wacki
Member
I love these threads. Both bullets penetrate 12" into ballistics gel. Both bullets perform equally when it comes to stopping power according to the Buckeye studies.
Why would anyone get a 40?
Why would anyone get a 40?
9mm v. 40 S&W for all around gun?
- Thread starter SOTSpro21:31
- Start date
- Status
LiveLife
Member
Because I have seen what both caliber bullets did on "real human shootings" and I did not like the damage done by 9mm bullets. Simulated gelatin penetration and expansion test is one thing. Talk to enough ER staff, EMTs and LEOs and you will get a good sense of which caliber do more damage.wacki said:
There are now some good 9mm JHP rounds available but that perhaps means 40S&W JHP rounds are better too.
Unlike laboratory tests, keep in mind that real life shooting results are not as ideal and your bullets may not hit where you hoped or intended to hit.
I live in a city where threat to my life and my family's life is in real jeopardy everyday. I have ready access to 2 full-size 45 caliber pistols when I sleep and carry a double-stack 45 compact with 10 rounds. I was a medic in the Army. Ask some vets who have seen different caliber tissue damage which caliber they would prefer if they had to drop a target like right now.
If I had to choose between 9mm and 40S&W for defending MY life, I will side with 40S&W. But that's me.
If you are more comfortable with 9mm recoil that allows you to shoot more accurate, then more power to you for choosing 9mm. But that doesn't mean 40S&W is a bad choice, especially for those who are comfortable with 40S&W recoil and able to shoot accurately in that caliber.
Last edited:
wacki
Member
To the OPs point I think the 9mm is the better all around caliber. For tissue damage it is probably not quite as effective as a .40 which is probably not quite as effective as a .45 but .45 was not in the OPs question. The OP asked which was the better all around gun not which was the better for HD/SD or better for pocket carry or IWB carry, etc.
9mm comes in smaller sizes than the 40 and is more concealable. Try carrying a .40 in your jeans pocket. If you have big pockets it may work but Kahr, KT, ruger, DB all make 9mms that could go in your pocket pretty easily.
9mm ammo is cheaper and therefore most people can get more range time and be more proficient than with the .40. That puts you in the debate about stopping power and we don't need to go there.
.40 is a more powerful cartridge so a check mark there.
9mm has less recoil, on average, so theoretically follow up shots are more accurate.
All around I think the 9mm is the better round but I don't think it is superior to the .40 for HD/SD situations. As I stated earlier I prefer the 12g for HD but it really sucks as a pocket gun or IWB carry.
9mm comes in smaller sizes than the 40 and is more concealable. Try carrying a .40 in your jeans pocket. If you have big pockets it may work but Kahr, KT, ruger, DB all make 9mms that could go in your pocket pretty easily.
9mm ammo is cheaper and therefore most people can get more range time and be more proficient than with the .40. That puts you in the debate about stopping power and we don't need to go there.
.40 is a more powerful cartridge so a check mark there.
9mm has less recoil, on average, so theoretically follow up shots are more accurate.
All around I think the 9mm is the better round but I don't think it is superior to the .40 for HD/SD situations. As I stated earlier I prefer the 12g for HD but it really sucks as a pocket gun or IWB carry.
LiveLife
Member
I do appreciate what Greg Ellifritz did but we must keep in mind that his data considered limited "averages" (more on this later) using various types of ammunition that factored in the "psychological" factor and he wrote:wacki said:
When my life and lives of my family is on the line, I cannot count on the "psychological" factor of my attacker.Greg Ellifritz said:
He also wrote:
These comments mirror what I have found in my more limited sampling. I worked at LA County/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles/other hospitals and was attached to US Army 349th General Hospital and my data comes from interviews with police/sheriff officers, EMTs and ER staff (my sister was an ER nurse and I have several family members who are PD/SD officers). LEOs/EMTs found more dead-on-scene and ER staff saw more death from larger more powerful calibers like 44 Mag/357 Mag/45ACP/40S&W and more survived the shootings with smaller less powerful calibers who were transported to ER/surgery.
I wonder if Greg Ellifritz factored in shooting incidents where body bags were sent to the morgue? This is critical information that could have greatly affected the calculated percentages.
