View Full Version : Is .40 S&W really worth it vs 9mm?
chairforce26
08-19-12, 03:28
I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.
no. With reliable hollowpoint ammo you get about expansion to .62 cal with 9mm and .40 goes to .68. Honestly its not worth the extra recoil and less rounds. However if you are going to get a .40 the M&P line is the one to go with.
no. With reliable hollowpoint ammo you get about expansion to .62 cal with 9mm and .40 goes to .68. Honestly its not worth the extra recoil and less rounds. However if you are going to get a .40 the M&P line is the one to go with.
I agree. I have M&Ps in 9mm and 40. I bought the 40 because for a while, I was getting free ammo in 40.
The 40 has a lot more power when it comes to shooting steel targets or thru things,(windshields, etc). In a self defense situation good 9mm self defense ammo will perform very close.
The m&p is by far the smoothest shooting out of the box polymer pistol in 40 I have ever shot.
dwhitehorne
08-19-12, 05:22
With the M&P 40 it is because I bought a factory 9mm barrrel and magazines and shoot both calibers in the same gun without any problems. I actually have more 9mm ammo through the gun than 40 rounds. 15+1 rounds of 180gr 40 is nice. Is one better than the other, who knows but the 40 does knock down steel with more authority. David
The majority of members here will say 9mm is just as good. Cheaper to shoot( assuming you're buying your own ammo) and 9 times out of ten has less recoil. If you are set on .40, I have read the m&p is one of the better pistols to get. There are many threads discussing 9 vs 40. For what it's worth, I like 9mm but I'm a nobody.
The majority of members here will say 9mm is just as good. Cheaper to shoot( assuming you're buying your own ammo) and 9 times out of ten has less recoil. If you are set on .40, I have read the m&p is one of the better pistols to get. There are many threads discussing 9 vs 40. For what it's worth, I like 9mm but I'm a nobody.
The M&P is the only .40 I have left and will not be getting rid of it.
Plan to get a Storm Lake barrel and some mags so I can shoot 9mm and .40 from the same gun.
You can get a .40 and add a 9mm barrel, but you cannot get a 9mm and add a .40 barrel.
If you get the .40, you can swap the .357sig factory barrel from S&W if you want to play with that caliber, and you can get a Storm Lake barrel (and new mags) if you want to shoot 9mm.
My advice, get the .40 and shoot all three!
chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?
If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.
In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:
"Not getting into the weapons transition issues from frame design to frame design (it's the reason I love to hate the Glock), the fact of the matter is that the recoil on the 23 crosses the magic line of running the shit out of your pistol.
Allow me to explain...
Most of the guys on the G19 thread mentioned that they can handle the reduced size of the 19 and the recoil increase over the 17 is acceptable. Most of us have also determined that this does NOT cross over to the .40 cartridge. Guys with a firm handle on recoil manipulation can use the 22 and 35 with acceptable results. However when you go down to 26's and 23's, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The recoil is now noticably effecting times and it's measurable. If you can't effectively control recoil and are wasting time allowing your pistol to settle between shots then this is all a wash and means nothing to you, but if you can apply the fundamentals effectively you will quickly see that you can't run a sub compact 9 or a compact .40 worth a shit. So a decision to accept a larger pistol in order to have an acceptable recoil impulse based upon caliber must be made. The smallest 9mm Glock recoil that I will accept is the G19 and I will not go below the G22 when bumping up to .40."
rotorblade
08-19-12, 11:34
I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.
Just buy a good quality 9mm handgun, some mags, and ammo. Go to the range and have fun.
If you can rent a bunch of different guns first and in the 9 40 chambering and compare. Heck offer to bring a box of ammo and shoot a friends guns. Will save time and money helping you find what you like. If it doesn't give you that warm fuzzy when holding it its not for you. Once you settle on 2 or 3 different guns then just "Pick One".
chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?
If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.
