Glock... Stick with 9mm or?


PDA






bullfrog99
February 25, 2014, 11:45 PM
I will try to keep this relatively brief and somewhat coherent.

First a bit of background

My carry piece is a Glock 19.

My backup is a S&W 442 with crimson trace laser-grips. I originally purchased the 442 because of the utility of being able to fire the pistol while still concealed in a jacket pocket (I was living in Michigan at the time - jackets are standard issue nearly six months of the year).

I now live in the south and jacket carry opportunity is limited. Given this, I decided some time ago to replace my 442 with a Glock 26.

While saving up for my new toy, I did the normal guy thing and spent my time looking at pictures of and reading about my future acquisition. In reading however I found several articles and even videos describing these .40 to 9mm conversion barrels that can be had.
Coupled with a 9mm magazine They SEEM to work well. Furthermore, over the past six-ish months - 9mm ammo has been rather scarce where I lived in Oklahoma. .40 S&W on the other hand has been sitting six boxes deep all across the shelf for months. Having recently moved to Louisiana, I noticed the trend is the same here - 9mm, if it can be found is usually the high dollar stuff, and .40 S&W is sitting again fat and heavy on the shelves. Now my hope is by next Xmas to have saved enough to get a progressive reloader and start loading 9mm for myself - so ammo to shoot isn't the issue, but I can't ignore some simple facts - The local police use .40, and even in this ammo availability "slump" the gun stores are fully stocked with .40. So as far as access to ammunition in one of those often thought of SHTF or Zombie invasions everyone loves to talk about - .40 may be more available then 9mm. Even it it isnt, would it not be prudent to have the ability to shoot both rounds?
Should I get a Glock 27 instead of the 26? maybe even go so far as to swap my Glock 19 out for a 23?

I drink from the 9mm Kool-aid as far as a defensive cartridge goes. I don't feel i need a .40 or a .45 against two legged predators, but I also appreciate the concept of having bullets when you need them - and a handgun that can fire 9mm, .40, and even 357 sig by simply throwing a few extra barrels (and magazines) into your kit seems to make sense.

I guess what i'm asking is:
Is my brain trying to justify my natural urge to spend money on things I want but may not need, or does this line of thinking have any bearing in reality?

Another random thought:
A carry gun may be pressed into a more outdoor role. Would a .40 with 180 FMJ be a better gun in the woods then the lowly 9mm against lions and tigers and bears oh my? Yes I know neither are great - Thats what my Glock 20 10mm is for, but if i didn't "plan" on being in the woods...

First world problems eh?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock... Stick with 9mm or?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TrailWolf
February 25, 2014, 11:49 PM
Been through the same process - you're over thinking - keep your G26.

I keep seeing Police Depts. move away from the .40 in favor of the 9...

With quality JHPs there is really no reason to go to a .40 and shot placement trumps all. So... practice, practice, practice.

If you really want a .40, save up and get one in addition - I would go for a full-sized G22 over a 23 or 27.

Quench your urge to buy something by picking up a Spyderco on Amazon :)

HammsBeer
February 25, 2014, 11:50 PM
I love the 9mm so I vote stay with 9mm. Other than the scarse 9mm ammo right now, it's an excellent SD caliber. I wouldn't want to stake my life on a less-than-ideal conversion barrel. But if you want gobs of ammo right now, .40 is your answer, but if you plan to reload soon, just stick with 9mm.

Theohazard
February 26, 2014, 03:16 AM
The difference in effectiveness between a 9mm and .40 (and .45) is a statistical zero; studies have shown there's just not a measurable difference between them. Pick whichever one you shoot best and can practice with the most.

silverexpress
February 26, 2014, 04:17 AM
9mm is old news.

I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?

40 > 9

But my question to you is why the .40?

To make a legit jump from 9 if you are not going for the slower and more powerful old man .45 you need to show you mean biz by jumping to the 10mm. A caliber capable of getting 1600 fps with over 700 muzzle energy is king of the hill. It doesn't kick half as bad as most say it does, mostly being most those people have never owned a 10mm let alone shot one. The g29 which is my everyday carry piece is just compact enough to be comfortable to be a legit carry piece for most.

You have a g20, you should know the ability of the 10mm. Grab a 29 and say goodbye to those two inferior calibers.

Do not carry conversion barrels of any kind, those are for the range.

