9x19 and 40 S&W shooting characteristics

[warpedcamshaft]

First off, this is not another ballistics discussion!

There have been many discussions on recoil characteristics and overall handling of weapons chambered in 9x19 and 40 S&W.

I am interested in hearing other shooter's observations, based on data, regarding shooting performance with 9x19 and 40 S&W in directly comparable weapons. I think these observations will be informative for many people asking questions regarding platforms chambered in these calibers.

I would like to emphasize that I am a shooter who is focused on defensive shooting. I have shot competitively, but I am primarily interested in training for violent altercations.

I have recently got my hands on a few Glocks to compare directly with one another in the interest of comparing my personal performance with the two calibers.

Using a G19 Gen. 3 and a G23 Gen. 4, I fired many drills within the past several months.

I focused mainly on specific drills from within various standards to collect data regarding my performance with either caliber in the above firearms. I have mixed "cold" drills with both calibers over the course of many shooting sessions. (I have used original Hack standards, CSAT standards, 25 yard B8 bull shooting, and elements of a few other drills for testing) These drills were fired at various times with range ammo and defensive ammo of several weights and pressures.

I have found the following:

1: My performance is very consistent during transitions and 2 round strings with both calibers in multiple loadings.

2: My performance is similar with both calibers when firing with the weak or strong hand only, however the 40 S&W is physically painful to fire weak hand only. My times and scores don't differ in a quantity that is statistically relevant to me, but the 40 requires more focus to clear the drills. (A good example is the CSAT 2 SHO transition 2 WHO drill)

3: I see a consistent degradation in my overall time on drills like the CSAT 5+1 when using the 40 S&W. When firing 3 or more rounds, the recoil begins to require more focus to recover and my times suffer by about a quarter of a second on the 5+1.

This effect is observable in rapid fire strings from about 5 to 12 yards and is diminished at ranges outside of that subset, interestingly enough.

4: I am able to clean the CSAT standards consistently with either caliber, and shoot the original Hackathorn Standards well into the expert range with either caliber. However, the above observations are present in my times...

Please share your thoughts, but try to keep your information based on observable data...

[Dos Cylindros]

I have never really put myself on a timer for either round, so my impression is a bit more subjective. I can shoot tighter groups faster with a 9mm vs a .40 S&W. I notice the quicker shot to shot recovery and don't need a timer to quantify it for me. I know I shoot9mm faster compared to the .40 which is my duty gun.

For me the .40 has a much more pronounced recoil with much more "snap" when compared to the 9mm. With that being said, I don't think the difference is enough to make me chose the 9mm over the .40 S&W, especially when you consider that I get my .40 free from my department. If I were funding the ammuniton out of my pocket, I would deffinately go with the 9mm. $$ would be my only concern as I don't think the terminal performance between the two is much to get worked up about.

The .40 may offer some enhanced performance against barriers common to police shootings such as auto glass or sheet metal, but I would probably still go with the 9mm if it was comming out of my bank account.

[Hero]

I have never really put myself on a timer for either round, so my impression is a bit more subjective. I can shoot tighter groups faster with a 9mm vs a .40 S&W. I notice the quicker shot to shot recovery and don't need a timer to quantify it for me. I know I shoot9mm faster compared to the .40 which is my duty gun.

For me the .40 has a much more pronounced recoil with much more "snap" when compared to the 9mm. With that being said, I don't think the difference is enough to make me chose the 9mm over the .40 S&W, especially when you consider that I get my .40 free from my department. If I were funding the ammuniton out of my pocket, I would deffinately go with the 9mm. $$ would be my only concern as I don't think the terminal performance between the two is much to get worked up about.

The .40 may offer some enhanced performance against barriers common to police shootings such as auto glass or sheet metal, but I would probably still go with the 9mm if it was comming out of my bank account.

I don't have any hard data either, but I could have written this post almost word for word.

I, too, am issued .40. Before that, I was a .40 hater and wanted nothing to do with it. I was a 9mm guy. When I transitioned to .40, I was surprised that it wasn't nearly as bad as I had expected it to be (probably based on my reading of internet gun boards, and my own bias). There are some 165 grain loads out there that are hell when it comes to the snappy recoil that people often cite regarding the .40. But 180 grain loads are very smooth shooting in my experience and don't exhibit for me the characteristics that people usually complain about.

I don't have the hard data that the OP has, but I've shot my departments timed qualification course with both with no degradation in score (accuracy) from 9 to 40, and no loss of rounds (got all rounds off in time).

