What's wrong with the 40 S&W??????

[semiller1911]

I have owned 3 of Glock's .40sw, the 22,23 and 27. I have never shot .40 from anything but a Glock. I like the caliber but Glocks sit in my safe. I just cannot get into Glock, so it is not really the .40 as much as the platform.

I think the 9, .40 and .45 are all going to get the job done, if the shooter does their part. For me the .40 and .45 are easer to load into magazines and my aging eyes can see the hole left in the target more easily. Honestly, my opinion of a dream carry 1911 would be an alloy frame 9mm (Commander or Officer) with a double stack 15 round magazine. You'ed get the 1911 platform with the fire power of a wonder-nine. Hi-Powers are cool but I don't care for the safety and DA/SA trigger.

Nothing wrong with 9, .40 or .45. I don't want to be on the receiving end of any of them. Just my $0.02.

[BlackKnight]

When I first started with my agency they did not issue you a weapon and could carry anything you purchased. That was ok at first until I started getting involved in the qualifications for our office. People were buying and trying to qualify with guns they had no business owning let alone qualifying with.
Then, at one point our agency started issuing weapons, but they weren't consistent. Some got G23's, 27's, 19's or 26's.
So finally it was decided that they were going to purchase and issue one weapon.
I was on the deciding panel. I argued for G19 and we got it. The caliber for me was one of the deciding factors, on top of cost, support, so forth and so on.
Since we're not a uniformed patrol agency where we work 24 hours a day I felt that the caliber and handgun would suffice.
Of course I got the grumblings from a few as you can never satisfy everyone, but tough cojones.
Once they were purchased and issued I immediately saw and improvement in qualifying scores.

[Grouse]

Originally Posted by BlackKnight

When I first started with my agency they did not issue you a weapon and could carry anything you purchased. That was ok at first until I started getting involved in the qualifications for our office. People were buying and trying to qualify with guns they had no business owning let alone qualifying with.
Then, at one point our agency started issuing weapons, but they weren't consistent. Some got G23's, 27's, 19's or 26's.
So finally it was decided that they were going to purchase and issue one weapon.
I was on the deciding panel. I argued for G19 and we got it. The caliber for me was one of the deciding factors, on top of cost, support, so forth and so on.
Since we're not a uniformed patrol agency where we work 24 hours a day I felt that the caliber and handgun would suffice.
Of course I got the grumblings from a few as you can never satisfy everyone, but tough cojones.
Once they were purchased and issued I immediately saw and improvement in qualifying scores.

Smart decision. We had were allowed to carry any gun we purchased also. This was my first pistol, After long search I ended up with the HK USP. Most picked the 17 or 19 . I chose the hk because i could pick it up and shoot it more accurately than the Glock. I picked 40 because i could shot it more accurately than the 9 and 45 with it. Looking back, there was a lot of extra training i had to do to be as competent with my gun as the other officers were with their s. Ultimately i was better.

I watched as several agencies allow officers to pick over various sizes, Beretta sizes, Sig sizes, then offering different caliber choices. I saw many officers become overwhelmed. At least in my experience not many were shooters, or really interested in the firearms aspect. Allowing for all those choices did nothing to aid training, standardize training or help officers. I would say it made it worse for officers.

I am a big fan of duty guns all being the same and having interchangeable grips. Allows for common training, and caliber, yet allows for individual fit.

[Caleb]

I like the .40, can shiot it well. But, the 9 I can shoot better and quicker with better accuracy. Shot bith this past weekend in a Glock and an HK. It would not bother me to pick up either and be confident with my choice. Which do I prefer? The 9, only because there are more rounds in the mag than the .40.

[edgehill]

I carry a Px4 in .40. I also have a M&P9 that I shoot as well. When my wife and I are at the range, she usually shoots the 9 and I shoot the .40, but I do find I'm more accurate with the 9, but that may be because the M&P has a few extra inches, so my sight picture seems to work better.

When I shoot without sights, my accuracy is about the same.

[milkmanjoe]

Since a gunfight will, unless freakish, last less than a dozen rounds, round count isn't my biggest concern. I have carried Glock 17's back to the Gen 1's, which I still have. though I always preferred a 1911, because I can follow up much more accurately with the heavier gun. I am a bit purist, and and 1911 in .40 cal wouldn't feel right, and feel is real big to me.
So, then, why not .45 GAP?.....cause it is another orphan that was produced without merit. Just is not a need for anything between .45 and 9mm.
Keep it simple, stock your ammo in quantity, practice often, and remember, if ya hit 'em in the gut their natural reaction is to drop what is in their hands.

[Caleb]

Originally Posted by milkmanjoe

Since a gunfight will, unless freakish, last less than a dozen rounds, round count isn't my biggest concern. I have carried Glock 17's back to the Gen 1's, which I still have. though I always preferred a 1911, because I can follow up much more accurately with the heavier gun. I am a bit purist, and and 1911 in .40 cal wouldn't feel right, and feel is real big to me.
So, then, why not .45 GAP?.....cause it is another orphan that was produced without merit. Just is not a need for anything between .45 and 9mm.
Keep it simple, stock your ammo in quantity, practice often, and remember, if ya hit 'em in the gut their natural reaction is to drop what is in their hands.

Practice is key.