The Beretta 96 is a surprisingly easy gun to shoot, I used to shoot with a guy that had one. I think the Walther style locking block helps.
The Beretta 96 is a surprisingly easy gun to shoot, I used to shoot with a guy that had one. I think the Walther style locking block helps.
I learned what my limits are and if I forget, the arthritis in my hands and wrists reminds me. I am not saying the 40 is too much. I am saying there is more recoil there than with a 9mm in the same size firearm. I don't own or shoot any handgun more powerful than a 357 Mag. I do own and shoot handguns in 40SW and 45ACP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale
I spoke with a military firearms instructor a few months ago at my local indoor range. The 9mm on a 1911 frame came up. He said the Army keeps a number of them in stock because people with smaller, lighter hands have trouble qualifying with the firearms that have more recoil. He stated some people even have issues with a Beretta M9 but can handle the 9mm 1911 just fine. He loved my Springfield Range Officer pistols.
As to the stress on handgun designs due to the extra energy, Taurus built their copy of the Beretta 92FS in 40SW for a short time. I have one. The slide is somewhat thicker and heavier with heavier springs in order to handle the extra stress of the 40. The slide from a 9mm version will fit on it and work just fine with the proper magazine. Seems they had issues with simply modifying a 9mm slide to work. It couldn't stand the stress without beefing it up. The frame is otherwise identical.
When converting the PT92 to 40SW, you need to use the slide catch from the 40SW version due to the extra thickness of the slide. When converting the 40SW version to 9mm, all you need is the slide assembly. The slide catch from the 40SW version works fine with the narrower 9mm slide.
The Beretta answer was the thicker-slide BrigadierQuote:
Originally Posted by tazman
The Sig answer was to discontinue their stamped slides with the breech block insert and go to solid milled stainless. (and to discontinue the SP2022)
The HK answer was to build big in the first place.
The Glock answer was first the three-pin Gen 3 frame (Ironically, the third pin they added was the one that commonly snapped, leaving the slide stop lever flapping without spring tension), and an extra coil in the mag spring. Then it was the Gen 4 with the beefier recoil spring. Finally, they split the .40 and the 9mm Gen 5's into two sets of slide dimensions - -the .40 cal versions going with heavier slides closer to the outside dimensions of their .45 and 10mm pistols. Agencies wanting to stick with .40 Glocks but not buy new holsters are S.O.L.
The real unfulfilled promise of the .40 was that it would work in a 9mm-sized platform with no significant changes in dimension or engineering. That didn't really pan out, and we're left with something that makes little economic or practical sense:
1. You don't have the manufacturing advantage you hoped for of minimal changes in minimal numbers of parts to produce otherwise identical guns in two calibers.
2. The .40's wear stuff out a lot sooner - including a lot of the people behind them.
3. The ammo costs more, and institutionally, you might need to shoot more of it remediating the recoil-shy.
4. The bad guys, and their coroners, really can't seem to tell the difference - - unless it's from more 9mm holes delivered in less time that are often better placed and deeper penetrating.
What I think was overlooked in the whole .40 mess was the pressure curve and spiky recoil. The 9mm guns were easy to shoot and for the most part, held up well. The .45's (at the time, not many options) took a little more work to shoot, but also held up well. The .40's were fussy little sports cars that were tiring to drive and required more time in the shop to stay in tune.
What I've been witnessing from my extended circle is that the .45 seems to be hanging on in the sports of falling targets (plates and bowling pins) where it's big mass helps it push unyielding non-meat targets around.
In law enforcement, we went through a period where the .45/1911 got a resurgence with SWAT units because their elevated training regimen was eating .40 caliber guns for breakfast. With the greater acceptance of the notion that the current 9mm food delivers good terminal performance, those 1911's too are going away. It's been very interesting to watch - in ten years, it went from being THE prestige duty gun to "You guys are still carrying that old thing??"
In a one-pistol environment where you're shooting your own gun on your own timetable and replacing stuff when the quirks dictate, the .40 is probably as good a lump of lead as any. On an institutional scale of feeding, training with, and fixing hundreds of them, it was Hellspawn. I miss it not. As Curly Bill Brocious so eloquently put it, "Well. . .bye".[smilie=s:
Bigslug your comment is spot on if you ignore the pistols that are designed first for the 40 cal eg the M&P and then are chambered for the 9MM. There are others set out earlier on this thread.
