View Full Version : Why 9mm over .40?
loganp0916
08-16-11, 11:55
First of all, I know there are a couple threads already asking about different calibers. That being said, I have not found an answer to the question I have after looking on M4C for a few weeks now. So here it is:
Why do most people on this forum (YOU) carry or own 9mm handguns over .40 such as the Glock 26 over the 27 or the 19 over the 23?
I am under the impression that the .40 packs a bigger punch than the 9mm. Is this right? And I know the 9mm's carry one more round than the .40, is that the reason? Or does the 9mm just feel better in your hand? Less recoil?
Also, anyone who carries a .40 feel free to shed some light on this topic as well.
Thanks in advance for any responses and info.
I've never been a huge fan of .40, 10mm for in between calibers. 357 sig is the only mid caliber I would consider. I carry either 9mm or .45 ACP. The reason for 9mm is this, it works, it's cheap to practice, good ammo selection, it's popular and can get it most any store, it's light, smaller frame gun, good capacity and Low recoil....
For one thing, it's hard to find a .40S&W pistol that handles as well as a 9mm pistol. Most pistols, especially those designed by Europeans, are conceived and built around the 9mm cartridge and when they produce a .40S&W version it is a retrofit of the 9mm production line.
For instance, in Sig Sauer pistols, the .40S&W isn't that great compared to the 9mm. The pistol is poorly balanced, the slide spring is quite a bit stiffer, and the pistol isn't as accurate. Due to the .40S&W using a 9mm length action, it also puts more stress on the gun resulting in faster overall wear which degrades performance and reliability. I have never met someone who could shoot the .40 as well as the 9mm......or even the .45acp. In the long run, how well you shoot takes priority over caliber. Besides, with modern ammunition the 9mm has proven to be quite effective in officer involved shootings.
The priorities for handgun effectivness layed out by the IWBA, FBI, and experts like Dr. McPherson are:
1) Deep penetration
2) Ideal wounding mechanism through expanded JHP, or watcutter.
3) Ideal wound/caliber size.
Caliber size is last on the list.
The .40S&W is a great concept, but poorly executed in most firearms today. It really needs a longer action to slow down the cycle speed and dissipate recoil forces over a longer distance. This would also decrease the chamber pressure requirements and make them more reliable with less crimping needed.
The reason for 9mm is this, it works, it's cheap to practice, good ammo selection, it's popular and can get it most any store
This for me. And reading a bunch here has made me realize that I'd rather not give up capacity for a small increase in bullet diameter.
CaptainDooley
08-16-11, 13:01
Personally I chose 9mm over .40 and .45 (sold off handguns in both calibers) because my wife and I shoot it easier with/better/more accurately (allowing us a common caliber between us), it's cheaper to practice with, and from all the data I've seen it performs just as well as other calibers if I buy quality, purpose-built ammunition for it.
F-Trooper05
08-16-11, 13:02
For me cost has little to do with it. It's all about how much better I shoot 9mm over 40. Even if 9mm were to cost more, I would still prefer it because I perform better with it.
I carry 9mms because when we tried to transition to .40s our guns didn't work, the 9mms did, very, very well.
I also like the lower cost of ammo and lower recoil of the 9mm. I don't believe that the .40 has "more punch" than the 9mm, or not enough for me to want that very small increase for all the baggage the .40 brings to the table.
I know guys who traded in G22s when given a chance and went with G21SFs, because that .45 gives a more controllable recoil impulse.
I have a variety of 9mm pistols as well as a few .40's and .45's. If I had to have one, it would, without a doubt be 9mm, or if cost was not an issue, then .45. The .40 is my least favorite pistol round that I've fired. For me, it takes more focus/effort to get that 2nd & 3rd shot to where I want it, versus a 9mm and .45 for that matter. I do think though, that w/ enough practice, one could be very proficient on any caliber/platform. If you're willing to fund the probable increased training and cost of ammo (as compared to 9mm), then go for it. I do think there are some advantages to .40 in terms of punching through various mediums when using the heavier bullets.
Where I live in NJ, you can't carry HP. You really can't carry, but that's another issue. If I were allowed to CCW, but couldn't carry HP's, then yes, the .40 & .45 become very appealing as I understand 9mm FMJ is far from great.
There isn't one single answer to your question. There are a lot of deeply nuanced handgun cartridge discussions here, and it would be well worth your time to read them and spend some time thinking about them.
The answer has come from studying the problems that we're likely to face today, and has four key components.
1. NO handgun cartridge has the raw power to reliably flatten an opponent with a single hit, so each opponent is likely to require more than one hit.
2. You're likely to face more than one opponent.
3. Good shot placement matters more than raw power.
4. Good shot placement comes from practice.
The 40 kicks harder than the 9mm so it's harder to shoot well. The magazines have lower capacity, so you're more likely to have to change mags in a fight. You have to shoot a lot to be able to hit quickly with any cartridge, and 40 ammo costs about the same as 45 ammo, which is nearly twice the cost of 9mm. The 40 also tends to tear up guns designed for the 9mm, and manufacturers are just starting to design frames for the 40.
The 9mm lives in kind of a sweet spot. The guns last forever. It doesn't kick hard, so it's easy to hit with it. It's powerful enough in the right loadings. And it's cheap enough that you can shoot enough to get really good without going bankrupt.
In short, the 9mm is good enough. The 40 is better in theory, but not enough to be worth the drawbacks it brings in practice.
Okie John
I've never been a huge fan of .40, 10mm for in between calibers. I carry either 9mm or .45 ACP. The reason for 9mm is this, it works, it's cheap to practice, good ammo selection, it's popular and can get it most any store, it's light, smaller frame gun, good capacity and Low recoil....
Basically everything right here. The only thing I might add is that it's easier for me to standardize on primarily 9mm ammunition for carry and practice. I do run my HK45's so I'm not 100% 9mm only.
I do have one Glock 22 that's in the safe. I virtually never use it unless it's with a LW threaded conversion barrel at the range. The only reason I got it was after the ammunition shortage of the past we've experienced it seemed like a good idea to have one .40 cal gun in case I could only come upon that caliber for a short time. I figured for a $300 investment it was worth it to have set aside.
I've carried my G22 for so long, I'm just used to it.
We keep a G17 for cheaper practice shooting. But I can't warm up to the round for carry. The 40 is just more comforting....
I ran .40 for a long time and eventually ditched it a few years ago for 9mm. My reasoning was that with proper shot placement, 9mm is a very effective round, it also shoots easier for me. Which means I can shoot faster and more accurately with it. Finally, it is cheaper to shoot. Most handguns are harder to shoot in .40, with the exception to that rule possibly being the M&P40. Check out DocGKR's stickies on duty loads, there is some good info in there about the most popular calibers and effective loads... then, draw your own conclusions. Caliber choice is a very personal preference.
Cost.
More money for more ammo.
Why not any other factor? Terminal ballistics show to be about equal according to our knowledge base here.
Cost is the only significant factor for me--I shoot all with the same ability. So go with the one that allows me more time at the range.
(If cost wasn't a factor, I probably would choose 40 over 9 as you get close to the same capacity with a newer round designed at higher pressure--I still suffer from "45 is king" syndrome, but I'm not happy with the magazine capacity reduction).
gillian_seed
08-16-11, 13:53
I lucked into a good price on a .40 USP, so that's what I carry. And I certainly don't regret it. The USP was originally developed for the .40, so it doesn't have the disadvantages some other .40 handguns have.
So, would I trade my .40 USP for a 9mm USP... Probably. The 9mm has less recoil and more capacity. And when it comes to handgun cartridges that's what's most important (assuming that we're talking about service cartridges).
The one thing that's notable about .40 S&W is, from what I read, it does better through intermediate barriers than 9mm and .45. Is the difference worth the increased recoil and reduced capacity? Honestly, I'm not sure. If I was a police officer this might be a selling point though.
For now, I'm just going to stick with the .40, I have a great handgun that shoots it, and really I have no problems with the cartridge.
loganp0916,
First, read the sticky posts here: https://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91.
After doing wound ballistic research and post-shooting incident analysis since 1989, I've come to the following conclusions:
For CCW and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. Downside is less robust intermediate barrier capability.
While I am not a big fan of the .357 Sig, if I was issued one and had lots of free ammunition available, I would have no issues about carrying one on a daily basis, however I don't like the blast, weapon wear issues, or cost of ammo.
If I was in a place that issued free .40, was doing a lot of work around vehicles, or had to worry about potentially stopping larger aggressive animals and couldn't generally carry a large bore revolver, I'd be strongly tempted to carry a .40--lots of 180 gr JHP's that do well against intermediate barriers is a good thing. Generally .40's can be harder to learn to shoot well than 9mm or even .45 ACP for many folks.
The nice aspects of .45 ACP are that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, offers good penetration of some common intermediate barriers, and is what the 1911 is optimally chambered for. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9mm. A .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions, in places that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo, or in situations where modern expanding ammunition is restricted due to asinine, illogical regulations.
I've always been a huge fan of the 9mm for carry and it is what I presently carry 99% of the time. I also own other handguns in .45 and 10mm for when I feel a larger caliber is warranted.
However, recently I acquired a my first .40 (a Sig P229) based on a number of factors. I chose the P229 because I feel it is one of the few pistols designed completely around the .40 and it is nearly identical to the P228, which I am very comfortable with and carry on occasion. I chose to add .40 for the primary reason that the research I've seen and from conversations in the industry from people I trust regarding intermediate barrier penetration. What really prompted me to make the plunge is that I've found the price difference between 9mm and .40 has really closed and in some cases, especially when ordering quality carry ammo in bulk, the .40 can actually be cheaper. I ordered a case of 180 grain Aguila .40 FMJ for $220 and 500 rds of Winchester bonded 180 grain BHP ammo for $160 from online sources. Try finding 50 round boxes of 9mm bonded ammo for $16.
Also, when practicing I like that my practice ammo and carry ammo are similar pressures and velocities which translates to shooting less carry ammo to stay proficient with it. My 9mm carry load of choice is 124 or 127 grain +p+. This ammo is expensive to train with, so I usually shoot 115 or 124 grain standard pressure FMJ at the range. When I do this I am not training as I shall fight. With the .40 I can do that.
I don't think any of these options are really any BETTER than the others and 9mm seems to present fewer drawbacks and require less compromises than most calibers once you reach the realization that all handgun calibers generally suck equally.
First of all, I know there are a couple threads already asking about different calibers. That being said, I have not found an answer to the question I have after looking on M4C for a few weeks now. So here it is:
Why do most people on this forum (YOU) carry or own 9mm handguns over .40 such as the Glock 26 over the 27 or the 19 over the 23?
I am under the impression that the .40 packs a bigger punch than the 9mm. Is this right? And I know the 9mm's carry one more round than the .40, is that the reason? Or does the 9mm just feel better in your hand? Less recoil?
Also, anyone who carries a .40 feel free to shed some light on this topic as well.
Thanks in advance for any responses and info.
I like the 40 because it has more "stopping power."
Ok, sorry I couldn't help myself.
The 40 caliber is pretty much a waste IMHO and if you look at the reliability of most firearms, the LEAST reliable model is the one chambered in 40.
C4
Personally I chose 9mm over .40 and .45 (sold off handguns in both calibers) because my wife and I shoot it easier with/better/more accurately (allowing us a common caliber between us), it's cheaper to practice with, and from all the data I've seen it performs just as well as other calibers if I buy quality, purpose-built ammunition for it.
+10000
I streamlined all my handgun ammo recently. I rarely shot the 45s I owned because of cost, and I can shoot more 9mm ammo on a single trip before fatigue sets in. I only have 9mms now.
I tend to like to use analogies. I have been reading up on this topic quite a bit from reputable sources (i.e. DocGKR, etc.) and what I get from it is this:
Pistol caliber bullets (UNLIKE rifle caliber bullets) are like arrows. They merely punch holes in people. Nothing fancier than that. Therefore, he .40 will punch a slightly larger hole. The issue is that the hole (relative to the entire human torso/COM, NOT the caliber we are comparing against) will NOT be much larger than a 9mm.
This increase is only significant if you happened to be in a situation where .05" or so would have made the difference between a hit and miss of vital organ, etc. Not saying this does not happen, but it is relatively unlikely.
This especially true when we factor in the BENEFITS of the 9mm. Being able to put MORE shots on target QUICKER has a greater benefit, relative to the small increase in diameter of the .40.
Speed and capacity matter more so than a slight increase in diameter. For barriers the larger calibers do seem to do better though. This is why most knowledgeable shooters recommend 9mm for 90% of LE and Civ. situations.
This is all coming from someone who was (still is) a .45 fan. However, I am now making the switch to 9mm Glocks for the majority of my SD needs.
My. $.02
I carry a G22 and G27 in .40. I am issued the G22. I would probably choose a G17 if I was starting over. Besides my .22 and .357 I have Glock 40's it just makes logistics easier. Same holsters, spare magazines and bullets. I am happy to trade a round or two of capacity for a bigger heavier round.
I like the 40 because it has more "stopping power."
AND.... "knock down power"!!!
I like the 9mm for the reduced cost, increased capacity, and lower recoil.
I choose .40 S&W because I'm issued it and don't have a choice. I've been carrying a Glock 22 my entire career. I can shoot the .40 Glocks quite well, but I wouldn't hesitate to carry a 9mm G17 or 19 if I could pick my own duty weapon. The 9mm is generally easier to shoot, and definitely cheaper to feed.
9mm is effective, easy to shoot, and cheaper.
That's it, really. I've since sold off all my .40 handguns (purchased before I knew what I even wanted from a firearm, and back when I was in a "collector" mindset). I now only have 9mm's, and a .45 1911 I keep packed in oil awaiting the money to ship it off to a quality gunsmith.
With judicious modern 9mm cartridge selection, I simply don't see what a .40 offers over a 9mm for the vast majority of uses/users, other than it's usually more expensive, has a very quick and acute pressure spike on ignition, making controllibility more difficult, and in a similiar size platform, offers lower magazine capacity.
I've chosen to retain only one of my .40 guns-my FN Hi-Power; partly because the .40 seems to be a good match with the Hi-Power (which was structurally upgraded for it), and because I simply want one gun in .40 in the event that 9mm becomes scarce (again) as an alternative.
Otherwise, I'm generally quite comfortable that my needs are met fairly well with my 9mm and .45 ACP guns (with a revolver or two in .38 Special/.357 Magnum).
Best, Jon
QuietShootr
08-18-11, 17:32
There isn't one single answer to your question. There are a lot of deeply nuanced handgun cartridge discussions here, and it would be well worth your time to read them and spend some time thinking about them.
The answer has come from studying the problems that we're likely to face today, and has four key components.
1. NO handgun cartridge has the raw power to reliably flatten an opponent with a single hit, so each opponent is likely to require more than one hit.
2. You're likely to face more than one opponent.
3. Good shot placement matters more than raw power.
4. Good shot placement comes from practice.
The 40 kicks harder than the 9mm so it's harder to shoot well. The magazines have lower capacity, so you're more likely to have to change mags in a fight. You have to shoot a lot to be able to hit quickly with any cartridge, and 40 ammo costs about the same as 45 ammo, which is nearly twice the cost of 9mm. The 40 also tends to tear up guns designed for the 9mm, and manufacturers are just starting to design frames for the 40.
The 9mm lives in kind of a sweet spot. The guns last forever. It doesn't kick hard, so it's easy to hit with it. It's powerful enough in the right loadings. And it's cheap enough that you can shoot enough to get really good without going bankrupt.
In short, the 9mm is good enough. The 40 is better in theory, but not enough to be worth the drawbacks it brings in practice.
Okie John
Best explanation yet.
I don't even own a .40 any more.
I own both and like both.
I'm currently transitioning over to 9mm, but .40 S&W still has a place in my stable because:
1.) It's a very flexible cartridge, with great duty and practice loads
2.) Some very good guns are now designed around it
3.) It's not much more expensive than 9mm if you're reloading
4.) It's what I have the most trigger time with
5.) Easier to compete in many different shooting sports with one firearm
RagweedZulu
08-18-11, 23:35
loganp0916,
If I was in a place that issued free .40, was doing a lot of work around vehicles, or had to worry about potentially stopping larger aggressive animals and couldn't generally carry a large bore revolver, I'd be strongly tempted to carry a .40--lots of 180 gr JHP's that do well against intermediate barriers is a good thing.
My agency does just that. Free .40, and the good stuff. Currently 180 gr. Speer GD for training and Duty carry. We work in/around vehicles all day, so barrier penetration was important when we tested all calibers. 9mm didn't cut it through car doors and windshields.
As a range master, I end u p with a ton of good carry ammo. For this reason, most of my off duty carry pistols are in .40. A G27, G23 and G22. I love em and feel perfectly well armed with this round for SD.
My agency does just that. Free .40, and the good stuff. Currently 180 gr. Speer GD for training and Duty carry. We work in/around vehicles all day, so barrier penetration was important when we tested all calibers. 9mm didn't cut it through car doors and windshields.
As a range master, I end u p with a ton of good carry ammo. For this reason, most of my off duty carry pistols are in .40. A G27, G23 and G22. I love em and feel perfectly well armed with this round for SD.
That's awesome, wish I had access to free .40
On top of all the other excellent reasons already given, here are a few extra thoughts.
The terminal performance difference between pistols and rifles is night and day.
So in some sense, it's not even worth trying to use a more powerful pistol caliber, as it won't even approach 5.56 performance.
Sticking with the more practical 9mm makes a lot of sense.
Pistols are for when you're not expecting trouble, rifles are for when you are.
My view, 9 is just fine.
Raven Armament
08-19-11, 00:37
I like 9mm for cost, handling characteristics, and to upset the .45 guys.
I carry a 10mm a majority of the time, however. It can cover the ballistic spectrum from the 9mm to the .45.
Alaskapopo
08-19-11, 02:25
First of all, I know there are a couple threads already asking about different calibers. That being said, I have not found an answer to the question I have after looking on M4C for a few weeks now. So here it is:
Why do most people on this forum (YOU) carry or own 9mm handguns over .40 such as the Glock 26 over the 27 or the 19 over the 23?
I am under the impression that the .40 packs a bigger punch than the 9mm. Is this right? And I know the 9mm's carry one more round than the .40, is that the reason? Or does the 9mm just feel better in your hand? Less recoil?
Also, anyone who carries a .40 feel free to shed some light on this topic as well.
Thanks in advance for any responses and info.
The 9mm is generally more reliable in most guns, its easier to shoot well and is also cheaper to shoot. The difference in terminal performance is minimal at best.
Pat
Alaskapopo
08-19-11, 02:33
My agency does just that. Free .40, and the good stuff. Currently 180 gr. Speer GD for training and Duty carry. We work in/around vehicles all day, so barrier penetration was important when we tested all calibers. 9mm didn't cut it through car doors and windshields.
As a range master, I end u p with a ton of good carry ammo. For this reason, most of my off duty carry pistols are in .40. A G27, G23 and G22. I love em and feel perfectly well armed with this round for SD.
What 9mm ammo did you tests because 147 grain HST does fine against windshields.
pat
Magic_Salad0892
08-19-11, 02:38
.40 S&W has better intermediate barrier penetration, things like autoglass, car doors, and such will be defeated easier.
9x19mm provides extremely sufficient terminal performance, in most commercially available defense loads, and does okay against intermediate barriers. It costs less, and puts less wear on most pistols, which can equate to longer service life. Longer service life means less parts replacement, which equates to a cheaper weapon system, which means you have more money to allocate to other areas.
Usually the service life issue doesn't mean much to me, because I maintain my guns parts replacement intervals, and won't see a problem with it, but I'm not going to deny that there is an inherent advantage.
9x19 costs less to shoots, and delivers less recoil/muzzle jump per shot, which means more shots on target. 9x19mm weighs less, so you can carry more bullets with less weight, and single stack 9x19mm pistols are suuuuper thin. (IE: Walther PPS, Kahr offerings)
9x19mm pistols give more magazine capacity, for less weight.
Carry four fully loaded 15 round Glock magazines in .40 S&W, and carry four fully loaded 17 round Glock magazines in 9x19mm and tell me which was lighter.
9x19mm is easier to use in a suppressor capable pistol, due to better subsonic loadings, and better suppressor options.
