40S&W Question.......

[Lefty Red]

Anyone have problems with there Shield in 40S&W? Or a Kahr CW40? Or any other single stacked 40S&W?

Any 40S&W single stack pistol you would suggest?

Or do you find them unable to shoot in a self defense situation?

Lefty




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

No problems, but the 40 Shield is not one you can lay off for awhile and still have great results from the first magazine. Since that is true of pretty much all pistol shooting, that is not much of a complaint, really. Not practicing with any gun makes your skills erode and you forget what you have to do.

I find a firm handshake type grip is needed or I get vertical stringing from grip variations especially with the short magazine. Since the recoil is not something I complain about or find all that disconcerting (even 9mms of this size are bouncy) I just mostly shaddup and view it as an insignificant adjustment.

When shooting as regularly as prudence requires I do it without thinking about it. If laying off for awhile the first magazine is a reminder and I am okay after that. Consider it a reasonable trade off for the extra bit of power over a 9mm.

It really is not as big a deal as I am making it here.

[Lefty Red]

35Remington, I understand what you are saying. Any single stacked pistols move in my large palms due to the smallish grips. I experience the vertical stringing too.

One reason I ask is because I normally just use a Compact or subcompact versions of double stacks in 40 or 357. Thinking about going single stacked, but besides the Shield or the rare XDS or the common Kahr CM40, not much to choose from. Starting to think the Compact double stacks are the only way for me, but looking for feedback from actual shooter. Always nice to have options.

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[osteodoc08]

It seems the 40 has fallen out of favor. Definitely a bunch of good deals on the used market for 40 if that's your thing. To me it is the 38 special of the 10mm. I enjoy both. The used market is flooded with them and I can load up light loads just the same as any other caliber. It's easier to hold and manipulate than 9mm while reloading and brass is cheap so I don't feel bad about losing brass.

I've shot a 40 Shield and it functioned and acted as expected. Snappy with reliable functioning.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

A friend of mine had a .40 Kahr blow up on him with factory American made ammo.

[Lefty Red]

A friend of mine had a .40 Kahr blow up on him with factory American made ammo.

That the second time I have heard that!
I know most LEOs and active shooters (the good kind), around here, stay away from Kahr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

I do not experience it as much with the extended magazine, but since hot weather is upon us the shorter mag has concealment advantages that require me to put up with it. Colder weather and a light jacket let me carry the longer grip magazine.

The shorter magazine requires practice I should be putting in anyhow!

What is nice about the thin single stacks is driving long distances in my small car. I am sort of a big guy and have to fold myself in the car, and I find waistband carry to dig into my middle less when seated compared to a fatter pistol. Yesterday I managed a 238 mile 4.5 hour trip without significant or even noticeable discomfort and that was pleasing.

[Lefty Red]

When I learned how to shoot with just a two finger grip, it opened up a world of short gripped weapons.

Yeah, it always amazes me when carrying how some weapons kill my back. A small J Frame w/ a shrouded hammer will jab me in the back. But my G23 in a Desantis Intruder just disappears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kayala]

I have a little over 1K through my 40 Shield not a single hiccup mostly my FMJ reloads with about 200 of commercial JHP. Only modification I did is Talon grips.

[Lefty Red]

I have a little over 1K through my 40 Shield not a single hiccup mostly my FMJ reloads with about 200 of commercial JHP. Only modification I did is Talon grips.

It's my #1 contender right now. I have shot the Shield in 40, and really liked it.
And Talons are the must, for me, on the single stacks!

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonp]

I've got the M&P .40 and Kahr's in 9, 40 and 45. No problem but the Kahrs are not heavy and require practice. The grip is fine on them, though. In fact, they are some of the most comfortable guns I have and I carry the 45 once in a while.

[jonp]

A friend of mine had a .40 Kahr blow up on him with factory American made ammo.

I've run probably several thousand rounds though the 6 Kahrs we own with not a problem.

[Idaho45guy]

I really don't understand the problem people have with the .40 S&W... I sold my 9mm Shield and got an XDS in 40. Not that big of a difference when shooting. I shoot a sub-compact 10mm with no problems. Now, when I shoot my bear loads in my .45 Colt BH Bisley, I wear a glove. That hurts...

But I have never considered the .40 S&W an unmanageable or uncomfortable round in a semi-auto.

[54bore]

I really don't understand the problem people have with the .40 S&W... I sold my 9mm Shield and got an XDS in 40. Not that big of a difference when shooting. I shoot a sub-compact 10mm with no problems. Now, when I shoot my bear loads in my .45 Colt BH Bisley, I wear a glove. That hurts...

But I have never considered the .40 S&W an unmanageable or uncomfortable round in a semi-auto.

I agree, the .40 is a very manageable round, and my absolute favorite of the slide pistols

[Chihuahua Floyd]

Currently no problems with my Kahr CW 40. It did go back to the factory when I first got it, but problem solved at no cost to me but a little time. I can hit what I aim at within reasonable distances. Will I buy another , maybe.
CF

[Bigslug]

Haven't witnessed any grief yet from the XDs and Shield .40's I've inspected, test-fired, qual'd guys on, but as they say, the night is pretty young on both of them, and none have been shot enough to know if there's ultimately going to be a wear issue. They're snappy guns, but not overly abusive. I find the .45 XDs to be a bit of a handful, and generally prefer the 9mm for such guns. . .and .38/.357 wheelies to all of the above.

None of 'em are immune to the laws of physics though - more horsepower from smaller engines will always equal faster wear. The good news is both Smith & Springfield cover you forever.

[pjames32]

We have a Shield in 40 and an S&W compact (double stack) in 40. I shoot the double stack slightly better due to the wider grip, but not a lot better. Both digest my cast loads well for practice. Wife and I both practice regularly. Shield is better to carry.

[emorris]

I caught the single stack bug and got a G43 when it came out. I put the G27 in the safe and devoted a countless amount of range time training with the 43. I know it being a 9mm is not relevant to 40 S&W, but I'm talking about more so double stack vs single stack. Although I like the gun and I still shoot and sometimes carry it, I find that I still usually carry my G27 most of the time when off duty. Honestly my turn off to single stack is the reduced round count instead of the shootability of the gun. When we go out my wife is in the closet deciding on what shoes to wear, and I'm in the safe deciding on what gun. After debating our options she emerges with a tried and slightly worn pair of shoes, and I have the 27 on my hip.

[marlin39a]

I carry a .40 Shield year round. I use Hornady Critical Defence for carry, and shoot my 150 gr lead reloads for practice. I have complete confidence in this combo.

[9.3X62AL]

"Bouncy". Stealing this.

Glock 29SF with W-W Silvertips on board is bouncy, too. That Pearce magazine baseplate with the little finger hook helps quite a bit with recoil management. After about 6 months and 700 rounds of STHP duplicators, my thoughts are that the G29 is a fine and powerful little 11-shot pocket cannon, but that Glock needs to put the 10mm and 45 ACP into a mid-sized G-19/23 platform.

[Lloyd Smale]

I have large hands and have no problem with my glock 43, shield 40 or even my new glock 29. That said I do put the mag extension floor plates on them. Without them I do have problems griping them. As to recoil. Give me a break. Its a little 40sw not a 44 mag, 454 or 475 linebaugh. If you cant shoot a 40 because of recoil its time to put in some more time at the range. My wife and grankids shoot my 23 and my shield with full power loads all the time and ive yet to here one of them complain about recoil. Maybe because some internet expert never told them that a 40 kicks. Recoil is a matter of bullet weight and velocity and the 40sw is right about in there with a light loaded 44 special and substantialy less then even a 357 mag. If you consider a 40 a bruiser you might want to check out a 25acp or 22lr or maybe a knife.

[Lloyd Smale]

"Bouncy". Stealing this.

Glock 29SF with W-W Silvertips on board is bouncy, too. That Pearce magazine baseplate with the little finger hook helps quite a bit with recoil management. After about 6 months and 700 rounds of STHP duplicators, my thoughts are that the G29 is a fine and powerful little 11-shot pocket cannon, but that Glock needs to put the 10mm and 45 ACP into a mid-sized G-19/23 platform.

Id dearly love to see a glock 10mm in a 23 sized gun. But with the lack of popularity of 10mms I doubt we will ever see it. Sure wish they would prove me wrong though. What a great woods bumbing gun that would make. My 20s a bit big and a 23 sized gun would be easier to shoot accurately then the 29. Even if they made one run of them to satisfy all of us 10mm fans. While I'm at it ill beg for glock to make us a little pistol caliber carbine too. Ill take one in 40 and one in 10. Id take one in 9 too but I already have that covered.

