I've decided on the gun, now the caliber (9mm vs. .40)

[jc2]

It costs about the same as the current generation, premium .40 S&W stuff. The savings is not in the carry ammo, but in the practice ammo--but, if you can afford to pay .75 cents a round for practice ammo (and burn a couple hundred rounds a month), it's pretty much a wash.

There's really no measurable difference in effectiveness between the two calibres with current generation premium JHPs. The development of common performance standard has pretty well leveled the playing field.

The 9x19 will give you a slight capacity advantage (at least if you live in a free state).

The 9x19 will always give slightly faster follow-ups (despite protestations to the contrary) given similar experience/practice levels, platforms and ammo types.

There's more to the equation than cost.

 

[Biker]

No measurable difference in effectiveness? Again, you fail to provide proof. Common sense says you're wrong. And the .40 SW in the G23 at least *can easily* be fired just as fast as the 9mm in the G19. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Biker

 

[jc2]

The .40 S&W with current generation premium defence/LE ammunition has proven (and is proving daily) no more effective in actual LE usage than the 9x19, period. The .40 S&W and 9x19 deliver roughly the same penetration and expansion (though you might get an extra two or three hundreths of an inch expansion in the .40 S&W, it's pretty meaningless relative to anything approaching a normal sized adult). Again, I refer you to current wound ballistics literature and professionals like David DiFabio.

While you may perceive you can shoot a .40 S&W as quickly/accurately as you can a 9x19 (and indeed the times may be very close), the 9x19 will be back on target faster. While perceived recoil is subjective, the physics of firing a weapon are not. (Though maybe the disconnect is I'm talking about aimed fire while you are apparently talking about merely pulling the trigger--"be fired just as fast as the 9mm.")

 

[GunGoBoom]

charging hordes of plumpers wearing two inches of leather!

I think I stumbled across that fetish website once. The lean, mean, 9x19 fighting machine is a great way to go - congrats on both caliber AND gun choice!

 

[Biker]

jc2
Doesn't greater expansion mean a bigger hole? Doesn't a bigger hole equal more trauma and blood loss? Is that not an edge?
Concerning the speed at which I (and many others) can accurately shoot a G23 as opposed to a G19, the recoil is so close as to be negligable and muscle strength can easily make both seem to be the same.
If you can bench 300 lbs easily (or pick your number), what's the difference between 145 and 150? Nothing.
Biker

 

[jc2]

Sure, it leaves a bigger hole--about two or three hundreths of an inch bigger--not enough difference to make a difference. A good hit with a 9x19 will be every bit as effective as a good hit with a .40 S&W. A poor hit with a .40 S&W will be no more effective than a poor hit with a 9x19. The odds of getting good hit with the 9x19 are greater than getting a good hit with a .40 S&W, but, realistically, there's just not enough difference to make a difference. They are both equally good choices, and that's all they are--different choices.

 

[Pietro Beretta]

14.97 WWB 100 round value pack (40S&W)
10.97 WWB 100 round value pack (9mm)

... .40 does not cost 75c a round... heh

Then the only advantage a 9mm would have for me are faster follow up shots... how much faster... 1/10 of a second faster? Half a second faster?...

Anyhoo, Original poster only gave cost as a real reason for choosing his caliber, and 4 dollars difference in ammo, wasnt that much.

 

[chris in va]

Just three more days to go bud. Hang in there. You won't regret it.

Might as well get the Kadet kit too while you're at it. Mine comes in next week for the 75BD.

 

[jc2]

PB -

14.97 WWB 100 round value pack (40S&W)
10.97 WWB 100 round value pack (9mm)

... .40 does not cost 75c a round... heh

You didn't read. I was talking about carry ammunition--NOT practice ammunition (i.e., "current generation, premium [ammunition]"). Remember, now, your question (which I answered) was, "How much do the 'better' rounds cost?"

$19.57 Remington GS (25 rounds)
$20.82 Remington GS (25 rounds)

You were right, BTW, .40 S&W doesn't cost 75 cents round--more like 83 cents a round (which works out to about a nickle more a round than the 9x19). ...heh, heh

Another point you missed (or misunderstood) was that for some people four dollars is that much--particularly when you get nothing for that extra four dollars. To illustrate it a different way, why pay $2.50 for a cup of coffee when you can get one just as good (or better) for 75 cents? FWIW, if you're lucky and catch the sales right, you can lower your cost for 9x19 practice ammo to a little less than $8.00 a hundred (then difference in cost is almost double).

 

[nico]

Just three more days to go bud. Hang in there. You won't regret it.

Might as well get the Kadet kit too while you're at it. Mine comes in next week for the 75BD.

I think that's in my future, but I have a .22 to shoot for now so I'm not in a hurry to spend the extra money.

On a related note (since I need money to pay the $350 I owe on the gun and a couple accessories), my paycheck didn't show up last week and now the human resources idiots are playing games, saying I didn't turn in paperwork when I returned to work this summer (but that didn't stop them from sending my last two paychecks). :banghead:

 

[Pietro Beretta]

:banghead: Thats what I get for reading posts too fast

 

[Biker]

jc2
So you're saying that three hundreths of an inch isn't enough to make a difference? How many hundreths are? A bad hit is a bad hit, but if a bigger bullet is used, doesn't it increase the odds of nicking say, an artery? Would that make a difference? And why does the 9mm have a better chance of "getting a good hit" than a 40? I'd be real interested in knowing the answer to that one.
I have nothing against the nine, but your arguments aren't making sense.
What nine load can equal a 135gr 40 caliber bullet at 1350 fps?
Biker

 

[jc2]

Who would want to shoot a bullet with a sectional density of 0.121? Who cares what the MV is? It's penetration that counts.