In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:
That is a very interesting angle on the topic. I certainly found the G27 quite a handful and not so much in larger guns.
OTOH, 9mm is so much lighter recoiling that I've found FAST runs (concealed proper ones and psuedo FAST drills; keeping apples to apples) under 6 seconds and Bill Drills (to pick two I've used for comparisons) - can be run so similiarly from G26-G17 that I don't sweat the choice much for most of my civilian CCW. I agree that taken in the whole - across a wider range of performance measures to include 25 and 50 yard shooting; Kyle Defoors 15% advantage to the full size gun seems to bear out.
ETA: "so similiarly" is pretty subjective. What I mean is for most of the past 12 mosts, clean runs in the 5 seconds . something - pretty similiarly. Of late; with tips from some USPSA shooters, I've cut a good bit of time out but I've only measured that with G17's (well under 5.0).
Best subcompact psuedo-FAST: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78036189@N07/7816277480/in/photostream
chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?
If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.
In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:
Doc, did your friend observe any trends in terms of response time when a BG meets one or the other of the calibers mentioned? I mean on the part of the recipient.
Last weekend my adult son and I went out to shoot both the Glock 19 (9mm) and 23 (40 cal.). We obviously didn't know this thread would show up, and since we were both interested in the difference between the two while shooting, we thought we would give it a try.
While shooting, we shot each gun five times, and then traded off. Five shots, trade, five more, trade, until the mags went dry. The ammo used was full power hollow points in both, and pretty much the same ammo many PDs use.
Without saying anything first, I asked my son who doesn't have much experience with the .40 and none with the 9, what he thought. He told me he couldn't really tell the difference between the two. I, being a more experienced shooter, could tell the .40 bucked harder, but it was in no means enough to make shooting it difficult for me in any way.
Why couldn't my son tell the difference? I've trained him to use a very firm grip, and good stance. His lack of experience with these two specific handguns shows the difference between them may not be as big as some believe. The differences can many times be ammo dependant, which is the reason I chose full power, service type ammo.
Even with my years of shooting, I have found if you don't actually take out two guns side by side, and alternate between them, it's impossible to have enough real time info. to make a good evaluation. Even shooting one a day after the other, the true impressions are gone, even if you're writing it down in a notebook.
The Glock 27 (40) is a different story. Can't get enough of a grip for a load that kicks. I feel the lack of a full grip is much more of a factor than the gun weighing less. The 27 can be mastered, but with loads of practice, with the load you will actually be carrying. If I have to have a gun of the size of a 27 or smaller, I go with something in 9mm.
I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.
If you're asking whether it has better stopping power, the evidence says not significantly. Besides Doc's writings, I saw a video on a website where an Anesthesiologist was lecturing to a student class and basically his findings were the same as Doc's and basically most people that are shot with a pistol survive, no matter the caliber. Now part of that is bad shot placement, but it also gives you and indication of how close actual performance is of the major defense calibers.
Now not significantly is not the same as no and you have to decide whether or not that amount of extra performance makes a difference to you. In addition, you have to see whether or not the extra recoil negatively effects your shooting. Only you can decide this. I've seen LEAs change calibers because they felt 9mm wasn't working for their situation. It's a legitimate concern, but not working for them and not working for you isn't always the same thing.
And let's not forget the extra expense because shooting is expensive no matter what and unless you're going to reload or have an endless free supply of ammo, shooting anything outside of 9mm is approaching non affordable.
Having shot a Glock 23, I wouldn't, but I train with guys that love that gun. If you're talking about the HK USPc, maybe. To be honest though, I don't like .40 personally. I don't believe the extra recoil is worth what little performance edge I get from it. If given the choice, I prefer 9mm or .45. But that's me and I've shot all three in different types of guns, so I have an idea of what I like and what I don't. More importantly, after working drills against a clock, I have a much better understanding of what works well for me and what doesn't work as well.
Hogsgunwild
08-19-12, 13:51
Doc has posted some great points that people need to think hard about prior to a purchase.
