[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why 40 instead of 45 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/20/2011 6:45:04 PM EDT
|
I bought a Glock 22, used it, sold. Got a Glock 17, love it.
Then...I entered handgun heaven and bought a SA 1911 45. It is a LOT easier to shoot than my Glock 40 ever was. Way less felt recoil and muzzle flip. Which left me wondering....why bother with 40? Why not just use a Glock 45, if you are a Glock person? Ammo price: about the same. Felt recoil: I can't tell the difference between my 45 and my Glock 40. Stopping power: 45 is the king here. So, why bother with 40? If they wanted to give people more power than a 9mm or 10mm, why monkey around with 40? Why not go right to 45? I'm not looking to start a flame war, but am looking for reasonable, defensible, rational responses. Thanks. |
|
I know what you mean. I have an XD-40...and a few 1911's. I XD-40 has a much snappier recoil with more muzzle flip than the .45acp does. Not sure as to "why"....probably just to have another option out there I guess. When you look at all of the different calibers and cartridges out there....I don't think there is a really good reason as to why....just because :)
|
| The weight of your 1911 will be why you have less felt recoil. When I shoot my 1911's then shoot an USP 45 I can totally feel the difference. Same round, different gun, key here is one is steel and one is plastic. Having shot a Glock in 40 and my old USP in 45, I'll tell you the USP kicked more. |
|
Quoted: Sorry, are you saying 40 is cheaper than 45 Absolutely. Both here in Idaho and in California. By a significant amount. Quoted: and has better ballistics and barrier penetration than 45? .40 has much better hard barrier penetration and resistance to deflection than .45. Deflecting off of windshields is one of the reasons LE does not use it nearly as much. Nearly a century ago, LE was complaining about its ability to penetrate car bodies; that was what birthed the .38 Super. Quoted: Thinner pistol? Really? Of course. Compare any .40 double stack pistol to a comparable double stack .45. Glock 22 to a Glock 21 for example. |
|
Quoted:
The weight of your 1911 will be why you have less felt recoil. When I shoot my 1911's then shoot an USP 45 I can totally feel the difference. Same round, different gun, key here is one is steel and one is plastic. Having shot a Glock in 40 and my old USP in 45, I'll tell you the USP kicked more. Yes, even for the same model in different calibers, the weight may not be the same. For example I have P2000s in 9mm and .40. There is a lot more metal machined out of the 9mm slide, so the .40 is a little heavier and the recoil feels about the same. A better match in an HK would be an HK45. Feels a lot more like a 1911 due to the weight of the slide. My friend has one and I love to shoot it. Is on my "to buy" list. |
|
Quoted:
I bought a Glock 22, used it, sold. Got a Glock 17, love it. Then...I entered handgun heaven and bought a SA 1911 45. It is a LOT easier to shoot than my Glock 40 ever was. Way less felt recoil and muzzle flip. Which left me wondering....why bother with 40? Why not just use a Glock 45, if you are a Glock person? Ammo price: about the same. Felt recoil: I can't tell the difference between my 45 and my Glock 40. Stopping power: 45 is the king here. So, why bother with 40? If they wanted to give people more power than a 9mm or 10mm, why monkey around with 40? Why not go right to 45? I'm not looking to start a flame war, but am looking for reasonable, defensible, rational responses. Thanks. 10mm has more power then 9,40, and 45...fyi... |
| In my case, the XD45 hadn't been released yet, so I went with the next largest round. Then I had to buy a accompanying sub-compact. Then I was pretty deep in 40S&W, so what was another pistol or two in the same caliber. I have no doubts about the effectiveness of 180gr HST, and what it will do to the BG and barriers in the way of that same BG. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I was going to respond point by point, but there is so much fail going in the OP's remarks, it's not worth it. He's been suckered into 40. 'nuff said. You are the OP. 
