Friday, May 26, 2017

The .40 S&W Debate Just Got Ridiculous

Just saw an article at AmmoLand entitled ". 40 S&W : Is It Still A Good Ammunition Round?" The article is not as bad as the title suggests, but it also does not address the point which is: nobody has said that the .40 S&W is a poor defensive round. No one (at least that I've seen) is even saying that it doesn't deliver (slightly) better ballistics than the 9 mm. Rather, the issue is--especially with modern hollow-point bullets--that the difference in performance between 9 mm and .40 S&W is so negligible that the advantages of .40 S&W don't outweigh its disadvantages, which are more recoil, generally a slightly larger and/or heavier weapon, more expensive ammunition, and, generally, lower magazine capacity.

If you have a .40 S&W and like it, then keep it. If you want a .40 S&W--for whatever reason, whether that they are currently very cheap on the used market, you feel that whatever caliber you use should start with a "4" or you want the (slight) edge on penetration that it provides--then get it. But if you are looking to purchase a handgun and are on the fence between .40 S&W or 9 mm, my recommendation is to go for the lower recoil and lower ammunition cost of the 9 mm.

2 comments:

  1. The 9 mm versus .45 ACP has been debated with religious fervor for decades. Why not make it a three-way debate by adding .40 S&W?

    Personally, I like 9 mm because of particular firearms that shoot it, higher magazine capacities, near universal availability, and lower cost per round.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want a real debate, you need to include the .357 Sig.

      Delete

Paul Joseph Watson: The Truth About The Baltimore Bridge Collapse

In this video, Paul Joseph Watson points out why some of the conspiracy theories concerning the collapse of the Francis Scott Key bridge in ...