TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Personally, I don't like the .40 because the recoil in the guns I tried was worse than a .45. And the bullets are too easily confused with 9mm for me to keep both in my rotation.

I don't like .40 because it throws me off sometimes when scrounging brass from the range.

MaduroBU wrote:The 10mm, 357 magnum, and 357 Sig are in a tier above all other common pistol rounds*. Their main limitation is that they need 5"-6" barrels for the sig and 10mm and 7.5" for the .357 Mag.

Actually, Harrell also has a video comparing .357 Magnum to .357 Sig - the Magnum in a 4” barreled GP100, and the Sig in a 4.25” barreled Glock, and the Magnum load outclasses the Sig load, and by a significant margin. He is careful to emphasize that the Sig is a great cartridge for personal defense, and it is indeed powerful; but it isn’t anywhere near “just as powerful” as a .357 Magnum.

https://youtu.be/p9iuN-JBCXE

SQLGeek wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Personally, I don't like the .40 because the recoil in the guns I tried was worse than a .45. And the bullets are too easily confused with 9mm for me to keep both in my rotation.

I don't like .40 because it throws me off sometimes when scrounging brass from the range.

Ha! The 1 time a shooting buddy brought me a box of pick ups from his home range it had a bunch of .40 mixed in and he doesn't even have a .40!

well my new 40 S&W mags came in. Time to hit the range tomorrow.

I don't like .40 because it throws me off sometimes when scrounging brass from the range.

I hate the .380 more, because the ultra reliable Dillon press will load it as if it was a 'real' 9mm.....

Flightmare wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Probably should have shot the .44 special with .44 Russians. Might have scored higher.

So you're colluding with Russians?

A round created in the 1860's-70's to fit a S&W revolver originally created for the Russian Czar's army. Said to be the most accurate pistol round of its time. From it came the .44 special and later the .44 magnum. The .44 American and the .44 Colt were each separate rounds.

The two pistols I carry are in 380 and 40. Normally it's the little 380, but if I'm going somewhere crowded I carry the 40 for the extra capacity. I don't own a 9 but I don't feel a significant recoil from 18p grain 40 compared to the 9s that I have fired. My steel frame 1911 in 45 recoil much less but it's 8+1 rounds for at least twice the weight of 16+1 in my 40.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MaduroBU wrote:The 10mm, 357 magnum, and 357 Sig are in a tier above all other common pistol rounds*. Their main limitation is that they need 5"-6" barrels for the sig and 10mm and 7.5" for the .357 Mag.

Actually, Harrell also has a video comparing .357 Magnum to .357 Sig - the Magnum in a 4” barreled GP100, and the Sig in a 4.25” barreled Glock, and the Magnum load outclasses the Sig load, and by a significant margin. He is careful to emphasize that the Sig is a great cartridge for personal defense, and it is indeed powerful; but it isn’t anywhere near “just as powerful” as a .357 Magnum.

https://youtu.be/p9iuN-JBCXE

Two important points.

1) the revolver barrel is 1.5" longer than the listed length for the sake of comparison. The overall length of the firearm is what matters, and the habit of excluding the cylinder from consideration makes revolvers seem far more potent from a given barrel length than they actually are. For a "same size gun" comparison to a nominal 4" barrel revolver, the auto needs a 5.5" barrel. My P226 x5 with a 5.7" barrel is about 1.5" shorter than a 6" Ruger Security Six.

2) As I pointed out, commercial loads for 10mm, 357 Sig, and 357 Mag are awful. I think that is at least partly due to the tendency to fire them from guns with barrels too short to make use of the extra powder. For a 4" barrel (2.5" nominal for the 357 Mag) all of these calibers produce minimal gains and excessive muzzle blast versus a the 38 sp, 40 S&W or 9mm +p. But when loaded to potential and shot from appropriate barrel lengths, the 357s and 10mm handily outclass those other calibers.

My claim is based on handloads that I loaded, chronographed, and shot through gel. Specifically a 180 grain HDY XTP at 1330 FPS from a Ruger Security Six 6" and a 147 grain HDY XTP at 1425 from a Sig P226 X5 with a 5.7" BarSto barrel. The magnum gives 239k "grain-FPS" while the Sig gives 210k. For energy, the Mag gets 707 ft lbs and the Sig gets 663. A real apples to apples comparison would've used a revolver with a 4" nominal barrel, but I don't have one so the magnum enjoys a slight unfair advantage.