If you mean me, disprove anything I've posted. He can't because you are correct in each of your assertions. Unless he wants to argue over "stopping power" with you. 
Seriously, I carry a .40 because of the capacity advantage it holds over my full size .45s. 16 rounds of .40 versus 9 rounds of .45ACP; it's virtually double the capacity which seals the deal for me. .45 ACP is my favorite pistol round; but IMO, .40 has it beat for use in a fighting pistol. |
|
Quoted:
I bought a Glock 22, used it, sold. Got a Glock 17, love it. Then...I entered handgun heaven and bought a SA 1911 45. It is a LOT easier to shoot than my Glock 40 ever was. Way less felt recoil and muzzle flip. Which left me wondering....why bother with 40? Why not just use a Glock 45, if you are a Glock person? Ammo price: about the same. Felt recoil: I can't tell the difference between my 45 and my Glock 40. Stopping power: 45 is the king here. So, why bother with 40? If they wanted to give people more power than a 9mm or 10mm, why monkey around with 40? Why not go right to 45? I'm not looking to start a flame war, but am looking for reasonable, defensible, rational responses. Thanks. Do you actually believe that .45ACP is more powerful than 10MM? |
| Extra capacity, most likely the .40 has plenty of power and is a bit different caliber (not as common) so the fun factor is up i suppose. Personally I would rather carry a .40 if it held a round or two more than the .45..... Either one (IMO) is a definite man stopper. I stick to 9mm thought because it is cheaper to shoot. I have a G27 and a G26... cant shoot either worth a piss compared to a good 1911 but the G27 does recoil quite a bit more (as it should). |
|
.45+P > .40
.40 does not make a bigger wound channel than 9mm (as seen in my data below, they expand to the same size). My opinion is 9mm or .45+P, take your pick as both have their advantages. Check this out - http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx Compare the 147GR 9MM to the 180GR .40 to .45ACP+P. I think you may be a bit suprised with the results, these FACTS are the reason that I am not a fan of .40 - I find it to be a useless caliber. ETA: Also, stopping power is essentially a fallacy - it is all about shot placement, so this stopping power and one shot stop BS needs to end. I don't really care to elaborate, as about 5 minutes on google will provide you with more information than you care to read. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I was going to respond point by point, but there is so much fail going in the OP's remarks, it's not worth it. He's been suckered into 40. 'nuff said. You are the OP.
If you mean me, disprove anything I've posted. He can't because you are correct in each of your assertions. Unless he wants to argue over "stopping power" with you.
Seriously, I carry a .40 because of the capacity advantage it holds over my full size .45s. 16 rounds of .40 versus 9 rounds of .45ACP; it's virtually double the capacity which seals the deal for me. .45 ACP is my favorite pistol round; but IMO, .40 has it beat for use in a fighting pistol. +1 to GLOCKREAPER's correctness and the advantages that the .40 has. |
| Yeah there is a reason I don't have any .40S&W caliber pistols anymore. I much prefer 9mm and .45acp over the .40S&W caliber. There was a time when the .40S&W caliber was a good idea, but I feel that time has now passed with better 9mm hollowpoints and hi-cap .45acp pistols like the FNP-45. |
| Biggest advantage is increased capacity, IMO. My personal preference is 45ACP. I just like the way the recoil, to me, is kind of like a push. Recoil on the 40 is snappy in comparison. I realize that is very subjective and certainly, if I shot 40 a lot, I am sure it would start to feel more natural. I shoot Glock and 1911 in 45ACP because I like the round and it is an effective pistol caliber. I think the 40 is definitely a viable option as well though. To each his own. |
| I actually like the .40. I have a 9mm but it sits in the safe while my G23 goes to work with me and after tomorrow my G27 will be my CCW. For some reason I prefer the recoil of .40 to 9mm. I'm weird I guess. If 9mm is equal or better than .40, why does most LE use .40? Just a question, not trying to insinuate that anybody is wrong. |
|
Quoted:
I bought a Glock 22, used it, sold. Got a Glock 17, love it. Then...I entered handgun heaven and bought a SA 1911 45. It is a LOT easier to shoot than my Glock 40 ever was. Way less felt recoil and muzzle flip. Which left me wondering....why bother with 40? Why not just use a Glock 45, if you are a Glock person? Ammo price: about the same. Felt recoil: I can't tell the difference between my 45 and my Glock 40. Stopping power: 45 is the king here. So, why bother with 40? If they wanted to give people more power than a 9mm or 10mm, why monkey around with 40? Why not go right to 45? I'm not looking to start a flame war, but am looking for reasonable, defensible, rational responses. Thanks. The 45 acp is a great combat cartridge but it is slow and has the flight path of a rock. If you use one autopistol for numerous tasks I think the 40 does a lot of things real well. I really don't see recoil being an issue with any of the common autopistol chamberings. The 40 ammunition is much cheaper as well as more plentiful in this area. Some of the full size 45s are very large, some not so bad.
