I like the 40 because of the 10mm, buy one kind of bullet and powder easy to reload what’s not looking like.... when all the ammo dried up (9mm 22 556) what was still on the shelves? 40 and I was happy! More for me.
40 vs 45
- Thread starter Flashpoint
- Start date
- Replies 98
- Views 3,533
I’m a 40 guy for job carry. I think it’s a good “compromise” between capacity and oomph. I can’t carry a 1911 on the job and a G21 is too thick for plainclothes wear. I carried a G30 for several years, helluva shooter ! I shoot either caliber comfortably and like either better than 9.
I own 9mm guns for one reason only; cheap ammo. I can feed my 9mms cheaper ammo by far, and I don’t reload pistol ammo (yet) except 44.
I own 9mm guns for one reason only; cheap ammo. I can feed my 9mms cheaper ammo by far, and I don’t reload pistol ammo (yet) except 44.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
As far as I am concerned, .40 isn't a compromise between .45 and 9mm, .40 took .45 out of the contest. You get the same or better velocity in the 180 gr load with more capacity in same size or smaller guns. There is even more energy in the 165 gr loads. There is no reason to pick .45 over .40 as far as I can tell.
9mm is still the higher capacity lower recoil option to either .40 or .45, .40 doesn't replace 9mm.
9mm is still the higher capacity lower recoil option to either .40 or .45, .40 doesn't replace 9mm.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
The only reason .45 persists is because 1911s are chambered in .45 almost by default.
The British had the stopping power question answered with their Brown Bess musket over 250 years ago.
To wit:
Heavy ball, light charge.
To wit:
Heavy ball, light charge.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
You are correct, 180 is the maximum practical gr for .40 but personally, I have no use for 230gr bullets just like I have no use for .45 acp in semi auto pistols. I am not a slow and heavy advocate and actually prefer the 165s in 40 caliber and 9mm 125 +p, and 185 gr .45 when I was carrying it.
Not saying others who choose it are making a bad choice, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that 230 gr .45 anything is a magic bullet.
Last edited:
Of course not, there is no magic bullet...
Its just realistically, if your going to go go .45 why try to run light for caliber bullets? Its not a .40 ( or 10mm) and never will be. All you do is loose capacity vs .40.
Buuuuut .45 is natively sub sonic, and it uses vastly heavier projos so I'd argue it would be a much better suppressor host choice then most things as it will loose nothing whatsoever in such an application. Except capacity.
Personally I'd argue 10mm takes .40 and .45 out of the running since we can run 220gr all the way down to 135gr bullets, super sonic through sub sonic, suppressed or un suppressed AND either gain capacity vs .45 or retain it vs .40....
Its just vastly more versatile vs 9mm, .40, or .45
But thats just me teasing. 😀 The reality is everything has pros and cons, and .40 was meant as a compromise.
I try not to disregard anything as pointless..... even .40 <_<
( once again, I kid.... 😆 🤣 😂)
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
Of course not, there is no magic bullet...
Its just realistically, if your going to go go .45 why try to run light for caliber bullets? Its not a .40 ( or 10mm) and never will be. All you do is loose capacity vs .40.
Buuuuut .45 is natively sub sonic, and it uses vastly heavier projos so I'd argue it would be a much better suppressor host choice then most things as it will loose nothing whatsoever in such an application. Except capacity.
Personally I'd argue 10mm takes .40 and .45 out of the running since we can run 220gr all the way down to 135gr bullets, super sonic through sub sonic, suppressed or un suppressed AND either gain capacity vs .45 or retain it vs .40....
Its just vastly more versatile vs 9mm, .40, or .45
But thats just me teasing. 😀 The reality is everything has pros and cons, and .40 was meant as a compromise.
More velocity increases energy and expands hollowpoints. It also shoots flatter. In my opinion, 185 was better than 230 in .45 for a time...it may be different now. I agree .40 was meant as a compromise, but I don't feel compromised if I end up with it vs .45 as I find .40 to be equal or better.
I am not a suppressor expert but people who claim to be make a great case why .45 isn't preferable for suppressors either so that came off my list as possible excuses to buy another .45.
Factory .40 and 10mm duty/carry ammo are essentially the same and .40 fits in smaller frame guns so I wouldn't pick 10 over .40 for duty/carry either. I agree, it covers more of the spectrum for a recreational shooter especially if they reload. They don't make any 10mm guns right now that I am crazy about so I bought a magnum revolver instead.
Last edited:
I personally dont care about the 40 vs 45 discussion.
However, I do shoot supressed a lot, read a lot of writings, both publications and forums, concerning shooting supressed. I have never heard or read someome say the part I highlighted.
As I have quite a bit of money tied up in my equipment, I would greatly appreciate hearing why, along with reading any links and references you may have.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
The gist of it is the .45 hole is bigger so less gasses are trapped in the suppressor as well as .45 requires a larger diameter tube (more volume to be specific) to get the same db reduction. From what I have been told 9mm suppressors will typically be more quiet dry. People also say .45 is inherently subsonic but they counter that 147gr 9mm is subsonic by default and many 125 gr loads are also subsonic depending on elevation and temperature.