[robertbank]

Id dearly love to see a glock 10mm in a 23 sized gun. But with the lack of popularity of 10mms I doubt we will ever see it. Sure wish they would prove me wrong though. What a great woods bumbing gun that would make. My 20s a bit big and a 23 sized gun would be easier to shoot accurately then the 29. Even if they made one run of them to satisfy all of us 10mm fans. While I'm at it ill beg for glock to make us a little pistol caliber carbine too. Ill take one in 40 and one in 10. Id take one in 9 too but I already have that covered.

Lloyd check these guys out for your 10MM carbine idea using a Glock for a base.

mechtechsys.com/glock-carbine-conversion/

Bob

[Lefty Red]

Shield 40 is still the top contender. Just looking for something for this summer when I can't carry my G27 due to clothing issues, which isn't often. The G27 is very concealable. G23 covers me for fall/winter carry. My G42 does pocket duty. I do wish the Shield is had in a 3.5" barrel instead of the 3.1". But that's just me being picky. I know the XDS is available in the 4" version, but don't know if they made it in a 40SW.

I had a G36, the Slimline 45ACP, and I wasn't happy with it! The worste feeding 45ACP I ever owned. Would only work with WW Defense Ammo. Hornady's +P loading were too long and would jam. Wished they would make it in a Gen 4, would try it again. But heard it's on the chopping block. It did carry so nice! Flatter, in the grip, than the 19/23 and would fit the same holsters. Would like to see one, with a 7/8 magazine capability, in 10mm as well. But since the G36 is fading away, I almost doubt it. Hell, supposedly no plans for a 42/43 type 40 so not looking good for a more powerful caliber.

I don't worry about magazine capabilities anymore. I just worry about accuracy to about 25 yards and it feeding [emoji817]. My role in society is just a citizen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9.3X62AL]

Not cheap--but I almost went with a SIG P-239 in 40 S&W. Give it a look-see for hand fit. With a Pearce-like aftermarket baseplate, the P-239 would fit my big ol' paw.

[jonp]

I bought my first .40 a little bit ago. The slightly used M&P for $2xx something doesnt kick at all imho. Much less than full house 357mag or hefty 45lc loads. Im not sure what the fuss with recoil is. Maybe im missing something

[35remington]

Well, I suppose all the moaning about recoil has a lot to do with someone deciding to justify why they got the 9mm variant that holds one extra shot.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that if you really find a 40 in this size horribly uncomfortable you might want to check what color panties you are wearing. A lot of carry pistols kick a lot harder than a 40. It is hardly as terrible as some want to make it seem.

[Lefty Red]

Not cheap--but I almost went with a SIG P-239 in 40 S&W. Give it a look-see for hand fit. With a Pearce-like aftermarket baseplate, the P-239 would fit my big ol' paw.

Damn right not cheap! LOL
But well worth it. Just pretty heavy for shorts and a t shirt. But I do like the P239, and even seen it in 357 Sig.

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lefty Red]

Well, I suppose all the moaning about recoil has a lot to do with someone deciding to justify why they got the 9mm variant that holds one extra shot.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that if you really find a 40 in this size horribly uncomfortable you might want to check what color panties you are wearing. A lot of carry pistols kick a lot harder than a 40. It is hardly as terrible as some want to make it seem.

I find just about any 180 grain in loads in a 40SW pretty tame compared to the lighter faster bullets. They have too much recoil in my G27 for me. About 30/40 rounds is all I'm good for at the range shooting the Baby Glock.

I get more snap in 9mm 115 grain loads in smaller pistols. But I am far more accurate with the 9mm and 357SIG than I am with the 40SW.

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan Cash]

When I learned how to shoot with just a two finger grip, it opened up a world of short gripped weapons.

Yeah, it always amazes me when carrying how some weapons kill my back. A small J Frame w/ a shrouded hammer will jab me in the back. But my G23 in a Desantis Intruder just disappears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't carry the pistol in the mall of your back. It does not conceal when you bend over, pokes you in the back as noted and invites spinal injury if you fall.

[Lefty Red]

Don't carry the pistol in the mall of your back. It does not conceal when you bend over, pokes you in the back as noted and invites spinal injury if you fall.

I would have to disagree.
But that's for another thread.

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OuchHot!]

I have the Kahr PM40 and K40 as well as the shield 40. Of those, I like the K40 the best. I am old and starting to get some serious arthritis in the hand and find the PM40 tiring to shoot as much as I think I should. The k40 is VERY accurate. The shield is nice to shoot as well. Lots of ammo through all and no problems. Unfortunately the flavor of the week no longer serves the 40 and the ammo costs for factory is going up. K40 and shield are real favorites to me, easy to conceal and not too fancy to sweat on....

[MT Gianni]

Kahr K40 shooter with a gun that is more accurate than it deserves to be.

[FergusonTO35]

I like the .40 in my Glock 22 with a Lee 401-175-TC at 900 fps. Easy to shoot, accurate, and plenty of power for anything on two or four legs at pistol range here in the Bluegrass. If I happened upon a Shield .40 for the right price it might just come home with me. Now, if I didn't roll my own I would have no interest whatsoever in this cartridge. Ammo companies keep trying to hot rod the cartridge with no real benefit when it excels with more mild loads such as what I use.

[Idaho45guy]

My XDS 40 has been my carry gun for a few months and replaced a defective Shield 9mm that S&W couldn't fix.

Shield Performance Center 9mm at 25yds:

197123

[Idaho45guy]

My XDS at 25yds...

197124

[FergusonTO35]

Well, I suppose all the moaning about recoil has a lot to do with someone deciding to justify why they got the 9mm variant that holds one extra shot.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that if you really find a 40 in this size horribly uncomfortable you might want to check what color panties you are wearing. A lot of carry pistols kick a lot harder than a 40. It is hardly as terrible as some want to make it seem.

Hmmm, do Homer Simpson boxers count?[smilie=l:

Not everyone can deal with recoil well. I am honest in admitting that I can't shoot anything stronger than my aforementioned mild .40's even though I'm 6'3/270. Instead of carry something I know I can't shoot well so as not to upset the firepower gods, I choose to carry a gun that I am confident and comfortable with. Which, at this time is a .380.

[Lefty Red]

Hmmm, do Homer Simpson boxers count?[smilie=l:

Not everyone can deal with recoil well. I am honest in admitting that I can't shoot anything stronger than my aforementioned mild .40's even though I'm 6'3/270. Instead of carry something I know I can't shoot well so as not to upset the firepower gods, I choose to carry a gun that I am confident and comfortable with. Which, at this time is a .380.

Well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9.3X62AL]

Very well said.

People tend to view recoil and its effects on the shooter experiencing it as discrete elements. Not! You must take a more holistic view, and find the blend of grip fit and load dynamics that best enables you to place hits well and repetitiously when the need arises to do so--God forbid the necessity. For large and insensitive clods like the writer of this post, the 10mm bottom-feeders and the 357 Magnum in arms I can grip well are ideal. One pistol that I have a bit of trouble managing is the 9mm Makarov with full-bore loadings (100 grainers in the 1075-1100 FPS ZIP Code). That little beast is a handful for me, almost like the Glock 29 with Silvertips on board. The physics of the matter say that it shouldn't be that way, but there it is there. Some pistols in the hands of some people handle recoil and recovery from same a lot better than other designs. What works and what doesn't for me may not apply to you. Best-case scenario is to have a variety of handguns available to test-drive in order to make the best choice for YOU.

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks. It seems like shooter comfort and confidence are seldom considered when people discuss defensive or hunting arms. I think these are the most basic elements of good shooting in any scenario and should always be considered first. My wife is not a gun person and rarely shoots. Her go-to defensive gun is a .22. I want her to have the best chance possible of putting the slugs where they need to go in a life or death situation.

[9.3X62AL]

One of our daughters manages the Glock 23 quite well. Another chose a Glock 19, and she hits darn well with that. Mama like her SIG P-228. Two more of the girls are going to get some pistol/revolver test-drives in a couple weeks, and may leave with their choices in hand.

[Petrol & Powder]

I've never been a fan of the 40 S&W in general.