Though AAC, and Osprey both make great options in .40 S&W.
9x19mm is a standard NATO round, so it will ALWAYS be available somewhere.
These are the reasons I was driven to carry 9x19mm, and invest in it.
Quoting myself in another thread.
It was a response to ''.45 or 9mm for carry?'' but it applies here too.
Edited parts in blue.
mkmckinley
08-19-11, 04:14
I started carrying consolidating to 9mm for a lot of the reasons already posted here. After reading Dr. Roberts' stickes and applying some commons sense I started to realize that for concealed carry 9mm is , as Gutshot John put it, in kind of a sweet spot. Another thing I like is that the cratridge itself is tapered which theoreticall allows for easier extraction and the round can sit higher in the magazine than larger caliber rounds, allowing it to feed a little more easily.
Also, I have a wierd psychological issue that since I know I'm shooting 9mm that I reloaded I know I'm training as inexpensively as possible. Somehow this lets me not worry about the cost of training at all and lets me concentrate on shooting.
Hogsgunwild
08-19-11, 06:14
Also, when practicing I like that my practice ammo and carry ammo are similar pressures and velocities which translates to shooting less carry ammo to stay proficient with it. My 9mm carry load of choice is 124 or 127 grain +p+. This ammo is expensive to train with, so I usually shoot 115 or 124 grain standard pressure FMJ at the range. When I do this I am not training as I shall fight. With the .40 I can do that.
This is an excellent and (I feel) highly overlooked / ignored point.
Perhaps a lot of shooters don't realize that there is basically
no +P ..40 S&W? The cheap stuff shoots / recoils in a similar manner to the good stuff. One of the reasons I have kept and continued to purchase .40 S&W chambered guns.
I like 9MM as well but the "economics" are not that much better than that of the .40 S&W when you factor this into the equation. How many of us shoot a couple of twenty round boxes of carry ammo at each range session? Sometimes I will take both calibers to the range so the 9MM is there to help extend my range session if needed and the .40 simulates my carry ammo a bit better.
For me 9mm is my preferred caliber because:
More capacity.
Less recoil.
More accurate.
Cheaper.
I am now and will forever be a 9mm guy.
Bulldog7972
08-19-11, 11:35
I just picked up a Sig 229 in 40 S&W. What a sweet gun. I don't find the recoil,muzzle blast to be that big of a deal. It will be my new carry gun.
ever see the movie The Mist.
The ending scene were he doesnt have enough bullets to off everyone.
It easy to carry alot of 9mm ammo.
While capacity is a valid issue, especially as it's been well discussed in this thread, for me, it takes a second seat to reliability.
In my personal experience, I've garnered enough empirical evidence through use to place much more faith in the reliability of my Glocks than in my 1911s.
Todd Green's recent long term, high round count testing indicates the same is likely to be the case for 9mm Smith & Wesson M&Ps and HK P30 and HK45s.
I literally can't think of any credible, experienced instructor/trainer who would assert that a 1911 is more reliable than these guns-particularly out-of-the-box. Conversely, there are quite a few highly credible individuals very experienced with the 1911 platform, who appreciate it, but place it in it's proper perspective, and recommend other platforms today as being far more ideal for use as a defensive firearm-particularly for hard-use users, in environmentally challenging locales, with limited available support.
And yes, I'm very well aware that none of the guns discussed are flawless, or perfect. And I'm aware that there are steps that can be made to make a 1911 more reliable, and that there is a pyramid of 1911 manufacturers.
But reality is, at the end of the day, that the 1911 is a gun that was designed over 100 years ago, around that period's manufacturing techniques, metallurgy, and availability of relatively inexpensive skilled labor. Guns of that era were carefully hand-fitted, and quite simply not forecasted to shoot the volumn of rounds through them that we expect today. On his 10-8 Performance website, Hilton Yam has done an excellent job in one of his posted articles in laying out the expected preventive maintenance necessary to keep a tactical 1911 performing viably-what he says applies to both LEO, military, and civilian/commercial use in my opinion. Compare that to the minimal preventive maintenance (and not to say lubrication) requirements inherent to contemporary Glock, HK and M&P handguns within their forecasted lifespans.
http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability%2C-Round-Counts%2C-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html
Generally, for example, in the relatively rare instance that a Glock goes down within its forecasted lifespan, a trained monkee can detail-strip it and replace the necessary (and generally quite available, and quite inexpensive) part(s). In the case of the 1911, you'd better either be a semi-skilled gunsmith, with access to necessary machine tools, or have access to a gunsmith (ideally skilled with a quick turn-around time-and, in the world of the 1911, that's usually a bit of an oxymoron) to effect the necessary parts replacement/fitting/repair.
A 1911 is a historically significant firearm, and a joy to appreciate and use. It can certainly be a viable defensive firearm. But the time has long passed when it can be objectively and dispassionately considered to be at the apogee of the defensive firearm universe.
Best, Jon
Ah crap-it's been a long day, and I just realized that my above thread response is more applicable to the one discussing "Why 1911 or Revolver Over 15-Round Semi-Auto."
Oh well-I'll leave it here, as I think that there's some pertinence to this threads discussion, unless it bugs anyone-if so, I'll delete it. Meanwhile-more coffee.
Best, Jon
As it has already been stated..cost is the biggest factor.
brushy bill
08-19-11, 20:28
The 9mm is generally more reliable in most guns, its easier to shoot well and is also cheaper to shoot. The difference in terminal performance is minimal at best.
Pat
Agree with all but the first part of your post...I believe that most pistols are more reliable in their original intended cartridge, not most reliable in 9mm.
1911s seem to do better with .45s. For awhile there were a number of posts indicating M&P did best in .40. Could probably think of others if I tried.
Agree with all but the first part of your post...I believe that most pistols are more reliable in their original intended cartridge, not most reliable in 9mm.
1911s seem to do better with .45s. For awhile there were a number of posts indicating M&P did best in .40. Could probably think of others if I tried.
+1
The foundation caliber for which the particular gun was originally designed will usually be the best overall in terms of reliability, durability, and performance. Most pistols today start off as 9mms, and are retrofitted from the 9mm production line to accomidate the .40/.357.....etc. The most time and attention will be given to the caliber more likely to be sold the most......and that is the 9mm. The is particularly true with pistols designed outside of the USA. The 1911 is one of those few .45acps that was designed from the ground up as the primary production line caliber. However, even John Browning admitted years later that the 9mm was a superior service caliber for a whole host of reasons, and developed the Hi-Power. Unfortunatley, Browning had sold the patent rights to Colt for the 1911, so he was forced to build the Hi-Power from scratch and not copy 1911 characteristics. So, the Hi-Power was not as ground breaking as the 1911 had been.
I'm somewhat recoil sensitive due to nerve issues so I've always favored the 45 ACP. I had a Walther P99 in 40 and found it almost uncontrollable. I've fired a P229 in 40, and while it was accurate it kicked too much for my liking. Same goes for the generation 2-3 G23's. Then I got the chance to fire a gen 4 G23, and all I can say is WOW! The dual recoil spring makes it feel like a 9mm, and I was knocking down plates at 25 yards like they were free. The 'improved' grip angle makes the pistol point much better than previous Glocks did, and if ammo cost is an issue you can drop in a 9mm barrel and train that way. I'm still going to carry my HK45c because I just like 45 ACP, but I think the gen 4 Glock is good news for anyone that has shied away from 40 becasue of recoil issues.
Agree with all but the first part of your post...I believe that most pistols are more reliable in their original intended cartridge, not most reliable in 9mm.
1911s seem to do better with .45s. For awhile there were a number of posts indicating M&P did best in .40. Could probably think of others if I tried.
I generally agree, unless the gun in the new chambering has been thoroughly re-engineered to that chambering (successful examples of this that immediately come to my mind are the .40 FN/Browning Hi-Power, and the SIG-Sauer P229 (originally .40, then .357 SIG and 9mm).
Best, Jon
I generally agree, unless the gun in the new chambering has been thoroughly re-engineered to that chambering (successful examples of this that immediately come to my mind are the .40 FN/Browning Hi-Power, and the SIG-Sauer P229 (originally .40, then .357 SIG and 9mm).
Best, Jon
+1 I actually shoot my 229 in 40 better than my 239 in 9mm
brzusa.1911
08-19-11, 22:06
A good 9mm will do the same as a good .40, with less recoil (specially on compact packages). I see people all the time selling their G27 and going for the G26, I myself have a G26 and an EMP 9mm, also have .45 and 10mm pistols. But my EDC is one of the 9mm, if I feel I need more power I will carry a G29.
IMO .40 and .357 Sig were answers to non-existent problems.
Alaskapopo
08-19-11, 22:30
Agree with all but the first part of your post...I believe that most pistols are more reliable in their original intended cartridge, not most reliable in 9mm.
1911s seem to do better with .45s. For awhile there were a number of posts indicating M&P did best in .40. Could probably think of others if I tried.
The exception seems to be 1911's and they don't like shorter rounds in general. But the 9mm is a tapered case design that is more feed reilable. I had some stats from a DOJ study back in 1997 showing pistols tested in 9mm beat the 40 and 45 by quite a bit in the reliablity tests.
Pat
I like the 40 because it has more "stopping power."
C4
AND.... "knock down power"!!!
And it has been documented to have 95.873628% One Shot Stops in real life "Street Shootings"......
I know....... I read it in a book.....
RagweedZulu
08-20-11, 00:36
IMO .40 and .357 Sig were answers to non-existent problems.
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that the FBI, the premier ballistics tester, HAD a 9mm on duty during the 1986 Miami shootout. THEY obviously found something lacking in The round and its performance. It's well known they tried 10mm first, then helped develop the .40 as a compromise of better ballistics, capacity and controllability.
Now before you 9'ers start getting moist with frustration, I will admit that there have been significant advances in bullet design in the last 25 years since Miami. I would feel pretty well armed with a 9mm these days and in fact one protects both my wife (G19) and my mother (Ruger LC9).
For me PERSONALLY, if I can carry the same sized package but filled with a hotter, bigger round, I will. For this reason I carry a .40 most of the time. It's also the reason that the vast majority of US law enforcement agencies issue the round. They don't just read a magazine article and buy guns for the troops. The round is tested extensively before being fielded. The capacity issue doesn't hold water for me. If I run out of the 11/13/15 rounds in my Glocks 27, 23 or 22, I'm in a shit state. I solved the problem by never leaving the house without a spare magazine.
To each his own. God bless those of you who choose the 9, but let's not crap on the guys who prefer the .40 just because they carry a couple less rounds and are willing to pay more for their training and carry ammo. I do, and will happily continue.
+1 I actually shoot my 229 in 40 better than my 239 in 9mm
Same here. The 239 has poor erogonomics and balancing, making for a difficult pistol to shoot well. However, the P229 isn't that far behind. It's top heavy, and the barrel lockup unlocks at a faster rate than the P228 or P226 which degrades accuracy. From a bench shoot the 229 will not outshoot the 228. Try shooting a P228 9mm side by side with the P229 .40 and you'll see a definate grouping difference in both a bench rest and off hand. I did an off hand test with four Sigs on four different targets. A 239 9mm, a 228 9mm, a 229 .40, and a 220 .45. After three range trips, and 50 rds with each gun on each day(5 rounds then switched guns each time), the 220 and 228 were about equal which were pretty darn tight. The 229 was next in line, and last was the 239.
I have never trained a shooter, or met another shooter who could demonstrate the ability to shoot the .40 as well as the 9mm, or even the .45acp in any platform. Where your hit the target is of infinitely greater importance than anything else......especially caliber size.
For me PERSONALLY, if I can carry the same sized package but filled with a hotter, bigger round, I will. For this reason I carry a .40 most of the time. It's also the reason that the vast majority of US law enforcement agencies issue the round. They don't just read a magazine article and buy guns for the troops. The round is tested extensively before being fielded.
I wish I could say such a thing was true. Having been in law enforcement for 16 years now, the average citizen shooter puts more constructive and informed effort into caliber selection than most LE agencies. Just go to FLETC and train with the "experts" who only shoot in static training scenarios in a sterilized range with a predetermined round count to fire. I thought that the gangbangers in Vegas did better training since they didn't have any restrictions. They'd setup targets in the desert washes, and do drive-bys on them. What was crazy, was their groupings were tighter while shooting on the move than a lot of officers who I train with could do standing still. The continued .40 adoption at least at the federal level has more to do with simplifying logistics on a single caliber that is supposed to "do it all", and be a compromise between the high capacity 9mm camp and the big hole .45 camp. The .40 is not that user friendly, and at least FLETC has seen a drop in shooter scores since the .40 has started to dominate the firearms division. The highest student score average was in the early 1980s with revolvers, and with autos in the early 1990s which were almost entirely 9mm. The .40 became more mainstream in the late 1990s at early 2000s when the average student score dropped quite a bit.
When I started carrying for work I wanted either a.40 or a .45. The pistol had to be a Glock and they made them in both calibers so no problem there. The .45s all felt like bricks in my hand so I went with a G23. The weapon shot well, I was fairly accurate with it and it was reliable but I did notice that it took me much longer to get my sights back on target. Because of this, I sold my 23 and switched to the G19. the recoil of the .40 didn't bother me in itself but I just wanted to be able to get the second shot faster and 9mm gets me there. I would like to be able to test a gen3 G22 side by side with a gen4 G22 and compare but I wouls stil stick with the 9mm over the .40. Of course what eorks for me will not necesarily work for you, so, ther it is.
Hmmmm....
The original Glock is a 9mm but the Glock 22 in .40 is likely one of the most popular Police pistols ever. The H&Ks issued but the agency I contract for were originally 9mms too. We've fired 569,000+ rounds of .40 through them in the last TWO years with ONE failure to extract and one dead primer. I'd say that's pretty relaible.
My four ISPC guns are over 321,000 rounds ( 2 SVs, 1 STI, 1 Colt single stack ). They are built on frames for 1.260" length rounds yet run 1.160" or factory ammo at 1.135" just fine. I keep logs on these guns and although my failure rate isn't as good as the guns we issue, I'm not far behind. Malfunctions are very few if any and these guns don't get cleaned but once a month. That means they get several thousand rounds before cleaning but they do get enough oil.
June made 31 years in LE for me and I've seen us come from .38+Ps revolvers to .45 single stacks to .357 Magnums to .40s to .357 SIGs. I was required to carry a 9mm Glock 17 for some of that.
Not by choice!
Folks who win gunfights probably win NOT because of the type of gun or caliber, more likely because of skill, tactics, and some luck thrown in.
" A great shooter with a terrible gun is better than a terrible shooter with a great gun!"
Hogsgunwild
08-20-11, 10:09
ever see the movie The Mist.
The ending scene were he doesnt have enough bullets to off everyone.
It easy to carry alot of 9mm ammo.
I have not seen this movie. I have seen the documentary on the Miami shootout.
It's easy to carry a lot of .40 S&W ammo. :D
I have not seen this movie. I have seen the documentary on the Miami shootout.
It's easy to carry a lot of .40 S&W ammo. :D
If I remember right at least one of the bad guys was dead on his feet just had not bled out yet. Was it a 9mm round he took that blew out his aorta? Not sure a 40 would have made a difference. I will have to look fir that documentary. History or Discovery?
Hogsgunwild
08-20-11, 12:08
If I remember right at least one of the bad guys was dead on his feet just had not bled out yet. Was it a 9mm round he took that blew out his aorta? Not sure a 40 would have made a difference. I will have to look fir that documentary. History or Discovery?
Cannot remember which TV channel but after reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
it honestly sounds like if every agent at least had a hi-cap 9MM
(assuming they had the 9s but still no rifles like they really needed),
then, the fight may have stopped earlier. It was a 9MM round that did the fatal lung damage to one of the scumbags (Platt) although it was one of the first solid hits that took awhile to kill him.
The .40 S&W (or .45ACP) seems to deserve serious consideration if you are dealing with barriers (as a back-up to your rifle of course).
We live and work in and around barriers. We spend hours each day in or near automobiles (where a lot of confrontations begin and end).
For me it only makes sense to carry a round with better intermediate barrier performance. If I wasn't lucky enough to be able to practice with my .40s and .45s quite often, then I would probably stick with all 9MM.
Just my opinion.
Nephrology
08-20-11, 12:24
Double tap.
Nephrology
08-20-11, 12:34
I think some perspective is in order.
What makes a good defensive handgun cartridge? Penetration, penetration, penetration. To what extent does cross sectional diameter really matter beyond a certain threshold?
One of the reasons that the minimum acceptable defensive caliber is 9mm is because its next closest cousin, the .380, provides inadequate penetration. NOT because the bullet itself is bigger, but because it simply does not reliably penetrate a required 'worst case scenario' depth of 12". Its FMJ does, and I would certainly prefer a .380 over nothing, but notice that the real lacking dimension as nothing to do with bullet size.
Again let us look at .40SW and 10mm. The 10mm was dropped because it provided an unnecessary amount of "oomph" behind the .40 cal bullet it pushes. .40 SW, while somewhat derided, provides perfectly adequate penetration for humanoid targets without the discomfort and longer case dimensions of 10mm. Would you carry a .40 into bear country, though? Probably not. Hard cast, hotly loaded 10mm here would be a much better choice; same bullet, but the 10mm can push it much faster, ideally fast enough to penetrate a bear skull.
Finally, let's look at the venerable .45. When the 1911 was adopted, they did not have the same modern, rapidly-burning powders of today; hence, a lot of the .38 revolvers out there simply werent capable of pushing their bullets all that fast. The .45 ACP provides superior performance by maintaining most of its energy in its mass rather than its velocity.
In each of these contrasts it is not the diameter of the projectile that makes the difference but its ability to maintain enough energy to properly penetrate the target - and, in today's world, to allow the JHP to fully and properly expand.
Think about it. Gross anatomy is not so delicate that .1" really means diddly-squat. Organs and tissues are elastic, and so when a solid projectile freight trains its way past a vessel or organ, the tissue flexes and stretches as it passes. A .1" difference at the margins of an organ probably wouldn't do anything seriously different in either direction. Modern JHPs have helped by not only by nearly doubling the final diameter of the bullet, but also by decelerating it inside the target so that it can veer off target and shred structures that would not have been touched by a "through and through."
The bigger argument to be made is that 9mm does not provide adequate performance through barriers, as DocGKR has affirmed more than once in the past. However again modern defensive loadings have improved this greatly. Recall that much wounds sustained by the perps of the Miami 1986 shootout were from behind the soft cover of the car. This likely seriously affected the lethality of the 9mm being shot at them. Would a .40 have made a difference? Who knows.
I think the .40 has a role, particularly in LE, who do a lot of their work in and around vehicles. 9mm, however, has a lot of practical, every day advantages that make it simply more convenient for the average citizen (and indeed still much of LE as well). In the end the difference is small enough that many people have been moving towards 9mm as the myth around the larger caliber's stunning disparity in "stopping power" has been toppled.
I have and carry guns in both calibers and can shoot them all accurately enough to trust my life with them. I don't see the question as all or nothing.
The variable in the Miami shootout that we can never duplicate is that all of the combatants except 1 agent were shot and continued fighting after being shot. The bad guy that killed the two agents advanced on them aggressively after he had received multiple wounds including the one that eventually proved to be fatal.
More capacity VS bigger round, what would have made the difference for the FBI? What is the better round? Who knows, but I'm good with either. Personally, I like my Glock 23 and don't find any issues with the recoil affecting my ability to put rounds on target. That shootout lasted five minutes.
On a side note, I live in a very low crime area in Miami, Village of Pinecrest now, but unincorporated area when Grogan and Dove were shot. I drive past the sign that marks the spot where they died every day. Point being, this is why I (we) carry, because bad people are everywhere, and whether I have my 9 mm or .40, I am comfortable with my choice.
As always there is a tremendous amount of mythology, misinformation, and just plain lies on thes whole subject. Almost as bad as sex.
I remember when Hatcher's stopping power formula was cutting edge, and my issued round was .38 Special RNL. I gravitated to the .45 and was very fond of it.
Things have moved on. I'm nostalgic, but I'm ok with the .38 FBI round; .45 is fine; but so is a 9mm these days. It doesn't make sense to get all wrapped around the axle on this versus that when other variables matter more.