Theohazard
February 26, 2014, 05:12 AM
I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?
It always amazes me that people think that small differences in energy and velocity will equate to actual differences in real-world effectiveness. But they don't. The difference in real-world effectiveness between 9mm and .40 is so small that it barely registers in actual studies:

http://www.usconcealedcarry.net/2012/07/17/choosing-best-caliber-concealed-carry/

That's a study involving real-world military and police shootings, and even though the 9mm is handicapped because the military uses 9mm FMJ, there's still no statistically significant difference.

And here's an article by a trauma surgeon and tactical medical specialist:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/01/stopping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx

The funny thing is that that you admit the .40 kicks a little more. Well, that's what makes the .40 a less effective round than 9mm: It has no measurable advantage in actual effectiveness, yet it has more recoil which makes follow-up shots slower and less accurate.

atblis
February 26, 2014, 06:24 AM
Since when does the 40 have a higher muzzle velocity?

vinantfal
February 26, 2014, 07:13 AM
I think you guys a missing his point. The issue isn't the effectiveness of 9mm vs. 40 and/or 45; it's the availability of 40 vs. the scarity of 9mm.

Fiv3r
February 26, 2014, 07:23 AM
If you're comfortable with the 9mm, I think it's a fine caliber. My nightstand gun is a 9mm. It's really hard to argue with a lightweight pistol that sports that much firepower.

I do have a full size .40 mostly for when 9mm is scare like it is right now in my neck of the woods. That said, it cost wasn't an issue I would pick the .40 every time. I rather like the performance. Then again, if cost wasn't the issue, I'd go with a .45;)

mongoslow
February 26, 2014, 07:57 AM
here is my $.02 worth, I own a G-19 and a G-23 same pistol except the 23 has a bigger hole in the end but....I like big holes :D I leave the 19 with my wife and i carry the 23 every day, I'm also thinking of getting the .357 sig barrel just to see if i like it and if i have to i can put in a 9MM barrel if for some strange reason i cant find a box of .40 somewhere, so my answer get a G-23 the extra barrels and mags and have 3 pistols gor less than $900. I will say i dont like the baby Glocks but thats me if you like them the same thought process applies to the 27 as to the 23. Now its up to you :cool:

Tcruse
February 26, 2014, 08:18 AM
Here in the DFW area, 9mm is back. Even at WalMart in the afternoon. You will pay about the same for 9mm as .40 S&W. You also will see some brands that are new. The BrassMax from Italy seems to be good stuff, but the others I have not tried. Yesterday, purchased 3 - 100 round boxes of 9mm Winchester for $27 per box. Now, I would suggest that you buy a little extra when you see it, if the government starts up more anti-gun actions it will again be hard to find. As a side note, .22LR is still difficult to find here.
It appears locally, that .45ACP is being used a lot more than .40 at the local ranges. Probably due to the recent popularity of the 1911/

JDR
February 26, 2014, 10:16 AM
The 100 round cans of BrassMax 9mm from Wally's is decent range ammo and the price is right. I buy it every time I see it.

jmr40
February 26, 2014, 10:30 AM
I think you guys a missing his point. The issue isn't the effectiveness of 9mm vs. 40 and/or 45; it's the availability of 40 vs. the scarity of 9mm.

EXACTLY

But buying a 40 is not the solution.


The answer is to have enough ammo stored at home to get through lean times. 9mm has always been cheaper than 40 or 45 and always will. 9mm has always offered higher mag capacity in equal sized guns, and always will. The difference in performance between the 3 has always been insignificant, and always will. In my lifetime I've seen shortages happen twice. The money spent on buying additional guns in other calibers or conversions to shoot other calibers would be better spent on more ammo for common calibers.

el Godfather
February 26, 2014, 01:14 PM
9mm is old news.

I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?

40 > 9

But my question to you is why the .40?

To make a legit jump from 9 if you are not going for the slower and more powerful old man .45 you need to show you mean biz by jumping to the 10mm. A caliber capable of getting 1600 fps with over 700 muzzle energy is king of the hill. It doesn't kick half as bad as most say it does, mostly being most those people have never owned a 10mm let alone shot one. The g29 which is my everyday carry piece is just compact enough to be comfortable to be a legit carry piece for most.

You have a g20, you should know the ability of the 10mm. Grab a 29 and say goodbye to those two inferior calibers.