I like the 250 rounds + per week rule and it put into words and draws a line that sounds realistic and usable. I have a huge respect for the .40 S&W caliber after owning them since around the time it originated in 1990. My first was a Firestar, then two G27s, two G23s, a G35, three H&Ks, a STI VIP (worst flip ever) and now a PPQ. I would not recommend the .40 to a new shooter at all and personally feel that the caliber is really optimized in a full sized gun for all but the most accomplished shooters.
My PPQ is extremely accurate in this caliber and I find that by incorporating it into my training routine with my 9MM PPQs (second 9MM to arrive this week), it exacerbates issues that I feel that I am finally accomplished enough to recognize and overcome the natural tendency to develop the bad habits prior to them starting. There are days when I have no problem putting the .40 PPQ away and sticking with the 9MM knowing that due to my being without enough recent practice sessions or me just not shooting up to what I expect of myself that day for whatever reason, the .40 would be detrimental and counter-productive to my training / practice session. The nice thing about incorporating the .40 into my training is that I find it makes my 9MM practice seem very easy and very productive.
I can remember a time that I set up some targets in the desert and practiced with my G23, perhaps ten years ago or so. I was getting very frustrated as I had no idea as to why my shooting kept getting worse and worse. I must have shot over 600 rounds of .40 trying to overcome my eroding trigger control, flinching and anticipating issues that I had developed and had no clue that it was even happening at the time. Now I can detect these issues when I first see them rearing their ugly heads and take corrective measures. To this day I am very aware that these problems can still affect me (much easier to develop with the .40).
.40 looks good on paper (165gr. looks the best). But I'm starting to think 9mm 124gr. +P is another good way to go.
If I'm not mistaken the .40 will have a slightly larger wound cavity than the 9mm, if you could call it a wound cavity. From the same tests, the 9mm and .40 stopped around the same depth in gelatin.
I have a Glock 22 and really like it. But, I'm starting to look for a Gen 2 Glock 17 because of ammo costs. Even when reloading, 9mm is 15% less than cost of loading .40.
darr3239: Rather than go on subjective feelings of how a firearm shoots, I prefer to assess things using cold hard objective data that is derived looking at a shot timer and accuracy/score on the target. Nothing else really matters. Say I have two pistols I am assessing--one that "feels" perfect and one that "feels" bad. With the one that feels good I am consistently getting a first shot from the holster at 2s, splits of .27s, and primarily C-zone hits, while the bad "feeling" one I am getting a 1.3s first shot, splits of .19, and all A-zone hits. That is a no brainer, I am choosing to use the pistol that subjectively feels "bad", but objectively shoots great as the other is a total no go, despite how nice it "feels"!
lhoward81: In general, the 180 gr loads offer the best terminal performance, although there are some lighter loads that also work well.
I generally prefer the 9mm and don't feel the .40 adds significant capability for most users. In the M&P the .40 isn't bad and it's almost a wash between 9 and 40, with the main difference being ammo cost.
chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?
If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.
In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:"Not getting into the weapons transition issues from frame design to frame design (it's the reason I love to hate the Glock), the fact of the matter is that the recoil on the 23 crosses the magic line of running the shit out of your pistol.
Allow me to explain...
Most of the guys on the G19 thread mentioned that they can handle the reduced size of the 19 and the recoil increase over the 17 is acceptable. Most of us have also determined that this does NOT cross over to the .40 cartridge. Guys with a firm handle on recoil manipulation can use the 22 and 35 with acceptable results. However when you go down to 26's and 23's, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The recoil is now noticably effecting times and it's measurable. If you can't effectively control recoil and are wasting time allowing your pistol to settle between shots then this is all a wash and means nothing to you, but if you can apply the fundamentals effectively you will quickly see that you can't run a sub compact 9 or a compact .40 worth a shit. So a decision to accept a larger pistol in order to have an acceptable recoil impulse based upon caliber must be made. The smallest 9mm Glock recoil that I will accept is the G19 and I will not go below the G22 when bumping up to .40."