I think the .40 is an answer to a question that's been asked since the late 1800's
The .38-40(?)
The .41Magnum
The 10mm
A slew of proprietary cartridges in similar calibre
The .40S&W finally came closest to answering the question
I am willing to give up 2 rounds of 9mm, to gain the slightly better barrier performance, and heavier bullet of the .40
I am not willing to give up 5 or more rounds of .40, to gain any advantage the .45 may offer
Most of the anti .40 stuff, can be said of the .45 also, and well the 9mm in the other direction.
It may be harder to shoot, but I've seen a lot of guys,(and a few females) who never shot a gun before in their life, learn to shoot with a .40, and shoot quite well. I really don't think its detriment to learning.
Bob
AGENT TIKKI
08-20-11, 15:13
I personally prefer the 9mm over the .40 cal. Higher capacity, and easier follow up shot. In a HD situation, JHP 9mm is just a tad behind if not on par with JHP .40.
Personally I started with 9mm, then moved over to .357sig, 10mm, and .45 acp. Great Starter round, fairly economical, and great ballistics with premium ammo. Either way, go with the best round that you can handle well.
If I ever go back to LE uniformed patrol duties, I'll be carrying 15+1 rds of .40 180 gr JHP in an M&P40 w/ambi-safety & Apex Duty Kit...
My last years in a uniform required a 9mm Glock 17....
I have an M&P 9mm but shot my son's .40 M&P and prefer it.
I also will have a .40 M&P loaded with 180 JHPs.......
I can get .40 ammo for free when I attend training sesions, I bring my own 9mm; I cannot shoot a .40 well, too 'snappy' for lack f a better term.
ForTehNguyen
08-20-11, 17:40
I cannot shoot a .40 well, too 'snappy' for lack f a better term.
yea all of the .40s I've shot were annoyingly snappy. 9mm is so much more controllable.
My agency does just that. Free .40, and the good stuff. Currently 180 gr. Speer GD for training and Duty carry. We work in/around vehicles all day, so barrier penetration was important when we tested all calibers. 9mm didn't cut it through car doors and windshields.
As a range master, I end u p with a ton of good carry ammo. For this reason, most of my off duty carry pistols are in .40. A G27, G23 and G22. I love em and feel perfectly well armed with this round for SD.
Free Ammo is my logic...
To me, an M&P40 shooting 180 gr feels about the same as a gen 3 G17 in terms of recoil and muzzle rise...
goodoleboy
08-20-11, 20:57
I am probably in the minority here, but I love the .40 cal. I recently purchased a G22 RTF2 and have absolutely fallen in love with it. I was tossed between a Glock 17, 19, 22, and 23. The gunshop where I bought the pistol was running a really good special on the 22 RTF2 and I was immediately impressed with how well it feels in my hand. It was the last one they had, and I was able to get it for 449 out the door. The Sheriff's department I used to work for just transitioned from a Sig 9mm to the Glock 22. In talking to those who made the decision, they were considering the Glock 17, 22, or 31. The dept was impressed with the performance of the 22 and 31 when dealing with intermediate barriers and ballistics gel tests. Since there was no advantage of mag capacity in the 31 over the 22 and since the 357 sig ammo is so expensive, they decided to adopt the 22 as their service pistol.
I would not by any means consider myself poorly equipped carrying a Glock 17 or 19, but I do like the ballistics of the .40 over the 9mm. I also realize that the .40 is not the "man stopper" that many think it is. NO defensive handgun cartridge is going to provide true one shot incapacitation. But, in my humble opinion, the .40 provides a good bridge between the 9mm and .45 acp.
I carry a G22, I shoot this pistol well but it must be stated that I find it even snappier then I do the 10mm G20! I also own a pair of G19's and a pair of Beretta 92FS's, all of which are quite easy to shoot well with. I do prefer the .40, particularly in my neck of the woods for it's performance on dangerous dog's and wild game.....
To me, an M&P40 shooting 180 gr feels about the same as a gen 3 G17 in terms of recoil and muzzle rise...
Me too! That IS a good thing!
GeorgiaBoy
08-21-11, 20:09
The slightly lower price, the slightly higher magazine capacity, and the fact that there is really nothing a .40 does than a 9mm can't.
viperashes
08-22-11, 02:50
I shoot 9mm because I'm used to it's ballistic and recoil characteristics, mainly, having been issued an M9 and qualifying with it for the last 5 years.
My other argument is that if I need to shoot through barriers, such as a windshield or car door, obviously things have become a lot worse than I can feasibly be prepared for in that situation. Sure, a .40 or .45 has better penetration, but if I need to shoot a hardened target, I'm going to be shooting to get my ass to a long gun if I absolutely need to neutralize the threat, if not, I'm going to fight my way out of the situation.
It's been said a thousand times already, common 9mm ammunition doesn't have near the ballistic shortfalls it did even 5 years ago. Good, proven ammunition and a reliable weapon will get the job done. I understand that some don't have a choice in caliber, .Mil, we're stuck with 9mm FMJ, the LE crowd typically get's stuck with .40.
I guess I kind of have a different thought process on the whole thing in that if you can't change your weapon, or have your eye on what you want your weapon to do, but it doesn't suit your situation, change your tactics to change the situation so it does. I personally don't agree with the fact that even in a PMO(.MIL LE) setting, we're still restricted from using JHP ammunition, but working with what I have has taught me that sometimes you have to change the situation to fit your weapon, if only because you can't change your weapon to fit the situation.
I carry a Glock 19 because it fits me well, I shoot it accurately and comfortably, and it's a reliable handgun. I'm very seriously concidering picking up a Glock 26 as well.
There are 3 major factors in a gunfight. You, your weapon, and your enemy. You can't control your enemy, so if you can't change your weapon, change the way you use it. Shoot, Move, and Communicate. Without those three things, you've got yourself a losing battle.
Bulldog7972
08-22-11, 08:36
On a side note, I live in a very low crime area in Miami, Village of Pinecrest now, but unincorporated area when Grogan and Dove were shot. I drive past the sign that marks the spot where they died every day.
Is there anyway you can post a picture of that sign? I would really appreciate it and I suspect many others would as well.
Thanks.
Is there anyway you can post a picture of that sign? I would really appreciate it and I suspect many others would as well.
Thanks.
Later today.
EDIT: As promised. This is a very nice neighborhood with little crime. But, bad people have cars and access to our lives. Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.
The site seems very serene now for a place where such a great loss occurred:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/Grogandove2.jpg
The sign dedicating the site by the Village of Pinecrest:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/GroganDove1.jpg
DWood,
Thank you for sharing that with us. Like many others I grew up as a young cop learning ans studying that shooting.
Later today.
EDIT: As promised. This is a very nice neighborhood with little crime. But, bad people have cars and access to our lives. Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.
The site seems very serene now for a place where such a great loss occurred:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/Grogandove2.jpg
The sign dedicating the site by the Village of Pinecrest:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/GroganDove1.jpg
Alaskapopo
08-22-11, 12:35
To me, an M&P40 shooting 180 gr feels about the same as a gen 3 G17 in terms of recoil and muzzle rise...
To me it feels a lot snappier. Snappier than a GLock 22 gen 3 in fact. I shot my friends M&P in 40sw. Not a bad gun. I did not much care for the stock trigger and like I said it seemed to have snappy recoil. I have shot a friends M&P pro with a custom trigger in 9mm and that was a shooting joy.
Pat
To me it feels a lot snappier. Snappier than a GLock 22 gen 3 in fact. I shot my friends M&P in 40sw. Not a bad gun. I did not much care for the stock trigger and like I said it seemed to have snappy recoil. I have shot a friends M&P pro with a custom trigger in 9mm and that was a shooting joy.
Pat
Same for me. Compared to a Glock 17, the M&P 40 seems to have a lot more snap to it. I like the M&P in .45 and, though I don't shoot a lot of .40, the two guns that have worked well for me are a Sig P226 that Gray Guns did extensive work on, so I'm not sure it counts, and a stock HK USP .40 compact.
In answer to the original question; I shoot 9mm and .45 more accurately than I shoot .40, so they are both better choices for me personally. Also, because of the differential in ammo prices, I can do a lot more practicing with a 9mm, so it seems like the best choice.
Alaskapopo
08-23-11, 00:57
The one 40 I own and love is my STI edge. Its a competition gun but its been reliable for me. I load the 40 long and wish you could get factor defensive ammo like that. It lowers the pressure and makes the 40 a fun round to shoot. But it does require a larger gun.
Pat
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Semi%20auto%20pistols/EDGE.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
08-23-11, 07:25
When it comes to recoil, I have to say that a Glock 23 Gen4, H&K P30 .40, USPC .40, and M&P in .40 are all quite usable, and IMHO not unpleasant.
The P30 .40 felt a bit like a Gen3 G17 to me. Might be because of heavier recoil assembly.
I don't know why you guys are saying it's uncontrollable or whatever.
I just have other reasons not to prefer it.
If I ever go back to LE uniformed patrol duties, I'll be carrying 15+1 rds of .40 180 gr JHP in an M&P40 w/ambi-safety & Apex Duty Kit...
Is that for the reliability of the M&P in .40, or to get the .40 cartridge?
I dont shoot the 9mm better than my many .40's, but I shoot the 9mm faster. I can also practice with the 9 longer than the 40, due to cost and the snappy recoil of the 40 wearing me out much quicker. This is especially true in the summer when 90+ heat makes it very hard to hold on to the slick, sweaty, Glock 22,23 in rapid fire. The 9 is easier..
As for barrier penetration, I have shot numerous cars in various places (windows, doors etc)with both calibers and everything sails right through unless the angle is too sharp or it hits something like the cross bar or other internal part that will stop any pistol round. Modern cars are not like the old tanks of 20 years ago. Maybe 40 deflects less possibly due to a more mass and blunt bullet profile that "cuts" sheet metal, compared to the more pointy 9mm, but as far as penetration...my anecdotal experience is that there is no practical difference.
My duty holster hold a G22 in 40 because I have no choice. If they let me, I would go home now and switch out to my personal 17 or 19...
Now if all I could use in FMJ....hands down 40 all the way!
Oh, and as far as the '86 Miami shootout with Platt, Madox...the much maligned 9mm was a 115 Silvertip. If I remember, the round was one of the first fired by the agents, went through the perp's arm and then penetrated the chest cavity causing a fatal wound. (this is why 12 inches of pen is MINIMUM)But, the perp. did not know it or didn't care and was one of those rare people that will not go down easily until blood presure drops enough or the CNS is hit. Tactics were primarily at fault, especially since the FBI had MP5s and Remy 870's available in the cars but ended up using pistols, including J-frame Smiths. BTW, a 38 Special loaded with 147's ended the fight with a fatal head shot.
If anyone out there is still carrying 9mm Silvertips in their EDC, yes it will do the job but 25 years later...we have much better options!
I am quite comfortable with both 9 mm and .45 ACP--the full-size M&P45 w/ambi-safety I am currently using has been completely reliable, as is the G19 I CCW. However, for uniformed LE Patrol duty use, especially around vehicles, I prefer the .40 cartridge--15+1 offers a lot of bullets; 180 gr has enough mass for intermediate barrier penetration without as much deflection as 9mm and to ensure adequate penetration in tissue AFTER first defeating barriers. The M&P40 is the softest shooting, most controllable, and completely reliable .40 S&W pistol I have yet used; in addition, it is available with the manual safety that I prefer on a LE duty pistol. For those reasons, the M&P40 w/ambi-safety would be my pistol of choice for uniformed LE Patrol duty.
On the economics of caliber choice... 2010 LE ammo quotes for certain loads. Comparisons translate to the commercial side.
Manufacturer A:
9mm 124gr JHP Duty: $259.00/k
40SW 180 JHP Duty: $289.00/k (+12%)
45ACP 230 JHP Duty: $314.00/k (+9%)
9mm to 45ACP, +21%
9mm 124gr FMJ Training: $169.00/k
40SW 180 FMJ Training: $219.00/k (+30%)
45ACP 230 JHP Training: $249.00/k (+14%)
9mm to 45ACP, +47%
Manufacturer B:
9mm 124gr JHP Duty: $319.00/k
40SW 180 JHP Duty: $349.00/k (+9%)
45ACP 230 JHP Duty: $374.00/k (+7%)
9mm to 45ACP, +17%
9mm 124gr FMJ Training: $169.00/k
40SW 180 FMJ Training: $219.00/k (+30%)
45ACP 230 JHP Training: $249.00/k (+14%)
9mm to 45ACP, +47%
Manufacturer C:
9mm ~124gr JHP Duty: $412.00/k
40SW 180 JHP Duty: $446.00/k (+8%)
45ACP 230 JHP Duty: $488.00/k (+9%)
9mm to 45ACP, +18%
9mm 124gr FMJ Training: $270.00/k
40SW 180 FMJ Training: $362.00/k (+34%)
45ACP 230 JHP Training: $448.00/k (+24%)
9mm to 45ACP, +66%
Manufacturer D:
9mm 124gr JHP Duty: $499.50/k
40SW 180 JHP Duty: $565.00/k (+13%)
45ACP 230 JHP Duty: $639.00/k (+13%)
9mm to 45ACP, +28%
9mm 124gr FMJ Training: $282.50/k
40SW 180 FMJ Training: $355.00/k (+26%)
45ACP 230 JHP Training: $395.00/k (+11%)
9mm to 45ACP, +40%
Averages, All Manufacturers, Duty Ammo:
9mm to 40SW: +10.5%
40SW to 45ACP: +9.5%
9mm to 45ACP: +21%
Averages, All Manufacturers, Training Ammo:
9mm to 40SW: +30%
40SW to 45ACP: +15.75%
9mm to 45ACP: +50%
Bulldog7972
08-23-11, 12:33
Later today.
EDIT: As promised. This is a very nice neighborhood with little crime. But, bad people have cars and access to our lives. Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.
The site seems very serene now for a place where such a great loss occurred:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/Grogandove2.jpg
The sign dedicating the site by the Village of Pinecrest:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/GroganDove1.jpg
Thanks very much DWood. That's quite a tribute to those agents. Kudos to the politicians that got it right for once.
Bulldog7972
08-23-11, 12:38
Oh, and as far as the '86 Miami shootout with Platt, Madox...the much maligned 9mm was a 115 Silvertip. If I remember, the round was one of the first fired by the agents, went through the perp's arm and then penetrated the chest cavity causing a fatal wound. (this is why 12 inches of pen is MINIMUM)But, the perp. did not know it or didn't care and was one of those rare people that will not go down easily until blood presure drops enough or the CNS is hit. Tactics were primarily at fault, especially since the FBI had MP5s and Remy 870's available in the cars but ended up using pistols, including J-frame Smiths. BTW, a 38 Special loaded with 147's ended the fight with a fatal head shot.
If anyone out there is still carrying 9mm Silvertips in their EDC, yes it will do the job but 25 years later...we have much better options!
I saw a detective the other day that was armed with a 5 shot J frame. That was it. I couldn't believe it.
When it comes to recoil, I have to say that a Glock 23 Gen4, H&K P30 .40, USPC .40, and M&P in .40 are all quite usable, and IMHO not unpleasant.
The P30 .40 felt a bit like a Gen3 G17 to me. Might be because of heavier recoil assembly.
I don't know why you guys are saying it's uncontrollable or whatever.
I just have other reasons not to prefer it.
.40 is controllable but it takes me longer to recover no biggie though.
I have carried both over the past 16 years-in HK USP and Glock. If I had to choose one it would be the 9mm. 1)Easier shot follow up 2) Impressive stopping power @ 124 gr +P loads, though some argue for 147 gr.
So, not a wrong choice between the two for me just a little better choice.
viperashes
08-23-11, 13:41
If I have my Glock 19 loaded with 15+1 rounds of this (127gr +P+ Talons)...
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/HiPower127Winchester_files/image002.jpg
...I'm not really worried about jumping from 9mm to .40. As I stated before, I doubt that I'm going to get myself into a situation where I'm going to have to fight to destroy a hardened target. I'm getting myself to a long gun, or I'm going to get away. That is my primary objective. A vetted weapon, in a service caliber with good ammo, regardless of if it's 9mm, .40, or .45.
Naturally, you want to go with a caliber that is optimized for that particular brand of firearm. For instance, Glocks and Sigs seem to be better overall in 9mm as Dr. Roberts has pointed out in his service caliber thread. With S&W and H&K you have a broader selection of calibers that are excellent in those brands of firearms in terms of reliabilty, durability, and handling.
The benefits of the 9mm were not appreciated by me until I had trained extensively in the .40 and .45, and expanded my training beyond the static gun range. Even though I could shoot both larger calibers well, there was a measurable difference in back to back comparisons between them and the 9mm. This was especially obvious in dynamic shooting where I had to shoot single hand(left and right), utilizing less than stable shooting positions, utilizing lots of movement, and having unpredictable scenarios. The slower recoil recovery of the .40 hindered my performance during these stressful shoots, and speed coupled with accuracy were two critical elements that the 9mm did better at.
If you are at your best, under the best possible conditions, then the difference between the 9mm and the .40 is a blurr. Shooting at a static range is just such an example. However, as real shooting exchanges have shown, things never go according to plan and the situation goes worse than expected. This is why a centuries old combat principle still applies today........"Prepare to fight your best, but be prepared to fight at your worst."
warpedcamshaft
08-30-11, 12:59
I would like to interject my opinion on this matter, because it is fun to share my opinion, and I think there are a few things people don’t think about when discussing this subject. Too many people rush to defend their personal choice, and fail to look at the matter with a bit of objectivity. Here are my thoughts:
First, there are generally big differences between the needs of Law Enforcement and Armed Civilians. Law enforcement officers do not generally get the element of surprise when they are forced to fire. A criminal who has gone feral, and has decided to open fire on a peacekeeper has made a conscious decision to enter a firefight with someone they know is armed and trained. The criminal has chosen to fight. These situations can escalate into dynamic gunfights with determined moving targets behind cover and at odd angles. If we add alcohol or drugs as a factor, things can get even worse.
Civilians are generally expected to be unarmed, and often are carrying a weapon concealed. An individual who is attempting criminal activity against a seemingly helpless person is not usually expecting to get shot at. The bad guy is less likely to be behind cover, and is not expecting the situation to escalate to lethal force. Put yourself in the shoes of a mugger or a thief, and think about how terrifying it would be to start taking rounds to the chest from a seemingly helpless person. These situations are usually more ideal, if that is possible in such a horrible event, than a Law Enforcement shootout.
Filter all decisions through the above thoughts.
Now, on to MY thoughts on defensive caliber choice based on research I have done and my shooting experience with both the 9mm and 40 S&W. (I own both, and love both)
The 40 S&W is simply a larger cartridge that projects an often heavier and larger diameter projectile. The 40 S&W on average will penetrate deeper and expand wider, creating a wound cavity with more surface area, and potentially hitting a blood vessel that a smaller bullet may miss. The round is 10% wider upon entrance and expands wider. Does the larger diameter equate to better performance? That is almost impossible to quantify, but it is a potential advantage. Also, when buying defensive-class ammunition, the 40 S&W allows you to tap into the law enforcement market and purchase large quantities of excellent flash suppressed loads for less than 9x19 +p flash suppressed defensive class loads.
The 9mm is no slouch! A 9x19 in a good proven modern loading will penetrate deep enough, and expand wide enough to give excellent performance. Most of the 9mm loads used by Law enforcement are 147 gr. hollow-points or lighter bullets in higher pressure loadings and work very well. A few considerations that many civilians fail to recognize, is how important it is to train extensively with your defensive ammo or something of similar recoil. Many shooters talk about the soft recoil and speed of follow up shots with the 9mm, but only fire cheap practice rounds through their pistols. When I compare recoil of some defensive 9mm rounds to an average 40 S&W, I can tell little difference in a gun of similar size and weight. Be sure to practice with your defensive rounds, and you will be good to go. The last consideration, is that I usually have to pay more for 9mm defense loads than I do for 40 S&W defensive loads. I suspect this is mostly due to the 40 S&W’s current success in the law enforcement market, and the large quantities of 40 S&W hollow-point flash suppressed ammunition that are produced for police, government agencies, and the military (USCG).
