Your views on .40 Caliber vs. 9mm as a personal defense round?

[Kurt]

I like the .40 for it's heavier bullet weight over the 9x19 and also it's higher capacity over the .45acp. I feel the heavier bullet weight is crucial, while the extra rounds are a nice touch.

I've always disliked the "iffy" nature of the 9 m/m because more things must align properly for it to be effective as a stopper. However, the 9 m/m is fine to train others in semi-autos as the next step up from .22's.

 

[MCgunner]

In power, no doubt the .40 is better. It's right up there with .357 mag in performance with the lighter loadings. I've never really seen the point of .357 sig. If you load the .40 with light bullets, it'll put up energy levels equal to the sig. The velocity might be a little off 'cause light is 155 grains in .40, but it's still pushin' some decent velocities and making 500+ ft lbs from a service sized gun. If I used the caliber, I'd use light bullets.

I, however, carry the 9 and consider it quite enough. It's an impressive little round in little guns, beats .38 special +P, and is easy to shoot well. The .40 can be a handful in a light, compact auto. The main game plan is to be able to hit what you're shootin' at and I'm a little more confident I can do that with the nine. But, I admit to the .40s superior ballistics.

I've always disliked the "iffy" nature of the 9 m/m because more things must align properly for it to be effective as a stopper.

So, you can hit a guy in the foot with the .40 and he dies instantly? Either bullet needs to be put in the boiler room to work and either will do the job IMHO. Yeah, the .40 does have more sauce, but a 9 in the heart/lungs is better than a .40 in the shoulder. If you're confident in your marksmanship with the .40, fine. If I carried a full size auto, I'd consider the .40, though I already have a nice .45 and my full size nine packs 16 rounds of +P+. I still don't think I'd buy a new gun just for the little extra the .40 offers. However, if I was buying a new gun and didn't already have something that works, yeah, I'd likely get the .40 in a full size gun. I chose the 9 in a compact, though, cause in a 14 ounce gun, the 9 is more controllable.

 

[ruckus3008]

I have read somewhere (can't remeber so don't ask) talking about this sort of thing. 2 different cops, different situations, both suspects very similar in size, same gun, different calibers. 1 hit a suspect 3 times with a .40 center mass and the suspect died hours later at the hosptial. another hit a suspect twice with a 9MM and suspect died on scene.
analysis said that velocities and distance were almost identical.
so did a slightly larger bullet do less damage? or what?
Basically it came down to that neither one is superior to the other.

I personally prefer .40. but thats just my feeling. I don't think anything else is worse.

 

[cookekdjr]

Load selection is critical with the 9mm (I carry a 9mm btw). Depending upon the load you choose, it will mimic .380, or .357 SIG, or somewhere in between. I carry a 147gr +p load that performs similarly to the .38 +P 158gr FBI load. I'd also consider the Hirtenberger 124gr load that moves at about 1400 fps.
With the .40 cal, almost any ammo you choose will be a reliable man-stopper, other than those magsafe-type rounds that have ridiculously light-weight slugs. Generally speaking, I'd recommend any .40 cal round 155gr and up, including run-of-the-mill range ammo. I especially like the 180gr loads. In all the cases I have seen, .40 has been a reliable man-stopper. I have never heard a LEO decry the performance of this round. I'm sure there must by failures to stop out there, but I've never heard of one for .40...
-David, who is heading off to Court to try a firearms case with the ATF...

 

[Nitrogen]

I answer this question like this:

My main carry is an XD-9. I can carry up to 17 rounds in one (16+1). In 40S&W I can carry 13 (12+1)

I'd rather have the option of putting 17 holes in someone to stop them, than 13.

 

[SwampWolf]

The forty: neither fish nor fowl or perfect. For me, it's almost perfect. Almost, because (compared to the nine) it kicks more, costs more and carries less ammo. I've also found it to be a little less accurate on the average (don't ask me why). But I like what the forty does best: more power in a compact package. The real comparison might be between the .40 and the .45 GAP...

 

[Marshall]

I love 9X19 Para, my BHP's dig 'em!

For having to put down a purp, I'll take the 40 S&W though. I'm just as fast with my XD-40 and just as accurate and, they're bigger, heavier and faster. A 180gr 40 S&W runs faster than a 9mm 147gr which in turn provides more smack, both cartridges heaviest bullets. 12+1 is adequate for me.

 

[f4t9r]

well lets face it most departments had 9 mm and switched to the 40 and now are switching to the 45. Just like the human race everything is getting bigger and stronger.

