Glock... Stick with 9mm or?

[bullfrog99]

I will try to keep this relatively brief and somewhat coherent.

First a bit of background

My carry piece is a Glock 19.

My backup is a S&W 442 with crimson trace laser-grips. I originally purchased the 442 because of the utility of being able to fire the pistol while still concealed in a jacket pocket (I was living in Michigan at the time - jackets are standard issue nearly six months of the year).

I now live in the south and jacket carry opportunity is limited. Given this, I decided some time ago to replace my 442 with a Glock 26.

While saving up for my new toy, I did the normal guy thing and spent my time looking at pictures of and reading about my future acquisition. In reading however I found several articles and even videos describing these .40 to 9mm conversion barrels that can be had.
Coupled with a 9mm magazine They SEEM to work well. Furthermore, over the past six-ish months - 9mm ammo has been rather scarce where I lived in Oklahoma. .40 S&W on the other hand has been sitting six boxes deep all across the shelf for months. Having recently moved to Louisiana, I noticed the trend is the same here - 9mm, if it can be found is usually the high dollar stuff, and .40 S&W is sitting again fat and heavy on the shelves. Now my hope is by next Xmas to have saved enough to get a progressive reloader and start loading 9mm for myself - so ammo to shoot isn't the issue, but I can't ignore some simple facts - The local police use .40, and even in this ammo availability "slump" the gun stores are fully stocked with .40. So as far as access to ammunition in one of those often thought of SHTF or Zombie invasions everyone loves to talk about - .40 may be more available then 9mm. Even it it isnt, would it not be prudent to have the ability to shoot both rounds?
Should I get a Glock 27 instead of the 26? maybe even go so far as to swap my Glock 19 out for a 23?

I drink from the 9mm Kool-aid as far as a defensive cartridge goes. I don't feel i need a .40 or a .45 against two legged predators, but I also appreciate the concept of having bullets when you need them - and a handgun that can fire 9mm, .40, and even 357 sig by simply throwing a few extra barrels (and magazines) into your kit seems to make sense.

I guess what i'm asking is:
Is my brain trying to justify my natural urge to spend money on things I want but may not need, or does this line of thinking have any bearing in reality?

Another random thought:
A carry gun may be pressed into a more outdoor role. Would a .40 with 180 FMJ be a better gun in the woods then the lowly 9mm against lions and tigers and bears oh my? Yes I know neither are great - Thats what my Glock 20 10mm is for, but if i didn't "plan" on being in the woods...

First world problems eh?

 

[TrailWolf]

Been through the same process - you're over thinking - keep your G26.

I keep seeing Police Depts. move away from the .40 in favor of the 9...

With quality JHPs there is really no reason to go to a .40 and shot placement trumps all. So... practice, practice, practice.

If you really want a .40, save up and get one in addition - I would go for a full-sized G22 over a 23 or 27.

Quench your urge to buy something by picking up a Spyderco on Amazon

 

[HammsBeer]

I love the 9mm so I vote stay with 9mm. Other than the scarse 9mm ammo right now, it's an excellent SD caliber. I wouldn't want to stake my life on a less-than-ideal conversion barrel. But if you want gobs of ammo right now, .40 is your answer, but if you plan to reload soon, just stick with 9mm.

 

[Theohazard]

The difference in effectiveness between a 9mm and .40 (and .45) is a statistical zero; studies have shown there's just not a measurable difference between them. Pick whichever one you shoot best and can practice with the most.

 

[silverexpress]

Make the jump, from 9 to 10.

9mm is old news.

I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?

40 > 9

But my question to you is why the .40?

To make a legit jump from 9 if you are not going for the slower and more powerful old man .45 you need to show you mean biz by jumping to the 10mm. A caliber capable of getting 1600 fps with over 700 muzzle energy is king of the hill. It doesn't kick half as bad as most say it does, mostly being most those people have never owned a 10mm let alone shot one. The g29 which is my everyday carry piece is just compact enough to be comfortable to be a legit carry piece for most.

You have a g20, you should know the ability of the 10mm. Grab a 29 and say goodbye to those two inferior calibers.

Do not carry conversion barrels of any kind, those are for the range.

 

[Theohazard]

I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?

It always amazes me that people think that small differences in energy and velocity will equate to actual differences in real-world effectiveness. But they don't. The difference in real-world effectiveness between 9mm and .40 is so small that it barely registers in actual studies:

http://www.usconcealedcarry.net/2012/07/17/choosing-best-caliber-concealed-carry/

That's a study involving real-world military and police shootings, and even though the 9mm is handicapped because the military uses 9mm FMJ, there's still no statistically significant difference.

And here's an article by a trauma surgeon and tactical medical specialist:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/we...opping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx

The funny thing is that that you admit the .40 kicks a little more. Well, that's what makes the .40 a less effective round than 9mm: It has no measurable advantage in actual effectiveness, yet it has more recoil which makes follow-up shots slower and less accurate.