|
|
Quoted:
Why did most LE go from 9mm to .40 if it holds no advantages? Because back during its inception in 1990, it did hold an advantage. But 20 years ago, ammunition technology was different than it is today thus making .40 a viable option. Now with technology improvements and the vast array of rounds available for 10mm, it seems to be that the spectrum of ammunition to be considered is covered by 9mm, .45ACP+P and finally 10mm. Check out my post on the last page. Expansion sizes and barrier penetration are virtutally the same between 9mm and .40. Differences are minute at best, except the .40 has less capacity and nearly twice the recoil - so, 9mm is the obvious choice to me. |
|
Quoted:
.45+P > .40 .40 does not make a bigger wound channel than 9mm (as seen in my data below, they expand to the same size). My opinion is 9mm or .45+P, take your pick as both have their advantages. Check this out - http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx Compare the 147GR 9MM to the 180GR .40 to .45ACP+P. I think you may be a bit suprised with the results, these FACTS are the reason that I am not a fan of .40 - I find it to be a useless caliber. ETA: Also, stopping power is essentially a fallacy - it is all about shot placement, so this stopping power and one shot stop BS needs to end. I don't really care to elaborate, as about 5 minutes on google will provide you with more information than you care to read. I see no 40 180 comparssion in that link. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
.45+P > .40 .40 does not make a bigger wound channel than 9mm (as seen in my data below, they expand to the same size). My opinion is 9mm or .45+P, take your pick as both have their advantages. Check this out - http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx Compare the 147GR 9MM to the 180GR .40 to .45ACP+P. I think you may be a bit suprised with the results, these FACTS are the reason that I am not a fan of .40 - I find it to be a useless caliber. ETA: Also, stopping power is essentially a fallacy - it is all about shot placement, so this stopping power and one shot stop BS needs to end. I don't really care to elaborate, as about 5 minutes on google will provide you with more information than you care to read. I see no 40 180 comparssion in that link. It's there, look harder. There are two different "T" series for .40, 165 and 180... 180 is the first "40 Cal. T-Series". Also make sure you scroll to the right when you make the comparison to view the other parameters that Winchester tested. |
|
Quoted:
Equal, or higher capacity in a significantly smaller, thinner and lighter pistol. Much less expensive ammunition; both target and SD loads. Superior external ballistics and barrier penetration. To name a few advantages... Um, no its not. I would also feel safe enough carrying a 45with ball ammo if need be, not that its preferred. |
|
well, some view .40 as a compromise between mag capacity and a bigger hole. I would say 9 is the best. 2x capacity in similar frame to a single stack 45, same penetration, bullet size doesnt matter much, a .7" hole in the heart will drop someone the same as a 1" hole.
.40 performes better than 9 through auto glass, but you still get more capacity than .45, which is why a lot of police use .40. I prefer 9mm, but have a .40 cause they dont make the gun I want in 9mm  . Its all preference to what you want. All perform similar. Recoil of 40 is ussually snappier as you said.
