Hey /k/, I've been looking into getting my first handgun recent and have been seriously considering a glock, there's an issue though.
For some reason 9mm glocks like a 17 or 19 are significantly more expensive in my country than those in .40 s&w, and the price of 9mm and .40 is very comparable around here too.
Is .40 s&w even semi-decent or is it the failed abortion of the handgun cartridge world like I've heard it is?
It's fine. Doesn't offer anything over 9 or 45 really, but is totally fine. Plus, a .40 that you can afford to practice with is better than a 9 or 45 that sits in the safe because you can't afford ammo. Just be aware that they are snappier than a 9mm and train accordingly.
.40 shoots heavier bullets faster than standard pressure 9mm. It's fine. Also has a higher rate of incapacitating shots than both 9mm and .45, at least when concerning reported incidents.
Its a good cartridge, don't afraid of getting it or shooting it.
Bonus: if S&W M&P's are available in .40 at your gunshop, get that. Glocks were built around 9mm. S&W built theirs around the .40 cartridge.
Doppelbonus: You can toss in a 9mm barrel in M&Ps and use 9mm mags to shoot another caliber relatively cheaply. Also, you can find a 357sig barrel for another cartridge to shoot if either are even available near you.
.40 is fine. It didn't dominate the handgun market in the '90s and '00s without reason. It offers near the nearly the same power as a .45, but in a bullet that is faster and more available capacity.
What? People aren't just blindly insulting a caliber bullet that's slightly different from something else?! Is this real life?
The differences are so small that it basically doesn't matter. Learn to shoot it well and you'll be happy no matter what bullets come out of it.
back in the 80s and 90s when 9mm was piss watered down it was a somewhat step up. But now that 9mm had advanced some people are hoping off the bandwagon
I still like it though
When I first got into handguns I went with .40 because I bought into the gay "hurrr, best of bofe worldz" nonsense.
As I shot more and attended various training courses I realized I preferred 9mm for all the reasons already covered.
.40sw isn't bad, it just isn't good enough to justify the trade-offs.
That being said, if you like it, enjoy it. Train with it, and be prepared for your gun to wear out faster than with a comparable 9mm.
What the fuck is this sorcery
Are you all just trolling
Is this real life
Is /k/ having a circlejerk lovefest over the .40 S&W?
This is not happening
I dunno if you're a baseball player, but shooting a .45 is like hitting a fastball with a wooden bat and shooting a .40 is like hitting a fastball with an aluminum bat, best way I could describe it.
>How shit is .40s&w
No clue dude.
>is .40s&w even semi-decent
It awesome anon. It's not ideal for first gun because 9mm is a little easier to shoot and learn on. However, if you get a decent sized gun and the cost of 9mm and .40 are the same, the lower price of the .40cal pistol would be enough of a deciding factor for me to go with the .40cal.
>no one is praising it like they would .45 or 10mm
>literally every post says it's simply on par with the others, nothing bad with it but nothing significantly better
I've only fired .40 once, out of a rental Px4 Storm at the range.
Compared to my .45, I found that the recoil was snappier as many other people also claim. What I mean by that is that my .45 has a fairly heavy lateral push, but it's firm and consistent. Meanwhile the .40 has a lighter but more violent recoil, the impulse doesn't carry as much energy but it seems to feel more uncontrollable, especially in regards to muzzle flip.
It's hard to put in words. I guess it feels like with my .45 recoil is comparable to a firm push against my hand, and .40 feels like someone is flicking the tip of the barrel upwards with two of their fingers. It's lighter than a push, but feels more uncontrolled. Remember, I have only fired about 60 rounds of .40 so my opinion is based on pretty limited experience.
".40 is shit" is just a meme that started a few years ago when LEOs started re-evaluating their service caliber of choice in lieu of newer 9mm hollow points that don't fragment like they used to.
That's a big ass gun.
If the .40cal gun is cheaper than the 9mm.
The .40cal ammo is the same price as the 9mm ammo.
the gun is as big as a Glock 22 to make it easier to handle the slightly heavier recoiling .40cal.
I would get the .40. At that point the ONLY advantage that 9mm would have over the .40 (since capacity is plenty at that point) is that 9mm can be silenced easier because there are silencers and threaded barrels and subsonic ammo out there for the 9mm. Otherwise, literally no reason not to carry the superior .40cal.
Here in the states, the .40 ammo is more expensive than the 9mm by enough that it adds up pretty quickly and performance of the 2 are close enough to not really justify the difference in cost.
Up here I can pick up a 50 pack of .40 for only a dollar more than a 50 pack of 9mm, 2 cents per shot really won't break the bank, especially when we're looking at an almost $200 difference for the gun itself.
Also, no suppressors up here because they're scary and shit and make some kind of assassin.
I have a glock 22 (thank goodness for the blue tag deal) and love it. I don't carry it on me but keep it in my car or house. I've fired a few thousand rounds through it so far. The recoil isn't bad at all, I find its a nice balance between 9mm and .45 in terms of recoil/magazine capacity.
I carry 357 because assigned gun but I work with a guy who is able to choose his gun he carries 40. Says it's fine with practice but the advantages are slim however he said they are better than 9mm for shooting through shit like cars