40, 9MM or 380


PDA






RUBZERK
June 22, 2005, 01:05 AM
Im getting a SA XD 40 in a few days. Mainly used for target & ccw from time to time.
My wifes coworker is trying to get me to change my mind & says i should get a 380

Is there anything i should know that makes a 380 better than a 40 ???

The cost of ammo is not a reason to chose one gun over another.
I allready have a S&W 9mm

If you enjoyed reading about "40, 9MM or 380" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
June 22, 2005, 02:50 AM
No reason to go 380 over 9x19 unless the size pistol you want cannot be chambered in 9x19.
380 is anemic.

BioDemon
June 22, 2005, 06:39 AM
The 40 S&W. Because it leaves a bigger hole.

Linemup
June 22, 2005, 07:29 AM
I carry a Sig P230 stainless often,or a S&W J-frame 38. I am a small guy (150#) And they are easier for me to conceal.

eagle45
June 22, 2005, 08:06 AM
Another vote for the 40. I have three of the XDs in 40 and love them all.

bakert
June 22, 2005, 08:25 AM
I know all the arguements and data charts but have never been truly convinced the .40 is that much better than the better 9 MM loads (and I'm a big bore fan). My best friend disagrees. Regardless of that though the 9MM is a much better choice than the .380 in a like size gun. The .40 would probably be your best choice if you want another calibre pistol.

The Drew
June 22, 2005, 08:32 AM
Nothing wrong with .40 as I own an XD in .40 but since the end of the AWB I prefer having a few extra rounds, along with more controllable recoil of the 9mm. With modern ammo the 9mm is more than adequate for self defense.

so I vote 9mm. but If I had to choose between two 10+1 (max) guns i'd go .40

Calhoun
June 22, 2005, 08:51 AM
380 is not even in the same class as the 9mm or .40. When people say it is the minimum self defense round, they really mean minimum. I would go with the 9mm myself. More controlable, more rounds on board, and with a god load every bit as as good as a .40. that, and I've never really cared for the .40. YMMV

Cal

rhubarb
June 22, 2005, 08:55 AM
What Calhoun said.

Plus, 9mm is the cheeapest centerfire handgun round. Literally more bang for the buck.

KevinB
June 22, 2005, 08:59 AM
Alot of people like the larger calibers because they "make bigger holes" etc. It is true, even if it is only by a few milimeters. But my thinking about it has always been different. I wouldn't opt for a larger caliber for the size difference. Its the extra weight that I find appealing. That being said I went with the XD9. I think I would have enjoyed the .40, 180gr. bullets are a good thing. But I don't reload, and I knew I would practice alot more with the 9. Either one you go with, I know you will be pleased. The XD is a great gun. Oh, and a .380 over an XD40... :scrutiny:

-Kevin

Marshall
June 22, 2005, 09:01 AM
It's like asking if you should use a baseball bat or a broomstick.

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 09:47 AM
The only reason you might consider a .380 over a 9mm or .40 is if you are planning to use a small back-up type gun for deep concealment.

For all other practical purposes the 9mm or .40 will serve you best I think. I prefer the 9mm due to capacity and cost.

Black Majik
June 23, 2005, 06:38 PM
I dont even think XD's are chambered for .380.

For range fun, I'd go for the 9mm. For defense, I'd go for the .40

Keep in mind, the value pack of .380 and .40 is almost the same in price around $15.

9mm WWB is about $11. So all favor 9mm IMO.

caz223
June 23, 2005, 10:12 PM
I personally don't have much use for .380 or 10mm kurz.
Of the choices here, I'd say go with 9mm.
If you get a chance to fondle/shoot a .45, don't pass it up.
My favorite auto calibers are, in order.
10mm, .45 acp, 357SIG, 9mm.
I'll let you guys shoot the rest.

BryanP
June 23, 2005, 10:19 PM
If you're not worried about the money get the XD40 and then buy a 9mm barrel to go with it.

They XD doesn't come in .380. If I was going to get one of the tiny XD's like the subcompact I'd probably get the 9mm if for no other reason then the lesser recoil would be kinder to my arthritis.

5Wire
June 24, 2005, 12:16 AM
I prefer the 9mm for economy and concealability over the forty; the forty is a nice round but more expensive to shoot and the guns are necessarily larger and more difficult to conceal. Advances in gun design have allowed 9mm guns to shrink in size to compete with .380s for concealability. My next choice would be something small in .45ACP .

I think the .40s may be ideal as service weapons. I liked my Ruger KP944S but I was going broke at the range.

RUBZERK
June 24, 2005, 01:16 AM
Like I said. I have a S&W sigma 9mm that I love, But im goona get a new toy soon & this goofball friend of my wifes is trying to tell me to buy a 380 that I think is useless.

My choice is a Bi-tone XD 40


Just wanted other feed back for kicks.

Elmer
June 24, 2005, 01:24 AM
.40 S&W. Performs like a good 9mm, with more recoil, less magazine capacity, and higher cost ammo. What's not to like? :scrutiny:

faustulus
June 24, 2005, 03:46 AM
Get the one YOU want.

