9mm Vs. .40 S&W?

[19-3Ben]

Where did I go wrong???

Where you went wrong was not doing the research to understand each cartridge and the pros/cons of them before committing to a certain gun in a certain caliber.
If you researched it, you'd feel more comfortable because you'd be making an educated decision.

Ultimately the differences between the two rounds have been more than adequately addressed by the other posters in this thread.

 

[HexHead]

The .40 is the most popular law enforcement pistol cartridge. There's got to be a reason for that

It's largely because the FBI had adopted it, and if it's what they were using, it must be good. Now the FBI is going to go back to 9mm. Should be fun.

 

[481]

It's largely because the FBI had adopted it, and if it's what they were using, it must be good. Now the FBI is going to go back to 9mm. Should be fun.

...and makes me glad that I never left 9mm.

 

[JohnKSa]

Where did I go wrong???

If you have a .40S&W you like and if you shoot it well then don't worry about the caliber. Exactly the same thing could be said of the 9mm.

If you have bought neither yet, do some experimentation to see which one you like better and shoot better and go with that one.

 

[Kayaker 1960]

9 vs 40 again!

I currently own 2 .40 pistols, one of them is a Glock model 22. Last year I picked up a used Glock model 17 for my recoil sensitive wife. We took it to the range a few times and shot the model 17 alongside the model 22 and honestly couldn't tell the difference in recoil, accuracy or speed of follow up shots. At least 5 people compared the 2 pistols ( both shooting WWB ammo) In case you aren't familiar with these two guns, they are identical full sized pistols except for caliber. The 9mm still had too much recoil for my wife.
I've shot steel targets in competition along side folks shooting 9mm, .45 and .38 super, there is no question that there is a difference. .40 and .45 knock down targets with more authority than 9mm.
I live in California, we have a 10 round mag limit. If I'm limited to the same number of rounds then I might as well have more power as long as it doesn't effect speed and accuracy.

 

[AKElroy]

I vote 9mm. I shoot the .40 fine, and truthfully can't find a meaningful difference in perceived recoil. I choose the nine because it is cheaper to practice with, has greater capacity, and no matter what measure is used, it gives up nothing in terms of terminal performance to the .40.

 

[mavracer]

Where did I go wrong???

you fell for the "one is better than the other line".
All handguns are a compromise and "best compromise" is a oxymoron.

 

[mljdeckard]

I am not aware of how a 'classicness' rating makes one cartridge better than another.

The thing that the .40 has going for it is built-in compatibility with most things 9mm. Any gun made in the last 20 years (and many from before that) chambered in 9mm can also be chambered in .40, because it was specifically designed to fit in the same frames. Pretty much every existing 9mm had an instant upgrade.

The reason I have ditched the .40 (I'm pretty sure permanently) is that modern bullets have made it so there is little, if any, real-world difference in effectiveness between 9mm and .40. 9 is easier to shoot quickly and accurately, and you fit a few more in the magazine. If the rounds are virtually tied in effectiveness, but you can get more hits with one of them, to me, that makes it better. I still prefer a 1911 in .45, but that's mostly because it's what I'm used to. I got my wife an XD-9, and I don't miss my G-22 at all.

 

[nathan]

9 mm or .40SW makes no difference in performance. The only thing that hurts is the cost of ammo. Pick the one that makes you feel good.

 

[coyotehitman]

It is amazing how many people tout 9mm performance these days. Better bullet design...hogwash! It is what it was when the .40 went flying by it and into holsters across the country, nothing more and nothing less. The transition back to 9mm has largely been driven by increased ammo costs and shrinking training budgets, both in LE and civie circles--.40 costs more, govt. bean counters and cheapskate shooters are influenced by that. Add the fact that agencies and shooters are shooting less and some can't handle the recoil of the .40. Sorry boys, carry what you want, but the 9mm historically was and is a marginal manstopper.

 

[Styx]

The only thing I have against the 40 is the higher cost to shoot. The plus of the 40S&W is you can always find ammo.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

The big draw of the .40 to me is what Plan2Live said- in every ammo scare I've lived through there was forty on the shelves when all the 9mm, .22LR, .38 Special and even .45 ACP was gone. For that reason alone I will always keep at least one sidearm in .40S&W around. However, it's unlikely I'll ever have more than one or two. Overall I prefer the 9mm. Ammo is cheaper (by a little bit), capacity is higher and there are more different options out there for it. By that I mean the stores where I shop (online and B&M) seem to have three times as many different brands and loadings for 9mm vs .40 cal.

I don't really want to do the whole ".40 vs 9" argument. According to the evidence as I understand it the best loadings for the 9mm, .40 & .45 ACP are about a dead heat in effectiveness. Even if for the sake of argument I was to concede that the forty was more effective it would be a pretty minor difference. I can shoot the 9mm faster with accuracy and it holds an extra round or two so generally I carry a 9mm. But I do sometimes carry my .40.

 

[TestPilot]

All this "They're the same in terminal performance" is what 9mm proponents WANT to belive.

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.

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.

 

[TestPilot]

By short barrel:
...Recoil is not a method to determine performance.
...

Who said recoil is a method to determine performance?

The .40 is not more capable than the 9mm. It is actually less capable when all factors are considered. With today's ammo selection, not even the .45acp outshines the 9mm in terms of what you have called stopping power.

Based on what evidence?

I mean something other than those old FBI and IWBA PDF files full with assmuptions, and tests that only measured limited number of factors.

However, with the .40, you are going to be slower, have less rounds, and pay more for ammo.

The very purpose of 40 is to be more powerful than 9mm. What else did you expect?

