TargetTalk

Does anyone know if there is a .40 cal pistol on the market for less than $1000 that would be capable of being used in the Bullseye centerfire matches.

I would assume that target sites and a trigger job would/could be added.

I've toyed with the idea of using .40-cal for Bullseye, and I've even used a S&W Model 610 (10mm revolver) to win the Mid-Atlantic Regional Revolver Championship in 2011. I was using light 10mm loads with 165gr LSWC bullets that would probably have been comparable to .40S&W loads. But then, I was shooting all-revolvers at the time, even for normal 2700 matches, so it was not that different from shooting any other wheelgun in Bullseye matches. The 610 is also out-of-production, and are highly sought-after by collectors -- $1000 is pretty close to the going rate.

As for semi-auto pistols, I'm not sure of any in .40 that would work for Bullseye. Perhaps a Glock 22 or 35 (with an appropriate barrel for lead bullets) could be made to work in Bullseye. There's the Hickok45 video of him shooting a Glock 23 at 230 yards and regularly dinging a gong, so these plastic guns do have some inherent accuracy. With the appropriate drop-in parts (like a Lone Wolf "Ultimate Trigger Stop" and a 3.5# connector), it could have a decently-light (though very long) trigger. With something like a SightMount rear sight fitted to the slide, you could mount practically any optics you wish.

Except for the SightMount, my gen-2 Glock 21 has the other stuff listed (LWD UTS, 3.5# connector, Bar-Sto barrel). It seems to be decently-consistent at 50 yards, though I still haven't figured out a scope mount for it (I mention the SightMount because that's what I'm likely to try next). I've used an AimTech APM-1LG mount to frame-mount an UltraDot to the gun, but the mount interferes with my grip and causes ejection problems (even with heavy modification).

I'll bet a 1911 could be made to shoot at 50 yards...though the price would probably be far outside of your $1000 budget.

CZ makes some nice looking .40s well under $1K. They also make a .40 model with improved sights and trigger, but I think that costs more.

Why would you want a 40 ? nothing i know of that could do the job at 50 yds, no real target bullets available, and you can hardly buy a capable 45 that will be competitive for under 1000.00. That said, you can have anything if your willing to pay for it so im sure you could have a smith build a tack driving 40 but the price would be way more than 1k.

GunRunner wrote:Why would you want a 40 ?

The answer to "Why .40?" for me was "Because."

When a range officer at a match a few years ago said he had been issued a .40-cal scoring plug and shrugged that it would never be used, I wanted to be the first to use it. I wanted the challenge of shooting Conventional Pistol with unconventional pistols: I started shooting Bullseye seriously with revolvers because my local league's website had a statement saying that very few people use revolvers anymore because cocking the hammer in sustained fire is very challenging, so I decided to make Master with all wheelguns. Uncommon calibers (in modern Bullseye) was a part of that - I once shot an 1800 match with .44 Specials out of a Model 629 revolver; shooting 10mm/.40-cal out of a Model 610 was for me the pinnacle of "unconventional" (but still practical; I could have gone further with single-action or break-top revolvers, but I probably would not have made Master by my chosen deadline -- my 30th birthday).

So I can understand where Pat is coming from, sort of. Or at least, I can understand the path less-traveled, anyways. Maybe he just really likes .40-cal.

As for bullets, I've found Missouri Bullet Co.'s cast LSWC bullets to be satisfactory for target work -- 155gr for the short line, and 170gr for the long line over the same charge of powder (I think I was using 4.35 grains of W231 in 10mm cases), so that I wouldn't need any sight adjustments for my 3-7/8" Model 610 going from long to short.

