How much more powerful is the .40 over the 9mm?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I carry an XD40 because I think it's a great compromise between 9mm and .45. However, if you put two 9mm slugs in a BG's chest, and one in his melon, he'll be just as neutralized as if you used a .44 magnum or a .45. I would have no problem carrying a 9mm for self defense.
 
9mm is a fine choice.

I agree with 03ShadowBob....any three will do the job. I have been in tough situations and 9mm served me well. I am not sure if you really need more power in a handgun. In case you do, then I am assuming you are into handgun hunting...for that check out revolvers in heavy calibers. Otherwise, 9mm is fine choice. Just practice with it and make sure you can do tight placement of the shots. Also there is variety of ammo available in 9mm...select the one, which you think is right for you. I am not sure, exactly why you need the gun, or what type of situations you are facing. So not knowing anything else, enjoy your 9mm.
 
Soy, thanks for posting that chart. It confirms my desire for the .40 S&W.
Hmmm I don't know how the chart did that but hey as long as you found it useful.

Wow, those charts posted by Soybomb and Critrxdoc really do show that the terminal difference between the major SD calibers is pretty minor.
That was the goal ;) but I've noticed overtime that people see what they want to see. I believe our poster was set from .40 from the start.
 
As a number of people stated recoil is a very subjective thing. My teenage daughter who is rather slight finds the recoil from a .45 to be easier to manage than the 9mm. 9mm is very sharp and the .45 is more of a heavy thump (technical term). You should go to range and rent a couple of potential candidate firearms and try some different ammo choices. That way you will have a good idea of what YOU think is the best fit.
 
Personally I carry an XD40 because I think it's a great compromise between 9mm and .45.
compromise 45 big hole low capacity shoot BG once,9mm hi cap two small holes. how do you shoot BG 1 1/2 times?
 
"...will be enough stopping power for whatever..." Absolutely no handgun round will give you a 100% guaranteed one shot stop. Even a .45 ACP.
Soybomb, please reduce the size of your pictures. A dial up poster will be loading this page until next week.
 
Any of the three calibers (9, 40, 45) will serve you well if you shoot them well, use appropriate ammo, and land your hits where they need to go. I can and do carry all three and feel well protected with any of them.

9mm is probably the most sensible choice because guns chambered in 9mm tend to have higher capacity, the caliber is easiest to shoot well with rapid follow-up shots, and may be more economical to shoot, depending on your situation. If you choose your ammo well, 9mm will give penetration and expansion relatively comparable to .40, but with less recoil and greater capacity in the firearm. Makes the 9mm look pretty dang appealing. 9mm is an excellent choice and the Glock 19 is one of the best platforms to choose. Moderate size gun, full grip area, barrel length generates very good power, excellent capacity (16 rounds), not to big, not too small, reliable, accurate...tough choice to beat, all things considered.
 
I have hesitated to reply here but I'm gonna do it anyway...
I carried a 40 for a while, a Beretta 96 Vertec to be exact...fine pistol, but it shot a little low, and good close double taps were next to impossible, it was just too "snappy"...I'm not recoil sensitive ( meaning "flinching" isnt a problem for me) but I choose accuracy over power every time.
An example...I'm an avid long range shooter...Some guys swear by 300 Win. Mag for this...and it works too...but I can hit better, faster, and smoother with my 308.
To answer your question... 40 is more powerful than 9mm.
40 is OK for some, 9mm is GOOD for most, 45 ( my personal favorite) is GREAT for the people who like putting 7 or 8 rounds through one ragged hole at 25 yards (provided you get the right 1911 ;))
The reason the 40 is so "snappy" is because of the "recoil velocity"...
9mm recoil in foot pounds of energy is 6 ft. lbs....velocity is 16.0 fps firing a 124 grain bullet at 1125 fps from a 1.5 pound pistol.
40 recoil in foot pounds of energy is 10.6 ft. lbs....velocity is 21.6 fps firing a 155 grain bullet at 1100 fps in a 1.5 pound pistol.
45 recoil in foot pounds of energy is 7.9 ft. lbs....velocity is 15.0 fps firing a 230 grain bullet at 850 fps from a 2.25 pound pistol.

Dont toss the 45 so quickly...that big slow chunk of lead CAN & WILL do the job, cleanly, and accurately.
If you want my opinion, here it is...if you're not going to get a 45, get a 9mm.

But, as others have stated...you're asking the wrong question...you need to ask yourself what you can shoot straighter, then fire a few rounds and make sure you answered yourself honestly. Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
The interesting thing is that comparing "power" (measured velocity & calculated energy) doesn't help you make a well informed decision... for this reason: because of well engineered, modern bullet designs, the ammo makers have been able to minimize the differences in penetration and expansion between the calibers. 9 and 40 are relatively close to each other in penetration and expansion, in spite of there being greater differences in velocity and energy! Don't fall into the trap of believing that highest velocity or highest energy is better or more effective - that's a misguided pursuit. Bullets are designed to perform their best at given velocities and within given velocity windows. Those velocities are pretty much determined by the caliber in question and it's ability to handle a particular level of pressure. Keeping within those pressure limits, ammo manufacturers engineer their bullets to penetrate well and to expand well given a particular type of target. They've been very successful in their designs in minimizing the terminal ballistic differences between calibers such as 9mm and .40.

Neither higher velocity, nor higher energy stops an attacker any better. What stops an attacker is a well placed bullet that penetrates deeply enough and expands reasonably as designed. In this regard, the differences between the calibers (given good ammo selection) is relatively minor. Whichever of these calibers you can shoot more quickly with and be more accurate with in rapid fire mode, especially under duress, is the caliber you should choose. I honestly believe the nod goes to 9mm, for most people.
 
I have the M&P 40 and I hope I never have to find out how effective it is in stopping power. but that being said I am sure glad to have it.
 
The important lesson is that all handguns in "service" calibers pretty much suck to the same degree. Multiple, rapid, accurate hits are what you need, regardless of your caliber of choice. Lets be honest, we are throwing tiny rocks at people at speed (very low speed compared to rifles). A couple of mm difference in size one way or the other isn't going to make that big a difference. Pick a gun you like and can shoot well. Load it with quality ammo from a quality maker. Practice as often as you can.
 
I am actually liking my 357 Sig more than either .40 or 9mm. And believe me, it barks and bucks the worse. Recoil doesn't bother me.
 
40, in my experience is the snappiest of the rounds mentioned. 45 is slower and "pushes" rather than "snaps." Of the several handguns I have and of the calibers mentioned, my wife's favorite (and mine too) is my xd45. I would stick with 9 or 45. 9 b/c of low recoil, cheap ammo, high capacity, 45 b/c, um, it's 45! ;) Seriously, it's proven stopping capability, mushy recoil, pleasure to shoot, etc. I would not trade a 9 for a 40. I, PERSONALLY, would stick to 9 or 45. That's just my .02. As already mentioned, I wouldn't feel undergunned with any of em. There's really only 3 things that matter, shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement.

Also, you must consider your intended purpose. Is it CCW, plinking, HD, car, all of the above. That could make a dif as well.

In a nut shell, all 3 would be adequate for self defense. Which do YOU feel most comfortable and confident with?
 
I am also following this thread.
I have been having issues with my .40 since I first got it (actually, I had them with the other .40 I had too).
With the G-23 I have I have noticed that for the first 30 or so rounds I can shoot it pretty well. Then I start to get tremors and by the time I get to 40 rounds or so I am shaking so bad that shooting anymore is just a waste of ammo.

Is this due to recoil? (It is VERY snappy!)
It is kind of strange to me because i have shot more powerful handguns without this problem including a couple of .357 snubs and a .45 LC.
Would a heavier, slower moving bullet recoil less?
I need some kind of "intermediate" .40 to allow me some time to master my Glock. I really like the gun but if I can't shoot it well... good bye...
Sorry for the minor hi-jack but it is sort of related...;)
 
It doesn't recoil less, it just spreads out the recoil over a longer period of time. So maybe shooting the heavy/slow 40s would feel better for you than the lighter/faster ones.
 
Goon,
See my earlier entry (#22). Are you keeping your arms straight and stiff or do you allow your arms to be "shock absorbers"? Is the tremor in your forearms (affecting your grip) or coming from your shoulders (affecting your whole arm)?

If it's your shoulders I'd bet your arms are too stiff. If it's just your grip it may just be the .40 getting to you (I get it a little after about 50-60 rounds if I'm shooting quickly).

If it's grip related my best suggestion is a "DynaFlex" ball. (they sell 'em at REI and such).
 
I don't know how large your hands are and what you feel comfortable with but my escape from the fast and light or heavy and slow debate is the 10mm 200gr at 1225 or so which equals heavy and fast. It is my home defense choice as I live in the boonies and home defense consists of picking them off through the bedroom window as they trip my motion sensors coming up the mountain. (sarcasm and joking)
 
Last edited:
In .40 I much prefer the heavy, slower 180 gr. bullets. I don't shoot the lighter, faster bullets at all anymore. The 180's are proven performers and are more comfortable to shoot (recoil not as SHARP, nor as tiring!)
 
ZeSpectre Goon,
Are you keeping your arms straight and stiff or do you allow your arms to be "shock absorbers"? Is the tremor in your forearms (affecting your grip) or coming from your shoulders (affecting your whole arm)?

If it's your shoulders I'd bet your arms are too stiff. If it's just your grip it may just be the .40 getting to you (I get it a little after about 50-60 rounds if I'm shooting quickly).

If it's grip related my best suggestion is a "DynaFlex" ball. (they sell 'em at REI and such).

+1.

I'm all in favor of the .40S&W caliber. Personally, it teaches me to be a better shooter by learning how to control it's recoil. Having a calliber in between the 9mm and .45ACP is a great middle ground for training.
 
My caliber between the 9mm and the .45ACP is the .357 Magnum.:D

I won't own a .40S&W. I am not recoil sensitive, but the firing dynamics of the .40S&W are unpleasant to me, for an autopistol, and for no objective gain. For "high capacity," I'd rather have two more rounds of 147 grain 9mm than any brand of .40, and going the other direction, I'd rather have fewer 230 grain .45ACPs than any .40 because they are more pleasant to shoot and shoot fast. For snap and recoil, a magnum revolver is more versatile and fun.

The .40S&W makes it seem like "something more potent" is going on, but in reality it's not.
 
With the G-23 I have I have noticed that for the first 30 or so rounds I can shoot it pretty well. Then I start to get tremors and by the time I get to 40 rounds or so I am shaking so bad that shooting anymore is just a waste of ammo.

Is this due to recoil? (It is VERY snappy!)
It is kind of strange to me because i have shot more powerful handguns without this problem including a couple of .357 snubs and a .45 LC.

I've found the G23 to have worse recoil than even the .44 magnums I have fired. In fact, I have read a lot of blogs about the Glock 23 and I don't think I have seen any other .40 pistol criticised so much for heavy recoil.

I also read that the FBI adopted the G23 and had to have Federal make a reduced recoil load for it. The recruits at the FBI academy couldn't handle the recoil with full power loads.

I have about concluded that the way to deal with recoil in the G23 is to trade it in for another brand of .40 pistol. The Berettas are often mentioned as having soft recoil in .40. The rotating barrel locking mechanism of the Beretta PX4 Storm is supposed to greatly lessen recoil. I read that a Police Department, which was carrying the Berretta 92, tried out the Storm in .40, and said it has even less recoil than their 9mms!
 
The Beretta Storm is a great pistol, but the DA/SA operation sucks in my opiinion... I want the same trigger pull every time without decockers and such...

I don't see where people are having problems with recoil in the G23??? I shoot mine a lot and it's not at all uncomfortable. Recoil is definitely less noticible with my S&W M&P 40 Compact, however. But my 40C has a mag drop problem that won't (so far) go away. Another call to S&W today on that.
 
