Poor Sales People

[winters]

I wouldn't consider the sales people at carters country any better customer service wise. I stopped shopping there years ago. They can be nice if you just want to look without being bothered though.

[Mick22]

To be honest, it is not bad advice IMO. .40 is a brutal round as for recoil compared to .45 or 9mm. Now, until that person shoots the specific gun with .40, then they will not know, but it is much harsher and normally not fun to shoot.

SO, while the sales person maybe should have prefaced their comments with 'A lot of people feel....', it was not that far off base on how a lot of people feel, especially women who may not have as much wrist strength, or people with wrist and hand issues.

When teaching my ex wife to shoot, I took my Glock .45, Sig .40, S&W 9mm. and Taurus .38 to give her different views of each. She shot the .45 & 9mm. very well with a couple of bullseyes. When she shot the .40 & .38s she couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. She shot the .40 about 5 shots a refused to shoot it anymore. I personally have no issues with any of them, but I wouldn't recommend a .40 for a female new to shooting. She ended up buying herself a S&W 9mm. and is a better shot than me on most days.

Agreed.

I had a Glock 22 and even though I shot it well enough, I choose to make the switch to 9MM. Recoil was one of the factors, amongst others.

[c.edgington]

To be honest, it is not bad advice IMO. .40 is a brutal round as for recoil compared to .45 or 9mm. Now, until that person shoots the specific gun with .40, then they will not know, but it is much harsher and normally not fun to shoot.

SO, while the sales person maybe should have prefaced their comments with 'A lot of people feel....', it was not that far off base on how a lot of people feel, especially women who may not have as much wrist strength, or people with wrist and hand issues.

With you absolutely. Without getting into too much of a caliber debate, a 9 or smaller is definitely the best choice for a beginning shooter IMO.

[Dave2]

I think it was Abby who called the .40 S&W "short and wimpy".

Oops, yeah, you're right.
Abby: "[...] .40 short and weak. I don't know why they call it that."
Gibbs: "Because it lacks the power of the 10mm auto cartridge"

(Or so the Internet says... I don't recall which episode it was in.)

[LSUTiger]

I am not a fan of the .40 S&W. Having shot a couple, it just did not appeal to me. I would not recommend it to anyone who was asking my opinion.

I'd stick with either the 9mm or .45ACP for ammo availability in a crisis-it's what you're likely to find out in the space, shootabilty-I had no problem shooting the .40 but it was not as pleasant or as enjoyable than the 9 or .45, and was harder to control IMHO compatibility-with what I own and firearms most people will have in case I need to share ammo and vice versa.

[Pariah3j]

I have to disagree with everyone who says .40 is harder to control then .45 - My experience has been quite the opposite. Granted my first handgun was a .40 and that's what I learned to really shoot pistols with, but I find the .45 to be a noticeable bit more kick to it, enough that I prefer to shoot 9 or 40... Obviously 9 has less kick, is a smoother round... I've recently made the switch to 9 (but still love to shoot my XD .40)

[EEllis]

I have to disagree with everyone who says .40 is harder to control then .45 - My experience has been quite the opposite. Granted my first handgun was a .40 and that's what I learned to really shoot pistols with, but I find the .45 to be a noticeable bit more kick to it, enough that I prefer to shoot 9 or 40... Obviously 9 has less kick, is a smoother round... I've recently made the switch to 9 (but still love to shoot my XD .40)

There are all sorts of other factors involved. Different gun weights, bullet weights, ammo loads and even recoil mechs. There is no doubt however, and this is scientific fact, that the 40 produces more energy, thus more kick, than the 45 when dealing with normal loads.

[OldCurlyWolf]

To be honest, it is not bad advice IMO. .40 is a brutal round as for recoil compared to .45 or 9mm. Now, until that person shoots the specific gun with .40, then they will not know, but it is much harsher and normally not fun to shoot.

SO, while the sales person maybe should have prefaced their comments with 'A lot of people feel....', it was not that far off base on how a lot of people feel, especially women who may not have as much wrist strength, or people with wrist and hand issues.

My personal experience is that in the same size frame the 40 has more felt recoil than a 9 but less than a 45 or a 10mm.

I have shot both the 45 and the 10mm Auto within a few minutes of each other, both in the 1911 frame and I could not claim a noticeable difference in felt recoil.

