Recoil difference between 9mm and .40 S&W?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trey Veston

Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
2,700
Location
Idaho/Washington border
Lots of arguments regarding the difference between the recoil of the 9mm and .40 S&W, with little actual facts or numbers.

I'm a fan of the .40 S&W and not very sensitive to recoil, so was skeptical of those who complained of the "snappiness" of the round compared to 9mm.

But, I am a believer in facts and data, so decided to do a little experiment.

Since I own a Gen 5 G19 and G23, and a Gen 4 G23, I thought it would be interesting to take all three pistols and shoot them with similar ammo and measure how much muzzle flip there is between them.

Now, I did not figure out how to measure actual force and felt recoil, and only measured muzzle rise, so not completely comprehensive, but at least it does show some level of measurable difference between the three pistols.

Need to skip to 8:00 to avoid the rambling...

 
My observations on recoil are mostly from shooting rifles, but the same principles apply to handguns.

All of us have a certain tolerance for recoil. Up to a point most of us never notice recoil unless we really think about it. And that point is different for everyone. Anything at, or below that threshold we just don't notice. For example if used to firing 40 S&W we just don't notice that 9mm recoils less unless we really think about it while shooting But if we fire something with greater recoil it is apparent immediately even if it is a small increase in recoil. For someone used to 9mm the jump to 40 S&W is dramatic, at least at 1st. With lots of practice that tolerance for recoil will change.

The effects of recoil are also cumulative. Even though many would say that they aren't bothered by recoil from a 40 S&W you will see degraded accuracy after fewer rounds than with a lower recoiling cartridge. For a few shots those with a high tolerance for recoil will shoot their heavier recoiling guns just as well. But you will reach a point where even those people will start shooting lower recoiling guns better.

You can trick your brain for a while, but recoil will eventually start having an effect on your shooting.
 
Like some have stated above, I don't notice the recoil difference much, but I do slightly notice this about the 40S&W:
the added recoil does affect my ability to rapidly place follow-up rounds accurately into the target



Nicely put, jmr40.
All of us have a certain tolerance for recoil. Up to a point most of us never notice recoil unless we really think about it. And that point is different for everyone. Anything at, or below that threshold we just don't notice. For example if used to firing 40 S&W we just don't notice that 9mm recoils less unless we really think about it while shooting But if we fire something with greater recoil it is apparent immediately even if it is a small increase in recoil. For someone used to 9mm the jump to 40 S&W is dramatic, at least at 1st. With lots of practice that tolerance for recoil will change.
 
I shoot/carry 19's and use a 23 as a sidearm hunting. While the recoil in the 23 is more substantial, it isn't uncomfortable- but the added recoil does affect my ability to rapidly place follow-up rounds accurately into the target.

Agreed. When put against a clock the differences are noticable, but just slow fire? Yeah they feel fine. Recently I had been shooting a lot of .45 and .40 and hadn't shot a 9mm in almost six months and then I finally did and was a bit shocked, where was the recoil?

Between 9mm and .40 on the clock with properly powered loads I make the comparison I do between .45 and 10mm (again with proper loads, I like my 10mm 200 gr at around 1200 fps) in that I can shoot them both (9mm vs 40, 45 vs 10mm) with the same accuracy and nearly the same split times but the 40 and 10mm require me to really crank down on my grip and focus a LOT more to keep the speed up, where the 9mm is just easier to shoot fast.

Both good, both fun, 9mm is still significantly cheaper to reload for me though.
 
You can calculate recoil force based on factory load data. Data below based on a 2 lb gun. Data from Federal catalog.

9mm 124 grain @ 1150 fps = 3.23 ft lbs recoil

40 S&W 180 grain @ 1000 fps = 5.14 ft lbs recoil.
 
I only own a .40 because of the cheap police surplus pistols pre-plandemic…picked up a Gen4 Glock G22.
When I compare .40 recoil, I compare it to the +P and +P+ 9mm service ammo I use for self defense. I don’t see much difference using that ammo in my G17 and the 180gn HST I use in my G22.
In fact, although I’ve been a 9mm guy since the days when most cops carried .38’s, my G22 became my preferred home defense pistol immediately after my first couple range visits.
 
I notice a real difference between recoil of my son's fullsize 9mm Glock and my fullsize .40 S&W H&K USP.
The .40 USP is snappier than the 9mm Glock but not as forceful as the recoil of my full size .45 ACP 1911A1 clone.

The felt recoil of a semi-auto pistol depends a lot on the weight of slide and on the recoil spring(s).
 
I have had the same experiences when shooting a G19 and G23. I also have two Star Firestar pistols, M40 (40S&W) and M43 (9mm). There is a noticeable difference. And with the FireStar pistols, the M40 slide is heavier than the M43 slide.
 
For those that didn't watch the video muzzle rise was about 1" higher for the .40 compared to the 9mm.

Not surprising, I don't think the recoil on my 9mm 75b is bad in the least but I can still get 10 shots on target faster and in a smaller group out of my Buckmark.
 
I have always been able to tell a difference between the two calibers when comparing them in the same size of gun. I have given up on the 40 as they have become painful to shoot even in a full size gun. My #1 grandson appreciates the M&P that he received as a result.
 
I have given up on the 40 as they have become painful to shoot even in a full size gun

A lot of that has to do with how the pistol fits your hands. I have OEM Glock frames along with several Polymer 80 940C (G19) frames and Strike Industries Strike 80 (G19) frames. When using the exact same slide and same ammo with all three frames, I can tell a difference in felt recoil. The grip on the Strike 80 frame is more rounded and fits my hand the best, it is also the most comfortable to shoot with a G23 slide. I can shoot my G23 slides on the Strike 80 longer without any discomfort in my arthritic hands than with the 940C or OEM frames.
 
The difference isn't huge, but it's real and can affect shooting speed and accuracy. In competition shooting (i.e. IDPA or USPSA) I've seen that 9mm is the cartridge of choice for in excess of 80 percent of shooters. The rest is mostly .45 ACP, for those who want to compete against other 1911s in divisions that were basically created around that platform. The .40 S&W is not very popular in competitive circles. This does not mean the round is no good, but it does suggest it is not the best round for shooting fast and accurately.
 
I carry a .357 with full loads on a 3" barrel. Before that I carried a 1911. I've never noticed a difference in recoil when shooting a 9mm or 40 cal. I don't notice the difference in a 10mm either but it is a long slide so that probably tames recoil down a bit.
 
The difference isn't huge, but it's real and can affect shooting speed and accuracy. In competition shooting (i.e. IDPA or USPSA) I've seen that 9mm is the cartridge of choice for in excess of 80 percent of shooters. The rest is mostly .45 ACP, for those who want to compete against other 1911s in divisions that were basically created around that platform. The .40 S&W is not very popular in competitive circles. This does not mean the round is no good, but it does suggest it is not the best round for shooting fast and accurately.

Competition guys look for every advantage to a fault. They go way overboard on every little detail. Limited division is ruled by .40's.

That's one of the reasons why a production 1911 isn't allowed in the production division. Even despite it's low capacity disadvantage.

It's up to you to decide if the extra recoil is an impediment. For me, my shot timer says there's a negligible difference between 9mm +p Jhp, and 40. So usually, I pick the more powerful pistol. As the pistol gets smaller and smaller, 9mm starts to look like a better choice.
 
I've only shot .40 S&W a few times, maybe three. Twice I assumed I was shooting 9mm and did not realize the difference and I am kind of recoil sensitive and not a huge fan. The third time, I thought about how it was different, and that day shot the same gun in 9mm also, and it was in my experience a bit sharper or faster recoil, but I did not notice it to be more or have to adjust grip or do anything different. Becasue the recoil seemed quicker, I kind of thought follow up shots might be faster with some practice than with 9mm, but I have no plans to own a 40 S&W and time soon, just becuase 9mm is cheaper and I'm set up to load for it.
 
Yep, the .40 has more recoil than 9MM, only question is it too much for someone. I hated it in my XD Sub Compact, it was a pussycat in my Witness Elite Match. I don't have either one anymore and was .40less for a number of years until .40s got dirt cheap a handful of years back. I couldn't resist a $300 FNS-40.
 
I have a Glock 22 that I can convert to 9mm by swapping the barrel and mag.

It feels the same to me in the two different calibers. Doubtless the timer doesn't lie and I'm slower with 40 caliber, but it feels about the same to me regardless.

I don't really care too much if a full-sized pistol is 9mm or 40 or 45acp. They all feel pretty similar and make similar holes in things. :)
 
I use Federal HST in both calibers. 165 gr in .40 and 147 +P in 9mm. In the same gun (p229) the difference is not significant and the trajectories are very close as well.

Here is that gun (shown with a Legion 9mm caliber Xchange kit). She started out as a .357 Sig.

index.php
 
What I found interesting was that the G23 Gen 5 with it's thicker and heavier slide, was touted as being less snappy than previous generations. Some have speculated that it is now on par with the G19 as far as recoil. My results showed clearly that wasn't the case because it had an inch more muzzle flip than the G19. But, it did have a half inch less flip than the Gen 4 G23. So the heavier and thicker slide made some difference.

Just not sure if the significantly wider and heavier slide is worth the slight reduction in recoil over the Gen 4 G23. My Gen 4 is also more accurate than the Gen 5.
 
Competition guys look for every advantage to a fault. They go way overboard on every little detail. Limited division is ruled by .40's.

That's one of the reasons why a production 1911 isn't allowed in the production division. Even despite it's low capacity disadvantage.

It's up to you to decide if the extra recoil is an impediment. For me, my shot timer says there's a negligible difference between 9mm +p Jhp, and 40. So usually, I pick the more powerful pistol. As the pistol gets smaller and smaller, 9mm starts to look like a better choice.
I agree, many folks use the IPSC/IDPA times with minor 9mm 125 power factor vs major 40 165 pf but 9mm +p defensive loads are often 150-155 pf add to that some of the manufacturers add a smidge of weight to their 40 models and I feel that in a duty size gun there's negligible difference for me on a shot timer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top