I've found the same to be true. I've carried and extensively worked with Glocks. I've found the G23 to be snappy and it slows target acquisition on subsequent shots when firing more than one round in succession. The G19 doesn't have the same problem. Consequently, I carry the G19 off duty and the G22 on duty.
That's a great point DocGKR. Putting the scientific method to use would eliminate most other factors, such as "feeling" a gun fits your hand better, when others do the job better.
Of course, the end results will differ from shooter to shooter, in many cases, so you have to do the experimentation on your own, to find what's "best" for you using all available testing methods.
darr3239: Absolutely shooter specific--everyone's physique is different!
gunnut284: The M&P40 is definitely the softest shooting .40 I've tried; the G35 with a light is also OK.
Calhoun123
08-19-12, 22:18
I keep seeing the comment that (paraphrasing): if you don't expect to have to shoot through barriers, the 9 should be fine.
I always wonder what type of defensive encounter is being envisioned. When I think about my own life, I see barriers everywhere. I see a major area of vulnerability to be coming and going to my vehicle (often surrounded by lots of other vehicles). Why would I assume I will not have to shoot through auto glass or similar barriers?
I guess this post is half comment and half question.
Hogsgunwild
08-20-12, 05:55
I keep seeing the comment that (paraphrasing): if you don't expect to have to shoot through barriers, the 9 should be fine.
I always wonder what type of defensive encounter is being envisioned. When I think about my own life, I see barriers everywhere. I see a major area of vulnerability to be coming and going to my vehicle (often surrounded by lots of other vehicles). Why would I assume I will not have to shoot through auto glass or similar barriers?
I guess this post is half comment and half question.
I have put some thought into this topic before as well. LEOs deal with the possibility of having to shoot into a vehicle every day. I do not. The likelihood of me needing to shoot into a vehicle is so much slimmer that I feel that the 9mm"s (not too far off from .40's) performance is fine considering that in my most likely encounter I would prefer to have more ammo in the gun and quicker follow-up shots. There are other barriers of course, but, I think that the vehicle is by far the most likely barrier that I would encounter.
I think that the bottom line is choosing a system that works for your most likely encounters. There are a lot of different scenarios that could play out favoring any one system better than the other on a different day. You can't plan for that any better than to play the odds of what would work in your most likely scenario and to stay proficient.
ffhounddog
08-20-12, 08:24
I have 40SW because I like the round and for a long time i was getting 40 carry ammo for 12-13 dollars a box and I was practicing with my carry ammo. 180 grain CCI or Winchester has a same point of impact as my 180 grain Winchester Rangers I carry.
I do like the 9mm and shoot that a lot but if I could get 124 grain or 147 grain as my standard round I would just shoot 9mm. 115 grain shoots different than other carry ammo and most 147 grain FMJ cost the same as 180 grain FMJ 40SW.
I am not a great pistol shot but I found out that a Glock 22 gen 3,Glock 23gen4/P2000 and HK USPc shoot well for me.
Now the Glock 23rtf2 I have the rough texture with 135grain is not as much fun as I hoped.
If I had not met my fiance who is issued a Glock22 for duty I would probally not have any 40SW and would have kept the 45ACP but I sold and traded all the 45ACP guns I have for 40SW and they each of a 9mm analog with it for cheaper daily practice.
9mm FMJ is decent in most barriers but might not work well 90% or better at a time like a 40SW.
If all I had was 9mm FMJ I would be okay with that and vice versa with 40FMJ. I do carry a HK USPc 40 or Glock 23 when I go to New Jersey with Federal EFMJs. I have a few 1000's rounds of those.
I've looked into several shootings where car glass and some barriers came into play. Bonded 9mm rounds do just fine against windshields. In one particular shooting, an officer fired nine rounds through the windshield of a sedan, from about 10 feet in front of the bumper, IIRC. All went through the windshield and into the headrest, except for one that caught the bad guy in the face, with good effect.