Dragun
June 24, 2005, 05:07 AM
quote: "The cost of ammo is not a reason to chose one gun over another."

yes it is.... i belive the 9mm is winning this poll is because secondarily if not primarily for that reason. i think my vote just became obvious.

LMC
June 24, 2005, 06:02 AM
At first the reason that i settled for the .40 is that beretta doesn't make a full size .45 then i did a litte looking around on the internet an ballistic wise the .40 seems superior to the ol .45. Just my opinion not trying to state facts. :)

Clayton
June 24, 2005, 06:31 AM
.40 S&W if you are purchasing the gun for self defence. If you are buying a gun to target shoot or plink then by all means go with the 9mm or the .380.

Jay

jc2
June 24, 2005, 08:40 AM
For general use (plinking, informal target, defence), you just can't beat the 9x19. With current generation premium JHPs, it is every bit as effective for defence as the .40 S&W with the added benefits of lower cost practice ammo, higher capacity and considerably faster recovery time between shots. It's also a lot easier on the weapon--.40 S&W weapons have more problems, problems earlier and more severe problems than their 9x19 equivalents. Thought it's very, very slight, the 9x19 will have a reliability edge over the .40 S&W.

Now, if concealed carry is in your plans (or you want to ensure domestice tranquility--all ways a big plus), the .380 may be a viable choice. You certainly give up some effectiveness by going to a .380, but as has been pointed out, it beats having nothing. A .380 will be a whole lot easier to carry concealed than an XD. You can drop a .380 in the pocket (or the wive's purse, etc. If you plan on carrying an XD, you are looking a good belt and a good holster or two at a minimum, and having to dress around the weapon. The .380 definitely has the edge when it comes to casual concealed carry.

An alternate solution, would be to purchase Makarov (not a .380 but close enough) for the wife for about $150 and the XD9 for you. That way she has her ".380," and you have your XD9 (and a weapon you can drop in your pocket or in her purse).

Super Trucker
June 24, 2005, 06:01 PM
.380 ammo would be harder to find than 9 or 40. I voted for the .40 from the choices you left, not only for the ammo variety (9mm is the most common)but for the bigger hole also. My wife is 5'3" 103# and fires my XD-40 service with no problems, so your size will not be an issue. The only .40 I have fired that had noticeable recoil was the Kahr P40.

R.H. Lee
June 24, 2005, 06:05 PM
9 minimeter. Ammo is plentiful and inexpensive. Recoil is minimal, especially in a full size all steel pistol. Why even bother with a .40 when you can go all the way to .45acp? .380 is mousegun material.

That's all.

albanian
June 24, 2005, 06:13 PM
For a range gun, I would go with the 9mm for the less expensive ammo.
For a target gun, I would go with the 9mm for the accurate loads and low recoil. For a self defense gun, I would go with the 9mm for the higher capacity and preformance of the best 9mm JHPs. For every every thing I can think of, the 9mm stands out as the better choice between the three caliber you asked about. 9mm is one of those rare win-win situations. It is low cost, accurate, powerful and you get more rounds in a gun chambered in 9mm than you do in .40. I have never seen anything that says in real world gunfights, the .40S&W is better than the best 9mms. It would stand to reason that the .40 would be better but it sure doesn't seem to be so much better that anyone can tell.

I love my 9mms because I can control them and shoot them as often as I like. I also love .45s because I find them very controlable as well. the .40S&W can be a nasty little round to try and control if firing rapid fire with one hand. This is my benchmark in how I can control a handgun designed for self defense. I figuire that this is the way it will most likely be shot so if I can't handle it, I don't need to own that gun. The Beretta 92fs is right at my limit of being able to control it one handed rapid fire. If it were any bigger, I think I would start to lose control. The Kahr K-9 is a fistful of gun and I feel like I would never lose control of it since it fits so wel in my mitt.

shield20
June 24, 2005, 06:34 PM
.40 - great compromise of the 9's extra capacity & the .45's bigger caliber benefits. (though I like the .45 best). No advantage to the .380 - better off with a 9mm then if you need a traditionally ".380 sized" smaller compact piece.

71Commander
June 24, 2005, 07:59 PM
.40 because I don't have one yet!! Two .380's and two 9's. :cool:

Zach S
June 25, 2005, 12:28 AM
quote: "The cost of ammo is not a reason to chose one gun over another."

yes it is.... i belive the 9mm is winning this poll is because secondarily if not primarily for that reason. i think my vote just became obvious.
Eh, some of us prefer 9mm because its one less caliber to buy... I shoot .45 auto at least five times as much as I do 9mm, if cost of ammo was a concern I'd have two .45s and seven 9mms...

Sir Aardvark
June 25, 2005, 02:33 AM
Friends don't let friends carry .380's.

355sigfan
June 26, 2005, 12:25 PM
I have no use for the 380. I would go with the 9mm. It can do everything the 40 can at less cost with less recoil and more ammo and less chance of KB.
Pat

C-grunt
June 28, 2005, 01:27 PM
I have a XD 9mm and it is one of my most accurate pistols. Plus, like these other guys, I like more rounds incase anything bad happens.

klover
June 28, 2005, 04:18 PM
Had a 459 S&W 9mm (14+1). I didn't like ergonomics nor lack of accuracy of the 459.

Move to the RAMI because the ergonomics and accuracy for me was just fine. It had several fail to feed at ramp bottom so I traded it and some cash for a rifle.

Found a Makarov for accuracy and ergonomics both a joy for me. Power between .380 and 9mm.

Tainted by the feed issues of bottom feeders, ccw (unless its two or three) goes to J frames.

dhoomonyou
June 28, 2005, 04:28 PM
40. More bang for the buck. MY VOTE
9mm, only if its super small.
380 NO

CajunBass
June 28, 2005, 05:50 PM
Yep. I'm a big 9mm fan because the ammo is half the cost of anything else. If I wanted a .380 sized gun, I'd get a 9x18 Makarov for the same reason. I can order 9x18 for a lot less than .380.

osteodoc08
June 28, 2005, 06:20 PM
My wife has a Sig 230 that she loves to shoot. Matter of fact, we're going to the range tomorrow for a little time together on her day off. That being said, I'd personally go with a .40 as I have an uncontrollable itch for a tupperware .40. I've got a 9mm that is fun to shoot, but I prefer a heavier projectile. I'd rather shoot a buffalo with a 45/70 with a 405 gr bullet rather than a 243 with a 80 gr bullet even though the 243 puts out for energy in ft/lbs at all distances.

Ala Dan
June 28, 2005, 06:29 PM
NATO round, ammunition is available virtually world-wide.

gringolet
June 28, 2005, 09:02 PM
easier to conceal and carry..easier to shoot well..not over penetrative...and if they are good enough for JAMES BOND, then they sould be good enough for ANYBODY! :D

Khaotic
June 29, 2005, 02:15 AM
.380ACP - subsonic handloads, semi-wadcutters (what they used to call Keithpoints?)

The range and conditions it was originally likely to be used in required that it...
A - Not make a lot of noise.
B - Not punch through the target.
C - Do a lot of messy and effective damage at short range while complying with B.

Over time, familiarity with the weapon has kept me carrying it, and at medium-short pistol range (which you'd wind up at, or less, in a city confrontation) it'll make a mess of the target without punching through and hitting some old lady.

The weapon also happens to be astoundingly accurate with match-grade bullets, and surprisingly accurate even with the semi's in it... but a good bit of that is familiarity with the weapon itself, likely.

-K

jlwatts3
June 29, 2005, 04:34 AM
+1 for 9mm

Glocker
June 29, 2005, 03:44 PM
BECAUSE .40S&W IS SO COOL :cool:

gringolet
June 29, 2005, 06:30 PM
I'm not so down on 380 as most seem to be. some of the folks who report such things give it a 60-70% one-shot stop rating..not bad..shoot 'em twice and they are 120-140% stopped I guess! The 380's as a class tend to be neat, light, slim..very nice to bring to hand easily...shoot fairly mildly and allow good gun handling..and allow speed. A man fumbling to get his larger 40 into play could be well and truly shot for his 140% by a 380 before he got his chunko'gun in the game...AND for urban environs a weapon that is overly penetrative is not good...crowds of people..the background all placed at greater risk...the 380 has a place for sure and is probably much more apt to be with you than the hog leg or 2-3 pound cube-shaped handgun. Sure, shot for shot a 9 is superior..a 40 is superior to that and a 357 beats 'em all...
but what works is what you have and can put into action with speed and skill...and a 380 certainly allows that. Having said this, I hasten to add I also own a 40 I do love..but it is certainly not so easy to pack or so easy to hand as my 380.

Elmer
June 29, 2005, 09:08 PM
easier to conceal and carry..easier to shoot well..not over penetrative...and if they are good enough for JAMES BOND, then they sould be good enough for ANYBODY!

Actually, if you're referring to the PPK.... Bond carried a .32.

IZinterrogator
June 30, 2005, 01:29 AM
9mm

More ammo, less recoil, more control than 40. 380 doesn't penetrate enough without using FMJ ammo.

355sigfan
June 30, 2005, 01:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not so down on 380 as most seem to be. some of the folks who report such things give it a 60-70% one-shot stop rating..not bad..shoot 'em twice and they are 120-140% stopped I guess! The 380's as a class tend to be neat, light, slim..very nice to bring to hand easily...shoot fairly mildly and allow good gun handling..and allow speed. A man fumbling to get his larger 40 into play could be well and truly shot for his 140% by a 380 before he got his chunko'gun in the game...AND for urban environs a weapon that is overly penetrative is not good...crowds of people..the background all placed at greater risk...the 380 has a place for sure and is probably much more apt to be with you than the hog leg or 2-3 pound cube-shaped handgun. Sure, shot for shot a 9 is superior..a 40 is superior to that and a 357 beats 'em all...
but what works is what you have and can put into action with speed and skill...and a 380 certainly allows that. Having said this, I hasten to add I also own a 40 I do love..but it is certainly not so easy to pack or so easy to hand as my 380.
END QUOTE

You place way too much faith is OSS figures.
Pat

Joey101
June 30, 2005, 05:14 AM
I say, your already going to be taking a 9mm size bullet length wise and putting a .40 cal bullet in it. So why not opt for the .45 GAP. Same size length wise and much stopping power, and yes a bigger hole!! :D

355sigfan
June 30, 2005, 10:35 AM
Oh great get a gap with half the ammo and half the concealability. (still has a 21 slide on it) The gap gives a marginal performance increase on the 9mm and 40 sw not as much as a lot would believe.
Pat

Joey101
June 30, 2005, 10:54 AM
I do have one thank you! And concealability is not hard for one who is determined! .45 is not in short supply and can easily be found. You must be one of those GAP haters! Oh well to each his own I guess!


BTW, .45 GAP is the same as .45 ACP only in a smaller package!

tbeb
July 1, 2005, 12:44 AM
I voted .40 because you already have a 9mm. 9mm and .40 are much better than .380 ACP in my opinion. If push came to shove I'd even choose a .38 special over a .380 ACP. I've never owned a .40. I do own a 9mm and a .45 ACP. For self defense I'd grab either. I do like the 17-round capacity of my 9mm though.

355sigfan
July 1, 2005, 01:43 AM
You could conceal a sawed off shotgun if your determined I suppose that does not make it a good choice. Yes I am a Gap hater. No they are not available everywhere. And not it does not do what the 45 acp can. The Gap is loaded to +p pressures to get standard acp velocity. Lets compare apples to apples. The +p acp out runs the gap by 150 fps.
Pat

Russ
July 1, 2005, 01:49 AM
I think it depends on what you feel comfortable carrying. If it were me I would carry a .45. However, since I have to wear dress pants and shirt to work I carry a Kel-Tec .380. It is very light and fits in my pocket. However, I think this is a minimal round for self defence. I would not volunteer to get shot by one but if you can carry a larger caliber and easily conceal it, I would go for the biggest bullet you can get. I personally like the .40 cal. I like 9mm's as well. Given the choice, I would go for the bigger bullet. More weight, bigger hole, etc.

Depends on what you have to do to keep the weapon concealed. In most states, you have to keep that thing out of sight or you are in violation of your CC permit. I never felt inadequate with the .380 but if I actually had to use it I might have. I have a Kahr Arms MK40 which lends itself to concealed carry. However, this if not a light gun and believe me, weight matters when carrying all day.

I guess I would carry a .22 is that is all I had access to. They will kill no doubt, However, if you shoot someone with a weak caliber, they may be able to kill or hurt you before they drop. When in a life of death situation, I would not go less than the .380 and preferably a larger caliber if I could conceal it and bear the weight.

I used to think weight didn't matter too much until I started carrying full time. A few ounces makes a difference.

Choose the weapon you like the best. Consider the caliber and the weight of the gun and how easy it is to conceal. Just make sure you can shoot whatever you carry with accuracy and you know it will do what you want.

I said I would have a .45 if I could carry it and keep it concealed given what I have to wear to work. My real preference would be a 12 ga. shotgun. That way, I know I can rarely miss and the person coming at me won't be getting up any time soon.

If you like the .40 XD, they by all means get it. As they say, different strokes for different folks!. Good luck on your choice.

BigSlick
July 1, 2005, 02:04 AM
Two good options come to mind given the constraints of your poll :

Sig or Glock. 229, 239 or G23, 32 etc..

Both cheap, multiple calibers available inexpensively and any will get the job done.

Personally I carry a Lightweight Commander in 45 ACP. I have carried others (and do still when the situation warrants), but for reliability, feel, suitability to purpose and effectiveness it's hard to beat.

Better yet, take an afternoon, take your woman to a local range and rent a few until you find what feels best.

You will probably find something that you both like and can buy two of them ;)

But seriously, get a 45 ACP :neener:

BigSlick

RUBZERK
July 1, 2005, 11:36 AM
Well i have not shot a xd-40 yet, But from what i read on the net. I think its what i want.

I have the 9mm, but i want a larger cal gun for carry.
I mainly carry on weekends when im out & about with the wife. Besides now that hot weather is here, the nut cases come out, I need to get on the ball.

But as i read more & more, My eyes like the walther p99 40 cal. :D

Too Many Choices!?
July 1, 2005, 01:10 PM
This is to be a concealed carry weapon, correct? You want it small, correct? Small means little barrel, correct? Little barrel means 9mm, gets no velocity to do damage upon impact. See where this is going? My smallets gun(Taurus PT-145 sub-compact) shoots the biggest bullet for this reason, but .45 was not an option so i said .40. I love my Glock 23, chambered in .40 but since it is a mid-sized frame gun ,and I am a small-framed man, I can't carry it like I would like to(24/7). It does get called to duty at night or if I can wear a wind breaker though...

PS I would not trust 9mm coming out of any barrel length short of 5-6"(preferably 9"+ or so) :uhoh: , but maybe that's just me :o I think the numbers speak for themselves...9mm needs nine inches of barrel to be effective, .40 needs 4", and .45 only needs 4" also :neener:

355sigfan
July 2, 2005, 04:08 AM
There is no appreciable difference in terminal performance from the 40sw and 9mm regardless of barrel length. The overall difference is about .05 caliber equal penetration and about 40 footpounds or so big deal. I used to like the 40sw then the 357sig. But I learned the 9mm is fine.
Pat

RUBZERK
July 4, 2005, 09:48 PM
Well, i guess its time to put an end to this poll because i went with the SA XD-40 4" with SS slide.

Pietro Beretta
July 4, 2005, 10:22 PM
For some people... Higher capicity doesnt matter.

If they Live in **********, you can only have 10 rounds anyway.....
I just wish SA would make a 10round magazine for the .40 XD SC.

Its only 9 rounds, or 12 rounds. That extra bullet would make me feel... that much safer

RUBZERK
July 4, 2005, 10:55 PM
If your really good, you only need 1

browningguy
July 4, 2005, 11:23 PM
I voted for the .40, that's my main carry gun (Browning High Powers). But I do have a EAA Witness P in 9mm that I carry occassionally. 33 rounds of 9mm or 21 rounds of 40 (I only carry one spare mag), sometimes it seems like a toss up.

1911.45
July 4, 2005, 11:35 PM
40S&W is, without doubt, IMO, the obvious choice of these calibers, unless the pistol choices were limited to a pocket gun like a Kahr PM9 or PM40, then I would choose the PM9 and load with 9mm+P.

For target/practice purposes, 9mm is fine. For target purposes, .22 is fine. But for a defensive round, 40 S&W is a more potent round, IMO, than 9mm. While 40S&W factory loads are a little more expensive than 9mm, you're worth it. There is plenty of data to support law enforcements switch to 40S&W and 45ACP; it is just a more potent round.

Forget the 380; there is just no point unless someone gave you a pistol or you already owned something in 380.

I carry a Glock 23 when I want or anticipate a need for high round capacity, but otherwise I carry a Wilson Combat CQB Compact in 45ACP.

For the very best target/practice/competition/defensive pistol, get a 1911 in 45 caliber. Unless deep concealment is essential, such as pocket, ankle, belly, or similar carry, a 1911 conceals easily carried IWB.

355sigfan
July 5, 2005, 03:12 AM
I agree on the 1911 I love my CQB and Kimber Custom. But as to the 9mm vs the 40 there is not much difference. The 40 expands about .03 caliber larger with the same penetration with the best loads. For this you pay with much more recoil and less capacity and more expensive ammo. Plus the KB risk factor. I dropped the 40 and 357 sig the 9mm is fine. If you want more jump up to the 45 acp.
Pat

Golddog
July 5, 2005, 07:55 PM
A lot of .380 pistols are blowbacks, giving them substantial recoil. Since there are 9's close in size to .380's today, it seems silly to go with the less effective round.

Since 9's are cheaper to shoot, you'll practice more than with a .40. A lot more practice is worth a lot more than a slight increase in power.

Pietro Beretta
July 8, 2005, 07:22 PM
If they Live in **********, you can only have 10 rounds anyway.....
I just wish SA would make a 10round magazine for the .40 XD SC.

Its only 9 rounds, or 12 rounds. That extra bullet would make me feel... that much safer


Well I found a Factory Magazine for the SA XD SC .40 that holds 10 rounds.
I called them up to make sure it was a 10 round magazine for the .40 SA XD SC model, and indeed it is..

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept%5Fid=122049&sku=13134&imgid=&mscssid=H3K1GFNJ1UE49K6797PR4E5GXT12AW5D

pezo
July 8, 2005, 09:00 PM
I vote for the .38 super. :)

asleepinTucson
July 8, 2005, 09:53 PM
My employer dictates what rounds and firearms we carry on and off duty. The selection is 9mm or 38 special. So a glock 19 on duty, glock 26 off duty or my S&W model 36. With +p ammo offerings I'm ok with these two allowed loads, although I would prefer they let me carry .40 or.45

straycat999
July 9, 2005, 06:27 PM
I'm waiting on the gunshop to get in its shipment for my XD 40. I like the option of a conversion 9mm barrel down the road, if I do a lot of target shooting.

Ohen Cepel
July 9, 2005, 06:32 PM
9mm.

More ammo, easier to buy, cheaper to shoot, and I think it's all that's needed in a social setting.