Last edited:
Wow. Ok.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
I already said I am not a suppressor expert, I don't have a lot of money invested, and am just passing on what I am told. Which part is wrong? Who says .45 is the preferred suppressor caliber? Everyone I ask recommends 9mm in pistol. (not AR pistol)
Last edited:
I’m sure the OP started this as a tongue in cheek thread. But I’m enjoying the read.
I’ve never understood the “40 is dead” movement. I agree that ammo performance has come a long way, but it’s improved across the board; not just 9mm.
I’ve never understood the “40 is dead” movement. I agree that ammo performance has come a long way, but it’s improved across the board; not just 9mm.
See, 185gr .45 acp gets energy by sacrificing mass, where as 147gr 9mm gains mass by sacrificing velocity.
That always struck me as backwards.
Anyway, ballistics is most certainly more then just raw kinetic energy as im sure many, many more studied people here know....
But I've always thought it interesting that 230gr .45, 180gr .40( and 10mm), and if I recall 158gr .357 bullets share a VERY close sectional density.
I note that 147gr 9mm is lighter by 11gr but still, it is somewhat close.
If you sling these at similar velocity you should get similar penetration.... of course of you drive them faster ot slower things change, but if you can drive a 180gr bullet faster then a 230gr, of course your going to gain energy.
NOw modern projectiles provide a vast improvement of how energy is used, across the board. But you cant cheat physics.
Everything can have an application.
That always struck me as backwards.
Anyway, ballistics is most certainly more then just raw kinetic energy as im sure many, many more studied people here know....
But I've always thought it interesting that 230gr .45, 180gr .40( and 10mm), and if I recall 158gr .357 bullets share a VERY close sectional density.
I note that 147gr 9mm is lighter by 11gr but still, it is somewhat close.
If you sling these at similar velocity you should get similar penetration.... of course of you drive them faster ot slower things change, but if you can drive a 180gr bullet faster then a 230gr, of course your going to gain energy.
NOw modern projectiles provide a vast improvement of how energy is used, across the board. But you cant cheat physics.
Everything can have an application.
Nothing you said was inherently incorrect, but you implied the shooting community though a certain way. Something being considered preferable is subjective at best and varies from person to person. I guess I was expecting some links/references to publication or discussions that show a significant portion of the shooting community thought that way.
Using your exact same logic, .22lr is even more preferable to shoot supressed than 9mm and everyone should prefer that. The differences between 22 and 9mm are much more vast than between 9mm vs 45.
So why do so many people still have and shoot 9mm supressed?
Because thats what they subjectively prefer and have rationalized that to themselves.
Murtaugh
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
I didn't intend to speak for the shooting community and it isn't my logic. I am passing on what I have been told by people I know who own/sell/use both 9mm and .45 suppressors and recommend 9mm pistols to suppress for the reasons I listed. Quieter, smaller, lighter, uses cheaper 9mm ammo are all objective measures which lead 9mm to be preferable from what I understand. I have read and watched numerous videos that said similar things but I don't have them catalogued. I don't have the equipment or the money to test it all and come to a conclusion myself.
Again, I am not an expert and have no pride/money invested but the only reason I have seen anyone give to choose .45 over 9mm is the 83 grs extra weight in the .45 bullet. I don't expect to be shooting 230 gr .45s at 1000 fps like with the 147 9mms so I figured the "power" evened out. If you can point me to some reference that states .45 is objectively better for some reason I am all for checking it out.
Using my logic, 22lr is not a suitable defensive round so it never comes up when deciding which defensive pistol caliber is best for suppressor use. Obviously if I am shooting squirrels and need a 22 lr suppressor I just buy the 22 lr suppressor. Objectively, I could see how 22lr suppressors would be more quiet, smaller, and weigh less than 9mm or 45 suppressors.
Arguments about night sights, full length guide rods, 1911s vs everything newer, and point shooting come close but nothing beats caliber wars.
As others have said/alluded to, .40 won't have 1911s to keep it going after all of the leos abandon it. It will linger around like 41 magnum, 32 acp, and 357 SIG
If argue the sheer mass of .40 s&w handguns on the market will likely make it hold on longer... I'd imagine the volume of .357 sig and .41 mag pistols made over their entire existence are a drop in the bucket vs the amount made in .40 s&w. .32 acp l'd imagine would suprise us in over all production numbers but...
Maybe, but I'd wager when they get cheap enough because nobody wants them most will get converted to 9mm.
....like some of the curiosities in .455 getting converted into .45acp and the like from the WW1-WW2 eras.
I could see it. But I bet many will remain in the original caliber too.