Take Care
Bob
Lloyd,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale
I get plenty of range time and not just sitting around BS'ing with buddies. Like you, I have a private range. I can handle a .40 but not as well as the 9mm. I took the 4 day Handgun Course at Front Sight and scored "Distinguished' (only 3% make that cut) the first time out. The difference between these calibers is in follow up shots and/or dealing with multiple threats.
The carry ammunition I have for the 9mm and .40 has the same penetration in ballistic gell but the .40 hits with about 70 ft-lbs (20%) more energy. With a round in the thorax, ocular cavity, etc...that added energy is moot. I value faster and higher accuracy hits more than added energy. At 71, and with arthritis in one hand, "learning" to shoot a more powerful SD gun is not a good long term plan. I will be happy to stay with my "girly gun" for a few more years...LOL
Many years ago I tried a friend's .40 Glock with factory ammo. I had been shooting a 1911 almost exclusively during that time. I found the recoil impulse harsh and unpleasant. It wasn't so much that the gun bucked in my hand as the sharp crack it made. Probably the much higher pressure in a light weight pistol. Never shot one since.
Another fun fact of running the .40 in a mixed-caliber environment:
There ain't no mistaking a 9mm for a .45, but 9mm's can find themselves loaded into .40's and .40's into .45's with alarming regularity. Thus far, the 9mm-into-.40 loadings I've seen have resulted in the extractor managing to hang onto the round and fire it, resulting in a blown out case, no accuracy, no damage to the gun, and a need to manually cycle out the ruptured case. The .40-into-1911 can easily result in the round jumping the extractor, where HOPEFULLY it just falls through the bore, but I've seen it result in "Click-tap-rack-BOOM!" and a bulged barrel.
I guess you could call it the "Unhappy Medium":shock:
I think Mr. Smale is spot on.
Funny I have seen 9mm fired through a 40 no blown case bulged yes as there is a decreased amount of pressure , so it is not the rounds fault you load wrong one in magazine , but you keep trying to find a reason why there should not be this caliber .
So curly bill was bye if I remember the story , and if you do not like it who cares ? not I , shoot what you want , lots of calibers out there and the 9mm and 380 are the 2 worst for mixing up not the 40 .
So with the 380 you should have your ideal caliber other then the mix up with 9mm , softer recoil and probably better newer loading easier to handle no tiring out your wrists , heck you can carry a bigger load of ammo win win for the 380 and 9mm .
OK--I AM NOT arguing with Bigslug. We have known each other for years, and there is much overlap in our fields of experience. I have always been surprised at the wide range of opinions concerning the 40 S&W, though.
Bigslug had to keep a fleet of firearms running, and I defer to his far deeper experience in that venue than my own. Yeah, 40 S&Ws are high-performance items. I haven't had the maintenance issues with mine (Beretta 96, CZ-75B, Glock 22, 23) that he describes, but our ammo isn't at the extreme end of the performance scale, either--it's Ranger SXT/now called Winchester White Box 180 grain JHP, and these clock about 925-950 FPS depending upon barrel length. I reload practice ammo that duplicates those ballistics, too.
One other hat I wore was as a crimes-against-persons investigator, which included aggravated assaults and homicides. Tell ya what--whether cops or citizens or crooks fired the shots, the 40 S&W and 45 ACP put the wound recipient's status into STOPPED in short order and without a lot of rounds required to transmit the concept. I saw enough evidence of these traits in trauma rooms and autopsy suites to convince me that the 40 S&W or 45 ACP were my first choices as felon repellent, and that if a 9mm was on the menu to be very selective about the ammunition I fed that P-226 and P-228 x 9mm we have at home, when carried in harm's way.
I think most of the problems with the .40 and the guns that shoot it could have been avoided if they reduced the pressure and velocity. A .40 caliber 180 grain slug is going to get the job done at lower velocity by means of weight and diameter, just like the blackpowder .38-40, .44-40, .45 Colt and .44 Russian did. It wouldn't be a problem to design a bullet that consistently expands at lower velocity, although I don't think expansion is really needed for this round.
