and might be able to show me some tips on shooting it. So, I took Mr. Proficiency out to the range, put a single mild load in my 8" .500, he shot it, and dropped my gun! He grabbed his wrist and started hopping around crying like Nancy Kerrigan. He broke the fiberoptic front sight on my revolver and never paid for it. He still loves the .40 though.

Compliments of EC.

Call me a sissy, I’ll just say I’m not a masochistic... but I have ZERO desire to shoot a .500 S&W!

 

[Waher]

The only way prices are coming down is if polymer cased ammo becomes a thing.

I do think we are going to see a shift to non-toxic and non-metallic case & projectile ammunition in the near future. Plastics and primer technology is catching up to the point heavy & semi-precious metals won't be the lowest cost solution anymore.