9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm?


PDA






dandamien
October 3, 2006, 08:39 AM
I'm new to shooting and was looking for some advice before buying my first gun. I have decided to go with a Glock but I'm trying to decide between the 9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm. My situation is that I am looking for a weapon primarily for self defense purposes. I have shot both the 9mm and 40 cal and seem to be far more accurate in the 9mm. I believe itís the recoil in the 40 that's causing the drop in accuracy, but I heard it will come around in time. I am approaching my first purchase with the idea of quality over quantity. So with that said I'm just being really selective before I buy.
One of the factors I am taking into account is the cost of ammo. The 9mm is the cheapest to shoot but if the 40 is really more effective (given that I am equally accurate with each) in terms of stopping power I am willing to suck it up. Part of my reasoning is that I donít want to regret getting the right fit just to save a few bucks.
As far as the 10mm goes I still need to try it out before I make my final decision but it is my understanding the recoil is similar to the 40. I also understand the ammo isn't necessarily hard to find but itís not as common as the 9mm or 40 cal.
So I guess it really comes down to whether the 9mm will do me right or if I should go with the 40 cal and just get used to the recoil, and the accuracy will eventually come around? Also is the power in the 10 mm worth the extra ammo costs and drop in accuracy or will the other 2 do the trick? I am looking for a good weapon to learn on but also one in which I wont grow out of easily. Also I wonder if its better to have the 9mm which seems to be able to get off more shots in less time than the 40 cal or 10mm, or am I wrong?
I have been reading the discussion boards and I respect your opinions. I would really appreciate any insight that might help with my first purchase. Thanks,
dan

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Slvr Surfr
October 3, 2006, 09:21 AM
Dan,

Heres my 2 cents worth.

The 9mm has plenty of pros and cons.
The ammo is definitely plenty, and cheap. Its great for plinking, and is super easy to shoot. I have 4 in my collection currently and love shooting them all.
9mm guns also carry a lot of ammo. Most full size 9mm handguns can load about 15-18 rds in a mag.

I DO NOT carry 9mm for self defense. Its my personal belief that it would not be enough to put someone down quickly with a low round count being 3-5 shots. There are plenty of threads devoted to the caliber discussions that Im sure youve seen already. My thoughts are that I want the largest round that I can carry and shoot adequately in a gun fight.

I carry a Glock 22 .40 cal for work. It serves its purpose quite well.
As for the .40 cal:

Its not the easiest gun to shoot, but they are accurate. I had to practice a bit before I became close to being accurate. The G22 can carry 15+1 in the chamber. Ammo for the .40 cal is also easy to find and the practice ammo is cheap. Its a very good man stopper. Cons in my opinion are the flippiness of the round. Its not as easy to shoot as the 9mm.

10mm.

Its a great round if you have the money to get ammo. The rounds are a bit more expensive, and they arent as easy to find. The current ammo found in stores is also loaded to .40 caliber loads. Most gun shops dont have full powered loads that the 10mm was designed for. There are a couple of ammo manufacturers that do make full powered loads for the 10mm. One of them is Double Tap Ammunition. The really cool thing about the 10mm is the versatility of the round. DT makes rounds ranging from 135gr ammo to 230 gr ammo. The 135 gr does 1600 Fps. This ammo is designed for home defense. The rounds are so light and fast that if they strike an object they will disintegrate. This means that they will not over penetrate a sheet rock wall. Bottom line being that you can get ammo that will suit your needs. The only other problem I can see is that the Glock 10mm only comes in two sizes. Full, and baby glock size. The cool thing is with a full size Glock 20 in 10mm you can buy the after market barrels for .40 caliber and use them in the G20. That way you have 2 pistols in one. They also make after market barrels for the baby size 10mm (G29).

If I were you I would consider another round, being the .45 ACP. The round is easy to shoot, and easy to find. I find it more of a push type shot, than a flip like the .40 cal. It also has excellent manstopping power.

The .45 is what I carry off-duty, in a 1911 platform.

I hope I havent confused the heck out of you by now. This was an attempt to give a quick rundown of the calibers you asked about.

Finch
October 3, 2006, 09:24 AM
Like you said in your post, the cost of 9mm ammunition is cheaper. With your first gun, and it being for personal defense, you will want/need to shoot it a lot. Contrary to what people may tell you, 9mm is a decent choice for self defense. Pack your weapon with some JHP and I pity the poor soul on the business end of your weapon.

On the note of getting a 10mm, I would save that for another purchase down the line (there will be another purchase). 10mm are not as common nor as cheap as the 9mm. And like I said before you want to practice with your new friend as much as time and money allows. You also said that you are more accurate with the 9mm. This is an important observation that should not be over looked.

I think that a 9mm is a fine choice for a first gun, you seem to be comfortable with that round and the low cost will allot you more trigger time.

GotGlock
October 3, 2006, 09:54 AM
I carry a 9 and with modern hollowpoints, you'll be fine. Just keep shooting until the threat is stopped, don't fire 2-3 and wait to see what happens, in a confrontation where you life is on the chopping block, keep shooting. Theres no unwritten law that states you can only shoot 3 times, then wait to get killed if the BG is still moving. Make your shots count, practice, practice, and more practice. Don't just buy a gun, a box of bullets, stick both in your closet and expect to respond in a situation where lethal force is required. Whatever you decide on, buy 1000 rounds and go to the range. And when that 1000 is gone, go buy another 1000, repeat, until you feel that your truley know your able to keep your shots where they need to be, and not into your neighbors head.

EddieCoyle
October 3, 2006, 10:00 AM
Of the three, the 10mm is my personal favorite. Like Slvr Surfr said, it is a very veratile round. I bought a G29 a few weeks back and it has become my favorite carry gun. I have 4 10mm handguns and love to shoot them all. However, I'm a reloader so I make my own ammo (not the carry ammo, but the practice stuff). If I did not reload, the 10mm would not be my favorite. If you do not plan on to reload for the 10mm, plan to spend a small fortune on ammo.

The 9mm is probably the cheapest centerfire handgun cartridge to shoot, and there's plenty of guns that chamber it. With the right ammo, I wouldn't feel terribly under-gunned carrying it. I have a half-dozen 9mm's. I don't carry them often, but they're fun to shoot.

I don't own a .40. With the calibers I have, I find it superfluous, and there's no gun that's chambered for the .40 only that I can't live without.

steve635
October 3, 2006, 10:52 AM
Before Katrina I had a couple of 9mm's that were my primary home defense weapons (SW9M and Taurus PT92). After Katrina I replaced them primarily with a Glock 40 (model 23) and I am very happy with it. It took just a couple of trips to the range, but now I'm just as proficient with the 40 as I was with the 9. That being said, if I hadn't taken to the 40, I'd have gone back to the 9 with no reservations. I believe it is adequate for the purpose, the 40 is just a little more adequate. Also I'd say if the recoil on the 40 bothered you, it's very unlikely you'd be happy with a 10.

Vitamin G
October 3, 2006, 11:47 AM
Personally, I went with a Glock 26 for my very first serious carry gun. I was happy with the caliber selection, as it allowed me to practice WAY more than I would have otherwise. At $11/100 (9mm) compared to $21/100 (.45), I was almost literally practicing 2x as much. I never personally considered a .40cal weapon, because I don't mind 1911 size frames, and the 10mm allows me to shoot either .40 power, or something more serious.

That said, as much of a 10mm fan as i am, i don't think i could recommend it to anyone as a first firearm. If i could go back and change history, I'd stick with 9mm, but I'd probably get a BHP instead of that glock. I ended up liking 1911 style firearms, the grip angle, and metal more than others.

dandamien
October 3, 2006, 06:22 PM
Thanks for everyone's info, it was really helpful. I've got a couple new things to think about when I head to the range today.
Also if anyone else has some advice on the issue, the more info the better.
Anyway thanks again you guys.
Dan

defiant73a
October 3, 2006, 06:27 PM
There's not a lot of difference in performance between any of them when it comes to LE/personal defence. The 10mm offers some advantages if you want to hunt with a handgun (but there are a lot better choices for hunting than the 10mm). The G20 has completely different and (and for most people) much poorer ergonomics (which can definitely impact speed and accuracy very negatively) than the 9x19 and .40 S&W models. The G17 has proven the most durable and reliable of all the Glock models.

Soybomb
October 3, 2006, 07:11 PM
I love love love 10mm guns but I think the ammo is way too expensive for them to be a good choice for a new shooter. Buy a 9mm, shoot it alot.

MTMilitiaman
October 3, 2006, 07:32 PM
For a first handgun, I would recommend the 9mm. It is cheaper and easier to find, you already know you are more accurate with it, and this will encourage you to practice more.

I personally love my Glock 20, and the 10mm Auto in general. It wouldn't be an all-together bad choice for you. The FBI-Lite and mid-level loads will have less recoil than a .40 because they shoot the same bullet at comparible velocities, but the 10mm is in a larger framed pistol. When you get used to these loads, you can step up to the full power Double Tap or Georgia Arms stuff and shoot the same bullet 200+ fps faster than the .40 can do, and rival energy levels of full power .357 Magnum in the process. And even then, the Glock 20 is surprisingly mild to shoot. You know you have some serious power for an automatic handgun, but it won't hurt you and with practice, you can actually control it quite well. I've seen a 16-year old girl simply rock a Coke bottle from maybe 10 or 12 yards her first time out with the Glock 20 and Double Tap's 180 gr Match load. That said, finding ammo, esp full power ammo, is somewhat of a pain. Your two best sources will be Double Tap and handloading. Around here, ammo isn't much more expensive than .45 ammo, but all you can find are the FBI-Lite loads that I have no interest in.

I have a personal grudge against the .40. It reminds me of the "lower your standards, appease the lowest common denominator, aspire for weakness" mentality that I despise. In a world where we still had John Wayne and 5'2" 102 pound females weren't expected to be field agents, the .40 wouldn't exist. The Duke certainly wouldn't have lowered standards to accomidate them. The only .40 I have shot was a SIG and I shot half a mag and gave it back. With that amount of recoil and muzzle flip, I really don't see the point. If you want more than the 9mm and are actually willing to deal with the snap a .40 is going to dish out, get a .45 or a 10mm. You'll be better off in the long run.

critrxdoc
October 3, 2006, 07:33 PM
I would not say there is no difference between them. The 9mm is the bottom of what most consider adequate as a manstopper. The .40 has superior ballistics to the 9mm. You trade some velocity and energy for additional rounds and less recoil. Some would argue that allows more hits on the target, some would argue that you could be dead while you are busy placing your additional rounds on the target. There is a picture of ballistic gel comparing the rounds (not the 10mm) and show them to be similiar in penetration and expansion with some differences in temporary cavity. Some would have you believe that the regardless of the additonal energy deposited in the temporary cavity, penetration and expansion are all that counts. Maybe true for a handgun.

The 10mm has vastly more FPE and FPS. The jury is out if this aids in any incapitation of the BG. Personally, I chose the 10mm to guard my castle after years of research. It wasn't my first choice gun however, and I would probaby recommend the 9mm for you to cut your teeth on. Cheap, lots of capacity, low recoil for you to develop your shooting technique and the basics on, and get tons of ammo at any Wally World. I wouldn't go with the
.45 for the same reasons. Good luck:cool:

DFW1911
October 3, 2006, 08:29 PM
I'm with the 9mm crowd on this one - a 9mm was my first auto "several" years ago! Man, I'm getting old :evil:

If you are comfortable with the 9, go for it. It's a great round and since you're not adverse to it's recoil, you've already overcome what, to some, can be a major obstacle to effectively honing their skills, not to mention ruining the fun of shooting.

Slvr Surfr: Thanks for the info on DT. I'm not familiar with them but will check them out. I really like the 10mm and am converting my Witness .45 to 10mm (since I have the CZ in .45).

Take care, all,
DFW1911

Guns_and_Labs
October 3, 2006, 08:35 PM
Go with the 9mm, buy a truckload of ammo, practice a lot, carry with JHP loads....then after all that buy a second gun in 10mm and a Dillon loader. And then a third in .45 acp and spend a couple of hours in the morning trying to decide which to strap on. :)

ugaarguy
October 3, 2006, 08:39 PM
People will debate ballistics, sure as the sun rises. Forget the the 9mm vs. 40 S&W debate; the ballistically "inferior" 38 Special has been killling men just as dead, and stopping attacks just as well, since 1899; usually with plain lead bullets. The gee-whiz-bang controlled expansion jacketed hollow point is a relatively new thing. With the advances in bullet design and testing over the past 20-30 years 9mm has been able to close the performance gap with larger diameter bullets. If you need to dfend yourself your comfort with the weapon and ability to shot it so you put bullets into the vitals is all that will matter. You've already said you shoot 9mm more accurately than 40 S&W, and that you have some recoil sensitivity to the 40. Don't buy big and "wait to come around" - you may not ever "come around" to bigger round. You probably will, but step up when you do, not before you're ready. The 9mm will let you shoot more for less money. The lower recoil will make it easier on you to shoot those rounds. Practice and train.

http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/testing/testing.aspx#

MCgunner
October 3, 2006, 09:21 PM
9mm is a very effective self defense round in its +P hollowpoint loadings, low
recoil, lots of low cost practice ammo options. Hands down, no contest, for a new shooter that wants an autoloader (I'd prefer you consider a revolver) the 9mm is the one.

redneck2
October 3, 2006, 09:35 PM
I own two 10mm's (G20 and Delta Elite). I wouldn't own a 9mm as I have three 45's, two 10mm's, a 44 Mag, and a couple of 44-40's.

For you, it's a no-brainer IMO. Go with the 9mm. Shoot the heck out of it until you're good. It's not what you shoot, it's how well you shoot it.

Shoot a lot, then shoot a lot more.

edit to add: actually, if you can swing it, I'd also get a nice, simple .22 auto (Ruger, Buckmark) to practice with. They're cheap to buy, cheap to shoot, and a lot of fun.

Rebeldon
October 3, 2006, 09:56 PM
If you want to shoot well, you have to practice. Unless you are wealthy, you will want affordable ammunition to practice with, so you can afford to practice often. If this is your line of thinking, 9mm would be your choice.

sevesteen
October 3, 2006, 10:14 PM
I believe that the .40 is a slightly more effective than 9mm, but not by a huge amount. "Combat accuracy" is more important. My test for this is how quickly I can hit several rounds into a 6" circle, rather than how close to the bullseye I can get with slow, carefully aimed shots.

As an example of what I'm talking about--I just had TFO sights installed on my carry gun. Careful bullseye groups almost doubled, but once I adapted, I was able to hit moderate sized combat groups at the same speed or a bit faster, a more important skill.

If you are nearly equal in how long it takes to get an equal number of shots into a 6" circle at 7 to 10 yards, go with the .40. If there is a difference, go with the one more accurate in fast shooting.

I wouldn't go with the 10mm for several reasons--Ammo cost and availability, and if you are less accurate with the .40, you'll probably be even worse with 10mm.

.357 magnum
October 3, 2006, 10:26 PM
Because of what you have mentioned about recoil I am hesitant to give my thoughts on the caliber choices you have given. The .40 is the best stopper of the bunch [9mm, 10mm and .40] If you shoot the 155 gr ammo, such as the winchester silvertip, speer gold dot, and federal 155 gr Hydra-Shok you have one of the best man stoppers there is in any handgun caliber and the recoil is really not a big factor. [I practice with 165gr winchester fmj because they do kick a bit and it makes me a better shooter] Choose a model that has a double spring inside to lessen the recoil. The .40 has more ammo choices than a 10mm and better stopping power. When it comes to personal defense, cost should not be a factor. Where I live, in Omaha the 9mm ammo is a tad less expensive then the .40 and .45 But I prefer power over cost. I can cut costs somewhere else in my budget.