As for functioning problems in the pistols mentioned by the OP, I have seen failures of Kahr polymer framed pistols chambered in 40 S&W, particularly the early PM40 pistols. They would drop mags, crack frames around the locking block, and break parts. Never seen a problem with the 9mm Kahrs except for one MK9 that was poorly maintained and fired extensively with +P+ ammo and even that one didn't catastrophically fail.

The Kahr is a fine gun but the 40 S&W may be pushing the micro Kahr design a bit far.

As for the 40 S&W, some people say it's heavier than a 9mm and faster than a 45 ACP - I say it's lighter than a 45 and slower than a 9mm :grin: Never seen the attraction to the 40 S&W. I know the history well but it always seemed to be a solution in search of a problem.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Idaho45guy]

Never seen the attraction to the 40 S&W. I know the history well but it always seemed to be a solution in search of a problem.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Not sure how you can't see why the .40 S&W was developed or why it became so popular. It's painstakingly obvious, really... The popular semi-auto pistols at the time of it's development in 1986 were chambered in either 9mm or .45 ACP. The ones chambered in .45 ACP held 7-8 rounds, and the ones in 9mm held 10-17 rounds. At the time, 31 years ago, the 9mm was considered marginal and considerably less effective than the .45 ACP in stopping power.

Shooters were given the choice of either more capacity with less effective rounds, or less capacity with more effective rounds.

The .40 S&W offered a seemingly perfect balance of capacity and effectiveness. Simple.

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm VERY aware of the history of the 40S&W. Thank you.

I was also paying attention to the development and marketing of the 40 S&W back in the mid 1980's, so thank you again.

[robertbank]

One thing about the 40 you can load it mild to wild depending on your needs. I play with it shooting steel using very light loads under my 180 gr lead TC bullet. The cases just roll out of the gun. I step it up for major scoring in IPSC. OK for a match once in awhile but out of my M&P Pro the arthritis in the wrist lets me know once in awhile is really all it need be. Not concerned about self defense issues up here in Terrace but I am not stupid either ergo SIG 226 Mke 25 might sit near to the bed...or maybe not - for those who ride horses and wear red coats.

Take Care

Bob
ps A fellow died at an IPSC match in BC on Sunday. He apparently dropped an OPEN gun (1911) and grabbed at it as it fell. 38 Super in the chest. Guys if you ever drop your gun while shooting let it fall to the ground. DON'T try to grab it. Fellow was 50 year old Medical Doctor, and a Black Badge Instructor with over 20 years of competition shooting under his belt. RIP

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm not interested in getting into a huge debate about the merits or lack of merits of the 40 S&W but a little bit of history is appropriate here.

In the aftermath of the 1986 Miami shootout in which 2 FBI agents were killed and 5 wounded an extensive analysis of the event was conducted by the FBI.
The Bureau placed a lot of emphasis on the alleged failure of the ammunition and downplayed the poor tactics employed. The Bureau then went in search of better ammunition. The replacement ammunition, by default, couldn't be something that already existed because that would then beg the question, "if it existed, why wasn't it already being used"?
What the FBI came up with was a downloaded 10mm cartridge. That large cartridge required a full size handgun and because they were only utilizing a portion of the case capacity of the 10mm, it made sense to reduce the size of the cartridge. Smith & Wesson and Winchester ammunition were more than happy to create that new market.

There's no doubt that the popularity of the 40 S&W grew tremendously but popularity isn't always the best yardstick to evaluate something by.

Admittedly the 9mm and 45 ACP are pretty far apart in physical characteristics. 9mm projectiles typically weigh about 115-125 grains while the 45 ACP runs 200-230; so the 45 ACP is about twice the weight of a 9mm.
The 9mm is .355" in diameter while the 45 is .451"; that's a spread of about 1/10 ". Again, fairly large differences.

In terms of physical dimensions, the 40 S&W falls nicely in the middle between the 9mm and 45 ACP.

It's the performance of the 40 S&W that makes me scratch my head and ask, "what am I getting"?

If we could split the difference in bullet weight between a 230gr 45ACP and a 115gr 9mm we would have a 172.5 grain bullet. Well, we have 180 grain 10mm [40 cal] bullets, so that's close enough to the middle for me. Now if we could push that 180 grain bullet to about 1200 fps (exactly what a 10mm does), I would say that might be worth carrying a bigger pistol.

