9x19(9mm) or .40 S&W?


PDA






dscottw88
August 13, 2007, 06:05 AM
I am interested in finding out which round is better for my needs. Not too far off I would like to see myself purchasing a rifle that can fire either the 9mm or the .40 SW. I know the 9mm is cheaper and more easily accessible. But the .40 is significantally larger and stronger.
For HD, is buying the .40 SW a good trade-off for spending more money on the round? Or am I not giving the 9mm enough credit?
Also, for ranges between 50 yards to 100 yards, which is the more accurate?
Keep in mind this will be a SBR with a barrel length close to 8.9 inches. Thank you for all the help folks, I truly appreciate it! -Danny

If you enjoyed reading about "9x19(9mm) or .40 S&W?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sm
August 13, 2007, 07:32 AM
9x19mm

Now understand I made my carry choices based on gun fit to ME a long time ago.
Gun fit and correct basic fundamentals with quality practice.
How raised -what you do.
No brainer, the BHP was one of the guns I choose as a kid.
See I choose guns based on gun fit to me.

We didn't have all the choices back when, and.40 was not even an option.
Ironic, 38super and 9x23 were back then, two more "9mm" that go way back with a proven history.

In assisting with folks, trying various guns, the .40 has more felt recoil and therefore shot to shot /follow up shots suffer.

BHP come out in .40 and I cussed a blue streak, and still do.
It ain't the same gun in .40 and I know JMB is not happy about it being made in .40 either.

.40 filled a spot for a screw up with the 10mm. Glock underbid and sold Police Depts on the .40.

Sheesh, everything we needed in handguns and calibers was done so by 1935, with the coming of .357, or by 1955 with the .44 mag.

9x19 is a good case, the 9x23 is probably the most strongest case of the "9s" with 398 super b/t the two.

Just get a gun that fits you, in 9x19, hopefully a real gun, and to heck with what anyone else thinks, says or posts in Internet.

Carbine...9mm works in carbines.
Beretta Storm in 9mm is a HD gun for one our members 80 y/o mom. :D

KadicDeshi
August 13, 2007, 01:44 PM
It's funny, sm, I don't care for the Hi-Power in 9mm but the .40 version is my primary carry piece. That all-steel frame really soaks up the recoil nicely. I can't tell much difference in recoil between it and my CZ75 9mm (which I love but is a little more difficult to conceal).

My first suggestion would have been to go with 9mm as I believe that I've heard that it can take better advantage of carbine-length barrels than .40. But with a SBR at 8.9", I'm betting that there wouldn't be any significant differences in performance so long as you choose quality ammo.

One possibility is getting one of each in a Hi-Point carbine just to see what tickles your fancy. Then, if you took a liking to one of 'em, sell the one you don't want. Or sell both and get another carbine from Kel-tec, Beretta, or whomever in the caliber you liked better.

Hope this rambling helps in some way.

Barrett

RockyMtnTactical
August 13, 2007, 02:10 PM
9x19 is my recommendation.

Although I have weapons in 9mm and .40, the 9mm is better all around IMO.

One of the number one reasons why I prefer it is because it's cheaper. Cheaper means more practice. More practice means more advanced training and skill (not to mention more FUN). Shot placement is FAR more important than "power", and your increased skill will result in more likelihood for better shot placement... Not to mention that there isn't a huge difference between the power of a .40 and the +P 9mm loads.

Other small advantages include more magazine capacity and lower recoil...

DWARREN123
August 13, 2007, 02:58 PM
It doesn't matter so much as long as you can hit what you aim at.

revjen45
August 13, 2007, 03:52 PM
"It doesn't matter so much as long as you can hit what you aim at."
Indeed. With ammo prices expected to increase precipitously the cost of practice (and hence the ability to hit what you aim at) is an important consideration. 9X19mm is much cheaper than .40 for ball, and the latest and greatest in defensive ammo is always available in 9mm. For anyone but Jim Cirillo 1 box of social work ammo should be a lifetime supply after firing enough to verify reliability and that still full box passed on to your children. I watch for sale prices on practice ammo and buy as much as I can afford. With things going the way they are it looks like I will be reloading again.

cajun47
August 13, 2007, 07:50 PM
i vote 9mm also.

DMK
August 13, 2007, 08:19 PM
I don't think there is as much difference between 9mm and .40 as people seem to think (especially out of a carbine). Also consider that .40 practice ammo costs nearly twice as much as comparable 9mm so you'll have a lot more fun with the latter.

Crunker1337
August 13, 2007, 09:41 PM
10mm :D

Out of those two choices, I'd have to go with 9mm.

amprecon
August 13, 2007, 10:26 PM
What guns they make in 9mm, the identical gun is also made in .40. Why have the same sized gun in 9mm when it can be had in a more powerful caliber such as the .40 without having to go to +P or +P+ to get optimal performance. I gave up the G19 for a G23 and have been very satisfied.

dscottw88
August 14, 2007, 12:29 AM
Thanks for all the info guys! I appreciate the input. I am concerned about both views and can't wait to hear more.

Gator
August 14, 2007, 12:35 AM
Also consider that the 9mm will shoot flatter and have more penetration, if those are considerations for you.

SomeKid
August 14, 2007, 01:15 AM
When I was looking for a defense pistol, I tested both 9 and 40. I went with 40. To me, recoil was almost identical. Test fire both, see which you like more. Personal choice matters here, your life may depend on it.

Monkeybear
August 14, 2007, 01:51 AM
The way I figure in any situation that calls for you to use your SBR to defend your life, if you don't make it though its not going to be because you picked the 9mm instead of the .40sw or vice versa. Don't worry about caliber choice, just get good quality SD ammo. If you don't already have a preference go with 9mm, its cheaper. Shoot enough 9mm and if you decide to get a .40sw instead you will have saved enough shooting 9mm to afford to outright buy the .40sw.


I like it when SM comes in and give all the standard rants in one post so we can get them over with. Good sense of humor on that guy.

Sonic
August 14, 2007, 02:54 AM
Also consider that the 9mm will shoot flatter and have more penetration...........

Actually the hottest .40 auto loads from companies like DoubleTap ( http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=107 ) and Dakota Ammo (Corbon line) ( https://www.dakotaammo.net/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21_38&products_id=52&osCsid=b366ea8e9d734da8e0557aa19242cf80 ) use lighter 135 grain bullets and have velocities in the 1300-1400fps range, putting them on par with the velocities of the fastest 115 and 124 grain +P and +P+ 9mm loads. Of course since the .40 auto's bullet is a bit heavier (135 grain vs. 115 & 124 grains), it has more momentum and so doesn't slow down as quickly, so this .40 auto load has a bit flatter trajectory and more energy than the 115 and 124 grain +P and +P+ 9mm loads. At the short distances that most defensive shootings occur though, the slightly flatter trajectory of the 135 grain .40 auto load isn't really any signifcant improvement over the 115 and 124 grain 9mm loadings. As for penetration, about the only way a 9mm will get significantly better penetration than a .40 auto is in a full metal jacket loading, but of course you then give up the larger wound channel of an expanding hollow point.

The .40 auto does indisputably have a fair amount more muzzle energy than the +P and +P+ 9mm loadings, though just how much of a real world performance advantage this gives the .40 auto over the 9mm, is a topic of endless debate among shooters, editors of gun magazines, and of course posters on web boards like THR.

To sum up, the the .40 auto has a a lot more muzzle energy than the normal pressure 9mm loads (but almost no one uses normal pressure 9mm loads for defense), and a fair amount more muzzle energy than the +P and +P+ 9mm loads, but bulk practice ammo for the .40 auto is more expensive than bulk practice ammo for the 9mm, and of course there is no such thing as super cheap milsurp (military surplus) ammo for the .40, since it isn't used as a military cartridge by any country. The 9mm may not have quite the power the .40 auto does, but the 9mm is certainly adequate as a defensive cartridge, and ammo for practice is cheaper, particularly when you can find a good deal on a case of milsurp ammo.

In the end, if for whatever reason you want every last ft-lb of muzzle energy you can get, go with the .40 auto, otherwise the 9mm and its less expensive practice ammo is is the way to go.

byf43
August 14, 2007, 08:52 AM
9mm.

I was debating recently whether to buy a G19 or a G23.

I have another 9mm, but no .40 S&W.
IF I bought the .40, I'd have to acquire ammo, bullets, brass, dies, etc.

And has been said a couple of times (above) the 9mm is a LOT cheaper for ammo.

Case in point. . . 9mm WWB 100 round boxes are going for about $14 to $15 locally and the .40 WWB 100 round boxes are very near $25.00.


A new G19 now resides in my gunsafe next to a Beretta 92FS.


Besides. . . a hit with a 9mm beats a miss w/ a .40 S&W.


OR. . . since this is a rifle forum. . . buy a .30 M1 Carbine!!!!!
Little recoil and has more energy than the 9mm and the .40 (I suppose!)

If you enjoyed reading about "9x19(9mm) or .40 S&W?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!