Don i have more 9s then any other caliber. I dont have a sore spot for 9s. Matter of fact they've about replaced my 22lr plinking time. I can load a cast bullet in a 9 and shoot darned near as cheap as a 22. Ive even got two ar15s in 9mm. But I do shake my head at the people who think the recoil is to much. They sure cant have to many handguns as even a 357 or 45acp kicks more. I also laugh at the "with the new high tech bullets the 9 is just as effective as the 40" News flash. the same bullets can be bought for the 40. My point is if i was ever faced with having to use my gun to protect myself for my family id sure prefer that day to have a 40 or 45 on my hip over a 9. Guess what else makes me kind of shake my head is this is a cast bullet forum. A place where id think most are beyond the 50 rounds a month bunch. I have to wonder what the heck there shooting? I know theres a few hypocrites in this argument because ive seen them post about there 41 and 44 mags. The 9 is what it is. Basicaly a 38 special that fits in a semi auto. Theres nothing magic about it. The 40? just a semi auto 38/40 and you dont see many saying they kick to much. Some say the report is to loud. I dont know i wear hearing protection. With proper hearing protection my ears dont ring with even a 454! If you truely have physical limitations i can see it. But your talking a 20 percent difference in killing power being moot? I say the small difference in recoil is moot. By the way add 20 percent to a 308 shooting a 150 and your talking 300 Weatherby power. Hardly a moot difference. I just wish you could step up to a 300wby with the same difference in recoil as comparing a 9 to a 40. Id have to ask some of you too if you own a 12 gauge?:popcorn: or if you are now relegated to a 410. What do you hunt deer with??? What do you cast for?? Another question. What kind of 9mm do you carry. I can tell you flat out my glock 43 or my shields or the wifes lc9 in 9 kick every bit as much as my 22 or 23 40s do. My springfield emp 40 is as small as those 9s and probably kicks less. But its a quite a bit heavier. But it kind of takes away the rubber stamp some us claiming the 40 is to much. Just a change in gun platforms change the whole story. Even compare my 9mm shields to my old 40 shield my son in law claimed on me. It was a performance center gun that was ported and didnt kick anymore then a 9mm. Bottom line is it would sure get boring if all i could handle is a 9mm or 38 special. Guns safe would sure have more room in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dverna
ding ding ding!!! Give that man a STAR! Raise your hand if your on this forum and are not a handloader!! Pretty easy to back off a grain or two or even more for plinking and practice and buying a box of factory full power 40s for carry. Heck i shot the crap out of my #1 458 mag for the 3 years i had it. In that time a few thousand rounds conservatively. At least 90 percent of it with reduced loads and cast bullets. Do you think every time i take a 454 475 500 or even a 44 mag or 41 mag out im using full power loads????Quote:
Originally Posted by FergusonTO35
I could be wrong but at the start of the ammo shortage there was still plenty of 40 on the shelves. For some reason it is not as popular as 9mm or .45. When I used to scrounge brass at gravel pits I seldom saw many .40's. I've no doubt it's a great defensive round. I should shoot one again sometime. Problem is, none of my buddies owns one. And I don't need another handgun caliber. I just picked up a gen 5 G34 mos and it shoots my powder coated 124 gr. @ 1,100 fps just great.
Lloyd,
We are not disagreeing as much as you may think. If someone can shoot the .40 as well as the 9mm it would be silly not to use the more powerful round. In my case, I have shot both enough to determine the 9mm gives me more accurate shots and faster follow up shots. It is not a small difference. I have seen the difference in groups and on the timer.
As to comparing a 20% energy difference in a pistol round to a .30 cal centerfire that is not germane. We are comparing 350 vs 420 ft-lbs in a pistol...70 ft-lbs. A 20% difference in a rifle will be closer to 500 ft-lb. I doubt hitting 200 lb animal (two or four legged) with bullet that has 70 ft-lb more energy is doing to matter much...but a 500 ft-lb difference seems significant.
As to which gun I carry, there are two. One is a Glock 22 with the 9mm barrel and the other is a Kahr 9mm. BTW I also have a Kahr in .40 but it is not pleasant to shoot and have never carried it. I bought it so I would have the same ammunition as the Glock 22 when I was planning to carry a .40.
