Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: M&P 9mm VS M&P 40 S&W

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    92
    Feedback Score
    0

    M&P 9mm VS M&P 40 S&W

    Hey guys, I'm seriously considering buying a S&W M&P handgun soon, do you think I should buy a 9mm or 40 S&W? It will be used for plinking at the range and possibly home defense, Ive shot a 40 cal before which I really liked, but never a 9mm. I like that the 9mm holds 2 extra rounds and that ammo is cheaper, but I'm afraid that it might be boring to shoot compared to the 40, any thoughts? Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    152
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    It seems like boring is a good thing, i.e. boringly reliable/predictable/accurate/etc...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,963
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I recommend that you go over to ammunitiontogo.com and Palmetto State Armory and weigh the cost of "boring".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,566
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    If it is going to be used solely for range use/HD then the 9mm will be more than adequate. Cost of ammo will be cheaper which means the cost of training will be less. I have a M&P9FS that is a training gun and also doubles as HD.

    I carry the M&P40FS at work for the ballistic performance when encountering intermediate barriers like vehicles and auto glass. This is really the only reason I do not carry the 9mm although the 9mm will perform.

    Unless you are going to be encountering intermediate barriers the 9mm is fine. When carrying off duty, where the chances of a shooting will be person on person, I carry the 9mm FS or a M&P9C.

    Also my dept. pays for th 40 cal ammo. If I was footing the bill for the ammo I would carry the 9mm.

    "Boring" should not even enter into the equation.
    Last edited by SWATcop556; 11-07-10 at 02:54.
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up


    "I'm just a one man army waging jihad against shitty ARs, one rifle at a time." Will Larson (IraqGunz) I miss you my friend

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    If all you are doing is cranking off rounds aimlessly, shooting in general can be boring. Can you boringly and consistently put rounds through the same hole or fist sized groups from 3 to 25 yards? I can't yet, but I'm getting there and that's what the 9mm allows me to do on a regular basis, save money and practice. I enjoy shooting both calibers but I shoot 800-1000 rounds a month in pistol alone, and the 9mm allows me to continue to train at that level.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Duty station here....duty station there...
    Posts
    661
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Either one will be an excellent pistol. 9mm is "slightly" cheaper to practice with, so if you shoot large amounts of ammo at the range it can equate to some savings. However, the difference is about $.20-.$25 per shot for 9mm, and about $.25-$.30 per shot for .40S&W. Defensive ammo is almost identical in price.

    Personally, I prefer to use .40S&W. The M&P .40 is one of the best .40S&W pistols ever made, and there are benefits to using it over the 9mm in defensive situations. Plus, most Federal agencies use .40S&W so there will be lots of contract overrun ammo available for many decades to come.
    "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left." -Ecclesiastes 10:2

    Glock Armorer
    Sig Sauer Armorer
    Colt M16/M4 Armorer
    Remington 870/11-87 Armorer
    Firearms Instructor

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    L3 orbitting the Earth
    Posts
    314
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    While I have the FS 9, a bonus to owning the 40 is being able to insert a 9 or .357 barrel in the .40 when you wish. A nice perk...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia / Afghanistan
    Posts
    2,480
    Feedback Score
    54 (100%)
    I would say go for the M&P 9. Ammo costs are cheaper, and with modern JHP such as Golt Dot, Ranger T or Federal HST, will make a very viable defensive handgun platform as well.

    Drop in the Apex DCAEK and RAM as well.
    SSG Jimmy Ide- KIA 28 Aug 10, Hyderabad, AFG

    1SG Blue Rowe- KIA 26 May 09, Panjshir, AFG.

    RIP Brothers

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,415
    Feedback Score
    125 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GermanSynergy View Post
    I would say go for the M&P 9. Ammo costs are cheaper, and with modern JHP such as Golt Dot, Ranger T or Federal HST, will make a very viable defensive handgun platform as well.

    Drop in the Apex DCAEK and RAM as well.
    I'll second that.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    568
    Feedback Score
    0
    I chose the M&P 40 because that's what was designed first. The M&P 9 came afterwards. I know there is probably no issues with the 9 (maybe the extractor) but I also narrowed it down to the 9 and 40. This is what finalized my decision. The Glocks and XDs both were designed as 9s first. Glocks have the unsupported chamber in 40 and the XDs capacity is not on par with other similar 40 platforms. All the previously posted reasons are completely legit aswell, IMO.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •