9mm vs 40

[Hypnogator]

For those interested in 2 very decent 9mm defense loads:

Both of which are super-hot and will give excessive recoil and wear on your weapon.

9mm ammo is cheaper, no doubt about it. If you're looking for a range/target gun that you'll also use for defense, go with the 9.

LE Agencies wouldn't go to the expense of changing from 9mm to .40 S&W just because of marketing hype. If your primary purpose for buying a handgun is defense, go with the .40.

If you're looking for a lightweight compact defensive carry piece, you're back in the 9mm realm. Lighter (115-gr) weight bullets are in order, such as Cor-Bon's excellent DPX loads. That's what I carry in my Kel-Tec PF-9.

Remember, although modern 9mm premium JHPs make it an effective defensive load, modern .40 & .45 premium JHPs make them evern more effective.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Oh boy. 9mm vs .40 again, and it's heating up

[sits back]

pass the popcorn!

 

[kalashnikov74]

It comes down to which you shoot better, I shoot a .40 just as well as I shoot a 9mm so obvious choice is the bigger stronger caliber.

However shot placement is more important than caliber, so choose whichever you shoot better.

 

[451 Detonics]

LE Agencies wouldn't go to the expense of changing from 9mm to .40 S&W just because of marketing hype. If your primary purpose for buying a handgun is defense, go with the .40.

You can't be serious...marketing is by far the major reason departments change guns. Best example of this is Beretta who gave their guns gratid to one state LE agency causing a big spike in civilian sales. I have seen agencies change 5 times in ten years...every change was to what the gun rags were calling the newest and best.

So if I can match a .45 ft/lbs and train for 5 bucks less a box and have a smaller gun with more rounds per mag, Why not go with a .40?

So if I can match a .40 ft/lbs and train for less money per box and have a smaller gun with more rounds per mag, why not go with a 9mm?

 

[Mike J]

I like my .40 caliber pistols. My only 9mm is a subcompact. I would not want to shoot .40 in gun that size. I do not feel undergunned when I carry the 9. I would say get what you like & shoot best. When guns and ammunition were difficult to come by during the Obama Scare I could always find a couple of boxes of .40 at Wal Mart. I couldn't find 9 without going to the local gouger that charged twice Wal Mart prices for the same ammunition.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I have a 9 and a 40 in identical model guns. I am unconvinced one is better than the other. I think the 40 would be more impressive if it could be loaded for 9mm velocities. It can't, therefore, instead of having substantially more power than 9mm, it has marginally more power, but arguing that point would just be shifting the discussion from 40 vs 9 to 40 vs 10. I haven't shot a 10mm yet, but would like to some time.

 

[gearhead]

if you're going to pay for 40 might as well just get a 45 imho. i only shoot 9mm and 45 no reason to even look at a 40

I would say the same form the other end. Why even look at a .45 vs a .40.

I tried a nice, heavy, medium-full-size .40 as my second pistol. By all accounts the Beretta 8040 Cougar is a comfortable, easy-shooting pistol but I just don't care for .40. I much prefer shooting 9mm and .45, so all my autoloaders except the 5.7 are now in those two calibers.

 

[miles1]

Im sorry...I know im a newbie on this forum but i gotta wonder why anyone would start another 9 vs 40 thread other than just to troll.Just my 2 cents.....

 

[LawScholar]

9mm shooters always list the ways that 9 can reach .40 performance. Note that .40 shooters never have to make such justifications. Plus, in my neck of the woods price is almost identical.

Honestly, though, this debate is Sisyphian. Once a month this debate comes, and we all willingly roll the boulder.

Shoot what you like.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Problem solved.

Buy a .40 Browning Hi Power.

Buy a .9mm Browning High Power barrel, recoil spring and magazines.

Switch barrels as needed to shoot 9mm or .40.

If you feel really frisky, buy a .22 conversion unit as well.

 

[Smoovbiscuit]

I don't think we can make this decision for you. It depends on your preference, and what size gun your looking into.

But my opinion is if you have the money, and can manage the extra recoil of the .40, go for it. There are quite a few .40s that can be easily converted to 9mm, which is what I would do if I had the money.

