9mm vs 40

[BeerSleeper]

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

I like that. How about 10,000 posts?

 

[brnmuenchow]

I would get the .9x19mm. My father once asked me the difference between the .9mm, the .40 S&W, and the .45ACP, and the only real advantage he could see was that for some people feel that they must get a .40 caliber pistol but don't want the recoil of a .45ACP would consider it as an option. However even after explaining all the differences He or I still don't see a good reason to get one we both like the .9mm and .45ACP's so for people like us it's hard to really warm up to the .40 S&W.

 

[NG VI]

the only real advantage he could see was that for some people feel that they must get a .40 caliber pistol but don't want the recoil of a .45ACP

Got nothing to do with recoil, it's all about pistol frame size. Don't see too many 13, 14, 15+1 .45 ACP pistols without either a ridiculously long frame (vertically) or a caveat that they are not for people with small or many medium hands. It's all about getting a cartridge that delivers a little more bullet weight than a 9mm without having to drop to significantly sub-1000 foot per second velocities in the same pistol platforms as all the awesome feeling 9mms.

Personally I don't feel 9mm is underpowered or that in real world instances the .40 and .45 are all that much better, but they do deliver a little more than the 9mm.

 

[brnmuenchow]

NG VI: I'll tell a friend of mine that it has nothing to do with recoil as you say, seeing that he got a Beretta .40 S&W specifically for that reason. That was whole purpose of my father asking me that ques. when I told him my friend got one and why. Even though I don't own one, I have shot a few and the recoil was less than the .45ACP. Even if you are speaking about the round / frame size in ballistic terms that still does not change the reason's that people prefer a .40 S&W over a .45ACP in terms of recoil, frame size, or even just whatever other reason they can come up with. I just would not make a statement like that "Got nothing to do with recoil" to someone if that was a reason, it may not be your reason just someone else's.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

The same people will tell you to load your 9mm in +p or +p+ to ensure stopping power,

I'm really going to show my ignorance, but I've seen +p a few times; what does that mean?

Thanks,

 

[LawScholar]

Ex, +p is a high pressure round, +p+ even more so.

The pressure increases velocity, increasing impact energy and recoil.

 

[NG VI]

I've only owned one .45, it was a CZ 97B, have had four .40s to compare it to, a Glock 27, 23, CZ 40B, and a USP .40. The 97B felt most like the USP to shoot, that is, not a heavy recoiler at all. A little less than the USP actually. It was a heavy gun.


Compared to the Glocks it recoiled much less, and the 40B I didn't get a chance to shoot as much as I'd like but it felt like it recoiled a bit more than the USP or 97B. Your friend may have felt that the 96, a pretty weighty pistol with a wide backstrap, recoiled less than whatever .45 he was comparing it to, but a lot of people find the .40 to be a pretty snappy round compared to as similiar a .45 as can be had.

 

[Kimber_Kenny]

I faced the same question awhile back, so I bought both in the exact same platform (Taurus 96 and 100). After 15 minutes of shooting water-filled milk jugs in the horse pasture and observing the affect on the jugs, it was clear the the 9mm didn't put nearly as much energy into the target. The 9mm just punched a hole in the jug and then the water leaked out. The .40 made the jugs jump and split up. (Neither affected the jugs as dramatically as my S&W 686 in .357 mag. or my 1911 in 45 cal.)

Now, I appreciate the ballistic data (I'm an electrical engineer so I love and understand data!), all I'm saying is it was clear that if you told me I had to get shot in the butt with one of these rounds I'd choose the 9mm without hesitation. You just can't get the the same sense of the effect of the round by punching holes in paper targets at the range. It is not a subtle difference!

So I gave the 9mm to my nephew as a gift. He was thrilled with it, and I saved myself the expense of buying yet another set of reloading dies. The 9mm is a fun plinking caliber, but I already have plenty of .22s for that.

 

[gym]

If you are leaning to a 40 why not just get a 45? you can find plenty of guns in 40 that are the same size as a 9. Keltek makes one taurus slim, which I have and Glock 27 for 3 quick choices same gun chambered for both 9 or 40

 

[GreenMTNLife]

The performance of 9mm to .40 is about the same as .40 to .45. But with 9mm to .40 you lose two rounds of capacity, and from .40 to .45 you lose 5 rounds(in my platform of choice). I shoot both 9mm and .40 about equally so to me .40's the perfect compromise in power vs. capacity.

