I am curious about how/why caliber affects the service life of a handgun. This question is not so much about real-world relevance (I understand that I will never shoot this volume of ammo out of a single weapon, and that if I did, I could certainly afford a replacement.) This is more to increase my understanding of firearms and their function.
-
This is NOT another “stopping power” question about terminal ballistics or a caliber debate for carry.
-
I tried searching several sources and did not gain a clear understanding. If I missed something, I apologize, and could someone please direct me to the appropriate source?
H&K has reported a USP .45 with over 297,000 rounds, and Chuck Taylor’s Gen. 2 Glock 17 is reported to be around 300,000. It seems to be fairly well accepted that an identical .40 S&W will not have the service life that a 9x19mm or .45 ACP weapon will. I have always heard that the higher pressure of the .40 round is harder on guns, and therefore accelerates wear. However, I’m confused: max SAAMI chamber pressure for both the 9mm and .40 is 35,000 PSI. Why then, does .40 accelerate wear over 9mm or .45? Do we see this so frequently because the commonly-mentioned Glocks were designed around the 9mm round, with the under-sprung .40 as an afterthought? Do we not see more high round counts in .45 pistols because of the cost of the ammo/the physical toll the higher recoil on the shooter? Or because the round is harder on those guns?
Going back to the calibers that seem to show the highest round counts, between similar 9mm and .45 handguns (i.e. USP 9/USP 45; Glock 17/21, M&P 9/45), can we expect a longer service life out of the 9mm (lower recoil) or the .45 (lower chamber pressure) model, assuming all else is equal? Or do the variables between models make it impossible to determine this? If so, what about an identical 9mm vs. .45 1911 (with the appropriate spring weights, etc.)?
Thank you in advance for explaining some of the physics behind how caliber affects weapons.





