Set us straight, my son and I

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't do so well in physics, but I did own a glock 19 and glock 23 (same gun but 9mm and .40) and the 23 produced more felt recoil, as well as a "snappier" recoil (best way I could think to describe it). I actually had my middle finger start to hurt from smacking the bottom of the triggerguard the first time I shot the 23 (.40).
 
Actual recoil for the 40 will be higher than the 9mm. The recoil will have different properties as well. Some people say some calibers are more snappy than others. After shooting a 9mm and a .45, I know what they mean but I cannot explain it.

As to the same felt recoil using two different barrels in the same gun (9mm conversion for a 40 caliber glock for example) will depend on more than just the round. If you only changed the barrel, then the 40 would exhibit stronger recoil. With a different spring, you can make that feel about the same as a 9mm, but then you are changing more than just the caliber of gun.
 
It boils down to physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is where recoil comes in.

Recoil is essentially measured in foot-pound-seconds.

If the two rounds that are fired have equal force (measured in foot-pounds) and the weapons fired are equal in weight (thus equal inertia), and they are both of the same type (thus spreading the force of the reaction over the same period of time, IE, a weapon with springs like an autoloader spreads the reaction over a longer period of time, as the springs absorb some of the force) the recoil will be the same.

A good example will be the Sig 229. Available in both 9mm and .40 S&W. Same type, same weight pistol.

Two standard loads:
Now fire a 9mm 147 grain at 1,210 fps. 474 ft-lbs
Then fire a .40 cal 155 grain bullet at 1,175 fps. 475 ft-lbs

The difference in recoil will be indistinguishable.
 
I have shot many a 40 that had more recoil than some of my 45's, Ive never shot a 9mm that anywhere near the recoil of a 40, but my experience with a 9mm is limited.

Your son is wrong, you are right. Tell him go ahead and learn this lesson, it will save him some trouble in life. At least that has been my experience, dad was/is almost always right and listening to him would have made life easier.
 
The Glock 21 ans 22 are NOT the same frame. The 17 and 22 ARE.

I realize that, but the comparison would still be more fair since there is only a 3.9 oz difference between the loaded weights of the G21 and G22, while a typical 1911 weighs more empty than the G21 does loaded (about 13 oz greater in empty weight, which dominates when ammo is low).

It boils down to physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is where recoil comes in.

Recoil is essentially measured in foot-pound-seconds.

If the two rounds that are fired have equal force (measured in foot-pounds)

Foot-pounds are a measure of energy, not force. :scrutiny: Plain old pounds are a measure of force.

and the weapons fired are equal in weight (thus equal inertia), and they are both of the same type (thus spreading the force of the reaction over the same period of time, IE, a weapon with springs like an autoloader spreads the reaction over a longer period of time, as the springs absorb some of the force) the recoil will be the same.

A good example will be the Sig 229. Available in both 9mm and .40 S&W. Same type, same weight pistol.

Two standard loads:
Now fire a 9mm 147 grain at 1,210 fps. 474 ft-lbs
Then fire a .40 cal 155 grain bullet at 1,175 fps. 475 ft-lbs

The difference in recoil will be indistinguishable.

Correct in theory, however this is a good example of where theory diverges from practice because I doubt that such a 9mm load exists. Find a 9x19mm load that can launch a 147 grain bullet at 1210 fps and prove me wrong.

More realistically, an extremely hot 147 grain 9mm+P load may equal a run-of-the-mill 180 grain .40 S&W load in energy, and I wonder which would feel snappier. A hot 115 grain 9mm+P load will far exceed an ordinary 180 grain .40 S&W load in energy, and it may feel even snappier if energy and acceleration are what cause this phenomenon.

Your son is wrong, you are right. Tell him go ahead and learn this lesson, it will save him some trouble in life. At least that has been my experience, dad was/is almost always right and listening to him would have made life easier.

On the other hand, my dad, who was a Vietnam vet, told me that AKs could fire both 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm ammo interchangeably--the enemy could pick up our ammo and use it against us! :D:rolleyes: He probably heard the rumor from his buddies because he didn't know much about firearms, at least in a technical sense, and didn't seem to believe that the enemy simply picked up whole M16s instead (probably never accepted the theory because he didn't think that the M16 could actually shoot--he carried an M1 Carbine instead). Dad was a lot smarter about other things like how to handle money, but firearms...EH! :)
 
The 40 is a more annoying round to "target shoot". It has a tendancy to twist the wrist rather than push back like a 45 or a 9. I am talking from years of firing both and many friends who have opted out of shooting 40's. It is a good self defense round if you have a heavy framed pistol. It's really a poor choice for target shooting as it is more expensive and usually "depending on ammo" is hard to get follow up shots on target as easy as a 9. This is my opinion, others will differ. I find it much more comfortable and accurate to fire 45's than 40's, if you are looking for a bigger round.
 
divemedic said:
...Two standard loads:
Now fire a 9mm 147 grain at 1,210 fps. 474 ft-lbs
Then fire a .40 cal 155 grain bullet at 1,175 fps. 475 ft-lbs...
I'm curious where those numbers come from. For Federal Hydra-Shok, for example, Federal specifications show:

9mm Luger -- 147 grain JHP bullet @ 1,000 fps/326 ft-lbs
.40 S&W -- 155 grain JHP bullet @ 1,140 fps/440 ft-lbs
 
Then there's the fact that recoil is based on momentum, not energy.

"Conservation of momentum" means that the momentum of the bullet and powder gases going forward = momentum of the various parts of the gun and your hand going backward.