 

[easyrider604]

I have both 9 and 40. Like them equally.

IMO, buy 9mm first just because ammo is cheaper if you don't reload. Or toss a coin, if you reload.

Every shooter should have both, and a .45acp 1911 and a .357 DA revolver.

 

[Robert101]

If you want to learn how to shoot well get a .22. If you want personal protection, shoot what you like. For me the answer is a 40, 45, or 10MM. For others it is 9MM, .380, or whatever. All of the reasons for my larger big bore preference is stated here and in other "verses" posts. Ahhhh, that felt good.

 

[Jonah71]

I have both the G 23 and G 26. lately I'm carrying the 9mm more because of the difference in size and weight plus it's easier to conceal. I still don't feel comfortable recomending one over the other. If I can't even make up my own mind, I'm certainly not going to make suggestions to someone else. I'm so confused on the issue sometimes I'll carry the 23 with the 26 as a bug!

 

[aminyard]

Note that most law enforcement depts have ababdoned th 9mm (including the FBI). The 9mm is marginal as a defensive round. .40 165gr or 180gr vs 9mm 115gr is sort of obvious.

 

[miles1]

Note that most law enforcement depts have ababdoned th 9mm (including the FBI). The 9mm is marginal as a defensive round. .40 165gr or 180gr vs 9mm 115gr is sort of obvious.

If an intruder breaks into my house,before i shoot him dead ill be sure to apologize to him first for using a "marginal" defensive round with my glock 17.I also dont see most police or FBI using the .357 or 45cal either...doesnt mean it cant get the job done.

 

[amprecon]

I'm a Glock person, so I've had a G17, G19's, G21's, a G36 and a G23. I still have the G21, I just shoot that gun the best.
I had two G19's at one time and they are awesome, didn't go to the .40 because of all the hype about inaccuracy, heavy recoil etc., etc. Then I fired one and was impressed, so I traded and sold my G19's for a G23 and it was good.
But after many range trips and many extended range sessions with it I found it much harder to be accurate with compared to the G19's and I caught myself anticipating the recoil. It had a much sharper and snappier recoil compared to the G21.
I eventually sold the G23 and now only have the G21, but let me say this, I have enough faith in the 9mm that if I were to buy another Glock it would be the G19 without hesitation, awesome gun, easy recoil and accurate and 9mm will punch holes in things as good as the rest of them.

 

[Ala Tom]

This has certainly received a lot of comment. I should clarify my statement about the 355 ft lb energy level of 9mm. That was for normal pressure ammo. You can get more energy out of a 9mm round but only if you accept the additional stress on your gun of +P and +P+ loads. You still get a small bullet. I bought a 40 and am happy with it. I don't need to over-stress my gun to get energies of 445 and higher. I just need to choose my defense ammo. This is generally higher than 45ACP as well as higher than 9mm. If I want higher energy, but will accept a smaller bullet, I can buy a .357 Sig barrel and shoot that caliber with energies in the upper 500's and lower 600's. I may try that just for the fun of it.

If I want more energy, I will get a .357 magnum revolver or a .41 magnum revolver. I won't bother with a .45. But I have always admired the mechanics of a well-made 1911. I may get one of those someday if a pile of money falls on me - for the gun, not the caliber.

 

[AZ Five seveN]

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.

"Exotic high pressure loads..." Lol?

The 9mm Parabellum was developed in 1902. The current year is 2011, and we know that over time technology tends to change. Sure, +P and +P+ rounds may cause slightly more wear than an underpowered 115gr bullet originally developed in 1902. However, the pressure in a 9mm cartridge designated as +P is ~38,500 psi which is ~10% above the original SAAMI designation. The SAAMI designated pressure "limit" for .357 SIG is 40,000 PSI, however the load can handle up to 44,500 PSI.

So, how can you sit here and tell me that a gun which can fire 9mm, .40 S&W and .357 SIG is going to show considerably more wear when firing +P and +P+ rounds when a .357 SIG has considerably more pressure than a normal 9mm +P round? I hardly find that to be "exotic." If your gun is showing considerably more wear, it's likely not a gun I'd ever want to use.