SouthpawShootr
July 9, 2005, 06:47 PM
I tend to get most designs in 9mm, if available. Ballistically, the .380 is definitely inferior to either 9mm or .40. Add to that the fact that a majority of the .380s are straight blowback and you get a gun/cartridge combination that is less effective and slightly more difficult to shoot. Ammo is a bit more expensive as well. 9 vs .40 is a bit more problematic. From the stats I've seen .40 should have a slight edge, 9mm wins out, of course, on firepower (capacity). The edge is there, but it's not overwhelming, so boils down to what you like better. I usually buy 9mm b/c I want to shoot the gun alot and ammunition is much cheaper than .40.

buddyRoland
July 9, 2005, 10:40 PM
I love the 40sw but shoot the 9mm better and the ammo is cheaper. I also carry Corbon +Ps and Hydra-Shoks for personal defense.

double0757
July 14, 2005, 01:23 AM
Money no option .40 cal. Good penetration and consistent expantion, and bigger hole than .9mm or 380. Accurate as a .9mm with little less capacity.

Double "O"

355sigfan
July 14, 2005, 02:30 AM
Money no option .40 cal. Good penetration and consistent expantion, and bigger hole than .9mm or 380. Accurate as a .9mm with little less capacity.

Double "O"
END QUOTE

The truth. The 40 is usually less accurate in simular pistols from a mechanical rest (eliminates human error) Groups usually range from 20 to 50% larger. Not sure if its a rifling twist issue or what. As for penetration and expansion the 40 only beats the 9mm by about .03 to .05 caliber if the best loads are compared with equal penetration. For this advantage you gain a fair amount of extra recoil, weapon wear and tear, and more expensive ammunition. I used to be a big 40 fan but now I am not.
Pat

Too Many Choices!?
July 14, 2005, 12:04 PM
Please explain this,"extra wear and tear", that a .40 will have over a 9mm and please show any citations on the .40 being less accurate from a mechanical rest :confused:...
Are you saying that .40 cal weapons use 9mm slides, springs, or other parts? Because I always asssumed that a firearm was designed with the specific caliber that it was going to fire in mind :uhoh: ...
Please let me know why my Glock 23 in .40 S&W will wear out before a Glock 17 in 9mm assuming both were designed with it's own cartrige in mind :uhoh: ?

GunGoBoom
July 14, 2005, 01:54 PM
I personally don't have much use for .380 or 10mm kurz. [.40 s&w]
Of the choices here, I'd say go with 9mm.
If you get a chance to fondle/shoot a .45, don't pass it up.
My favorite auto calibers are, in order.
10mm, .45 acp, 357SIG, 9mm.
I'll let you guys shoot the rest.

+1, Cept mine are 9mm, .45 acp, 10mm, .45 super, and .38 super, in order. Never had a .357 sig, but they don't appeal to me.

355sigfan
July 14, 2005, 02:18 PM
Please explain this,"extra wear and tear", that a .40 will have over a 9mm and please show any citations on the .40 being less accurate from a mechanical rest ...
Are you saying that .40 cal weapons use 9mm slides, springs, or other parts? Because I always asssumed that a firearm was designed with the specific caliber that it was going to fire in mind ...
Please let me know why my Glock 23 in .40 S&W will wear out before a Glock 17 in 9mm assuming both were designed with it's own cartrige in mind ?
END QUOTE

Ok first for the wear and tear. Most 40's are simply rebarrled 9mm's. Glocks even use the same recoil spring for their 40's and 9mm models. Nearly all 40's are identical in dimensions to their 9mm parents. The 40 is also a high pressure cartridge with high slide velocities. It beats guns up faster. For example Glocks in 9mm like the 17 have gone 180000 rounds and are still ticking. 40's have quite at 5000 or 6000 rounds. Some go longer but there is a disturbing trend for 40's to have a much shorter service life.

Then there is reliability. According to a DOJ report I read and have 85 % of the 9mm and 45 acp guns passed their reliability and safety standards. Only 60% of the 40's and 357 sigs passed.

As for accuracy read some of the comparisons in Gun Tests and the other gun magazines. You will usually see the 40's grouping large. In my own personal experience most 40's seem to shoot anywhere from 20 to 50% larger groups. Did you ever notice how no 40's are use in competition where accuracy matters more than speed like bulleye. 45's and 9mm's dominate this game no one serious uses a 40sw.

Your GLock 23 is nearly identical to the Glock 19 in 9mm except the barrel has a larger diameter hole and over all weight is a fracton more.

The ballistic advantage claimed by the 40sw is slight. The best 40 loads penetrate about 12 to 14 inches and expand from .65 to .75 caliber. The best 9mm's penetrate from 12 to 14 inches as well and expand from .60 to .70 caliber.
Pat

halvey
July 14, 2005, 02:20 PM
I think it depends on what you feel comfortable carrying. If it were me I would carry a .45. However, since I have to wear dress pants and shirt to work I carry a Kel-Tec .380. .. I used to think weight didn't matter too much until I started carrying full time. A few ounces makes a difference. Russ nailed it. You need to figure out what you can carry ALL THE TIME. If it's just for shooting paper, well then whatever you like is fine.

