I don’t have anything against the .40
What have you got against the fo-tay? Nothing. It’s a decent cartridge. It’s that its improvements over the 9 are not worth the cost and the recoil and the reduction in magazine capacity. It’s a gamer cartridge and those that run the games (cough IDPA IPSC cough) insist it is.
And I’ve owned more 22LRs that were handguns than rifles.
September 10th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
I think the .40 is an excellent training tool – learn to shoot it in a nice light Glock and everything else (well, maybe not 44 mag or 500 S&W) is easy (er).
September 10th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
What I have never understood about the 40 is why it has a flat nose.
It’s been my experience that the flat nose makes it more succeptible to jamming.
September 10th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
I think you meant USPSA, not IDPA.
Their bigoted attitude towards 9mm is partly why I shoot the latter, not the former.
September 11th, 2013 at 3:03 am
Hey, almost nobody is shooting .41 Mag in Revolvers anymore, and there has to be a compromise caliber that true believers can say they liked before it was cool.
September 11th, 2013 at 7:14 am
Yep I have like 5 .22 handguns and only one .22 rifle.
Also the .40 S&W flat-point design is to mimick a JHP profile, in the idea that if it can’t feed those it isn’t much of a modern gun.
September 11th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
You also forgot how much wear and tear 40 puts on the weapon, too. There’s a reason 40 glocks go kaboom and 9mm glocks rarely do.