Kimbertle45, the hst 9mm open up to .7" and the .40 hst opens up to .8". There were publications of police agency testings from around the country posted not too long ago. Now will that make a difference? probably not. I dont think .3" diameter matters either since people who research these things say more holes> hole size. However, .40 will perform better through auto glass. That is an advantage, especially for LEOs, however for civies, I would thing capacity is more important. as for price, I see 9mm for $10/50, .40 for $13/50, and .45 for $16/50.(target ammo) |
| the only pro-.40 argument that survives the 1990s is relatively cheaper costs. modern JHP makes 9mm as good or likely a better alternative to . 45 for the weight/recoil/capacity crowd. Anybody who cites .40 as the "fighting gun" loses persuasiveness as the REAL choice is 10mm in all respects but ammo cost. .40 is a perfectly adequate choice, but it is rarely if ever the better choice, as 9mm, .45, and 10mm are ALL superior to .40 in one respect or another. |
|
Quoted:
the only pro-.40 argument that survives the 1990s is relatively cheaper costs. modern JHP makes 9mm as good or likely a better alternative to . 45 for the weight/recoil/capacity crowd. Anybody who cites .40 as the "fighting gun" loses persuasiveness as the REAL choice is 10mm in all respects but ammo cost. .40 is a perfectly adequate choice, but it is rarely if ever the better choice, as 9mm, .45, and 10mm are ALL superior to .40 in one respect or another. Eh, whatever. Thankfully i could give a shit about my "persuasivness". There are NUMEROUS Federal Agencies with extensive ballistic testing that say you are wrong, and thier pick for a fighting gun is .40 Then there is ammo selection. Yes, you can get 9mm ammo that performs almost as well as .40. However, here is the flip side of that argument. You have to be extremely selective and careful picking a 9mm load to equal the performance of a .40. If you pick the .40 from the start, you have to look real hard to find a load that isn't a good one. |
|
Quoted:
well, some view .40 as a compromise between mag capacity and a bigger hole. I would say 9 is the best. 2x capacity in similar frame to a single stack 45, same penetration, bullet size doesnt matter much, a .7" hole in the heart will drop someone the same as a 1" hole. .40 performes better than 9 through auto glass, but you still get more capacity than .45, which is why a lot of police use .40. I prefer 9mm, but have a .40 cause they dont make the gun I want in 9mm . Its all preference to what you want. All perform similar. Recoil of 40 is ussually snappier as you said.
Kimbertle45, the hst 9mm open up to .7" and the .40 hst opens up to .8". There were publications of police agency testings from around the country posted not too long ago. Now will that make a difference? probably not. I dont think .3" diameter matters either since people who research these things say more holes> hole size. However, .40 will perform better through auto glass. That is an advantage, especially for LEOs, however for civies, I would thing capacity is more important.as for price, I see 9mm for $10/50, .40 for $13/50, and .45 for $16/50.(target ammo) The difference is negligible as seen in my data; 50% less recoil and additional capacity (as you said yourself) trump an inch or two of penetration and if that is the main concern, why not go 10mm? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the only pro-.40 argument that survives the 1990s is relatively cheaper costs. modern JHP makes 9mm as good or likely a better alternative to . 45 for the weight/recoil/capacity crowd. Anybody who cites .40 as the "fighting gun" loses persuasiveness as the REAL choice is 10mm in all respects but ammo cost. .40 is a perfectly adequate choice, but it is rarely if ever the better choice, as 9mm, .45, and 10mm are ALL superior to .40 in one respect or another. Eh, whatever. Thankfully i could give a shit about my "persuasivness". There are NUMEROUS Federal Agencies with extensive ballistic testing that say you are wrong, and thier pick for a fighting gun is .40 Then there is ammo selection. Yes, you can get 9mm ammo that performs almost as well as .40. However, here is the flip side of that argument. You have to be extremely selective and careful picking a 9mm load to equal the performance of a .40. If you pick the .40 from the start, you have to look real hard to find a load that isn't a good one. What significant extensive ballistics research has any of those federal agencies done since the .40's inception nearly 22 years ago? The selectiveness agrument is grasping at straws. I have the right ammo and I can get it regularly. |
|
I personally have no use for .40. With advancements in +P 9mm ammo (Fed HST, Ranger, et al) the ballistic gap is nearly closed. Most hanguns accommodate approx 20-25% more capacity in 9mm vs .40.
