why don't gun makers build a revolver in .40 s&w ?

[Jtarm]

Maybe it's time to find an ugly N frame maybe a Highway Patrolman .

Unless you know a smith that’ll do it on the cheap, it might be just as economical to look for a 610.

[Jtarm]

Bigslug has a point about the law agencies' Forty Fetish of the 1990s--it is fading. The caliber does good work on bad guys, probably every bit as good as the 45 ACP. I have been away from the range staff at work for a long time, I don't know why the LE folks are returning to the 9mm. I surmise that quals scores are not as good with the 40 as with the 9mm, due to recoil management issues, and I imagine that ammo cost is higher for 40 or 45 than it is for 9mm. The real problem with all of this admin poguery surrounding system and caliber choices is that the people with the most influence in the decision-making process are among those least likely to be directly affected by the fallout from those decisions--sheriffs, chiefs, and upper admin types don't get shot at much.

I had about a one-year dalliance with a S&W Model 25-2 in the early 1980s, and I learned to dislike the clips that existed at the time with a depth of passion. It did not take long to acquire some 45 Auto Rim brass to feed the revolver with, and that was a far simpler resolution to cartridge fit. I have or had Ruger Blackhawks that chamber rimless self-loading cartridges successfully--30 Carbine and 45 ACP. These have always fired reliably and shot quite accurately for me. The O/P seems to have found a system to fill his needs via Lipsey/Ruger BHs. Failing that, a Blackhawk convertible in 357/9mm could be gunsmithed with barrel opened to .400" groove diameter, with the cylinders recut for the 40 Short & Weak and the 10mm Auto respectively. It is not a thing I seek out, having two 10mm and three 40 S&W handguns already on hand. But the project is reasonable mechanically, though custom "one-off" work can be expensive. Life is too darn short to not have what you really want from time to time. Best of luck on your search!

ETA--Speer recently rolled out a new 10mm loading featuring a 200 grain Gold Dot bullet prompted along at 1100 FPS. This is 100 FPS faster than Col. Cooper's suggestion (1000 FPS) in the early stages of the caliber's birthing, and 100-125 FPS slower than the Norma loads that tended to harm 1911A1-series pistols. I think this pressure point will be safe for Colts and Glocks, albeit at the upper end of that "safe zone". A Blackhawk in 10mm would laugh at these pressures, as did the S&W 1006 et al. The S&Ws doted upon Norma loads.

I think you’re right on regarding law enforcements return to the Heinie 9: the 9mm is cheaper in both ammo and training curve.

I keep seeing predictions that the .40 is dead, but it remains very popular in action shooting where major power factor is required. In double-stack guns of similar design, the .40 packs 2-3 more rounds than .45 ACP.

[9.3X62AL]

I remain a believer in the 40 S&W--the 10mm--and the 45 ACP as felon repellent. Loadings and power ratings aren't real critical, but a good controlled-expansion bullet design is preferable. My shop uses the Winchester White Box JHP 180 grain in 40 S&W, and the WWB JHP 230 grain loading in 45 ACP. I mentioned the performance of the 40 S&W loads above--the 45 ACP load load runs 860-875 FPS from my SIG-P-220 (4.4" barrel), and gets 900 FPS in my Gold Cup's 5" barrel. It is SUPERB anti-goblin medicine, in both calibers. Performances of both duplicate the work done by the W-W Ranger SXT JHPs and the SXT's forerunner Black Talon rounds. SXT supposedly deleted the little snaggle-hooks from the Black Talon bullet. Uh-huh.

Selected loads in 9mm are adequate to the task as well, but by no means all 9mm loadings. Those 9mms adhering to CIP/European load standards AND incorporating controlled-expansion bullet designs are fine. This is what I carry in my P-226 when it goes out with me, which is infrequent (Speer Gold Dot 124 grain +P). My EDC in town is the Glock 23, out in the boondocks I have the Glock 20SF and usually a rifle of some kind. Pistol calibers used for felon repellent really should start with the numeral "4".

[9.3X62AL]

Unless you know a smith that’ll do it on the cheap, it might be just as economical to look for a 610.

I would be really averse to cutting up a Model 28.

[Bigslug]

I have been away from the range staff at work for a long time, I don't know why the LE folks are returning to the 9mm. . .

1. Significantly cheaper to feed, especially if you run 147 grain for duty but train with 115.

2. The days of getting a high percentage of your trainees who grew up shooting, hunting, or have a lot of military time are fading. The video game generation, who never fired anything at all until the academy, have a significantly easier time of it with 9mm, which leads to less less rounds fired in remedial training, which makes the cheap round cheaper still. Lets you either train cheaper, train more for the same money, or branch out into. . .I dunno. . .rifles.

3. Some of the current heavy 9mm duty loads actually do a better job "across the board" of all six of the FBI's barrier-before-gelatin tests than either the .40 or .45 counterparts, penetrating closer to the deep end of the desired 12 to 18 inches. It lags a little behind only in the glass test (where mass is king), but there is at least one brand for which the 9mm was the only one of the three to make at least 12" depth on all six tests.

4. The .40 is hard on guns.

5. The .45 doesn't give the quantity over quality crowd enough of a security blanket to feel warm and fuzzy under.

With the FBI report finding that diameter is only to be preferred AFTER you manage to shoot straight and penetrate deeply enough - AND the 9mm happens to be easier to shoot well and often penetrates deeper - the agency math isn't hard to figure. It seems to significantly improve the odds for the "weak links" and the general masses, but isn't really handicapping the 5-10% with serious ability.

[9.3X62AL]

OK, Erik. This jibes with stuff I was seeing late in my career, regarding the demographics of the new troops coming on. From a pencil-pusher perspective, the lower ammo costs are always a big plus. The barrier jello/glass/penetration tests.........whatever. No two bullet tracks are ever the same, nor is expansion behavior or terminal trajectory. Mother Nature and human nature conspire to give the lie to many of our most treasured pre-conceived notions and beliefs, and bullets do weird stuff once they hit animated targets. And so do the animated targets. You just pays yer money and takes yer chances, always mindful that the equipment the County bought all came from the low bidder.

[Bigslug]

Al, I don't recall if you were a player on the thread in which we discussed at great length the ins and outs of the .455 and .38/200 Webleys, but someone coined a clever phrase when they postulated that the Brits probably decided that terminally, the .38/200 was "acceptably inferior" to the .455. One straight wound track being pretty much as good as the next - and while neither round generates much recoil, the lighter revolver shooting the smaller one was much easier for the non-enthusiast to deal with. The reality is that non-enthusiasts make up what probably 80+% of those carrying are going to be, and the conventional wisdom seems to be shifting towards the idea that a .70" hole in the right location from a 9mm is going to be superior to a .90" hole from a .45 multiple inches away from the intended point of aim due to ingrained flinch and trigger slap. Having grown up in the '80's reading a lot of 'for enthusiasts, by enthusiasts' publications, I've had to shift a lot of my thinking when it came time to find a practical solution for folks that don't live this stuff.

But this thread's about the .40 S&W and we should probably cease the hijack. It's a bit of an extreme round that I've never been a huge fan of, as it tried to be all things to all people and falls short in spots as most Swiss Army Knives do, though it does appear to work for the most part. With 20/20 hindsight, it seems to have been initially pushed somewhat surreptitiously as a ploy to sell new guns to agencies that had JUST bought 9mm's. . .when the findings were just starting to come out that we didn't need to change guns, we just needed to upgrade the ammo. .40 Swindle & Whitewash is what I tend to call it.

But in revolvers as a sporting round? I kinda like the idea of cast boolits in a stumpy cylinder snubby at lower speeds than the round tends to generate, or in a larger gun as the "Special" to the 10mm's "Magnum". The only fly in the ointment for me is that I personally have an extreme dislike for moon clips. I would like to see the Auto Rim treatment applied to both rounds - and possibly a third, longer round - which would allow those who want to fiddlefart around with mooners to do so. I think that package would sound the death knell for the .41 Magnum, as such guns would provide about the same performance with a lot less logistical limitation. If you're gonna try to duplicate the .38-40, it might as well be a VERSATILE .38-40.

[contender1]

The 40 S&W was developed as a lower recoiling round than the 10mm which had been considered the ultimate LEO caliber. It was developed,, because the 10mm was "too much" for many LEO's to shoot & QUALIFY!