My .02.

P.S. I load Federal Tactical HST 147gr +P in my P30, and it will expand as wide or wider than any comparable .40 S&W JHP on the market. Even the Federal Tactical HST loads in 165gr and 180gr won't expand wider on a regular basis than the 147gr. I've personally seen more than one bullet expand over .75," which is in the realm of the Winchester Ranger-T 230gr .45 ACP round. I hardly consider that to be "ineffective" for self defense.

 

[AZ Five seveN]

This has certainly received a lot of comment. I should clarify my statement about the 355 ft lb energy level of 9mm. That was for normal pressure ammo. You can get more energy out of a 9mm round but only if you accept the additional stress on your gun of +P and +P+ loads. You still get a small bullet. I bought a 40 and am happy with it. I don't need to over-stress my gun to get energies of 445 and higher. I just need to choose my defense ammo. This is generally higher than 45ACP as well as higher than 9mm. If I want higher energy, but will accept a smaller bullet, I can buy a .357 Sig barrel and shoot that caliber with energies in the upper 500's and lower 600's. I may try that just for the fun of it.

If I want more energy, I will get a .357 magnum revolver or a .41 magnum revolver. I won't bother with a .45. But I have always admired the mechanics of a well-made 1911. I may get one of those someday if a pile of money falls on me - for the gun, not the caliber.

Refer to my above post.

 

[NG VI]

I'm with AZ, and mostly because chamber pressures have almost nothing to do with a firearm's longevity, though it can have an impact on bore life expectancy. Momentum and inertia, recoil forces are what impacts a gun's life, and a +P or +P+ 9mm isn't going to generate nearly as much of those as a comparably intended .40 or .357 load.

 

[ckone]

I think I'm starting to like some of these "vs." threads as guys pull out some of the greatest BS ever trying to defend stuff or try and win them, and the "9 vs. .40" is a classic.

I'd like to interject some actual facts before I weigh in and share my take as the discussion is already pretty murky with all the BS being thrown around...

First, no agency ever wanted the .40, that's a fact. After several high profile shoot-outs in the late 80's and into the early 90's that had resulted in LEO deaths from facing better armed perps had made the news, when agencies started looking for better and improved ammo choices for the ubiquitous wonder 9's that had become the LE standard (mostly Glock 17's and 19's and Beretta 92's replacing lots of S&W revolvers), S&W wisely generated attention and created a buzz for themselves by talking up the virtues of the mighty 10mm and introduced some models squarely with the intent of snatching back some of their lost market share. The 10mm was and is a force to be reckoned with, even the best +P 9mm is just no match for it and it ended any argument, not many "9mm vs. 10mm" threads that's for sure... Anyways, while S&W had the spotlight and had made significant inroads towards convincing LEA's that there G17's & G19's and 92's were now children's toys and utterly inferior, they had a big problem... The 10mm was too powerful for majority of officers to handle, it was also breaking the models they had designed and was going to be expensive, not just in ammo cost, but also new leather and such for the agencies to "upgrade". So, someone at S&W got the great idea to cut the 10mm down to be less powerful and geniusly rename it the .40S&W cartridge, sure it wasn't really much better than 9mm at all, but they'd just spent a significant amount of time and money convincing the market that 9mm sucked, which turned out was nearly the same thing as convincing the market that the .40 was at the very least"better than crappy 9mm". They were on to something.
Now, the important thing to remember is that S&W did not make the .40 a success, Glock did! Glock beat S&W to the marketplace with their G22 chambered in the new wonder round, and Beretta had the 96 out fast too, bye bye agencies having to get new leather and throw away all their spare parts to switch platforms, goodbye 9mm, hello .40. That's what happend, that's how it happend.

IMO 9mm is still better, all other things mentioned already aside, I have yet to see almost anyone shoot a .40 better than a 9, even .45acp is easier to handle, what .40 may add in performance is wiped away by it's higher degree of difficulty for officers to use it effectively.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some LEA's make the switch back to 9mm as more and more emphasis returns to training over a certain caliber's mythical powers over another, it's cheaper and does tge job just as good, in fact since it allows LEO's to shoot better, it's actually better.

 

[THplanes]

This post is just filled with fail.

