5 rounds of .40 or 6 of 9mm for CC?

[Monkeybear]

This is not about me. Just a question.

There are two guns. They are both identical except in caliber. One is in 9mm and holds 6 rounds, the other is .40 and holds 5. You are an expert ex-mil shooter who trained Jack Bauer. You shoot both calibers equally well and would practice the same amount with either.

All other things equal in a CC situation which would you rather have a 6 shot 9mm or a five shot .40sw?

 

[Dionysusigma]

I didn't vote.

Try both if you possibly can. Rentals at a range are an invaluable luxury--see if there's one not too far away that has what you need.

Go with the one that feels better. I'm not just talking about recoil... go for the one that you think you can carry all day long, both in terms of weight, and of concealability. Go with the one you feel would do you much more good in case you had to actually use it. Go with the one that you can actually hit something with.

Keep in mind, too, that there is such a thing as loading another mag quickly.

 

[Monkeybear]

They both weigh just about the same. They are also almost the same size. Its pretty much two of the exact same gun but in different calibers. Check the Kahr website or go to the gunstore and youll see what I mean.
9mm - 5.3" long 4.0" high and .90" thick.
.40sw - 5.35" long 4.0" high and .94" thick.


Im dont mind recoil or a hard kicking gun. I dont have delicate hands.

In the end this isnt even about the guns. Pretend that they are both exactly the same and Im John Rambo/Jack Bauer. What I am interest in are ballistics. Basically all other things equal which would you rather have.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Have you fired them both?

I have large hands, big enough that a Kel-Tec P32 isn't an option for me as I can't get my finger inside the trigger guard.

That said, the most comfortable pistol I've ever fired is a 1911 in .45. The most painful was a Seecamp in .32. Caliber plays a large role in comfort, especially when the platform is the same.

My gut feeling would be to either go with the heaviest reliable grain in .40, or the lightest possible in the 9mm. Not sure which would be more effective... kinda like comparing a freight train going 55 mph to a .177 BB-sized piece of space junk in orbit. Both have terrific destructive capabilities, yet are completely different. I still say go and put rounds through both calibers of the platform.

Aside from dusting off and nuking the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

/getting loopy
//going to bed

 

[nwilliams]

I don't think it really matters as long as the gun feels good and your shots land where you want them. A 9mm fired into the wrong place on your attacker will have no less effect than a .40 fired in that same place. On the flip side one shot fired into the right place from either caliber will stop the attacker right then and there. If you have a gun with a limited amount of ammo then worrying about shot placement is in my opinion more important than caliber.

 

[Monkeybear]

If you have a gun with a limited amount of ammo then worrying about shot placement is in my opinion more important than caliber.

They are not mutually exclusive. You can have both. Reguardless of which one I get I am going to worry about shot placement. What I want to know is what you would rather have in a CC situation.

All other things equal(including shot placement) which would you rather have.

 

[psyopspec]

What ____ for ____? 101 << thread worth checking out.

Frankly, none of our collective bacon will be on the line; thus matters very little to us what caliber Kahr you choose to carry. Go with what works for you.

 

[Monkeybear]

psy- Im not sure that this is the same thing that was mentioned in the thread you linked too. All of my questions have been pretty specific. Also I understand that you likely do not care what caliber I choose. I am not asking you to choose for me. I am asking you what you would rather have. "Go with what works for you" is great advice, however in this case they both "work" for me.

The only benifit that the MK9 has over the MK40 is the additional round. What I am asking people is their opinion on whether the additional round outweighs the advantages of the .40s balistics.

I am trying to decided this for myself. I am reading alot about the top defensive rounds in 9mm and .40. This is not my only source of information. It is however a source. Perhaps I should re-word my question.

 

[Exmasonite]

Please keep in mind that this is not a 9mm vs .40 thread

Despite the best of intentions, it really is. Unless you want to say that both rounds are "equal", then the decision is a no-brainer: go for more capacity. Since there is a dilemmna, it must be related to the difference in caliber. now, i'm really NOT going to go there, don't worry. just wanted to clarify your question, though.

Personally, for me, at those capacity numbers, i'd go for more rounds. difference b/w 9 and 10 rds may not mean much but getting down into 5 and 6 rounds, that's much more significant (15-20% of your capacity, not counting reloads).

i just figure me vs 2 BGs and i'm nervous as hell... 3 shots each or possibly 2 shots and 1 miss each (i practice, practice, practice but have no delusions about how the heat of the moment may affect my accuracy having not been there before)

just my $.02

 

[Vitamin G]

Odd thing for a 1911 guy to say, but I like to have at least 10 rounds. I'd pick 9mm in this scenario.

If i had to pick between 5rounds of .40, or a goofy .22 conversion kit and i could squeeze 25rds of .22lr into the magazine, i'd take the .22lr. I know all the stats about 3shots 3yards 3seconds, etc etc etc, but less than 10 rounds makes me a bit uncomfortable.











Which is why i really like being able to squeeze 9+1 in a 10mm 1911.

 

[psyopspec]

Monkey, FWIW, I went with the 9mm, but only for the sake of ammo compatibility with most of my gun collection. Hope this helps.

 

[Autolycus]

I am a .40S&W fan myself. However 9mm is fine.

