Which Springfield XD Sub-Compact 9 vs 40

[jwalker497]

I really like SF XD models, expecially the Sub-compact but I am really torn between the 9mm vs 40sw in the sub compact model for CCW and range purposes. I'm hoping this poll will lean one way or the other, because I can't seem to make my mind up. I would especially like to hear form those who have actually done some type of comparison, that is shot similar sized pistols in both calibers and can offer some real experience as opposed who just vote because it's what they have.

The differences are The XD9SC offers lower recoil, faster followup shots , whereas the 40s&w offers 9 more power for defensive purposes. For purposes of this vote. I am basically trying to decide on which caliber in the XDSC to go with and my confusion is only centered on Accuracy vs Recoil. I don't care about the others factors like cost of ammo, number of rounds etc because they both have enough for me.

Strictly, which is the better CCW, in this platform 9mm vs 40sw

 

[Quoheleth]

Have you shot the two calibers in similar guns (i.e., in two Mil Pros, two CZ 75s, etc.) for a fair comparison? What did you thin of the two? I suspect here you'll get more of a caliber comparison than gun comparison. Some like the 9 for reasons you mentioned (cost, a couple more rounds, etc.); others like the .40 for a slightly bigger hole (approx. .033" - .357 vs .40).

As the song says, "Flip a coin: you're a winner either way."

Q

FWIW: I would go 9mm because I reload for 9.

 

[jwalker497]

I don't have the ability to rent 2 guns of similiar frames for comparison, thats why I wanted to hear others opinions

 

[rquack]

I have owned an XDsc 9mm for about 5 yrs. This gun is very accurate and not too discriminating about what it eats, factory or handloads. No reliability issues ever; it has seen about 2500 rounds. I consider the ammo a bit cheaper than .40 and a bit more available. I also own a XD 9 service model [4" barrel] and a Kahr CW9 for everyday carry. [The XDsc proved a bit heavy and bulky for everyday use, but I find it a very desirable weapon in certain situations and very comfortable to carry in an OWB holster.]

 

[possum]

i had one in .40 and i loved it. also the recoil was alot easier to manage than i thought it was gonna be for such a small compact gun. however i reccomend 9mm, cheaper to shoot, and will allow you more range time with the gun that might actually be used to save your life. if you don't reload you shoudl start and train with that pistol like your life depends on it. over 17,000rds thorough my xd and it is still going strong.

as far as knick down power and all that bs, all hangun calibers suck, get the one that is gonna allow you the most trigger time, and a good balance of speed and accuracy, shootability and reliability.

 

[Just One Shot]

I have the .40 SC and it's a great little gun. I could have had the 9mm and I may even get one in the future but the .40 ammo is more readily available around here.

 

[Walkalong]

One option is to get the XD in .40 and a 9MM Conversion barrel from Firedragon. You can also get a .357 Sig Conversion barrel.

 

[jwalker497]

I have considered that option but due to reliability issues I would not be able to carry the conversion 9.

 

[Walkalong]

Carry the .40, shoot the nine for fun, more cheaply than .40 of course.

 

[jwalker497]

My concern with the conversion is what if I find that I more accurate with the 9 then I would be stuck with the 40

 

[BP Hunter]

You mentioned that the 9mm would have a better follow up shot vs. the .40. The chance of a good guy landing his first shot clean, I think, would be less if you threw more lead downrange hoping one of them would hit the bad guy. So I would go with the 9mm.

 

[jwalker497]

Do you really think the difference in what miliseconds due to the recoil of the 40 would have any real world implications??

 

[drocay]

40, i have the conversion barrel and it has been just as reliable as the 40. Two pistols for cost of one.

 

[GojuBrian]

40sc all the way.

 

[BlayGlock]

Not much difference in the 9mm vs .40 effectiveness with good quality defense ammo. The 9mm will have less recoil and be cheaper to feed even if you reload. I vote 9mm.

 

[AdamSean]

I chose the 9mm model for two reasons. 1) 9mm ammunition is the cheapest to buy in bulk so I can be sure to practice a lot. 2) 9mm ammunition technologies have come a long way and can perform excellently for personal defense.

 

[Gryffydd]

Not much difference in the 9mm vs .40 effectiveness with good quality defense ammo. The 9mm will have less recoil and be cheaper to feed even if you reload. I vote 9mm.

Yup. The 9mm also has 13+1 capacity going for it. (16+1 with the mag/grip extension). The only thing the .40 has going for it is, theoretically, marginally better stopping power.
(unless you own other guns in .40, have better access to cheap .40 etc.)
I have had the 9mm Sub Compact for about 5 years now and absolutely love it. I'm as accurate with it at 50' as I am with my 5" 1911.

 

[Manco]

The differences are The XD9SC offers lower recoil, faster followup shots , whereas the 40s&w offers 9 more power for defensive purposes.

The choice of caliber depends mostly on the individual, and maybe a little bit on the gun (guns that "shoot softer" and/or control muzzle flip better might make some difference for some people). For example, while I can feel the difference between shooting 9mm and .40 S&W, it doesn't make any noticeable difference in the speed at which I can bring the sights back on target and shoot with accuracy. However, I know somebody who says that .40 S&W actually hurts to shoot and that 9mm really does allow for much faster firing in the same platform. People might vote for what's best for them or what they think would be best for most people, but nobody can tell you what's best for you but you. Try to rent similar weapons in order to compare the calibers for yourself.

others like the .40 for a slightly bigger hole (approx. .033" - .357 vs .40).