I have the new fangled "whiz-bang super effective" bullets for both the 9mm and .40. They both penetrate to 16-18" and should be effective.
There is one last factor in why the 9mm. My fiancé cannot handle the .40 very well. I could have equipped her with 9mm guns and stayed with the .40 for myself but if/when the SHTF I want one platform. It is too easy to mix up 9mm and .40 mags. There is also the mental issue of her thinking she is shooting a less effective gun than I am, and that would effect her confidence. She is a very good pistol shot but more sensitive to recoil than I am. I am 50% heavier than she is...and that 50% is NOT moot...LOL.
It's a valid premise, and it cuts to the core of why I'm such an ardent .40-basher in the first place. There's enough mass and energy potential in the .40 IF YOU USE IT RIGHT, and the designers of the round really didn't. The .40 grew out of an era with lots of obsession over foot pounds and energy transfer which were both largely debunked by the time the .40 was just starting to stock the shelves. That's certainly why it commonly gets loaded at "Formula 1 compression ratios" with bullets that open very large for their starting diameter. The standard training and duty loads we used were 180 grains at about 1000 fps. They would have done very well with 900fps and a little bit less expansion on the bullet to improve the penetration - slightly - to get it up into the deeper half of the FBI's "ideal" 12-18" range. The .45 bullets could do with a bit of the same treatment - the .90 to 1.0 caliber mushrooms are impressive to look at, but they aren't very deep divers.Quote:
Originally Posted by FergusonTO35
The irony here is that has them all ending up at about the same place. All three cartridges as they currently exist are delivering something close enough to 400 foot pounds as makes no difference (if you're into that), and all three of them in FMJ format can penetrate A LOT more than we need them to - plenty of energy to manipulate to our liking. A series of well-engineered duty loads for the trio would expand to between .65 and .85 caliber, and stop in about 15"-17" inches of bare gel.
My gripe with the .40 as it has been loaded (and many of the guns it was loaded in) is that it accelerates the wear and compromises reliability of equipment sooner without bringing anything extra of use to the party. Never mind the bashing and whiplashing on the "hard parts" - if you have to keep changing recoil and mag springs just to keep the timing of round feed workable (especially considering varying sizes of shooters or their grip on the gun being compromised by the situation), while the 9mm versions of the same stay in tolerance and keep chugging on practically forever, the system needs some help.
Due to the foot-pounds/energy-transfer mania of the late 1980's, the designers of the .40 were trying for 10mm Minus P, and we're now coming around to the conclusion that we'd not experience any terminal performance loss by using a properly constructed "10mm Double-Minus P". We're also realizing that we'd be picking up some significant benefits in shooter performance and weapon longevity as well. That this cartridge already exists in the form of the modern 147 grain 9mm duty load is the reason for the .40's current decline - mainly on an institutional scale, but the commercial side is following.
Now, all that said, making the above adjustments to the .40 bullet designs and pressure levels would be a GREAT move for anybody that's retaining a stake in the round. The reality is that we're seeing fewer new guns made for it (ESPECIALLY in compacts), discontinuance of some of the old, and dialing back of spare parts production for that which is out there. Beating your guns up with the ammo concepts of yesteryear makes little sense. Might be worth lobbying the ammo companies to see reason.
Along similar lines, it might be worth lobbying the various action pistol competition disciplines that "making major" to maintain differentiation between the "more effective" .45 and the "less effective" 9mm is an outmoded concept. It may need to be adjusted somewhat to ensure the game is played with tactically-effective power levels and keep out the gamers with their muzzle-braked .22 Shorts, but as it has been traditionally measured, it only really matters to the bowling pin guys.
Lloyd you can back off a tenth of a grain or two but not two grains. The Max/Min charge for both the 9MM and 40cal in the Hogdon Reloading site is less than 1 grain for the 125 and 180 grain bullets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale
Your point is well taken on the face of it load lighter for less recoil. You can also load heavier for caliber bullets to reduce felt recoil significantly. Folks up here are loading 158 gr bullets into their 9MM guns to shoot steel matches. They play with lighter recoil springs and the search goes on. I can't be bothered frankly. At 76 I am happy now to finish mid pack at local matches and I am good with that. I have to many friends who now shoot on Heavens range to concern myself with wood on the walls.
