.40 or 9mm?

[Mist]

I love my .40 cal 3.8 xdm it roars when it's needed most and I am not worried about wall penetration as I believe within 25 yards I am well praticed enough for some quality center mass although I have bought an Xdm in 9 mm and 5.25 for shooting comps and an m& p shield for summer carry ! 9 mm is cheaper and lighter on the shorts . I would by .40 again and 9 mm again !

[Bell69]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

Except a 147gr 9mm will often outpenetrate a .40, meaning more tissue destroyed...throw in more control to more rapidly place rounds on target (since we are all smart enough to know that one shot stops are the exception, not the rule...), and I see the .40's marginally larger diameter as diminshing returns.

I'll grant you that if there is a loading that has really benefitted from modern HP technology it's the 147gr 9mm.

It was real clunker in the early HP days that was infamous for it's failure to expand due to it's low velocity. It's always been a good penetrator due to it's weight, expansion was always it's shortcoming.

However there are some current loadings that really standout as top-notch loads that give very good expansion as well as penetration.


Just which .40s have you been shooting that are so wildly out of control from this horrific recoil???

I'll agree that in small subcompact CCW type pistols the 9mm is a much better choice but in compact and full-size duty type pistols the .40 is easily controlled and can be shot effectively by the average shooter.

If you have trouble and struggle shooting with .40s then yeah a 9mm is indeed a better choice, but if you can control a .40 why not go with the larger, heavier bullets and "extra power" of the .40?

And the .22 comparison is silly, in this case--and you should know it.

Oh come on now you know quite well what point I was making.

Just how much power are you willing to give up for control?

That's basically what these caliber debates boil down to power vs. control.

We all have to decide when we reach "diminishing returns" based on our own skills and abilities with the various calibers and platforms we're using them in.

But, hell, what do I know--I carry .45's--and single stacks at that--more than anything now.

My EDC is a Glock 26 and the there's a 1911 sitting here on the computer stand as I type, but that doesn't mean I can't or won't see the advantages of the .40 as a caliber.

[Thunder71]

Originally Posted by dhunley1

I'll take a 9mm over .40 any day. If I want something bigger I go for a .45.

This.

[e_lo]

I bought the .40. I frankly don't remember why, but maybe I had recently read the post on ammo selection at chuckhawks.com. In any event, I have a 9mm conversion barrel for it, so I can shoot the cheaper ammo at the range. After having fired one and switched from one immediately over to the other, I can say that there is a bit of difference in recoil/muzzle flip/time to reacquire target between the two loads from the same gun, but not a whole lot. I'm a new shooter, too, and find that the difference in the two calibers is pretty far down on the list of things I need to focus on in terms of effective shooting.

Just my $0.02

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Bell69

I'll grant you that if there is a loading that has really benefitted from modern HP technology it's the 147gr 9mm.

It was real clunker in the early HP days that was infamous for it's failure to expand due to it's low velocity. It's always been a good penetrator due to it's weight, expansion was always it's shortcoming.

However there are some current loadings that really standout as top-notch loads that give very good expansion as well as penetration.


Just which .40s have you been shooting that are so wildly out of control from this horrific recoil???

I'll agree that in small subcompact CCW type pistols the 9mm is a much better choice but in compact and full-size duty type pistols the .40 is easily controlled and can be shot effectively by the average shooter.

If you have trouble and struggle shooting with .40s then yeah a 9mm is indeed a better choice, but if you can control a .40 why not go with the larger, heavier bullets and "extra power" of the .40?



Oh come on now you know quite well what point I was making.

Just how much power are you willing to give up for control?

That's basically what these caliber debates boil down to power vs. control.

We all have to decide when we reach "diminishing returns" based on our own skills and abilities with the various calibers and platforms we're using them in.




My EDC is a Glock 26 and the there's a 1911 sitting here on the computer stand as I type, but that doesn't mean I can't or won't see the advantages of the .40 as a caliber.

Given equal accuracy, a 9mm can usually be brought back on target faster than a .40 when firing a similar platform. It may be tenths of a seconds faster, but that can also be the difference between a hit and a miss on a moving target.

And it only stands to reason; we'll take the heaviest commonly used bullet weght for each caliber--147 for 9mm, 180 for .40; the .40 will have more muzzle energy, meaning that in a similar platform (G17 and G22, or XD service in both calibers) the .40 will recoil more--assuming, of course, that Isaac Newton knew what he was talking about.

Personally, I guess with modern loadings, I don't see where the .40 offers anything to justify added cost and reduced capacity over 9mm; as others have said--if I want capacity, I'll go with a 9mm (and do--my nightstand pistol is a Glock 34)--if I want a big bullet, I'll take a .45 (which is why I'm usually carrying either my Baer or a Colt New Agent lately).

And if I want to split the difference--I'll take the unneutered big brother of .40--my Witness 10mm.

[Bell69]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

Given equal accuracy, a 9mm can usually be brought back on target faster than a .40 when firing a similar platform. It may be tenths of a seconds faster, but that can also be the difference between a hit and a miss on a moving target.

