I was talking with a guy whom I got my 229 40 165/fmj ( sw ammo)
he said the recoil was less then his 357 or 45.
I read all over conflicting reports.
Example, ( please correct me if I am wrong but heres my take)
I have a nice Savage Mark11 22LR 10 clip with bolt action. solid black.
My father in law has the exact gun but in a 1.17 model.
His has a tad amount of recoil and is louder with the same basic grain ammo.
I realize why that may happen more grain out of a smaller barrel creates more velocity hence more
power at the end. However this is my point even the smallest variation can be different.
I have heard ppl say a p229 40 with 165/fmj has average recoil
some say its fine and recoil isn't really a consideration.
I think allot of what a gun / rifle feels like is subjective to the person pulling the trigger.
Try them out see what you like.
40 sounds cooler then 9mm LOL
It is different for all people. The .40 round in most weapons is a little more snappy than a 9mm but for me in something like my P229 Sig it's not any bog deal. It's not a big deal in my Para P16. It is more noticeable in my Browning Pro 40 but it's a poly framed weapon. I has less weight. Still though I like the round and shoot it pretty regularly. For most people I say check it out. You might like it. If recoil is a big issue in your handgun buying mind then you might want to get a 9mm.
Originally Posted by Cybertoad
I have also shot the 229, last weekend actually, and I didn't think the difference in recoil was much different than a 9mm. I personally chose to get a 9mm because it is cheaper to shoot, and I plan on doing a lot of that.... :)
Devil's right: it depends on the shooter. I think it also depends on the gun. Shooting 40S&W from a P226 is quite different than shooting it from a G27. Apples and oranges some say, but there is a difference.
Originally Posted by DevilsJohnson
The 40S&W has a bad rep in my house.. When I decided to get into handgun ownership, I purchased a Glock 22 and shot 100-200 rounds a week. It didn't take long for a bone spur to form in my main-hand thumb (grip thumb). After some serious pain and thought, I started shooting some friends' handguns as well as some range-rented ones and quickly realized both 9mm and 45ACP calibers are more forgiving on the hands. Later I did some research and found out the 40S&W had the highest pressures of all three. This was all I needed to explain the bone spur and the pain (also due to lots of shooting, of course... I can't blame it all on the caliber).
I think most people who claim they don't feel the difference between 40S&W and 45ACP just don't shoot enough of these rounds to notice. At the same time, the differences between 9mm/40S&W/45ACP are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and all serve their intended purpose regardless of their minor differences.
If your range time is only once a month or so, and you're going to shoot less than 200 rounds per trip, you probably won't notice much of a difference. If you plan on shooting more than that, you probably will notice more of a difference, and so will your wallet. Bad guys won't be able to tell the difference if you do your part.
You're exactly right. THe weapon makes a huge difference. The 40 round in my P16 is no big deal at all. But it's a double stacked 1911 type thing. All steel frame. The same rounds in my Browning Pro 40 are more easily felt but it is a poly frame and has a hammer so the dreaded higher bore axis comes into play. So you not only have the person as a variable but the weapon type that the persona is holding. What they perceive as a lot of recoil combined with the actual felt recoil due to size and weight of the weapon.