Quite honestly in your case, because of the recoil issue. I would consider a .45 The ammo is sub-sonic- less recoil. The Springfield XD has 13 round mag [I have the 4 inch service model] and the recoil is nothing. That damn gun is accurate too. Very suprised for a personal defense auto-loader how accurate it is.

You have a great evening! The best to you and yours!

Let us know what you decide.

CAnnoneer
October 3, 2006, 10:33 PM
Many of you guys just give your own personal preferences without paying attention to what the thread-starter said in the first place. Since he clearly stated he is more accurate with the 9mm, what does it matter that .40 may be somewhat more powerful? Only hits count.

Also, if there is recoil expectation/aversion, I bet he is also shooting the .40 more slowly than the 9mm. What is better, putting several more 9mm on target or spraying several fewer .40s all over the place while ducking recoil?

As somebody else said above, if you are in mortal danger, keep pumping lead on target, quickly, accurately, and without hesitation. Reassess while reloading.

10-Ring
October 3, 2006, 10:45 PM
Honestly, it's about picking a caliber & dedicating yourself to mastering it & the platform you choose.
That said, I would go 9mm just for the potential of more trigger time since ammo is cheaper and train train train until you've gotten that shot placement thing down pat...then train some more! ;)

MTMilitiaman
October 3, 2006, 10:49 PM
The .40 is the best stopper of the bunch [9mm, 10mm and .40]

The .40 has more ammo choices than a 10mm and better stopping power.

HAHAHAHAHA! I don't know if that is more funny if you actually meant it, or if you were being sarcastic, but it is funny.

At worst, the 10mm Auto duplicates the ballistics of the .40 S&W by shooting the same bullets at the same velocities. Furthermore, these loads in the 10mm have less recoil than the .40 because the pistol is larger. Realistically, the 10mm is capable of exceeding anything the .40 can do by pushing the same bullets 150 to 200 fps faster, and is the ballistic twin of your namesake .357 Magnum in an auto with 2.5x the capacity. It is certainly easier to download the 10mm to duplicate the .40 than it is to try turn your .40 into something it is not.

Before you even suggest it, no, loading .40 bullets faster than .40 velocities is not a bad thing, even according to the bullet manufactures. You can not, for example, claim that loading a 180 gr Gold Dot to 1300 fps is more than the bullet was designed for, unless you want to likewise claim to know more about that bullet than the people who designed it.

The only thing the .40 does better than the 10mm is fit into smaller pistols. If your hand size accomidates the fullsize frame--as it would have to in order to make use of the .45--then even this is not much of an issue. But thanks again for the laugh.

Wesker
October 3, 2006, 11:40 PM
9MM for the win.

There plenty of it, it's the least expensive round, and it'll kill a bad person just as fine as it's louder, snappier, more expensive and scarce counterparts.

TC-TX
October 4, 2006, 02:53 AM
9mm + Cor-Bon DPX... Enuff Said!

9 MM LUGER+P
115 GR. DPX
1275 FPS
415FTLBS

nyresq
October 4, 2006, 03:30 AM
depends if you want to slow down, stop or obliterate what you're shooting...

9mm- cheap and easy to find, so you'll shoot lots of it. but has very poor real world experience on the street as a man stopper with several multi round failures well documented.

40S&W- a little more expensive, but not too much that you won't have plenty of range ammo for a few dollars more then 9mm. street proven with single round stops and new ammo is hitting the stores every day from all the manufactures' premium lines. recoil is a little harder then 9mm, but nothing that most people would consider hard.

10mm- when loaded to full power 10mm specs you have the balistic equal to the 357 mag. problem is, full power 10mm is very hard to find except for small shop custom loaders like double tap and cor bon. recoil is hard especially in smaller guns, but the full power loads will not need multiple hits to stop an agressor if center mass hits are made. plus side of downloaded 10mm loadings are the comfort factor of low power rounds in a heavy duty gun, and the ease of training with minimal recoil. then switch to full power loads for carry.


buy a 10mm... ammo costs a little more, but you will be able to do more with it.

Slvr Surfr
October 4, 2006, 09:14 AM
The poster asked for opinions on what he should pick based on his brief observations of the calibers he tried. Any replies made are simply other shooter's opinions on their experiance with the suggested calibers. SO.....

based on my experiance, try the .45 and see if your mind changes.

Its a softer shooting round, as stated earlier.

If the full size G21 (same size as the Glock 20 frame) is a little too big then consider the next best thing being IMHO the G38 which shoots the .45 GAP. Same bullet as a .45 with the same ballistics compared to factory loaded .45 ACP. The difference being that the round is much shorter. The best thing about the round is the frame. Its the same size as a glock 19. If you want a sub compact .45 then the G30 in .45ACP (wide frame) or the G39 in .45GAP (same frame as a G26).

The GAP rounds are a little more expensive than the .45ACP but not by much.

The G38 is my home dfense gun and alternate carry to the 1911.

Its super accurate and can pack 8+1 of that .45 wholesome goodness.

I think any of these guns can be shot well with a decent amount of PRACTICE. Practice is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Its also important to be comfortable with your weapon. The best thing about Glocks is their simplicity of operation. In a gunfight I think simplicity is key. It allows you to stay in the fight. I prefer the fight end quickly in my favor. If your only going to have 1 gun for protection then it makes sense to get a good defensive caliber. I plan to use the least amount of rounds to stop, and end the threat. I think its extremely important to minimize the chances of a round getting away and striking an innocent bystander in the background. The fewer rounds shot the less chances of that occuring.

.45 rounds make bigger holes.

Sry0fcr
October 4, 2006, 12:03 PM
Get the 9mm and don't look back. There are loads that match or surpass .40 cal 10mm (not full house) and .357 (not full house) ballistics available, you're more accurate with it, you can shoot more of it and you can carry more rounds.

orionengnr
October 4, 2006, 01:11 PM
9mm- cheap and easy to find, so you'll shoot lots of it. but has very poor real world experience on the street as a man stopper with several multi round failures well documented.

Every handgun caliber has had failures.

Nine mm is probably more ammo-sensitive--I would not use FMJ in a 9; then again I would not use RNL in a 38.

With good quality JHPs and proper shot placement, any of the duty calibers (9mm/.40 S&W/ .45acp, etc) is worthy of consideration.

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 02:58 PM
9mm- cheap and easy to find, so you'll shoot lots of it. but has very poor real world experience on the street as a man stopper with several multi round failures well documented.

Yeah its generally weaker than other handgun rounds, but several times it was burned at the stake because of its lack of stopping power when cops were outgunned.

I would go with .40 S&W.
Right up there with .357 mag in terms of stopping power, and recoil isn't bad at all.

gandog56
October 4, 2006, 03:05 PM
I still like a good 1911A1 clone. If you get an extra .400 Cor-Bon barrel you can almost approximate a 10 mm. And the .45 definately has more stopping power than a 9 mm or a 40 S&W.

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 03:28 PM
And the .45 definately has more stopping power than a 9 mm or a 40 S&W.

Untrue.

.40 S&W ballistics-
1205 ft/sec velocity
500 ft/lbs energy

.45 ACP ballistics-
860 ft/sec velocity
420 ft/lbs energy


40 S&W is much better than .45 ACP.
And everyone knows just about anything is better than 9mm.

defiant73a
October 4, 2006, 03:44 PM
Spencer, a whole lot more goes into the effectiveness continuum than merely MV and ME--in fact, several things including bullet performance are considerably more important.

MCgunner
October 4, 2006, 04:05 PM
.40 S&W ballistics-
1205 ft/sec velocity
500 ft/lbs energy

.45 ACP ballistics-
860 ft/sec velocity
420 ft/lbs energy


40 S&W is much better than .45 ACP.
And everyone knows just about anything is better than 9mm.

The better .45ACP +P loads push a 200 grain bullet to over 550 ft lbs. Which is better? Sorry, but .40 short and weak isn't any better, though it does make for firearms with more capacity which is a good thing. It can't push any more energy, though, and it does that will less bullet mass, so how is it "better" ballistically?

Thing is, though, a 9mm out of a 4.5" barrel pushing 450 ft lbs is plenty of energy and a 115 grain JHP at 1340 fps ain't shabby. Sure, the .45+P is marginally more, but that don't mean you can't get the job done with that 9mm load and you can get a lot more compact carry gun in 9mm than you can a .45, pocket sized even. A major fighting caliber in a pocket sized 14 ounce gun and actually SHOOTABLE! That's what I love about 9mm as a self defense caliber. I'll pick the .45 in a full size service gun for power, but then the capacity thing is a trade off. There is simply not enough difference in these three calibers to go bonkers over any of 'em as a "stopper". The delivery system is a more important component of the decision here and the little sub-compact 9mms are so handy and easily carried, I think that wins over any "stopping power" argument. I don't own a .40, but the idea of a gun that can handle 15 rounds capacity with the energy levels of a +P .45 is a good combination in a service sized gun. But, I love to shoot that P90 I have and it's so good and I'm so comfortable with it, I really don't have the urge for another service auto. Anyway, I normally carry my 9mm cause it's hot down here most of the year and I'm in jeans and T most of the time.

MTMilitiaman
October 4, 2006, 05:14 PM
How can people vote against the 10mm based almost soley on ammo availability and cost, and then recommend such obscure rounds as the .45 GAP and .400 Corbon? Seriously people, come on now. At least in my area, the 10mm is more popular than either of those two rounds, and it is certainly more versitile.

Regarding the .400 Corbon, sure, if you want to be stuck with moderate 10mm ballistics and lighter .40 caliber bullets that restrict you to pretty much just defense, thus eliminating most of the 10mm's versitility, sure, go for it. But you get the capacity of the .45 with ballistics only marginally better than the .40, because you can't use bullets of over 180 gr to any good effect. Sounds like a winner to me :rolleyes:

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 05:23 PM
...

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 05:29 PM
The better .45ACP +P loads push a 200 grain bullet to over 550 ft lbs. Which is better? Sorry, but .40 short and weak isn't any better, though it does make for firearms with more capacity which is a good thing. It can't push any more energy, though, and it does that will less bullet mass, so how is it "better" ballistically?

Thing is, though, a 9mm out of a 4.5" barrel pushing 450 ft lbs is plenty of energy and a 115 grain JHP at 1340 fps ain't shabby. Sure, the .45+P is marginally more, but that don't mean you can't get the job done with that 9mm load and you can get a lot more compact carry gun in 9mm than you can a .45, pocket sized even. A major fighting caliber in a pocket sized 14 ounce gun and actually SHOOTABLE! That's what I love about 9mm as a self defense caliber. I'll pick the .45 in a full size service gun for power, but then the capacity thing is a trade off. There is simply not enough difference in these three calibers to go bonkers over any of 'em as a "stopper". The delivery system is a more important component of the decision here and the little sub-compact 9mms are so handy and easily carried, I think that wins over any "stopping power" argument. I don't own a .40, but the idea of a gun that can handle 15 rounds capacity with the energy levels of a +P .45 is a good combination in a service sized gun. But, I love to shoot that P90 I have and it's so good and I'm so comfortable with it, I really don't have the urge for another service auto. Anyway, I normally carry my 9mm cause it's hot down here most of the year and I'm in jeans and T most of the time.


+P Is a way of trying to get old rounds to keep up with the new competition, and if you loaded .40 S&W with +P, it would be inherently BETTER than .45 +P. We're talking regular rounds here, not +P, or you'd have to compare the ballistics with both of them having +P.

.40 short and weak? It has better velocity and energy than a .45, even while being a smaller round.

It has better ballistics because the muzzle energies and velocities are superior, that's how. A .223 round has much better velocities and energies than a 9mm round, but I guess since the .223 bullet weight is only half that of a 9mm, it isn't ballistically superior, right?

This is what your logic would lead people to believe.

Exmasonite
October 4, 2006, 05:57 PM
i can't comment on the 10mm... my impression is that it might be a great round but more expensive and hard to find...

One other option:

Many major models (Springfield XD for sure, possibly Sig, Glock) have conversion barrels that you can get for them. You can only go smaller...

Example: Springfield XD Service (4") barrel:
If you have the .40 S&W, you can get the .357Sig and 9mm barrels for them. the makers i know are Bar-Sto and EFK Firedragon. Costs 150-200 dollars + extra mags (You can modify the mags by bending the prongs but just better off getting separate mags for each round).

So, you can get the best of both worlds... 9mm barrel for cheap ammo and capacity, etc but pop in the .40 S&W for CC and HD.

just a thought...

MCgunner
October 4, 2006, 07:21 PM
+P Is a way of trying to get old rounds to keep up with the new competition, and if you loaded .40 S&W with +P, it would be inherently BETTER than .45 +P. We're talking regular rounds here, not +P, or you'd have to compare the ballistics with both of them having +P.

.40 short and weak? It has better velocity and energy than a .45, even while being a smaller round.

It has better ballistics because the muzzle energies and velocities are superior, that's how. A .223 round has much better velocities and energies than a 9mm round, but I guess since the .223 bullet weight is only half that of a 9mm, it isn't ballistically superior, right?

This is what your logic would lead people to believe.

SAAMI pressure for standard .45ACP is 21,000 CUP and .45ACP +P is only 23,000 CUP. Standard pressure for the .40 S&W is 35,000 CUP. There is no recognized +P pressure level for .40 S&W. So, the .45 makes it's 550 ft lbs at only 23,000 CUP pressure limit, 12,000 CUP lower than the .40 S&W working pressure. The larger head size of the .45 case does limit effective working pressure of the case. But, there is no safe level of pressure over its standard loads so your argument that you can "+P a .40" is false. Even the PROOF pressure of the .45ACP (31K to 33K CUP) is lower than the .40s WORKING pressure.

So, facts are, I can load a factory +P .45 that has every bit as much energy as a .40, does it with a heavier bullet (more momentum), and at a lower working pressure than the hottest .40 you can buy. Apples and apples I'd say. Both rounds have a potential for about 550 ft lbs. The .45, however, does it with a heavier bullet which means it has more momentum which is a good thing for penetration if nothing else.

IOW, the only difference I see in the .40 and the .45, effectively, is that in a standard size service gun, the .40 has more capacity, so yeah, the .40 is a good round. But, there are double stack .45s, too, and the .45 is long from dead or "inferior" to the latest in auto pistol self defense rounds. Neither round has anything on the other ballistically, not enough to spit at IMHO.

Now, my own favorite carry load pushes a 200 grain JHP to only 950 fps. It's not a +P round, about 400 ft lbs, but it's plenty adequate for the job of self defense IMHO and it's superbly accurate in my gun, which is more important to me than horsepower. As I read on another thread somewhere, the lowly .38 special has been killin' bad guys since the turn of the century, after all. Even +P .38 doesn't make 400 ft lbs.

And, the reason the .40 is known by some as "short and weak" is that it's just a sawed off 10mm case. They matched the ballistics of the FBI developed 10mm light load and packaged it in a smaller gun. The 10 is the king of service pistol rounds as far as energy goes, putting up around 750 ft lbs in a good load.

vynx
October 4, 2006, 07:47 PM
Well, I guess you learned one thing - be careful when discussing different calibers or you'll start a war.

I started with revlovers because I'm old and they were popular - the .357 magnum w/a 4" barrel...I didn't enjoy shooting those with magnums and when I went autoloader I went .45acp...never noticed all that much difference in recoil between a 9mm and a .45 - to me the 9mm recoil seemed "faster or snappier" and the .45 more like a "heavy push" but it could have been due to different guns with different weights, barrel length, etc.