In the end, the 40 S&W offers generally superior defensive performance per hit. However, whether the potential advantages in a civilian defensive situation are worth the added cost of recreational shooting is difficult to say. Does punching a 10% larger wound cavity in a person make them bleed 10% faster? Does a 10% faster bleed rate mean a criminal will die in 9 seconds rather than 10? Probably not. However, when you are equipping hundreds or thousands of people with a weapon system and ammunition, and then sending them after violent and determined criminals who want to kill someone, the added advantages could potentially mean life or death for someone at some time. The propensity for an officer to get into a firefight is higher than an armed citizen. The 40 S&W strikes the balance for this situation between cost, capacity, recoil, and lethality for many civilians, departments, and agencies.
For an armed citizen, the slight difference in performance probably will never matter. Not that it couldn't, it is just very unlikely.
QuietShootr
08-30-11, 14:00
If I have my Glock 19 loaded with 15+1 rounds of this (127gr +P+ Talons)...
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/HiPower127Winchester_files/image002.jpg
...I'm not really worried about jumping from 9mm to .40. As I stated before, I doubt that I'm going to get myself into a situation where I'm going to have to fight to destroy a hardened target. I'm getting myself to a long gun, or I'm going to get away. That is my primary objective. A vetted weapon, in a service caliber with good ammo, regardless of if it's 9mm, .40, or .45.
Exactly what I use, gun and ammo, and I trust it as much as I can trust any handgun.
I would like to interject my opinion on this matter, because it is fun to share my opinion, and I think there are a few things people don’t think about when discussing this subject. Too many people rush to defend their personal choice, and fail to look at the matter with a bit of objectivity. Here are my thoughts:
First, there are generally big differences between the needs of Law Enforcement and Armed Civilians. Law enforcement officers do not generally get the element of surprise when they are forced to fire. A criminal who has gone feral, and has decided to open fire on a peacekeeper has made a conscious decision to enter a firefight with someone they know is armed and trained. The criminal has chosen to fight. These situations can escalate into dynamic gunfights with determined moving targets behind cover and at odd angles. If we add alcohol or drugs as a factor, things can get even worse.
Civilians are generally expected to be unarmed, and often are carrying a weapon concealed. An individual who is attempting criminal activity against a seemingly helpless person is not usually expecting to get shot at. The bad guy is less likely to be behind cover, and is not expecting the situation to escalate to lethal force. Put yourself in the shoes of a mugger or a thief, and think about how terrifying it would be to start taking rounds to the chest from a seemingly helpless person. These situations are usually more ideal, if that is possible in such a horrible event, than a Law Enforcement shootout.
Filter all decisions through the above thoughts.
Now, on to MY thoughts on defensive caliber choice based on research I have done and my shooting experience with both the 9mm and 40 S&W. (I own both, and love both)
The 40 S&W is simply a larger cartridge that projects an often heavier and larger diameter projectile. The 40 S&W on average will penetrate deeper and expand wider, creating a wound cavity with more surface area, and potentially hitting a blood vessel that a smaller bullet may miss. The round is 10% wider upon entrance and expands wider. Does the larger diameter equate to better performance? That is almost impossible to quantify, but it is a potential advantage. Also, when buying defensive-class ammunition, the 40 S&W allows you to tap into the law enforcement market and purchase large quantities of excellent flash suppressed loads for less than 9x19 +p flash suppressed defensive class loads.
The 9mm is no slouch! A 9x19 in a good proven modern loading will penetrate deep enough, and expand wide enough to give excellent performance. Most of the 9mm loads used by Law enforcement are +P or +P+ and work very well. A few considerations that many civilians fail to recognize, is how important it is to train extensively with your defensive ammo or something of similar recoil. Many shooters talk about the soft recoil and speed of follow up shots with the 9mm, but only fire cheap practice rounds through their pistols. When I compare recoil of 9mm +P or +P+ to an average 40 S&W, I can tell little difference in a gun of similar size and weight. Be sure to practice with your defensive rounds, and you will be good to go. The last consideration, is that I usually have to pay more for 9mm defense loads than I do for 40 S&W defensive loads. I suspect this is mostly due to the 40 S&W’s current success in the law enforcement market, and the large quantities of 40 S&W hollow-point flash suppressed ammunition that are produced for police, government agencies, and the military (USCG).
In the end, the 40 S&W offers generally superior defensive performance per hit. However, whether the potential advantages in a civilian defensive situation are worth the added cost of recreational shooting is difficult to say. Does punching a 10% larger wound cavity in a person make them bleed 10% faster? Does a 10% faster bleed rate mean a criminal will die in 9 seconds rather than 10? Probably not. However, when you are equipping hundreds or thousands of people with a weapon system and ammunition, and then sending them after violent and determined criminals who want to kill someone, the added advantages could potentially mean life or death for someone at some time. The propensity for an officer to get into a firefight is higher than an armed citizen. The 40 S&W strikes the balance for this situation between cost, capacity, recoil, and lethality.
For an armed citizen, the slight difference in performance probably will never matter. Not that it couldn't, it is just very unlikely.
I find your reply to be an honest and truthful assessment between the two calibers, 9mm and .40 caliber. I shoot the .40 caliber almost as well as I do .45acp, my favorite handgun calibers. The .40 caliber in 180 grain loadings in the M&P platform feels just like a 9+P to me and which is quite soft recoil wise.
Like a lot of guys who've posted above, cost is a major factor.
I'm a working college student and I couldn't practice as often as I'd like to with my carry guns if they were in a caliber that is more expensive than your average 9mm round without sacrificing either the round count per range session or the frequency of range trips.
In the civilian carry world where each round is a potential lawsuit, I can't afford to sacrifice my skill with my carry guns.
Controllability is also a plus as to why I prefer the 9x19mm, but factor in the superb performance of the modern defensive loads currently available and there isn't any logical reason for me to choose any other handgun round over it unless it was required by my line of work (and since I'm not LE/Mil, I donj't have that kind of restriction)
I'm not opining those of you who stick by your G22s or 1911s are wrong (I wish I had the budget to shoot the shit out of my 1911s) , but the reality is that 9mm makes life easier for us average Joes behind the gun... and the best part is, the bad guys will be no more or less dead than if they'd soaked up a helping of .40S&W or .45ACP.
Magic_Salad0892
08-31-11, 06:45
I would like to interject my opinion on this matter, because it is fun to share my opinion, and I think there are a few things people don’t think about when discussing this subject. Too many people rush to defend their personal choice, and fail to look at the matter with a bit of objectivity. Here are my thoughts:
First, there are generally big differences between the needs of Law Enforcement and Armed Civilians. Law enforcement officers do not generally get the element of surprise when they are forced to fire. A criminal who has gone feral, and has decided to open fire on a peacekeeper has made a conscious decision to enter a firefight with someone they know is armed and trained. The criminal has chosen to fight. These situations can escalate into dynamic gunfights with determined moving targets behind cover and at odd angles. If we add alcohol or drugs as a factor, things can get even worse.
Civilians are generally expected to be unarmed, and often are carrying a weapon concealed. An individual who is attempting criminal activity against a seemingly helpless person is not usually expecting to get shot at. The bad guy is less likely to be behind cover, and is not expecting the situation to escalate to lethal force. Put yourself in the shoes of a mugger or a thief, and think about how terrifying it would be to start taking rounds to the chest from a seemingly helpless person. These situations are usually more ideal, if that is possible in such a horrible event, than a Law Enforcement shootout.
Filter all decisions through the above thoughts.
Now, on to MY thoughts on defensive caliber choice based on research I have done and my shooting experience with both the 9mm and 40 S&W. (I own both, and love both)
The 40 S&W is simply a larger cartridge that projects an often heavier and larger diameter projectile. The 40 S&W on average will penetrate deeper and expand wider, creating a wound cavity with more surface area, and potentially hitting a blood vessel that a smaller bullet may miss. The round is 10% wider upon entrance and expands wider. Does the larger diameter equate to better performance? That is almost impossible to quantify, but it is a potential advantage. Also, when buying defensive-class ammunition, the 40 S&W allows you to tap into the law enforcement market and purchase large quantities of excellent flash suppressed loads for less than 9x19 +p flash suppressed defensive class loads.
The 9mm is no slouch! A 9x19 in a good proven modern loading will penetrate deep enough, and expand wide enough to give excellent performance. Most of the 9mm loads used by Law enforcement are +P or +P+ and work very well. A few considerations that many civilians fail to recognize, is how important it is to train extensively with your defensive ammo or something of similar recoil. Many shooters talk about the soft recoil and speed of follow up shots with the 9mm, but only fire cheap practice rounds through their pistols. When I compare recoil of 9mm +P or +P+ to an average 40 S&W, I can tell little difference in a gun of similar size and weight. Be sure to practice with your defensive rounds, and you will be good to go. The last consideration, is that I usually have to pay more for 9mm defense loads than I do for 40 S&W defensive loads. I suspect this is mostly due to the 40 S&W’s current success in the law enforcement market, and the large quantities of 40 S&W hollow-point flash suppressed ammunition that are produced for police, government agencies, and the military (USCG).
In the end, the 40 S&W offers generally superior defensive performance per hit. However, whether the potential advantages in a civilian defensive situation are worth the added cost of recreational shooting is difficult to say. Does punching a 10% larger wound cavity in a person make them bleed 10% faster? Does a 10% faster bleed rate mean a criminal will die in 9 seconds rather than 10? Probably not. However, when you are equipping hundreds or thousands of people with a weapon system and ammunition, and then sending them after violent and determined criminals who want to kill someone, the added advantages could potentially mean life or death for someone at some time. The propensity for an officer to get into a firefight is higher than an armed citizen. The 40 S&W strikes the balance for this situation between cost, capacity, recoil, and lethality.
For an armed citizen, the slight difference in performance probably will never matter. Not that it couldn't, it is just very unlikely.
This is IMHO the best post in this thread.
Combined with my response pulled from the 9x19 v. .45 ACP thread, I think it paints the clearest picture of this debate, that can be posted here. Mine was over simplified though.
Thanks for posting this.
loganp0916
08-31-11, 07:07
I would like to interject my opinion on this matter, because it is fun to share my opinion, and I think there are a few things people don’t think about when discussing this subject. Too many people rush to defend their personal choice, and fail to look at the matter with a bit of objectivity. Here are my thoughts:
First, there are generally big differences between the needs of Law Enforcement and Armed Civilians. Law enforcement officers do not generally get the element of surprise when they are forced to fire. A criminal who has gone feral, and has decided to open fire on a peacekeeper has made a conscious decision to enter a firefight with someone they know is armed and trained. The criminal has chosen to fight. These situations can escalate into dynamic gunfights with determined moving targets behind cover and at odd angles. If we add alcohol or drugs as a factor, things can get even worse.
Civilians are generally expected to be unarmed, and often are carrying a weapon concealed. An individual who is attempting criminal activity against a seemingly helpless person is not usually expecting to get shot at. The bad guy is less likely to be behind cover, and is not expecting the situation to escalate to lethal force. Put yourself in the shoes of a mugger or a thief, and think about how terrifying it would be to start taking rounds to the chest from a seemingly helpless person. These situations are usually more ideal, if that is possible in such a horrible event, than a Law Enforcement shootout.
Filter all decisions through the above thoughts.
Now, on to MY thoughts on defensive caliber choice based on research I have done and my shooting experience with both the 9mm and 40 S&W. (I own both, and love both)
The 40 S&W is simply a larger cartridge that projects an often heavier and larger diameter projectile. The 40 S&W on average will penetrate deeper and expand wider, creating a wound cavity with more surface area, and potentially hitting a blood vessel that a smaller bullet may miss. The round is 10% wider upon entrance and expands wider. Does the larger diameter equate to better performance? That is almost impossible to quantify, but it is a potential advantage. Also, when buying defensive-class ammunition, the 40 S&W allows you to tap into the law enforcement market and purchase large quantities of excellent flash suppressed loads for less than 9x19 +p flash suppressed defensive class loads.
The 9mm is no slouch! A 9x19 in a good proven modern loading will penetrate deep enough, and expand wide enough to give excellent performance. Most of the 9mm loads used by Law enforcement are +P or +P+ and work very well. A few considerations that many civilians fail to recognize, is how important it is to train extensively with your defensive ammo or something of similar recoil. Many shooters talk about the soft recoil and speed of follow up shots with the 9mm, but only fire cheap practice rounds through their pistols. When I compare recoil of 9mm +P or +P+ to an average 40 S&W, I can tell little difference in a gun of similar size and weight. Be sure to practice with your defensive rounds, and you will be good to go. The last consideration, is that I usually have to pay more for 9mm defense loads than I do for 40 S&W defensive loads. I suspect this is mostly due to the 40 S&W’s current success in the law enforcement market, and the large quantities of 40 S&W hollow-point flash suppressed ammunition that are produced for police, government agencies, and the military (USCG).
In the end, the 40 S&W offers generally superior defensive performance per hit. However, whether the potential advantages in a civilian defensive situation are worth the added cost of recreational shooting is difficult to say. Does punching a 10% larger wound cavity in a person make them bleed 10% faster? Does a 10% faster bleed rate mean a criminal will die in 9 seconds rather than 10? Probably not. However, when you are equipping hundreds or thousands of people with a weapon system and ammunition, and then sending them after violent and determined criminals who want to kill someone, the added advantages could potentially mean life or death for someone at some time. The propensity for an officer to get into a firefight is higher than an armed citizen. The 40 S&W strikes the balance for this situation between cost, capacity, recoil, and lethality.
For an armed citizen, the slight difference in performance probably will never matter. Not that it couldn't, it is just very unlikely.
Great post. Thank you
Most of the 9mm loads used by Law enforcement are +P or +P+ and work very well.
What do you base your statement on that "most" 9mm loads used by LE are +P or +P+?
In the West at least, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The non +P 147 grain, seems to be the dominate choice.
What do you base your statement on that "most" 9mm loads used by LE are +P or +P+?
In the West at least, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The non +P 147 grain, seems to be the dominate choice.
Jake's Dad is correct on this subject. For instance, Federal agencies are almost entirely standard pressure 9mm......usually 147gr. I've done quite a bit of ordering for DOI, and the standard contract for my sister agencies specifies to only use standard pressure 9mm in the RM. The exception would be DEA which uses 124gr+P in their MP5s.
I have yet to see a local agency that doesn't require +P 9mm (my old agency did, the Sheriff where I part time does). Now that I'm a contract instructor for DHS we see only +P from other Feds (or .40).
I have yet to see a local agency that doesn't require +P 9mm (my old agency did, the Sheriff where I part time does). Now that I'm a contract instructor for DHS we see only +P from other Feds (or .40).
Rare exception. Reference Manual#9 for DOI, DOA, FBI, and many other agencies make it a violation of policy to use anything other than standard pressure 9mm. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a local division has violated policy. :rolleyes:
warpedcamshaft
08-31-11, 11:39
I am not questioning the effectiveness of the 147 grain standard pressure round. I would and have carried that round. I know the San Diego Police department has an excellent record with that round. Please post any additional facts/data.
NYPD (nations largest municipal police force by a wide margin with over 40,000 officers) and Orlando both issue higher pressure 9mm rounds. I think that generally speaking, my statement is likely still accurate. If I am incorrect, I would love to know and will shamelessly admit it and edit my initial post.
I am not questioning the effectiveness of the 147 grain standard pressure round. I would and have carried that round. I know the Orlando Police department has an excellent record with that round. Please post any additional facts/data.
NYPD (nations largest municipal police force by a wide margin with over 40,000 officers) and Orlando both issue higher pressure 9mm rounds. I think that generally speaking, my statement is likely still accurate. If I am incorrect, I would love to know and will shamelessly admit it and edit my initial post.
I prefer 124gr+P myself. However, I was just making a correction that indeed most Federal agencies default to the FBI standards......one of those being the use of standard pressure 147gr loads under Federal Directive #9. Supposedly, a bunch of changes are being made to the firearms division on FD#9 which I hope to get a copy of in a couple of months.
I have yet to see a local agency that doesn't require +P 9mm (my old agency did, the Sheriff where I part time does).
Out here, the majority doesn't use +P, for their 9mm.
As far as Texas, checking with an ASLET buddy, Amarillo and Dallas County were two agencies he could think of that use 147 grain non +P.
NYPD (nations largest municipal police force by a wide margin with over 40,000 officers) and Orlando both issue higher pressure 9mm rounds..
NYPD also carried 124 grain ball in 10 round magazines, when they finally went to autos.
Just sayin'.......
I have yet to see a local agency that doesn't require +P 9mm (my old agency did, the Sheriff where I part time does). Now that I'm a contract instructor for DHS we see only +P from other Feds (or .40).
Rare exception. Reference Manual#9 for DOI, DOA, FBI, and many other agencies make it a violation of policy to use anything other than standard pressure 9mm. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a local division has violated policy. :rolleyes:
Exactly. I shoot with Feds all the time, never seen them using +P 9mm.
Seems like most of the good points have been made, especially the posts by DocGkr, Okie John, and a couple of others. In particular, Doc's first post in this thread gives a pretty good overall perspective on caliber. In short, they all work adequately, but none of them is a superior or universal "man-stopper." There might be good reasons to use any the common duty calibers depending on your situation, and they are not drastically different in ballistic results (although .40 and .45 penetrate hard barriers somewhat better).
Given the above facts, and given that I have ready access to all the calibers and can choose the one I want, I have gone with 9mm as my primary carry caliber mainly because of....
* Capacity. Gives me the highest capacity of any adequate duty caliber.
* Weight. Lets me carry the smallest/lightest CCW among any of the available duty calibers.
* Availability. 9mm ammo in my experience is generally the easiest to find if you are not reloading.
* Cost. All other things being (mostly) equal in ballistic performance of the calibers, cost for training ammo IS a factor for me.
I also keep a few pistols (1911's, and an M&P 45 mid-size) around in .45. This isn't strictly necessary, but I find that I enjoy shooting the 1911 platform and the mid-size .45 M&P is incredibly accurate and a joy to shoot as well. I even carried my M&P .45 for a while, but the weight was quite a bit more than my M&P 9mm compact, so finally I couldn't see the point and went back to the compact. If we ever have some kind of asinine restriction on mag size, or 9mm becomes temporarily hard to get, at least having a couple of pistols in .45 gives me another caliber option. I am not under any illusion, however, that .45 is a significantly better "man-stopper" than 9mm with today's HP ammo. I keep the .45 around mostly because it's effective, it's another alternative caliber, and because I like shooting some of the pistols chambered in .45.
There's no right or wrong answer here.
Wasn't the FMJ use due to overbearing political pressure?
Then when they were able to choose a hollow point they used some sort of testing method to determine that the 124gr+P would work the best for them. I'm sure cost played an issue too with the particular load chosen.
warpedcamshaft
08-31-11, 13:15
I re-worded my original post to represent the issue accurately, and to ensure that the 9mm is properly represented. Thank you Jake'sDad for helping me refine the post.
Wasn't the FMJ use due to overbearing political pressure?
Yup. Same for the 10 round mags, and DA only on all the approved guns.
Strangely enough, many/most of the firearms unit were opposed to going to autos at all. I got to spend quite a bit of time with John Cerar, the head of the unit when they were converting to autos. The enormity of the changeover, and the problems doing it, boggled the mind. The city didn't want to spend the money for proper training. The guys in the unit were pretty worried about how many stray rounds were going to get sprayed around.
Then when they were able to choose a hollow point they used some sort of testing method to determine that the 124gr+P would work the best for them. I'm sure cost played an issue too with the particular load chosen.
I doubt cost was a factor, as the Gold Dot they use isn't usually the cheapest load on bids.
Using something different than most other agencies, (at the time), given how late they were to the party, probably was. Not that the 124 grain Gold Dot +P isn't a good load.
Wasn't the FMJ use due to overbearing political pressure?
Then when they were able to choose a hollow point they used some sort of testing method to determine that the 124gr+P would work the best for them. I'm sure cost played an issue too with the particular load chosen.
It's hard to say. This is one of many examples of a LE agency using some ridiculous method to select their duty equipment, and is precisely why you should always take what an agency adopts with a grain of salt. It doesn't matter how big the agency, or how good their funding is............they still do some asinine things.
The "best" method for ammunition selection is still to use what passes FBI protocol testing. Try to find a PROFESSIONAL, independent tester like Dr. Gary Roberts. Otherwise the data can be inaccurate/skewed if mistakes are accidentally or purposely made.
It's hard to say. This is one of many examples of a LE agency using some ridiculous method to select their duty equipment, and is precisely why you should always take what an agency adopts with a grain of salt. It doesn't matter how big the agency, or how good their funding is............they still do some asinine things.
The "best" method for ammunition selection is still to use what passes FBI protocol testing. Try to find a PROFESSIONAL, independent tester like Dr. Gary Roberts. Otherwise the data can be inaccurate/skewed if mistakes are accidentally or purposely made.
////thread
That's interesting. I've received a bunch of 9mm JHP to shoot from Feds because it was NOT +P and not to be issued for duty. I guess you're seeing something totally different than I am here.
I'm still commissioned in the Dallas/FtWorth area and I don't know anyone who carries standard pressure 9mm JHPs. Most use the hotest round available which is +P or +P+.
The agency I retired from had the option of turning in our Glock 17s for Glock 22s but kept the 9mms for financial reasons ie, we had half a million rounds of 9mm. With nearly a thousand Officers of all sizes and shapes it was a bit was easier to keep the 9mm but since the guns are the same size, it really came down to the economics of keeping the ammo and equipment we had.
The agency I retired from had the option of turning in our Glock 17s for Glock 22s but kept the 9mms for financial reasons ie, we had half a million rounds of 9mm. With nearly a thousand Officers of all sizes and shapes it was a bit was easier to keep the 9mm but since the guns are the same size, it really came down to the economics of keeping the ammo and equipment we had.
It's good that they kept the G17s.
For one thing, the average cop does not shoot the .40 well unless it is in specific platforms. Smith and Wesson has done a pretty good job of over the years in making reliable, durable, and good shooting .40 pistols like the 4006 and M&P. The combination of design characteristics make the M&P .40 almost as easy to shoot as the 9mm. Not so with most other firearms platforms.
The other reason to be cautious of the .40 is durability and reliability of the particular platform. Almost all European gun designs begin from conception to final product as a 9mm pistol. Sigs, Glocks, H&Ks.....etc If they offer a .40/.357, it is almost always a retro fit of the 9mm production line. So, some aspect of the design will be compromised.....thus making some aspect of the pistol not as good as its 9mm counterpart. An example would be the Glock 17/22. The G22 has a significantly shorter cycle between needed servicing, it malfunctions when accessories are attached, and it is significantly more jumpy than the 9mm. The M&P on the other had which was designed initially as a .40 pistol, is much easier to control, functions well with accessories attached, and has a much longer life cycle. H&K makes a pretty durable .40 in the USP and P30 series, but it is quite a bit more jumpy than the M&P and takes longer for recoil recovery.
Either way, an agency cannot go wrong with the 9mm in ensuring that their officers have the best general issue weapon. Since the terminal and barrier effects of the major service calibers differ so little with modern ammo, the next highest priority is accurate and rapid hits. The 9mm wins hands down when it comes to this.
In the end though, the caliber chosen should be based on the platform. Classic Sigs work best in 9mm(15 years of DOI armory work), Glocks work best in 9mm, M&P "seems" to be best in .40(although, the .45 is a close second), and H&Ks also seem to be best in 9mm(once again, the .40 and .45 aren't bad either). Optimize the platform, by selecting the appropriate caliber for the design.
Dr. Gary Roberts:
"As I've said before:
If you want a Glock, get it in 9 mm, as the pre-2011 3rd gen 9 mm Glocks are probably the most proven pistols available.
The HK45 and HK P30 are good reliable service pistols, but beware of HK customer service and parts availability.
These days, skip new Sigs, although the older German made Sig 9 mm’s are superb...
Unless you are issued one and have no other choice, forget Beretta.
XD's are a no go for serious use--the inability to retract the slide without engaging the grip safety makes one-hand injured operation very difficult with the XD--this is a deal breaker for me. In addition, in some government tests, XD's (particularly the .40's) have broken a lot of parts compared to other pistols being tested...I'll take a 9 mm Glock or M&P any day of the week over an XD.
The M&P may just be the best LE service pistol produced to date. I was involved in a M&P40 trial at a large agency where four M&P40's fired 7000 rounds each in 1 week without any significant issues. Up to this point, we have not seen any major problems yet with M&P's--they just keep steadily improving. The Apex duty kits offer a substantial improvement to the M&P trigger feel. An M&P w/ambi safety and Apex duty kit will be the service pistol I'll pick if I ever go back to patrol duties again.
A properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it. Keep in mind with 1911 pistols that calibers other than .45 ACP and barrels shorter than 5" induce increasingly greater problems. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail; the Colt Series 80 firing pin safety is the only one I might trust for urban LE use, but they have also been known to fail in harsh environments (particularly surf zone and high dust) so I generally prefer a standard USG style 1911 pistol w/o firing pin safety. However, I personally would not choose to carry most stock or even semi-custom 1911's on duty without making sure they were set-up properly with reliable function, durable parts, and ergonomic execution. I firmly believe that if you want a 1911 for serious use, the minimum level of quality for a duty/carry weapon is the SA Pro model (either PC9111 or PC9111LR if you want a light rail); if you’re not willing to invest that much into the weapon system, don't get a 1911... I write this after being around quite a few 1911's over the past two decades of military and LE duty, including GI, commercial Colt, SA (Milspec, Loaded, MC Oper, Professional models), Wilson, Kimber, Nighthawk, Les Baer, and Para Ord, as well as custom pistols by folks like Bill Laughridge, Wayne Novak/Joe Bonar, Ed Brown, John Jardine, Hilton Yam, Larry Vickers, and Chuck Rogers. I'd strongly recommend anyone contemplating a 1911 for serious use read all of the material on 1911's here: http://www.10-8performance.com/Articles.html. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they would be better served with the S&W M&P45, HK45, or even a G21sf. "
I'm still commissioned in the Dallas/FtWorth area and I don't know anyone who carries standard pressure 9mm JHPs. Most use the hotest round available which is +P or +P+.
My understanding is that Dallas County uses Federal P9HST2 147 grain non +P. Is that incorrect?
warpedcamshaft
08-31-11, 22:43
USP was originally designed and released in 40 S&W and soon followed by the 9mm version.
Also, the Sig P229 was a revamped version of the p226. Sig increased the strength of the components to accommodate the 40 S&W 357 Sig and the high pressure 9mm's.
I agree about 3rd gen Glocks. However, once the bugs are worked out of the 4th gen I think durability will be much better as Glock seems to be attempting to improve their 40 S&W's to compete with the fantastic M&P.
KahnRad, I think you are speaking with a heavy bias toward the 9mm and making assumptions that are not based of facts.
I respect the opinions of others, and love all calibers and guns. However, it seems every person who chooses a caliber gets some strange emotional attachment to his choice and defends it bitterly. You can find an expert that will say just about anything is better than another.
Also, you can find an expert who was at a trial run of just about any pistol, and says it was the best and most reliable gun made.
USP was originally released in 40 S&W and soon followed by the 9mm version.
KahnRad, I think you are speaking with a heavy bias toward the 9mm and making assumptions that are not based of facts.
Thanks for pointing that out. HK has been building original platforms around the 40 for years.
USP was originally released in 40 S&W and soon followed by the 9mm version.
KahnRad, I think you are speaking with a heavy bias toward the 9mm and making assumptions that are not based of facts.
Nope. The quote I copied was an assessement by Gary Roberts who has over 20 years of experience with the department of the navy and numerous LE agencies around the country. If you don't know his credentials, look him up in the terminal effects forum. Oh, and you were right about the USP starting off as a .40, my mistake.
In regards to the Sig and Glock pistols, I have 15 years of federal armorer experience with both platforms and I can tell you for a fact that BOTH designs run best in 9mm. In addition to working on about a hundred guns every year, I keep in touch with the armory division at FLETC who sees thousands of Sigs, H&Ks, Glocks, and now M&Ps go through the training division. About 80%-plus of the cadets are given .40s now days. PPC course scores have dropped significantly to an average of only 260 per class. The average when 9mms were the dominant caliber was around 285 per class. Then of course, the guns are wearing out faster and are more prone to malfuctions with light attachments and when it gets close to its service interval. Students shot better, guns ran longer, and guns ran better when FLETC was 9mm heavy. Seems to be this way across the board with ICE, BP, CBP, BP, and DOD which are .40 heavy now. I haven't asked ATF instructors how their M&Ps are doing, but I'll be sure and find out when I get back to the campus.
I like the .40s capabilities, but I haven't found many platforms that allow the shooter to shoot as well as with the 9mm.....or even the .45acp outside the static gun range. Qualification and static range training simply to not push the shooter to combat conditions where it becomes evident that the .40 hinders performance. Just ask Larry Vickers or Ken Hackathorn......they will tell you the same thing.
warpedcamshaft
08-31-11, 23:30
Excellent, your experience with these weapons platforms far exceed mine.
I don't doubt the knowledge of your list of experts. However, there are many other people with equivalent experience who will say something completely different. I do, however, think DocGKR's information is among the best I have seen posted in an internet forum.
However, I will humbly digress. I intended only to broadly represent the characteristics of the cartridges in my original posting, and believe I did an excellent job representing the subject objectively.
Excellent, your experience with these weapons platforms far exceed mine.
I don't doubt the knowledge of your list of experts. However, there are many other people with equivalent experience who will say something completely different. I do, however, think DocGKR's information is among the best I have seen posted in an internet forum.
However, I will humbly digress. I intended only to broadly represent the characteristics of the cartridges in my original posting, and believe I did an excellent job representing the subject objectively.
If there was one "right" answer, then there would be one platform, one caliber, and one load. I'm pragmatic, in that I try to experience all I can and base my decisions on those experiences. And yes, you did an excellent job of expressing your opinion and experiences. What ever your choice is, if you can make it work well, more power to you. :D
I work for the BOP which is DOJ. We use 9mm and won't be switching to .40 anytime soon. I wish we used what the other DOJ agencies use. All I've ever seen is standard pressure 9mm, mostly 115gr. I've seen some 124gr. loads (HST and GD) but they were standard pressure too. At my institution we were using SilverTip when I hired back in '04, currently we use Fed 9BP.
Word was when I went through Firearms Instructor training last month we were switching to Glocks (G19) or Sigs (I'm guessing 229DAK) shortly. I got my fingers crossed for G19s (my favorite pistol of all time :)). Anythings better than what we got.
I work for the BOP which is DOJ. We use 9mm and won't be switching to .40 anytime soon. I wish we used what the other DOJ agencies use. All I've ever seen is standard pressure 9mm, mostly 115gr. I've seen some 124gr. loads (HST and GD) but they were standard pressure too. At my institution we were using SilverTip when I hired back in '04, currently we use Fed 9BP.
Word was when I went through Firearms Instructor training last month we were switching to Glocks (G19) or Sigs (I'm guessing 229DAK) shortly. I got my fingers crossed for G19s (my favorite pistol of all time :)). Anythings better than what we got.
Yeah, those Berettas you guys use have got to be a real bummer.
Yeah, those Berettas you guys use have got to be a real bummer.
Try Ruger P89s, we never got the Vertecs at my joint. But I did shoot them at FI school, they're nice. The P89s run with no problems but lack ergonomics compared to the others and the triggers suck. Only problems we have are the occasional worn out barrel link. Both aren't made anymore, thats why they're looking to go with Glocks or Sigs. Even if Beretta made the Vertec still we don't have the contract with them anymore, it went back to Ruger for P95s that never got issued out because of reliability issues encountered at FLETC.
Also, the Sig P229 was a revamped version of the p226. Sig increased the strength of the components to accommodate the 40 S&W 357 Sig and the high pressure 9mm's..
Actually, the 229 is a 228 with a one piece stainless slide.
Try Ruger P89s..
No thank you!
I don't understand why so many places where people carry guns for a living have such a one size fits all attitude. The ones that have a policy allowing people to pick from several brands and models in each caliber makes a bunch more sense to me.
I use 9mm exclusively:
1. Holds more rounds
2. Lest recoil and faster to get back on target
3. Cheaper to shoot
4. Easiest out of all the pistols to silence
Its cheap and adequate. Here in metro detroit, 40 is ~50% more expensive than 9mm. 45 is roughly double.
No thank you!
I don't understand why so many places where people carry guns for a living have such a one size fits all attitude.
Training commonality, parts, armorers, price.
My Glock 9mm work well with modern designed loads such as Winchester +p loads. It's cheaper to buy and train with. I shot well with the 40 but I've had a gen4 G22 go bad on me and my G23 was showing wear, so I go rid of my 40 S&W.
I think the 40 is a fair compromise for capacity and performance between the 9mm and 45 ACP. It's here to stay because of all the in roads into the LEO market in North America. I wonder if the 40 S&W will do well in Europe or the other markets?
Try Ruger P89s,
LOL, good one! Oh wait, you're serious? :D
Nephrology
09-01-11, 19:57
My Glock 9mm work well with modern designed loads such as Winchester +p loads. It's cheaper to buy and train with. I shot well with the 40 but I've had a gen4 G22 go bad on me and my G23 was showing wear, so I go rid of my 40 S&W.
I think the 40 is a fair compromise for capacity and performance between the 9mm and 45 ACP. It's here to stay because of all the in roads into the LEO market in North America. I wonder if the 40 S&W will do well in Europe or the other markets?
I saw some time ago that AIMSurplus was selling surplus Glock 22s that were issued to Austrian Police. Blew my mind.
Really? P89s? I never would have guessed that.
I stick with 9mm for reasons many have already stated: I started with 9mm and just loved it. I can shoot very well with it, and the cost and availability were never an issue.
LOL, good one! Oh wait, you're serious? :D
Really? P89s? I never would have guessed that.
Like cathellsk said, they actually do run. They just have the ergonomics of a bowling ball.
LOL, good one! Oh wait, you're serious? :D
Unfortunately yes.:( Thats why we're excited about maybe going to G19s or SIGs (still not sure exactly what model, but most likely 229DAKs)
Really? P89s? I never would have guessed that.
They were the first autos the BOP bought for general issue in the mid '90s. They also got some Beretta 92D Inox Vertecs in the early 2000s but that contract is up and the pistols aren't made anymore anyway.
Like cathellsk said, they actually do run. They just have the ergonomics of a bowling ball.
Our agency doesn't exactly put pistol selection at the top of the list. But the P89DAOs just plain run like raped apes, there's no denying that. I'm used to the trigger having my own personal P89DAO and being able practice on my own with it. Also shooting revolvers alot helps.
Another thing I've learned about the BOP...they get a new contract for a handgun they don't replace everything in the agency with the new pistol. Only joints that need new pistols or have it in their budget upgrade. We didn't need them and they weren't allocating the money when other things were more important so we're stuck with the Rugers still.
Unfortunately yes.:( Thats why we're excited about maybe going to G19s or SIGs (still not sure exactly what model, but most likely 229DAKs)
Fingers crossed for you brother! Most seem to dislike the DAK system from what I understand, but has to be an improvement over the boat anchor from hell. :D
Training commonality, parts, armorers, price.
Yeah I still don't understand it, even knowing the supposed reasons why they do. Several big departments in my area do not foist a one size fits all solution on their officers.
Alaskapopo
09-02-11, 15:20
Yeah I still don't understand it, even knowing the supposed reasons why they do. Several big departments in my area do not foist a one size fits all solution on their officers.
I hate the one size fits all solution when it comes to pistols issued to officers. Let the officer carry a reliable weapon they feel confident with don't force something on them.
Pat
I hate the one size fits all solution when it comes to pistols issued to officers. Let the officer carry a reliable weapon they feel confident with don't force something on them.
Pat
And that *might* encourage officers to shoot more on their own time and dime. I know, now I'm talking crazy!
charmcitycop
09-02-11, 21:36
I am not questioning the effectiveness of the 147 grain standard pressure round. I would and have carried that round. I know the San Diego Police department has an excellent record with that round. Please post any additional facts/data.
NYPD (nations largest municipal police force by a wide margin with over 40,000 officers) and Orlando both issue higher pressure 9mm rounds. I think that generally speaking, my statement is likely still accurate. If I am incorrect, I would love to know and will shamelessly admit it and edit my initial post.
My agency, when the G17 was still the issued sidearm, issued 147 grain standard velocity JHP.
I can't recall the exact bullet (before my time) but I think it was the Winchester load that came between the black talons and the Ranger-T.
Currently we issue RA40T and the G22.
Off duty is RA40T and G23 or G27.
I shoot a G17 faster & tighter than I shoot a G22, but I don't worry about caliber or platform because I don't have a choice.
With all the officer involved shootings I have seen, not one of the officers has complained about slow follow up shots.
IIRC (again, before my time) the main reason we switched from 9mm to .40S&W was the improved performance through barriers.
I think the poster who highlighted the differences between the CCW/off duty mission and the duty mission made some very good points.
warpedcamshaft
09-02-11, 22:01
My agency, when the G17 was still the issued sidearm, issued 147 grain standard velocity JHP.
I can't recall the exact bullet (before my time) but I think it was the Winchester load that came between the black talons and the Ranger-T.
Currently we issue RA40T and the G22.
Off duty is RA40T and G23 or G27.
I shoot a G17 faster & tighter than I shoot a G22, but I don't worry about caliber or platform because I don't have a choice.
With all the officer involved shootings I have seen, not one of the officers has complained about slow follow up shots.
IIRC (again, before my time) the main reason we switched from 9mm to .40S&W was the improved performance through barriers.
I think the poster who highlighted the differences between the CCW/off duty mission and the duty mission made some very good points.
I assume you are talking about my rambling novel.
Glad you liked the original post. It is always good to get the viewpoint of a peacekeeper.
I usually carry 124 gr or 147 in my 9mm's. Try to stick to proven loads that I can afford.
Ballistically , the .40 appears to offer some advantages over the 9mm but in real life, except for being superior at defeating barriers (walls, windshields, etc.) the .40 does not seem to offer any significant advantage over the 9mm.
In the 9mm case, it offers cheaper ammo, larger capacity, and in many people's opinion is more controllable.
Yeah I still don't understand it, even knowing the supposed reasons why they do. Several big departments in my area do not foist a one size fits all solution on their officers.
I hate the one size fits all solution when it comes to pistols issued to officers. Let the officer carry a reliable weapon they feel confident with don't force something on them. Pat
And that *might* encourage officers to shoot more on their own time and dime. I know, now I'm talking crazy!
Cops that are motivated to shoot tend to do so regardless of the issue or alternative approved gun. I haven't seen permissive use policies generate more interest in shooting, though I'm sure there are exceptions. I have seen them increase the amount of crappy guns and holsters on the street, either for their low cost or some sort of popular appeal.
Remember, most cops aren't gun people, nor do most regard their gun as anything more than another piece of equipment they have to carry.
The biggest variables affecting officer motivation to shoot outside of organized training and quals are 1) the ability to shoot on company time, especially as an alternative to less favorable activities, and 2) free ammo.
My policy preference is to offer an issued system in a couple of sizes (ala G22, G23, or Sig 229, 239, etc), and approve a list of high quality personal options.
Remember, most cops aren't gun people, nor do most regard their gun as anything more than another piece of equipment they have to carry.
That's an essential point gun guys/gals are tend to overlook regularly when discussing LE and firearms. Even among the tactical LE crowed, most in my experience are not "gun people" to use your expression, but just better trained people who see another piece of equipment they have to carry.
I think it's probably safe to say there's a higher % of them that are gun people in the tactical units then other LEOs, but still surprises me how low it is.
Not making any judgement statements by the above, just my observations/experiences.
Cops that are motivated to shoot tend to do so regardless of the issue or alternative approved gun. I haven't seen permissive use policies generate more interest in shooting, though I'm sure there are exceptions.
I've met several cops who are gun guys that do most of their shooting with Glocks or M&Ps rather than what they get foisted on them at work. So even cops who are gun guys get hurt by restrictive policies.
