9mm vs 40

[ExAgoradzo]

I don't own an auto.

Why would I buy a 40 cal instead of a 9mm?

The only reason I can see at this moment is that I'd have more choices when ammo becomes harder to come buy (have 9mm currently)?

The next Q will obviously be, "which model to buy?"

 

[chaim]

OK, I'm probably one of the few people who loves both calibers so as much as is possible, there is no bias here.

I'd probably go with the .40 for a first/only between the two, but first, the positives and negatives.

9mm: It is cheaper. Not by much these days, but even marginal savings is savings and translates to more ammo which means more practice. With the right ammo it is terrific for self defense, but ammo selection is much more critical than with larger chamberings. In smaller guns it is much more comfortable to shoot, and in larger guns it can hold more ammo.

.40S&W: These days, the price difference is pretty small between the two, so I don't see price as much of a disadvantage for .40 anymore. With 9mm, the wrong ammo choice can result in pretty subpar defensive performance. The big advantage of .45ACP is that the larger bore gives you far more flexibility in ammo choices because even the worst defensive choices are as good or better than the good and best choices in some of the smaller calibers. Well, .40S&W seems to be large enough to have the same advantage.

I think the main thing it comes down to is what size gun do you want to use it in. The smaller, near pocket, subcompacts? Go 9mm as .40 may just be too uncomfortable. The bigger subcompacts and up, they tame .40S&W just fine so go with power. I have a Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro, not exactly a large gun, and I have put thousands of rounds through it and find it perfectly comfortable for any reasonable length range session.

 

[tipoc]

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask...

You say that you don't have a handgun, well at least not a semi.

I don't own an auto.

Why would I buy a 40 cal instead of a 9mm?

I don't know why you would. How could I know why you prefer one over the other? Should I guess why you would?

The only reason I can see at this moment is that I'd have more choices when ammo becomes harder to come buy (have 9mm currently)?

So first you have no handgun, then you have one in 9mm "...(have 9mm currently)"

So right now you have a gun in 9mm and you want to know if you should also buy a second one in 40 S&W so that you would "...have more choices when ammo becomes harder to come buy...".

OK, so that may not be the best reason I've ever heard for buying a gun in 40S&W, or any gun, but it is a good enough excuse for buying one. 40 S&W is a good round and more powerful than the 9mm. It's good to know more guns and rounds than one, (especially one that you may or may not have) so go and buy you one.

tipoc

 

[Fisherdave10]

I find that 9mm is significantly cheaper than .40 anywhere. For example, Midwayusa's price for 100 rounds of 9mm 115gr FMJ WWB is $24. Their price for 100 rounds of .40 165gr FMJ WWB is $38.

I would consider buying a .40 IF I could convert it to 9mm (for practice or plinking). An M&P .40 converts to 9mm for the cost of a barrel and magazine. You can have it in .357 Sig for just the cost of a barrel. The recoil springs are identical for all 3 calibers from my understanding. I appreciate versatility.

I don't think you can up-convert a 9mm to a .40.

 

[joepav]

I agree with Fisherdave get a 40 and you can convert it to 9 or 357sig.

 

[Skylerbone]

My reasoning for the 40 S&W was quite simply that I reload and local law enforcement litters the range with once fired brass for it. Ten years ago they did the same with 9mm but I wasn't interested. I kick myself to this day.

The cost of premium bullets is a few dollars cheaper for 9mm and the same goes for loaded ammo. With the correct ammo a 9mm will be a fine choice for any number of uses from punching paper to home defense. In fact, with the lower pressures produced the 9mm should enable a pistol to last longer than an otherwise identical 40. With JHP ammo the 9mm offers the advantage of increased velocity and therefore a better chance of expansion.

The choice of which is really up to you. If you're looking for a specific model recommendation I would suggest the new S&W M&P VTAC in 9mm (also available in 40 S&W). It offers a 4 1/4" barrel, is light weight and comes with dual fiber optic sights AND tritium night sights. If I didn't have 3 M&Ps already (2 in 9mm, 1 in 40) I would buy one today. $650 at Bud's.

Keep in mind that your specific purpose may play a big role in what you choose. The above is not a pocket pistol by any stretch and isn't necessarily the most accurate pistol available. Take care to research what is available so you get what you want the first time.

 

[REAPER4206969]

In fact, with the lower pressures produced the 9mm should enable a pistol to last longer than an otherwise identical 40.

9x19 is the same pressure as .40, and 9x19 +P or +P+ is much higher pressure.