Funny to imagine, maybe 100 years from now, someone will be fawning over an "an all original, unconverted Glock 22 in .40 s&w" and excited to finally have one in its orginal caliber 😆
Last edited:
Funny you mention this, I almost bought a Glock 31 for that very reason. I know they are still in production but rarely run across them anymore.
stangs&glocks
Active Member
I mainly carry 9 or 45. I keep a 40 beside the bed. I prefer 45 over 40 just because how snappy 40 is.
Combat Diver
Well-Known Member
Never bought into the .40/10mm cartridge. Had many 9x19mm guns such as BHPs, P08s, Vis35s, HK P7 PSP, CZ75/85s, Walther P1/P4/P38 and Beretta 92s. .45 ACPs were always 1911s 5", 4.25" and 3.5" Been reloading since 84' and set for 9/45 for rest of my live. In the mid bore I've got numerous .41 Magnum guns that I can easily reach those velocities and lot faster and with heavier bullets (270gr/1600 fps/20")
CD
CD
I love shooting .40. It's spicy. Has a lot more snap than a 9mm and is more challenging to shoot fast.
It's also fun to load for. Much more pleasant than loading 9mm, imo. Very flexible.
I needed a .40 for Limited Major division in USPSA. This is the main reason for it's popularity in competition shooting.
You can not use 9mm to achieve major power factor in this division. You must use a caliber .40 or larger.
And you'll crushed using .45 due to lack of capacity....sooooo .40 it is!
But, just sold my .40 Limited gun as I have to move to a geezer optic division due to eyes getting worse. Meh. I like red dots so it's all good. But will miss the thump of the mighty foetie.
It's also fun to load for. Much more pleasant than loading 9mm, imo. Very flexible.
I needed a .40 for Limited Major division in USPSA. This is the main reason for it's popularity in competition shooting.
You can not use 9mm to achieve major power factor in this division. You must use a caliber .40 or larger.
And you'll crushed using .45 due to lack of capacity....sooooo .40 it is!
But, just sold my .40 Limited gun as I have to move to a geezer optic division due to eyes getting worse. Meh. I like red dots so it's all good. But will miss the thump of the mighty foetie.
Come on now...... rub dirt into those hands and quit whining....
Having shot and owned 9, .40, .45
I only moved to 9mm because the rest of the world did and the ammo was cheaper for practice.
Back when .40 was hot, ammo was significantly cheaper overall, though always more than 9mm.
Since this is a caliber debate... .45 does roughly 20% more damage than 9mm in permanent crush cavity
so the first few shots, a .45 should do better than the same shots in 9mm
but when the gun reaches end of capacity, the 9mm blows past in terms of overall damage (assuming you made all your hits) due to greater capacity with 80% of damage
.40 basically provides capacity closer to 9mm, with damage closer to .45; so best of both
all the improvements in ammo tech that made 9mm more viable... applies to .40 and .45 as well which makes them even better
In the end, people shoot what they want. Regardless of whether they can hit anything with their caliber of choice.
Respect people's choices. (or just don't care what someone else chooses)
I only moved to 9mm because the rest of the world did and the ammo was cheaper for practice.
Back when .40 was hot, ammo was significantly cheaper overall, though always more than 9mm.
Since this is a caliber debate... .45 does roughly 20% more damage than 9mm in permanent crush cavity
so the first few shots, a .45 should do better than the same shots in 9mm
but when the gun reaches end of capacity, the 9mm blows past in terms of overall damage (assuming you made all your hits) due to greater capacity with 80% of damage
.40 basically provides capacity closer to 9mm, with damage closer to .45; so best of both
all the improvements in ammo tech that made 9mm more viable... applies to .40 and .45 as well which makes them even better
In the end, people shoot what they want. Regardless of whether they can hit anything with their caliber of choice.
Respect people's choices. (or just don't care what someone else chooses)
Either will do if you can do.
Cole_McD
:^)
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
The whole debate is over what the minimum standard is. All handguns suck at killing people (statistically). Because of advances in bullet technology, we've gotten to where smaller and smaller projectiles can be more and more effective.
Is .45 +P better than .40? Maybe
is .40 still better than 9mm? Sure
The same advances in technology still apply to all bullets not just 9mm, but the point is that modern 9mm meets an acceptable standard, and even if they're better, .40 and 45 still suck. Atleast the 9mm is easier to shoot and has higher capacity across the board.
Is .45 +P better than .40? Maybe
is .40 still better than 9mm? Sure
The same advances in technology still apply to all bullets not just 9mm, but the point is that modern 9mm meets an acceptable standard, and even if they're better, .40 and 45 still suck. Atleast the 9mm is easier to shoot and has higher capacity across the board.
Lafayette Gregory
Les-ter not Ly-Chester
I am not so sure. Pancakes over waffles. Saturdays are always good for pancakes. But Sunday is defiantly a waffle day. Now there is always the issue of special equipment needed for making waffles as where a pancake only needs a fry pan. Not so sure about the best. I like both