Cw40

[MC1911]

A CW45 and CW9 have taken over as my carry guns.

Is there a reason to add a CW40 to the list?

[O'Dell]

Not for me. I have both a CW40 and 45, but since I got the 45, the 40 has become redundant. They are close in size and weight and I prefer the 45 round.

[pudge]

"They are close in size and weight and I prefer the 45 round.

This!

[r2dhart]

The thing I do like about the 40 is that during the "buy anything that goes bang" craze about four years ago it was the only ammunition I could find. Everything else including 9mm and .45 ACP were very hard to come by but because just about every LE agency in my area (and many others) use it the manufacturers make darn sure the supply of that ammo keeps flowing above all others including the 9mm.

Personally I watch the LGS' for a used one in good condition. It's one of those like to have guns but certainly not a need to have one.

[godan]

If you are considering .40 SW, take a look at the sites for DoubleTap, Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo. The details of hotter rounds are worth careful reading. Over 500 FPE, accurate to 50 yards, from a pistol that will carry easily in a jacket pocket is an interesting combination. The ".45 is more powerful" contention can be challenged on the basis of energy comparisons. Additional considerations are weapon size and trajectory at distance. Depending on where and how you intend to carry and use the weapon, .40 can look pretty good. I am glad to have a CW40 for practice and a P40 to carry.

[pudge]

I didn't say the .45 was the most powerful. I said I like it better than the .40 S&W. My experience is that the .45 is easier shooting than the .40 in the platforms that each normally is chambered in. I also believe that the .45 is not as hard on the firearm as is the .40. When you touch off a .40 in a 9mm sized piece, there is a lot happening. The recoil is pretty sharp, especially with the 180 grain stuff, whereas the recoil in the .45 is more of a push. I think a .45 will last longer and work better longer than will the .40.

You'll notice a lot of what I said is, "I think" or "I believe". My feelings are based on my own experience and yep, some of what I said is definitely subjective opinion. You can have a .40 in a slightly smaller platform, but if you can't hit what you are shooting at, nothing is of much value. I don't shoot .357 mags in .38 special sized firearms, particularly the small ones made of unobtainium. Life is just too short, they are way too loud, and they are just no fun to shoot. No one I know of has ever been incapacitated in a serious social encounter by a loud noise! Maybe they tracked their drawers, but not incapacitated.

I personally like something I can shoot more than once quickly and expect the bullets to land fairly close together. I also like something that I can enjoy shooting enough and often to become sort of proficient with. I know some guys who carry a .44 mag with a short barrel, and I've known one or two who could shoot a four incher the 60 rounds necessary for the old style PPC qualification course and shoot a very good score. But those guys were exceptions to the norm... definitely not average! Guys who could qualify with .38 special wadcutters could NOT do so if you asked them to do it with the .357 mag loads they carried for duty use.

I'm not sayin' that you can't fire a .40 well, or that there are not .40s that will run well for a long time. I am sayin' that not every one can handle them well. When it hurts much to fire a weapon, it's awfully hard not to be shootin' with your eyes close while flinching. You have to practice how you intend to play if your play is gonna be effective. If you can do it, go for it! But there is a difference in how different guns and loads handle and react when fired. I'd personally rather use something that I am confident about being able to use well than otherwise. Just sayin' ....

[O'Dell]

I agree, Pudge. I prefer the 45 ACP round and 10 of my 15 guns are 45's. I will say, however, that I shoot the CW40, MK40, and USP 40 pretty well.

[godan]

My allusion to the belief that .45 is more powerful was not linked to a particular post, but to the widespread and very questionable 1911 lore. There is enough evidence from long-term experience with Glocks to support arguments that .40's, especially the more powerful 155 grain rounds, are hard on pistols and somewhat hard on shooters. In the light Kahr .40's, the power of the round combines with the long trigger pull to make accuracy difficult but possible. At least for me, it is becoming possible after a few thousand rounds of practice. I just fired my first Kahr .45 today and must say it was rather soothing after about three months with the .40's.

[voodoo54]

Being a die hard .40 cal fan I would say don't bother. My philosophy is either you have a 9mm and a .45 or a .40. A .40 cal is a "middle of the road" round. In my opinion the best round. More rounds than a .45 but more "firepower" than a 9mm. And yes I know that accuracy and shot placement is paramount.