As for the gel, it was my first effort, so it was in no way standardized, but both guns tore through 2 layers of heavy denim, expanded to make 3" wide wound channels and then plowed through 22" of gel. The numbers may not be comparable to standardized gel, but it passed my "no dude/pig/bear is big or bad enough to want this to happen to him" test.

MaduroBU wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MaduroBU wrote:The 10mm, 357 magnum, and 357 Sig are in a tier above all other common pistol rounds*. Their main limitation is that they need 5"-6" barrels for the sig and 10mm and 7.5" for the .357 Mag.

Actually, Harrell also has a video comparing .357 Magnum to .357 Sig - the Magnum in a 4” barreled GP100, and the Sig in a 4.25” barreled Glock, and the Magnum load outclasses the Sig load, and by a significant margin. He is careful to emphasize that the Sig is a great cartridge for personal defense, and it is indeed powerful; but it isn’t anywhere near “just as powerful” as a .357 Magnum.

https://youtu.be/p9iuN-JBCXE

Two important points.

1) the revolver barrel is 1.5" longer than the listed length for the sake of comparison. The overall length of the firearm is what matters, and the habit of excluding the cylinder from consideration makes revolvers seem far more potent from a given barrel length than they actually are. For a "same size gun" comparison to a nominal 4" barrel revolver, the auto needs a 5.5" barrel. My P226 x5 with a 5.7" barrel is about 1.5" shorter than a 6" Ruger Security Six.

2) As I pointed out, commercial loads for 10mm, 357 Sig, and 357 Mag are awful. I think that is at least partly due to the tendency to fire them from guns with barrels too short to make use of the extra powder. For a 4" barrel (2.5" nominal for the 357 Mag) all of these calibers produce minimal gains and excessive muzzle blast versus a the 38 sp, 40 S&W or 9mm +p. But when loaded to potential and shot from appropriate barrel lengths, the 357s and 10mm handily outclass those other calibers.

My claim is based on handloads that I loaded, chronographed, and shot through gel. Specifically a 180 grain HDY XTP at 1330 FPS from a Ruger Security Six 6" and a 147 grain HDY XTP at 1425 from a Sig P226 X5 with a 5.7" BarSto barrel. The magnum gives 239k "grain-FPS" while the Sig gives 210k. For energy, the Mag gets 707 ft lbs and the Sig gets 663. A real apples to apples comparison would've used a revolver with a 4" nominal barrel, but I don't have one so the magnum enjoys a slight unfair advantage.

As for the gel, it was my first effort, so it was in no way standardized, but both guns tore through 2 layers of heavy denim, expanded to make 3" wide wound channels and then plowed through 22" of gel. The numbers may not be comparable to standardized gel, but it passed my "no dude/pig/bear is big or bad enough to want this to happen to him" test.

Never let it be said that I can’t admit when I’ve been wrong. I totally forgot about the additional length of the cylinder, and didn’t take that into account. I’m sure that Paul Harrell didn’t either, because upon reflection, it is a pretty obvious error.

You can’t forget about the gap between the cylinder & the barrel’s forcing cone. Therefore, not 100% of that 1 5/8” cylinder is being used efficiently. And then again the casing of a .357 Magnum is a out an inch and a quarter long. So, the bullet only travels about 5 & a quarter inch before clearing a 4” barrel and some pressure is lost through the cylinder gap.

A friend of mine recently showed me his new S&W 9mm, and told me how much more manageable the recoil was vs. my .40.

I watched him wipe his fingerprints off the slide with his skirt as he walked off......

EastTexasRancher wrote:I watched him wipe his fingerprints off the slide with his skirt as he walked off......

That's hilarious!!

I don't think .40 is dead. Heck, you can still buy a case of .25acp. No doubt, 9mm will remain the standard as more departments and agencies migrate back to it, but I don't anticipate having problems securing .40 ammo anytime soon.

.40 S&W makes up the lion's share of participants in USPSA Limited (and Limited-10) division. I don't forsee that changing unless they significantly alter power factor and equipment rules. [I could make a snarky comment about Bill Wilson and IDPA rules here, but I won't]