The .40 exists because the average cop couldn't handle the full house 10mm, and the subsonic 10mm would not cycle pistols reliably. I would choose a 9 over a 40 even if the capacity was the same. I would chose a 9 over a 40 even if the cost was the same. Less snappy recoil means life or death sometimes.
...

Since you're so sensetive about sarcasm, I'll try to analyze your position just with your comments.

You chose a 9mm over 40, it is because recoil control makes you more survivable.

You also stated,"The .40 exists because the average cop couldn't handle the full house 10mm."

I will do nothing more than combine the the above two together.

Basically, you're saying when you use 9mm over 40S&W, it is because of effectiveness, but when cops choose 40 S&W over 10mm, it is because they can't handle the full house 10mm.

No, I am not trying to be sarcastic. If it still sounds like it, I can't help it.

Even if subsonic 10mm do cycle pistols reliabley, why should people deal with a pistol with a brick size grip when there is an ammo that allows a 9mm size grip at the same power?

Self defense is not a thing to be trifled with--it's not a term to be placed below what the public deems to be macho. Macho means absolutely nothing when that second, third or tenth shot needs to be fired accurately and immediately. The .40 is not superior to a nine in stopping any threat. The .40 has about the same snap as a .357Sig, which has fallen out of favor because it's not much more than a nine.

If I was being sarcastic because you did not actually mean "40S&W, which is not any better than 9mm, must be selected by people who want to be 'macho,' trifling with life and death matter," I am deeply sorry.

However, I am still struggling to come up with another plausible interpretation of the above statement.

My tests have revealed that a 125 grain .357Sig is identical in performance to a 124 grain +P 9mm.

Exactly how did your test reveal that?

 

[Saleen322]

The 9mm v. 40 S&W debate is like two midgets standing on a street corner arguing about who is taller. There is no effective difference between the two. I never had trouble buying ammo for either but I almost always found 9mm to be cheaper in similar loadings. If you prefer one over the other, go for it and be happy with your choice.

 

[jmr40]

When it comes to actually stopping a threat comparable 9mm, 40, and 45 loads are very close. You can find data that shows each of them to be slightly better than the other. It comes down to which data you choose to believe. From all the data I've seen I'd rate the 40 S&W as slightly better than the other 2, with 9mm coming in 2nd and despite all the hype 45 is actually in last place.

Some things are perfectly clear.

A 9mm will always hold more rounds in equal size guns, it will always have less recoil and ammo is going to be cheaper.

45 is always going to hold fewer rounds in equal size guns, will always have the most recoil and ammo is going to be the most expensive.

40 S&W has in my opinion slightly better performance, but splits the difference between 9mm and 45 when it comes to mag capacity, recoil and ammo costs. Despite what I read on the internet 40 recoil isn't that bad and is not as heavy as 45.

I own 45's but they are toys that I carry to the range to shoot. For serious work I believe the 9mm is perfectly adequate and when everything else is factored in is my preferred choice if only human threats are the concern.

I also own 40 and 10mm pistols. I can match heavy bullet 357 mag loads with the 40S&W and beat them with the 10mm. There are times and situations where a heavier 180-200 gr bullet is desirable and I can't do that with a 9mm. They have their place.

You really can't go wrong with either 40 or 9mm. It comes down to which traits are more important to you. If someone has to ask which is better, my answer is always 9mm.

 

[Warp]

These topics are always interesting. For about six replies. Then not so much.

There really isn't an effective difference between them when it comes to terminal performance. Capacity, cost, and speed of follow up shots might differ more.

In the end what's going to matter is shot placement. Get more practice, do more shooting, attend more training. This of course assumes that you work on situation awareness, avoidance, deescalation, etc, as the best result is never needing a gun to begin with.

 

[RustyShackelford]

9x19mm vs .40S&W ......

The .40S&W has been in the US gun industry since around 1990 when S&W/Winchester R&Ded a new mid range police caliber(10mm) for the new 4006 series pistols(which are now defunct).
The .40S&W proved extremely popular and soon surpassed the more potent 10mm, .41AE, .400Corbon, .38Super, 9x23mm Winchester, etc.
The 9x19mm has in recent years(2010-2015) has seemed to bounce back in many LE and personal defense circles.
Engineering advances in bullets and new designs in semi auto pistols led to more shooters using 9x19mm.
To me, both the 9mm and the .40 are fine. I've owned 2 law enforcement surplus 96D pistols & 3 different 9mm defense guns(02 M&Ps, a PX4 Storm C format). I would choose a 9mm caliber now of the 2 but don't be buffaloed into not carrying or shooting a .40 semi auto. There are several top ammunition choices for the .40 and you can load 11/16 rounds.

 

[1978dd]

I've owned a 9mm, .40 caliber and a .45 caliber. They all have their following as well they should. I'm sticking with the .45 for personal protection, not politics. Be safe!

 

[Woodsman!]

I fully agree with JMR40,s post.

 

[Robert]

I carry a G22 everyday for work. I don't not feel under gunned in any way. The G22 is a breeze to shoot and mine is rather accurate. If you feel you made a mistake then you can always sell what you have and buy something else. Though I wouldn't.

 

[short barrel]

Testpilot, plese. We respond with opinion and discussion, not sarcasm. You method is an attempt to make another poster look stupid. I suspect you would rewrite that if you could. At least I hope you would.

 

[TestPilot]

By short barrel:
Testpilot, plese. We respond with opinion and discussion, not sarcasm. You method is an attempt to make another poster look stupid. I suspect you would rewrite that if you could. At least I hope you would.

I rewrote the my post in response to your claim that your intention was innocent.

 

[short barrel]

Thanks TestPilot.

 

[Deaf Smith]

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

Nothing wrong with the .40 S&W.

Bit more weight and bullet diameter than the 9mm, and a few less shots.

There are always tradeoffs.

Deaf