Three hundreths of an inch is not significant when you're looking at the size of an average adult (and when you get right down to it, it's more fifteen thousands of an inch each side--not exactly something to write home about).

The 9x19 tends to be more accurate as a whole than the .40 S&W, and it certainly is easier to get quick follow-up shots off with a 9x19.

Like you, I have nothing against the .40 S&W, but it just doesn't really have anything to recommend it over a 9x19. Cost, capacity, shootability, durability, all favor the 9x19.

 

[..]

The marginal difference in performance is not worth the huge jump in price for practice ammo. 9mm for me

 

[Biker]

jc2

If penetration is all that counts, how come we aren't all using the old 38 Special 158gr LRN? It was a great penetrator. Why don't you use ball in your nine? Penetrates great. What do you consider to be ideal penetration? Have you researched the Cor Bon 135gr 40 load?

We've already determined that any accuracy difference between the 9 and the 40, real or percieved, is a non-issue in a SD handgun, and established that the G23 can deliver follow-up shots just as quick as a G19. The only difference is the price of ammo. What value do you place on your life and the lives of your loved ones?
Biker

 

[jc2]

There's not enough difference in effectiveness between the 9x19 and the .40 S&W to make a difference (a fact that has been proven time and time again both in actual LE use and in the lab).

The difference in effectiveness between the two rounds is just a matter of wishful thinking. A good hit with a 9x19 is just as effective as a good hit with a .40 S&W. A bad hit with a .40 S&W is no better than a bad hit with a 9x19.

Well-placed, follow-up shots are faster with the 9x19 (maybe not by much with but still faster).

Since hitting is what counts (and there's no difference in effectiveness), the real value is in practice. When you finally acknowledge there are no magic bullets, and well-placed round is far, far better than a poorly placed round, the fact that you can practice more for less with the 9x19 makes it the best value. Why pay more for nothing in return?

 

[Geno]

Fantastic question!

I was wondering the same for MY my next pistola. Sorry 'bout that!

Okay, so wondering the differences, I rented a .40 S&W Glock 22. I own a Glock 17 (9MM) and I took my Kimber Gold Combat in .45 ACP. See, I usually only shoot one caliber in a single day for practice sake. So, for this "informal test" I used the following bullets, weights, pistols:

Bullets used:
9MM=124 Gn
.40 S&W=180 Gn
.45 ACP=230GN

1) Fired 30 rounds of 9MM in the Glock 17...nice, light recoil.
2) fired 30 rounds of .40 S&W in the Glock 22...nice, heavier recoil than the 9MM, less recoil than anticipated. Managable.
3) Fired 30 rounds of .45 ACP in my Kimber .45 Gold Combat...wow! MUCH more recoil than the .40 S&W! Much more!!! And I shoot thousands of rounds of .45 ACP per month.
4) Fired 30 rounds of 9MM in the Glock 17 again...simplistic recoil, fast follow-up shots...child's play.
5) Fired 5 more rounds of .40 S&W in the Glock 22...recoil acceptable, MUCH less than .45 ACP...GREAT split between the two.

That's how I felt as I went through firing these. By the way, penetration in .40S&W is MASSIVE! BIG time power!

Specifically, go read page 42, of the following textbook: "THE GUN DIGEST BOOK OF THE GLOCK: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW . DESIGN . HISTORY . USE", by Patrick Sweeney, (copyright 2003). The book's ISBN is: 0-87349-558-6.

Specifically, the author cites a test in which the 180 grain, full-metal jacketed .40 S&W penetrated (he shows the photo) through a full 36 inches of ballistic gelatin. Wow!!!!

Talk about a terrific winter (Michigan) heavy coat gun! The .380 has this problem...too light for Michigan winter coats to reliably incapacitate. BUT, is this too much power for summer carry? Food for thought.

I am considering a Glock 22C for me for winter gun, or keep with one of my .45ACPs. The Glock 17 in 9MM is always a nice gun too. So, my thoughts..try both...take the one you like.

God speed and I pray you NEVER have to use it.

Doc2005

 

[Berg01]

I have the CZ 75B duotone in .40 S&W; I have not been a great .40 fan; given a choice between Gun "X" available in either .40 and .45 ACP; its .45 ACP all the way for me. I originally wanted the CZ 97B, but I got a great deal on the .40, and I took it. In the 2 yrs that I have owned it, I have learned to like this one a lot, the handfit and balance for me is excellent, and I had a holster from another gun that fit this one beautifully. And it is a tackdriver at the range.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Let's be real here...

If you shoot it well there is no reason NOT to use .40S&W .
If you don't like the added expense of .40, don't like .40 recoil, or simply prefer 9mm, that is fine ,but don't say that .40 is not a step up from 9mm when it clearly is :banghead:. Even if (admittedly) by only a small amount, better is better :banghead:...

If I can't have a full-sized 9mm, I will take a mid-sized .40. If I can't take a mid-sized .40, then I will take a sub-compact .45. PS I am a little guy so I don't/can't wear most Full-sized handguns as they,"print", too easy ...Is this attitude ,"quirky", as some have called it? Yes, but it is also strangely logical too...

 

[jc2]

Yep, let's be real

If you shoot it well there is no reason NOT to use .40S&W

If you shoot well, there is no reason NOT to use any of them (9x19, 357 SIG, .40 S&W or .45 ACP). :banghead:

 

[TonyT]

9mm vs 40 S&W

The CZ's in 9mm and 40 S&W are extreemely reliable. There is a small but apopreciable cost diffrence between 9mm and 40 S&W ammo. The bigger difference is in controlability of the firearm in the hands of a new shooter-if that's the criterion then one would favor the 9mm.
In either case you will not make a mistake choosing the CZ-the most reliable and inexpensive firearms on the market today.
Tony