I think KLE's reply was closest to the mark. I used to shoot an S&W model 52 in bullseye during my competetive years and I enjoyed shooting it plus it did add a few points to my overall aggregate score. I now want to experiment to see if there is a pistol available on the market that would be useable in a bullseye centerfire match that exhibits similiar characteristics to the old M52, that is mainly less recoil, which translates for me to faster time to get back on target during the timed and rapid fire stages. (those were my bread & butter toward my overall score). For the record I am now shooting a .45 Springfield RO which I am so far very happy with.
But now being retired I have more time to think of things that may seem strange to some but nonetheless intrigue me.

Yes, on paper, a .40-cal load ought to have less recoil than a .45, though many shooters are using 160gr LSWC bullets in .45 (with certainly lower recoil than the 185gr LSWCs) and getting good results at the short line. However, from what I've read on the old Bullseye-L mailing list, shooters who have experimented with .40-cal in semi-auto platforms have reported they had to drive them harder/faster to make them accurate, negating the benefits of a lighter bullet, though I wonder what kind of bullet they used (I did chime in on that thread; should be obvious which one I am there...).

Pat Nemes wrote:I think KLE's reply was closest to the mark. I used to shoot an S&W model 52 in bullseye during my competetive years and I enjoyed shooting it plus it did add a few points to my overall aggregate score. I now want to experiment to see if there is a pistol available on the market that would be useable in a bullseye centerfire match that exhibits similiar characteristics to the old M52, that is mainly less recoil, which translates for me to faster time to get back on target during the timed and rapid fire stages. (those were my bread & butter toward my overall score). For the record I am now shooting a .45 Springfield RO which I am so far very happy with.
But now being retired I have more time to think of things that may seem strange to some but nonetheless intrigue me.

I think what you are looking for is the new Pardini 32. I know two people shooting it for centerfire, and they are doing very well with it.
However, I think the biggest advantage of a centerfire gun, is the 2.5 pound trigger rather than reduced recoil.

You have to have enough recoil to function the gun regardless of which caliber it is. If it is the same gun the same is needed. The reason the 32's have so much less recoil is because they are blowback instead of disconnect types. If you are the type that has more trouble at the short line than the long line, I think the 32 is a definite advantage. If you shoot long line better I don't think it is an advantage basically because of bullet diameter when scoring.

oldcaster wrote:You have to have enough recoil to function the gun regardless of which caliber it is. If it is the same gun the same is needed. The reason the 32's have so much less recoil is because they are blowback instead of disconnect types. If you are the type that has more trouble at the short line than the long line, I think the 32 is a definite advantage. If you shoot long line better I don't think it is an advantage basically because of bullet diameter when scoring.

Dave Salyer told me he talked to one of the AMU shooters, and they talked about the advantage of shooting a 9MM for centerfire. On average, in a match, it was giving them an additional four points, in spite of the smaller diameter bullet. Might not be much of an advantage, but for a high master at Camp Perry, every little bit helps.

You would have to do that until the cows came home to prove it one way or another. For one thing, the 9mm bullets have to be shot faster to keep accuracy up and it is a sharper type of recoil also which can be a disadvantage on the short line. The difference in width over 90 shots would be over 4 inches total. 4 inches would give way more than 5 points especially to someone who kept them close to the center.

Thanks for all the inputs. I now know it's not to far a stretch to be able to compete with centerfire pistols available now on the market.

The Glock 24 C with a rifled, fully supported barrel seems like a plausible bullseye option. If you have poor ventilation, a non compensated replacement barrel may be better. (otherwise, bullseye loadings can be SMOKY) The factory trigger pull is advertised as 3.5#. The deficit is in the grip, as there is no thumb rest nor palm swell. If you don't mind the jerry-rigged look, a Pachmayr grip sleeve and the JP magwell adapter is a comforting "plus". I lightened the recoil spring on mine; matched it with a softball loading, pushing 175gr Lee TC handcast pills. The longer sight radius (6.03" bbl) gets you into higher sight picture acuity. As others have mentioned, these plastic guns display some inherent accuracy, but they are no S&W M-52 nor Les Baer WC!

IMHO, steel framed guns get my vote. Happy shooting!