My chosen carry guns are HK P2000 and the HK P2000sk. The choice was between 13 rounds of 9mm and 12 rounds of .40S&W. I figured at that point 2 or 3 rounds would not make a difference.

In this case I still went with the .40 simply because I like bigger bullets. I feel the .40 is the perfect compromise between 9mm and .45acp.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

9mm

The lower recoil of the 9mm will make it easier to shoot accurately---both will do the job if placed right----it never hurts to have an extra round ---practice/target ammo is cheaper so hopefully you'll shoot your gun even more and be even better with it.

 

[fastbolt]

Things are never the same ... especially when comparing people, and how people handle different calibers from the perspective of felt recoil, controllabililty and recoil recovery ...

FWIW, I happen to own a 3913 (9mm 8+1) and a 4040PD (.40 S&W 7+1). The 4040PD is similar to the overall dimensions and 'feel' of the 3913. Aside from some manufacturing and material differences the pistols are about as 'similiar' as you could expect. I shoot both well, and have some fair experience when it comes to shooting skills.

I prefer to shoot the 3913.

Why?

I like the felt recoil of the 9mm better, overall, in matters of controllability, recoil recovery, etc..

I own a G26 (9mm 10+1) and a G27 (.40 S&W 9+1).

I prefer to shoot and carry the G26.

Why?

See the answer to the previous comparison.

FWIW, while shooting .40 S&W pistols frequently does enhance my skills with respect to them, it seems to enhance my skills with the 9mm pistols even more. I better I become with my .40's, the better I become with my 9mm's ...

When it comes right down to it, though?

It's just a handgun.

An extra round is an extra round ... and better recoil recovery and controllability is just that ... and everyone is different.

No answer for you ... didn't vote.

 

[mstirton]

I'd take 9mm for fastbolt's reasons and if I were some super agent, I could shoot 6 BGs in the head instead of 5.

 

[Walkalong]

.40......... I was very suprised when I saw the poll. I thought this was a no brainer.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

You're right. It is a no brainer. 9mm. More shots, more controllable, faster rate of fire, both equal in terms of "stopping power" (if there is such a thing, which I doubt), at least not significantly different enough, especially if you are PROFICIENT, since placement trumps all other factors, and the ammunition is cheaper allowing more practice for the same amount of money.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, since I shoot both equally well (which isn't true in real life where I am better with the 9mm), I would go with the 9mm. If you can do your part, either round is sufficient for self-defense. Since I practice the same amount with both and I shoot both equally well, the only factors remaining are cost and mag capacity.

The additional mag capacity doesn't mean much (one round); but I will save a lot of money shooting 9mm compared to what it will cost to shoot an equivalent amount of .40.

In the end, I would probably just go for whichever one I felt most confident with though.

 

[1BLINDREF]

Bigger bullets are better

 

[jeepmor]

Being my first choice is a .45, I'd choose the 40 for more power and carry Double Tap if I was an ubertactical-agent Jack Bauer, save the world in 24 hours type. Especially of out of the short barrel. I might be wrong due to aspect ratios and what not, however, that's my initial thoughts w/o doing the math. It will kick a bit more due to the big size difference between 45 compact vs the 40 compact.

Specifically any 45 compact (~3" barrel) vs the Kahr PM40 since you mention Kahr. A friend just got one, it's tiny like a keltec. Will be very easy to conceal. I've considered one just for that purpose. But I'm going to wait for him to break it in first and share his thoughts. The 40 tosses more bullet, so it gets my pick.

 

[McCall911]

Hmm...the 9mm vs. .40 debate once more...

I chose 6 of 9 and half-dozen of the other!

 

[Gord]

"All other things being equal" the "duh" answer is - six rounds beats five.

If we're talking ballistics, I'd still rather have an extra round of 9mm than one less round of 10mm Retarded. Load the nine up with +Ps if you're that concerned with (I'm guessing negligible) differences in power.

Or, look at it by millimeters: that extra round of 9mm is just like having an extra millimeter on the preceding five rounds, plus four to spare!

Shoot until the threat stops, the more rounds the better. Caliber wars don't work unless somebody can come up with a story wherein the defender was required to reload after dumping an entire mag into the target, not just "so-and-so shot/got shot with x caliber and didn't go down..."

I'll take twelve rounds out of a "weenie" .32 or .380 over six rounds of "super-serious real man" any day.

 

[gazpacho]

I like to dance the Mozambique.

Two badguys means someone gets an open casket.





That was a JOKE!

 

[Geronimo45]

The Khar's only have 5 or 6 rounds? No wonder folks talk about how small they are.

I'd go with the six-shot-nine.

 

[oneslowgun]

No question. 6 rounds of 9mm over 5 rounds of .40 every time.

"6 In the hand" trumps "5 And a wish" EVERY time.

I too, "Dance the Mozambique", and I too base my defencive practice on two BG's.

My personal opinion is AT LEAST 6 shots. There are those out there that carry 5 shot revolvers, and I understand where they are comming from, but the only way I will carry 5 instead of 6 is if it's .357 Mag. (Don't get me wrong, I like, and in fact want, a little S&W "Pocket gun"). But if I was to carry it, I would want one for each pocket.)

You asked the question, this is MY answer, NO LESS then 6 rounds.