It would probably be better to allow them to just carry what they like to shoot. Within reason. I am not advocating a Uncle Mike's/Hi-Point policy by any means.
highlighter
09-04-11, 22:33
1.I have a G23 which I have shot the fool out of and trust it to go bang every time.
2. I shoot really well with that gun in .40s&w. Recoil isn't a factor for me.
3. A man whose firearm instruction I trust enough to stake my life on seems to think that .40s&w is better than 9mm. That's good enough for me.
I like 9mm and am currently carrying a G26 but I will not say that it is better than the .40s&w. I think the crowd that screams "9mm!" are the uber tactical type guys who look to the professionals for guidance in caliber choice. What they over look is that over seas the 9mm is the way to go because it is a very common European round and NATO round while the .40s&w is pure American and less common. But these are just words from a rookie who knows that he does know everything but who does have an opinion.
I have been shooting the 9mm most of my life and just recently switched to the .40. I grew up shooting my dads old Ruger p89. Yes it is accurate, yes its fast to shoot, yes it holds lots of ammo. 9mm fails to kill certain animals (bore), it fails to penetrate armor, or at least slow them down. That is why the .40 IMO shines.
While high capacity does help, you can shoot more between reloads. How many is to much? My G23 holds 13 in the mag. Even if the round doesn't penetrate armor, it WILL slow down the target.
Just watch the N. Hollywood robbery and you see how 9mm becomes inefficient against armor. Now as a civi how often will you deal with an armored assailant you ask? Not often, true, but the 9mm fails to drop unarmored individuals on drugs. That has been seen time and time again. As a civi you are highly likely to deal with a tweeker.
For those reasons I believe the .40 is better. I have not seen any large reduction in my accuracy, or time to reacquire my targets between shots. As someone stated before it matters more on skill then caliber, but more punch HELPS A LOT!
I have been shooting the 9mm most of my life and just recently switched to the .40. I grew up shooting my dads old Ruger p89. Yes it is accurate, yes its fast to shoot, yes it holds lots of ammo. 9mm fails to kill certain animals (bore), it fails to penetrate armor, or at least slow them down. That is why the .40 IMO shines.
While high capacity does help, you can shoot more between reloads. How many is to much? My G23 holds 13 in the mag. Even if the round doesn't penetrate armor, it WILL slow down the target.
Just watch the N. Hollywood robbery and you see how 9mm becomes inefficient against armor. Now as a civi how often will you deal with an armored assailant you ask? Not often, true, but the 9mm fails to drop unarmored individuals on drugs. That has been seen time and time again. As a civi you are highly likely to deal with a tweeker.
For those reasons I believe the .40 is better. I have not seen any large reduction in my accuracy, or time to reacquire my targets between shots. As someone stated before it matters more on skill then caliber, but more punch HELPS A LOT!
:rolleyes:
You need to stop reading gun magazines, or forums based on Austrian pistols.
.40 S&W is not more effective against body armor than 9mm, the reverse is actually true.
crazymoose
09-05-11, 04:13
Who doesn't want the power of a 9mm with the recoil of a .45?
(If you look at expanded diameters with many premium hollow points, the 9mm and .40 are usually very close; with regard to recoil, I find the .40 is usually much more unpleasant than the .45, and even stout 10mm loads, due to the smaller guns in which the .40 tends to be chambered).
Good barrier penetration is really about all the .40 has going for it as far as I can see, with some setbacks like an obnoxious recoil impulse and diminished weapon life. I can honestly shoot my Glock 20 or 29 (with hot rounds) faster and more accurately than my 22, but I shoot the 17 better than any of the others, so that's my go-to Glock.
Nephrology
09-05-11, 07:27
I have been shooting the 9mm most of my life and just recently switched to the .40. I grew up shooting my dads old Ruger p89. Yes it is accurate, yes its fast to shoot, yes it holds lots of ammo. 9mm fails to kill certain animals (bore), it fails to penetrate armor, or at least slow them down. That is why the .40 IMO shines.
While high capacity does help, you can shoot more between reloads. How many is to much? My G23 holds 13 in the mag. Even if the round doesn't penetrate armor, it WILL slow down the target.
Just watch the N. Hollywood robbery and you see how 9mm becomes inefficient against armor. Now as a civi how often will you deal with an armored assailant you ask? Not often, true, but the 9mm fails to drop unarmored individuals on drugs. That has been seen time and time again. As a civi you are highly likely to deal with a tweeker.
For those reasons I believe the .40 is better. I have not seen any large reduction in my accuracy, or time to reacquire my targets between shots. As someone stated before it matters more on skill then caliber, but more punch HELPS A LOT!
You are aware that there is no ballistic vest that .40 will penetrate and that 9mm won't, right?
You are aware that there is no ballistic vest that .40 will penetrate and that 9mm won't, right?
Yes I am which is why I said it will at least slow them down a bit. The kinetic energy being transferred is greater in the .40.
@Jakesdad I'm not trying to start a fight, but don't jump to conclusions on were I am coming from. I am not regurgitating, but simply expressing the conclusions I have come to, I understand your theory about the 9mm being more useful against armor. Go watch the N Hollywood bank robbery from the 90's. The perks were shot over 30 times with 9mm and did not even flinch. Had those been 40's they would have at least been slowed down, and would have felt the bullets more. All I'm saying.
"Even if the round doesn't penetrate armor, it WILL slow down the target."
This is NOT an accurate statement. Taking a hit to a vest is a blunt trauma event--like being punched or hit with a fast ball. Just like batters react differently to being hit by a pitch, officers also react differently to being hit in their armor. Many officers have not even realized they have been hit by .380, 9mm, .357, .44, and.45's, depending on location and activities when the event occurred. Others have been aware, but were not slowed down or had their capabilities effected in any way. And yes, a few have have been stunned. I would not expect or rely on hits to armor slowing a motivated individual in any way.
The kinetic energy being transferred is greater in the .40.
@Jakesdad I'm not trying to start a fight, but don't jump to conclusions on were I am coming from. I am not regurgitating, but simply expressing the conclusions I have come to, I understand your theory about the 9mm being more useful against armor. Go watch the N Hollywood bank robbery from the 90's. The perks were shot over 30 times with 9mm and did not even flinch. Had those been 40's they would have at least been slowed down, and would have felt the bullets more. All I'm saying.
Handgun calibers poke holes, and rifle calibers tear shit up. The energy generated in any service sized caliber does virtually nothing to incapacitate an attacker. A good place to start for terminal effects education particularly with handguns is here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Next, read Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
Oh, and the .40S&W has its share of spectacular failures to stop people. A good example would be the Officer Peter Soulis shooting in which he dumped a total of 22 rounds into the bad guy, 17 of those in the center mass region, and the badguy barely noticed it. In fact, he ran into his truck to drive off and lost consciousness from bleeding out.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci
This is only one of many such stories in which the .40S&W doesn't really seem to be any better than other alternatives. Even the .357magnum and .45acp have had some bad results in the field here and there. Because once again..........handgun calibers poke holes, and rifle calibers tear shit up(due to fragementation, and enlarged temporary cavity stretch). Where you shoot the badguy, is INFINITELY more important than the caliber that you use.
In his book and class, Bill Rogers discusses concussion, and how it is extremely detrimental to fast and accurate shooting, with pistols chambered in .40 S&W being the prime offender.
Given the close performance of 9 and 40 as described in the terminal ballistics section of this forum, the reduced magazine capacity and increased felt recoil of a .40 compared to a 9 in the same platform, the concussion of a .40 compared to a 9, why do so many Federal agencies issue pistols in .40 S&W?
1.I have a G23 which I have shot the fool out of and trust it to go bang every time.
2. I shoot really well with that gun in .40s&w. Recoil isn't a factor for me.
3. A man whose firearm instruction I trust enough to stake my life on seems to think that .40s&w is better than 9mm. That's good enough for me.
I like 9mm and am currently carrying a G26 but I will not say that it is better than the .40s&w. I think the crowd that screams "9mm!" are the uber tactical type guys who look to the professionals for guidance in caliber choice. What they over look is that over seas the 9mm is the way to go because it is a very common European round and NATO round while the .40s&w is pure American and less common. But these are just words from a rookie who knows that he does know everything but who does have an opinion.
By your own admission, you also made your caliber choice based on the guidance of someone else. :confused:
In his book and class, Bill Rogers discusses concussion, and how it is extremely detrimental to fast and accurate shooting, with pistols chambered in .40 S&W being the prime offender.
Given the close performance of 9 and 40 as described in the terminal ballistics section of this forum, the reduced magazine capacity and increased felt recoil of a .40 compared to a 9 in the same platform, the concussion of a .40 compared to a 9, why do so many Federal agencies issue pistols in .40 S&W?
Being a Federal Officer myself, most instructors and officers do not train outside a lead-sterile, static gun range with predictable rules of engagement. With green ammo, which is the training standard now days, the recoil of the .40 feels just like a standard 9mm load. So, those negative recoil effects are not experienced by the shooter until they load up with lead ammo. The other reason for .40S&W adoption by the Feds is standardization on one caliber which "seems" to be the best of both worlds.....9mm and .45acp. All nice in theory, but in practice it is a worse choice than 9mm, and in some ways a worse choice than .45acp. The .40 isn't too bad with 180gr loads which tame the recoil, but it's hard to find an optimal shooting platform for the .40 which is as durable, reliable, accurate, and as shooter friendly as 9mm alternatives. The M&P .40 is a rare exception, in which if I was only to carry the M&P on duty, I would go with the .40. It's one of the few proven .40 platforms that comes very close to the 9mm in overall handling.
Nephrology
09-05-11, 14:58
Yes I am which is why I said it will at least slow them down a bit. The kinetic energy being transferred is greater in the .40.
Had those been 40's they would have at least been slowed down, and would have felt the bullets more. All I'm saying.
I know thats "all you're saying" but what you are saying you pulled straight out of your ass.
This forum is very evidence based and your "evidence" is nothing but some vague and completely unsupported notion that .40, based on its "kinetic energy transfer," a factor that has been more than once debunked as nearly irrelevant in measuring the lethality of handgun and rifle cartridges.
There are legitimate reasons to carry a .40, including 'it just feels better to me,' but you should NOT fool yourself into thinking that it is a serious step up from 9mm.
The North Hollywood robbers were both high on drugs and also wearing improved ballistic vests. I guarantee you that the caliber of the officer's handguns did not make a difference in their ability to stop them. The only thing that would have (and, funnily enough, DID) make a difference to the officers was the availability of 5.56mm carbines.
I usually don't get too hung up on caliber vs. caliber in handguns. I started 20 years ago in law enforcement with a 1911, carried Sig 220's and 226's for awhile, went back to the 1911 until 2000. Our agency issued all of us Glock 22's, 23's, and 27's. My Glock 23 has over 15,000 rounds through it with 2 malfunctions. After replacing 1 extractor and 2 recoil spings it's still running fine. I also have a Glock 35 for SWAT. The 23 is actually a bit more accurate but I am a bit slower on follow ups with the 23 vs. the 35.
I bought both my kids and wife a Glock 19. There is not doubt that they are a bit easier on accurate follow up shots because they don't kick and snort as much. I'm not a recoil conscious guy but quick follow ups are a large part of my training routine. If it was left to me I would carry a Glock 19 for 98% of my self defense needs and a S&W 342 for the rest.
As far as the North Hollywood shootout the .40 would not have mattered. FWIW I have a retired LA cop that works for my agency as a part time bailiff that was the 3rd officer there. I have spoke to him on a couple of occasions. This guy is a real been there done that dude. He served in Vietnam with the British army before immigrating to the US, where he served as for 8 years with the 10th Special Forces group before becoming a LAPD cop. After a dozen officer involved shootings he still carries a 9mm with good ammo. His opinion mirrors mine but he has the experience to substantiate it.
There is nothing wrong with the .40. I just don't prefer it to a good 9mm loading or a .45. When I retire my 2 .40's will hang in the gun safe and I'll go back to either a Glock 19 or a 1911 again.
Lots of opinions, and either round is good. This thread should go the way of the dinosaur. Just say enough.
Yes I am which is why I said it will at least slow them down a bit. The kinetic energy being transferred is greater in the .40.
@Jakesdad I'm not trying to start a fight, but don't jump to conclusions on were I am coming from. I am not regurgitating, but simply expressing the conclusions I have come to, I understand your theory about the 9mm being more useful against armor. Go watch the N Hollywood bank robbery from the 90's. The perks were shot over 30 times with 9mm and did not even flinch. Had those been 40's they would have at least been slowed down, and would have felt the bullets more. All I'm saying.
I'm an athletic trainer. Do you realize football players can suffer impacts to the head in excess of tens of Gs and not only are they not slowed down, they rarely even suffer injury. Likewise, boxers suffer the blunt force of hundreds of punches throughout the course of a fight, usually with no visible effects on their ability to continue.
This may not be a perfect analogy. However, the .40 is not a wrecking ball. Penetration of flesh is what makes bullets destructive.
I'm an athletic trainer. Do you realize football players can suffer impacts to the head in excess of tens of Gs and not only are they not slowed down, they rarely even suffer injury. Likewise, boxers suffer the blunt force of hundreds of punches throughout the course of a fight, usually with no visible effects on their ability to continue.
This may not be a perfect analogy. However, the .40 is not a wrecking ball. Penetration of flesh is what makes bullets destructive.
Now that was helpfull, .......... or was it?
I think it makes a kind of interesting point.
Yes I am which is why I said it will at least slow them down a bit. The kinetic energy being transferred is greater in the .40.
@Jakesdad I'm not trying to start a fight, but don't jump to conclusions on were I am coming from. I am not regurgitating, but simply expressing the conclusions I have come to, I understand your theory about the 9mm being more useful against armor. Go watch the N Hollywood bank robbery from the 90's. The perks were shot over 30 times with 9mm and did not even flinch. Had those been 40's they would have at least been slowed down, and would have felt the bullets more. All I'm saying.
You're not fighting with me, it's just what you're saying, is wrong.
How much body armor have you tested?
I have not "watched" the N Hollywood bank robbery, I have read the reports, interviewed several of those involved, and taught using it as an example. But what does that have to do with anything?
A typical .40 S&W leaves a smaller backface signature on the clay backing when armor is tested, than a typical 9mm. As Doc said, depending on "energy" transferred from a pistol projectile, without penetration, through a vest, to have an effect on a subject is a dumb mistake. But let me assure you, after shooting many vests with various calibers, a subject hit with a .40 in a IIIA vest such as the N Hollywood robbers were wearing, will notice it less than if they had been shot with a 9mm.
Alaskapopo
09-06-11, 02:54
You're not fighting with me, it's just what you're saying, is wrong.
How much body armor have you tested?
I have not "watched" the N Hollywood bank robbery, I have read the reports, interviewed several of those involved, and taught using it as an example. But what does that have to do with anything?
A typical .40 S&W leaves a smaller backface signature on the clay backing when armor is tested, than a typical 9mm. As Doc said, depending on "energy" transferred from a pistol projectile, without penetration, through a vest, to have an effect on a subject is a dumb mistake, but let me assure you, after shooting many vests with various calibers, a subject hit with a .40 in a IIIA vest such as the N Hollywood robbers were wearing, will notice it less than if they had been shot with a 9mm.
Dead on post thank you.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
09-06-11, 04:13
You're not fighting with me, it's just what you're saying, is wrong.
How much body armor have you tested?
I have not "watched" the N Hollywood bank robbery, I have read the reports, interviewed several of those involved, and taught using it as an example. But what does that have to do with anything?
A typical .40 S&W leaves a smaller backface signature on the clay backing when armor is tested, than a typical 9mm. As Doc said, depending on "energy" transferred from a pistol projectile, without penetration, through a vest, to have an effect on a subject is a dumb mistake. But let me assure you, after shooting many vests with various calibers, a subject hit with a .40 in a IIIA vest such as the N Hollywood robbers were wearing, will notice it less than if they had been shot with a 9mm.
Agreed.
jtsikes0204
09-06-11, 04:48
Im .40 cal all day long.....yea I like to play with a G17 but I will carry a .40, or .357 sig.......im proficient with it and thats good enough for me.
El Pistolero
09-06-11, 05:04
I'm with the 9mm camp. Don't get me wrong I love my .45 ACP, it's a powerhouse round, and my wife gave me a Colt Commander 1911 as a wedding gift. But I wouldn't carry it. Mostly because of the sentimental value. I wouldn't want to lose my prized 1911 in the legal aftermath of a SD shooting. But it's also big and heavy as a brick. Could I carry a 45? Probably, but I'm more comfortable with the 9mm. When you carry more than you shoot, comfort is everything.
So I carry a Kahr CW9. Sure, it's only 7+1 rounds of 9mm, so the capacity issue isn't addressed. But I shoot it very accurately and very fast, it handles great for it's size, and it conceals well. 9mm guns tend to be smaller/lighter than their .40/.45 cousins as well as having lower recoil. And the compact 9mm in my pocket is better than the big honkin' .40/.45 that got left at home.
As for the .40 S&W, in my personal opinion, I think it is a pointless caliber. Go big (.45) or go small (9mm). The .40 doesn't exactly offer the best of both worlds. IME it kicks more than a .45 (snappy recoil) while offering little over a 9mm.
Now that was helpfull, .......... or was it?
The point I was trying to make is that against a determined person, blunt force trauma appears to have little impact on their ability to continue their efforts.
Is there a dead horse around here I can beat for awhile?!!!:suicide2:
The point I was trying to make is that against a determined person, blunt force trauma appears to have little impact on their ability to continue their efforts.
True, especially with normal self defense rounds.
A .44 mag or 12 gauge slug stopped in a vest might discombobulate you a bit.......
Is there a dead horse around here I can beat for awhile?!!!:suicide2:
Maybe pistol whip it with a G19 and G23 and let us know which one was more effective.
Maybe pistol whip it with a G19 and G23 and let us know which one was more effective.
Best line of the day.
Maybe pistol whip it with a G19 and G23 and let us know which one was more effective.
Gen 3 or 4?
Nephrology
09-06-11, 18:05
OK guys.. how about...9mm vs .45!!!! YEAH!!! let's solve that one right here right now too.
TheSmiter1
09-06-11, 18:13
Now that was helpfull, .......... or was it?
I think he's saying that if the force of a tackle or repeated blows to the head will not stop someone, then the force from a pistol round (which is significantly less than a 10g tackle or repeated blows to the head) will not have any significant effect on a subject. Basically, gauging a pistol round's effectiveness by its 'kinetic energy' is stupid. Tissue destroyed is key.
Pistol Shooter
09-07-11, 11:03
OK guys.. how about...9mm vs .45!!!! YEAH!!! let's solve that one right here right now too.
:lol:
It could be groundbreaking.
Beat Trash
09-07-11, 12:42
OK guys.. how about...9mm vs .45!!!! YEAH!!! let's solve that one right here right now too.
Good idea, as this topic has never been discussed before....:suicide2:
I think he's saying that if the force of a tackle or repeated blows to the head will not stop someone, then the force from a pistol round (which is significantly less than a 10g tackle or repeated blows to the head) will not have any significant effect on a subject. Basically, gauging a pistol round's effectiveness by its 'kinetic energy' is stupid. Tissue destroyed is key.
Thank you.
Jay The Fillet
09-18-11, 10:22
Quote from Magpul Dynamics' Chris Costa:
"Chris Costa: First understand, this really requires a longer discussion than I have time for especially typing with my thumbs. There are no magic bullets in life, to date no one has ever shot a ballistic Gelatin guy on the street. if so caliber selection and penetration would really matter. Carry as much gun as YOU can HANDLE first, don't trust in ammo rather shot placement, speed, accuracy, and drive the threat down with gunfire until they are no longer a threat. remember any bullets that hit a medium which is anything between you and the threat which includes clothing can effect ballistics. I will carry 9mm and 45cal, and I have confidence in both only because I believe in my abilities not the caliber or ammo. From time to time I also carry a Smith 340pd with +p 38's because I can't handle the 357 in that light weight of a package. I have to carry this gun from time to time due to weather conditions in FL. Life is a tradeoff so choose what works for you and don't get wrapped up in trivial matters which people continue to debate about because of what they believe. Hell 40 cal .357sig, 10mm and 357 have outstanding ballistics. The only time going big matters to me is large game or vehicle penetration of hard objects, but CCW carry, true carry, multiple shots, chaos under duress, multiple threats, firepower gives me options. the question isn't always do I kill every threat, but rather permanently neutralize what you can and disrupt the rest to possibly escape if your out gunned."