Anyway, I picked up a Beretta 9000s in .40 (a very unpopular gun btw) because it was on sale for $360 and it looked nice and futuristic in a way I liked. You can still find some new Beretta 9000s for under $400 new in the box if you do a little searching. I love the grip and it shoots so easy for me, very accurate and hardly any recoil - maybe thats due to shooting lightweight alloy 1911's in .45 for so many years?

Just an opinion but as I age I appreciate the lighter recoil of the .40 compared to .45 in a similar weight & size gun. I also like having a few more rounds as my vision gets worse each year.

If I were younger I would seriously consider .45acp - I have a Para-Ordinance P12 in alloy (colt officer size) that holds 12 in the magazine and those 12 rounds make a very nice pattern on a target and those .45s do have a commanding "boom" vs. the .40.

Still, between the 3 you suggest I'd go .40 or 9mm --- save the 10mm for when you have more money.

Soybomb
October 4, 2006, 07:51 PM
9mm- cheap and easy to find, so you'll shoot lots of it. but has very poor real world experience on the street as a man stopper with several multi round failures well documented.
This sounds like interesting documentation. Can you provide me with said quality documentation involving failure of premium 9mm jhp's failures to stop? I would like nothing that doesn't involve modern jhps. The miami shootout era stuff is interesting reading but lets be honest we've moved past those bullets. It also must be academic quality. It would probably involve some medical examiner explaining how the 9mm didn't expand quite enough or penetrate deeply enough while the larger caliber that likely caused the lethal wound did. I have yet to read any reports like this but would be quite interested in them.

My theory is that the poor effectiveness of the 9mm round is greatly exaggerated through poor quality jhp's from 20-30 years ago that didn't perform well, good old fashioned tall tales told in the gun store (and the internet), and chest thumping people who like to brag about their real caliber handgun. Assuming modern jhp's and similar shot placement I have yet to see anything that makes me think 9mm is less capable than .40 or .45 as a defensive round.

Spencer
October 4, 2006, 07:58 PM
This sounds like interesting documentation. Can you provide me with said quality documentation involving failure of premium 9mm jhp's failures to stop? I would like nothing that doesn't involve modern jhps. The miami shootout era stuff is interesting reading but lets be honest we've moved past those bullets. It also must be academic quality. It would probably involve some medical examiner explaining how the 9mm didn't expand quite enough or penetrate deeply enough while the larger caliber that likely caused the lethal wound did. I have yet to read any reports like this but would be quite interested in them.

My theory is that the poor effectiveness of the 9mm round is greatly exaggerated through poor quality jhp's from 20-30 years ago that didn't perform well, good old fashioned tall tales told in the gun store (and the internet), and chest thumping people who like to brag about their real caliber handgun. Assuming modern jhp's and similar shot placement I have yet to see anything that makes me think 9mm is less capable than .40 or .45 as a defensive round.

It's a fact, the 9mm round is ballistically inferior to the .40 S&W or 10mm.

vynx
October 4, 2006, 08:05 PM
I think Soybomb has a good point - I don't have a 9mm (not yet anyway!) but I agree that its bad rep is based on older less effiecient ammo AND on shooters who did not hit their target!

Lets face it if you spray and pray and miss it doesn't matter what ammo you shoot.

I wouldn't feel undergunned with a 9mm - I don't feel undergunned with a .40 vs. the .45 - if you hit your target in the right spot all three will do their job.

.357 magnum
October 4, 2006, 08:05 PM
I did say the .40 has better stopping power then the 10mm. I did not however say the .40 has better ballistics. The 10mm does have better ballistics. If you shoot a 175 gr winchester silvertip from a 10mm with a least a 5.5 inch barrel you get 1290 fps and 626 ft.lbs of energy as you know that is more ft.lbs of energy then a 125gr .357 magnum, which is the best stopper out there. Problem is it still has less stopping power then the .357 mag and any number of rounds for the .40 caliber. Go look it up on the internet. [My only guess is that it over penetrates and passes thru the BG? That's just my guess] Because when I was wanting to purchase auto-loaders for the first time I saw the ballistics on a 10mm and thought too myself I got to have me one of those. After further research I saw the .40 was the best stopper of the auto-loaders. Yes, even the .45 with the exception of the 230 gr hydra-shok load. The other thing that got me to buy the .40 was 15 rounds in the mag and 1 in the chamber. Also the fact that it is the most popular caliber with LE-- so more ammo choices, better prices for ammo, more gun makers carry a .40 [a lot of gun makers do not even sell them] I believe you could hunt with a 10mm so that makes it more versatile. But I am not a hunter. I am ex LE [undercover narc detective] So my interest was for personal defense and I love to shoot auto's. I am 50 years old and when I was in LE we used revolvers for undercover and I am just fascinated by autos. Wish they were more popular and reliable back when I was having shootouts with scum that could care less who they killed. I really Love the .45 too! I was shot with one though and it shattered my right hip. [so I can witness to the destructive power of the .45]

If you would like to continue this little conflict, let me know. We will take it to private messages.

In the meantime I wish you and your's the best!

MTMilitiaman
October 4, 2006, 08:11 PM
SAAMI pressure for standard .45ACP is 21,000 CUP and .45ACP +P is only 23,000 CUP. Standard pressure for the .40 S&W is 35,000 CUP. There is no recognized +P pressure level for .40 S&W. So, the .45 makes it's 550 ft lbs at only 23,000 CUP pressure limit, 12,000 CUP lower than the .40 S&W working pressure. The larger head size of the .45 case does limit effective working pressure of the case. But, there is no safe level of pressure over its standard loads so your argument that you can "+P a .40" is false. Even the PROOF pressure of the .45ACP (31K to 33K CUP) is lower than the .40s WORKING pressure.

You beat me to the punch.

I'd just like to add that any .40 owners out there should be really skeptical of any ammo manufacture that markets +P .40 Smith and Wesson ammunition. As mentioned above, there is no officially recognized standard for a +P .40 S&W. According to SAAMI, there is no such animal. You are buying ammo beyond that which your brass and your weapon was designed to take in any sort of quantity, and it will increase wear...period. There is no argument here, despite the manufactures claim to the contrary. Buying +P .40 from anyone is like buying the unlabeled gun show special reloads from know-it-all Billy Bob behind the counter. You use it at your risk.

I will reiterate: it is much easier to download a 10mm to .40 Smith and Wesson performance than it is to nuke out your .40 and try to turn it into a 10mm Auto.

I did say the .40 has better stopping power then the 10mm. I did not however say the .40 has better ballistics. The 10mm does have better ballistics. If you shoot a 175 gr winchester silvertip from a 10mm with a least a 5.5 inch barrel you get 1290 fps and 626 ft.lbs of energy as you know that is more ft.lbs of energy then a 125gr .357 magnum, which is the best stopper out there. Problem is it still has less stopping power then the .357 mag and any number of rounds for the .40 caliber. Go look it up on the internet. [My only guess is that it over penetrates and passes thru the BG? That's just my guess] Because when I was wanting to purchase auto-loaders for the first time I saw the ballistics on a 10mm and thought too myself I got to have me one of those. After further research I saw the .40 was the best stopper of the auto-loaders. Yes, even the .45 with the exception of the 230 gr hydra-shok load. The other thing that got me to buy the .40 was 15 rounds in the mag and 1 in the chamber. Also the fact that it is the most popular caliber with LE-- so more ammo choices, better prices for ammo, more gun makers carry a .40 [a lot of gun makers do not even sell them] I believe you could hunt with a 10mm so that makes it more versatile. But I am not a hunter. I am ex LE [undercover narc detective] So my interest was for personal defense and I love to shoot auto's. I am 50 years old and when I was in LE we used revolvers for undercover and I am just fascinated by autos. Wish they were more popular and reliable back when I was having shootouts with scum that could care less who they killed. I really Love the .45 too! I was shot with one though and it shattered my right hip. [so I can witness to the destructive power of the .45]

If you would like to continue this little conflict, let me know. We will take it to private messages.

In the meantime I wish you and your's the best!

If you would like to explain how this is possible, I'd love to hear how you can form any reasonable explanation. Perhaps you're one of those mis-led individuals that thinks exit wounds are bad and a waste of energy. Shoot some living things with a high powered rifle and you begin to realize that energy and hydrostatic shock don't mean nearly as much to the critter on the receiving end as they do to you. Energy is fine. It makes bullets expand, which destroys tissue. But this can't be relied on to stop something unless it destroys the CNS. Barring CNS hits, the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to lower their blood pressure. And it is a fact that two holes bleed better than one. Still, if you don't like exit wounds, shoot a 135 gr Nosler JHP out at 1600 fps. Problem solved.

The simple fact of the matter is, and it is physical fact, that if one cartridge shoots bullet "A" out at velocity "v," and another cartridge shoots bullet "A" out at velocity "v," they have identical "stopping power," in whatever way you attempt to quantify it. You can stammer and studder all you want, but you can't present a logical, supported argument against this. Now, if you quantify "stopping power" in any of the usual methods--velocity, mass, energy, momentum, penetration, expansion, or any combination of these factors, the 10mm Auto shooting bullet "A" at faster velocity "V" clearly exceeds that of the .40 S&W and matchs or exceeds most loads from a .357 Magnum with a similar barrel length. For example, there are several main factors in determining an object's penetration--it's construction, the target's construction, the projectile's Sectional Density, and the projectile's momentum. So given the target's construction remains the same, in this case, your hip, and given two bullets of equal design or construction, that leaves us with SD and momentum. For SDs we have:

.357 cal 125 gr JHP = .140
.357 cal 140 gr JHP = .157
.40 cal 150 gr JHP = .134
.40 cal 180 gr JHP = .161
.451 cal 230 gr JHP = .161

Now momentum = mass * velocity. So we get:

.357 Magnum-- 125 gr * 1600 fps = 200,000 gr * fps
.357 Magnum-- 140 gr * 1400 fps = 196,000 gr * fps
.40 S&W------ 150 gr * 1310 fps = 196,500 gr * fps
.40 S&W------ 180 gr * 1155 fps = 207,900 gr * fps
10mm Auto--- 150 gr * 1475 fps = 221,250 gr * fps
10mm Auto--- 180 gr * 1300 fps = 234,000 gr * fps
.45 ACP +P--- 230 gr * 950 fps = 218,500 gr * fps

All of these going in the same direction...I tried to pick velocities representative of what the cartridge is capable of at its potential. Most of the velocities were obtained from Double Tap's wesbite with the exception of the 140 gr .357 Magnum, which was taken from Sierra's manual, with an additional 50 fps tacked on just to keep you from saying your pet .357 Magnum was represented unfairly. Also, the velocities for the 150 gr were taken from Double Tap's 155 gr Gold Dot loads. You know what the .45 ACP feels like, and in terms of momentum it is superior to both the .40 and the .357 Magnum. However, the 10mm Auto has identical SD and beats it in not only momentum, but also in energy. Since these are almost always regarded as the two most important factors of your mythical "stopping power," do you seriously want to try argue the .40 or the .45 is superior to the 10mm? You're going to have a hard time coming up with any logical evidence or physical support, but I could use the laugh, so go ahead and try.

The second problem with this comes from how you quantify "stopping power." There is no such physical unit as "stopping power." You can watch street results, but the 10mm, by no fault of its own, doesn't have the popularity to give you an adequate sample size in this method. If you take beginner statistics, you learn that the larger your sample size is, the more accurate your results are likely to be. The 10mm doesn't have the military history, the advertising hype, or the company endorsement on its case head like its competition. It does have a whole lot of performance though, and that is what has kept it alive long after the critics claimed it would have faded into obscurity. You can study geletin results, and the 10mm holds it own here too, but these tests also have their faults. People aren't homogenous substances. And autopsy reports continue to show that because of this, bullet performance is far less predictable in living tissue than in geletin some even the most advanced JHPs showing little or no expansion in some cases. One thing is clear enough to have been accepted as a physical law of the universe, however--increasing an objects velocity, or rather energy, increases the chances that it will expand regardless of shot angle or presentation.

What you need to do is let go of your white knuckle death grip on some chart, stop chanting "stopping power" like you're in a cult, and realize that there is no clear definition of such a term, and when you consider logically multiple sources and the laws of physics, you realize how rediculous it sounds claiming that the .40 S&W shooting a 180 gr HydraShok JHP @ 1000 fps has more "stopping power" than a 10mm Auto shooting a 180 gr HydraShok JHP @ a nearly identical 1030 fps. HAHA. I have to laugh just typing it. And if you can prove it is true, you belong next to Stephen Hawking solving a lot bigger mysteries than "stopping power."

O and I see no reason to continue this conversation in private. In fact, while it might be entertaining to see a rebuttal from you, I don't really care if we continue this at all because your assumptions are absurd.

Oregongundude
October 4, 2006, 09:07 PM
However, I have a Glock 17 9 mm with Winchester Ranger 127 +P+ and there some nasty rounds for the 9mm and will do the job if needed. I believe that the 9 mm is totally underrated, due to the american .45 acp. It's been around for as long as the .45 acp and is still being used by many militaries and law enforcement agencies as is the .45 acp. The turth is that it will kill someone with the best of them, especially with good shot placement. The ammo is cheaper and it's easier for most new shooters to handle and it's hold 17 rounds in the magazines just in case.

I also have a .45 acp and 10 mm both are excellent handguns. I shoot them often and they will kill someone as well.

I usually carry my XD .40 S&W subcompact because it's a subcompact and it's easier to conceal than my other handguns. I like the heavier .40 S&W bullets I usually load it with Federal 155 grain Hydra shoks JHP's because it offers a little more punch than the 9mm.

Remember all the handguns can kill with proper shot placement. 9mm, 40 S&W, or the 10 mm are all good selections for self defense.

C-grunt
October 4, 2006, 10:18 PM
Velocity and energy dont kill people.....Gaping wounds in vital organs and blood vessels kill people. Pick the round you can shoot the best. A 9mm hole in the heart is far more deadly than a .40 caliber hole in the lung. A lung wound is pretty survivable, a heart wound is not.

My stepfather was a SF medic in Afghanistan (my mother likes younger men:rolleyes: ) and has shot plenty of taliban with his MP5. He tells me that the 9mm works just fine.

mljdeckard
October 4, 2006, 10:26 PM
Actually, kinetic energy transference is a big part of how weapons kill. The ideal bullet is one that dumps ALL of its energy into the target. A bullet that goes THROUGH the target is wasting energy. A good hollow point is one that makes a bigger wound channel AND transfers all or most of the bullet's enery to the target. An MP-5 shoots with a different engineering approach than an automatic pistol. (If one hit is a good thing, 15 hits is a GREAT thing.) A .22 is pretty effective too when you are shooting 15 of them per second.

A 10mm is a fantastic round for those who have the time and gear to load them to full power. Buying them mostly gives you expensive .40.

Autolycus
October 4, 2006, 10:46 PM
I prefer the .40 myself. However I would recommend a 9mm or a .22 for someone who is not to proficient in firearms. If your also looking for a defensive gun I would consider a 9mm or even a nice .38/.357 revolver.

JohnKSa
October 4, 2006, 11:05 PM
9mm- cheap and easy to find, so you'll shoot lots of it. but has very poor real world experience on the street as a man stopper...Which is why it is probably THE most common military, LE and self-defense caliber around the world... :rolleyes:

Buy what you will practice with the most.

Legionnaire
October 4, 2006, 11:10 PM
A few years ago, I did the same research you are doing now. Used to live next door to a Maryland State Trooper, who hated his "wonder nine." He really didn't like to depend on the 9mm. That kind of jaded my perspective going in. I read up on the history of the .40S&W and decided that caliber made intellectual sense ... more powerful than the 9mm and, in effect, the equivalent of a light-loaded 10mm (which is exactly what it is). I bought a S&W 4013 that I still really like. Years later, my wife used that same 4013 in a two-day handgun course. She didn't have much history with handguns, and though she found the recoil fairly snappy, she handled it just fine. Fit of the gun makes a big difference. I seem to shoot the 4013 and a Glock 23 about the same. My wife hates the Glock.