If I could only own one handgun and had to buy my ammo for it, it would still be a 9mm. But I am a .40 guy now and have no complaints about it anymore.

[clarkz71]

I have to agree with the 2 posts above.

But price of .40 ammo is not an issue for me, neither is the recoil.

[S. Galbraith]

9mm has less felt recoil, and thus is always easier to shoot. Just as it is easier to shoot .22lr vs 9mm. Some guns mitigate recoil better though so that the discomfort of shooting a larger caliber isn't as noticable. With Glocks, it is pretty noticable. With S&W M&Ps, not as much. With a Sig P228 vs P229, not so much. H&K series, not so much. Low bore axis pistols with a steeper grip angle give you less muzzle flip, but the recoil instead goes directly into your hand and wrist making it unpleasant. Higher bore axis pistols make heavier recoil more comfortable.

[ST911]

Overall sum: 9mm offers lower cost, lower fatigue, lower splits, higher scores, greater overall performance, greater shooter confidence and satisfaction, and greater overall program benefit.

Bullet technology has closed the gaps. There remain some distinctions in barrier properties, but overall, the overwhelming majority of shooters are well served with 9mm.

There are agencies and entities that have begun studying the issue deliberately and tracking comparative data. There are no surprises. Agency and I/O transitions from 40SW to 9mm are increasing popular, according to various manufacturers.

[Caduceus]

I'm kind of in the same boat as all of you.

I only have 2 pistols - a Walther P22 (.22lr) and a Sig 229 (.40, with a barrel for .357SIG). So I'm a bit biased towards the .40. (As an aside, it was essentially inherited, so that's the main reason I have this caliber.)

My friend does have a Sig 226 in 9mm. It is definitely smoother, easier to shoot and less muzzle rise. Not sure if that's from the longer barrel, extra weight, different caliber, or all 3. But it handles nearly identically to the 229, which means I feel like I shoot them close enough to make a comparison. In the ideal world I suppose I'd have a 228, giving me the handling and capacity of the 229, but in a smaller caliber.

I have though of buying an after-market 9mm barrel for my 229, but not sure if I shoot enough to make it fiscally feasible. Also, it's recommended for target-work only. I also have this same mental battle when I look at a subcompact: keep the .40 for consolidation of calibers, or drop to 9mm for something that typically has extra rounds and less recoil.

[ST911]

The trends will be the same, but best comparisons are within the same model and configuration. Glock 17-22, Sig 229, M&P, etc.

A 40SW P226 user recently commented, "if this is the gun I have to carry why don't they choose something I can shoot better in it?"

[S. Galbraith]

I don't have the hard data that the OP has, but I've shot my departments timed qualification course with both with no degradation in score (accuracy) from 9 to 40, and no loss of rounds (got all rounds off in time).

That's usually the case when shooters get out and do practical shooting scenarios using gross motor skills. Most can milk out a slight advantage with the smaller caliber once they are warmed up, and try to beat previous performance with a shot timer. However, do yourself a favor and see what you are capable of when you are cold. Literally, and figuratively. Warming up to a course of fire warms up the complex motor functions which are often impeded in a deadly force situation. Shooting a course of fire cold, involves more gross motor skills and is a more realist measure of field performance. Gross motor skills involve the larger muscle groups, and your reactions and trigger manipulations are also slower. That's why many shooters will repeatedly twitch their hands and fingers before a cold shoot to improve their times and scores. You don't get that luxury in an actual encounter. In the words of Cooper...."what you can do at your best, never translates into what you can do at your worst."

Regardless of what caliber you choose, ensure that you put a minimum of several thousand rounds downrange a year. If you cannot afford to do this, go with the cheaper caliber, and/or reload. I generally go through about 3k rounds of 9mm, and 5k rounds of .40 per year. Good training trumps equipment selection most of the time.

[Hero]

That's usually the case when shooters get out and do practical shooting scenarios using gross motor skills. Most can milk out a slight advantage with the smaller caliber once they are warmed up, and try to beat previous performance with a shot timer. However, do yourself a favor and see what you are capable of when you are cold. Literally, and figuratively. Warming up to a course of fire warms up the complex motor functions which are often impeded in a deadly force situation. Shooting a course of fire cold involved more gross motor skills and is a more realist measure of field performance. Gross motor skills involve the larger muscle groups, and your reactions and trigger manipulations are also slower. That's why many shooters will repeatedly twitch their hands and fingers before a cold shoot to improve their times and scores. You don't get that luxury in an actual encounter. In the words of Cooper...."what you can do at your best, never translates into what you can do at your worst."