In other shootings, 9mm looks as effective as other pistol calibers in dispatching bad guys.
I carry 9mm Gold Dots in all my pistols and I think that bullet selection is an important factor, but quality of shooter trumps all.
Pass on the 40.
All pistol calibers SUCK so shot placement is king. Which caliber allows you to carry more rounds, is cheaper to practice with and has less recoil? 9mm.
C4
Quiet Riot
08-20-12, 09:41
Pass on the 40.
All pistol calibers SUCK so shot placement is king. Which caliber allows you to carry more rounds, is cheaper to practice with and has less recoil? 9mm.
C4
In the early 90s, I bought into the 40S&W craze (actually, my first pistol of any kind was a G20). My current EDC is a Gen 4 G23 that I've come to realize is nothing more than a legacy of that now-dated thinking.
20 years of gun purchases later, I finally bought my very first 9mm when the FDE Glocks came out. :) It is not only cheaper to shoot, it is also more fun. I never understood all of the complaints about 40s being "snappy" until, after an hour of shooting my G17, I pulled out my G23 to run through my mag of carry ammo. That first trigger pull was a real eye-opener.
As stated before shot placement is key. I find the .45 much easier to shoot than the .40 for a bigger round, but nothing comes close to the 9mm for control and rapid follow up shots( I'm talking standard pistol rounds LOL). With modern bonded hollowpoint ammo the odds are stacked in your favor of it doing the job if you do your part in any kind of "social" scenario.
Doc Safari
08-20-12, 11:06
In the early 90s, I bought into the 40S&W craze...
Me too. My first Glock was a G22. Too bad that was about the time they were kaBooming a lot and I traded mine for a G19 out of fear it would explode--LOL.
I do own a Gen 4 G22, and the only reason I got it is that I don't trust the Gen4 9mm's. My Gen3 G17 is still my carry gun, nightstand gun, and whatnot.
Me too. My first Glock was a G22. Too bad that was about the time they were kaBooming a lot and I traded mine for a G19 out of fear it would explode--LOL..
Same here! I still carry my 90s G22. I have a clone of it in a G17 that I use for practice. But I carry my G22.
I could carry either I guess... but I'm just used to having the old Forty, Homie!
The only reason I have a .40 is because thats what my duty weapon is, and i like to practice with what i usually carry.
That being said my next pistol will be a 9mm Shield for a ccw.
That being said my next pistol will be a 9mm Shield for a ccw.
Those are damn nice pistols. I can really start to like the 9mm in that gun.
I'm with the majority of people on here. 9mm is your best bet. M&P's are great hand guns and i really like that idea of buying the .40 and being able to shoot 9mm as well. But honestly I like shooting 9mm so much that i probably wouldn't even bother with the .40.
Side note: I just picked up a PPQ in 9mm and i LOVE it. Excellent accuracy for it's size and an amazing trigger pull.
Pass on the 40.
All pistol calibers SUCK so shot placement is king. Which caliber allows you to carry more rounds, is cheaper to practice with and has less recoil? 9mm.
C4
Best post i've seen all day!
I'm issued a G22, I own a G23. When I'm on my time I carry my G19.
Pistol Shooter
08-21-12, 16:06
I started shooting in the mid 1970's, both 9mm and .45 acp pistols. Obviously this was many years before the .40 S&W appeared
As I've gotten older, I find that I can put more 9mm rds. on target faster and more accurately than with a .45 acp.
However, if I want to size up caliber wise with a semi-auto, I'll move from 9mm to .45 acp and skip the .40.
However, if I want to size up caliber wise with a semi-auto, I'll move from 9mm to .45 acp and skip the .40.
Hey, I'm not that young myself, but to reduce magazine capacity, sometimes pretty substantially, when the cartridges are so close in performance, makes little sense to me.
Hogsgunwild
08-21-12, 21:04
I started shooting in the mid 1970's, both 9mm and .45 acp pistols. Obviously this was many years before the .40 S&W appeared
As I've gotten older, I find that I can put more 9mm rds. on target faster and more accurately than with a .45 acp.
However, if I want to size up caliber wise with a semi-auto, I'll move from 9mm to .45 acp and skip the .40.
I also really like the .45 and some of the platforms that are available for it, but, lately, it just feels wrong packing the same or extra weight on my belt to have less capacity. I equate magazine capacity to endurance (as in endurance in sparring or a fist-fight). I want the most endurance possible. Each round is better than a knock-out punch to the head no matter if it is a 9MM or a .45 (if your shot is to the head). Not saying one can always land a head shot under duress, but, I want the potential for as many attempts as possible.
...As I've gotten older, I find that I can put more 9mm rds. on target faster and more accurately than with a .45 acp...
I discovered I couldn't put any 9mm rounds on target with a .45 ACP!
gunrunner505
08-21-12, 22:32
For real sure, read this thread by Doc.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
I have an M&P full size in 40. I believe the 40 is a slightly better overall performer and I don't find the recoil objectionable. That's me, not everyone.
That thread above is very informative and has a lot of stuff in it that will get you thinking. I'm not a huge 9mm fan but after reading that thread, I'm considering picking up a M&P9 as well.....:secret:
Salamander
08-21-12, 23:50
Pass on the 40.
All pistol calibers SUCK so shot placement is king. Which caliber allows you to carry more rounds, is cheaper to practice with and has less recoil? 9mm.
C4
Agreed. If stopping power was the only criteria, I'd carry my M1 Garand. Might be a little hard to conceal under a suit jacket though.
I've standardized on 9mm, even though in California I'm limited to 10 round magazines. The only place I thought about wanting more than that is when in the mountains in bear country... but for that I'd want a lot more, so after some consideration have decided that even then accurate multiple shot placement is more important since no handgun is going to give guaranteed one-shot stops every time.
RagweedZulu
08-22-12, 00:18
I have put some thought into this topic before as well. LEOs deal with the possibility of having to shoot into a vehicle every day. I do not. The likelihood of me needing to shoot into a vehicle is so much slimmer that I feel that the 9mm"s (not too far off from .40's) performance is fine considering that in my most likely encounter I would prefer to have more ammo in the gun and quicker follow-up shots. There are other barriers of course, but, I think that the vehicle is by far the most likely barrier that I would encounter.
I think that the bottom line is choosing a system that works for your most likely encounters. There are a lot of different scenarios that could play out favoring any one system better than the other on a different day. You can't plan for that any better than to play the odds of what would work in your most likely scenario and to stay proficient.
My agency chose .40 a long time ago (1991) and has stuck with it since, due to our enforcement activity around vehicles and the better penetration that .40 gives.
For off duty CCW, I carry .40, .45 and 10mm for the same reasons. I, like most of you, spend most of my time in a vehicle and the chance I'll need my weapon there is much better than walking down the street (who walks anymore?). I don't envision shooting INTO a vehicle so much as shooting OUT of one (off duty). Penetration is just as important either direction, so it's .40 as a minimum for me.
gunrunner505
08-22-12, 00:21
Agreed. If stopping power was the only criteria, I'd carry my M1 Garand. Might be a little hard to conceal under a suit jacket though.
I've standardized on 9mm, even though in California I'm limited to 10 round magazines. The only place I thought about wanting more than that is when in the mountains in bear country... but for that I'd want a lot more, so after some consideration have decided that even then accurate multiple shot placement is more important since no handgun is going to give guaranteed one-shot stops every time.
Oh yeah. The more AARs you read, especially the one someone posted here from Skokie Illinois where it took 17 rounds of 45, including 3 head shots, for a cop to stop the bad guy, you realize that for a hand gun, shot placement is absolutely everything.
Hogsgunwild
08-22-12, 01:06
Oh yeah. The more AARs you read, especially the one someone posted here from Skokie Illinois where it took 17 rounds of 45, including 3 head shots, for a cop to stop the bad guy, you realize that for a hand gun, shot placement is absolutely everything.
The Skokie one and there was a LEO in San Diego that had a close range (less than 15 or 20 feet as I recall) shootout with a gangbanger
in a driveway. The LEO had a Glock 21 and the other had a Sig 220.
LEO won, but, in hindsight, stated that he wished that he had gone for a head shot earlier in the fight. Both went to slide-lock and if I remember correctly, the LEO had to reload and finish the gangbanger off with a few extra shots while he (the gangbanger) was crawling. LEO also changed to a better ammo afterwards (I think he went from Hydra-Shocks to something on Doc's list).
Hogsgunwild
08-22-12, 09:37
My agency chose .40 a long time ago (1991) and has stuck with it since, due to our enforcement activity around vehicles and the better penetration that .40 gives.
For off duty CCW, I carry .40, .45 and 10mm for the same reasons. I, like most of you, spend most of my time in a vehicle and the chance I'll need my weapon there is much better than walking down the street (who walks anymore?). I don't envision shooting INTO a vehicle so much as shooting OUT of one (off duty). Penetration is just as important either direction, so it's .40 as a minimum for me.
Since you are issued .40 and already carry it at work, and perhaps receive ammo to some extent on your department's dime, it makes a lot of sense to stick with it. You are obviously comfortable with the round and that is great. I like the .40 a lot too, but, I find that I shoot the 9MM better and find it easier to stay proficient with the 9MM.
Reading of top tier trainers like Pat Rogers or our own resident Ballistics Expert (DocGKR) going to the 9MM, I feel very comfortable sticking with a 9MM, when all things are considered.
Heavy Metal
08-22-12, 09:45
I just bought a G-23 from Grant for a trail carry piece.
I have encountered two mama Black Bears and a Bull in the past two years and while nothing bad occured, I ended up thinking I wish I had a caliber that has a better ability to break thru bone. (Essentially, all three times I found mylesf wishing I had something more potent than a 9mm.)
The Gen 4 23 will fit my existing holster fine. The 19 will still be my daily carry piece for non-boreal settings. The G-20 Open Carry is still my backwoods off-trail weapon of choice.
I bought a Gen 4 G23 because I shot a friend's gun and liked it. I figured I could get three calibers out of the pistol, and if I ever end up training someone I can give them a chance to try different calibers. I got a 9mm barrel so I could blast away for less money.
I have a grip force adaptor and a Surefire X300 on the gun. With the additional weight of the light and the recoil control of the GFA, I don't have a problem controling 180 gr 40's. I shot some 124 gr +p back to back with some 180's and the difference, (to me), in recoil is minor at best.
As an added bonus I lucked into the mother load of pre ban G22 magazines for $17 each. Being in NY it sucks being limited to ten rounds. For me magazine availability sometimes drives these decisions.
Whitebrad25
08-27-12, 23:42
With really compact handguns I have found that .40 is very snappy while .45 tends to 'push' more. I prefer .45 or 9mm...
Me too. My first Glock was a G22. Too bad that was about the time they were kaBooming a lot and I traded mine for a G19 out of fear it would explode--LOL.
I do own a Gen 4 G22, and the only reason I got it is that I don't trust the Gen4 9mm's. My Gen3 G17 is still my carry gun, nightstand gun, and whatnot.
I have a similar experience, and it was in my mind when I bought a Gen4 G23. The surprising thing from my point of view was that I did well with it, almost equaling the Gen3 G19 that I've owned for three years. I made a point of noting where fired brass was going once it left the G23, and it never varied: 4:30-5 o'clock, even when different ammo was fired.
Where I'm personally seeing a great difference is in marginal or newer shooters. They are so much better with the 9mm that I cringe when someone new shows with a .40.