I'm a fan of deciding on the cartridge you want, and then finding the launcher for it. For defense, I prefer the .40. There are lots of different guns in that caliber, and I'll bet you can find one that you like and that you can shoot more easily than others.

MTMilitiaman
October 4, 2006, 11:18 PM
The ideal bullet is one that dumps ALL of its energy into the target. A bullet that goes THROUGH the target is wasting energy.

No, as I've already stated, you don't have to kill very many living things before you realize that energy can be grossly over rated. It is important in that it makes bullets expand, which destroys tissue, but I am convinced that in many cases, the target cares far less about energy figures than the person pulling the trigger. I've seen animals shot with high powered rifles that deliver far more energy into the target than any handgun. At rifle velocities, even shock can damage or destroy vital organs, something handguns can't claim, at least to near the extent. But you shoot enough things and you learn that unless you destroy the CNS, you're only hope is to make the target bleed out, and this is best accomplished by both destroying large blood bearing vessels and organs, and leaving a gaping exit wound. Two holes bleed better than one. An exit wound is of far more use than a little bit of energy deposited in a wall or tree behind the target. Energy is not wasted when a bullet exits.

MCgunner
October 5, 2006, 12:54 PM
I think Soybomb has a good point - I don't have a 9mm (not yet anyway!) but I agree that its bad rep is based on older less effiecient ammo AND on shooters who did not hit their target!

I think these stories of failure of the 9 to kill anything bigger than a gnat are from the chest thumping, knuckle draggin' gun store experts, myself. I know of no such "documentation". I'm sure there are failures, just as I'm sure there are failures for the .40 and the .45. But, the nine is widely used in law enforcement and military application, it's a service caliber, and it puts up some big numbers compared to such "proven" rounds as the .38 Special or even the .357 magnum when fired out of a 2" gun. It's no .32, put it that way. I carry it most every day of the year and if I had to use it, I don't think the BG is going to laugh at a center mass hit packin' 410 ft lbs. :rolleyes: I don't use ball for self defense.

Chupacabra
October 5, 2006, 02:39 PM
9mm is a pretty good caliber for a first gun.

Most FMJ ammo is cheap and loaded somewhat lightly so it's easy to practice with. Then you can get the hot +P and +P+ loads for self defense. DoubleTap makes a great 124grain load. 1310fps / 473ft.lbs from a 4.5" barrel. That's only about 70-80fps slower than most commercial 357sig loads.

mljdeckard
October 5, 2006, 03:49 PM
I said both cavity trauma AND energy dump are important. the only cavity trauma guaranteed to cease all motor activity immediately is a hit severing the spine, or entering the brain. If your attacker doesn't stop immediately from inflicted cavity trauma for any number of reasons, only the thump from (hopefully repeated) hits will keep him away from you. This why we measure muzzle energy along with velocity and diameter.

MCgunner
October 5, 2006, 04:30 PM
No, as I've already stated, you don't have to kill very many living things before you realize that energy can be grossly over rated. It is important in that it makes bullets expand, which destroys tissue, but I am convinced that in many cases, the target cares far less about energy figures than the person pulling the trigger. I've seen animals shot with high powered rifles that deliver far more energy into the target than any handgun. At rifle velocities, even shock can damage or destroy vital organs, something handguns can't claim, at least to near the extent. But you shoot enough things and you learn that unless you destroy the CNS, you're only hope is to make the target bleed out, and this is best accomplished by both destroying large blood bearing vessels and organs, and leaving a gaping exit wound. Two holes bleed better than one. An exit wound is of far more use than a little bit of energy deposited in a wall or tree behind the target. Energy is not wasted when a bullet exits.

I have shot a LOT of deer with various calibers. I have made lung shots, nothing, but lung, and had the animal fold and fall on the spot, dead before he hit the ground. I've only had one deer go very far. he was hit solid with a 117 grain Hornady XTP, the bullet failed to expand, and had total penetration. The entry was through the left shoulder and the exit was about the second to last rib on the right side. I had to skin the animal to find the exit hole. That deer went about 80 yards before it dropped and began to die. I started using 100 grain game king bullets after that, never fail to expand.

So, yes, I am convinced the pressure wave of a rifle CAN destroy nerves with adequate energy dump. Expansion is necessary for this. I've seen lung shots destroy completely the lungs when using a 7 mag and a 150 grain game king at 3150 fps. I would reckon that at handgun velocities this is not nearly so reliable, but my bet is if you're near the nerve, you don't necessarily have to HIT it to cause trauma from the pressure wave. I've shot two deer with the .357 mag, one was a lung shot at 80 yards behind the shoulder. The deer jumps and made it about 20 yards before falling. That deer had a 3-4" area around the path of the bullet where the lung tissue was destroyed. I can only figure it was pressure wave damage as I was shooting a hard cast 158 grain SWC. So, you are NOT going to get the massive damage that a rifle does, of course. But, I believe Doctor Courtney has stated that the pressure wave magnitude is a linear function of energy, nothing magical about higher energies other than there's just more of it. But, of course, a handgun making 400 ft lbs is never going to match a rifle making 3300 ft lbs. This just shows ME that no handgun is a lightening bolt killer. Any handgun takes proper shot placement. I want expansion and yes, I want complete penetration to produce two holes. I want as much energy as I can carry in the package I'm totin' 'cause more is better. But, the .45 ACP is NOT significantly more deadly than the 9mm, neither is really adequate to the task. Neither is a 7mm remington magnum out of a 26 inch barrel.

My absolute minimum caliber is .380. I don't consider the .32 adequate since I can get a similar size gun in a .380. The P3AT is no harder to conceal than any .32ACP I've laid eyes on. I don't have a P3AT, probably need to add one to my selection of PDWs. I do have a .380 that is pretty compact, though, and 100 percent functional, it's just not as tiny as the P3AT. I can normally carry a 9mm sub-compact in a pocket, though and that's something I can't do with a .45.

IOW, there is more to caliber selection than terminal ballistics, or choice of caliber for a new shooter. I think the 9 is EXCELLENT to start out with mainly because of the cost of ammo and the fact that the new shooter will shoot more. It'll serve well as a personal protection caliber and there are HUGE numbers of quality firearms out there to choose from.

edit.....I just thought of another deer I shot that went probably a hundred yards with good expansion. He was hit with a 7.62x39. It was not a real good hit, though, odd angle, so I can't completely condemn the caliber. But, as that bullet (135 grain Sierra pro hunter) is no longer made, I quit hunting with it. Besides, I prefer my M7 Remington in .308, amazing little rifle.

MTMilitiaman
October 5, 2006, 07:53 PM
Yeah I am not knocking expansion. But the only animal this family has ever lost was an elk where the bullet expanded too much and didn't penetrate. You recovered your deer where the XTP didn't expand, because a small hole through both lungs beats a large hole that stops just inside the rib cage, every time. My point was that, well I shot a doe a couple years back with a 160 gr Nosler Partition over a compressed charge of H870 in my 7mm Rem Mag at a distance of maybe 30 feet. The bullet lost its entire nose section. Only the rear core exitted. We found jacket fragments as far up as the back strap, the lungs were completely destroyed, and the heart was blown out of its protective membrane and severed from the assending aorta. The doe still ran a good 40 or 50 feet before collapsing. It wasn't nearly as impressed with the foot pounds of energy it had just absorbed or the damage that tiny peice of metal had just done to its chest cavity as I was. I've seen other animals take hits from high powered rifles with similar reactions. So while energy causes bullets to expand, there is nothing mythical about it. I have learned that shot placement and adequate penetration, hopefully with an exit wound, are two things that can ensure you get to fill your tag. Expansion and hydrostatic shock are nice when they happen, but not to be counted on. That is my $.02.

MCgunner
October 5, 2006, 10:13 PM
Oops, gotta make a correction, it was a hornady interlock bullet that failed to expand. Slip there.

I have only had one whitetail where a bullet did not exit, was a doe. The bullet busted both shoulders and wound up just under the skin on the off side. She dropped instantly due (I believe) to damage a major artery (no anatomist, but I did take comparitive anatomy and I believe it was a carotid as it was heading into the neck). She had no exit wound. I don't believe an exit wound is that necessary. It's a loss of blood pressure whether it bleeds internally or externally.

One thing, too, an elk is a lot bigger animal than a human or a whitetail deer. I've never shot an elk, only whitetail, hogs, and mule deer for big game. I'd prefer a bullet penetrate all the way through AND with complete expansion.

Archers have to be good game trackers. They have quite heavy projectiles at quite slow velocities that cut their way through an animal for complete penetration, yet, how often does an arrow knock a deer down in its tracks? Deer drop to my rifles in their tracks much more often than not. What's the difference here, energy transfer maybe? You hit a deer in the boiler room with an arrow, you'd better be prepared for a long hike.

Anyway, back to the topic, I still say a 9mm is a fine caliber and great for a beginner that doesn't reload.

highlander 5
October 5, 2006, 11:19 PM
If I remember an article from years ago the author made this statement "the 9mm parabellum has killed more people than any other cartridge" seeing that it was the primary cartridge in europe in two world wars I'll give hm the benifit.
Personaly I have fired and owned all 3 and I give the nod to the 9mm for reasons previously stated cheap ammo etc.
I've owned 2 10mm's a glock and a delta elite and frankly I'd rather fire full house 44 mag loads out of a four inch barrel.
The Delta had a double recoil spring that broke and was replaced
with a 26 lb spring,pulling the slide back was like loading a bear trap. My 9mm and 40S&W are both Berettas mod 92 and 96 I can shoot both reasoably well recoil in both seem to be equal.
There is one thing that I'm not sure that was mentioned here European 9mm is loaded to a higher preasure than US and IMHO is closer to 357 mag and as I recall it's loaded by Hertenberger of Austria most of the pistol manufacturers advise against its use in there pistols. AFAIK Glock,Ruger do not warn against its use
In the end is this, shoot what you can shoot accurately and comfortably for it YOU who are making the final decsion

amprecon
October 6, 2006, 12:06 AM
I just sold 2 Glock 19's and a SA 1911A1 and bought a Glock 23 in .40s&w. I figured why should I have to spend extra for +P+ ammo for it to be "effective" enough as a .40s&w is straight up off the shelf. Sure ammo is slightly more expensive, but I don't have to +P+ it, it already comes that way.

MCgunner
October 6, 2006, 12:12 PM
I don't spend any extra for my +P stuff, I just use a little more Unique behind that Hornady XTP bullet. ;) My bonus is an 11 round service caliber gun that carries in a pocket all day and I barely notice I even have it. That's a good thing far as I'm concerned. The easier the gun is to carry, the less I'll even think about leaving it at home.

This morning I woke up in a revolver mood, lubed and stuck the 9 away and grabbed my Taurus M85UL in .38 special for the day. :D I ain't really a caliber nazi. I have .380 as my absolute minimum. I have never owned, nor will I likely ever see a reason to own a .32 and I rarely have a need to carry my little .380. But, I like this revolver. It's accurate, it is powerful enough (yeah, I carry +P 158 grain loads in it), and it is a rugged little stainless/alloy gun that's great fun to shoot and I don't have to chase down the friggin' brass at the range.:D Yeah, capacity is lacking. Every weapon I have has its goods and its bads. I just like revolvers and get in the mood now and then. I grew up in the revolver era, probably has something to do with it.

It don't sound like anyone on this thread is too ill armed for social encounters. I sometimes get the feeling in these caliber discussions that we are being awful picky. After all, how much history does the .40 have in law enforcement compared to the .38 special? :D The good ol' FBI load is enough for me today. Maybe I'll feel under-gunned tomorrow morning....:banghead: ROFLMAO!

.357 magnum
October 6, 2006, 10:36 PM
Sorry it took so long to reply. I have had a very busy week at work. Look's like we never quite agree, but are closer than you would think. All stopping power stats are the same. They are based on one shot stops for different brands and weights of ammo for each caliber. I have to agree I sometimes think the 10mm is behind the .40 and .45 because there is not a lot of stats to work with. It is not a popular LE round, which is how these stats are compiled. I will say one thing though humans are not deer, elk etc. So I would tend too look at these stats with at least some reliability. I do not have a death grip on such, but you seem to want to defend the 10mm like a defense lawyer with no other cases to work and has fallen in love with his client. I have nothing against the 10mm. Just do not find it practical in many ways that I have explained previously. After all the .40 is just a shorter 10mm cartridge.

We have turned this poor guys thread into a caliber war. But that is what
makes this sight fun!

Take Care and Have a good weekend!

P.S.
I am going to the range on Saturday. I like go every week its my week to shoot the .40's but I will rent the 10mm to see if I like it.

MTMilitiaman
October 6, 2006, 11:28 PM
No harm, no foul. I just don't understand how you can be a fan of the .357 Magnum and not at least appreciate having similar ballistics in an auto. The 10mm Auto is ballistically identical to the .357 Magnum with similar barrel lengths, and also shares much of the .357's versitility. You can find .40 loads all the way up to the full-power 750+ foot pound loads, and swap out barrels in some models for .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and 9x23. At least in Glock's case, the standard magazines and recoil springs can even be used. There is a lot to appreciate in the 10mm Auto. If you don't like the recoil of the higher end loads, find FBI-Lite loads and enjoy having .40 S&W ballistics with less recoil. Or you can find a happy medium with Hornady or Winchester factory loads. The 175 gr Silvertip has a very good reputation among 10mm enthusiasts.

People say the 10mm isn't popular because of its recoil, but I don't buy that for a second. The .357 Magnum has a very good following with similar ballistics and recoil. Heck, you don't find scadium framed 10mms, so if anything the 10mm's reputation for recoil should be less than that of the .357. The 10mm's lack of popularity can only be attributed to things like lack of endorsement or military history. Which is a shame cause it deserves more popularity than it has.

I apologize if I came across as rude, or hostile. I am just tired of the same rumors and stuff being flung about my pet cartridge. Like it or don't like it, but don't spread these lies and exaggerations about it. That is all I ask.

.357 magnum
October 7, 2006, 12:13 AM
Actually I only have the handle .357 Magnum because that was my carry piece for so long. [almost 8 years of undercover work] I will probably never go back to using them again. Basically I do not consider the .357 a great defensive weapon because of the sound. They are extemely loud and do not do much for your hearing. The recoil in shorter, lighter guns can be a problem for target reaquisition. The best one I have owned so far was a Smith-Wesson model 627. It had a 5inch barrel and 8 shot cylinder. I liked the weight, at 44 oz the recoil for full power loads was not a factor. I traded it and thought the wife was gonna shoot me. She really liked that gun! Oh well she is stuck on revolvers. I will get her a less expensive one for Christmas. I really have become a semi-auto fan in just 4 short months. It has not taken long to become a pretty accurate shooter, even with very quick follow-up shots. I love the capacity of auto-loaders. I really do not have a pet caliber at the moment. I really like the .45 I have become just a tad more accurate with it than the .40 I will try the 10mm Saturday. I think the 175 gr silvertip is a great load for the 10mm the ballistics are impressive.

No offense taken--Have a good one-All the best to you and your family.

MachIVshooter
October 7, 2006, 02:19 AM
Actually, kinetic energy transference is a big part of how weapons kill. The ideal bullet is one that dumps ALL of its energy into the target. A bullet that goes THROUGH the target is wasting energy. A good hollow point is one that makes a bigger wound channel AND transfers all or most of the bullet's enery to the target.