"Conservation of energy" means that the kinetic energy of the bullet, heat energy it gains by direct heating from the powder gas and friction heating with the barrel, heat energy the barrel gains, heat energy of the gas itself, light energy emitted by the gas in the muzzle flash, sound energy emitted by the gas in the muzzle blast, recoil energy on the gun and you, "residual" chemical energy left in the powder gas and soot and unburned grains, and all kinds of other wacky things, all add up to = the amount of chemical energy that was in the gunpowder (and primer, and even the compressed hammer spring) to start.

Thus, "conservation of energy" is utterly meaningless in the context of recoil. It's momentum that matters.
 
Then there's the fact that recoil is based on momentum, not energy.

While this is technically true, there is plenty of evidence, albeit anecdotal, that how recoil actually feels to many people is related more closely to acceleration and the force that results, which are in turn proportional to the energy of the round. Momentum can also be perceived, but it is "colored" and can sometimes be overwhelmed perceptually by the forces that are felt.
 
From a purely anecdoctal point of view...

I own a Taurus PT 24/7 in .40 while my brother has the same gun in 9mm.

Both he, and my dad, along with myself all agree the .40 has a higher recoil.

And both of us were shooting Winchester rounds we purchased from Wally World. I don't remember the specifics of the rounds but that's about as similar a situation I can offer you.
 
It is a simple matter of physics, and the OP's son is wrong. If the guns are identical in weight, the caliber with the heavier/higher energy projectile will produce more recoil. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". - Newton's Law's of Motion

Granted, some 9mm loads such as +P+ stuff can bark pretty loud, but tell him to try some .40 SW from DoubleTap... 180g at 1100 fps makes a pretty good push. The difference between shooting my Glock 26 and my buddies G27 is noticeable. This is why I feel the .40 is a better round for mid/full sized pistols, but I still prefer the 9mm for sub-compact platforms.
 
I don't have much to add to so many good posts. A shorthand calulation is the ratio of muzzle energy to weight of the gun for each gun will give you a sound and fair idea of which has greater recoil. The shape and material of the stock and the type of action determine how this energy is transferred and felt by the shooter.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody used that phrase until your post.

The only reason for someone to think muzzle energy has anything to do with free recoil energy would be a misguided notion of what "conservation of energy" means.

--------

While this is technically true, there is plenty of evidence, albeit anecdotal, that how recoil actually feels to many people is related more closely to acceleration and the force that results, which are in turn proportional to the energy of the round. Momentum can also be perceived, but it is "colored" and can sometimes be overwhelmed perceptually by the forces that are felt.

That's not energy that does that, but force. There's an inverse relationship between force, and amount of time over which a momentum impulse is delivered. I.e., for the same momentum, less time equals higher force. Thus, a higher velocity bullet with the same momentum, will exert more recoil force for the exact same recoil impulse, because of the shorter dwell time of the bullet in the barrel (assuming equal barrel lengths).

Now, the only way to get the same momentum with a higher velocity is to use a lighter bullet. And a lighter bullet at high speed will always have more energy for the same momentum. However, it's the higher velocity which causes both higher energy and "snappy" recoil. Like raincoats and umbrellas; one does not cause the other, a third factor causes both.
 
Since recoil is a factor of several components, of which bullet mass and velocity are parts, you would have to have identical bullet weights and velocities in identical guns
"Identical" guns in different calibers may not be identical. My P2000SK in .40 has a lot more metal left in the slide whereas in the 9mm the slide is mostly hollow. Perceived recoil is very similar between the two.
 
I'd say the best way to settle this is to run out and purchase 2 new pistols, one in 9mm and one in .40, and head to the range. You'll have your answer and 2 new guns. What could be better?
 
Calculate the power factor; FPS X Grains and you will have an objective measure of recoil IF the guns are of the same weight. HOWEVER, felt recoil is very subjective. I shoot the quick SNAP of a 357 better than the longer SHOVE of a 45. Why? Cause I am old skool Revolver and the 357 K-Frame is what I first trained with and mastered.
 
On the other hand, my dad, who was a Vietnam vet, told me that AKs could fire both 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm ammo interchangeably--the enemy could pick up our ammo and use it against us! He probably heard the rumor from his buddies because he didn't know much about firearms

I belive your dad is right. I have meet more than one vet that has told me they did it their self, I have personally never tried it nor would I. But as many people as I have meet that claim to have done in, I believe it was possible for a Vietnam military issue AK to fire the 5.56
 
Hello friends and neighbors // I'd say the closest test you will get is 9mm in 158gr fmj. and 40s&w in 155gr fmj.

Using the heaviest 9mm (I've heard of 160-180 gr. 9mm but not in stock around here) and the lightest 40s&w, the 40 should be very snappy compared to the 9 from the same firearm.
Now go the other way ,lightest 9 and heaviest 40 they might even out as to felt recoil.
Just my .02

Picking up a CZ75B in .40s&w, to go with my RAMI, on Wed.
Anyone in upstate S.C. want to buy a CZ75B in 9mm so we can compare?
 
Last edited:
.40S&W has a harsher recoil. Bottom line.

You can make Frankenloads all day and try to make them equal or exceed the other caliber, but using run of the mill FMJs off the shelf the .40 has more recoil than a 9mm. Don't overcomplicate the argument.

Is it bad? I don't think it's bad at all to shoot. Price isn't that much more for .40 ammo and it's almost always available at major stores like Wal-Mart where 9mm is much more difficult to find. My friend and I were just discussing this very issue the other day. He was deciding between a Glock 22 and 17 a little over a year ago, and he chose the 17 because he thought the 9mm would be easier to find since it's so common, and would probably be cheaper. He wishes he had gone with the 22 for local ammo availability.

I shot 9mm very accurately and when I got my .40 it didn't take long to adjust. Now I can shoot both roughly the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top