Absolutely sound advice. We usually shoot our first qual cold. The scores always improve on the second. But with the qual course, there is not nearly the objective measure for comparison purposes as being on a shot timer would provide. As long as you complete the qual course in the amount of time allowed, you qual. On a shot timer is where I'd really be able to measure the differences between platforms an/or calibers. I've been reading a lot on pistol-training.com lately. I wish I could meet up with some of those guys and do some of those drills on a timer...

[gunnut284]

I've found that it varies a bit depending on the gun. Some guns, usually smaller ones, are noticeably more uncomfortable to shoot in .40 vs the 9mm versions. I've had a couple of Glock 23/27/33 models and always ended up dumping them because the 9mm models were much easier and more comfortable to shoot. I also sold a Walther P99 .40 for the same reason. On the other hand several HK, M&P and Sig and larger Glock models in .40 I had or shot had a much smaller difference in "shootability". I recently shot a pair of Gen4 Glocks, a 34 and 35, side by side and the performance and shooting characteristics were nearly identical. I'm still a 9mm guy but just a bit less rabid.

[warpedcamshaft]

DocGKR mentioned something interesting in this thread some time ago:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=111255






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."



My comparison and experience seems to echo the above opinion shared by the unknown SOF NCO. Although I don't personally consider my results unacceptable with either caliber, there were statistically significant and measurable differences in my performance with the 19 and 23 in many situations. The differences noticed in training will surely manifest themselves in violent altercations.

[DD236]

I'll play....

LEO and member of the door kicking team. Can use Glock 17/19/22/23. Used a Glock 23 for 16 years. Recently switched to a Glock 19. I am able to shoot faster, more accurately and carry more ammo with the Glock 19. Both 9mm and .40 S&W are pea shooters and will more than likely take numerous rounds to vital areas to quickly eliminate a threat. Also, once broke the frame on the 2nd Generation Glock 23 and believe harsh recoil had something to do with this. The 23 definitely recoils much harder than the 19 or even the 22 in my opinion.

[markm]

Pick the one with more Knock down and Stopping power! :fie:

[WillBrink]

Pick the one with more Knock down and Stopping power! :fie:

Then the choice is easy! :D

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/BulletinGellatinComparison.jpg

[davidjinks]

Try shooting a Gen 3 Glock 19 side by side with a Gen 3 Glock 23.

Having compared a Gen 3 Glock 23 side by side with a Gen 4 Glock 23 I can tell you there is a difference in recoil with the Gen 4 having less felt recoil.

Personally, I think that would be a better comparison if the generations were the same across the board.

For me; I'm faster and more accurate with 9mm in either the 17,19 or 26 then I am with 40 in the matching platforms. A caveat to this, I do shoot the Glock 22 as well (Slighlty slower though) as my 17. The 9mm allows me to have more ammunition on hand, is cheaper to practice with and is "usually" abundant locally and online.



Using a G19 Gen. 3 and a G23 Gen. 4, I fired many drills within the past several months.

...SNIP...

Please share your thoughts, but try to keep your information based on observable data...

[warpedcamshaft]

Try shooting a Gen 3 Glock 19 side by side with a Gen 3 Glock 23.

Having compared a Gen 3 Glock 23 side by side with a Gen 4 Glock 23 I can tell you there is a difference in recoil with the Gen 4 having less felt recoil.


I have a substantial amount of time behind Gen 3 Glocks in 40 S&W and have run all the same drills with Gen 3 Glock 23's several times.

Although I subjectively felt the recoil was a bit worse with the Gen 3, especially when firing with my non-dominant hand, I did not find a statistically significant difference in my actual on target performance or times.

[Brimstone]

Regardless of what caliber you choose, ensure that you put a minimum of several thousand rounds downrange a year. If you cannot afford to do this, go with the cheaper caliber, and/or reload. I generally go through about 3k rounds of 9mm, and 5k rounds of .40 per year. Good training trumps equipment selection most of the time.

+1

I used to shoot a lot of .45, but I don't reload and I was shooting less than I wanted due to the price of ammo. After switching to 9mm I am much happier and shooting twice as much. I am a better shooter because of it.