Do not carry conversion barrels of any kind, those are for the range.
Well stated.

Teachu2
February 26, 2014, 01:53 PM
I own and carry a G26. My oldest owns and carries a G27. My nephew has a G27 with a LW 9mm conversion barrel. If I were buying again, I'd buy a G27 and a conversion barrel. I have a pair of G23s with 9mm and .357Sig barrels.

Oddly enough, all four of the 27s and 23s do great with LW 9mm conversions using the original .40SW magazines. They function flawlessly with everything from WWB to Gold Dots, and the .40SW mags hold a couple extra 9mm rounds. YMMV, but they work great for me.

jjones45
February 26, 2014, 02:04 PM
Keep your trusted glock 19 and get a walther ppq m2 in 40. I always suggest having more than just one caliber. You see what happens when there is a scare. The most popular cartridges disappear for months at a time. You have seen there was 40 six boxes deep when 9mm was long gone. The proof is in the pudding. I suggest the ppq because I have a glock 23 that is a good, reliable, dependable gun but since I got my ppq the old glock just isn't the same. Give me a fmj 40 over 9 for bear or lion if I had to choose between the two although both are not really recommended. The 10mm option was a good suggestion as well

OrangePwrx9
February 26, 2014, 02:45 PM
Keep the G19 and keep the 442. Next expenditure should be for a reloading press (single stage or turret, nothing fancy), a reloading manual, and components/dies to reload 9mm and .38 Spcl. Once you have a stash of several hundred or a thousand 9mm rounds on the shelf, you've placed yourself beyond the reach of market vagaries.

Then buy the G26 if you still want it. The Glock was designed around the 9mm cartridge, so it's reasonable to expect the most reliable performance and the greatest margin of safety from 9mm Glocks.

Until our illustrious governor restricted mag. cap. to 7 rounds, I was perfectly happy with 9mm. The mag-cap issue now has me moving to .45 ACP. If I've only a few, they're gonna be "stoppers"...at least that's how I see it.

Inebriated
February 26, 2014, 03:22 PM
Is my brain trying to justify my natural urge to spend money on things I want but may not need, or does this line of thinking have any bearing in reality?

You're trying to spend money. Spend that $550 for another Glock on a reloading setup and all the components if you're concerned about availability. $300 for a basic single-stage reloading setup, and $250 for components. You could get components for 2000 rounds of 9mm for $250. $25 for powder, $60 for 2k primers, $160 for 2k bullets. Bam, $250 for 2000 rounds of 9mm has just about paid off your initial equipment investment in savings. If you could get 2000 rounds of even Federal Champ at $13/box, you've saved $270.

A carry gun may be pressed into a more outdoor role. Would a .40 with 180 FMJ be a better gun in the woods then the lowly 9mm against lions and tigers and bears oh my? Yes I know neither are great - Thats what my Glock 20 10mm is for, but if i didn't "plan" on being in the woods...
It really depends on what's in your woods, but if 9mm with 147gr hard cast or FMJ won't kill it, .40 S&W with 180gr hard cast or FMJ probably won't be much more authoritative. Have you looked into the G30 or G29? .45 Super and 10mm are a much greater step-up from .40, than .40 is from 9mm.

mgmorden
February 27, 2014, 07:19 AM
I own and shoot both, but I'd take 9mm over .40S&W any day of the week.

9mm benefits:

(1) Cheaper.
(2) Higher capacity for a given frame size.
(3) Less recoil (which means faster, more accurate follow-up shots).

40 S&W benefits:
(1) Marginally better terminal performance.

Extra availability on the shelves might be ok for practice, but as long as you have your 2-3 defensive mags loaded that's not really that important. The scenario's about what's more common that you'll be scavenging if the world comes to an end are just fantasies and have little bearing in the real world.

hentown
February 27, 2014, 07:50 AM
I have no use for .40 S&W, but the OP's logic is sound. By every account that I've seen, the .40/9mm conversion barrels work great.

I currently have about 8k 9mm on hand, so supply isn't a problem for me. :evil:

GLOOB
February 27, 2014, 05:22 PM
My personal opinion is that my G27 is not "Glock reliable." Top end loads barely work with a new spring, which is shot in under 1k of such fodder. Stiffer aftermarket springs make the gun really easy to "limpwrist," if you ever find yourself using an unorthodox grip or your off hand.

