So I've narrowed it down: 9mm or .40SW

[boo17]

I've narrowed my choices down to a 9mm or .40. I'm getting a Walther P99 that only comes in these 2 calibers. I know that the .40 is a little more expensive, but im willing to pay the extra 1 or 2 dollars. This gun will be used for Target shooting and home defense.

 

[Top_Notch]

Caliber wars have been debated endlessly. All I'll say is that I love my nine because it's easy and inexpensive to shoot. What's easy and inexpensive to you may be different.

 

[Chupacabra]

I'd get the 9mm.

-Easier to shoot.

-Cheaper to shoot.

-Normal capacity mags available in a few weeks!

And all things being equal; you really can't go wrong with either caliber if you use premium hollowpoint ammunition.

 

[Correia]

Do you reload?

NO: Get the 9mm. It is a cheaper to purchase ammo.

YES: Buy the .40. Brass is plentiful, and it can be loaded to many different power levels, giving you some extra versatility.


Either one works just fine, as long as you shoot enough to make the holes go where you want them.

 

[Feanaro]

Depends on your budgets. If you have the money to spend the extra bucks and have some experiance with pistols(I find .40S&W to be bad for new shooters, myself included. Recoil is snappy) then I would pick the .40S&W. The actual "stopping power" might or might not be a big advantage over 9mm but I'd take all I could get. On the other hand, a .50BMG pistol is worthless if you can shoot. And 9mm is cheaper to shoot. On a tight budget, I'd take the 9mm. More practice = more hits.

 

[Jiml3]

I have a Sig P229 in 40S&W. In winter I choose to carry it because of it's superior power and it is easy to conceal undera coat. In warm weather with light clothing I carry a Kahr PM9 because it is easy to conceal. The 9 mm. is much cheaper and less recoil, but in the sig the recoil is lighter than the recoil in the Kahr PM9. Weight reduces felt recoil, so shorter and lighter produce more "felt recoil." There is always a trade off.
Good luck in your choice.

 

[Heraclitus]

The only two guns I have ever been able to shoot with bullseye accuracy in .40 S&W are the Glock 22 and SIG P229. These two pistols were MADE for that caliber.

P99? ... I'd go for the original 9mm.

I owned one in either chamber, but was never able to shoot the .40 well enough; and so that one took a hike. But that was only me.

You need to try them both to see which one suits you better.

 

[OF]

9mm. What does the .40 really offer that the 9 can't provide? You pay the cost of increased blast, and for what?

- Gabe

 

[Ala Dan]

I've said it before, and I will say it again. "Stick with standard
calibers", such as .38 Special, 9m/m Parabellum, .45ACP
etc. Besides, you would have a very hard time locating some
.40S&W rounds in Bangladesh.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[denfoote]

My 9mm P99 is a real sweatheart!!

 

[lee n. field]

Pick one. Go with it.

Besides, you would have a very hard time locating some .40S&W rounds in Bangladesh.

He probably ain't goin' to Bangaladesh. .40 is freely available in Wally World.

I'd be inclined to go with the .40 myself, but I don't think it matters that much.

 

[MJRW]

".40 S&W are the Glock 22 and SIG P229. These two pistols were MADE for that caliber."

If you're speaking figuratively, you are entitled to your opinion. However, both are just variations of the original 9mm platform.

 

[Edmond]

I voted 9mm. It's worked for so long and it will work for you; plus, the price isn't bad for ammo. Which means that there is plenty of plinking in your future.

 

[jc2]

MJRW -

You're only half right. The P229 was designed from the ground up as a .40 S&W.

The Glock 22 is just an overbored 9x19 and most definitely NOT designed for the .40 S&W. Glock cut a LOT of corners to get it to the market first.

 

[garrettwc]

If you were looking at a different gun, I might suggest the 40, but for the P99 the best setup is the original 9MM.

I had one that was just perfect.

 

[cratz2]

Yeah, I'd have to take exception to the statement that the 229 was designed from the ground up for the 40S&W... It's just a 228 with a more solid slide.

To the original question, on the P99, I think I'd lean towards the 9mm myself but I don't know anything about the P99 that would lead me to actually discourage someone from buying one in 40.

 

[jeff-10]

Couldn't go wrong with either. If your kind of a noob to firearms I would go 9mm. Just for economic reasons.

 

[Rob96]

The only two guns I have ever been able to shoot with bullseye accuracy in .40 S&W are the Glock 22 and SIG P229. These two pistols were MADE for that caliber.

The Glock 22 is just a Glock 17 adapted for the 40S&W round.

The 40 doesn't really offer anything over the 9mm. If you look at all of the research, 9mm, 40S&W. and 45acp, in their premium loadings, are all very similar performers.

 

[valor1]

Enjoy the 9mm. Never mind the bigger hole made by .40 SW. Your buying a gun to enjoy it. When the time comes that you may need it for defense, your already an expert. Cheaper ammo too. Lesser recoil too.

 

[Jeepin' Lawyer]

One of each. . .

 

[Berg01]

I'm not trying to complicate things for you, but the fact is the Smith & Wesson variant of the Walther P99, the SW99 now comes in .45 ACP also, which I would prefer over the .40

 

[Heraclitus]

Heck... even my wife is a chip off the ol' block. The only difference is that she was MADE for me. The mother-in-law wasn't. So yeah: the Glock M-22 and SIG P-229 are, in that sense, made for the 40S&W. A match made in heaven. Don't matter to me if they're souped-up versions of an M-17 and P-228. They shoot straighter than Tom Cruise in a queer spotlight.

But don't take my word for it. Check out what other people have to say about these guns at www.handgunreview.com

While you're there, check out the ratings for the P-99 as well. The're just about even for both calibers, with the 9mm coming out slightly ahead. Just as I had thought.

Again: anyone looking should try before they buy.

 

[MJRW]

jc2, regarding the 229, I was thinking along the same line as cratz2. The 229 is just a 228 with a milled as opposed to stamped slide (I believe). The 228 was a 9mm well before the 229 was a .40.

 

[jc2]

I believe there are more differences than just the slide/barrel. SIG spent a lot of development time of the P229--they did not just slap a .40 S&W barrel and slide on a P228. I think considerably more thought and effort went into the development (frame and slide) of the P229 than you're allowing--in other words, it is not just an overbored 9x19 with a .40 S&W breech face like the Glock. Where, on the other hand, the G17 frame and G22 frame are completely interchangable--the only difference is the slide/barrel. I know it has not been plagued with problems the Glock has had (or that other "quick and dirty" conversion--the Beretta 96).

FWIW, SIGArms did give the P229 a new model designation when it was introduced (and it was introduced as a .40 S&W). They kept the P226 and P239 model designations when they introduced .40 S&W and 357 SIG versions of those models.

 

[Flashpoint]

The only handgun I own right now is a .40cal. I had a 9mm and got rid of it. I just like the .40 better. That being said, my next gun will be a 9mm.