Just get a 500 and get it over with !!!!!!

 

[LaMigraMike]

.22 Cal Beats Them All!

More People die by the .22 Caliber round in the U.S than by any other round.
What more need be said.

LaMigraMike

 

[Hawk]

Welcome to THR. Thread necromancy is encouraged (I think) as it demonstrates a firm grasp of the search function.

However,
Wisconsin FIRS is showing medium caliber (>.32, <.40) running better than double small caliber which they define as <.32.

Link to FIRS reports.
Link to PDF of '02 data. Report page 27 is your huckleberry.

FBI UCR for 2004 is showing 116 incidents involving 9mm vs 19 for .22. See chart here.

Now that I dredged that morbid stuff up, where'd you get that stuff about .22?

FBI UCR and Wisconsin data is certainly not exhaustive but I'd be curious to learn if they digress appreciably from other data sets.

 

[Greg8098]

9mm or .40?

Doesn't matter, not much difference when the shooter does their part. On a personal note though, I would rather own a Glock 9mm, than a scary, ticking self-destructing time bomb we know as the .40 Glock ! I own a Glock 22, and pray very hard before I shoot it. XD-40 just keeps looking better and better . Main point though is that both are very capable rounds. Never forget that the 9mm has produced many tombstones throughout modern history.

 

[Autolycus]

I prefer the .40 simply because I feel it is a good middle ground between the old standby rounds, 9mm and .45 acp. It has a good record so far and seems to be universally avilable.

I feel that 9mm is an excellent round. Some people prefer higher capacity but I am ok with my choice. I plan to carry an HK P2000 in .40 with 12+1 rounds versus an HK P2000 in 9mm with 13+1.

I sometimes wish I bought a 9mm because it is cheaper to shoot. However this is only because I am a poor unemployed college student. When I find a real job I think I wont really mind.

 

[AStone]

Some threads never die

Just recently, I had a similar conversation with some friends about 9mm v. 45 ACP.
(Wow. Like, that's a conversation that's never happened before. )

The conclusion: shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.

Nem {who carries a 9 loaded with 147 gr in an OWB as I write this}

 

[jlh26oo]

Yeah, shot placement is more important than caliber choice. We all understand that. However, this is a thread about caliber choice. Love the irony of people who beg for such discussions to end, while simultaneously giving a free bump.

.45acp & .40sw is actually an argument. .40sw and 9mm is not. This coming from someone who shoots 9mm across the board.

.45acp >/= .40sw > 9mm

Whatever other personal factors play into it, how well you can shoot it, capacity, size/weight, ammo price (my reason)/availability, as relevant as they are to YOUR situation, are completely IRRELEVANT to the discussion of performance of .40sw vs 9mm. As is shot placement. You assume, for the moment, shot placement to be equal.

Love how in these threads, invariably someone interprets when poster A points out that one cartridge pushes a bigger, heavier bullet faster, poster B interprets it to mean that poster A believes that said cartridge will vaporize an attacker by hitting the foot lol.

 

[atblis]

Well

40 is middle of the road. It probably works.
9x19 works fine too.

Who cares? Can't you guys think of anything better to talk about?

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. Like many, I sort of grow tired of the this vs that caliber thing and there are literally pages after pages of it via a search, but keep in mind that for some, it may be the first time they've asked about the subject.

So let's please keep things on The High Road and contribute if we have something pertinent to the topic at hand.

Thanks in advance.

Best.

 

[LaMigraMike]

.22 Cal kills more people than any other round.

.22 Cal kills more people than any other round. I learned about this when I went through the Border Patrol Academy. Also bullet proof vests are also no good against the .22 round. The .22 cal will zip through like butter.

La Migra Mike.

 

[Mad Magyar]

My take is similar, but with emphasis on which of your handguns, regardless of caliber, is the most reliable...After weeding out my collection with reliability as the sole criterian, I carry all calibers depending on the weather & wardrobe...
I feel the "fastest with the mostest" still applies...Each caliber has large capacity mags to do damage in the "kill zone".
After all, why practice "Bill's Drill"?

 

[Hawk]

.22 Cal kills more people than any other round. I learned about this when I went through the Border Patrol Academy. Also bullet proof vests are also no good against the .22 round. The .22 cal will zip through like butter.

Sure hope you didn't pay for that class.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

The topic was 40 vs 9mm.

But a few posts ago, it was politely asked that if another caliber comparison was to go on that we stay on topic.

Then we get into body armor and a pointless remark.

Closed.