The Glock action unlocks very quickly. As designed, the 9mm versions are overbuilt tanks. The G27, specifically, operates at the edge of the envelope. Even a slight overcharge can cause problems or harm. I do not consider it to be as reliable as my other Glocks, for this reason, because ammo isn't always perfect.

If I ever used it, stock, I would be feeding it with slightly watered down reloads. I've had a 9mm barrel in it for the past two years.

redbullitt
February 28, 2014, 02:56 AM
I take my glock 19 with me anywhere that I cannot easily carry a full size. I do not feel under armed at all with it. Good ammo and I can put the bullets where I point AND it carries just about perfectly.

FWIW my nightstand gun is a suppressed glock 17, not the 10mm in the safe. Again, I think the 9mm will do just fine on two legged monsters. AND it is very manageable to shoot for just about anyone.

I have not spent time on a 26, but they sure look easy to carry. If you can shoot it well I would not sweat it at all.

Personally i would just run the 9 for simplicity. 9mm with GOOD ammunition is an excellent round when you consider everything it has to offer.

Easy to shoot, common ammunition, fairly quiet compared to the big bangers, fairly low flash, high capacity, small size platform for carry, common ammunition etc between primary and backup guns is a good bonus too.

Of course a glock 29 or 30 is always fun too if you want to jump on another caliber : ). A reloading setup would probably be the VERY best bang though.

Maybe stick with the glock 19 and start making your own shells?

sakata8242
February 28, 2014, 02:22 PM
From a defensive standpoint there is little difference among MODERN defensive loads. Bullet design has advanced a lot since the mid 1980s and 1990s when the .40, 9mm +P+, and .357 SIG were seen as solutions to poorly performing 9mm loads.

That being said, I own .40, .45, and .357 SIG pistols, and like shooting them. But I always come back to 9mm for serious uses, due to practical reasons. Less weight, more rounds, cheaper to practice with.

WinThePennant
February 28, 2014, 08:23 PM
I agree with those who say that if you are thinking of 'upgrading' from a 9mm to a .40 that you should instead go 10mm.

I'm a long-time advocate of the 9mm. I thought about carrying a .40, or a .357 Sig, and then had my "come to Jesus" moment and went with the 10mm. Never looking back. 10mm is the way to go.

David E
February 28, 2014, 08:30 PM
If Rule #1 is "Have a gun," then Rule #2 should be: "Have ammo for that gun!"

krimmie
February 28, 2014, 08:42 PM
I have rid myself of my 9's in favor of the .40, not because of velocity or energy, but because I enjoy shooting my .40's more than I did the 9's. Ammo availability for the .40 has been much better than that of the 9mm in my neck of the woods.

Johannes_Paulsen
February 28, 2014, 08:44 PM
Here's how I'd approach it. You're buying a backup / deep concealment gun for personal protection. It's not for bragging rights or showing off at the range. Therefore a certain cold-bloodedness is needed when deciding what to buy.

(1) Is 9mm effective as a defensive round? By all accounts, the answer to this one appears to be 'yes'. Do more research if you want, but modern 9mm JHP appears to be effective as a defensive round in a handgun.

(2) You already have a G19 9mm handgun. Glock magazines are interchangeable, so you can use your G19 magazines in the G26.

(3) Money appears to be a consideration for you, because otherwise you'd just buy whatever you wanted without thinking long and hard about it. :D

With that in mind, I'd set the G26.

Here's why: you already have a 9mm carry piece. The .40 is not replacing it, it's a backup. Having one caliber for carrying purposes means that when you go buy ammunition, you can go to town and replenish your stockpile of 9mm in bulk and never look back. Since you already have a Glock, you can buy a bunch of G17, G18, and G19 'standard capacity' magazines and use them in either of your guns.

The .40, .45, 10mm, etc. all have their good points, and if you were starting from scratch, maybe that would be enough to justify going with one of those. But if this is for serious use and not a range toy, and price is a factor, there's no good reason to switch. Plenty of people have saved their behinds with 'only' a 9mm. And, again, you already have one.