And it only stands to reason; we'll take the heaviest commonly used bullet weght for each caliber--147 for 9mm, 180 for .40; the .40 will have more muzzle energy, meaning that in a similar platform (G17 and G22, or XD service in both calibers) the .40 will recoil more--assuming, of course, that Isaac Newton knew what he was talking about.

Personally, I guess with modern loadings, I don't see where the .40 offers anything to justify added cost and reduced capacity over 9mm; as others have said--if I want capacity, I'll go with a 9mm (and do--my nightstand pistol is a Glock 34)--if I want a big bullet, I'll take a .45 (which is why I'm usually carrying either my Baer or a Colt New Agent lately).

And if I want to split the difference--I'll take the unneutered big brother of .40--my Witness 10mm.

Do you really feel that those "tenths" of a second will be the difference between life and death and far exceed the advantages of the .40's added bullet size and extra power, or is it that since tthis is the principle adavantage 9 has, you're playing it up for all it's worth?

Sure it'll have more recoil than a 9 but a 9mm +P has more power than a standard 9mm but also added recoil, does that mean +P rounds are a waste of money that only add recoil and lose precious control with no meaningful advantages? Are people who use 9mm +P in their pistols fools?

Well you may not be able to justify it but there are many LEAs including the FBI who does extensive ballistic testing, who feel the 40 does offer an advantage over the 9mm and doesn't require the larger platform of a .45.

I have a 10mm too a Glock 20 and my first 10 was a full-size Witness, good pistols, and since I already reload for the 10mm adding a .40 to the line-up seemed a natural, same bullets, same dies. I had considered just getting a conversion barrel but why not just get a dedicated .40 and take advantage of the smaller grip size and more compact size of something like say an XD40 service model?

Never hurts to have variety among calibers. The last ammo shortage 9mm and .45 and especially .380 disappeared from the shelves and so did bullets and other reloading supplies, but there was plenty of .40 on the shelves.

Why be a fanatic and limit yourself to certain calibers it isn't a religion or something it's just a pistol caliber.

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Bell69

Do you really feel that those "tenths" of a second will be the difference between life and death and far exceed the advantages of the .40's added bullet size and extra power, or is it that since tthis is the principle adavantage 9 has, you're playing it up for all it's worth?

Sure it'll have more recoil than a 9 but a 9mm +P has more power than a standard 9mm but also added recoil, does that mean +P rounds are a waste of money that only add recoil and lose precious control with no meaningful advantages? Are people who use 9mm +P in their pistols fools?

Well you may not be able to justify it but there are many LEAs including the FBI who does extensive ballistic testing, who feel the 40 does offer an advantage over the 9mm and doesn't require the larger platform of a .45.

I have a 10mm too a Glock 20 and my first 10 was a full-size Witness, good pistols, and since I already reload for the 10mm adding a .40 to the line-up seemed a natural, same bullets, same dies. I had considered just getting a conversion barrel but why not just get a dedicated .40 and take advantage of the smaller grip size and more compact size of something like say an XD40 service model?

Never hurts to have variety among calibers. The last ammo shortage 9mm and .45 and especially .380 disappeared from the shelves and so did bullets and other reloading supplies, but there was plenty of .40 on the shelves.

Why be a fanatic and limit yourself to certain calibers it isn't a religion or something it's just a pistol caliber.

Tenths of seconds can be jewels beyond price when the range goes two-way. As far as "power"...sorry, but foot/pounds mean nothing when it comes to a round's effectiveness. And, that's not the only thing it has going--recall that 9mm is also cheaper, and carries more ammo in comparable platforms. Add in the minimal difference in wound channel diameter (and also add in that over all wound channel volume may actually be greater due to the 9mm's ability to penetrate deeper using modern loads), and there are several things it has going for it that, as I said originally, make the .40 a case of diminishing returns.

As far as the +P, that's a personal choice. Me, I choose a standard pressure 147gr loading for my 9mm's, as I don't see the +P loads offering anything more, performance-wise. Some people feel it does--just as some people feel the .40 offers more. Good for them, but I disagree.

Remember the FBI chose the .40 back in the days when it actually did offer an improvement over the 9mm loads at the time; and also bear in mind that the went to the .40 because it mimicked the downloaded 10mm they used, and in a smaller package. That, and they have an institutional dislike of the 9mm due to one event...and that wasn;t a caliber failure, it was a bullet/load failure. Add in that they've issued .40's for close to two decades now, and it would be costly and time consuming to switch.

I could also point out that there are more than a few large departments switching back to 9mm from .40; St. Paul MN PD being one of them.

As for variety among calibers, I agree; this is why I'm keeping my eye open for a S&W 610/310...but since I reload, and also pick up factory ammo when I find decent deals, it's kinda moot.

[LockedBreech]

I'll accept that 9x19 loads can penetrate as deeply as .40 in bare gelatin, but do you have evidence that they penetrate deeper, because I am unfamiliar with that.

Regarding the time between shots 9 vs. .40, I think that's hugely shooter-dependent. For me there is almost no difference - not enough to matter, in my opinion - but I have friends I've observed shooting where the difference is notable.

[Cuda66]

[LockedBreech]

In that picture, the deepest penetrator is a .40 S&W and no round out penetrates any other by more than an inch. I'd say that's evidence for all service calibers penetrating more or less equally, not 9 penetrating better than .40