Another thing to consider is the barrel length and muzzle/terminal velocities. Compact/subcompact pistols with shorter barrels experience measurable drop in velocity over full-size pistols. IMHO, lighter 9mm bullets (especially 115 gr) depend on velocity to impart tissue damage and heavier 40S&W bullets (say 165/180 gr) may suffer less from drop in velocity when shot from shorter barrel compact/subcompact carry pistols. Applying this to 9mm vs 40S&W, I would be less concerned about muzzle velocity with full-size pistols for HD but for carry pistols, I decided to lean heavily towards 40S&W and replaced Glock 26 with Glock 27.
Last edited:
LoneStarWings
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 445
wacki said:
???
Your data shows .40 S&W to be a little more effective than 9mm, as expected. It had about a 10% higher one shot stop statistic, not surprising considering it's about 10% larger in diameter and weight than a 9mm.
mljdeckard
Member
I kind of ran out of reasons to have a .40. A 9 has more capacity, and a .45 makes a slightly bigger hole. All are quite effective.
LiveLife
Member
I would agree on the capacity for full-size pistols.mljdeckard said:
But for me, choosing between 9mm G26 with 10 rounds and 40S&W G27 with 10 rounds (using Pearce +1 base extension) was a no brainer.
And I have added PT145 with 10 rounds of 45ACP to my CCW rotation which is comparable in size to G27 with mag extension.
Neither of these is an all-around cartridge*, IMHO, except for soft targets in urban environments. Of the two choices, with good modern controlled-expansion JHP ammo, I would go with 9mm, though the poll closed before I saw this. The .40 is a lot more sound and fury, for what I see as no real gain in performance, with less ammo capacity in the same volume of magazine. I used to not mind the sound and fury, and the sound is still OK, but cumulative recoil is really starting to annoy my ailing, formerly stronger wrist. I believe in training with ammo that recoils the same as my duty/carry ammo, but .40 recoil has recently changed my ability to do so.
FWIW, I work for an urban PD, which mandates .40 S&W as the primary duty pistol cartridge, though 9mm and .45 ACP were widely used before .40 became the standard, and after 15 years with the .40, 9mm is being strongly considered as optional for those officers who choose it. Collectively, we shoot quite a few bad guys over time, plus a few bad gals, and it seems that violent armed resistance has increased lately, locally, as if "something is in the air," so none of this is idle speculation on my part. I
may well, really, have to shoot a human being with my duty pistol before I retire in a few years. (It would not be the first time.)
Before the days of good controlled-expansion ammo, the .40 made sense, as the best way to stop something was to make a bigger hole, and increased momentum probably helped, too. By the time it actually came to market, the need for the .40 had largely passed, IMHO. I will admit liking the concept of the 357 SIG, though we had that performace level in the .38 Super, invented quite a while ago.
*I spend enough time in rural areas to think of magnums and .45 Colt when "all-around" is mentioned.
FWIW, I work for an urban PD, which mandates .40 S&W as the primary duty pistol cartridge, though 9mm and .45 ACP were widely used before .40 became the standard, and after 15 years with the .40, 9mm is being strongly considered as optional for those officers who choose it. Collectively, we shoot quite a few bad guys over time, plus a few bad gals, and it seems that violent armed resistance has increased lately, locally, as if "something is in the air," so none of this is idle speculation on my part. I
may well, really, have to shoot a human being with my duty pistol before I retire in a few years. (It would not be the first time.)
Before the days of good controlled-expansion ammo, the .40 made sense, as the best way to stop something was to make a bigger hole, and increased momentum probably helped, too. By the time it actually came to market, the need for the .40 had largely passed, IMHO. I will admit liking the concept of the 357 SIG, though we had that performace level in the .38 Super, invented quite a while ago.
*I spend enough time in rural areas to think of magnums and .45 Colt when "all-around" is mentioned.
Last edited:
wacki
Member
lonestarwings said:
% of people who were not incapacitated for both calibers was 13%. It's a tie in that regard. Add on top of that most of the 9mm bullets were FMJ. If you want to stop someone you poke a hole in the brain, heart or spinal column. It's that simple.