I do think though even loading at the lighter end of the 40 cal still results in a snappy loads. As a noted English Judge wrote several centuries ago you cannot put yourself in the place of the accused when assessing self defense. ..so to the effect on recoil on an individual. Personally for handgun, full charges of Ruger only in the 45Colt are not going to be felt by me anymore. If 8 gr of Unique won't do the job at hand in 45 Colt I need a rifle or a shotgun with slugs. With new shoulders I still enjoy 12 gauge trap loads but 3" steel not so much. I still bang away with my Longbranch but would avoid a light carbine in 30-06. Different strokes for different folks. As the song says, "Walk a mile in my shoes...."
Take Care
Bob
now finally a valid argument. Like you said we are not all that far apart. I have a car truck and jeep. All of them have both a 9mm smith shield and some kind of a 9mm carbine in them. Like is said im not a 9mm basher and use them myself. It just that I find that most who cant handle a caliber bash it rather then admit its there weakness not the gun or round. Like I said the real comical thing is we will have someone on a fourm like this bash the 40 horrendous[smilie=1: recoil to make himself look like hes knowlegable and turn around a week from now and brag on his 44 mag.Quote:
There is one last factor in why the 9mm. My fiancé cannot handle the .40 very well. I could have equipped her with 9mm guns and stayed with the .40 for myself but if/when the SHTF I want one platform.
Or you get the pretenders who talk about shooting more then they shoot and probably flinch shooting a 22lr. But the first category is the most prevalent. Typical guy who hunts deer once a year and bashes someone using a 7mag because he cant handle it. I shouldnt even say CANT. Its more like wont put in the time to find out it actually doesnt cause physical pain or injurys. Nope instead its easier for them to call someone who does use one and has mastered it a macho ape.
Then some of them go so far as to try to claim a 223 is a valid deer rifle. Now given a choice as to who to call an idiot. A deer hunter with a 7 mag or a deer hunter with a 223 i sure know what side im on. Id also bet my life if everyone here was honest that if there daughter was being attacked and they only had one shot to stop the guy wouldnt throw the recoil argument in the trash and grab a 44 mag!! Me if someone wants to harm me or my family i cant think of any gun that i would consider to powerful. Obviously carrying a 44 mag isnt ideal in many circumstances. But something like a smith shield in 40 or 45 is just as easy to carry as a 9. Now you can post numbers and stats all you want but if im faced with a bad guy with a gun id much rather send a 200 grain 45 cal hp at him then a 120 grain 9mm bullet.
If that makes me a macho ape then i wear the title proudly. Somehow i dont think when its all over im going to think back and remember that gun kicked to much. Yup i carry a 9 on occasion. I even carry 380s when my clothes will only allow it. Heck I even stick an naa 22 lr in my pocket when i walk the dog. But if i knew i was going into someplace that could get dangerous fast and there was a 9mm and an identical gun in 40 sitting there to choose. the 40 would be a no brainer. But your argument about arming yourself and your wife with the same thing is valid. I just take it a step further and can do it in 9, 40, 45,38, 357. I can even do a pistol and carbine for both of us in any of those calibers except 38 because my marlin 357s dont run 38s well.
By the way my wifes two guns are a 22lr naa she carrys in her purse everyday and a LCP 9mm muddy girl pink camo embarrassment of a gun she picked out for herself. So like i said I like them all. Same with deer guns. I have 18 differnt caliber rifles i use for deer and 3 more if you count ars. Everything from pop gun 300 bo's to high velocity flat shooter like my 6.5-300wby to thumpers like 4570s and 444s. I even killed one deer with my old 458 mag #1 i no long own. Guess that makes me king of the apes. Or maybe someone that just loves guns. ALL OF THEM. Bottom line is I feel sorry for those who cant even handle a 40. It would sure make being a gun nut awful boring if the biggest semi auto i could handle is a 9 and that would make the 38 special the biggest revolver. Id probably have to sell my challenger too because only a macho guy needs more then a prius too.:kidding:
Lloyd the argument has been made throughout this thread. You finally got it,k congrats!
Take Care
Bob
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale