9mm Vs. .40 S&W?

ch00sen1 · Jan 3, 2015

A continuing question and good answers. I carry a .40 I'm a kahr pm model. I shot it well and get back on target quick. I'm a little faster with the 9 but not enough to give up the 40.
In the woods I carry a 10mm (g20). it had more recoil but my goals are different. [emoji4]

RussellC · Jan 3, 2015

Highcaliber said:
Not exactly true.

The .40 S&W does make a difference IF you want to have adequate penetration AFTER passing through an intermediate barrier, such as sheet metal car doors, windshields, plywood, etc. THIS is where the .40 S&W surpasses the 9mm.

.40 Sheet metal & Windshields

According to the latest FBI info, that is not the case concerning penetration. There's about equal arguments for each, (9mm, 40, or 45. I prefer 9mm and 45, buts thats just me. This argument has been beat to death here, maybe its time for a 9 vs 40 vs 45 sticky....

RussellC · Jan 3, 2015

460Kodiak said:
You didn't. It is a good choice if you like the cartridge.

The high pressure nature of the .40 S&W combined with my choice of a gun that was smaller and lighter than it should have been for the cartridge left me unhappy with the cartridge. I switched to .45 and have been happy ever since. I'm also getting into 9mm soon.

It's a matter of preference. If you like the 40, then be happy. Personally, I think you made a great choice.

Perfect response.

sixgunner455 · Jan 3, 2015

The CZ is a great choice. It would be nice in either round. Mine is a 9mm, and I really like it. Hope you have fun with it!

bflee · Jan 3, 2015

Classic cartridge? Who gives a hoot?
Can I buy plenty easily?
Does it work for what I need?
Can I shoot it effectively?
If yes to all three it works for me!
Nothing wrong with the 9 or the 40. I have both, I shoot the 40 more.

coyotehitman · Jan 3, 2015

According to the latest FBI info

Could you mail those stats to me, I'm out of toilet paper!

If you need reassurance that your 9mm is a death ray, you won't get it from me.

Highcaliber · Jan 3, 2015

RussellC said:
According to the latest FBI info, that is not the case concerning penetration. There's about equal arguments for each, (9mm, 40, or 45. I prefer 9mm and 45, buts thats just me. This argument has been beat to death here, maybe its time for a 9 vs 40 vs 45 sticky....

I'd be interested in reading that data. Most of the stats and test results I've seen involve "bare gelatin" or "4 layers of denim" not penetration depths after traveling through an intermediate barrier.

Grunt96 · Jan 3, 2015

Never have had an issue finding 40s&w ammo in comparison to 9mm and 45 during shortages. 40s&w and 10mm take the same bullets which make keeping and buying components for reloading a breeze (if you are into both). 40s&w has more punch than a 9mm and I don't care what anyone says about new bullet technology; fact is it shoots a larger heavier bullet at same velocities or faster than a 9mm. I think the 40s&w in a metal frame handgun is a good mix, and I've been extremely pleased with my Beretta 96a1. You made a good buy IMO.

SDGlock23 · Jan 3, 2015

I think the .40 is smart choice, sure some don't like it but anyone who would blatantly tell you to stay away from it has issues, simple as that. I think it's better than the 9mm just by virtue of the fact that it shoots bigger and heavier bullets and generates more momentum and "energy". That doesn't mean the 9mm is bad, I think the 9mm is a fantastic cartridge, but the .40 is better in most respects.

Sauer Grapes · Jan 3, 2015

I like the .40. I like the 9mm. I like the 45acp. There, I confess!

If you like to hand load, the .40 S&W gives you a lot to play with.

Your choice is a sound one.

JohnKSa · Jan 3, 2015

No one has actually proven that it is equal in incapacitating a human.

No one has proven that it's not and that's really the issue here. If I come up with a new caliber and claim it's better than an existing caliber, I bear the burden of proof to show that it is better. I can't just claim it's better and then require those who say it's not to prove me wrong.

If I ask for proof, I am sure they'd post that FBI or IWBA PDF files based on testing on gets and autopsies.

What those proponents won't tell you is that those testing only measures certain factors that does not fully replicate human body, no testing can, and the conclusions drawn are full of assumptions.

You are correct to be skeptical, however it's instructive to note that the methods of "proof" you wisely question are precisely the methods used to establish the supposed superiority of the .40S&W.

Tomac · Jan 3, 2015

All this "They're the same in terminal performance" is what 9mm proponents WANT to believe.
No one has actually proven that it is equal in incapacitating a human.
If I ask for proof, I am sure they'd post that FBI or IWBA PDF files based on testing on gets and autopsies.

And no one has proven that .40 is better than 9mm, either. So until we have definitive proof one way or the other, w/.40 you're giving up capacity and controllability for, what? A possible advantage in barrier penetration???
What are the odds that a typical civilian's survival will hinge on barrier penetration? Going to have a running gun battle w/gangsta-infested vehicles? A blind shoot-out through drywall? Showdown in the door & glass showroom at your local Home Depot?

Get real. All handguns are poor stoppers regardless of caliber or bullet used. If you're willing to sacrifice capacity & controllability (what's more likely to be important in a gunfight: capacity & controllability or barrier penetration?) for a possible advantage in barrier penetration, then I suggest you review your priorities.
Tomac

skoro · Jan 3, 2015

From a practical standpoint, there's little difference. They're both good calibers and either will serve well.

strambo · Jan 3, 2015

Objectively, the .40 S&W is an excellent cartridge. Compared to 9mm it will expand about a tenth of an inch larger while penetrating to the same or more depth and has a better ability to punch through intermediate barriers. Compared to .45 ACP it comes in a smaller grip size and with more capacity while retaining almost all the terminal performance.

Subjectively, I don't like 'em and don't own any because I don't like how they recoil and don't want to add another caliber I have to load for. I like the lower recoil and increased capacity of my 9's and like the power of the .45 ACP and low pressure recoil characteristics.

I'd have no problems being issued a .40 and betting my life on one and no problems buying them if I hadn't already settled on 9mm or .45 as a personal choice.

You really need to shoot the gun in each caliber for yourself. Could be you hate the .40 recoil or could be you think it is so close to the 9, might as well go .40, only you can decide.

mavracer · Jan 3, 2015

And no one has proven that .40 is better than 9mm, either. So until we have definitive proof one way or the other, w/.40 you're giving up capacity and controllability for, what? A possible advantage in barrier penetration???

Oh you can prove that the .40 makes a larger hole, there's just way too many other factors to quantify the advantage a larger hole makes. But just because it can't be quantified doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

JohnKSa · Jan 3, 2015

Oh you can prove that the .40 makes a larger hole, there's just way too many other factors to quantify the advantage a larger hole makes. But just because it can't be quantified doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Very well said. There is a theoretical benefit to making a slightly larger hole when it comes to incapacitation. However, so far, no one has been able to quantify that benefit because it is so small. If the benefit of the slightly larger hole were significant, it would have been quantified long ago. One expert, Patrick Urey of the FBI in his paper, Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness made an offhand estimate that the difference in terminal performance between common service pistol calibers might affect only 10 in a thousand shootings.

Understanding that is the first step in getting a handle on the stopping power question.

The next step is the realization that caliber choice is not exclusively about terminal performance. Once that realization strikes, it becomes apparent that there are many other important AND quantifiable parameters which can have an effect on nearly every self-defense gun use--as opposed to only 10 out of a thousand. Parameters like ease/convenience of carry, shootability, capacity, practice costs, etc.

Too often people get high-centered on terminal performance as if it's the only parameter than means anything. In reality, when comparing calibers in the same general performance class, terminal performance should be viewed as one of the less important selection criteria.

bflee · Jan 3, 2015

I cant tell a difference shooting the two, but my 9 is a Glock and my 40 is an Xdm Springfield. I give up 3 rounds I believe in capacity with the 40, but it holds 16+1. I think I can get out of a tight with 16.

Warp · Jan 3, 2015

coyotehitman said:
Could you mail those stats to me, I'm out of toilet paper!

I suppose you could go on a tour of various morgues around the country, if you want to see the real end result. Plenty of street cred for rounds like Gold Dot, HST, 9BPLE, etc.

JDR · Jan 4, 2015

Is there anything inherently wrong or lacking about the .40 S&W chambering?

No

Recently I was informed that the .40 S&W was not a "classic" cartridge and that the 9mm cartridge was. It was also recommended, by more than one source, to stay away from the .40 S&W.

I like my SIG P226 in .40 S&W, HK USP in .40 S&W and Gen4 Glock 22. Forget about what is "classic" or "not classic", this internet tribal knowledge about .40 S&W doesn't apply if you know better. A.40 S&W pistol works fine for you if you practice with it.

I intend to get a CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical in .40 S&W. I prefer the .40 for knockdown power and lethality as opposed to the European .38, the 9mm. Where did I go wrong???

I see nothing "wrong" with your logic. My guns reliably shoot Win Whitebox FMJ .40 S&W in 165 gr. and most other types of .40 S&W FMJ factory ammo. I have also found that my full size guns tend to be a little more accurate with 180 gr. factory FMJ ammo. You might have to sort out ammo combinations for your gun, but I don't see this as a problem.

Tomac · Jan 4, 2015

Oh you can prove that the .40 makes a larger hole, there's just way too many other factors to quantify the advantage a larger hole makes. But just because it can't be quantified doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

While the theoretical advantage of the .40's larger hole can't be quantified, the loss of capacity and controllability *has* been quantified.
Proven: .40's carry fewer rds than 9mm's of the same model.
Proven: .40's have more recoil than 9mm's of the same model making them harder to control in rapid rife.
Not proven: The .40's larger hole incapacitates faster than 9mm's, enough to offset the disadvantages of reduced capacity and controllability.
Tomac

Robert · Jan 4, 2015

Oh look a X vs Y thread is going down hill with people in both camps being snotty and bickering.

9mm Vs. .40 S&W?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Similar threads