The .40 is over-pressured, inaccurate, and a solution to a problem that never really existed.
9mm and 45 auto have always been more than capable of doing their job, if the shooter does theirs (hit the vitals).
“inaccurate”?
I don’t argue balistics. To each his own. But I have never seen any evidence that the .40 is inherently innacurate. I’ve shot groups with my XD 40 that are almost as tight as those from my Ruger MK target pistol.
“The .40 is over-pressured, inaccurate, and a solution to a problem that never really existed.”
The .40 is as accurate as the 9, any differences may be due to the gun, not the cartridge.
“9mm and 45 auto have always been more than capable of doing their job, if the shooter does theirs (hit the vitals)”.
Under ideal conditions that may be true but the 9mm had a very poor reputation as a “stopper”. This was essentially solved with improved bullet designs such as gold dots, and other “bonded” jacket types. These days I doubt there is much difference in wound effectiveness or barrier penetration between the 9mm, .40 or .45 with any of the top bullet designs.
***The .40 is over-pressured, inaccurate, and a solution to a problem that never really existed.***
I remember 45 years ago when gun magazines were giving glorious reports on the .41 Magnum revolver. Lots of cops were going to it. I never saw a need for it if you had a .44 magnum.
For 99.9% of the non LEO gun owners, 9mm is more than adequate with non-ball, hollow-point ammo.