Regarding availability of ammunition, I do not see a shortage right now at all. Plenty of 9mm ammo is available for sale online if your local stores do not have it, and reasonable (ish) prices. It certainly is less expensive than any of the other calibers suggested.

miles1
February 28, 2014, 08:46 PM
Bullfrog,I also have a glock 19 and although 9mm ammo is somewhat tight right now it is IMHO starting to be restocked.I can understand maybe wanting a 40cal for shooting reasons but unless your not happy with your glock 19 I really would think hard about trading it in.I personally have only maybe 300 rounds currently for my 9mm but then again you can not ever have enough ammo for any gun.Good luck with your decision!

hartcreek
March 12, 2014, 04:44 AM
Any time someone says they can not buy ammo and now want to switch because they can buy another caliber sitting on the shelf I want to take out my violin. You know the song they deserve.

.40 soon will be just like 9mm once the tape measure boys decide that they need something larger then their buddies puny 9mm.

If you are not reloading and casting the shortage is on you. .40 cal is just an intermediate caliber for those that do not have the stamina to handle a real magnum.

You can pull up the whys of why .40 cal was introduced. 10 mm is what was adopted first but the officers could not handle it so the case was shortened. In my opinion it is a caliber that was never needed in the first place.

And Yes I load .40 cal. A family member bought one so I load for him....in fact I scored some Nosler 150 grain hp and loaded some up tonight. They came in a box of 250 so he will never need to buy any more of them for me to load SD rounds.

Other posters alluded to it.....there is a window of calibers that work because there is a relationship between the weight of bullet, bore and powder charge within this window comes recoil sensitivity so the various calibers were developed so that a person could pick the most bang that they can handle recoil wise. In the right hands.......caliber makes NO difference.

JTQ
March 12, 2014, 07:59 AM
hartcreek wrote,
You can pull up the whys of why .40 cal was introduced. 10 mm is what was adopted first but the officers could not handle it so the case was shortened. In my opinion it is a caliber that was never needed in the first place.
For what it's worth, the original concept of a "police load" for the .41 Magnum is very similar to the .40S&W. The idea was for an ideal round for law enforcement use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.41_Remington_Magnum

a milder police loading which was to send a 200-grain (13 g) semiwadcutter downrange at around 900 ft/s.

beatledog7
March 12, 2014, 08:09 AM
I added .40S&W for SD after using .38SPL for a while. I don't feel undergunned with either, but have recently taken to carrying 357Sig or .380ACP. I have never carried a 9mm out of uniform, but I enjoy them at the range.

powder
March 12, 2014, 08:35 AM
Get a Gen 4 27, with the new dual stage RSA you will not believe how smooth of a shooter they are.

No, do not get a 22 or 23, IMO.

Eventually at some point you can get the conversion barrels from .40 to 9mm or .357 SIG. THAT is the advantage the Glock .40 platforms have; barrel conversions going down a caliber or two. You cannot convert Glocks going UP in caliber size unless you are changing slides, etc., and then it's a price wash or waste.

Manny
March 12, 2014, 09:56 AM
I'm not a .40 fan, I had a couple Beretta's in that chambering and just didn't care for them or the round. Sharper recoil than a 9mm or .45 and less accurate IME. That being said, you have a valid point with ammo availability with the .40 and the cost seems to be fairly comparable. Also virtually everything I read about conversions barrels is positive, and the only substantial difference between a 9mm and .40 block once you change the barrel and magazine is the extracter, which you could probably change yourself with help from youtube.

Even allowing for the greater ammo versatility and availability I elected to stay with 9mm when I got my last Glock. The only semi-auto pistols I have are full size Glocks, and all are 9mm, two 17L's and a 34. All share mags, all take the same ammo. No worries about stuffing a magazine of .40 into the 9mm or vice-versa. 9mm is available on line if not locally. I'd vote for spending the money for conversion barrels on ammo instead and not worry about local availability.