355sigfan
July 14, 2005, 02:31 PM
I believe Chuck Taylor once said a pistol is supposed to be comforting not comfortable. You should carry the most effective weapon you can possibly conceal. You should not carry some pea shooter because its easy. Personally I will not carry anything smaller than my 442 Smith Airweight 38. I only carried that for under cover assignments where concealment was very very difficult.
Pat

jc2
July 14, 2005, 03:46 PM
I believe that was a Clint Smith quote. :)
Your GLock 23 is nearly identical to the Glock 19 in 9mm except the barrel has a larger diameter hole and over all weight is a fracton more.
A better way to describe it is "your G23 is nearly identical to the G19 except it has less metal in the barrel and chamber area." :uhoh:

Biker
July 14, 2005, 04:48 PM
A larger diameter barrel means a bigger bullet which means a bigger hole. Hmmmm? ;)
Biker

jc2
July 14, 2005, 05:46 PM
It means a slightly wider hole (about four one hundreths of an inch), but not necessarily a bigger hole--penetration accounts for a whole lot more of the permanent cavity.

It also means a slightly lower capacity (pretty important if you ever need those last two or three rounds).

It also means a slightly weaker barrel and chamber (the term kB! only entered common lexicon after the advent of the .40 S&W).

Hmmm, indeed. :uhoh:

Biker
July 14, 2005, 05:56 PM
Here we are again, jc.

A) Would it be fair to say that a bigger hole in your enemy's anatomy is better than a smaller one? :)

b)If penetration was all that mattered, why don't you use ball in your nine? Or 38 Special LRN?

c) A G23 holds 13 plus 1. How many rounds do you consider to be adequate?
Biker ;)

jrpeterman
July 14, 2005, 06:19 PM
Stick with the XD-40. The XD-9 & XD-40 are virtually the same size. I own both a Glock 19 & 23, but prefer the extra power of the 40 for carry that's just my own preference. Either the 40 or the 9mm will be much more effective and cheaper than the .380 to feed.

jc2
July 14, 2005, 06:52 PM
A) Would it be fair to say that a bigger hole in your enemy's anatomy is better than a smaller one?
First off, whether expanded or unexpanded, you're only talking three or four hundeths of an inch--not real significant when you looking at a target the size of an adult. Again, you are talking only diameter--the greater part of the permanent cavity is the depth (penetration) of the wound, not the diameter of the wound. The bottom line remains, the .40 S&W is proving no more effective in LE use than the .36 calibres (9x19 and 357 SIG). There is a miniscule difference, but that difference is not enough to make a difference.
b)If penetration was all that mattered, why don't you use ball in your nine? Or 38 Special LRN?
Again, the largest part of the permanent cavity is made up by the depth (penetration), and a bullet has to penetrate deep enough to consistently reach the vitals to be effective. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on LRNs for FMJs, but I would certainly select an LRN or FMJ that could reach the vitals over a lightweight bullet driven too fast or a pre-fragmented bullet that merely left a shallow crater.
c) A G23 holds 13 plus 1. How many rounds do you consider to be adequate?
I usually consider six adequate, but the unassailable fact remains that a G19 holds more ammo than a G23, period (and if you ever need those extra three rounds, you'll be glad you had them).

It's not like the .40 S&W is a bad round. It's not. In fact, it is a good round. It is every bit as effective as the 9x19 or 357 SIG, BUT it is not more effective. That is the rub--you lose capacity and controllability, but you gain nothing in return. That extra three or four hundreths of an inch is just not enough to make a difference. It's just one good choice out of many good choices. If you like it, good for you--you're as well-armed as anybody carrying 9x19 or 357 SIG.

Elmer
July 15, 2005, 02:14 AM
With modern ammo, the differences in performance between .40 and 9mm are so small, miniscule really, it's not worth the weight, recoil, and capacity penalties. Not to mention the higher risk of kabooms.

.40 SW does seem to serve a purpose. It makes those who are carrying it think that they're carrying a big bore pistol.

Jedi_7.62
July 19, 2005, 10:19 AM
Cheaper and higher capaity magazines.

Elmer
July 19, 2005, 11:30 AM
The ballistic advantage claimed by the 40sw is slight. The best 40 loads penetrate about 12 to 14 inches and expand from .65 to .75 caliber. The best 9mm's penetrate from 12 to 14 inches as well and expand from .60 to .70 caliber.


The last ballistic demo I went to, the 9mm 147's were expanding to over .80, while still penetrating around 12". Most of the .40's weren't that good.



It's not like the .40 S&W is a bad round. It's not. In fact, it is a good round. It is every bit as effective as the 9x19 or 357 SIG, BUT it is not more effective. That is the rub--you lose capacity and controllability, but you gain nothing in return. That extra three or four hundreths of an inch is just not enough to make a difference. It's just one good choice out of many good choices. If you like it, good for you--you're as well-armed as anybody carrying 9x19 or 357 SIG.

Dead on......