[warpedcamshaft]

Some more info regarding 9x19 and 40 S&W and the impact of recoil on shooting performance:

This time, stock M&P Long Slide with a 9mm conversion barrel and a factory 40 barrel.

I compiled some 5 and 1 times using Paul Howe's CSAT 5 & 1 drill. On this platform, the 40 S&W times were on average about .1ish seconds slower than the 9mm conversion barrel.

With the 9mm barrel I can consistently clean the 5 and 1 in under 2 seconds. Usually around 1.90-1.99. This is mostly with 115 grain bullets, but there have also been 124's and 147's mixed in.

With the 40 S&W I am around the 2.07-2.15 range. With the 40, the recoil is getting to the point where I just can't get under the 2 second mark with standard 180 grain loads.

With the Glock compacts I compared earlier, my times are getting down into the 1.85 - 1.89 range with the Glock 19, and 2.11-2.15 with the Glock 23.

Par is 3 seconds for the drill...

Hopefully this information is useful...

[S. Galbraith]

Some more info regarding 9x19 and 40 S&W and the impact of recoil on shooting performance:

This time, stock M&P Long Slide with a 9mm conversion barrel and a factory 40 barrel.

I compiled some 5 and 1 times using Paul Howe's CSAT 5 & 1 drill. On this platform, the 40 S&W times were on average about .1ish seconds slower than the 9mm conversion barrel.

With the 9mm barrel I can consistently clean the 5 and 1 in under 2 seconds. Usually around 1.90-1.99. This is mostly with 115 grain bullets, but there have also been 124's and 147's mixed in.

With the 40 S&W I am around the 2.07-2.15 range. With the 40, the recoil is getting to the point where I just can't get under the 2 second mark with standard 180 grain loads.

With the Glock compacts I compared earlier, my times are getting down into the 1.85 - 1.89 range with the Glock 19, and 2.11-2.15 with the Glock 23.

Par is 3 seconds for the drill...

Hopefully this information is useful...

How was the accuracy between the two? "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" -Larry Vickers

I had similar results running a Sig P228 9mm and a Sig P229 .40. If I sped up the .40 runs to match the 9mm times, my accuracy suffered. However, anything under 7rds the accuracy difference wasn't noticeable. Also, when running 124gr+P or 127gr+P+ duty loads, my times on the P228 slowed down almost to the speed of the .40 using 180gr duty loads.

Naturally, when a cartridge produces more recoil, it will slow you down more. Its just a matter of whether you can accept that speed reduction in favor of other desireable characteristics on the particular platform.

[warpedcamshaft]

How was the accuracy between the two? "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" -Larry Vickers

I had similar results running a Sig P228 9mm and a Sig P229 .40. If I sped up the .40 runs to match the 9mm times, my accuracy suffered. However, anything under 7rds the accuracy difference wasn't noticeable. Also, when running 124gr+P or 127gr+P+ duty loads, my times on the P228 slowed down almost to the speed of the .40 using 180gr duty loads.

Naturally, when a cartridge produces more recoil, it will slow you down more. Its just a matter of whether you can accept that speed reduction in favor of other desireable characteristics on the particular platform.

The drill defines the speed on these tests... It is very rare that I fail a 5 and 1 drill, and I only counted passing drills.

The 5 and 1, and all CSAT drills are pass - fail. If you put a round outside the A-zone, or your head shot isn't where it needs to be... it is fail.

I shot this drill at CSAT, and have used it as a simple test for service pistols for a while now... Great drill!!! Highly Recommended.

[T2C]

How was the accuracy between the two? "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" -Larry Vickers

I had similar results running a Sig P228 9mm and a Sig P229 .40. If I sped up the .40 runs to match the 9mm times, my accuracy suffered. However, anything under 7rds the accuracy difference wasn't noticeable. Also, when running 124gr+P or 127gr+P+ duty loads, my times on the P228 slowed down almost to the speed of the .40 using 180gr duty loads.

Naturally, when a cartridge produces more recoil, it will slow you down more. Its just a matter of whether you can accept that speed reduction in favor of other desireable characteristics on the particular platform.

What you said makes sense. When we transitioned from a +P+ 115g 9mm load to a .40 S&W 180 JHP, it was easier for our people to make multiple hits more accurately during training. If you compare standard velocity rounds, the 9mm wins hands down. If you compare duty ammunition, our .40 S&W rounds won.