I thought we had quashed this. "Energy Transfer", "energy dump", all BS.
There is a whole lot of energy transferred into a person who is hit by a car at 15 MPH (enough to throw them back many feet), yet this is usually a survivable scenario. Why? Because their vital organs and circulatory system remained in-tact. Energy does not kill. Gaping wounds that bleed and organs that are destroyed kill. Energy only factors in because it amounts to driving a biger bullet deeper, thus causing more trauma. A bullet that exits has wasted nothing. Exit wounds are usually larger (never smaller) than entrance wounds, hence more opportunity for blood to leave the body.

CNS shots are the only ones that negate blood loss and organ damage as factors in stopping. CNS shots are all but impossible to guarantee and cannot be relied on. (head shots do not guarantee incapacitating damage)

If you want to put someone down, you want big hole all the way through.

The only thing that effects a stop or kill is DAMAGE!

An MP-5 shoots with a different engineering approach than an automatic pistol. (If one hit is a good thing, 15 hits is a GREAT thing.) A .22 is pretty effective too when you are shooting 15 of them per second.

More holes=more damage. Plays right into the logic.

I did say the .40 has better stopping power then the 10mm. I did not however say the .40 has better ballistics. The 10mm does have better ballistics

:confused:

Stopping power is a myth, but wounding potential is not and the 10mm simply has more than the .40. The extra horsepower allows you to drive a heavier bullet deeper when expanded to the same diameter. See above for what this means.

defiant73a
October 7, 2006, 08:30 AM
Stopping power is a myth, but wounding potential is not and the 10mm simply has more than the .40. The extra horsepower allows you to drive a heavier bullet deeper when expanded to the same diameter. See above for what this means.
BUT we all (or at least most) acknowlege that you need "enough penetration"--and once that point is reached, "more penetration" is not needed (because you've exited target, and there is nothing less to pentrate). Most of the .40 S&W current generation JHPs designed for LE/defence have "enough penetration" (and anything more is a waste). So, when it comes to practical penetration (for LE/defence), it's pretty much a wash between the .40 S&W and 10mm.

As for bullets (and bullet weights), again, it pretty much wash (particularly when it comes to bullets designed for LE/defence). In fact, the 10mm relies almost entirely on bullets designed for the .40 S&W (e.g., Gold Dot, Golden Sabre, etc.). If anything, performance of these bullets may suffer when driven much beyond .40 S&W velocities (e.g., we know the 180-grain Gold Dot folds back on itself resulting in less actual expansion once you reach ~1300 fps).

There is absolutely nothing to indicate the .40 S&W gives up anything to the 10mm in a LE/defence role (and lot to indicate their performance is pretty much wash). The .40 S&W's advantages (and why the 10mm is largely DOA as LE/defence round) are that it does it with a smaller, more convenient, more ergonomic, more shootable platform. The .40 S&W killed the 10mm as a LE/defence calibre because, all things considered, it is a better calibre for that role.

The 10mm is very good, very versatile calibre, but when you limit it to strictly a LE/defence role, there are better choices (not necessarily based on ballistics but on a whole host of other considerations including weapon availablity, ammo availabity and cost, weapon size and weight, shootability, etc.).

jlh26oo
October 7, 2006, 08:54 AM
I did say the .40 has better stopping power then the 10mm.
:uhoh:

The .40 S&W's advantages (and why the 10mm is largely DOA as LE/defence round) are that it does it with a smaller, more convenient, more ergonomic, more shootable platform. The .40 S&W killed the 10mm as a LE/defence calibre because, all things considered, it is a better calibre for that role. THat actually makes sense, but then There is absolutely nothing to indicate the .40 S&W gives up anything to the 10mm in a LE/defence role I mean, does anything indicate to you that .40sw gives up anything to rifles? You had me, then you lost me.

defiant73a
October 7, 2006, 10:11 AM
A handgun--whether .40 S&W or 10mm--gives up a lot (but not convenience) to a rifle.

critrxdoc
October 7, 2006, 10:28 AM
Easier to conceal? Maybe. The G-29 may have something to say about that. Is the .40 better or equal to the .357mag? Don't know, but if you say the 10mm has nothing to gain over the .40 in a SD role, then you have to be willing to say the .357mag has nothing to add to the .40, because for all intensive purposes, the 10mm is an autoloading .357mag.:D

MachIVshooter
October 7, 2006, 02:02 PM
BUT we all (or at least most) acknowlege that you need "enough penetration"--and once that point is reached, "more penetration" is not needed (because you've exited target, and there is nothing less to pentrate).

So what exactly is that point? I think we can all agree that more penetration is likely needed to stop a 6'2" 345 lb man than a 5'8" 155 lb man, all else being equal. A .380 will achieve adequate penetration in a normal sized man (about 5'10", 180 lbs), but I can think of many times when I've seen guys that could probably absorb an entire magazine of .380 ammo in the torso and keep on going.

Actual terminal performance of most mid-power handgun rounds (.40, .45, 10mm, .357 mag) are quite similar, but why not choose the one that performs just a little bit better if you can handle it? I don't tell people th .40 is inadequate for SD, but no one with their head screwed on straight would suggest the .40 is ballistically superior to the 10mm in any way. Would one call the .30-30 Win. superior to the .30-06? Because that is the performance gap we are looking at; 50% increase.

masterknowitall
March 24, 2008, 01:33 PM
9mm cheap, plentiful and will penetrate target. poor knock down potential
45 cal. not as cheap, plentiful and has knock down power and serious recoil
40 cal. just right. Less likely penetrate, has the knock down power and less recoil than 45 cal.
I just bought Springfield xd-40 3" for concealed carry. Perfect fit, 1000k rounds at range, no ftf. Love it. Can't recommend it strongly enough.
Check out on-point firearms in St. Pete Fl.

DWARREN123
March 24, 2008, 01:54 PM
I like the GLOCK 23 in 40 S&W. I have one and it takes some time to get use to it. I believe it is a very good defense round, bigger than a 9mm and faster than 45 ACP. A good compromise caliber.

MarcusWendt
March 24, 2008, 01:57 PM
If you are a fan of the Glock, 9MM for you.

CountGlockula
March 24, 2008, 04:00 PM
After taking an NRA basic handgun course and shooting a lot of different guns...I ended up with a Glock model 35.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/Gregdog/Pin%20Ups/IMG_0150.jpg

I also picked up a G23 a year later. I love the .40S&W caliber.

BlackDrop50
March 24, 2008, 08:54 PM
In my order of preference having shot all 3 in many different guns, except 10mm, only in a glock.

.45 first, easy to shoot, big bullet, stopping power

10mm second, big bullet, lots of power and loads

.40 third, faster and harder than 9mm, but I don't like the "snap" of it, would rather shoot 10mm.

9mm last, because I shoot a bigger bullet just as fast and accurately, and I live in CA so we are only allowed 10 rnd mags.


Carry as big as you can handle.

tblt
March 24, 2008, 09:11 PM
buy a 9

BlindJustice
March 24, 2008, 09:52 PM
9x17, 9x18, 9x19, 9x23?
.40 S&W or .400 CorBon ?
i0MM Auto or Magnum?

jcjacobvt
March 24, 2008, 10:16 PM
As I read thru all the suggestions, I see a major problem.

First gun and new to shooting.

With that being stated.

First gun in a handgun should be a wheelgun in .22 long rifle; and about a couple cases of .22 ammo. After he/she feels that they are proficient with .22 caliber handguns then they move up to larger calibers.

New shooters should also consider getting into reloading. I have shot for over 40 years now and have been reloading that long also. Having loaded everything from .380 acp to .50 BMG with tens of thousands of rounds of .40 S&W and 10mm on progressive presses. By reloading your shot groups will get smaller, and cost to make your own rounds are normally a quarter of that of factory ammo.

Best defense caliber - 9mm, 357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, 45 acp ?

They all work great, depending on shot placement by the shooter.

A consistence shooter with ANY caliber is more lethal then which caliber or what weight bullet they are shooting. I shoot mainly .357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 Colt in both semi-auto and revolvers. I also would also feel comfortable if I only had one of my .22 LR pistols if that was what was at hand. Repeat shot placement, recoil recovery, and feeling comfortable with what your are carrying are a lot more important than big, or small calibers. I personnally like the 10mm and either carry a semi-auto or a revolver in that caliber.

Practice, and practice offen. I normally run miniumal of 200 rounds a week at the range, for any day that I shoot. Cost does factor into the totals of what you can do. In the efford, you would be wise to look into reloading what you are shooting. Pickup your brass at the range; in fact pickup all brass at the ranges, it is good trading material if you are not shooting that caliber, others do. Costs to reload is 1/4 or less of buying factory rounds. Calibers do not matter, as components costs are about the same for all. It might cost a little to setup at first, but the pay off is great. The more you can afford to shoot, the more you can shoot. Try to find a friend whom is into reloading to help you get started.

Safe shooting.

easyg
March 25, 2008, 10:59 PM
Forget the weaker 9mm...go for the .40S&W!

I don't see why the recoil of the .40 would be a problem....after all, tiny female agents and tiny female law enforcement officers shoot the .40 just fine every day.

Dahwg
March 26, 2008, 03:06 AM
Forget the weaker 9mm...go for the .40S&W!

I don't see why the recoil of the .40 would be a problem....after all, tiny female agents and tiny female law enforcement officers shoot the .40 just fine every day.

Yes by all means, because there is SOOOO Much difference in size between the .40S&W and the weak little 9mm- that 1mm of difference is going to make all the difference in the world. You wouldn't want to shoot a BG with a 9mm, he will just laugh and say

"Good thing you didn't shoot me with the .40S&W- one more mm of bullet and I'd have had to fall down."

And of course recoil won't be a problem, it's not a problem with a .45 or even a .50 for that matter. Yes you can recover from recoil, and getting back on target is really not THAT important- after all, the extra mm of bullet will stop ALL BGs with one shot!

And by all means avoid the 9mm- the ammo is so plentiful and inexpensive you'll be able to afford more time on the range. Wouldn't want to improve your skills and thus your shot placement would you?

Seriously though, it really is all about shot placement, you have to shoot what YOU feel comfortable with, not what a consensus of people on the internet say is the best- they're all good.

easyg
March 26, 2008, 11:24 AM
...that 1mm of difference is going to make all the difference in the world.
It's not just a 1mm difference.
With the .40, you're shooting a bigger and HEAVIER slug at nearly the same speed as the typical 9mm.
It makes a difference for sure.

Yes you can recover from recoil, and getting back on target is really not THAT important- after all, the extra mm of bullet will stop ALL BGs with one shot!
I can get back on target just as easy with my .40 as I can with my 9mm.
Follow-up shots are not difficult at all.
The recoil from the .40 is really no worse than a hot 9mm+P.

And by all means avoid the 9mm- the ammo is so plentiful and inexpensive you'll be able to afford more time on the range. Wouldn't want to improve your skills and thus your shot placement would you?
Why not go with .22LR?
It's even cheaper to shoot!

Seriously, I think it's foolish to let ammo prices dictate your choice in caliber for personal protection....especially when the price difference between 9mm ammo and .40 ammo is not that significant.

It's incredible how some folks get so bent out of shape if anyone points out that the 9mm is weaker than the .40 or .45.

abrink
March 26, 2008, 12:02 PM
Another vote for 9mm. The other posts explain why. The 9mm was my first gun when i was 13. A ruger auto.

Let us know what you decide to go with.

Greg8098
March 30, 2008, 08:30 PM
Get a 9MM first, then get SOME 10MMs :evil:!!!!

tpaw
March 30, 2008, 08:52 PM
Forget the weaker 9mm...go for the .40S&W!

I disagree. With the 9mm you have a faster shot recovery allowing for quicker follow up shots.
I'm 6' 2", 225 lbs. and have big hands. I shoot both calibers very often, and I can speak from experience. I can send more lead down range with more accuracy with the 9mm as oppossed to the .40 cal.
In an exchage of gunfire, that's what you want, rapid recovery, more lead going out, and accuracy. But of course that's just me, but I would think that it would be true with many others as well.

JustinL
March 30, 2008, 08:57 PM
It has probably been mentioned already but I would go with the 9mm for several reasons

1. ammo cost
2. less recoil & therefore easier to learn proper technique.
3. 9mm is just fine as a defensive round.

Indifferent
March 30, 2008, 09:19 PM
9mm is very cost effective for new ammo at Walmart.
100 rounds is $18

(side note, how much should be on hand to deal with Zombies or etc?)

I've played with 9mm, 40cal, 10mm, etc. For the price the 9 is awesome.
Next bet, is the most proven manstopper .357 magnum in a snub.

And if we are talking other than handguns..... a 12gauge pump.





















I researched Zombies and made my choices.
:scrutiny:

Brian Williams
March 30, 2008, 09:34 PM
I personally prefer 9x32R.



better known as 357 Mag.

tpaw
March 30, 2008, 11:25 PM
I've played with 9mm, 40cal, 10mm, etc. For the price the 9 is awesome.Next bet, is the most proven manstopper .357 magnum in a snub.

I had the S&W 340 PD Lite weight in 357. It was brutal, and I'm a big guy. Had to readjust for every shot. Went to .38 +P, it was a little better. Put Hogue grips on it, a lot better. Then the more I thought about it, only 5 shots, I traded it for a Glock 26, 10 shot. Glad I did.

DougDubya
March 30, 2008, 11:26 PM
You're comfy with the 9mm. Don't sweat it, and just train hard.

Ala Dan
March 30, 2008, 11:54 PM
Don't ever forget this: "Shot placement is PARAMOUNT"~! :scrutiny:

Whether you are shoot'in a BB gun, or a .5500 caliber boom-stick. :eek:

With that said, I DO NOT feel that the 9m/m is inadequate for self-defense
situations. Just practice-practice-practice, and know YOUR limitations, and
what YOUR firearm and chosen load will do~! ;) :D

easyg
March 31, 2008, 12:17 AM
I don't know of any man who is content with just a 9mm.
So, you may as well get a .40 or a .45 now and not waste money and time on the 9mm.

DougDubya
March 31, 2008, 12:38 PM
easyg - why the vendetta against the 9mm?

Or do you just not know that many people who own firearms?

Brian Williams
March 31, 2008, 01:09 PM
I am content with my Glock 19 in 9mm it will do what I need if I would have to use it. I am also contemplating getting a keltec P-11 and maybe a BHP, both in 9mm. I also have converted a S&W 642 into a 9mm with a cylinder from a 940. It does very well with most regular ammo and is very fast reloading with the moonclips. That said I wish I could get a K frame S&W in 9mm that was not a conversion or a 547 so I could use it with moonclips. A fixed sight K frame with a 3" mid weight barrel and chambered in 9mm moonclipped from the factory would be one of my favorite guns, particularly if it was blued.

DougDubya
March 31, 2008, 06:41 PM
A fixed sight K frame with a 3" mid weight barrel and chambered in 9mm moonclipped from the factory would be one of my favorite guns, particularly if it was blued.

You know how to make a man drool, Brian.

+1

possum
March 31, 2008, 07:01 PM
welcome to thr.

glocks are fine pistols they work reliably, and accuratly. i however wil not own a glock in any other caliber than 9mm. which is good for me as ammo is cheaper. the recoil of the .40 in the glocks isn't to bad but way worse thn my xd's and the 10mm good lord no thanks and 10mm ammo is expensive. so i would go with the model 19 and i am sure that you will be happy.

Joe the Redneck
March 31, 2008, 07:23 PM
Well, I guess we have proven once again that is really is pointless to ask question like there.

It's like asking which gun is best, there is no right or wrong answer.

Here are my thoughts, and they are worth every penny you paid for them.

I tend to lean toward the 40. Hi cap mags are still think enough to be comfortable and you get 15 rounds. Nice feature for a military style sidearm.

The 45 acp is fine in a 1911, double stack mags are too bulky for a lot of people. Bigger than the 40, but I don't feel it is "enough" bigger to justify all the extra bulk.