 

[atblis]

Since when does the 40 have a higher muzzle velocity?

 

[vinantfal]

I think you guys a missing his point. The issue isn't the effectiveness of 9mm vs. 40 and/or 45; it's the availability of 40 vs. the scarity of 9mm.

 

[Fiv3r]

If you're comfortable with the 9mm, I think it's a fine caliber. My nightstand gun is a 9mm. It's really hard to argue with a lightweight pistol that sports that much firepower.

I do have a full size .40 mostly for when 9mm is scare like it is right now in my neck of the woods. That said, it cost wasn't an issue I would pick the .40 every time. I rather like the performance. Then again, if cost wasn't the issue, I'd go with a .45

 

[mongoslow]

here is my $.02 worth, I own a G-19 and a G-23 same pistol except the 23 has a bigger hole in the end but....I like big holes I leave the 19 with my wife and i carry the 23 every day, I'm also thinking of getting the .357 sig barrel just to see if i like it and if i have to i can put in a 9MM barrel if for some strange reason i cant find a box of .40 somewhere, so my answer get a G-23 the extra barrels and mags and have 3 pistols gor less than $900. I will say i dont like the baby Glocks but thats me if you like them the same thought process applies to the 27 as to the 23. Now its up to you

 

[Tcruse]

Here in the DFW area, 9mm is back. Even at WalMart in the afternoon. You will pay about the same for 9mm as .40 S&W. You also will see some brands that are new. The BrassMax from Italy seems to be good stuff, but the others I have not tried. Yesterday, purchased 3 - 100 round boxes of 9mm Winchester for $27 per box. Now, I would suggest that you buy a little extra when you see it, if the government starts up more anti-gun actions it will again be hard to find. As a side note, .22LR is still difficult to find here.
It appears locally, that .45ACP is being used a lot more than .40 at the local ranges. Probably due to the recent popularity of the 1911/

 

[JDR]

The 100 round cans of BrassMax 9mm from Wally's is decent range ammo and the price is right. I buy it every time I see it.

 

[jmr40]

I think you guys a missing his point. The issue isn't the effectiveness of 9mm vs. 40 and/or 45; it's the availability of 40 vs. the scarity of 9mm.

EXACTLY

But buying a 40 is not the solution.


The answer is to have enough ammo stored at home to get through lean times. 9mm has always been cheaper than 40 or 45 and always will. 9mm has always offered higher mag capacity in equal sized guns, and always will. The difference in performance between the 3 has always been insignificant, and always will. In my lifetime I've seen shortages happen twice. The money spent on buying additional guns in other calibers or conversions to shoot other calibers would be better spent on more ammo for common calibers.

 

[el Godfather]

9mm is old news.

I see Theohazard says there is zero difference between the 9 and 40. Not true. The .40 is about 100 more fps and 200 more muzzle energy on average. The .40 may not be much more but it beats the 9 in every category except the "which one kicks a lil more"?

40 > 9

But my question to you is why the .40?

To make a legit jump from 9 if you are not going for the slower and more powerful old man .45 you need to show you mean biz by jumping to the 10mm. A caliber capable of getting 1600 fps with over 700 muzzle energy is king of the hill. It doesn't kick half as bad as most say it does, mostly being most those people have never owned a 10mm let alone shot one. The g29 which is my everyday carry piece is just compact enough to be comfortable to be a legit carry piece for most.

You have a g20, you should know the ability of the 10mm. Grab a 29 and say goodbye to those two inferior calibers.

Do not carry conversion barrels of any kind, those are for the range.

Well stated.

 

[Teachu2]

I own and carry a G26. My oldest owns and carries a G27. My nephew has a G27 with a LW 9mm conversion barrel. If I were buying again, I'd buy a G27 and a conversion barrel. I have a pair of G23s with 9mm and .357Sig barrels.

Oddly enough, all four of the 27s and 23s do great with LW 9mm conversions using the original .40SW magazines. They function flawlessly with everything from WWB to Gold Dots, and the .40SW mags hold a couple extra 9mm rounds. YMMV, but they work great for me.

 

[jjones45]

Keep your trusted glock 19 and get a walther ppq m2 in 40. I always suggest having more than just one caliber. You see what happens when there is a scare. The most popular cartridges disappear for months at a time. You have seen there was 40 six boxes deep when 9mm was long gone. The proof is in the pudding. I suggest the ppq because I have a glock 23 that is a good, reliable, dependable gun but since I got my ppq the old glock just isn't the same. Give me a fmj 40 over 9 for bear or lion if I had to choose between the two although both are not really recommended. The 10mm option was a good suggestion as well

 

[OrangePwrx9]

Keep the G19 and keep the 442. Next expenditure should be for a reloading press (single stage or turret, nothing fancy), a reloading manual, and components/dies to reload 9mm and .38 Spcl. Once you have a stash of several hundred or a thousand 9mm rounds on the shelf, you've placed yourself beyond the reach of market vagaries.