My wife carries a 9mm, I carry 40 S&W or 45 ACP depending on application. To me my wife's sub compact XD 9mm recoils as much as my Sig P229 40 S&W. Size, weight, construction, and quality can make a difference in perceived recoil.

The 9mm makes a great first defensive caliber handgun, it has acceptable penetration and momentum, very controllable recoil, is cheap to shoot, ammo is readily available, in component form bullets for 9mm are 1/2 the price of either 40 or 45.

I'd recommend reading some about terminal ballistics, there is some good information out there. Make sure you look at the FBI's publication Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness it is a good primer.

The FBI required 12 inches of penetration with up to 18 inches being preferred. The reason being is you may have to shoot through barriers (glass, arms) or take a right side shot which places the vitals considerably further than a square shoulder shot. You also want the bullet to have enough momentum and energy to penetrate vitals rather than just push them aside.

I consider the following (my opinion)

#1 is accuracy and bullet penetration, some people like put one above the other but I firmly believe they are equally important. Handguns stop threats by penetration, if you can't place the bullet in the vitals penetration doesn't matter, if your bullet can't penetrate to vitals placing the bullet in the right spot doesn't matter.

#2 is bullet construction, you don't want the JHP to destruct on bone or muscle but you also don't want it to not expand at all, because handguns disable with penetration more penetration is better than over expansion.

#3 is bullet size / weight, bigger bullet = bigger hole, also JHP still don't always expand, a non expanded 45 ACP is nearly as large as a fully expanded 9mm. Bullets less than 200 grains are prone to deflect on muscle and bone and tend to over expand more easily.

There is a trade off between momentum and energy, momentum increases as bullet weight increases while velocity is constant or decreases only slightly. Momentum is thought to be a better predictor of penetration than velocity or energy which is why the 230 grain 45 ACP works so well even though it is slow it has a ton of momentum.

For every caliber there is a sweet spot where you get maximum momentum and energy.

40 S&W tends to do very well because it uses considerably heavier and sometimes faster bullets than the 9mm, yielding more energy and momentum and more energy and almost as much momentum as the 45 with higher capacity.

9mm

a standard pressure 9mm at 1200 fps has:

energy: 335 ft. lb
momentum: 138,000

a +p 9mm 115 grain bullet at 1250 fps has:

energy: 399 ft. lbs
momentum: 143,750

A +p 9mm 124 grain bullet traveling at 1180 fps has:

energy: 384 ft. lbs
momentum: 146,320

In this case the 124 grain will likely have better penetration even though it has less energy because it has greater momentum.

40 S&W

A 180 grain 40 S&W has

energy: 412 ft. lbs (7% more than 9mm 124 +p)
momentum: 182,700 (25% more than 9mm 124 +p)

The 165 at around 1200 fps has:

energy: 527 ft. lbs (37% more than 9mm 124 +p)
momentum: 198,000 (35% more than 9mm 124 +p)

Which makes it an excellent defensive round.

45 ACP

230 grain standard pressure Gold Dot at 890 fps

energy: 405 ft. lbs
momentum: 204,700

200 grain +p gold dot at 1080 fps:

energy: 518 ft. lbs
momentum: 216,600

230 grain +p at 950 fps

energy: 461 ft. lbs
momentum: 218,500

in 45 ACP the 200 +p offers more momentum and energy than the standard pressure 230, and more energy than the +p 230.

Thoughts

Velocities are taken at the word of manufacturer, Golden Saber and Gold Dot product information was used.

None of the 45 ACP loads can match the energy of the 40 S&W and even the +p 230 45 ACP only has 10% more momentum.

Even the 180 grain 40 S&W has 25% more momentum and 7% more energy than the 9mm. The 180 grain bullet is less likely to deflect or destruct with contact with muscle or bone than lighter bullets (bullets over 200 grains do best, which is one reason why 45 ACP 200 +p or 230 grain bullets work very well)

+p and especially +p+ 9mm are likely to be close to if not more recoil than a 40 S&W.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top