 

[wrs840]

If you don't own either, get a 9mm. I own and like a bunch of both, but me and all my LEO friends seem to agree that a 9mm is easier to shoot well than a .40.

I personally prefer 3rd gen Smiths most, though I own others. This is where "all my LEO friends" would disagree with me.

They all like Glocks.

 

[mgmorden]

9mm is cheaper to shoot. 9mm handguns USUALLY have higher capacities. 9mm recoils less.

Honestly, I don't think the .40S&W is a bad round at all - it's just that I think 9mm is fine as a defensive round so why not choose the round that's easier to shoot and can fit more rounds into a mag?

I do think though that if the 10-round mag cap nonsense ever passes, you'll see a BIG jump in popularity of .40S&W, since it's right at that level where 10 rounds is about what a standard sized gun will hold anyways.

 

[mljdeckard]

I had a G-22. If I had to choose today, I would rather have a G-17. I just see so little difference in real-world applications, I would rather have a few more rounds, lower recoil, and cheaper ammo.

 

[klash545]

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

 

[buttrap]

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.

 

[Pilot]

I think there is a lot of pressure on newer shooters to get a .40 due to LEO popularity and that its a newer round. Newer is always better, right?

I don't think there is much real world difference between 9 and .40 with modern ammo and people seem to get caught up in the minutia with these two rounds. I really have no time to start reloading for another caliber or want to pay more for factory ammo, so I've never bought a .40.

9MM and .45 for me.

 

[Sky]

Maybe a consideration given your parameters of ammo availability would be to get another 9mm since you own a pistol already. Stock up on 9mm ( I just bought 1000 rnds for around $200) and then when you think you have enough ammo to last for a while start working on purchasing your next caliber. The more calibers you have the more logistic problems present themselves to me.

Everyone has to have a .22
Everyone needs a HD or carry Pistol
Everyone needs a shot gun
Everyone needs a rifle

Above are 4 different ammo needs unless unless the pistol caliber and rifle caliber are the same. Just a thought or consideration. My safe is to small to stack ammo for everything already!!! Yes I know get a bigger safe!

The only thing that has kept me from doing a trade of my 12 gauge for a AK-74 is I know I will want more ammo than I have room for!!

 

[Jed Carter]

Out of the same platform, I have faster, more accurate follow up shots with a 9mm pistol than a .40S&W. It is unlikely that you will neutralize a threat with only one shot from any pistol. You live in Socialist California so a 10 round capacity is the limit, just get a lot of magazines! I like the 1911 platform and in a 9mm it is incredibly fun easy and accurate to shoot from an all steel 1911. SIG P226 P229, Glock G17 G19, FNH FNP9, FNP40 and S&W M&P are some great pistols. STI, SIG, Dan Wesson, S&W, Springfield Armory and Colt make some of the best production 1911s for the money with STI, being my favorite.

 

[ATBackPackin]

In my opinion there is only one advantage of having .40 s&w over the 9mm and that is it's minimally better ballistics. However the advantages of having the converse is more rounds, less recoil, easier follow ups, and cheaper ammo. Now I may have some concern if I didn't feel that the 9mm could accomplish the mission, but since that is not the case I doubt I will ever own anything in .40 s&w. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with that round, it's just a personal opinion.

 

[jbr]

You need one of each of course! I agree 9mm is easier,faster follow ups and overall I prefer to shoot 9's but my Beretta 96 is a ton of fun! I prefer 40's in a large format handgun to dampen recoil and muzzle flip - but i have never shot a small format .40. I prefer to carry a 9 as i figure in a pressure situation i can handle it better and have a few extra rounds. IF it is for carry - just make sure you handle it well with out a ton of concentration needed to hit your target.

 

[Ala Tom]

Energy is what makes your shot mess up the bad guy who's going to stick a knife in you. The more energy the more you are going to disable him. A 9mm gets only 355 at best. A 40 gets 485 to 500 in most guns assuming you choose the most effective ammo available. A 45 gets only 450. To me it is clear you want the 40 if you are concerned about more than the price of ammo.

I live on a pension - not rich. But I am not concerned about the price of ammo. I will never shoot so much of it that it will break me. I will shoot tons of 22 LR when I want to hear bangs. I will buy defense ammo at $1.50 per round since that is what my life will depend on. I would figure on buying one magazine-full every ten years if I was a young man. How many defense situations do you expect to get into?