I think I'm starting to like some of these "vs." threads as guys pull out some of the greatest BS ever trying to defend stuff or try and win them, and the "9 vs. .40" is a classic.

I'd like to interject some actual facts before I weigh in and share my take as the discussion is already pretty murky with all the BS being thrown around...

First, no agency ever wanted the .40, that's a fact.

no it's not even close to a fact.

After several high profile shoot-outs in the late 80's and into the early 90's that had resulted in LEO deaths from facing better armed perps had made the news, when agencies started looking for better and improved ammo choices for the ubiquitous wonder 9's that had become the LE standard (mostly Glock 17's and 19's and Beretta 92's replacing lots of S&W revolvers), S&W wisely generated attention and created a buzz for themselves by talking up the virtues of the mighty 10mm and introduced some models squarely with the intent of snatching back some of their lost market share. The 10mm was and is a force to be reckoned with, even the best +P 9mm is just no match for it and it ended any argument, not many "9mm vs. 10mm" threads that's for sure... Anyways, while S&W had the spotlight and had made significant inroads towards convincing LEA's that there G17's & G19's and 92's were now children's toys and utterly inferior, they had a big problem... The 10mm was too powerful for majority of officers to handle,

Not even close to reality. The FBI was looking for a new round because of a paritcular shootout. They never even tested full power 10mm. They tested 10mm lite as loaded by a member of the test team. The round they adopted was the 10mm lite. Other agencies follow because the FBI must be correct.

it was also breaking the models they had designed and was going to be expensive, not just in ammo cost, but also new leather and such for the agencies to "upgrade". So, someone at S&W got the great idea to cut the 10mm down to be less powerful and geniusly rename it the .40S&W cartridge,

The FBI is the one that came up with the idea to download the 10mm. At least you got this part sort of correct. S&W realized that the FBI lite 10mm could be loaded in a shorter cartridge that would fit in 9mm size guns. The problem with the 10mm S&W was not recoil, it was size and weight.

sure it wasn't really much better than 9mm at all, but they'd just spent a significant amount of time and money convincing the market that 9mm sucked, which turned out was nearly the same thing as convincing the market that the .40 was at the very least"better than crappy 9mm". They were on to something. Now, the important thing to remember is that S&W did not make the .40 a success, Glock did platforms, goodbye 9mm, hello .40. That's what happend, that's how it happend.

Neither company is responsable for the success of the .40, It was created for the FBI, adopted by the FBI and the FBI is responsable for it's success. Many agencies simply follow the FBI.

IMO 9mm is still better, all other things mentioned already aside, I have yet to see almost anyone shoot a .40 better than a 9, even .45acp is easier to handle, what .40 may add in performance is wiped away by it's higher degree of difficulty for officers to use it effectively.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some LEA's make the switch back to 9mm as more and more emphasis returns to training over a certain caliber's mythical powers over another, it's cheaper and does tge job just as good, in fact since it allows LEO's to shoot better, it's actually better.

The rest is just your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. It doesn't change the fact that the best .40 loads outperform the best 9mm loads in the FBI test protocols

 

[miles1]

This post is just filled with fail.



The rest is just your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. It doesn't change the fact that the best .40 loads outperform the best 9mm loads in the FBI test protocols

Actually your partly right...the problem was recoil.One source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10mm_Auto ,more sources upon request.

If your basing your prefered caliber soley based on bullet penetration then the 10mm would beat out the 9mm/38/45 and 40.Source: http://www.pointshooting.com/1a10mm.htm

But then again were also talking about real world use as well so aiming and recoil must also therefore take into effect.Its been said enough times on countless forums that there is NO MAGIC BULLET as hard as the 40 cal lovers might like to believe.I rest my case.

 

[PabloJ]

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?"

Even at height of ammo shortage Walmart shelf was full of .40s&w stuff. Under such circumstances you're choosing between real pistol and pistol that can be used as hammer or paper weight. Hope that helps make you decide.

 

[doc.lonestar]

OP - to be honest do yourself a huge favor and see if you can get your hands on them to shoot. The difference between the 9mm and 40sw in a compact or fullsize firearm is not a large one. Recoil, follow up shots have proven to be easy with either platform - given the right firearm matched to your specific needs.

I personally find the 40 more to my liking than the 9mm BUT I prefer a 45acp to both.