Has the the quality of today's 9mm bullets made the .40 cal obsolete?

[Hangingrock]

Was it not a Cooper witticism or one of his disciples made the statement with a high capacity semiautomatic pistol of a lesser caliber the individual planned on missing. I must be somewhat conflicted as I have 9mm-Luger and 45ACP pistols but not compromise 40-S&W.

 

[ATLDave]

I tend to believe (and I expect I'm in a minority on THR) that 9mm, .40, and .45 are all functionally equivalent in terms of effectiveness in modern JHP SD loads, particularly if you include +p 9mm loadings. The 9 has more velocity, the 45 has more mass, and the 40 splits the difference. I don't think any of them has made the other obsolete... they are just different points on the same power/effectiveness curve.

 

[Jenrick]

If you're concerned about penetration, get a 10mm or a .357 sig. If you're a LE agency and concerned about penetration order AP ammunition. If you want capacity, go 9mm. If you like light fast bullets, 9mm or .357 sig. If you like big heavy bullets at moderate speed .45 ACP. If you like like heavy fast bullets 10mm. If you want a compromise round that does none of the above well, go with .40 S&W.

-Jenrick

 

[MikeNice]

Ken W, the BG that took 17 shot com was not high. Blood test revealed minute amounts of alcohol only.

Everybody that carries a handgun should look up the story.

 

[KenW.]

A person who can withstand 17 hits with anything, will not stop for much short of a long gun; centerfire rifle, or shottie.

 

[Lucky Derby]

A person who can withstand 17 hits with anything, will not stop for much short of a long gun; centerfire rifle, or shottie.

This

 

[rem22long40x]

Like I have all ready said , A 9mm may expand a 40 and 45 cal. won't shrink !!!!

 

[missionmild]

Try this thought experiment (with apologies to the rifle folks):

Would you say:

"I'd only use a 9mm to get back to my .40."

or

"I'd only use a .40 to fight my way back to my 9mm."

 

[ATLDave]

I think both statements, missionmild, are equally risible.

 

[KenW.]

Would you say:

"I'd only use a 9mm to get back to my .40."

or

"I'd only use a .40 to fight my way back to my 9mm

I'd say, "I'll fight with what's in my hand because I have confidence in the 9, 40, and 45."

 

[mooner]

I have a 9 and a 45. I collect 40 brass when I am at the range.

When I have enough brass, by my logic it will justify owning a 40. It seems that almost all 45 shooters pick up their empties. There are enough 40 shooters, and 40 is juussst inexpensive enough that they must figure it's not worth the effort.

Good excuse to buy another gun = win for me!

 

[FMF Doc]

I am not a fan of the .40S&W myslef. I have shot it, and I can shoot it well enough, but I shoot 9mm better. There are applications where the 40 can really excell. I loved my M9A1 I carried in the service but for military, where FMJ is the rule, and LEO where weight, which leads to penetration of barriers better is important, I would have loved an 96A1. I am not a fan of 40 in small packages, like the G27. I only shoot it in a full-size service pistol, like a G22. Some may shoot the wings off a gnat at 25 yards with their G27 or PM40, I am just not one of them. So is the .40S&W obsolete, no, but I do feel that it has limited realistic applications that justify its use.

 

[willypete]

I tend to believe (and I expect I'm in a minority on THR) that 9mm, .40, and .45 are all functionally equivalent in terms of effectiveness in modern JHP SD loads, particularly if you include +p 9mm loadings. The 9 has more velocity, the 45 has more mass, and the 40 splits the difference. I don't think any of them has made the other obsolete... they are just different points on the same power/effectiveness curve.

Guess we're in the same minority. I'm of the opinion that most all handgun rounds of equivalent technology and JHP construction are similarly effective on a shot-per-shot basis against a human attacker. Objective assessment of data has led me to this conclusion, and until someone can definitively demonstrate real-world results (I don't give a fig for paper ballistics or foot-pounds of energy, nor caliber comparison, nor wound cavities temporary or permanent) that set one caliber apart from another, I will stick to my conclusions. I carry 9s, .40s, .45s, and .357s with the same feeling of confidence in their performance.

 

[Hunter125]

I bought a .40 S&W XDm as my first pistol because .40 was somewhat of a compromise on most things. It has one less round than the 9mm with more power and a bigger bullet, not the big hit on capacity you get with the .45. Plus .45 is expensive and often scarce. If I had the money to get several guns, I might have done what some suggest and buy one of each, but I am a grad student so I can't afford several guns at once and needed one all around gun to start off. I also do not like my dad's G17, but not sure if that is because of 9mm or just Glocks in general. I do plan to eventually own guns in all three calibers as I can afford it.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

 

[P30shtr]

Just jumping in and didnt go through 4 pages but, I'll say NO simply because whatever technology is going into 9mm is going into .40 so.......

I think you answered your own question. I just hi-jacked your thread>, is 9mm and.40 obsolete because of the technology dumped into .45acp?

Shoot whatchya like and shoot it well.

 

[ckone]

YES.

 

[RatherNotSay]

One 9mm round center mass piercing the heart is more deadly than a .45acp round hitting a collar bone. Regardless of the rounds being questioned shot placement will always be more deadly than caliber size. It doesn't matter if they came up with some super expanding bullet that locks on to biological mass if it doesn't hit in an organ filled area it's most likely just going to tick the guy off.

For example if the guy is doped up on heroin, meth or cocaine he's probably going to laugh at you if you hit him in the shoulder and still keep fighting.

 

[makarovnik]

No.

 

[gym]

I had gotten rid of all my 40's until I shot the emp, I now have an emp in 40. It has almost the same power as my 45.The recoil is the same as the 9, and the expansion and weight make it a better man stopper. A180 grain bullet is just going to hit harder than a 9mm in 115 or 124 grain. The 147 grain 9 mm has it's fans and foes. I never liked it, I found it to be inconsistant with sizing in different manufacturers. It causes problems in some guns, I use a corbon powerball 100 grain, at 1350 fps,in my 9mm glock 26, which goes against my philosopy, but at that speed it hits like a 357 mag.

 

[GLOOB]

In some ways this is true. But premium 9mm JHP are more expensive than cheap 40SW JHP. I reload, so I can shoot JHP for almost the same cost as FMJ. But they won't perform like Rangers, HST or Gold Dots. In a 40SW, the difference between premium octane and regular is probably not as great as in a 9mm, particularly in the heavier bullet weights that don't fragment as easily.

 

[greenlion]

The higher quality of today's ammo has set a new baseline for bullets in general, but the .40 is still better than 9mm on the new scale too. New 9mm may be expanding better than old .40, but I've also seen statistics showing that newer .32acp is a better stopper than old .45acp hardball. Does that mean I will carry a .32 as a duty caliber? No. I will carry new improved expanding .45acp hollowpoints.

 

[JohnBT]

"I've also seen statistics showing that newer .32acp is a better stopper than old .45acp hardball"

Maybe men ain't what they used to be.

 

[B!ngo]

Back on my soap box...
I actually think that this question has a quantifiable answer (and I am actually quite interested in the counter-arguments that may get posted in return). That is, the proper choice is the one that allow you to carry more rounds in a given configuration. And that answer is generally 9mm.
Why? Assuming that all three cartridges (9,40,45) evolve equivalently regarding expansion, speed, bullet design, etc., most on this forum, and others, cite that shot placement is the most important parameter in the effectiveness metric.
But most shooters (LEO's, concealed carriers, military, me I expect) are terribly inaccurate with their handgun when the adrenalin is flowing. Numbers of far less than 50% on target are quite common in a shootout.
So, versus a bit more mass, or somewhat more expansion of a 40 or .45 versus a 9, I'd just like to make sure I have more shots so that I might actually hit the target. And I suspect that is a good general rule.
By the way, this rule applies to LEO's, mils, and citizens who are not living in areas or under guidelines that restrict their magazine capacity. In those cases (e.g. CA where the capacity is 10), the rule flips and instead biases to the largest round you can carry, as long as you can carry the maximum allowed. So, it would be .45 in those cases.
B

 

[mljdeckard]

They have for me. I think the difference in actual real-world effects is so minimal as to not justify snappier recoil and lower capacity. I have no desire to buy another .40 at all.

 

[Stasher1]

I have found, in my years of owning/shooting handguns, that my followup shots are faster and more accurate with a 9mm than .40 cal., so that's what I carry. I don't buy into the "knockdown power" myth and I believe in shooting until the threat is neutralized, so the difference between one caliber or the other is relatively unimportant.

Carry whatever caliber you're comfortable and accurate with, in a platform that you'll actually carry every day, and don't concern yourself with what the other guy carries.