But if you carry a nine, the other boys might laugh at you cause you're not carrying a big bad powerful .40 like they are........

I'm OK with that..... :rolleyes:

Dirty Bob
July 19, 2005, 02:28 PM
I choose the .380/9x18mm Makarov (I consider the two calibers very similar), because of the three factors that I consider most important:


Reliability. The Makarov is, hands down, the most reliable handgun I have ever used. I have never had a Mak fail to feed, fire or extract. I trust it far more than any other semiauto I have owned or fired.
Shootability. I am faster and more accurate with the Makarov than with any other handgun. It fits my hand as though it were made for me. I have total confidence in my ability to hit with it.
Can you carry it? A Makarov is slim, compact, and fairly lightweight. I can conceal it in jeans and a shirt, or in formal wear. It can go with me everywhere.


I understand and accept that it's wimpy compared to the 9x19 and the .40 S&W, but I make this choice based on the platform rather than the caliber.

By the way, the .380ACP is my absolute "basement" caliber in terms of power. I have friends who carry P-32s. While I think it's a great little gun, I'd switch to an Airweight snubby .38 rather than carry a .32 pistol.

Respectfully,
Dirty Bob

GlockX35
July 21, 2005, 07:52 PM
A good 124 gr 9mm JHP+P is as good as a .40. Look at the velocity and penetration numbers. .40 is barely, barely bigger than a 9mm. I like both though. If you don't like sanppy recoil don't get a .40.

355sigfan
July 21, 2005, 09:23 PM
choose the .380/9x18mm Makarov (I consider the two calibers very similar), because of the three factors that I consider most important:

Reliability. The Makarov is, hands down, the most reliable handgun I have ever used. I have never had a Mak fail to feed, fire or extract. I trust it far more than any other semiauto I have owned or fired.
Shootability. I am faster and more accurate with the Makarov than with any other handgun. It fits my hand as though it were made for me. I have total confidence in my ability to hit with it.
Can you carry it? A Makarov is slim, compact, and fairly lightweight. I can conceal it in jeans and a shirt, or in formal wear. It can go with me everywhere.

I understand and accept that it's wimpy compared to the 9x19 and the .40 S&W, but I make this choice based on the platform rather than the caliber.

By the way, the .380ACP is my absolute "basement" caliber in terms of power. I have friends who carry P-32s. While I think it's a great little gun, I'd switch to an Airweight snubby .38 rather than carry a .32 pistol.

Respectfully,
Dirty Bob
END QUOTE

The 9mm mak is a reliable pistol but its very lacking in the terminal performance area. Even the Russians who had to use it complained about its lack of terminal performance. It has since been replaced by the 9x19 over there.

The problems I see with the mak besides its inadiquate caliber are poor sights, poor trigger, (not a da sa fan and the maks trigger is not a good example of a da sa to start with)

If your more accurate and faster with your mak than any other pistol you must not have fired very many pistols. Not a flame just my take on your suggestion.
Pat

Dirty Bob
July 22, 2005, 12:27 AM
The 9mm mak is a reliable pistol but its very lacking in the terminal performance area. Even the Russians who had to use it complained about its lack of terminal performance. It has since been replaced by the 9x19 over there.

The problems I see with the mak besides its inadiquate caliber are poor sights, poor trigger, (not a da sa fan and the maks trigger is not a good example of a da sa to start with)

If your more accurate and faster with your mak than any other pistol you must not have fired very many pistols. Not a flame just my take on your suggestion.
Pat
Hi, Pat

I appreciate your comment. I didn't take it as a flame at all. Perhaps I could have elaborated. Ideally, I'd probably take a Glock 19 and not look back, but I strongly believe I'd have trouble concealing one in this hot climate, and with my wardrobe restrictions (office casual: shirt with tie and dress slacks, most of the year). On the other hand, I live in a low crime area and have very low risk habits. The Makarov is relatively small and flat. It fits my hand very well and points well for me. I'll take it over a .38 snubby, which was my other candidate. I don't know of a highly reliable, affordable 9x19mm in the same size range. If you could suggest one, I might be interested.

You're right, I haven't shot a lot of pistols, but I have smallish hands and did not like some of the larger DA service autos -- like the Beretta 92 -- much. I don't love the DA/SA trigger of the Mak, but mine isn't horrible, and the SA trigger seems pretty good. I think the trigger I liked the least was the Kel-Tec P-11. Kind of a cool pistol, but I hated that looooong trigger pull.

By the way, I hope my comments weren't taken as a suggestion. It was a personal choice, and I don't suggest others do the same. I was sharing what led me to make my choice.

Thanks,
Bob

355sigfan
July 22, 2005, 12:32 AM
No problem. I carry my Wilson 1911 CQB concealed in a versa max 2 from miltsparks you may look at another holster. The right holster can conceal a larger weapon well.
Pat

Major Beer
August 10, 2005, 12:02 PM
9MM if you have good ammo.

If you enjoyed reading about "40, 9MM or 380" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!