Then buy the G26 if you still want it. The Glock was designed around the 9mm cartridge, so it's reasonable to expect the most reliable performance and the greatest margin of safety from 9mm Glocks.

Until our illustrious governor restricted mag. cap. to 7 rounds, I was perfectly happy with 9mm. The mag-cap issue now has me moving to .45 ACP. If I've only a few, they're gonna be "stoppers"...at least that's how I see it.

 

[Inebriated]

Is my brain trying to justify my natural urge to spend money on things I want but may not need, or does this line of thinking have any bearing in reality?

You're trying to spend money. Spend that $550 for another Glock on a reloading setup and all the components if you're concerned about availability. $300 for a basic single-stage reloading setup, and $250 for components. You could get components for 2000 rounds of 9mm for $250. $25 for powder, $60 for 2k primers, $160 for 2k bullets. Bam, $250 for 2000 rounds of 9mm has just about paid off your initial equipment investment in savings. If you could get 2000 rounds of even Federal Champ at $13/box, you've saved $270.

A carry gun may be pressed into a more outdoor role. Would a .40 with 180 FMJ be a better gun in the woods then the lowly 9mm against lions and tigers and bears oh my? Yes I know neither are great - Thats what my Glock 20 10mm is for, but if i didn't "plan" on being in the woods...

It really depends on what's in your woods, but if 9mm with 147gr hard cast or FMJ won't kill it, .40 S&W with 180gr hard cast or FMJ probably won't be much more authoritative. Have you looked into the G30 or G29? .45 Super and 10mm are a much greater step-up from .40, than .40 is from 9mm.

 

[mgmorden]

I own and shoot both, but I'd take 9mm over .40S&W any day of the week.

9mm benefits:

(1) Cheaper.
(2) Higher capacity for a given frame size.
(3) Less recoil (which means faster, more accurate follow-up shots).

40 S&W benefits:
(1) Marginally better terminal performance.

Extra availability on the shelves might be ok for practice, but as long as you have your 2-3 defensive mags loaded that's not really that important. The scenario's about what's more common that you'll be scavenging if the world comes to an end are just fantasies and have little bearing in the real world.

 

[hentown]

I have no use for .40 S&W, but the OP's logic is sound. By every account that I've seen, the .40/9mm conversion barrels work great.

I currently have about 8k 9mm on hand, so supply isn't a problem for me.

 

[GLOOB]

My personal opinion is that my G27 is not "Glock reliable." Top end loads barely work with a new spring, which is shot in under 1k of such fodder. Stiffer aftermarket springs make the gun really easy to "limpwrist," if you ever find yourself using an unorthodox grip or your off hand.

The Glock action unlocks very quickly. As designed, the 9mm versions are overbuilt tanks. The G27, specifically, operates at the edge of the envelope. Even a slight overcharge can cause problems or harm. I do not consider it to be as reliable as my other Glocks, for this reason, because ammo isn't always perfect.

If I ever used it, stock, I would be feeding it with slightly watered down reloads. I've had a 9mm barrel in it for the past two years.

 

[redbullitt]

I take my glock 19 with me anywhere that I cannot easily carry a full size. I do not feel under armed at all with it. Good ammo and I can put the bullets where I point AND it carries just about perfectly.

FWIW my nightstand gun is a suppressed glock 17, not the 10mm in the safe. Again, I think the 9mm will do just fine on two legged monsters. AND it is very manageable to shoot for just about anyone.

I have not spent time on a 26, but they sure look easy to carry. If you can shoot it well I would not sweat it at all.

Personally i would just run the 9 for simplicity. 9mm with GOOD ammunition is an excellent round when you consider everything it has to offer.

Easy to shoot, common ammunition, fairly quiet compared to the big bangers, fairly low flash, high capacity, small size platform for carry, common ammunition etc between primary and backup guns is a good bonus too.

Of course a glock 29 or 30 is always fun too if you want to jump on another caliber : ). A reloading setup would probably be the VERY best bang though.

Maybe stick with the glock 19 and start making your own shells?

 

[sakata8242]

From a defensive standpoint there is little difference among MODERN defensive loads. Bullet design has advanced a lot since the mid 1980s and 1990s when the .40, 9mm +P+, and .357 SIG were seen as solutions to poorly performing 9mm loads.

That being said, I own .40, .45, and .357 SIG pistols, and like shooting them. But I always come back to 9mm for serious uses, due to practical reasons. Less weight, more rounds, cheaper to practice with.

 

[WinThePennant]

I agree with those who say that if you are thinking of 'upgrading' from a 9mm to a .40 that you should instead go 10mm.

I'm a long-time advocate of the 9mm. I thought about carrying a .40, or a .357 Sig, and then had my "come to Jesus" moment and went with the 10mm. Never looking back. 10mm is the way to go.

 

[David E]

If Rule #1 is "Have a gun," then Rule #2 should be: "Have ammo for that gun!"