He was asked why he mostly chose to carry a G19 over any other gun or caliber.
Quote from Magpul Dynamics' Chris Costa:
"Chris Costa: First understand, this really requires a longer discussion than I have time for especially typing with my thumbs. There are no magic bullets in life, to date no one has ever shot a ballistic Gelatin guy on the street. if so caliber selection and penetration would really matter. Carry as much gun as YOU can HANDLE first, don't trust in ammo rather shot placement, speed, accuracy, and drive the threat down with gunfire until they are no longer a threat. remember any bullets that hit a medium which is anything between you and the threat which includes clothing can effect ballistics. I will carry 9mm and 45cal, and I have confidence in both only because I believe in my abilities not the caliber or ammo. From time to time I also carry a Smith 340pd with +p 38's because I can't handle the 357 in that light weight of a package. I have to carry this gun from time to time due to weather conditions in FL. Life is a tradeoff so choose what works for you and don't get wrapped up in trivial matters which people continue to debate about because of what they believe. Hell 40 cal .357sig, 10mm and 357 have outstanding ballistics. The only time going big matters to me is large game or vehicle penetration of hard objects, but CCW carry, true carry, multiple shots, chaos under duress, multiple threats, firepower gives me options. the question isn't always do I kill every threat, but rather permanently neutralize what you can and disrupt the rest to possibly escape if your out gunned."
He was asked why he mostly chose to carry a G19 over any other gun or caliber.
Pretty much the exact same thing that Larry Vickers, Pat Rogers, and Ken Hackathorn have said. With the leaps and bounds 9mm ammunition has made over the last 20 years, it becomes very hard to justify NOT using it as a general purpose caliber. Even the non-bonded stuff like the HST is easily meeting the 12" minimal penetration limit through auto glass:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88091
In Urey Patrick's "10mm Notes", he lays out why the FBI transitioned from the .38spl and 9mm and to the 10mm and .40S&W. He specifically stated that the FBI was very happy with the overall terminal effects of the .38spl in actual shootings, and that the 9mm was basically the same in terms of performance. What was the primary deal breaker for the FBI was the poor penetration ability of both calibers through auto glass. At that time, the .38spl JHP and the 9mm JHP simply were not able to meet the minimal 12" of penetration through auto glass. Bullet technology at the time could not over come this obstacle. Now.....almost all modern 9mm loads do well against auto glass.
.......observably, just as well as the .40S&W if you look at independent testing like Dr. Roberts.
I dont know about you guys but bullets, PERIOD, scare me.
I would fear the guys that knows how to use a .38 revolver more than the gang banger retard with a .45. Granted, any gun would scare me but im sure you guys get the point.
Bottom line, i dont want to get shot which means im going to A, do everything imaginable to NOT get involved in a deadly force encounter involving firearms and B, if it should happen, im going to hope that ive trained my ass off to be as swift and proficient as possible with whatever firearm i have on me at any given time.
I choose 9mm because i can train more effectively with it from a cost standpoint. Its really that simple.
To the average CCW holder, discussions of ballistics are pretty dumb. Less time spent discussing the merits of intermediate barrier penetration and more time understanding exactly how a 9mm or .40 reacts going through a windshield. Too few of us actually do any of this kind of training.
IF i was going to war and actively hunting people i would care about ballistics but until that day comes which it never will, i will continue to train to be able to use my power tool, aka gun as effectively as possible.
Its already been said over and over, but my reasons are:
1) Less recoil = faster follow up shots
2) Cheaper ammo
3) Not really any difference in stopping power between the major calibers with todays ammo technology
4) Higher magazine capacity
Its already been said over and over, but my reasons are:
1) Less recoil = faster follow up shots
2) Cheaper ammo
3) Not really any difference in stopping power between the major calibers with todays ammo technology
4) Higher magazine capacity
Something like that should be a sticky???!!!! :dance3:
Something like that should be a sticky???!!!! :dance3:
:thank_you2: lmao..
-------------------------ETA---------------------
Ah hell, I was reading into some other stuff and ran across this, Didn't mean to resurrect this old thread. If some one wants to bury it fine with me.
ROUTEMICHIGAN
01-14-12, 01:54
Simple-- 9 is the one I was trained on; I know it; and I took into battle. It's never let me down. Never felt the need to shoot anything else.
A lot of people have brought all the service calibers into the comparison. I've shot a few thousand rounds of each including a little over a thousand of the unfortunately super spendy 10mm.
Glock 20 & 10mm - Dead reliable, very little perceived recoil or muzzle flip, including with the smokin' hot 200+gr hard cast loads from Double Tap and Buffalo Bore. Frame was too thick and large for anything but open carry in the woods. Too expensive for me to practice with to my satisfaction. I bring it to the woods in case I have to drain my magazine into a bear at very close range which you don't need any practice to do.
Glock 21 and 1911s in .45ACP - Probably due to the low pressures .45ACP runs at, very negligible perceived recoil or muzzle flip. Even my nicer 1911s are not crazy reliable like the polymer guns and only take 8 rounds and heavy for what you get. Glock 21 has the same issue with excessive bulk my Glock 20 has. Especially in terms of weight when it has a loaded magazine.
As issued M9 & Glock 34 / 9mm - Very little perceived recoil and muzzle flip. Highly accurate and reliable. I drain 3 or 4 shots a second through the same ragged hole out to 20m. Whether or not its good in FMJ is an open question but apparently good enough and immaterial to civilian shooters. Despite having a double stack magazine weapon is slim and acceptable for concealed carry (at least the 34).
FNX-40, XDM, Glock 22 / .40 S&W - Still manage to come in pretty slim and concealable like the 9mm as they're usually based on the same frames. Without a doubt the snappiest automatic cartridge I've ever fired, including the 10mm which in the right loadings is nearly twice as powerful. Not sure if it offers any appreciable advantage in terminal performance over the cheaper and much less snappy 9mm.
Personally I find the recoil with 9mm and .40 about the same. Especially if I am using 9mm +P. I think both are snappy. I find the .45 the easiest round to shoot accurately and fast. The "push" vs. the "snap" I guess is the best way for me to explain it.
Now my wife and 14 year old daughter would disagree with my feeling on the 9 vs. .40. They both HATE my .40. So I got them a 9mm to shoot. In fact my daughter broke her wrist last year and finds the .40 hurts her wrist still but the 9 does not. So I guess there is a difference with them I just don't seem to feel it.
Suwannee Tim
01-14-12, 07:01
.....3) Not really any difference in stopping power between the major calibers with todays ammo technology....
Applying "today's ammo technology" to 9mm, 40 and 45 removes the difference in stopping power?
Simple-- 9 is the one I was trained on; I know it; and I took into battle. It's never let me down. Never felt the need to shoot anything else.
Did you ever shoot anyone with it?
I've carried a 40 since '92. Never shot people with it just a handful of animals and plenty of targets. My carpal tunnel hurt BAD for two weeks following our last qualification. I am going to try a G17 soon.
Did you ever shoot anyone with it?
I think until you get a small pile of identical volunteers to be shot in an identical manner with the various service calibers, all you're left with is ballistics data.
Microalign
01-14-12, 11:18
I've been using .40 for that last 5 years as a duty gun. Before that, I used 9mm for the previous 7 years. I'd say I average about 3k rounds a year in personal handgun ammo, and another 2k a year of agency ammo. I'm a Fed, so we only use Sigs. I've never had a problem with either platform in terms of excessive wear, parts breakage, or malfunctions.
In terms of recoil, obvioulsly the .40 has a little more of you compare them back to back. So this will slightly slow down your shooting speed, but not as much as a .45acp. Honestly though, other than dumping a magazine as fast as I can into a target at 7rds, I find it very difficult to tell much of a difference in my accuracy and shot times in more practical shooting applications involving cover and concealment. So, from many years of shooting both calibers I feel that I am better served in using the .40 over the 9mm.
As Chris Costa has stated many times, if you can shoot the larger caliber well, use the larger caliber. The gains may be small in ballistic gel, but a gain is a gain. An incremental advantage here and there adds up and sometimes it can be the small stuff that puts you on top in a fight.
StrikerFired
01-14-12, 13:32
For one thing, it's hard to find a .40S&W pistol that handles as well as a 9mm pistol. Most pistols, especially those designed by Europeans, are conceived and built around the 9mm cartridge and when they produce a .40S&W version it is a retrofit of the 9mm production line.
For instance, in Sig Sauer pistols, the .40S&W isn't that great compared to the 9mm. The pistol is poorly balanced, the slide spring is quite a bit stiffer, and the pistol isn't as accurate. Due to the .40S&W using a 9mm length action, it also puts more stress on the gun resulting in faster overall wear which degrades performance and reliability. I have never met someone who could shoot the .40 as well as the 9mm......or even the .45acp. In the long run, how well you shoot takes priority over caliber. Besides, with modern ammunition the 9mm has proven to be quite effective in officer involved shootings.
The priorities for handgun effectivness layed out by the IWBA, FBI, and experts like Dr. McPherson are:
1) Deep penetration
2) Ideal wounding mechanism through expanded JHP, or watcutter.
3) Ideal wound/caliber size.
Caliber size is last on the list.
The .40S&W is a great concept, but poorly executed in most firearms today. It really needs a longer action to slow down the cycle speed and dissipate recoil forces over a longer distance. This would also decrease the chamber pressure requirements and make them more reliable with less crimping needed.
Really spot on!
Nightgunner
01-14-12, 13:41
I owned a Glock 23 in the .40S&W and honestly never cared for it. It was a good firearm, very dependable and easy to maintain. The accuracy was horrible compared to my 1911 I bought after it or my M9 I currently have.
Have to keep going with the 9mm on this one.
The .40S&W is a great concept, but poorly executed in most firearms today. It really needs a longer action to slow down the cycle speed and dissipate recoil forces over a longer distance. This would also decrease the chamber pressure requirements and make them more reliable with less crimping needed.
could you expand a little more on this? i want to learn.
how would the right .40 caliber gun look? what features of different design would do what?
There is currently a big push in the Houston Police Department to allow the 9mm. Currently only the .40 is allowed for uniform carry (unless you are grandfathered).
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 14:27
If you made the 40 action longer or bigger you would basically have a 10mm sized firearm. The point of the 40sw was to put more power into a 9mm sized platform. I don't care for the 40 as much due to its recoil impulse. But its far from impossible to shoot. However anyone who says the .40 simply has just a little more recoil than the 9mm is fooling themselves. In most firearms it actually has more felt recoil than a .45 acp.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 14:35
As Chris Costa has stated many times, if you can shoot the larger caliber well, use the larger caliber. The gains may be small in ballistic gel, but a gain is a gain. An incremental advantage here and there adds up and sometimes it can be the small stuff that puts you on top in a fight.
Yes a gain is a gain but the additional recoil will slow down your rate of fire which is a loss. No matter what your skill level you can't defy physics. In the end the individual needs to make the choice between a slight gain in terminal performance or a slight gain in shot to shot speed. As for me I used to lean towards the power side but now I lean towards speed. Nothing dies as fast as you want it to and follow up shots will do more for you than having a bit more tissue destruction on the first round.
Pat
.40 calibers are overrated IMO.
EzGoingKev
01-14-12, 15:10
Personally I find the recoil with 9mm and .40 about the same.
However anyone who says the .40 simply has just a little more recoil than the 9mm is fooling themselves. In most firearms it actually has more felt recoil than a .45 acp.
Pat
I find it all depends on what grain ammo you are using.
I shoot 180g through my G23. My buddy who is Massachusetts State Police shoots the issued 165 WWB training ammo they give him. I find there to be a big difference in recoil between the two with the 165g having a felt recoil like 9mm while the 180g has that snap people complain about.
Now my wife and 14 year old daughter would disagree with my feeling on the 9 vs. .40. They both HATE my .40. So I got them a 9mm to shoot. In fact my daughter broke her wrist last year and finds the .40 hurts her wrist still but the 9 does not. So I guess there is a difference with them I just don't seem to feel it.
My carpal tunnel hurt BAD for two weeks following our last qualification. I am going to try a G17 soon.
I have old wrist injuries and carpal tunnel and I find 180g .40S&W really does a job on my wrist where shooting the 9mm does not aggravate it as much.
It is not something that stops me from being able to shoot, it is more like how much discomfort I am in the next day and how long said discomfort takes to dissipate.
Raptor1990
01-14-12, 16:25
I sold my .40 and bought a .45 looking to pick up a g26 soon for cc.
Nothing dies as fast as you want it to and follow up shots will do more for you than having a bit more tissue destruction on the first round.
Pat
I really like this statement. So much so, in fact, I'm going to start implementing it in face to face discussions on the subject.
It's also great sig line material for anyone looking.
Devildawg2531
01-14-12, 17:04
Have to disagree some of the statements about the "lack of reliability of the Glock 40 vs 9mm". In the 90's I purchased a S&W Sigma .40 that was an absolute jammomatic. Switched to the G22 and have been sold on Glocks in 40 since then. I've owned 4 Glock 40's and currently shoot a G22, G24 and G27. I love the interchangeable magazines and pick the size pistol suited for what I'm using it for CCW, IDPA. action pistol, etc. In the last 15 years and 4 Glock 40's I have 1000's and 1000's of rounds through them in all kinds of conditions. I've ran them clean, dirty, filthy, etc and they have all 4 been dead reliable. I really can't see how a G17, G19, etc could have been "more" reliable. From my perspective 9's only appeal to me is ammo being a litttle cheaper. 40 is the perfect blend of power and high capacity.
Some of the action pistol competitions that I play in have steel shoots and some of the steel knockdown targets are too stiff and I enjoy watching the guys running light 9's getting to hit the same target 2, 3, 4 times to get it to drop. 40 coming out of my G24 tube is 1 shot 1 drop (assuming I hit the target):D
I shoot 180g through my G23. My buddy who is Massachusetts State Police shoots the issued 165 WWB training ammo they give him. I find there to be a big difference in recoil between the two with the 165g having a felt recoil like 9mm while the 180g has that snap people complain about.
As you probably know, there folks load 165 at either typical 180gr velocities (~1000fps) or a faster loading at ~1150fps. The Federal HST is a real barker in the 165, as is one variant of the 165 GDHP.
Some of the action pistol competitions that I play in have steel shoots and some of the steel knockdown targets are too stiff and I enjoy watching the guys running light 9's getting to hit the same target 2, 3, 4 times to get it to drop. 40 coming out of my G24 tube is 1 shot 1 drop (assuming I hit the target):D
To my mind this has no application towards a real world/ real adversary reaction. Steel doesn't equate flesh, bone, organs, and a central nervous system. And I can say from first hand experience that people can't be relied upon to collapse even after multiple rifle rounds.
If anything the disadvantage of having to hit the steel several times to get it to fall is more realistic as to what may happen in a real world fire fight. At least those individuals are gaining the mindset of keeping rounds driving into a target as opposed to the expectation of the likelihood of one round and it's over.
That said I have nothing on Earth against the .40 caliber round. I'm confident it can get the job done just as well as 9mm and .45.
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 18:00
Have to disagree some of the statements about the "lack of reliability of the Glock 40 vs 9mm". In the 90's I purchased a S&W Sigma .40 that was an absolute jammomatic. Switched to the G22 and have been sold on Glocks in 40 since then. I've owned 4 Glock 40's and currently shoot a G22, G24 and G27. I love the interchangeable magazines and pick the size pistol suited for what I'm using it for CCW, IDPA. action pistol, etc. In the last 15 years and 4 Glock 40's I have 1000's and 1000's of rounds through them in all kinds of conditions. I've ran them clean, dirty, filthy, etc and they have all 4 been dead reliable. I really can't see how a G17, G19, etc could have been "more" reliable. From my perspective 9's only appeal to me is ammo being a litttle cheaper. 40 is the perfect blend of power and high capacity.
Some of the action pistol competitions that I play in have steel shoots and some of the steel knockdown targets are too stiff and I enjoy watching the guys running light 9's getting to hit the same target 2, 3, 4 times to get it to drop. 40 coming out of my G24 tube is 1 shot 1 drop (assuming I hit the target):D
As for the competitions if the plats are not falling then the steel is calibrated wrong. It should not take a hit from a major power factor round to make a steel popper fall. That is a problem with the match director not calibrating the steel.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 18:02
Have to disagree some of the statements about the "lack of reliability of the Glock 40 vs 9mm". In the 90's I purchased a S&W Sigma .40 that was an absolute jammomatic. Switched to the G22 and have been sold on Glocks in 40 since then. I've owned 4 Glock 40's and currently shoot a G22, G24 and G27. I love the interchangeable magazines and pick the size pistol suited for what I'm using it for CCW, IDPA. action pistol, etc. In the last 15 years and 4 Glock 40's I have 1000's and 1000's of rounds through them in all kinds of conditions. I've ran them clean, dirty, filthy, etc and they have all 4 been dead reliable. I really can't see how a G17, G19, etc could have been "more" reliable. From my perspective 9's only appeal to me is ammo being a litttle cheaper. 40 is the perfect blend of power and high capacity.
Some of the action pistol competitions that I play in have steel shoots and some of the steel knockdown targets are too stiff and I enjoy watching the guys running light 9's getting to hit the same target 2, 3, 4 times to get it to drop. 40 coming out of my G24 tube is 1 shot 1 drop (assuming I hit the target):D
Tested a Glock 22 Not sure if it was gen 2 or 3. It had a light rail and we put a Stream light M3 on it. It malfunctioned every mag while shooting on the move with the light attached. Removed the light and it ran fine. Repeated this several times and I don't trust Glock 40's with weapon lights and I won't have a duty gun without a weapon light. Waiting to see what happens with the Gen 4.
Pat
Suwannee Tim
01-14-12, 18:55
I think until you get a small pile of identical volunteers to be shot in an identical manner.....
I have shot piles and piles of identical "volunteers". I have never shot a man but I have shot a whole bunch of other stuff, from rats and squirrels to big game and lots of stuff in between. If you shoot 'em in the brain or the heart it doesn't matter that much what you shot them with. If you shoot them anywhere else, a bigger gun takes them out faster and more reliably. Bigger is better if you can handle it.
To draw an lesson from rats and squirrels, of which I have shot thousands and thousands and thousands*, a .177 rifle will kill them but usually not instantly. A 5mm works better and a 22, DRT. This is also true of big game. A Mini 30 will kill deer but a 30-06 does it more decisively. I have seen it too many times. The argument that a larger caliber, given that it is well handled, is not more effective is bizarre. It is like arguing the Sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
If you want to know what kills, you can think about it, you can read about it or you can go out and kill some stuff. I don't know anyone who has killed more mammals than I. I seriously doubt anyone on this forum has killed anywhere near as many mammals as I. I accept that my experience is not fully transferable to service pistol caliber selection. Nevertheless, there are certain principles that I am sure transfer. Better hits cause quicker death. Bigger holes cause quicker death.
*My rat killing was unpaid pest control at two feed mills and a flour mill, all now shuttered, sad to say. The squirrel killing was at family property with a dozen large pecan trees, now sold, sad to say.
Suwannee Tim
01-14-12, 19:13
Sad to say, I, the great killer of rats, the blood soaked extinguisher of squirrels, even I, have been reduced to this:
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/allentimfrank/IMG_1250.jpg
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/allentimfrank/IMG_5090.jpg
There does come a point where larger calibers don't work any better than smaller calibers. I have found that .177 (as the rifle depicted here), 5mm and 22 all kill lizards equally effectively. When Winchester comes up with a 9mm bullet that reliably blows off limbs and often nearly chops in half it's victims, as depicted here, then I will concede that 9mm is the equal of 40. To state it differently, when you chop them in half or nearly so, bigger is not better. If you are not chopping them in half, then bigger is better.
I think the only argument to present towsrds hou point is that the variations in the popular pistol calibers, while they exist, are small.
