.40 S&W dead - yes or no

[markman]

OK, I’m starting to get it. No elite unit in the world shoots 9mm because they want to, they just can’t afford to shoot the .40, but the ones that can afford it don’t have the talent to do it.

[Bawanna]

It's a good thing that they were free to carry whatever they felt the most comfortable with. The police department I retired from allowed that for a while, within certain parameters, but in the early 80's started requiring officers to carry their issued Glock G22's. The medical IT company I retired from following my police career required us to carry our issued G-22's as well...anyone caught carrying something else would have been fired on the spot.

This thread has caused me to think about something. If a had to go into a war zone as a combatant, what sidearm would I choose to have with me? Without having given it much serious study or thought, I think the FN Five-Seven with SS198 ammo would be at the top of my list. Running a close second (or perhaps first if I actually had to climb on to that plane or ship) would be a Glock G40 MOS (10mm).

If I was to get on the plane or ship and go to war I'd want something in a caliber that a lot of others are carrying so if I run out I can use their ammo, or get some off casualties etc. Five Seven is a good round without question but probably not many of them out there on the battle field.

[gale155]

Maybe none of them can shoot .40

Could be. It could also be that most of them realized that it's easier to put follow-up shots on target with a 9mm than it is with a 40. If that's the case, I'm in total agreement.

[gale155]

If I was to get on the plane or ship and go to war I'd want something in a caliber that a lot of others are carrying so if I run out I can use their ammo, or get some off casualties etc. Five Seven is a good round without question but probably not many of them out there on the battle field.

Very good point, and that's precisely the reason why the police department and security organization I worked for required everyone to carry the G22...magazine and caliber compatibility. Now why would someone like Chris Kyle opt to carry a .45 in a combat zone, when many of his comrades were carrying 9mm? I dunno, and unfortunately we can't ask him. So why would I suggest I'd carry a Five-Seven or G40? Well, that was just the ramblings of a 66-year-old who doesn't have to worry about being thrust into combat zones. Those would be my preferred sidearms, but I'd also consider what my brothers-in-arms were carrying and choose accordingly. If most went with the Glock 19, I'd be fine with that.

[ltxi]

[QUOTE=gale155;400573].................
This thread has caused me to think about something. If a had to go into a war zone as a combatant, what sidearm would I choose to have with me? .......[QUOTE]

Can't help but pitch in my two cents on this one....a .45 1911 and a jungle rot resistant Smith M60 in .38 as back-up. An opinion that hasn't changed one whit in 50 years.

[berettabone]

I guess that some people forget that many, many LE officers were once in the military BEFORE becoming an officer. You should never assume who shoots who, and who has been shot at.............................................

[boscobarbell]

Could be. It could also be that most of them realized that it's easier to put follow-up shots on target with a 9mm than it is with a 40. If that's the case, I'm in total agreement.

This.

Every federal law enforcement course I've shot...and that's a pretty good sample...emphasizes multiple hits on target in rapid succession. 9mm simply does that better than 40, in the hands of about 99% of the shooters out there. Every shooter will have to decide if the minuscule tradeoff in ballistic performance is worth it.

[markman]

If your referring to me, I do know that many officers were in the military as are the people in the elite units, possibly more, so that's a wash. My point is the people in these units (Military, State, County, or Local PD) are more often than not exposed to more incidents just by the nature of their job. I don't assume anything, this is just my experience with the people of one very large Midwestern city's SWAT team and two State tactical units. For the record I am not PD but thru my last employer I had frequent contact with all three.

I guess that some people forget that many, many LE officers were once in the military BEFORE becoming an officer. You should never assume who shoots who, and who has been shot at.............................................

[yqtszhj]

Sorry, but Glock's should not be on the hips of most civilians.................

Well said, and MOST being the key word. Most people don’t practice properly and enough. Then you get those that like to draw and reholster a Glock while appendix carrying, particularly while not looking at the holster. Just a bad idea in my opinion.

When I had glocks I would put the 8 pound connector in them because I preferred a heavier trigger, but a bonus of doing that was you did get a crisper trigger in my opinion due to the increased angle on the connector. I just liked it better and it worked for me and I could shoot it just as well. Even then it wasn’t my favorite carry gun. Actually carried rarely.

Glad I’m Glockless now.

[berettabone]

Everybody wants to be a cowboy these days. Let's carry a man stopper in 9mm because everyone says that with the new ammo these days, it's just as potent a caliber as the larger one's. From photo's I see, and stories I hear, they need a 17 round magazine because they can't hit s#!t from shinola. Then, let's carry the ammo in a firearm which most civilians don't practice enough with, making things unsafe for everyone else. A lousy shot with a .40, or .45, or 44 mag, or .357 is still in better shape than a lousy shot with a 9mm. Larger calibers incapacitate humans whether hit in the arms, legs, shoulders, etc. Isn't that the point??????? So many stories of 9mm not getting the job done and people having to empty the magazine to get the job done. Then you end up in court with a DA who calls you the worst thing since Ted Bundy, because you shot the person 17 times. I'll stick by my original opinion, and your right, it's only opinion. Even the lousiest shot has a better chance with a large caliber versus smaller. Extremities especially don't take kindly to large calibers, and anything that gives an advantage should be taken advantage of. Of course, military and LE may opt for 9mm for many reasons...……….cost, capacity for sure, and possibility to be more accurate, but from what I observe, it's not making much difference. Personally, I don't care what the military or LE uses. I'm not either. I'm a civilian who wants to save his arse, and if your a lousy shot, or you don't practice or train enough, a larger caliber gives you a better chance. I'm tired of hearing "center mass" or, "I wouldn't want to be shot with a .380." Of course you wouldn't, but most I see at a range can't hit anything even with that. I'll stick with the larger calibers, and everyone else can tout how the 9mm is the greatest thing since white bread, even though they can't hit anything with that either. I'm no damn marksman, that's why a larger caliber gives me better odds of stopping someone. I will certainly hit them. May not be all center mass, but larger boollits do more damage in my opinion. Odds are I won't need 17 shots...………………………………...and I'm not shooting at gel.