In a frame with a reasonable amount of heft a .40 shouldn't be any more difficult to shoot than a 9mm. I do have a medium frame .40. My Bulldog has considerably more "Kick" than my .40.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "In a frame with a reasonable amount of heft a .40 shouldn't be any more difficult to shoot than a 9mm."

The problem is the .40 was originally put into the same frames as existing 9mms. And it generates considerably more energy - in both directions. I am in agreement with those who say the .40 is NOT a good choice for beginning pistol shooters.

[carlson1]

Worse mistake I made with my wife when we were dating was taking her out shooting and placing a 1911 in her hands. She would not even consider shooting for many years after that. After 30 years of marriage she makes every range trip with me. She is not a "shooter", but now has no problem shooting.

I think the best thing to start someone learning is with a .22. Then move on up. You can always go up, but not down once you have "scarred" someone for life as for as firearms are concerned.

I have only met one person behind a gun counter that knew anything to began with. They are like baby eagles. They are all beak and no feathers.

[SA_Steve]

.40 really is not enough different than 9 for me as to recoil. Both in full size metal guns. Would not try a .40 in anything lighter weight.

[Medley86]

How a gun recoils/how easy it is to shoot is all relative. My all steel 1911 45 has much less felt recoil than a friend of mine's LC9. It took a while to talk her into trying the 45 but she liked it better than her 9 once she finally tried it. Personally I shoot my XDm 40 better than my 45, definitely better than my LCP. That little 380 is no fun to shoot at all. I wouldn't start anyone on the 40 as a first time shooter, but I don't feel signifigantly more recoil in equal sized 40's compared to 9's. XDs 45 is a monster to hang on to, I could literally only fire one round at a time, then I would have to get another grip on the gun so it didn't leave my hand on the second shot. Main thing is find something you are comfortable shooting and practice with it. I would take a 22 or 25 over a rock any day.

[Keith B]

Quote: "In a frame with a reasonable amount of heft a .40 shouldn't be any more difficult to shoot than a 9mm."

The problem is the .40 was originally put into the same frames as existing 9mms. And it generates considerably more energy - in both directions. I am in agreement with those who say the .40 is NOT a good choice for beginning pistol shooters.

Heft is a key factor here; perceived recoil is the issue. Take a polymer frame Glock in the same size/weight with 9mm, .40 or .45 and you will see the .40 is much different in perceived recoil. This can go for any gun and caliber. I had a female friend in her mid-'60's with arthritis in her hands and wrists. I didn't know she had just taken her CHL course and ran into her and another female friend at a gun show. She had been given advice from a long-time friend of her's to get a KelTec P3AT (small, polymer-framed .380). I told her she would regret getting that due to the recoil and before she bought one, she should rent one at the local range and try it. Since she was going to purse carry I suggested she look at the Glock 19 (which she qualified with on class), or maybe a heavier .38 revolver so it would absorb the recoil a little better.

Well, long story short they went with the friends suggestion and bought two P3AT's without even shooting them. They went to the range a couple of days later to practice. I ran into her about a week later and she said 'Well, I should have listened to you. We went and shot about 10 rounds at the range and our hands hurt so bad we had to stop.' I ended up helping her sell the P3AT's and get a couple of revolvers to carry AFTER I let her shoot mine.

So, bottom line, while .40 is a good defense round and not always unmanageable for recoil, as a rule of thumb it is much sharper and more harsh than 9mm or .45 in a similar size and weight pistol, so many people don't like it, me included.

[carlson1]

My assistant has a Taurus 856 stainless in .38. His wife did not like the recoil so he went and bought her a Kel Tec .380.

Needless to say she does not like to carry or shoot anything now. It will be awhile I imagine before he gets her back to the range.

[Iunnrais]

it really is all relative.

I have a .40S&W barrel for my Glock 29. Factory .40 feels pretty light in that combo. Heavy slide eats up a lot of the energy.

But then I've also recently fired my .44 mag 'cowboy' loads (case of trailboss under a 240gr cast bullet) in my S&W 629 and then changed over to Whitebox .45acp in my full size 1911 and remarked how much lighter felt recoil was in the .45. Which really makes sense. Both heavy steel frames firing slow heavy projectiles, but the action on the 1911 absorbs what the revolver send directly to the wrist.

I've a little Walther PPS that is just no fun for long range sessions. Thin, light and great for carry does not equate to pleasant to shoot all afternoon. (Neither are full power .44 or 10mm for that matter - but they do make impressive flash & noise)