 

[ATBackPackin]

Energy is what makes your shot mess up the bad guy who's going to stick a knife in you. The more energy the more you are going to disable him. A 9mm gets only 355 at best. A 40 gets 485 to 500 in most guns assuming you choose the most effective ammo available

Sorry but I disagree. Yes there is 9mm ammo that has low energy, but that is not the case with +P ammo. To say that 9mm will only get you 335 ft/lbs is completely false. Here is a direct comparison of very popular SD round that shows while the .40 s&w absolutely has more energy, the 9mm +P isn't merely going to give the knife wielding bad guy a hang nail.

Again nothing wrong with the .40 s&w, it's just not for me.

Shawn

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=310242

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=113438

 

[451 Detonics]

I know this is an unpopular view with many people but when the 40 S&W was first introduced it was a much discussed subject within the industry.

The 40 has no serious advantage over the 9mm with today's defensive ammo. It, the 40S&W, was (and this comes from an industry insider) a marketing ploy. Smith and Wesson had lost a huge part of the law enforcement market to Beretta and needed a way to get it back. They looked at several wildcats and settled on a shortened 10mm and made the caliber a proprietary one by adding their name to it. They "encouraged" several writers to claim it to be the perfect law enforcement caliber and regained a good part of their market. In reality it is better than the 9mm when both are loaded with ball but with a well made hollowpoint they are actually about equal.

As a side this made Ruger so angry they refused to call the round the 40S&W and instead marked their guns with 40 Auto marked on them instead. This was the first of a rush pf proprietary cartridges followed by the 357 Sig and today we have the 480 Ruger, 450 Marlin, 500 S&W, 32NAA and many others.

Bottom line is the 9mm is normally cheaper to shoot, has lower recoil and muzzle flip which allows faster follow up shots, and holds more in the magazine...all without giving up any "stopping power" edge.

A 9mm gets only 355 at best. A 40 gets 485 to 500 in most guns assuming you choose the most effective ammo available.

Not true...CorBon easily hits 434 with it's 125 loading, others like the Federal +P+ exceed 500. btw...Corbon 185 45acp hits 543.

 

[Hangingrock]

With more Saturdays in my past then in my future the 40-S&W isn’t on my list of things to do. From my view point the 40-S&W is a compromise. Being stuck in my ways and not looking for new horizons to conquer if it can’t be done with the 9mm-Luger or 45ACP I don’t want to do it.

 

[Hurricane]

A 9mm gets only 355 at best. A 40 gets 485 to 500 in most guns assuming you choose the most effective ammo available.

This is false. My 9mm load of choice offers 440 foot pounds of energy. Yes, it is a +P+ round, but more important to me is the bullet design and what it does on impact. Having been a hunter for many years I am confident in my selection. In my hands, the Winchester Ranger 9mm Luger +P+ 127 grain T-Series (RA9TA) feels like a .38 Special +P at most.

Buffalo Bore 9mm 115 grain +P+ offers 500 foot pounds of energy.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=641328

I don't think someone would rely on the FMJ win white box (363 foot pounds) but even if they did, the hotter .38 Specials (+P's) are around the 350 mark. Most are closer to 260.

Bullet design and shot placement are bigger factors.

 

[kalashnikov74]

The reason I chose a .40 is because the fmj ammo is just about as cheap as fmj 9mm. So training is cheaper, however I don't have to be as particular on defensive ammo. I can get ammo that passes 9mm +P+ ft/lbs in ballistics for about 2/3 to 1/2 the price. I got enough training in where I can have quick follow up shot within 15-20 yards. At 5 yards it's as fast as I can pull the trigger all on torso. It's all in the training, and I can't afford a .45 to train and get good with, and a .40 can get up to 569 ft/lbs with decent .40 ammo. A .45 is from 450 to 580 ft/lbs.

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?

 

[Onmilo]

I did a lot of shooting with the .40 S&W and 10mm auto when they first became popular.
After extensive testing and even blowing up a 10mm EAA Witness, my conclusion is the .40 S&W was a marketing coup and a result of pure marketing genius.
As a cartridge it offers nothing exemplary over either the 9mm or the .45 acp and actually has quite a few drawbacks such as less than stellar accuracy potential, extremely limited pressure curve window, tricky to safely reload, accelerated wear on most pistols designed to fire it, H&K USP seems to be the exception here but was designed from the outset to handle the pressures the cartridge generates.

If you are really concerend about "when ammo becomes harder to come by"
I would look in to acquiring a good .22 L.R.

 

[Hurricane]

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

Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ $27 a box of 50

http://www.sgammo.com/product/winchester/50rd-9mm-winchester-ranger-127gr-p-t-series-ra9ta


Federal 115 grain +P+ (9BPLE) $20 a box of 50

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM406-5.html