The difference in unexpanded diameter is about 0.401" - 0.356" = 0.045". However, terminal performance depends on the individual load. Generally, .40 S&W will give you a few extra inches of penetration with the same expanded JHP diameter, a slightly larger expanded diameter for the same penetration, or something in between.

as far as knick down power and all that bs, all hangun calibers suck, get the one that is gonna allow you the most trigger time, and a good balance of speed and accuracy, shootability and reliability.

Might I suggest .22 LR, then, or for greater reliability .25 ACP?

Do you really think the difference in what miliseconds due to the recoil of the 40 would have any real world implications??

Not for me, but everybody is different. There's only one way to find out what works best for you. If you can't or won't rent similar guns to try, then 9mm is obviously the safer choice, and it'll get the job done. I went with .40 S&W because its recoil doesn't bother me and it's easier to find loads with the type of performance I want, but I wouldn't feel under-gunned with a 9mm (the differences between the common service calibers are hardly huge).

 

[jwalker497]

Thanks Manco.

I understand the 40 is going to kick harder, that's expected you're firing a more powerful round. I ge that. But what I was trying to assess was if that extra few nanoseconds it takes to reacquire your target becuase of that increased recoil would put you at a disadvantage if god forbid you do have to defend yourself. I agree with most everyone that the 9mm probably offers faster followup shots but I am trying to determine if that really means anything tangible and if it's an acceptable compromise when I can fire a more powerful round in a gun the exact same size.

 

[Walkalong]

They are both kind of snappy in the lightweight XD SC. I like the 180 Gr loads in .40. They are much less snappy than the fast 155 & 165 Gr loads. I do however, have some 165 Gr HST stashed. (Got a good deal a couple years back)

 

[Manco]

I understand the 40 is going to kick harder, that's expected you're firing a more powerful round. I ge that. But what I was trying to assess was if that extra few nanoseconds it takes to reacquire your target becuase of that increased recoil would put you at a disadvantage if god forbid you do have to defend yourself. I agree with most everyone that the 9mm probably offers faster followup shots but I am trying to determine if that really means anything tangible and if it's an acceptable compromise when I can fire a more powerful round in a gun the exact same size.

Well, the point I was trying to make was that the difference in perceived recoil and the impact this would have on followup shots differs between individuals--there is no simple rule that applies universally. .40 S&W doesn't affect my speed or accuracy at all because I'm a stocky 230 lb dude with beefy arms, but somebody I know who is literally about half my size is overwhelmed by the difference in recoil and takes a few seconds to recover from each shot with .40 S&W. It's kind of perplexing to me because I don't feel much difference between these calibers (both are light but snappy), but she does and it's enough to throw her aim way off (I guess 9mm is her absolute upper limit for combat, and it may be partly psychological for all I know). Most people would fall somewhere in between, I'd imagine, and size doesn't always matter, either.

If you believe that the difference in the speed of followup shots is very small (implied by "nanoseconds"), which it is for some people, then .40 S&W would be a good choice. If you're not sure, based on the balance of what people are saying, then 9mm would also be a good choice. In a small gun with a reduced-length barrel, personally I'd be even more inclined to go with .40 S&W because I can never know when an extra couple of inches of penetration, which will already be reduced, may save my bacon. On the other hand, if I could shoot noticeably faster and/or more accurately with 9mm, then I'd go with that because it's more important than the small difference in "stopping power" between these calibers.

I agonized over the same decision not all that long ago myself, and discovered that ultimately it comes down to what makes you feel the most comfortable, taking both physical and mental factors into account. You can't make a wrong choice between them, and neither is better than the other in every way--the best choice is whatever gives you greater peace of mind and is less likely to give you buyer's remorse.

Aside from providing you with some information and anecdotes, the best advice anybody could give is that you should try them both out if at all possible--hopefully there is a range in your area with at least a Glock 26 and 27 that you could rent to get a sense of how both calibers feel to you. Only then will you even know yourself well enough to make the best decision--nobody else could do that.

 

[BlayGlock]

acceptable compromise when I can fire a more powerful round in a gun the exact same size.

I say no. You get more capacity with a 9mm. With good self defense ammo there is not enough "power" difference to make up for a poor shot.

 

[SIGLBER]

I didn't read the whole thread because it probably turned into a caliber war thing. I had a G27 that I carried for years. Good gun but very snappy recoil. Very hard caliber on little gun. Mine went Kaboom on factory ammo. And I took very good care of it. Got a 4" XD and loved it. Bought the 3" and love it.
Here we go so put on your helmets and body armor. All the service calibers with good JHP ammo perform about the same. Although many will argue it it's true. 13+1 rounds of good JHP's that produce less recoil and muzzle blast than a .40. Are cheaper to train with. And as a result of less blast and recoil easier to shoot well makes the 9mm the winner for me. Nothing wrong with the .40. I just don't feel it offers any real advantages.

 

[NG VI]

My concern with the conversion is what if I find that I more accurate with the 9 then I would be stuck with the 40

Don't overthink it. You want a Springfield XDsc, now find the best deal on one you can, and whichever caliber you get, there you go. My Glock 27 is one of the guns I shoot best, despite being very little and .40, I feel like I am more accurate with it than my fullsize USP .40. Your mileage may vary, but I'm guessing that if you don't think too hard about things like 'power' in a puny handgun and just focus on your shooting, you won't really notice the extra recoil of the .40 or the lower power of the 9mm.


And with ammunition designed in the last ten-fifteen years, they are both about as good as you can get in a carry-sized anti-personnel package.

 

[jwalker497]

Sig, Can you please elaborate?? WHat happened? I have read that the unsupported chamber in a glock whereas the XD is fully supported

"Mine went Kaboom on factory ammo." care of it. Got a 4" XD and loved it. Bought the 3" and love it."