I will agree that data shows that 40 cal does better in the psychological stop category.
Actually if you reload I might swing to the .40 for one reason. You can practice with the relatively cheap .40 S&W and then throw in a .357 Sig bbl when you walk the streets. .357 sig has much better stopping power. You would want to get some range time with the .357 sig of course.
Last edited:
I think the point that TimeRegained was trying to make is that unless you are attacked by Phineas Gage, headshots usually do have a tendency to stop people more than limb shots. He's talking about probabilities. Not certainties.
Of course, I am not advocating taking headshots, as it's a difficult target to actually hit, and is completely irrelevant to this thread. But I think TimeRegained's point stands, that shot placement is going to matter more than caliber.
They are not mutually exclusive - of course shot placement is going to matter more than caliber, but to state that a 22 to the head is going to stop someone more than a 44 to the leg...maybe, maybe not?
In the real world, folks often find placement is much more difficult than it is from behind a keyboard.
I own both and for "all-around" versatility, ammo costs, ease of shooting, etc.... I'd say the 9mm is a better round.
However if somebody were kicking down my door and I had a 9mm and a .40 sitting on the table in front of me, I'd grab the .40.
However if somebody were kicking down my door and I had a 9mm and a .40 sitting on the table in front of me, I'd grab the .40.
Thanks to FN 45 TackiKOOL one no longer has to compromise. It is especially lovely choice for Hulk or Green Giant being of right size and color to match skin tone!
The vote record against 10mm short is surprising as 9x19 was designed when there were very few 6'5" 300lb specimens out there. Now streets seem to be full of them.
I'm trying to figure out the "cost" issue with .40 vs 9mm.
1000 rounds of 180g FMJ .40 ammo from GA is $260.00
1000 rounds of 124 FMJ 9mm from GA is $250.00
Granted we're talking range ammo here, but $10.00 on a 1000 rounds is a big deal?
Speer GD 124 +p 9mm - $20
Speer GD 168 .40 - $22
I'm not rich or anything, but $2 is big deal on carry loads? And if you have a police supply near you, and it's not against your local laws, you can get the boxes of 50 for a couple dollars over the box of 20 price.
All that said, I'm a fan of both. Shorts and tee shirt carry is 9mm, heavier clothes carry is .40. I love the freedom to choose!
1000 rounds of 180g FMJ .40 ammo from GA is $260.00
1000 rounds of 124 FMJ 9mm from GA is $250.00
Granted we're talking range ammo here, but $10.00 on a 1000 rounds is a big deal?
Speer GD 124 +p 9mm - $20
Speer GD 168 .40 - $22
I'm not rich or anything, but $2 is big deal on carry loads? And if you have a police supply near you, and it's not against your local laws, you can get the boxes of 50 for a couple dollars over the box of 20 price.
All that said, I'm a fan of both. Shorts and tee shirt carry is 9mm, heavier clothes carry is .40. I love the freedom to choose!
I say .40 because it balances power and capacity in most platforms. It is more powerful than the 9mm and more effective. It just is.
Plus .40s can be converted to .357 SIG with a barrel swap in most guns. Most mfgs have 357s now, so you can do a factory conversion and reasonably expect reliable function. I love having both. At 15 yards, the sights don't seem to show any different patterning. If you train with the .357 and reload (cheaper 9mm bullet, after you've stocked up brass) and switch to .40, you will be shooting .40 like a cap gun. The .357 has a huge blast, the .40 does not.
Plus .40s can be converted to .357 SIG with a barrel swap in most guns. Most mfgs have 357s now, so you can do a factory conversion and reasonably expect reliable function. I love having both. At 15 yards, the sights don't seem to show any different patterning. If you train with the .357 and reload (cheaper 9mm bullet, after you've stocked up brass) and switch to .40, you will be shooting .40 like a cap gun. The .357 has a huge blast, the .40 does not.
Skylerbone
Member
I think far too many responders are considering far too few facets of the original question. Ask math teachers which single class is most important and you'll likely have a common answer. Same with the science teachers. The important to you aspects will far outweigh the important to others aspects. Utility isn't, if it fails to benefit the user.
- Status