9mm ammunition is cheaper than .40, by a decent amount. Not by a lot if your looking at buying one box, but if you shoot a lot it adds up fast.

I personally chose a full size 9mm because I can handle the recoil better, making for better follow up shots. Also I enjoy the lower cost of 9mm because I'm poor and can't afford to go shooting near as much as I'd like. My first handgun was a glock 22 .40, which I sold because I was in debt. I also decided I'm not a glock guy, I prefer double/single action handguns. I shoot my cheap Ruger 95 9mm better than I could ever shoot my glock. But everyones different.

But its hard to argue .40s ballistic capabilities. If I was LEO I would probably go with a .40 or .45. As I said, we can't make this decision for you, go try some 9mm and .40s and see what you shoot best.

 

[451 Detonics]

I do want to say I don't think there is anything wrong with the .40, just as there is nothing wrong with Rocky Road ice cream...just doesn't do anything for me that chocolate ice cream won't.

What I am saying is don't expect the .40 to outperform the 9mm by any significant amount. If you like it fine, it works but it isn't the magic bullet many make it out to be.

 

[armyfazer]

I've got a Glock 23. I shoot .40 and .357SIG with just a barrel change. Change the magazines and barrel again and you can shoot 9mm out of it too! There, problem solved!

Bottom line, there is no "right" or "wrong". Use quality personal defense ammo out of a quality weapon and most importantly.....SHOT PLACEMENT!

Good luck

 

[Zerodefect]

Line up some phone books and shoot them. (For those that allready have .40 and 9mm) There is a marginal difference in power. But I like to have as much power as I can without hurting my performance, follow up shots, etc. etc.

I try to find a platform that works well for me. Then I pick the largest caliber that I can shoot effectively in that pistol.

Since I shoot a Glock 23 (.40) as well as a Glock 19 (9mm). I went with the 23 over the 19.

With 1911's, I shoot weaker .45 better than 10mm, so all my 1911's are .45.

 

[bruzer]

Join the military and shoot the 9mm. After that become a LEO and shoot the .40. Then you'll have first hand knowledge of what is best. I do like the idea of the Glock 22 or 23 and then buying a 9mm barrel and magazines to shoot both rounds.
Mike

 

[armyfazer]

I haven't tried the 9mm in the 23 yet. But you can definitely feel the difference when you switch from .40 to .357!

 

[jawn]

I think with premium defensive loads, the 9mm is perfectly adequate as a defensive weapon, perhaps just as adequate as a .40 S&W weapon, provided that you're not in a law-enforcement military role where barrier penetration is considered a positive thing.

I know I can put a dozen 9mm rounds down range with far better accuracy than I can with the same weapon chambered in .40S&W. Add to the fact that I have added capacity in 9mm, I don't really see any "compromise" for me personally.

Now, if you think you're going to need to shoot through car windows regularly, a .40S&W makes a fair deal of sense.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

Wow!

Sorry, I wasn't trolling; and I wasn't trying to be unclear: my 9mm is a revolver.

That was a lesson and now doubt; but I forgot my popcorn

I am such a newbie I guess that I didn't realize you could change barrels/springs/&mags to change the caliber on autos.

I'll check out the Glocks and the brownings.

Thanks again.

 

[Skylerbone]

Ex, have a look at Storm Lake Barrels (one of several manufacturers) as they make what are known as drop-in conversion barrels. They are available for several major manufacturer's pistol platforms. The M&P line from S&W is another convertible (hint hint).

 

[M&PVolk]

I will buck the trend and say go with the .40. I have, and continue to believe that the .40 is the best self defense round available today. You get a round with a proven track record that will fit into smaller frame guns and still carry high capacity.

The defense of 9mm being "as good as" the .40 is filled with contradictions. You will hear that the 9mm has lower recoil, making it easier to get follow up shots. The same people will tell you to load your 9mm in +p or +p+ to ensure stopping power, raising the level of recoil to .40 levels or perhaps even higher. So, you practice with a low recoil load and save the hard recoiling load for when you are under life and death stress. Not the ideal IMO. It seems only a matter of common sense that it would be better to adjust to more recoil at the onset with a bigger caliber. A .40 is going to give you more power without having to move outside of it's standard recoil and power characteristics.

