Peacekeeper3073
Expert
That's lower than blue label price. I'd have to see that to believe it.
Yeah Kiesler blue label with plastic sights was $399 last time I checked.
That's lower than blue label price. I'd have to see that to believe it.
I have not been able to find the G22, 23, or 27 trade-ins for under $200. Where are they located? I would like to get a 23 and a 27.
That's lower than blue label price. I'd have to see that to believe it.
That's why people should be stocking up now, but they will wait for the next big panic and buy at a higher price and complain.
Not I he says. I have been buying ammo for awhile now since prices have come down. Not that I am running low, just some very good ammo deals out there that are to hard to pass up.
I will admit that I am not well stocked on .40 and I do own two .40 caliber pistols.
The same improvements that have benefited 9mm, have benefited .40 as well. It’s not that the gap has narrowed, but that 9mm has become reasonably effective.
No, the gap has narrowed to the point it's inconsequential. The improvements are not the same across the board. .45 doesn't benefit from bonding as much as 9mm does, for example. The heavier bullet can shed more mass and still be heavier then the 9mm, and it's slower speed means it's harder to fragment anyway. The .40 was pretty well tailored for the tech of the day, and is still just as viable. It's just not that much better. 9mm benefited heavily from the paradigm shift away from super light/super fast and trying to make 115 gr projectiles barrier blind. 147 gr loads that function in handguns (instead of just SMGs) was a big boost to terminal ballistics. Take a look at silvertips. They worked pretty danged well in calibers like .45 Colt, but the design didn't translate well into lighter projectiles in 9mm or .380. .40 was already on the heavy-for-caliber bandwagon from the beginning with the 180gr projectile (although a few did try the lighter/faster route with a 135 gr).
All of the major duty calibers are completely viable, but it's a mistake to say that they've benefited equally from improvements in the technology, nor do they get the same love from the ammo developers. Someone could probably put together an improved .45 GAP if anyone cared about it, for example. .380 is still sort of in a no man's land, the tech still isn't there for them. It is not a rising tide lifts all boats situation.
The caliber itself is no less effective than it has been for the last 30 years.
I think it's just hipsters turning up their noses at it. Just not cool enough for instagram commandos anymore.
I think the evolution of ammo has a lot to do with it. 9mm ammo got sooo much better that there really wasn't the need for the 40 S&W anymore. I think it has kind of got stuck as the in-between round, which can be good or bad- depending on how you look at it. If people are worried about velocity and capacity, they tend to go with 9mm. If they want mass, they tend to go with 45acp. 40 kind of gets lost in the middle of that. I like it because it's kind of best of both worlds. More capacity than 45 but bigger and harder hitting than 9mm.
I think that's exactly it. The whole reason why .40 became popular had to do with the perceived need for stopping power; which would you rather get shot with, a 9mm or a .40?? The fact that 10mm has finally come into its own with many firearm manufacturers now offering 10mm pistols is why there's been a slight drop in .40's popularity. When the next great handgun cartridge comes around, then 10mm will lose some of its uber-coolness. Such is the way of the American gun culture.
This^. The improvement made are not equal because not all the calibers had the same weaknesses.
I like the idea of having a little more mustard behind a round, so I'd be predisposed to prefer 40SW. But anyone with that preference would be really hard pressed to justify it on empirical data. There's more variation in test to test than there is between calibers.