And, of course,,, the 9mm used to be the wonderchild of LEO's when the transition from revolvers to semi's was happening. It's recoil, and low cost, along with the NATO designation,,, it appeared to be the "best" choice for LEO's.

Then along came the infamous Miami shootout, where the wondernine's FAILED to take out a pair of determined thugs, hopped up on drugs & a desire to kill a lot of LEO's,,! This was 1986 if I recall the year correctly.
The Feds decided they needed a more powerful caliber to STOP a drug crazed thug, and the 10mm was pushed,, but the cost & recoil had it's own problems. The compromise was the 40 S&W.
As such, it became THE new caliber to use. And MANY guns were designed for it.

So, while semi-autos are the major type it's chambered in, some companies have & still produce revolvers to accompany the semi's, OR, to take advantage of the plentiful ammo & brass.

My son is LEO,,, and while the department issues a 9mm,,, he is allowed to carry any caliber & type of back-up gun, as long as he qualifies with it, as well as his duty issued handgun. My son chooses a .45 as his b/u.

The 40 S&W has a lot going for it. It can be shot by most who get a little bit of PROPER handgun training. It can be superior SD caliber,,, with the right bullet. But we all understand the physics of a proper bullet placement for any caliber or design. But when you add mass to a bullet, your margin of error is larger, and this is where the bigger calibers can prevail. So,m the 40 is better than the 9mm, yet not as good as the 45.

And remember,, if you look into history,, the 41 magnum was originally developed as the "perfect" LEO caliber decades ago. Less recoil than the 44 mag, and more stopping power than the 357.

[KCSO]

Uh they did... I currently have hands on a Ruger two cylinder in 10mm and 38-40 both have the same bore size. Full house 10's are expensive and have too much recoil for fun shooting, the 38-40's were too hard to get when the gun came out and are not much better now.

[Bent Ramrod]

There’s a revolver called the Rhino (I believe) that comes in .40 S&W. Not exactly a thing of beauty, and pretty expensive, but it is offered in the caliber. Supposed to be very ergonomic for recoil.

[Ramjet-SS]

There’s a revolver called the Rhino (I believe) that comes in .40 S&W. Not exactly a thing of beauty, and pretty expensive, but it is offered in the caliber. Supposed to be very ergonomic for recoil.

They do make a 40 revolver do not let the looks deter you the trigger pull is fantastic and they are accurate and easy to stay on target. Sure they do not look conventional but they shoot really well. I can fire a couple hundred rounds through my 357 magnum with full house rounds no problem at all.

[Jtarm]

They do make a 40 revolver do not let the looks deter you the trigger pull is fantastic and they are accurate and easy to stay on target. Sure they do not look conventional but they shoot really well. I can fire a couple hundred rounds through my 357 magnum with full house rounds no problem at all.

I finally got a chance to examine a Rhino recently and was not impressed with the DA trigger.

If I were going to spend over $1k for a .40 revolver, I’d look for an S&W 646 or find a smith who could convert a 686.

[Ramjet-SS]

I finally got a chance to examine a Rhino recently and was not impressed with the DA trigger.

If I were going to spend over $1k for a .40 revolver, I’d look for an S&W 646 or find a smith who could convert a 686.

My trigger on the 357 is really smooth its heavy but it's a defensive handgun so I am good with that. but transition and break are really consistent. I cannot speak to the one you handled but mine is good really good. It happens though might depend who at the factory put it together and what kind of day they were having.......

[Texas by God]

An SAA in .40 S&W would be fun to play with I think. 38-40 ballistics with no fuss.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Gray Fox]

I think that at about the time the .40 S&W started to hit the local departments they, like the Feds, had had to accept a bunch of physically smaller female recruits than the males who had previously been the only trainees. If they had to accept such new trainees they had to come up with a weapon/round that they could qualify with in significant numbers.

This is not intended to start ANY discussion about the merits of accepting such new officer/agent trainees. Just introducing another possible factor into what were probably a series of legal, societal and training issues. Those of you who were or knew department trainers during that period probably recall some of the training challenges that accompanied these issues. GF