However, in the 40 S&W configuration we can only push that 180 grain bullet to about 1050fps. At that point I start questioning the value of that effort.

A 115 gr 9mm projectile weighs 65 grains less than a 180 grain 10mm projectile but I can get the 115gr HP 9mm to over 1200 fps and with +P (or +P+) I can easily get over 1300 fps.
OK, the 9mm bullet weighs less, you got me there. But do I really need that heavier bullet with its higher recoil forces and reduced magazine capacity or at that point do I just switch to a 10mm or 45 ACP ?

The 40 S&W does outperform the 9mm but not by enough to win me over.

[308Jeff]

Have you tried Longshot behind a 180gr bullet? I have, and it gets you pretty close to that 1,200 fps. I really don't like shooting 40 S&W in a handgun, though. It's fun as heck in carbine, but I don't care for that snappy recoil it produces in a pistol.

[9.3X62AL]

Petrol & Powder made a number of valid points in his most recent post. I am another like him, on deck and taking part in the wholesale conversion of law officer sidearms from rollers to sliders, and soon thereafter took part in the incorporation of the 40 Short & Weak into my shop's ammo allocations to supplement the 9 x 19 and 45 ACP.

My shop's first moves toward autopistols were strongly biased toward the 45 ACP over the 9mm--45 was approved for all venues, while 9mm was limited to off-duty and plainclothes taskings. Approved ammo in both calibers was W-W Silvertips, 115 grain JHPs at about 1200-1215 FPS from 4" barrels in the Nueve and a 185 grain JHP at about 1050 FPS from 5" barrels. Both of these loadings run their bullet weights at a "90%+ of safe potential" velocity envelope that has been a hallmark of the Winchester Silvertip pistol ammo line since about forever.

One element of the FBI assessment of the Miami 1986 debacle that I profoundly disagree with--because it is bullsquat--is the criticism of the 9mm STHP ammo in use at the time--and at that time recommended by FBI to USA law agencies as its one best 9mm load. FBI aggravated this error further by adopting a less powerful loading--their now-highly-touted 147 grain JHP "Sub-Sonic" 9mm loading. Circa 1991 or thereabouts, my agency discontinued use of the 9mm W-W STHP and went with this barely-38 Special-equivalent 9mm ammo.......and remains committed to its use to this day. I quit using the 9mm at work at that time, and so did most of our personnel. At the same time, they upgraded our 45 ACP ammo to the 230 grain W-W JHP (SXT--now the WWB 230 JHP) that runs 875-900 FPS from a 5" barrel and is NOT a +P loading. You didn't have to draw me or any other deputy a picture to sign on for THAT. YES SIR--MAY I HAVE MORE, SIR?

The 40 S&W got approved for my shop c. early 1994 IIRC. It was an INSTANT hit, and remains so today. The load used then and now is the 180 grain W-W JHP "SXT", now reboxed as the WWB 180 JHP. As a bad guy stopper, it has been the functional equivalent of the 45 ACP. I saw while working enough of my shop's fired slugs removed in trauma rooms and autopsies to convince me that both calibers produce expended bullets that look like ad copy for W-W pistol ammo. If hit well, baddies get dropped--often permanently. I carried both calibers very happily throughout the last 10+ years of my career and continue to do so in retirement. Someone trying to make a case either "For" or "Against" the 40 S&W or the 45 ACP versus each other is wasting their time IMO. They are each others' functional equivalent in the real world where exchanges of finality occur. As calibers, the 357 Magnum and the 10mm Auto are better than both, again my opinion based upon street reality. I caution that I am NOT considering ammo capacity, platform type, or user/platform interfaces in this text. I am talking "Bullets into predators", period. Now that I can in retirement, my carry guns are the 10mm and the 357 or 44 Magnum. I like bullet diameter and velocity. A LOT.