After 12+ years of shooting the .40 S&W and watching ammunition development I can see why Skintop says departments are transitioning back to the 9mm. The reason we transitioned from the 9mm to the .40 S&W in the first place was performance on auto glass and barriers.

I am leaning toward the Federal HST 147g round for my personally owned Glock 19. I can send accurate follow up shots down range more quickly than I can with a Glock 22 loaded with the .40 S&W 180g HST round.

[Psalms144.1]

As I've posted many times before, I can shoot my G19 or G23 equally well in timed drills, with split time differentials being in the .01-.03 range between the two (e.g. I'm 1 to 3 HUNDREDTHS of a second slower with the .40). I will note for the record that our issued 9mm JHP is a 147 grain subsonic JHP, while our issued .40 S&W is a VERY warm 155 grain - and it is in fact the hardest recoiling 40 S&W ammunition I've ever shot in any platform. I also notice that when shooting 9mm NATO ammunition (+P equivalent), recoil with the G19 is stouter than average, but still nowhere near the point of the .40 S&W.

s a result, the .40 is much more difficult to use in sustained high-round-count training, and is much more difficult on my hands and wrists - to the point where a long range session with the G23 simply leaves me not wanting to shoot anymore.

If I were a uniformed LEO working in/around vehicles all the time and needed to worry about tactical barrier penetration, I'd probably opt for the .40 S&W for increased performance there. As I'm a plain-clothes guy, the 9mm is all I need.

If I were on a deployment and strictly limited to FMJ, I'd skip right over the .40 and go with a .45 ACP, but that's just my opinion.

Regards,

Kevin

[T2C]

.....As a result, the .40 is much more difficult to use in sustained high-round-count training, and is much more difficult on my hands and wrists - to the point where a long range session with the G23 simply leaves me not wanting to shoot anymore..........

Regards,

Kevin

I hear what you are saying. I attended two one week Thunder Ranch pistol courses and shot my issue Glock 23 in each course. It can be a hand full in high round count training.

[Michael2007]

I just finished department training with a Glock 22. I've received similar training two years ago with a 17. I can say that my hands have never been as sore as they have after running the 22. That being said my cold qualification scores were 247-249 with the scores going down as the day goes on. I can shoot my personal 19 with greater speed and equal accuracy.

[jyo]

My recent trend (last 5-6 years) has been towards smaller, more packable pistols---think HK P2000, Kahr CW9, Walther PPS, etc. has shown the 9mm to have a noticeable edge over the 40. I also find the smaller guns run better (more reliable) when chambered in 9mm. With larger "full size" pistols (think HK USPf) the differences are much less---my USPf in 9mm shoots almost the same recoil wise as my nephew's USPf in 40---of course, USPs are noted for being soft-shooting pistols.
When you add the women folk to the shooting group, the 9mm really comes out on top---especially with the smaller, more concealable guns. And we all know the 9mm is far cheaper to shoot---important in todays panic pricing! So, I shoot a lot more 9mm (and 22) these days and when I feel like shooting bigger bullets, I go straight to the good 'ol 45...

[SteveS]

I have both and the 9 has less recoil but I am sure other than gaming either will do the job . What is nice about 9 and 40 is they pretty much use the same platform so going between the 2 calibers can be pretty easy. I have an XDsc in 40 and 9 and there isn't a whole lot of difference when changing between the two.

[warpedcamshaft]

An interesting thing that Mr. Paul Howe mentioned in class: he likes to train with the 357 Sig in his Glock 32.


Paraphrasing:
If he can pass the CSAT standards with the 357 Sig, then the softer shooting calibers would be even easier for him... an interesting point of view indeed...

[S. Galbraith]

An interesting thing that Mr. Paul Howe mentioned in class: he likes to train with the 357 Sig in his Glock 32.


Paraphrasing:
If he can pass the CSAT standards with the 357 Sig, then the softer shooting calibers would be even easier for him... an interesting point of view indeed...

That's what we do in mixed martial arts. You train harder than what you expect to deal with, and expect the fight to be harder than what you trained for. Using .22lr or reduced power training ammo only takes you far enough to deal with ideal scenarios, not the less than ideal ones.

[J-Dub]

To each his own. Both will work.

I have a feeling there is much more importance on who is behind the gun, than what is coming out of it. Be it 9mm or .40s&w.

Train with which ever you choose.

[167]

I will jump in just to offer a data point. These are my average splits on a USPSA A-zone at 7 yards.