Also, 9mm defenders will justify the selection with the cost of ammo, but when you start talking defense loads, ammo cost considerations go out the window, with the "what is your life worth" argument. I actually agree with that argument, only, I think it applies to everything in regards to your self defense weapon. If my ammo costs $2 to $5 more a box to get a better round with a stable recoil pattern in practice or defense loads, I am going with that round. Again, another win for the .40.

Now, I am not bashing the 9mm, but I would only go with it in a very small platform gun, or if I were comfortable with its ability to stop an assailant WITHOUT having to move to exotic high pressure loads. If meet one or both of those criteria, go for the 9mm, otherwise, go bigger.

I think of the 9mm as a target or pocket pistol round, the .45 as a 1911 round, and the .40 as a SD round.

 

[bcp280z]

I shoot 40 better than the 45, and the M&P40 holds 15+1, so does the Beretta M9, not too sure of the M&P 9 so maybe not such a good argument :/

9mm is too easy to master, have you no sense of fun?

 

[Hurricane]

Some of you act as if going from a standard 9 to a +P or +P+ is like stepping up to .44 magnum.

I may be biased, as I started handgun shooting with .44 magnum, but the recoil increase between standard and +P loads are minimal to me. I was very disappointed the first time I shot a .38 special +P. One of those "That was it?" moments.

Stepping up to a top-end defensive load in .40 will no doubt have more recoil than a standard .40 round. The point is to practice what you carry. Even if you put 2000 rounds of your carry ammo in your gun, it's there for a purpose and is handling it. The gun you rely on shouldn't be that fragile. I understand older guns will have that issue.

Regardless of all that, either caliber will do the job, as stated it is all about peace of mind. Go with what works best for you, and don't measure your own self worth by what you choose to purchase/possess/use. You aren't anything more or less by what you choose to pick up. It's a tool.

 

[NG VI]

I think the 40 would be more impressive if it could be loaded for 9mm velocities. It can't, therefore, instead of having substantially more power than 9mm,

Uhhh...


.40 pretty much matches 9mm sectional density for sectional density in velocity, i.e. the 180s are in the same velocity range as the 147s, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, the 155s are the same speed as the 124s, often faster than the 124s by a good amount but not quite as fast as the 115+P and +P+ loads, the 165s are a pretty good match for the speed of the standard pressure 124s, and the real light 135s are usually faster than the 115+P loads.

I'm not sure I get the issue. .40 ballistically is very similiar to 9mm, you just get an extra thirty or so grains of bullet and a millimeter wider bullet for any given speed/density class. It's like 9mm Heavy. Velocity accounts for energy numbers more so than weight, which is why a lot of .40 loads don't appear to give a huge foot pounds energy boost over a similiar format of 9mm. They always deliver more though.

Whether it helps an individual shooter all that much is up to them, but the .40 does everything the 9mm does only with a little more gusto. I like them both, a lot. Cut my teeth on .40 and .357 and then worked my way around to a couple of great 9mms and a couple of conversion barrels, it was nice to branch out. But the calibers aren't really any different from each other in what they deliver.

 

[RobMoore]

You know how some forums have a minimum post count required to use the classifieds section?

I think we need a minimum post count required to use "vs" when starting a new thread.

 

[NG VI]

9mm in +p or +p+ to ensure stopping power, raising the level of recoil to .40 levels or perhaps even higher.

You know I really don't think +P or +P+ 9mm is all that heavier recoiling, definitely not to the point that it is a match for the recoil of a .40. Then again I don't really feel that the .40 in a service auto is such a drastic difference from 9mm to make it a worse choice.

I think if someone shoots 9mm *that* much better, then go with a 9mm for defense, or if you are getting one of the guns smaller than the Glock 27, you probably are going to appreciate a 9mm. 9mm is a fine defense caliber, it's very efficient at what it does.

FWIW the two dedicated 9mms I own are both in the "compact but still viable as a service pistol" class, an FNP-9M and a CZ-75D PCR. They are both outstanding pistols.