10mm too uncommon. Great round but never caught on. Tends to have a bit more kick than alot of people like. If you want something with a lot of punch, get a revolver in 357 or 44 mag. That is real stopping power.

9mm, again fine round. But I can't see why you would need one. YOu only get a few more rounds in the mag, but it makes a smaller hole in the bad guy.
It does have less recoil, but I think you will get used to the 40 in a few trips to the range.

Had the 40 been around when I got in this game, I wouldn't own a 9. I have over 20 handguns in a lot of calibers. I only have one 9mm (my Glock 17) and have no intention of buying another.

The 40 is the way to guy.

OK< no ignore all this and do what you like.

JTR

jkingrph
March 31, 2008, 08:14 PM
I skipped the 40, it came out too late for me. I have an accurized Browning HP 9mm and it's a great gun but I prefer a 45 for stopping power, think of it this way 9mm = 35 cal, 10mm=40 cal, 11mm=45 cal.
10mm auto is fine, recoil is more than 40 auto same bullets at much higher velocity= more recoil. I have a 10mm in a Colt Delta Gold Cup. Advantage the ten has over the others is the flat trajaectory with retained energy. Don't quote me but when it came out I think I read it did at 200 yards what the 45 does at 50 energy wise. I do not know of any small handguns made that would be of use for cc in 10mm.

45 makes bigger hole, proven track record in defensive mode.

I am currently waiting to get a Para Ordnance PDA LDA in 45, weighs 24 oz and should be nice for carry.

jkingrph
March 31, 2008, 08:31 PM
I skipped the 40, it came out too late for me. I have an accurized Browning HP 9mm and it's a great gun but I prefer a 45 for stopping power, think of it this way 9mm = 35 cal, 10mm=40 cal, 11mm=45 cal.
10mm auto is fine, recoil is more than 40 auto same bullets at much higher velocity= more recoil. I have a 10mm in a Colt Delta Gold Cup. Advantage the ten has over the others is the flat trajaectory with retained energy. Don't quote me but when it came out I think I read it did at 200 yards what the 45 does at 50 energy wise. I do not know of any small handguns made that would be of use for cc in 10mm.

45 makes bigger hole, proven track record in defensive mode.

I am currently waiting to get a Para Ordnance PDA LDA in 45, weighs 24 oz and should be nice for carry.


sorry duplicate, got interrupted.

tpaw
March 31, 2008, 11:54 PM
easyg writes:

"I don't know of any man who is content with just a 9mm.
So, you may as well get a .40 or a .45 now and not waste money and time on the 9mm."

I disagree. With the 9mm you have a faster shot recovery allowing for quicker follow up shots.
I'm 6' 2", 225 lbs. and have big hands. I shoot both calibers very often, and I can speak from experience. I can send more lead down range with more accuracy with the 9mm as oppossed to the .40 cal.
In an exchage of gunfire, that's what you want, rapid recovery, more lead going out, and accuracy. But of course that's just me, but I would think that it would be true with many others as well.

XD-40 Shooter
April 1, 2008, 12:26 AM
I settled on the 40 cal and have become very proficient with it. With the exception of the XD-45, most 40 cal pistols hold more rounds than the 45, and only give up a couple to the 9mm, pretty good middle ground in my book.:D Also, the 40 cal is shooting large bullets at a significantly higher velocity than the 45 is, especially in the 165 and 155 grain loads. In a short barrel, under 3.5", the 40 is the way to go, very efficient, not a major velocity loss.

I'm with the other folks here, that don't trust the 9mm. Yeah, they hold 18 rounds, but you might need all 18 of'em to put the bad guy down.:uhoh::neener:

Marbles
April 1, 2008, 12:43 AM
Caliber and gun opinions are like armpits.

I love 9mm. Cheap enough for a college/student/limited paycheck.

You must remember. Not everybody can afford to buy lots of ammo. Economy isn't what it used to be 40 years ago.

I know somebody that believes if you get hit -anywhere- with a .40cal/10x23mm you're dead as a rock.

Shot placement, terminal velocity, stopping power, energy displacement, bullet hole size, etc along with the remainder of hogwash terminology doesn't mean anything. You will not be attacked by paper targets moving at .1m/s at 50m.

Indifferent
April 1, 2008, 12:49 AM
The post above me, and this post (in qoutations, not my post), are the two best posts on here.

As I read thru all the suggestions, I see a major problem.

First gun and new to shooting.

With that being stated.

First gun in a handgun should be a wheelgun in .22 long rifle; and about a couple cases of .22 ammo. After he/she feels that they are proficient with .22 caliber handguns then they move up to larger calibers.

New shooters should also consider getting into reloading. I have shot for over 40 years now and have been reloading that long also. Having loaded everything from .380 acp to .50 BMG with tens of thousands of rounds of .40 S&W and 10mm on progressive presses. By reloading your shot groups will get smaller, and cost to make your own rounds are normally a quarter of that of factory ammo.

Best defense caliber - 9mm, 357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, 45 acp ?

They all work great, depending on shot placement by the shooter.

A consistence shooter with ANY caliber is more lethal then which caliber or what weight bullet they are shooting. I shoot mainly .357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 Colt in both semi-auto and revolvers. I also would also feel comfortable if I only had one of my .22 LR pistols if that was what was at hand. Repeat shot placement, recoil recovery, and feeling comfortable with what your are carrying are a lot more important than big, or small calibers. I personnally like the 10mm and either carry a semi-auto or a revolver in that caliber.

Practice, and practice offen. I normally run miniumal of 200 rounds a week at the range, for any day that I shoot. Cost does factor into the totals of what you can do. In the efford, you would be wise to look into reloading what you are shooting. Pickup your brass at the range; in fact pickup all brass at the ranges, it is good trading material if you are not shooting that caliber, others do. Costs to reload is 1/4 or less of buying factory rounds. Calibers do not matter, as components costs are about the same for all. It might cost a little to setup at first, but the pay off is great. The more you can afford to shoot, the more you can shoot. Try to find a friend whom is into reloading to help you get started.

Safe shooting.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 01:07 AM
Part of me loves the thumpability of the 155's and the 165's.

The other part is pouting in the corner for the loss of the 10mm.

tpaw
April 1, 2008, 01:37 AM
I'm with the other folks here, that don't trust the 9mm. Yeah, they hold 18 rounds, but you might need all 18 of'em to put the bad guy down.

Nothing not to trust about the 9mm. What's not to trust is the .40 cal. Kaboom factor. There have been too many horror stories about that. I would not like thinking that at a time when I needed it for SD, it blows up in my hand.
Anyway, to each his own. Whatever rocks your socks!

easyg
April 1, 2008, 01:48 PM
Nothing not to trust about the 9mm.

The 9mm has been around for a long time....but it's never enjoyed a great reputation as a fight stopper.
And while it's true that there have been many advances made in 9mm ammo, it's just not big enough and heavy enough to be as effective as the .40S&W or the .45ACP.
Just about every novice shooter that I know started with the 9mm....but very quickly they moved on to the larger calibers.
I recommend that one skip the 9mm and save themselves the money....they'll eventually buy a .40 or .45 anyway.
I know I did.

easyg
April 1, 2008, 01:50 PM
What's not to trust is the .40 cal. Kaboom factor. There have been too many horror stories about that. I would not like thinking that at a time when I needed it for SD, it blows up in my hand.
Do you wear protective glasses when shooting?

If so....why?


The truth of the matter is that there have been KB's in about every caliber known to man.
It's always a risk when shooting any firearm....especially when shooting reloads.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 02:10 PM
Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes? what caliber shooting glasses do you suggest, easyg?

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.

Sounds like a selective agenda on someone's part.

easyg
April 1, 2008, 02:34 PM
Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes?
Protective glasses might save one's eyes IF their weapon explodes....regardless of caliber or make and model.

Only a complete fool would believe that every Glock or every .40 caliber pistol is destined to explode.:rolleyes:

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.
Well, it's like this....

Some folks have settled for the 9mm.
The most common reason that I hear is the size/weight factor....
Plenty of folks prefer a small pocket-pistol, plain and simple.
And larger calibers are not much fun to shoot from a light-weight pocket-pistol.
So, folks are willing to compromise.....they are willing to sacrifice caliber effectiveness for less weight, a smaller package, and greater concealability.

There's nothing wrong with this....after all, every handgun is a compromise in power and effectiveness when compared to long-guns.
When we carry a handgun we willingly sacrifice power and effectiveness in exchange for portability and concealabity.
But one must not decieve oneself....one must acknowledge the compromise.

No one argues that a .45Colt from a 5" barrel is more powerful than a .38 special from a 1.5" barrel....yet more folks carry .38 snubbies rather than .45Colt long-barrel single-action revolvers.
They are willing to accept the compromise.
They are willing to settle for the weaker caliber.

As for those who claim to prefer the 9mm in a full-sized handgun....
They have also settled, in my opinion.
Some just don't realize it or simply refuse to admit it.
But there are some who know that they have settled...but not because they wanted to, or because they are truely satisfied with the 9mm....but because of their physical limitations.

And there are some who are rather new to shooting and they took someone's advice and bought a 9mm.
But just give them some time and they will eventually go bigger.

Lonestar49
April 1, 2008, 02:55 PM
Quote: Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes? what caliber shooting glasses do you suggest, easyg?

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.

Sounds like a selective agenda on someone's part.
...............................
...

While I agree with you DD, I also agree with eg's statement about starting off with a 9mm (for many) and moving up to 40cal, 45cal, or both, is a truth for a lot of shooters out there.

I'd take any of these (calibers) with my guns, depending on shot placement, SA being online, first-shot, and any follow-ups, being motivated by training, time-spent, point to aim accuracy, staying current, and living the La Vida.. Leave me in peace and I will do the same for anyone..

But, when it comes to choice caliber out the door for SD, 90% of the time it's gonna be either 40cal or 45cal..

Weight and "spread size" is the key in my book, along with IF I can obtain the same higher velocity of a 9mm with a 180gr 40cal, then the choice is a matter of choosing the best caliber with the most punch, backed up by round counts per mag, even though, if I'm doing my part right, then 8+1 min, should more than take care of the business of life, at hand..

But when I'm ever in doubt, I have no question of the biggest, baddest, one shot, steel on target, kill, and that is with my 120mm ccw M1-A1, used of course.. lol


Ls

Of course when I have to draw out the big bad boy, I usually wear full goggles for eye protection, just in case..


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/image1nv7.jpg

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 03:04 PM
I mention the Glock kaboom because, well, are shooting glasses going to be a fallback weapon if the Glock suddenly has no trigger assembly in the middle of a gunfight due to a malfunction?

As for the .40, logic and science say it's a great, fight-stopping round, but it's generally far less accurate than 9mm or .45 (except in rare, fine platforms like the Browning HP-40 or the Mk40 from Kahr). In my soul, however, the .40 is an intruder, an abomination that killed a fine cartridge (the 10mm), doesn't do more than proper pressure 9mm Luger (American companies gelded the round so as not to disintegrate late war Nazi takehome guns which were made of pot metal with poor welding - 9mm +P and +P+ are more in line with what a true Luger/Parabellum was for the original P.08), and just doesn't have the same spirit and oomph of the .45 ACP.

They haven't settled. Not when the CZ-75, P226 and 92F are lauded for their accuracy and soft shooting ability. Not when the Browning Hi-Power and Glock 19 are considered the perfect packages of capacity, accuracy, power and ergonomics in a concealable size by large groups of people.

Sure, there are .40 versions of these firearms, but except for the Hi-Power, none are as accurate, or more accurate than the 9mm variant. None have the same favorable firepower ratio as the 9mm - why give up two rounds of 9mm +P for one millimeter of overall diameter?

I will concede to you, though, a deep love of the .45 ACP. Rather than notice the foul chowderpellet, if I'd need more than a 9mm, there are options out there that put the .40 in its shameful little posing pouch.

Glock 19 to Glock 30. 16 9mm's to 11 .45's, excellent trade off if you have a hand that encompasses the fat 30's grip.
USP 9 to USP 45 - a much smaller difference in ergonomics. 16 9mm's vs. 13 .45's, even a friendlier trade-off.
Browning Hi-Power to Para-Ordnance or STI frame 1911.
FNP9 to FNP45.
XD-9 to XD-45.
MP9 to MP45...
The weakest transition is P226 to P220, 16 vs. 9. But with the P220, you've got such ergonomic joy and accuracy, I'm akin to SFW, it's a fair trade.

But the 9mm is perfectly good, as long as you're not hobbling it with garbage designed not to make a Radom Viz-35 or Walther P-38 built by Nazis in 1943 with substandard metals and manufacturing procedures come apart at the seams.

Especially if you know how to shoot. And 9mm prices being what they are in comparison to other calibers, you can learn very fast and very well with a 9mm.

Once the Illinois State Police restored the 9mm Luger to its proper velocities back in the 70's with the +P+, the full sized service 9mm autoloader became a good, fine defensive gun. Not a compromise. Not a limitation. Not a failure.

buzz_knox
April 1, 2008, 03:04 PM
Just about every novice shooter that I know started with the 9mm....but very quickly they moved on to the larger calibers.
I recommend that one skip the 9mm and save themselves the money....they'll eventually buy a .40 or .45 anyway.
I know I did.

And I know many very experienced shooters who went back to the 9mm when they stopped worrying about caliber and started focusing on skill and mindset.

I thought demonstrated a good understanding of the whole caliber issue:

I generally choose capacity over caliber in handguns for several reasons:


There is NO MAGIC BULLET.
Folks have survived being shot with every handgun caliber know to man.
Folks have taken numerous .45 and .357 rounds and lived to tell the tale.
So when it comes to 9mm and larger, there's not a lot of real effective difference between them.

Shot placement and accuracy trump caliber everytime.

I often shoot with one hand, and there's also the possibility that my wife might have to use the firearm as well, and she might need to shoot it with one hand too...so less recoil is better.

In the event of a prolonged shootout, more rounds between reloads is definitley an advantage.

And finally...

After a firefight, nobody ever said "Gee, I had too many bullets. Next time I'll carry less".

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 03:06 PM
Lonestar, it's easier for me to be happy with the .45 ACP. I'm equally as happy with the 9mm. The .40... not so much, despite the .357-Magnum-like performance of the 155's, the 165's, and the 135 Cor-Bon.

Makes no sense.

mavracer
April 1, 2008, 03:29 PM
As for those who claim to prefer the 9mm in a full-sized handgun....
They have also settled, in my opinion.
THANK GOD IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION AND NOT FACT

Lonestar49
April 1, 2008, 03:50 PM
Quote: Lonestar, it's easier for me to be happy with the .45 ACP. I'm equally as happy with the 9mm. The .40... not so much, despite the .357-Magnum-like performance of the 155's, the 165's, and the 135 Cor-Bon.

Makes no sense.
----------
...

My Beretta Px4 40cal, which was my first handgun, 1yr ago, and until I had some 800 rounds (flawless by the way) downrange, and on-target, with fast follow-up shots, unvieled my mind as, with the first 600 shots, I'd leave the range swearing that I had bought an Elephant gun.. not happy.

Then when I got my next gun, a Sig P229 9mm, it was so peaceful, perfect, accurate, from the very first shot thru 2200 flawless rounds to-date..

Then I got my third gun, Sig P220, and that just seemed so beautiful, easy, accurate, from the first shot thru 1250 flawless rounds to-date..

But a funny thing happened on the way right after I fired my P229 9mm's first 200 rounds, I then finished the day with my Px4 40cal with another 100 rounds and the recoil seemed more docile, than ever before, or since..