Maryland_Shooter
08-28-12, 15:30
I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.
SA XD Tactical in .40, I love it. Mag extensions to 16 rounds, what's not to like?
RockBottom
08-28-12, 15:34
Where I'm personally seeing a great difference is in marginal or newer shooters. They are so much better with the 9mm that I cringe when someone new shows with a .40.
Do you know if that applies to M&P40s too? I hear that the M&P40 is very similar to the M&P9. I've shot both, but weeks apart, so I can't say how well I can compare the two, but I did think the recoil of the M&P40 was actually LESS than the G17 I was shooting. (All range rentals.)
Truth be told, I'm getting an M&P soon, and I'd probably get the 9, but I read so many issues about accuracy I'm going to get the 40. I don't want to spend $200 on an aftermarket barrel - and if I decide to I might as well get a 9>40 conversion barrel.
packinaglock
08-28-12, 16:56
Do you know if that applies to M&P40s too? I hear that the M&P40 is very similar to the M&P9. I've shot both, but weeks apart, so I can't say how well I can compare the two, but I did think the recoil of the M&P40 was actually LESS than the G17 I was shooting. (All range rentals.)
Truth be told, I'm getting an M&P soon, and I'd probably get the 9, but I read so many issues about accuracy I'm going to get the 40. I don't want to spend $200 on an aftermarket barrel - and if I decide to I might as well get a 9>40 conversion barrel.
I have a gen 3 G17 and an M&P .40 fs I find them pretty compairable. The M&P's to me seem to tame the recoil very well.
I lean towards the .45, but I'm just a normal nobody. I have a Glock 30sf, and yes I know I am missing a few rounds compared to a Glock 19. But I just can't bring myself to trust any hollowpoint to open 100% of the time. Stupid? Probably. If I ever need to unload my G30, and wish I had five more shots then I'll look at a G19. A G19 fits my hand with a Hogue grip on it, while my G30sf is just fine.
I know "shooters" are quicker on the draw with the 9mm, and the split times are less, so forth and so on, does anyone know(or can guess) how many shootings(officer or civilian) that the first shot was on the draw? Like a wild west shoot-out? I read a lot about how quickly and accurately the 9mm first shot is on target, but is it something needed or just preferred?
(back to my corner to read and learn)
I know "shooters" are quicker on the draw with the 9mm, and the split times are less, so forth and so on, does anyone know(or can guess) how many shootings(officer or civilian) that the first shot was on the draw? Like a wild west shoot-out? I read a lot about how quickly and accurately the 9mm first shot is on target, but is it something needed or just preferred?
(back to my corner to read and learn)
I don't quite understand how the caliber affects first shot/draw times, especially when comparing 9 vs 40 when dimensions/ergos are nearly the same.
I find 40 simply harder to shoot. I rent one annually to see if my perception has changed, and today was the day; that's why I am posting here. I shot Gen3 G22 against full sized 9 mm M&P and Gen4 17. I am not a shooting rockstar, but neither I am a novice, and I do train with CoC grippers regularly. It is not even funny how much easier it was to control the 9s, how much easier to track the front sights with the 9s, and how much less tense my hands were, especially the strong hand, which should translate in better trigger control. These were the obviously noticeable things; I wonder if anticipation was higher with a stronger-recoiling gun.
I am sticking with my little puny 9 mm buhlets, and I'll keep shooting 45 at times to keep up on my firearm control skills without losing as much performance as I do with 40.
Another vote for the M&P 9.
I bought a cz compact 40 and while I can shoot it well, Im saving up for a G19 as I shoot them better and faster.
The difference in terminal performance is so much smaller than the human element its totally negligable. Even through barriers, the 40 only has a slight edge. If I was a highway patrol officer, I'd probably go with a g22(given a choice), but the 9mm(with a great load such as GD or ranger bonded/pdx1) goes through barriers just fine and still offers good performance.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.