help me decide: 9mm vs. 40 (not stopping power war)

[USPCompact45]

My next purchase would be a hk p2000sk but I do not know if I want 9mm or 40.

I already have a xd subcompact in 40 but I might convert it to a 9mm when a barrel conversion becomes available.

My main priority is that I want the firearm to FEED and EMPTY WITHOUT FAILURE. I heard many stories about 40 sw have failed to empty or feed but I do not see this as much with the 9mm, am I correct? Would the 40 do more wear on the gun since it is a high pressure round? I'm not worried about kbs since I only plan on using factory ammo and the xd and hk have supported chambers. Thanks again.

Which caliber do you expect to have a longer service life in the gun if standard pressure ammo is used?

 

[1 old 0311]

Go with the 9. You can also add the cost of ammo factor in. The 9 wins.

Kevin

 

[scubie02]

I think that maybe part of the rep of 40's not being as reliable may be that many 40's were actually guns that were designed as 9's that they converted to 40, and there were bugs to work out. I would guess that nowadays most of those probably have been--I never had any problems with my 40's. That having been said, if it were me I'd go 9. Can't say that I ever really got warm and fuzzy over the 40. Ammunition is cheaper for a 9, it'll do the job fine, less recoil...did I mention the cheapness of ammo? But that's just me, nothing wrong with a 40.

 

[armoredman]

6 of one, half dozen of the other, Flip a coin....but I'd go 9mm, a few more rounds, and decent ammo makes the differances neglible.

My opinion is worth what you paid for it, too....

 

[Chupacabra]

I'd go with 9mm SK. You get a couple more rounds and it may be a little more controllable than the SK in .40 (unless you are using +p ammunition).

 

[pogo2]

Feed and Empty without Failure

You mentioned feeding and emptying without failure as a major consideration in your 9mm/.40 S&W choice. I agree that this is important, but think it is more a function of the gun brand and model than caliber. With an H&K pistol, I would not expect any problems along these lines. I would be very surprised if the new P2000SK had a feeding or ejection problem in either caliber.

My main .40 caliber experience has been with a Glock 23 and a Sig P229 that I own, and both have been flawless for 5 years and several thousand rounds each. Personally, I have never had a .40 jam on me.

You mentioned pressure of the .40 as a consideration. The only component feeling the pressure is the barrel, which must contain it, and if the wall thickness and material strength are adequate, a .40 barrel can have the same safety factor (burst pressure/operating pressure) as any other caliber. Pressure also translates into the force pushing the slide back, and if the slide mass and recoil spring constant are appropriate, this force can be easily managed without damage to the gun.

So I think you can pick the 9mm or the .40 based on your personal preference and ammo costs, if that is a consideration.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I tried both .40 and the 9mm and chose 9mm overwhelmingly because:

1) ammo cost is important to me, especially as a new shooter
2) .40 kicks quite a bit more than 9mm
3) the difference in stopping power does not seem so important to me
4) the sharp kick of the .40 produces jams for me as a new shooter, since I am still learning proper grip and trigger techniques

That being said, I see how by the same criteria an experienced/professional shooter wanting more stopping power would overwhelmingly choose the .40 or the .45. In fact, if they can handle a .40, chances are they would go with .45 and be done with it.

 

[ruger270man]

9mm for the cheaper ammo!

 

[Navy87Guy]

Unless you're a prodigious shooter, I don't think you'll ever fire enough rounds of either caliber ammo to reach the service life of the pistol. If you aren't taking part in the stopping power debate (thank goodness!) then I'd vote for the 9mm for the cost, availability and ease of shooting.

Jim

 

[albanian]

I always say that if you have to ask, go with the 9mm. My reasons for this are, if you are asking, you probably are new to some aspect of the question you are asking. Maybe you are new to autos, maybe new to 9mm or .40S&W, maybe new to shooting, maybe new to handguns, or whatever. If you have been around the block a few times, you would not bother asking our advice because you would have formed your own opinions.

The reason I think the 9mm is better for newbie (I'm not saying you are a newbie, I have no idea) is that it kicks less and most new shooters number one problem is flinching. If you are not afraid of the recoil as much, you will not flinch as badly. Simple. Also, ammo is about 50% less expensive so you can shoot 50% more. That will give you more time at the range and more practice. The idea is, you will progress 50% faster than the guy who buys a .40S&W. May not be 100% accurate but I do think there is something to it. Also, a few more rounds in the mag never hurt anyone except the guy you are shooting at. I also tend to think that most 9mms are more accurate than most .40s, that is probably not true but that has been the trend based on what I have seen. I am going by a small sample so it is not scientific.

To me it is a no brainer, 9mm. As for the power, rate them about even with a very slight edge going to the .40S&W. The .40S&W is not a 10mm and generally doesn't give you much velocity as the 9mm. Reliabilty is not a factor, most good quality .40s are just as reliable as the 9mms.

 

[hkusp]

Whatever you shoot faster and straighter. For me it's 9mm by a long shot. Also cheaper. I picked up 1000rds Speer GD 124gr +p+ for $129 shipped from ammoman not too long ago. Also Walmart Winchester White Box is 100rds for $11.

 

[buddyRoland]

hkusp:
Whatever you shoot faster and straighter. For me it's 9mm by a long shot. Also cheaper. I picked up 1000rds Speer GD 124gr +p+ for $129 shipped from ammoman not too long ago. Also Walmart Winchester White Box is 100rds for $11.

What hkusp said.

 

[johnster999]

Both calibers are reliable in good guns. I don't own an HK but my Sig 229 in .40 has never failed. Same for my Glock 26 in 9mm.

I prefer the 9mm for the cheap ammo. I need all the practice I can get.

999

 

[MachIVshooter]

Go for the gold.............10mm Auto!

 

[CAnnoneer]

10mm being so rare and expensive might just as well be gold

 

[Moonclip]

As you are in California you may want to go with the 40 as you will be getting a 10rd gun so I'd feel better losing 1-2 rounds of capacity as opposed to 4-5 rounds.

 

[Black Majik]

For regular range shooting, I actually like shooting the 9mm to the .40. I find the .40 too snappy for regular range shooting. The 9mm I can get better follow up shots, cheaper to shoot, and more pleasureable to shoot.

The .40, I only use for defensive purposes.... otherwise range wise, its 9mm and .45 ACP.


Cheaper ammo means more shooting fun also!

 

[355sigfan]

Well according to a 1997 DOJ report I have 85 % of the 9mm and 45 acp pistols they tested passed their reliability and safety standards. Only 60% of the 40's and 357 sigs did. The 9mm is a wedge shaped cartridged (tapered case) which in general is a more feed reliable case than the 40sw strait wall case. Most 40's are simply hastily re-engeniered 9mm's. Most are not as reliable as their parent 9mm guns nor nearly as durable.
Pat

 

[astraman]

9mm

as said, the 9mm is cheaper on the ammo which allows for a lot more practice. i have a .40 which functions fine, but its recoil isn't conducive to as accurate fire as either a 9mm or a .45. the 9 is tame, the 45 is kinda a push, but the 40 really snaps the muzzle up. i shoot my 9s & 45s a lot better than my 40, which isn't as much fun to shoot.

 

[chris in va]

I have both, go with the 9. Not a big fan of .40 now.

 

[USPCompact45]

You know what's funny. I came back from the range using winchester white box 165 grain and the glock 22 shot everyone without a problem. I brought my xd-40 subcompact and it failed to feed 10% of the time, this was very bad even though it was much more accurate than the glock. I think I'm leaning towards the 9mm now but I have to try different practice ammo through the xd subcompact first and see if it just disliked the winchester. I will probably get rid of the glock 22 for an xd-9 subcompact, p2000sk 9mm, or a glock 39.

 

[SUPERMAN .45]

for me .40 is good but if you want to a cheeper ammo i'll go for 9mm.

 

[StrikeEagle]

I'm no huge fan of the 9mm, but given your criteria, I'd suggest you choose the 9 over the .40.

It's cheaper and the guns that take it tend to be 'more proven' than those that fire the .40.

StrikeEagle

 

[jerryd]

I shoot my sons p2000 not the compact version in 9mm and love it! His has the LEM trigger and takes some getting used too, as i m an old 1911 shooter, other then that its never had a hang up or any problems, just like a Glock. His p2000 has over 6k thru it. Dont care for the 40, just go to the 45acp, its been battle tested and no Kabooms like the 40. Have fun!!!

 

[NEtracker]

Cheap ammo, so I like the 9mm.
(45 ACP is very controllable, but not cheap)