[Petrol & Powder]

Allow me to be clear that it is not my opinion that the 40 S&W is a bad cartridge. As Al pointed out, it has proven to work well.
My point is that I'm not a huge fan of the 40 S&W. It's big claims to fame are that it can be chambered in pistols that are roughly 9mm sized pistols and it allows for greater magazine capacity when compared against 45 ACP pistols. The 40 S&W accomplishes its work with the same SAAMI max pressure as the 9mm - 35K psi. If I'm going to go that route I might as well go 10mm and 37.5K psi; at that point all I'm gaining is a slightly smaller gun and maybe some magazine capacity. When you're in that realm the 45 ACP begins to look like a better option for some folks.
I'm NOT saying the 40 S&W is in any way inferior. I'm saying that for me it just doesn't stand out as being superior. As I stated previously, the 40 S&W can outperform the 9mm, just not by enough to win me over.

I am in total agreement that the 147 gr subsonic 9mm was, and still is, an abysmal failure. That loading existed for suppressed guns, in particular suppressed submachine guns and that's where it should have stayed.

[35remington]

The whole 40 raison d'être was same size pistol as 9mm, more caliber, more bullet weight, nearly as many shots available. Required? Maybe not. Effective at being in the middle? Maybe so. Heavy bullets and light bullets both available in the caliber.

Buy what you want and be happy. Everyone else has their mind made up for reasons that may not be universal.

[Lloyd Smale]

well we have the 9, 40 and 45. The 9 will never be a 40 and the 40 will never be a 45. Most the advantage to me and I like all three is the platform I need that day. If its summer and I need a concealed gun its a 9. Why? because I can get something like a glock 43 and still have 7 rounds. If its fall and ive got a heavy shirt on concealing a 40 isn't a problem and to be truthful even my shield in 40 can be carried no problem in the summer. In the winter when I'm wearing a jacket even a full sized 1911 isn't a problem to carry. Then we will talk field. When I'm just out plinking a good full sized 9 is hard to beat. nothing cheaper to load and as easy to shoot. But truth be told there all fun to shoot. If I'm in the field and its a possibility I might have to kill something bigger then a rabbit or put down a wounded deer ect I'm usually carrying a 10mm or 45acp. A 40 kind of sits in the middle in the field. Its a great gun for up to coyote sized animals and will put down larger in a pinch but the 10 and 45 just do it better. Now keep in mind with all of this that in the field I shoot only cast bullets and even my truck guns are loaded with cast. Only time I carry jacketed is when I'm carrying concealed. I have use for all of them.

Wouldn't be without a 9, 40,10 or 45. As to recoil non of them are any worse then a k frame 357 so if you cant handle that I guess handgun hunting for big game is out of the question. Want to see how little recoil they have. Go out and shoot a 500 or 475 or even a 44 mag for an hour or two then pop off a few 40s. I say pop off because they feel like pop gun loads even in something like a shield. In a full or mid sized gun the 40 has less recoil then a k frame 357. Its just physics. A 180 grain bullet at a 1000 fps is going to be milder then a 160 grain bullet at 1300 if for no other reason then that it has substaintialy less muzzle blast and what ive found in most women and kids is muzzle blast is harder on them then the actual recoil. Keep in mind too that a 180 at a 1000 fps is 44 spec territory. Nobody says the 44 spec is a heavy recoiler and nobody says the 44 spec isn't capable of killing 150 lb animals. Give you a good example of muzzle blast. I had the 15 year old granddaughter at that range one day. I was shooting a 4 inch L frame and one of my 4 inch 500 linebaughs. The 4 in 357 was loaded with 125 hps at full tilt. the 500 was loaded with 420s at about 850fps. After shooting both my granddaughter told me she didn't like the K frame because it kicked to much! Now I'm about certain the 500 had more ft lbs of recoil. But its about so mild in muzzle blast that ive shot it without ear protection. the 357 belched fire and had a very loud crack. She proceeded to finish off about 50 500s and was giggling through the whole show. She just loved the way that big bullet smacked the spinners. Honesty I agree with her. Even for me the 500 is a lot more pleasurable to shoot.

By the way that same day I had my glock 43 and my shield 40 with us and she shot both and didn't even make a comment or ask if they shot the same ammo. Sure the 40 probably had a bit more recoil but it wasn't enough that she even felt the need to question it. Now I can see a grown man maybe not liking to shoot a 44 mag but a .40!!!!!!!!!! If I couldnt handle the recoil of a 40 it would sure cut down on my gun buying and lead useage!!!!!!!!!! To me saying a 40 kicks to much is about like saying a 2506 kicks to much. RANGE TIME RANGE TIME RANGE TIME. that's what you need.