Well, now that the Px4 has 6200 rounds, but has developed an ongoing trigger-sting issue, which it appears, by others reports, I'm not the only one with this affliction with their Px4's and Beretta is dragging their heels in owning- up to taking a hard look at our guns or to find a fix, rather, just telling us, wear a shooters glove like the pro's.. And that answer to their "acknowledgement" that the sting can, and does, occur, is not acceptable, so I bought a Sig P229 40cal, and to my surprise, being heavier than the Px4, yet it has less perceived recoil and getting second, faster follow-up shots with it is far superior to the, my, Px4's soft/recoil, and no trigger sting on the same cold, or warm, days. And IF I shot both my 9mm or my 40 cal P229's with my eyes shut, seriously, there would be no perceived difference, in both accuracy, fast follow-up shots, but one thing I do know, is the 40cal offers a wider spread, harder hit, at almost the same speed as my 229 9mm..

It's all in the gun, platform, one chooses for the 40cal, IMO, not that the 40cal is some kind of hybrid that could satisfy the person, woman, whatever, that couldn't handle the 10mm in a shorter gun, vs they can in a 40cal..

That is the truth why the FBI said NO to the 10mm, and NO to the 45 (mag load capacity) and yes to the 40cal..

It's a great round in this shooters opinion, both in accuracy, weight, and speed, along with, none of my 40cals has hiccuped once.. As again, IMO, it's more a thing with re-loads and those that think a little more powder is better, when there is a fine line between the max-load, and just too much, that any gun, any caliber, can't hold after the first crack occurs, and the next shot, the gun explodes..

It all makes sense to this shooter, but then, it's just my guns, my ammo, my learned and felt, experiences with no complaints.. and staying within the guidelines of each gun manufactures Do's and Dont's.. because of this unsupported chamber, to that, Aluminan or Plastic frames and +P or +P+ ammo can only be expected to last X amount of rounds before failure can, and will, occur..

IMO it's not about the caliber, but about user-error, one way or another in most cases.. not all, as bad guns make their way out NIB as well.

My Beretta Px4 40cal did..


Ls

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 03:50 PM
Mavracer, no need to shout.

And I agree, I've been exceptionally snarky in my love for the 9mm over the .40.

easyg
April 1, 2008, 03:51 PM
....but it's generally far less accurate than 9mm or .45 (except in rare, fine platforms like the Browning HP-40 or the Mk40 from Kahr).
I disagree.
I don't find the .40 to be any less accurate than the 9mm or the .45.
I guess some folks are more accurate with a 9mm because they can't handle a bigger caliber....just like some folks are more accurate with a .22.

In my soul, however, the .40 is an intruder, an abomination that killed a fine cartridge (the 10mm),....
Give me a break!
The 10mm was never that popular in the first place.
And the .40 really isn't hurting 10mm sales today....but it is hurting 9mm and .45 sales.

None have the same favorable firepower ratio as the 9mm - why give up two rounds of 9mm +P for one millimeter of overall diameter?
It's not just diameter....it's also weight.
A bigger AND heavier slug moving at similar velocities as the 9mm is going to make a difference.
When shooting iron targets, often the 9mm will fail to drop the target while the .40 and the .45 will reliably knock them down.
It's not the extra diameter than knocks down the iron target....it's the extra weight.

And 9mm prices being what they are in comparison to other calibers, you can learn very fast and very well with a 9mm.
And again you're compromising....you're sacrificing power and effectiveness for cheaper ammo.
Why not go all the way and just shoot .22 ammo?

I generally choose capacity over caliber in handguns for several reasons:

There is NO MAGIC BULLET....
Yeah, like I said....I started out with the 9mm as a SD handgun, just like most folks.
And yeah, I was in denial about its abilities too, just like some folks here.
And yeah, the 9mm is easier to shoot for my wife and easier for me to shoot one-handed.
But I acknowledge the compromise.
I'm not deceiving myself (at least not these days)....the .40 and the .45 are both more powerful than the 9mm.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 03:53 PM
I feel you, Lonestar.

There are a lot of .40's that are just so pretty (CZ-75 .40 Stainless), cool (PX4 Storm), or magnificent performers (Browning .40) that I keep making exceptions. It's a hard fought process to like the .40 for me. 'Specially with beauties like the P229/9mm out there.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 03:56 PM
easyg - I don't know about you, but most of the opponents even my Science Fiction addled mind can think of aren't made of iron plate.

In jello and on the street, the 9mm is just as good.

And the .40 accuracy tests weren't from weaklings who can't handle a "man's round." This was bench rest and machine rest testing, not off hand. Why not give the world a break from your attitude that the 9mm is only good for committing suicide by using it as a defensive round against indestructible monsters that bound 9mm's like gumdrops?

buzz_knox
April 1, 2008, 04:22 PM
I'm not deceiving myself (at least not these days)....the .40 and the .45 are both more powerful than the 9mm.

That's a true statement. It's also irrelevant since "power" is pretty much a useless term these days. Most people who work with terminal ballistics on a regular basis focus on issues like penetration, reliability of expansion, wound channel, etc. When you start comparing service rounds, you find that they start being interchangeable very quickly. That's why most who work with terminal ballistics focus on things other than caliber.

As for not deceiving yourself, if you are hung up on caliber, you are still deceiving yourself. You had it right the first time: all handguns cartridges have failed historically, and will fail in the future. The real issue is what are you doing to do when the mojo of the magic bullet doesn't work as intended. And caliber has nothing at all to do with answering that question.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 04:33 PM
Twice an infinitessimal fraction of a human's weight is still infinitessimal. Stating that the extra weight of a .45 ACP round has magical properties in penetration or telling iron plates to lay down is not a measure of stopping power.

It's a measure of making an iron plate fall down. When the iron plates do rise and try to kill us, then by all means, I'll be packing a .45 auto for that time.

Until then, since human bodies shut down to 9mm fighting rounds, I won't have my conscience trouble me for suggesting a 9mm handgun.

mavracer
April 1, 2008, 05:51 PM
Mavracer, no need to shout.
sorry, cap lock was on and I didn't feal like retyping it.
The 9mm has been around for a long time....but it's never enjoyed a great reputation as a fight stopper.

actually the 124+p gold dots and 127 +p+ rangers have exelent reputations.check out San Diago PD reports.
and Doug I admit I agree with you about the .40,sure it works fine,but it's the answer to the question I never asked.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 06:18 PM
San Diego PD and the NYPD have enjoyed a lot of success with the 124- and 127-grain +P loads. Back in the 70's, it was 115 grains at 1350 fps, which is the same ballistics as what the US.mil loads into 9mm's.

If only those Berettas had expanding ammo, not hardball. Even a flat point would provide more contact area on meat.

tpaw
April 1, 2008, 06:23 PM
The truth of the matter is that there have been KB's in about every caliber known to man.
It's always a risk when shooting any firearm....especially when shooting reloads.

Very true, but the Glock 40 Cal. seems to lead the parade, wonder why?..:confused:

jimbob86
April 1, 2008, 06:36 PM
First Gun? Of the 3 choices, take the 9mm. More money to practice with. Take some of that money and buy some snap caps for dry-fire and malfunction clearing drills. Practice, Practice, Practice!

easyg
April 1, 2008, 06:58 PM
In jello and on the street, the 9mm is just as good.
Maybe in jello, but certainly not on the streets.
The 9mm's street rep is not that great.

Why not give the world a break from your attitude that the 9mm is only good for committing suicide by using it as a defensive round against indestructible monsters that bound 9mm's like gumdrops?
Let's not distort what I said....
I never said the 9mm is not capable of stopping a human.
It's just not as good as the .40 or the .45, that's all I'm saying.

It's also irrelevant since "power" is pretty much a useless term these days.
No, it's only useless to those who refuse to admit that certain calibers are more powerful than other calibers.
If you had a .380 pistol and someone asked you "Do you have something more powerful?", and you also had a .25 caliber pistol and a .45 caliber pistol in your safe, which one would you show them?


You had it right the first time: all handguns cartridges have failed historically, and will fail in the future.
It cannot be denied....certain calibers are more notorious for failing to quickly stop human aggressors than other calibers.

Twice an infinitessimal fraction of a human's weight is still infinitessimal. Stating that the extra weight of a .45 ACP round has magical properties in penetration or telling iron plates to lay down is not a measure of stopping power.

It's a measure of making an iron plate fall down. When the iron plates do rise and try to kill us, then by all means, I'll be packing a .45 auto for that time.
Are you saying that bullet weight has no bearing upon its effectiveness against humans? :scrutiny:

Until then, since human bodies shut down to 9mm fighting rounds, I won't have my conscience trouble me for suggesting a 9mm handgun.
Not reliably....and often not without numerous rounds.
Which is not a problem so long as you have the time and opportunity to place numerous rounds in to the target.

San Diego PD and the NYPD have enjoyed a lot of success with the 124- and 127-grain +P loads. Back in the 70's, it was 115 grains at 1350 fps, which is the same ballistics as what the US.mil loads into 9mm's.
I don't know what you guys have been reading, but I recall the age of the "wondernine" very well.....and I recall numerous police shootings where the officer (or officers) dumped stupid amounts of 9mm lead in to targets with only marginal success.
What we learned during the 80's is what caused law enforcement to seek a better caliber than the 9mm.
It's no surprise that the .40 leads the way in law enforcement.
And I've never met a cop who shoots the .40 or .45 and wants to go back to the 9mm.

DougDubya
April 1, 2008, 07:35 PM
You mean like the Diallo case, back when it was only 9mm Ball that was used?

As for the results of the 124-grain and 127 grain ammunition, they speak for themselves. The dismal history of the 9mm applies to the age of ball and Jacketed Soft points, not the use of full-power hollowpoints of solid construction.

Again, your momentum theory only applies to the time when our enemies will be iron plates. 9mm police and defensive ammo penetrate as deep as .45 ACP hollowpoints.

Cite instances where "stupid amounts" of 9mm were dumped into a target, and said 9mm was not a streamlined ball round that produced icepick-style wounds, or an opponent like Platt who took only one 9mm center of mass hit (because the shooter missed 27 times), then also took two shotgun blasts from Agent Mireles and three more rounds of .38 Special to finally be put down.

tpaw
April 1, 2008, 10:16 PM
easyg states:

I never said the 9mm is not capable of stopping a human.
It's just not as good as the .40 or the .45, that's all I'm saying

Shot placement will determine what is good, and what is not good, not the caliber!

eric.cartman
April 1, 2008, 10:29 PM
40 cal. just right. Less likely penetrate, has the knock down power and less recoil than 45 cal.

-1

:scrutiny:

But seriously, 40S&W recoils more (in a sense of felt punch to the hand) than .45 any day :what:

easyg
April 1, 2008, 11:11 PM
But seriously, 40S&W recoils more (in a sense of felt punch to the hand) than .45 any day
Maybe to you, but I can't feel any significant difference.

Lonestar49
April 1, 2008, 11:48 PM
Quote: But seriously, 40S&W recoils more (in a sense of felt punch to the hand) than .45 any day
---------------

Quote: **Maybe to you, but I can't feel any significant difference.
--------------
...

** I have to totally agree, as the difference between my P229 9mm and 40cal is so close, that I prefer the 40cal with 180gr for accuracy and fast follow-ups just because there is no real difference for me.

I might add that one day at the range, I had my full size P220, and a nice young man and his girlfriend were firing (next lane) what I thought was a DAK P220, because she was all over the place with it (recoil per shot) but he was smooth and accurate as it gets.. I asked him if it was indeed a DAK (because of the smaller hammer) and he said yes, ever fired one? No, never have had the pleasure, I said, and he hands me the gun.. I took aim squeezed off each shot, was amazed at the ease of the DAK trigger pull, and asked him if he had ever shot a DA/SA 220?

He said no, and I had just run out of 45 ammo with mine, but thought that is what he had, what I had shot (docile recoil wise) and he smiled handing it back, and said: "mine is a DAK P226 40cal, it's my service weapon.." Boy was I embarrassed, but had to return the favor, so I let him shoot my Beretta Px4 40cal and (his first time with any Beretta) I have to tell ya, it turned out he was a LEO from up North, down visiting his gal, and he asked me if it was decocker only, or safety and decocker, which I told him G-model, decocker only, he smiled, decocked, took aim, full DA Pull, hit dead center at 10yds, and emptied all 10 within 1" just making a bigger hole.. The boy could shoot..

As I have said, it's not so much the caliber, be it 45 or 40cal, or 9mm, it's the gun, its platform, balance, weight.. that makes for the right caliber of choice with any gun and any, or the, individual type hand/grip/style.. and felt recoil.

IMHO


Ls

XD-40 Shooter
April 2, 2008, 12:37 AM
Regarding the comments about the tendency of 40 cal pistols to "blow up", this is complete and utter bulls***. I've reloaded well over 5000 rounds of 40cal in my XD-40 and have not had any problems at all. As long as you have a quality pistol with good chamber support, you won't have any issues. With Glocks, I'd absolutely stay away from reloads, the chamber support sucks. Outside of Glock, your good to go.

As far as accuracy goes, my XD-40 will reliably shoot one ragged hole at 20 yards if I do my part, its damn accurate.

I have zero interest in the 9mm, since I have become very proficient with the 40. No reason to go to 45 in my opinion either, the difference is miniscule.

DougDubya
April 2, 2008, 01:27 AM
XD- I meant only Glocks. The XD is afar better .40 platform, chamber support and ergonomics.

easyg
April 2, 2008, 01:35 AM
With Glocks, I'd absolutely stay away from reloads, the chamber support sucks.
This might have been true years ago....but the current Glock chamber support is no less than that of other autos.....

Glock vs Cz:

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/CZ2007/HPIM3818.jpg

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/CZ2007/HPIM3821.jpg

Firepower!
April 2, 2008, 09:49 AM
Well there isnt much difference in 9mm and 40SW. Only about 33% more energy, and that is nothing to compromise gun over or buy more expensive ammo. I think 9mm does everything that 40 can do....but if you want more power in your handgun then instead of moving from 9mm to 40 you should skip 40 and have 10mm which is substantially more powerfull. Otherwise 9mm is a good all round bullet. To sum it all, 40 is not something special. There are better options 45 or 10mm, in case one feels that he cannt knock some one down with 9mm:uhoh:

JonB
April 2, 2008, 12:45 PM
Well that was a fun read up to this point.

I went with a Glock 20c in 10mm as my first auto. Why? Because my dad had a S&W 10mm that I liked and decided it was a good all around caliber. When I bought it, I could get range ammo for about 12-13$ per 50. Not bad.

Then the XD's came out and I just had to have one of those. No reason to buy a .40 as I have a 10mm already. So I went with the XD-9. Great ergonomics for me on this one.

I see no reason not to get a 9mm as it will be cheaper to buy ammo for and that means more practice.

The 40? I don't have one, probably won't buy one, but a lot of people love the round and I can't see anything wrong with it.

10mm - love it. My favorite pistol round. I can reload 10mm for less than half the cost of factory.

DougDubya
April 2, 2008, 02:12 PM
JonB - a man after my own heart.

tpaw
April 2, 2008, 07:56 PM
Presently, I am shooting a Glock 19 and using Speer LE Gold Dot, 9mm Luger +P, 124 GR., GD Hollow Points.
Can anyone recommend a more potent 9mm round in place of what I'm shooting now, or am I OK with what I have?
Please don't suggest a larger caliber, I like the 9mm.

DougDubya
April 2, 2008, 09:08 PM
Gold Dot 124 gr has an EXCELLENT rep.

easyg
April 2, 2008, 09:54 PM
Nevermind.

Farther argument is pointless.

Lonestar49
April 2, 2008, 10:01 PM
Quote: Presently, I am shooting a Glock 19 and using Speer LE Gold Dot, 9mm Luger +P, 124 GR., GD Hollow Points.
Can anyone recommend a more potent 9mm round in place of what I'm shooting now, or am I OK with what I have?
Please don't suggest a larger caliber, I like the 9mm.
------------
...