Furthermore, I find consistently that I just cannot shoot the .40 as accurately, given similar terminally effective loads over the 9mm in similar weapons. Greater recoil, and "flash and bang". Recoil is often a unique "torquing recoil" as well. I'll go so far as to say I really wouldn't miss .45 at all, and am down to one weapon in that chambering. Stoked with HST's in +P flavor... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Equal, or higher capacity in a significantly smaller, thinner and lighter pistol. Much less expensive ammunition; both target and SD loads. Superior external ballistics and barrier penetration. To name a few advantages... Um, no its not. I would also feel safe enough carrying a 45with ball ammo if need be, not that its preferred. It certainly is here, and it was in CA too. |
| In my opinion, carry what you feel comfortable with! I own pistols in 9mm, .38spl, .40 and .45. I carry my 9mm because I train frequently with that round, and I know its poa/poi from 1 to 50 yards. Don't you dare carry anything anyone on the internet tells you. Also, a single pistol round won't do the job (no matter the caliber), unless of course, you're playing a videogame with an aimbot. |
|
Quoted: What significant extensive ballistics research has any of those federal agencies done since the .40's inception nearly 22 years ago? In 2007 the FBI conducted an extensive ballistic test for a new service load. They adopted the .40 180gr. Winchester PDX1/Ranger Bonded. The only 9mm load they approved and bought was the 147gr. Winchester PDX1/Ranger Bonded. |
|
Quoted:
Eh, whatever. Thankfully i could give a shit about my "persuasivness". There are NUMEROUS Federal Agencies with extensive ballistic testing that say you are wrong, and thier pick for a fighting gun is .40 I used the word "persuasive" because it is more political than "foolish", which may be somewhat far. I have no ambition to convince someone with an investment in a platform that it's inferior. People don't listen to these arguments, right or wrong. In terms of your "fighting gun" nonsense, the tests concluded that the ideal round was a 10mm, with the FBI. Unfortunately, the "fighters" lacked the fortitude to wield it. So the bottom line is that .40 is a compromise, inferior to 10mm for a "fighting gun". Whether you give a damn is of no relevance or importance. If .40 was introduced 20 years later than it was with the now obsolete ammo choices of the 80s-90s, it would be .45 GAP all over again...an adequate but inferior solution to a problem addressed by 3 better calibers. |
|
You know how I know you guys are wrong? You're using a FEDERAL agency's opinion for self defense. Stop bickering and get it through your head, pistol calibers aren't fight stoppers without multiple shot's, no matter what the caliber is.
If the FBI said a wooden stick was acceptable ballisticly, would you hurry on up and sell off all your firearms and start sharpening sticks? |
|
Quoted: In terms of your "fighting gun" nonsense, the tests concluded that the ideal round was a 10mm, with the FBI. Unfortunately, the "fighters" lacked the fortitude to wield it. So the bottom line is that .40 is a compromise, inferior to 10mm for a "fighting gun". That is a common misconception. The FBI's 10mm load was always a 180gr. bullet at 995fps. It was found that you could duplicate that load in a cartridge sized to fit 9mm sized guns instead of .45 sized ones. The modern FBI .40 load is more powerful than their 10mm load with a 180gr. bullet at 1,025fps from their 4" Glock 23's. |