Is .40 S&W really worth it vs 9mm?

[chairforce26]

I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.

[rathos]

no. With reliable hollowpoint ammo you get about expansion to .62 cal with 9mm and .40 goes to .68. Honestly its not worth the extra recoil and less rounds. However if you are going to get a .40 the M&P line is the one to go with.

[Breadman]

no. With reliable hollowpoint ammo you get about expansion to .62 cal with 9mm and .40 goes to .68. Honestly its not worth the extra recoil and less rounds. However if you are going to get a .40 the M&P line is the one to go with.

I agree. I have M&Ps in 9mm and 40. I bought the 40 because for a while, I was getting free ammo in 40.
The 40 has a lot more power when it comes to shooting steel targets or thru things,(windshields, etc). In a self defense situation good 9mm self defense ammo will perform very close.
The m&p is by far the smoothest shooting out of the box polymer pistol in 40 I have ever shot.

[dwhitehorne]

With the M&P 40 it is because I bought a factory 9mm barrrel and magazines and shoot both calibers in the same gun without any problems. I actually have more 9mm ammo through the gun than 40 rounds. 15+1 rounds of 180gr 40 is nice. Is one better than the other, who knows but the 40 does knock down steel with more authority. David

[dudshep31]

The majority of members here will say 9mm is just as good. Cheaper to shoot( assuming you're buying your own ammo) and 9 times out of ten has less recoil. If you are set on .40, I have read the m&p is one of the better pistols to get. There are many threads discussing 9 vs 40. For what it's worth, I like 9mm but I'm a nobody.

[mig1nc]

The majority of members here will say 9mm is just as good. Cheaper to shoot( assuming you're buying your own ammo) and 9 times out of ten has less recoil. If you are set on .40, I have read the m&p is one of the better pistols to get. There are many threads discussing 9 vs 40. For what it's worth, I like 9mm but I'm a nobody.

The M&P is the only .40 I have left and will not be getting rid of it.

Plan to get a Storm Lake barrel and some mags so I can shoot 9mm and .40 from the same gun.

You can get a .40 and add a 9mm barrel, but you cannot get a 9mm and add a .40 barrel.

If you get the .40, you can swap the .357sig factory barrel from S&W if you want to play with that caliber, and you can get a Storm Lake barrel (and new mags) if you want to shoot 9mm.

My advice, get the .40 and shoot all three!

[DocGKR]

chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?

If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.

In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:

"Not getting into the weapons transition issues from frame design to frame design (it's the reason I love to hate the Glock), the fact of the matter is that the recoil on the 23 crosses the magic line of running the shit out of your pistol.

Allow me to explain...

Most of the guys on the G19 thread mentioned that they can handle the reduced size of the 19 and the recoil increase over the 17 is acceptable. Most of us have also determined that this does NOT cross over to the .40 cartridge. Guys with a firm handle on recoil manipulation can use the 22 and 35 with acceptable results. However when you go down to 26's and 23's, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The recoil is now noticably effecting times and it's measurable. If you can't effectively control recoil and are wasting time allowing your pistol to settle between shots then this is all a wash and means nothing to you, but if you can apply the fundamentals effectively you will quickly see that you can't run a sub compact 9 or a compact .40 worth a shit. So a decision to accept a larger pistol in order to have an acceptable recoil impulse based upon caliber must be made. The smallest 9mm Glock recoil that I will accept is the G19 and I will not go below the G22 when bumping up to .40."

[rotorblade]

I'm set on getting an M&P semi-auto pistol after deciding it felt better in my hand than the XDs. Not really interested in .45 for a compact pistol. .40 seems like it might be cool but is it really that much more powerful than 9mm? It's sure more expensive.

Just buy a good quality 9mm handgun, some mags, and ammo. Go to the range and have fun.

If you can rent a bunch of different guns first and in the 9 40 chambering and compare. Heck offer to bring a box of ammo and shoot a friends guns. Will save time and money helping you find what you like. If it doesn't give you that warm fuzzy when holding it its not for you. Once you settle on 2 or 3 different guns then just "Pick One".

[JHC]

chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?

If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.

In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:

That is a very interesting angle on the topic. I certainly found the G27 quite a handful and not so much in larger guns.

OTOH, 9mm is so much lighter recoiling that I've found FAST runs (concealed proper ones and psuedo FAST drills; keeping apples to apples) under 6 seconds and Bill Drills (to pick two I've used for comparisons) - can be run so similiarly from G26-G17 that I don't sweat the choice much for most of my civilian CCW. I agree that taken in the whole - across a wider range of performance measures to include 25 and 50 yard shooting; Kyle Defoors 15% advantage to the full size gun seems to bear out.


ETA: "so similiarly" is pretty subjective. What I mean is for most of the past 12 mosts, clean runs in the 5 seconds . something - pretty similiarly. Of late; with tips from some USPSA shooters, I've cut a good bit of time out but I've only measured that with G17's (well under 5.0).

Best subcompact psuedo-FAST: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7803618...in/photostream

[geohans]

chairforce26--Have you read the information on handgun calibers here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887?

If you don't need to routinely shoot through intermediate barriers like automobile windshields, if you don't get free .40 S&W practice ammo, and if you don't get to practice 250+ rounds per week, you will most likely be best served with a good 9 mm.

In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:

Doc, did your friend observe any trends in terms of response time when a BG meets one or the other of the calibers mentioned? I mean on the part of the recipient.