Which would kill a deer faster a 9mm or a .45?? Im ot really sure either is great at killing deer... Not sure either is excellent at killing human either... Itll work, but does it come full circle to shot placement? I think so...
shooterfpga
01-14-12, 19:22
capacity and price is the only reason id go with a 9mm. that said, i would try and cover all my bases and get one of each.
StrikerFired
01-14-12, 19:41
Having been issued (from multiple agencies) over my career 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP I have had to make personal observations about my own skill level and physical condition. My personal bottom line is that I shoot the 9mm more quickly, accurately then any other platforms. Seeing that the serious discussion is now about multiple shots into the threat until the threat behavior stops, for me the 9mm is the Best Option. Your fight will be different then mine, so use what you are BEST WITH.
EzGoingKev
01-14-12, 19:43
As you probably know, there folks load 165 at either typical 180gr velocities (~1000fps) or a faster loading at ~1150fps. The Federal HST is a real barker in the 165, as is one variant of the 165 GDHP.
I do know anything about that all I have shot is a few different brands of 180g and they all feel "hot" when compared to shooting the 9mm. As for the 165g all I have shot is the WWB and that stuff shoots like 9mm.
If you are a .40 owner that only buys ammo at Walmart then I can understand why some people say they never noticed any difference.
Devildawg2531
01-14-12, 20:11
Tested a Glock 22 Not sure if it was gen 2 or 3. It had a light rail and we put a Stream light M3 on it. It malfunctioned every mag while shooting on the move with the light attached. Removed the light and it ran fine. Repeated this several times and I don't trust Glock 40's with weapon lights and I won't have a duty gun without a weapon light. Waiting to see what happens with the Gen 4.
Pat
Mine are Gen 2 and 3. I shoot my G22 and G24 with a Surefire X300 extensively and have had no issues. Guess I got lucky with the 4 I bought; guess I should head down and buy some lotto tix's.
The G24 keep's the X300 mounted on it in case of bumps in the night.
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 20:17
Mine are Gen 2 and 3. I shoot my G22 and G24 with a Surefire X300 extensively and have had no issues. Guess I got lucky with the 4 I bought; guess I should head down and buy some lotto tix's.
The G24 keep's the X300 mounted on it in case of bumps in the night.
Its a problem that shows itself later in the pistols life. A lot of police agencies have had issues with weapon lights on the Glock 22 but it usually shows up after 5000 rounds.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 20:20
I do know anything about that all I have shot is a few different brands of 180g and they all feel "hot" when compared to shooting the 9mm. As for the 165g all I have shot is the WWB and that stuff shoots like 9mm.
If you are a .40 owner that only buys ammo at Walmart then I can understand why some people say they never noticed any difference.
There are two power levels for 165 grain ammo. 980 fps which was originally started by the FBI to cut recoil levels back. And 1150 which is full power stuff.
Pat
Nevertheless, there are certain principles that I am sure transfer. Better hits cause quicker death. Bigger holes cause quicker death.
I think placement with adequate penetration kills. I shot a raccoon in the ass with a .308 at very close range (it was a snap shot at night while coyote hunting, don't judge). It was completely incapacitated but none the less survived being shot with what is proportional to its size a metric shit ton of energy. I've shot equally large coyotes at 400m using cheap ball ammo in the lungs and they drop like they got hit by lightning.
No offense, but your experience shooting animals has very little transfer to shooting people at close range. For these reasons.
1)Most game animals present their vital organs behind a very hard target of substantial amounts of muscle and bone compared to a person which does not.
2) Many animals need to be taken at a respectable range which then brings in the issue of energy retention. This is immaterial to shooting a man at what is basically ballistic spitting distance as you would with a handgun.
3)Upgrading between hunting calibers can present huge advantages in terminal performance. Whether you believe .40 is better than 9mm, it is not in the same way .308 is compared to .223 or .338 Lapua would be compared to either. If you don't believe me just go check the stats out.
I forgot the bottom line. Does 9mm provide adequate placement and penetration? It sure does. Does .40? Yes it does. Just pick the one you shoot better and skip the debate.
I think placement with adequate penetration kills. I shot a raccoon in the ass with a .308 at very close range (it was a snap shot at night while coyote hunting, don't judge). It was completely incapacitated but none the less survived being shot with what is proportional to its size a metric shit ton of energy. :lol:
Well that mental image made my night. Though I can't figure out how that little rat wasn't turned into pink mist, sure it wasn't a zombie raccoon?
Anyway, back on topic.
I own 4 9mms, 2 .45ACP, and a .40 S&W. If I were to do everything over, the .40 S&W, a USP Expert which feels great, love the trigger, and compared at all the .40S&Ws I have shot very accurate, would be a purchase that I wouldn't make, though to caveat a Glock 22 or 23 is on my list of firearms that I need in my personal inventory. I just don't care for the round, in a 165gr loading or less its recoil isn't bad, whether in the Expert or a Glock, shot to shot recovery is about the same, I do not like the 180gr loadings, at all since to me a .45ACP +P is less stout. I also don't quite trust the .40 S&W rounds, at least not the Federal Hydroshok or HST rounds since I have a friend, local PD officer who has had both rounds fail to penetrate medium and heavily clothes perps were wearing, I have also seen a 165gr SXT blossom and fail to penetrate a large foam archery block, all completely anecdotal I know, but it doesn't ad a lot of trust for me, not to say 9mm or .45ACP would have done better, but still makes me personally skiddish.
Personally, I'll stick with my 17 loaded with 147gr SXT or my TRP with Hornady TAP, I train with both, am confident with both, am more accurate with the 1911 but acceptable with the Glock, though I would prefer tighter groups, and both are kept close to hand. Still a firm believer its shot placement that counts more then anything though. Also the reason while a 17 is on my nightstand I have an AR four feet away against the wall.
One question though, going back to the "knock down" of 9mm verse .40 and the indentation that of the rounds in a clay block during testing, wouldn't it make sense that the smaller diameter round moving faster would have a deeper indentation since its force is focused on a smaller area? Kind of like the reason some of your older vests, level IIa I believe would stop a 44 magnum but not a .22 magnum, or for that matter a knife? I don't know if I am grasping at straws here, but just throwing food for thought, not trying to say a we should be carrying a .22 magnum, just trying to make sense of data received.
Alaskapopo
01-14-12, 22:50
Sad to say, I, the great killer of rats, the blood soaked extinguisher of squirrels, even I, have been reduced to this:
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/allentimfrank/IMG_1250.jpg
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/allentimfrank/IMG_5090.jpg
There does come a point where larger calibers don't work any better than smaller calibers. I have found that .177 (as the rifle depicted here), 5mm and 22 all kill lizards equally effectively. When Winchester comes up with a 9mm bullet that reliably blows off limbs and often nearly chops in half it's victims, as depicted here, then I will concede that 9mm is the equal of 40. To state it differently, when you chop them in half or nearly so, bigger is not better. If you are not chopping them in half, then bigger is better.
If we were shooting single shot pistols your point would hold more water. But tissue destruction per shot is not the only thing to consider. Rounds you can put down range in a given amount of time (Rate of fire) is also a point to consider. In my opinion the difference between the 40 and 9mm is small in both respects.
Pat
As issued M9 & Glock 34 / 9mm - Very little perceived recoil and muzzle flip. Highly accurate and reliable. I drain 3 or 4 shots a second through the same ragged hole out to 20m. Whether or not its good in FMJ is an open question but apparently good enough and immaterial to civilian shooters. Despite having a double stack magazine weapon is slim and acceptable for concealed carry (at least the 34).
.[/B]
Am I the only one who finds this hard to believe??
3-4 shots per second through the same ragged hole out to 20 yds??
I'll believe that one when I see it with my own eyes.
Alaskapopo
01-15-12, 03:04
Am I the only one who finds this hard to believe??
3-4 shots per second through the same ragged hole out to 20 yds??
I'll believe that one when I see it with my own eyes.
Yea the speed is easy enough but the accuracy at that speed is not likely even with a GM level shooter.
Pat
Am I the only one who finds this hard to believe??
3-4 shots per second through the same ragged hole out to 20 yds??
I'll believe that one when I see it with my own eyes.
I didn't say a ragged bullet hole like you'd get zeroing a precision rifle, I said "a ragged hole". I usually blow the heart of the silhouette out, basically. I would like to think I could have worded that differently, but the internet is the number one place for haters so I'm not sure it would have mattered.
Alaskapopo
01-15-12, 03:06
I didn't say a ragged bullet hole like you'd get zeroing a precision rifle, I said "a ragged hole". I usually blow the heart of the silhouette out, basically. I would like to think I could have worded that differently, but the internet is the number one place for haters so I'm not sure it would have mattered.
The internet is a place for tall tells. And still .25 second splits for a fist sized group at 60 feet. I think not.
Pat
The internet is a place for tall tells. And still .25 second splits for a fist sized group at 60 feet. I think not.
Pat
The box on a Vtac target actually. Its very easy to tell someone they're telling tall tales when you're the one inventing half of it.
http://vikingtactics.com/targets_paper.html
You know, one of those. Instead of calling me a liar, just ask for clarity. Glock 34 with a Fulcrum trigger. Its not exactly an out of the box Glock 19. Thanks.
My experience has been that people that make claims of .25 second splits into one ragged hole at 20 yards don't own a shot timer.
My experience has been that people that make claims of .25 second splits into one ragged hole at 20 yards don't own a shot timer.
If anyone else would like to call me a bold faced liar because one minor point in a much larger OP included what would be considered at most competitions very average shooting, please direct it to my inbox and the thread will get back on track.
Alaskapopo
01-15-12, 08:03
If anyone else would like to call me a bold faced liar because one minor point in a much larger OP included what would be considered at most competitions very average shooting, please direct it to my inbox and the thread will get back on track.
Actually I shoot IDPA, USPSA and Three Gun and being able to put 4 rounds into a heart sized box at 20 yards in 1 second is not average shooting. Not even with an open gun in a Grand Masters hands. I think the comment about not owning a shot timer is the most likely explanation. A group such as that at 20 yards is very doable just not in 1 second.
Pat
Actually I shoot IDPA, USPSA and Three Gun and being able to put 4 rounds into a heart sized box at 20 yards in 1 second is not average shooting. Not even with an open gun in a Grand Masters hands. I think the comment about not owning a shot timer is the most likely explanation. A group such as that at 20 yards is very doable just not in 1 second.
Pat
I also compete in 3-gun, USPSA events and have taken advanced handgun courses and couldn't agree with you more. Yes it can be done, but not at the speed claimed.
I do know anything about that all I have shot is a few different brands of 180g and they all feel "hot" when compared to shooting the 9mm. As for the 165g all I have shot is the WWB and that stuff shoots like 9mm.
If you are a .40 owner that only buys ammo at Walmart then I can understand why some people say they never noticed any difference.
Of course bullet weight is going to make a difference with felt recoil.
If I shoot WWB 9mm or .40 they seem very similar to me.
If I shoot Double Tap 9mm 147 grain +P vs. WWB .40 the 9mm feels like it has more snap to me. Now shooting 9mm +P vs. 180 grain .40 say Federal Hyra shock rounds seem pretty similar.
This is just MY personal experience. As a whole recoil does not bother me. Firearms recoil, I guess I can just naturally adjust to it. I have known others who have a much greater sensitivity to recoil. My wife is sensitive to it and even more so, the noise. She would much rather shoot smaller, quieter calibers than larger ones.
Heavy Metal
01-15-12, 13:25
Actually I shoot IDPA, USPSA and Three Gun and being able to put 4 rounds into a heart sized box at 20 yards in 1 second is not average shooting. Not even with an open gun in a Grand Masters hands. I think the comment about not owning a shot timer is the most likely explanation. A group such as that at 20 yards is very doable just not in 1 second.
Pat
That kind of grouping is certainly doable but it requires careful consideration of the sight picture.
At 10 yards and in, any part of the front sight in the notch and a clean trigger press is good enough but not on an area that small at that range.
Quiet-Matt
01-15-12, 15:27
I hate pistols. My stable of handguns has been downsized to an old S&W revolver that my dad had forever, and my G23. I carry it everywhere I go and I shoot it alot to be proficent with it. I've carried a .40 Glock for 14 years and I don't see the point in changing things now. I made the choice to have but one pistol for EDC and carry it the same way day in and day out. For the purpose of concealed carry I strive for zero changes in the variables.
I have a friend who bought a fishing vest and started shooting IDPA with me using his 40cal glock. He shot one event, sold his 40, ammo, and mags. He then bought 2 9mm glocks and everything to go with it. Now, he shot the 40 wonderfully, but he lost sight of what he had the gun for in the first place. His focus went from protection of himself and his family, and changed to increasing hie times in a IDPA match. 3 months later he stopped compeeting.:rolleyes:
Now he has about 5 different makes of handguns that he uses as carry pistols. All of them have totally different manual of operations, grips, and triggers. Bad idea in my opinion.
My point being, Settle on a system that works for you, stick with it, practice alot and get proficent with it. It doesn't matter if its a .22, 40 or a 45, if you take the time to learn how to use it right you'll be far better off than going with the popular vote of any caliber. Absolutely, different calibers have different benifits and characteristics, but shoot anything enough and you'll develope the muscle memory and motor skills needed to handle it.
To quote the cycling great Eddy Mercks when he was asked if he had any pointers for aspiring cyclist... "Ride, Lots"
-------
I like the 40 because it has more "stopping power."
Ok, sorry I couldn't help myself.
The 40 caliber is pretty much a waste IMHO and if you look at the reliability of most firearms, the LEAST reliable model is the one chambered in 40.
C4
:happy: Grant Nailed it hahahaha
EzGoingKev
01-15-12, 17:48
I have a friend who bought a fishing vest
Sorry to take the thread even farther off topic and if this is something that went over my head but WTF does that have to do with anything?
Quiet-Matt
01-15-12, 17:58
Sorry to take the thread even farther off topic and if this is something that went over my head but WTF does that have to do with anything?
IDPA requires you to wear a concealment garment. During the warmer months most choose something such as a light weight fishing vest like this one...
http://www.bigcamo.com/media/safarivest_300.jpg
Thank you for your awesome question.:rolleyes:
.
EzGoingKev
01-15-12, 19:13
You are welcome for your awesome response.
I went with 9mm simply because I shoot it the best. Don't like the kick of a .40 or a .45. After all the rave reviews online about 1911's and their low recoil, I was pretty disappointed when I actually fired one. I guess I'm more recoil sensitive than others. Doesn't matter how big or fast or how many bullets you have if you miss all the time because you're afraid to shoot it.
I will take the 9mm over the .40 cal because IMHO :
1. It has less felt recoil and muzzle flip for faster repeat shots.
2. The 9mm guns will hold up better over time than the .40 cal.
3. Round capacity is usually more with the 9mm. I don't plan on
doing a lot of missing but on the two way range its a whole
different ballgame and I'll take the extra rounds.Also these
days the chance of having to deal with more than one person
I believe is greater than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.
4. Bullet making technology has came a log way since the
infamous 1986 Miami shootout and the Winchester 9mm
silvertip HP that got the ball rolling for the .40 S&W caliber.
With todays 9mm bonded HP bullets I believe the .40 cal
has less of an advantage than it use to penetrating auto
glass and other barrier material.
5. Cheaper ammo should = more practice time which should =
you becoming a better shot.
6. Its still where you place the bullet.
7. 9MM ammo will probably always be easier to get.
8. I believe LAV is a 9mm guy and that is reason enough
for me.
I know, my typing sucks.
The internet is a place for tall tells. And still .25 second splits for a fist sized group at 60 feet. I think not.
Pat
He said "3-4 bullets in one second". The statement does sound questionable just because there is considerable relative increase in time between 3 and 4 shots at any distance if one is using a timer. Most folks who use timers know exactly how many rounds they shoot in one second. Having said that, three bullets in one second is 0.50 splits. I consider myself an average shooter; when I am on, my split times at 3x5 card set at 21-25 feet is at about 0.42-0.44 seconds, and it is not like am just catching the edge of a card. While there is a huge increase in difficulty between 7 and 20 yards, I can see somebody who is good getting a good group with 0.50 splits, especially with shootable pistols with long sight radius, like G34.
Alaskapopo
01-16-12, 20:54
He said "3-4 bullets in one second". The statement does sound questionable just because there is considerable relative increase in time between 3 and 4 shots at any distance if one is using a timer. Most folks who use timers know exactly how many rounds they shoot in one second. Having said that, three bullets in one second is 0.50 splits. I consider myself an average shooter; when I am on, my split times at 3x5 card set at 21-25 feet is at about 0.42-0.44 seconds, and it is not like am just catching the edge of a card. While there is a huge increase in difficulty between 7 and 20 yards, I can see somebody who is good getting a good group with 0.50 splits, especially with shootable pistols with long sight radius, like G34.
.5 second splits means 2 shots per second not 3 or 4.
Pat
.5 second splits means 2 shots per second not 3 or 4.
Pat
Timer beep - reaction delay - shot #1 - 0.5 second split - shot # 2 - 0.5 second split - shot # 3. Three shots within last second, separated by two 0.5 splits.
2 shots per second: shot # 1 - one second split - shot #2.
Alaskapopo
01-16-12, 21:28
Timer beep - reaction delay - shot #1 - 0.5 second split - shot # 2 - 0.5 second split - shot # 3. Three shots within last second, separated by two 0.5 splits.
2 shots per second: shot # 1 - one second split - shot #2.
Timer goes off assuming your pointed in .25 to.50 seconds one shot 1 second comes around second shot. 2 shots unless your reaction time to the buzzer is instant which no human reaction is. This is assuming 60 foot shot on a small target.
Pat
Heavy Metal
01-16-12, 21:30
20 yards is 60 feet too.
The world changes past 10 yards, you MUST have precise sight alignment at 20 to hit an area that small, a flash shight picture will not cut it at speed at that distance.
Alaskapopo
01-16-12, 21:34
Here is a stage from a IDPA match last sunday. The longer shots are about 15 to 20 yards. I took 3rd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO0TUkCFbKA
I lost you here, Pat. I am not even considering a reaction time to buzzer, it is irrelevant. He didn't say "I shot three or four within a second from a buzzer". He said "three or four in one second". The timer hears the first shot. The next shot comes in 0.5 second - it is 0.5 split, so you have just shot 2 shots within 0.5 sec period of time. You repeat it one more time - it is three shots within last one second, separated by 0.5 second intervals.
I have been down this road, when trying to evaluate someone's claim of fancy shooting, and YVK has the math right.
An indoor range is looking very attractive about now, given how cold it has been even down on our end of the Kenai Peninsula.
Alaskapopo
01-16-12, 22:49
I lost you here, Pat. I am not even considering a reaction time to buzzer, it is irrelevant. He didn't say "I shot three or four within a second from a buzzer". He said "three or four in one second". The timer hears the first shot. The next shot comes in 0.5 second - it is 0.5 split, so you have just shot 2 shots within 0.5 sec period of time. You repeat it one more time - it is three shots within last one second, separated by 0.5 second intervals.
That makes sense. However G34's statement has evolved from 3 to 4 shots per second in one ragged hole to. 3 to 4 shots per second in a hole the size of a human heart.
Pat
Citizen_soldier22
01-16-12, 22:58
Don't know if this video has been shared, but I think it illustrates one argument quite well.
http://youtu.be/aXC_9WoK270
I have carry guns ranging from .380-.45acp, depending on the weather and how I am dressed that day. I feel that 9mm has it's place due to round count, concealability, shots on target within a certain amount of time, and hollowpoint and +p ammunition, among other reasons.
That makes sense. However G34's statement has evolved from 3 to 4 shots per second in one ragged hole to. 3 to 4 shots per second in a hole the size of a human heart.
Pat
My standard low-prob target is a 3x5 card that I push from 7 to 25 yards. At his suggested pace, I can hit it relatively reliably (but not 100%) at 7 yards. At 20 yards I can keep them on the card but at a pace that's so slow that's not even worth timing. Next time I shoot, I'll try to shoot 0.5 splits at 20 yards and see what I get. I'd consider it good if I kept it within 8 inches, and I'd be very happy if they went into 5.5 bull of B-27 target.
On the original topic, if I could shoot 40 as well as I shoot 9, I'd probably not own any 9s. Same for 45. However, I don't shoot 40 as well as 9 or 45, so no 40 for me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.