Lastly, I carry a Ruger KLCR with CT grips, a virtual twin to your S&W 442. I thought about doing the same change, going to a G26 instead, but happened across an article Massad Ayoob wrote on that very subject while I was mulling it over. He made a strong argument for the snubby revolver and in thinking it over, I found I agreed with him and a year later I'm glad I didn't make the change. The KLCR is just so handy with pants pocket or jacket pocket carry very easy, something I just couldn't do with the Glock, at least nowhere near so easy or unobtrusively. JMHO, YMMV

bocefus78
March 12, 2014, 11:29 AM
If you are comfortable with the 9, stick there. As far as the woods goes, a 9 with a quality projectile will eliminate anything in the woods that a 40 will. Look into reloading for that 9 if you cant find ammo. Start with a small press instead of the progressive you mentioned and take your savings, go to a gun show, and buy up some powder and primers. I use a lee classic turret and easily turn out 100-125 rounds per hour. One can buy a new LCT kit, dies, scale, caliper, a lb of powder and 1k primers for $250ish. Add some range brass and some xtreme plated projectiles and you have 1000 rounds for less than you can buy 400 in the store.

gym
March 12, 2014, 12:01 PM
Don't like the 40, never did, same reasons as above, been carrying longer than 2 career police officers, and owned half a dozen 40's, never shot them as well as a 9 or 45.
Just hit them in the head or two in the chest, that never failed to stop any that I have seen. If you shoot someone in the arm or leg or even stomach, it doesn't matter what caliber you used, chances are they are going to get really pissed off and try to kill you even harder than before, "that SOB shot me". So learn how to hit what you aim at, and you won't have to worry about which one recoils more.
If you can hit a target, you can hit a head. If not, practice more and think less.

coyotehitman
March 14, 2014, 09:50 AM
The difference in effectiveness between a 9mm and .40 (and .45) is a statistical zero

To the boys who agree with this nonsense: have you ever seen a man shot, shot a man, seen an autopsy of a shooting victim, or ever really seen bullet performance on human flesh? I have, hundreds of times over the years, and there is a marked difference depending on the caliber.

Guns&Religion
March 14, 2014, 09:59 AM
I went with a 40 instead of a 9mm, because of the extra stopping power....
....then I ended up carrying a .38 most of the time. :rolleyes:

Theohazard
March 14, 2014, 01:15 PM
The difference in effectiveness between a 9mm and .40 (and .45) is a statistical zero
To the boys who agree with this nonsense: have you ever seen a man shot, shot a man, seen an autopsy of a shooting victim, or ever really seen bullet performance on human flesh? I have, hundreds of times over the years, and there is a marked difference depending on the caliber.
You're making the classic logical mistake of expecting personal experience to be an accurate and objective measurement of something as detailed and complicated as this. Using an individual person's unscientific anecdotal evidence to measure different calibers' effectiveness is a logical fallacy and has no actual scientific usefulness.

But what does have scientific usefulness are all the studies done of actual real-life shootings; those studies objectively look at data from thousands of real shootings, and in the process they remove most of the other variables involved. And, in those studies, there is no statistically significant difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 when it comes to the end results of a shooting. Period. All the garbage about your favorite caliber's "stopping-power" is pretty much bunk; bunk that's spread by myth. And in the case of people with personal experience of real shootings, this bunk is perpetuated by their lack of sufficient data, their inability to analyze the data scientifically, and their personal confirmation bias.

Notice that I'm not necessarily saying that the studies show there is actually no difference, I'm simply saying the studies show that the difference isn't big enough to be a measurable factor in the outcomes of real-life shootings. And that means one of two things: It means there either really is zero difference, or it just means that the difference is so small it can't be measured in real life. But, either way it doesn't really matter: Any difference there might be is so tiny that it doesn't make any logical sense to use that difference to pick your caliber. But it does make sense to use the differences that matter a lot more: The cost of ammo, how well you shoot it, and -- to a lesser extent -- capacity.

My point is that it makes zero sense to pick a .40 as a self-defense round solely based on the fact that it's more powerful, because that extra power doesn't make enough difference to be measurable in real-world shootings. There are many more important factors to use when deciding which caliber to use.