Gen3 G19: 0.18
Gen4 G22: 0.24
Gen2 G21: 0.20

[BlackViper]

I have both a S&W Shorty Forty and a Shorty Nine. They were built on the 6900 frames and are identical in all dimensions. Both are rated to shoot 1.5 inch groups at 25 yards from a bench. While the Forty is fun to shoot, the Nine is noticeably faster for me to put shots where I want them, and is what I choose for EDC.

Also have a Glock 19 and a 23. The 23 has both a 40 and 357sig barrel. Unless I use lighter loads for the 40 or 357 the 19 is faster and gets the nod for EDC.

BV

[DAVID RICHARDS]

I gave upon the .40 after going trough a .40 phase. Recoil in the same guns a Beretta 92 vs. a 96 is not quite as bad as a light polymer gun. My MK40 vs. a PM40 it is very noticeable. Had a G27. The G26 is much more pleasant to shoot. Also have a G22 and a G17. G17 much easier to shoot. With good loads the 9mm gives up little to anything over the .40. Plus cheaper ammo, more on board rounds, faster follow up shots. and not as much wear and tear on you and the gun.

[warpedcamshaft]

Lately, I've been on a USP 40 fullsize kick... I've put lots of rounds of different types through 'em recently

I've noticed this particular firearm is soft shooting impluse-wise, but sight tracking is a bit more difficult than systems that don't utilize a recoil buffer of this particular style...

I'll say right now... In my experience... the USP's 40 fullsize's recoil characteristics seem to bring the sights higher than other systems during recoil, and the gun cycles slower than a Glock, PPQ, HK45 or M&P (learned this via high speed video review).

The HK45 cycles faster, and I can actually fire an HK45, M&P 40, or Glock 23 (or most 9mm units) faster than the USP40.

I remember reading about recoil characteristics when a secondary spring buffer system is implemented in a pistol, and my understanding is that the P30 and HK45 series of pistols utilizes a nylon buffer system rather than a secondary spring like the fullsize USP40... Perhaps someone with more HK expertise can weigh in.

[kyler226]

I may be the black sheep of all this but 9mm is one of my least favorite calibers to shoot. Ive had this opinion since ive first shot handguns and suprisingly kept it throughout the time of me getting better with shooting. The muzzle flip of any 9 I shot made me want to stiffen up unlike with .357, .40, .45 were the handgun does a push into my hands instead of flipping out. Ive used same shooting stance, grip, and weapon platforms for all the calibers. Im into tactical and defensive shooting so I couldnt give good data on my times but just my experiences with the different calibers

[Alaskapopo]

I may be the black sheep of all this but 9mm is one of my least favorite calibers to shoot. Ive had this opinion since ive first shot handguns and suprisingly kept it throughout the time of me getting better with shooting. The muzzle flip of any 9 I shot made me want to stiffen up unlike with .357, .40, .45 were the handgun does a push into my hands instead of flipping out. Ive used same shooting stance, grip, and weapon platforms for all the calibers. Im into tactical and defensive shooting so I couldnt give good data on my times but just my experiences with the different calibers

That is strange because the 9mm is the softest shooting of the service calibers. Also being into so called "defensive shooting" does not mean you should not have a shot timer and run drills.
Pat

[T2C]

...................I have a feeling there is much more importance on who is behind the gun, than what is coming out of it. Be it 9mm or .40s&w.............

Truer words were never spoken.

[givo08]

Here is just one data point:

A couple weeks ago I ran some bill drills (draw and fire 6) with a few different guns/ calipers/loads at 7 yards:

G19 with factory 9mm (127 power factor through chrono)
Best - 1.67
Avg - 1.8
Group size approx 2" on avg inside an ipsc A zone

G35 with factory .40 (193 power factor through chrono)
Best - 2.6
Avg - 2.8
Group size approx 4-5" inside an ipsc A zone

G35 with .40 minor pf reloads (135 power factor)
Best 1.73
Avg - 1.8
Group size approx 2" inside A zone

I also ran a one FAST drill with each gun but not with the reloads:
g19 best 3.83
g35 with factory .40 best 4.6


Obviously draw your own conclusions here, but the difference in power factor in different ammo made a huge difference. When I shot .40 reloads with close the the same pf as the 9mm it was basically the same numbers.

[ST911]

Im into tactical and defensive shooting so I couldnt give good data on my times but just my experiences with the different calibers

Try a timer and quantify your results.