Originally Posted by JTJ
The 40 was a compromise. The FBI did a lot of testing and settled on the 10mm but their agents could not handle the recoil. The 10mm load was reduced so S&W came up with the 40 which duplicated the 10mm reduced load. Since that time there have been a lot of advancements in bullet technology so the advantages over the 9mm have shrunk. The 40 is a high pressure cartridge and does have a sharp recoil impulse in a light gun. It might be a little unpleasant but it is controllable. I had one of the original 40SV S&W pistols and it was not bad to shoot. I made the mistake of buying a G23 which I absolutely did not like part of it being the Glocks just dont fit me. The best handling 40 I have shot was the Steyr M40.
The large caliber stopping power reputation came about before the advent of modern HP ammunition. I would rather have a 45 than a 9mm if I had to rely on hardball. Then bigger is better. The 357 gained its reputation with a very fast light bullet (1500fpsx125grx4"). +P+ 9mm loads come close to the 357 and then there is the 357 Sig which is a 40 necked down to 357. Still 9mm. That said, my wife and I each have an SR9c and yes I do have a couple of 45's but no 1911's. I really dont know why I keep the 45's.
I have a Ruger Security Six 357/38 in a 4" which I carried as my duty gun for years. Some time ago when I needed to I got a G23, to me the recoil is similar to my Ruger with a med. 357 load... I very much enjoy shooting and carrying my Glock as it sets nicely IWB where my Ruger is pretty uncomfortable to conceal other than shoulder holster. Maybe a good high carry but the Glock is great on a duty belt or IWB or in my vest pocket in a pocket holster. But thats' my opinion / situation. My partner carries 9mm and one of my sisters just got a shield. Each to his own, I would not want to get hit with a BB gun they all hurt...