Find a +P, or +P+, 134gr 9mm JHP or " " "147gr 9mm JHP.. bigger the better.. ;)


Ls

mavracer
April 2, 2008, 10:13 PM
Presently, I am shooting a Glock 19 and using Speer LE Gold Dot, 9mm Luger +P, 124 GR., GD Hollow Points.
Can anyone recommend a more potent 9mm round in place of what I'm shooting now, or am I OK with what I have?do they function reliably and go where you want them if the answer to those is yes your doing fine,matter of fact thats what I use in all my 9s that I use +p in.

tpaw
April 2, 2008, 11:29 PM
do they function reliably and go where you want them if the answer to those is yes your doing fine,matter of fact thats what I use in all my 9s that I use +p in.

Yes, I can bore a hole in a target at 25 yards the size of a tennis ball. I just thought there was something better out there. I'm new to Glock and I love it. I'm shocked as to how accurate they are!

tpaw
April 2, 2008, 11:33 PM
Find a +P, or +P+, 134gr 9mm JHP or " " "147gr 9mm JHP.. bigger the better..

Don't ask me why, but I was advised not to use anything larger than 124 gr. Why I don't know. Perhaps something to do with slower bullet velocity?

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 12:10 AM
Tpaw - not lower velocity. Vastly deeper penetration to the point of 30% through and through on a perp for the early 147-grain loads.

This may have been fixed. It's not velocity which is the problem.

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 12:12 AM
Nevermind.

Farther argument is pointless.

First - it's FURTHER argument.

And second, your looking at ancient 80's bullet technology, and ignoring the past 18 years of 124-grain +P bullet performance.

Read the information instead of dwelling on history.

VirgilCaine
April 3, 2008, 12:17 AM
Wait DougDubya, are you saying that the round overpenetrated and went clean through the enemy 30% of the time?

Velocity is the problem there, isn't it? Without as much velocity, the round will not overpenetrate as often.

tpaw
April 3, 2008, 12:17 AM
- not lower velocity. Vastly deeper penetration to the point of 30% through and through on a perp for the early 147-grain loads.

This may have been fixed. It's not velocity which is the problem.

I have nothing against a larger grain bullet, but do not want a through and through wound channel. Any research out there to show that a larger grain than 124gr. bullet in 9mm is a better preformer? If so, I'd use it.
I would also think that the type of bullet makes a differenct, hollow point vs fmj, etc. I would want something that will penetrate and expand or break up inside to cause more intenal damage.

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 01:09 AM
Virgil - it's not necessarily the velocity. It's the construction of the bullet, the density and softness of its lead and copper jacketing. Increased deformation means it slows down in human flesh. Matching the bullet construction to the velocity is the problem.

Which is why you can have two similar rifle rounds for the same animal. One goes clean through the deer, allowing for a blood trail, and potentially breaking the shoulder, while the different constructed bullet may be stopped by the bone of the shoulder and not penetrate deep enough to make the deer bleed out.

tpaw - Marshall, Ayoob and Farnham agree that 124-grain +P will not overpenetrate. The 147-grain hollowpoint, however, still has too much sectional density to let a human body stop it in nearly 1 in 3 cases, at least according to what I last heard. However, my knowledge of 147-grain JHP pretty much seems to end at 2003.

bhp9mm
April 3, 2008, 04:30 AM
all good rounds i like the 9mm better its alot cheaper if u dont reload so thats what i would go with i like the 19

mavracer
April 3, 2008, 09:04 AM
early 147 designs failed to expand quite a bit causing over penatration.the newer 147 designs HST and Ranger-t series have solved this. I belive remmi GS and 147 Golddots are ok but not sure. theres a list somewhere I belive its from firearms tactical that lists all the loads that pass the FBI tests.My ammo selection process is step 1)find somthing on the list, usually what I can find the cheapest in bulk,step 2)test it for function and accuracy. step 3) quit ammo is fine

easyg
April 3, 2008, 11:14 AM
First - it's FURTHER argument.
Boy, you'll argue about anything...:rolleyes:

"Farther" and "further" are interchangeable in everyday speech.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 3, 2008, 11:38 AM
9x19mm
10mm
.45 acp

NOT .40

That's what I've done. I currently have four 9x19s, two .45 acps, one 9x18, and revolvers. I may get another 10mm at some point. But the nine is fine (espec. with ammo prices as they are).

EBRDude
April 3, 2008, 12:31 PM
I have carried 9mm, 40S&W, 357Sig and .45ACP. Now I carry a G20 in 10mm.
They all worked. People argue effectiveness because they like to argue, not because one is actually any more effective than another. The Pistol is only a tool, and the user of the tool is what determines it's effectiveness.
But, I do really like the 10mm. :) The shockwave will kill you if you miss. :D

tpaw
April 3, 2008, 12:34 PM
[QUOTE] I belive remmi GS and 147 Golddots are ok but not sure. theres a list somewhere I belive its from firearms tactical that lists all the loads that pass the FBI tests.(Quote)

Can anyone put us on to that list? Or a ballistics chart for the 9mm and different grains available. The question I'm trying to find the answer to is "will a higher grain bullet than 124 gr. pass through and through or will it stop in the body"?

buzz_knox
April 3, 2008, 12:43 PM
Can anyone put us on to that list? Or a ballistics chart for the 9mm and different grains available. The question I'm trying to find the answer to is "will a higher grain bullet than 124 gr. pass through and through or will it stop in the body"?

Run a search on Dr. Gary Roberts and you'll find the list he developed, based on testing rounds via the FBI format.

As to what will penetrate through and through, a lot of things are involved. Any round can overpenetrate depending on where you hit, what you hit, etc.

A well-engineered 147 JHP will penetrate to the FBI specs while expanding vigorously.

cornman
April 3, 2008, 12:55 PM
I wanted to love the .40 when it first came out, but after trying it I could not stand it. I just can't get over the annoying kick it has. Just not fun to shoot.

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 02:00 PM
Well, easyg - I'd just like to know, have you heard of shootings where 124 grain Gold Dot has resulted in "stupid amounts of bullets" pumped into an assailant?

Were any of those "stupid amounts" center hits in vital areas where the target should have fallen down even if it were ball ammo, or were all the "stupid amount" peripheral, non-vital injuries?

I said the Gold Dots had a good reputation. You sighed and rolled your eyes, but didn't provide opposing anecdotal information. I re-iterated about Marshall, Ayoob, and Farnham, and I have to check, but Gold Dot 9mm was also on Chuck Taylor's list of suggested, reliable, excellent performing ammunition for the 9mm. If Chuck Taylor speaks well of a 9mm defensive load, that goes beyond belt and suspenders endorsement, since it's the most experienced of modern, living large bore advocates saying so.

VirgilCaine
April 3, 2008, 05:12 PM
Virgil - it's not necessarily the velocity. It's the construction of the bullet, the density and softness of its lead and copper jacketing. Increased deformation means it slows down in human flesh. Matching the bullet construction to the velocity is the problem.

Ah, I see. I didn't think of it that way.

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 05:22 PM
If it's one thing my idiot savant brain understands, if not human interaction, then it's my onerous gun obsession which makes me a pariah among anti's, and a loud-mouthed know-it-all with no real experience backing me up.

mavracer
April 3, 2008, 05:39 PM
If it's one thing my idiot savant brain understands, if not human interaction, then it's my onerous gun obsession which makes me a pariah among anti's, and a loud-mouthed know-it-all with no real experience backing me up
Doug,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 now breath

mpmarty
April 3, 2008, 05:45 PM
For a first pistol, a 9mm is just a 10mm or a 45acp with training wheels. Go for it. I would caution against the Glock for a number of valid reasons... cost, ergonomics, felt recoil vs. a CZ or DW 1911 type or even a Witness full size all steel.

DougDubya
April 3, 2008, 06:40 PM
mavracer - I was just attacking myself for an act of my own stupidity, and for the fact that the only time I feel useful is conveying my vast library of gun knowledge (which is second hand from numerous sources) on the interwebs.

Easyg - the comment was NOT meant against you.

I forgot to leave another board's drama, and my subsequent self-flagellation, outside.

tpaw
April 3, 2008, 08:47 PM
OK guys, calm down and let's get back on track. Can anyone make a difinitive recommendation? Here's my past post. What do you guys shoot out of your 9mm's?

Presently, I am shooting a Glock 19 and using Speer LE Gold Dot, 9mm Luger +P, 124 GR., GD Hollow Points.
Can anyone recommend a more potent 9mm round in place of what I'm shooting now, or am I OK with what I have?
Please don't suggest a larger caliber, I like the 9mm.

Lonestar49
April 3, 2008, 09:29 PM
Quote: OK guys, calm down and let's get back on track. Can anyone make a difinitive recommendation? Here's my past post. What do you guys shoot out of your 9mm's?


Quote:
Presently, I am shooting a Glock 19 and using Speer LE Gold Dot, 9mm Luger +P, 124 GR., GD Hollow Points.
Can anyone recommend a more potent 9mm round in place of what I'm shooting now, or am I OK with what I have?
Please don't suggest a larger caliber, I like the 9mm.
-------------------
...

First, I've got to laugh with DD, (not at) as a man who can publicly laugh at himself shows a human character flaw that we all have a few of.. but that shows class in my book..
------------

Subject: 9mm JHP ammo

Ok, there are trade-offs, first and foremost, with both my 9mm's one being a Sig P229 CT 9mm which is my night home HD/SD gun, and the other being a SA EMP 9mm for ccw, and what my wife uses when I'm not home, most of the time.


I use either 124gr or 134gr JHP in the Sig P229.. no +P, as both, for me, shoot, "recoil wise" and accurate wise, almost identical to my practice 9mm FMJ ammo which is 115gr. So, this keeps me "current" with how the gun will shoot, both in accuracy, fast-follow-up shots by, and with, the same felt recoil.. And with the EMP, that the wife shoots, and uses as well for HD/SD, either 115gr JHP or 124gr JHP.. so the gun acts and feels the same to her, and me, while shooting loads of 115gr FMJ range ammo for practice, with it.

So, If you go bigger, say from +P124gr to +P134gr, or even 147gr with, or without +P, there will be felt difference's from whatever range ammo you are now shooting with and what you feel with +P124..

The general rule of thumb that I know works, this, with my 40cals, is with 165gr, vs 180gr, the heavier bullet, goes a tad slower, but there is less recoil because of less spin-up while in the barrel, and less speed leaving the barrel but faster, back-on-target follow-up shots, with accuracy.

Whereas, the lighter the bullet, the faster it spins-up and goes out, thus more flip/recoil.. but slower follow-up shots and less accuracy if I try and and force the shots before the gun calms down.

So, be prepared for a change, one way or another from what you practice with and feel in FMJ vs what you're shooting now with the +P 124gr JHP.

The trade-offs are IMO, what do you shoot more accurate, with faster, more controlled-accurate follow-up shots with?

That's what you should be seeking in JHP's IMHO


Good luck,



Ls

medmo
April 6, 2008, 03:23 AM
According to Jeff Cooper the whole concept is "Accuracy, power and speed." If you buy a 9mm and are going to practice with it 2x more because the ammo is 1/2 the price of another cartridge then you made the right choice. Without accuracy both power and speed are meaningless.

ScotZ
April 6, 2008, 09:23 AM
I choose .40 S&W in a SIG 229. Not because the caliber is superior but because I fell in love with the gun and "WANT" to practice with it. I really enjoy shooting that gun.

When you find a gun that suits your shooting style (for lack of a better term). You will then have found the caliber that you are most likely to be most effective with. It is 80% about comfort with your weapon and 20% ammunition. MHO

fletchbutt152
April 10, 2008, 01:59 AM
You mentioned you shoot a 9mm better than a .40. So toss out the .40. Then you mentioned the 10mm. Without a doubt the most versital and effective round of the three provided you can shoot it properly. However it will be as hard as the .40 to shoot. In my Glock 20 the 10mm is beautifully accurate. But the thing is a hand cannon.

So, choose one that shoots as accurate as any of the three calibres, and has slightly more kick than a 9mm. In addition the ammo is fairly cheap compared to the 10mm.

I must stand by the 10mm. Buy the 10mm and then buy a Dillon 650.

NWdude83
April 10, 2008, 07:42 PM
Start with the 9mm. Then after a year or more if you feel that you want more stopping power, go for the .40S&W . 10mm isn't a plinker round. Its a shoot your attacker, the guy behind him, and probably the guy behind that guy round. Its fun to shoot though.

PaStEuRiZeD
April 12, 2008, 01:53 AM
Wow this is from 2006.
NWdude83 wrote:
Start with the 9mm. Then after a year or more if you feel that you want more stopping power, go for the .40S&W . 10mm isn't a plinker round. Its a shoot your attacker, the guy behind him, and probably the guy behind that guy round. Its fun to shoot though.

That is a HUGE over statement. Most 10mm you can buy is about the same power as the 40SW. You have to hand load or buy hunting rounds to get some real power. I keep silvertips in my G20. I'll take 15rds of 10mm over 15rounds of 9mm or 13rds of 45 any day.

Erik
April 12, 2008, 04:11 PM
Dandamian,
Given you criteria you'd likely be best served with a 9mm or the .40S&W. The performance differance in practical terms between the cartridges you listed, and a host of others, is probably academic at best to most, let alone newer, shooters. Find a good deal on whatever pistol and cartridge combination that you decide on, seek training, and start shooting.

Best,
Erik

Erik
April 12, 2008, 04:25 PM
If you're looking for a general "what's best for bipedals" recommendation:

I am aware of two ISO rated* firearms programs, belonging to the FBI and DHS, respectively. They spend a good deal of time testing cartridge combonations with the mandate of recommending what to provide to the field. Most FBI and DHS agents and officers are issued side arms chambered in .40S&W.

* I cannot remember the exact rating. They're equally rated, and apparently the only such rated programs in the US. (If there are others in the US or abroad I'd be interested in hearing about them.)

The FBI famously declared a .40, 180 grain JHP pushed around 950 to be the "best." While that meant 10mm only at the time of the recommendation, no more, as that is a commonly available .40S&W load.

Honestly, though, the difference between the perfomance of the popular cartridges utilizing premium ammunition isn't what most make it out to be. As if there are people losing gunfights because they brought a 9mm nustead of a .40S&W; preposterous.

NWdude83
April 12, 2008, 05:20 PM
That is a HUGE over statement. Most 10mm you can buy is about the same power as the 40SW. You have to hand load or buy hunting rounds to get some real power. I keep silvertips in my G20. I'll take 15rds of 10mm over 15rounds of 9mm or 13rds of 45 any day.

Gotta keep the myths about 10mm going, right?

PAPACHUCK
April 14, 2008, 09:22 AM
I've owned many handguns for many years, in all the popular calibers(except 10mm), and have settled on two calibers. 9mm and 45Auto.

My primary carry piece is a Sig P229 in 9mm loaded with 13+1 Fed HST's, and my primary HD weapon is a XD45 Tac loaded with 13+1 Winchester Ranger 230gr+p's.

I'm quite happy with my choices, for I shoot those weapons very well, and shot placement is paramount to me.

ElPasoWrangler
May 11, 2008, 10:48 AM
I own and shoot 45, 40 and 9. As far as their stopping power, I think about my deer hunts. A lot of deer went down right after being shot. But a large number ran until they bled out. The same is true of humans. You can shoot one with anything you want and kill them, even a 22 but none of them can be a sure instant stop unless you destroy their brain or spinal cord.

Some days I feel like a 9mm and sometimes I don't. Other days I carry several at once. I never feel under gunned or over gunned.

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!