gym
March 14, 2014, 02:01 PM
My gunsmith who I stopped in and visited yesterday, "old school", full machine shop on premises, told me he is getting more orders for custom 1911's in 9mm, than in 45.
I was inquiring about having a gun made, and he showed me several, he doesn't talk a lot. But when I asked why he thought they were asking for 9mm instead of 45, he said that the 3 calibers are very close, and 9mm just make more sense now.
Considering he makes mostly compact carry guns, and his 2 friends also had 9's I would say that when you see old timers switching from 45 to 9, "and they both had new Mercedes" it's not a question of a few dollars a box for ammo, but more about having more rounds that do pretty much the same job, in the gun.
He showed me his old carry which was also a sig 229 in 9mm. It looks like 9mm is coming back stronger than ever.
Many new guns stopped offering either 40 or 45, or at least show a much greater demand for 9 than the others, Look at the new Walther, you can find it in 40 easily, but not 9, and they didn't and haven't bothered with 45's for some time.
I am a big fan of the 45, and prefer it to anything else, but not at 75 cents- dollar a round when I decide to drop in and fire a box at the range. I actually bought a box of Tul 45's yesterday in Wal-Mart, it was 1/3 the price of the other 1 box of range ammo, so for 15 bucks I figured why not try it out and see if it runs in a couple of my guns. I have used it in 9 and 223, and it fired fine, just dirty. I had to clean the gun twice as long to get it clean.
It makes no sense to spend 40 bucks to put holes in paper, for 10 minutes, that's as much as my lawyer charges me, $250-300 an hour, it's gotten really expensive if you shoot a lot, and don't reload. I am too old to start now, "65", I don't shoot enough for it to really be a big savings, but you young guys are nuts if you don't start now.
You will pay for it the first year if you shoot a couple hundred rounds a week.
Ammo used to be so cheap when I was in my 20's -30's, that it wasn't even a consideration, you could shoot 2 hours, for 50 bucks.
Especially if you shot lead, for a few bucks a bag of 38 reloads.

coyotehitman
March 15, 2014, 06:56 PM
You're making the classic logical mistake of expecting personal experience to be an accurate and objective measurement of something as detailed and complicated as this.

Correct...there is no substitute for experience. The problem today is that many read something, take it as fact, and spread nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion, and if you don't mind hoping your 9mm will expand and penetrate, carry on. I know my larger calibers aren't going to shrink and will penetrate well enough to do the job. As for shot placement....don't rely on it when the lead is flying back at you. Anyone telling you to just make headshots, on a moving target that is shooting back at you, has never been in a gunfight.

Quentin
March 15, 2014, 08:36 PM
If you're happy with 9mm I wouldn't change. But you bring up a good point about conversion barrels which is why my first Glock (G22) was a 40S&W. I didn't get a 40-9mm conversion barrel for it but did get one for my G23 and use the same Lone Wolf barrel in my G27 as well.

I just use the conversion barrel for range use but it is reliable in both the G23 and G27. It is nice to have access to two calibers and as has been said 40S&W has been plentiful during the ammo shortages.

Theohazard
March 15, 2014, 09:17 PM
there is no substitute for experience
That's not true at all. Personal experience can be a useful tool, but it can also very easily lead to incorrect conclusions. As the psychologist Daniel Schacter once said, "The self is hardly a neutral observer of the world."

It is well established that using personal experience can be a very poor way to objectively evaluate a situation. Even the most highly-trained expert brings personal biases to any attempt to evaluate data. And, in this case, examining the subtle difference that one millimeter makes in the outcome of a shooting requires examining a huge amount of data in an objective way. And no one person has ever been involved in enough shootings to be able to collect enough first-hand data on the subject. And, even if they had, it's very unlikely they would be able analyze the data they personally collected in a completely objective way.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry and my wife is a surgeon. Yet I'm well aware that my personal experience is a very poor tool for scientifically evaluating something as subtle and as complicated as the differences between two calibers' effectiveness, especially when those two calibers are so similar. The only way to accurately (and humanely) evaluate the differences between 9mm and .40 is to study all the existing data we have on shootings that have happened with each caliber, and to do so in the most scientifically objective way possible. And those studies have found no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of shootings involving 9mm and shootings involving .40 S&W.

Now, nobody is saying that they both have the exact same energy or the exact same wounding potential, but what the studies show is that the difference in power and diameter between 9mm and .40 is small enough that it's not a measurable factor in how many shots it takes to put someone down during a gunfight. So, in effect, the calibers are essentially equal for all intents and purposes; at least when it comes to real-life shootings.

Big Shrek
March 16, 2014, 12:21 PM
You almost already have the solution to your problem, as you mention your Glock 20.

If you want something more concealable, G29 :evil:
Bonus being you can get barrels/mags in other calibers on the cheap...
and it will handle EVERYTHING...in case you want .40S&W, .357SIG, or whatever you wish...

Fun part being you can tinkertoy it with your 19 & 20...do your initial purchasing for the 29,
and whatever don't work the way you want it for concealment, gets to go to the others...:D

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