124gr vs 147gr in 9mm

[Entropy]

As far as .40, I can't figure out why anybody would choose one today.

Why choose 9mm when their are so many good .40 platforms on the market today? The same thing could be said for the .45acp.

I started off as an anti .40 guy, mostly because everyone told me that 9mm was the way to go for duty use. .40s beat up guns, they were hard to control, and the cost of ammo wasn't worth it. That is until I actually started to try out the .40 for myself. Since becoming a Sig armorer for the DOI, I learned over the years that our .40s were actually our most trouble free pistols in service versus our 9mm and .45s. Some of the P226s/P229s at the academy were running close to 100k rounds and still had the original frames, slides, and barrels. As for controlling the pistol, the best overall duty load for the Fed govt is the 180gr which has a felt recoil somewhere in between a 124gr+P 9mm and a 230gr .45acp. In timed courses of fire, I shoot both the 9mm and .40 equally as well on the score sheet. The shooting speed of the 9mm versus the .40 seems to be hard to measure with trained acolytes of both calibers and is an inconsequential increment to trained shooters. Costs? Duty ammo prices are very similar, as well as training ammo.

Most full sized pistols are 17+1 in 9mm, 15+1 in .40, and 10+1 in .45acp. If you want a bigger exterior and interior hole than 9mm, as well as overall better barrier penetration, but don't want to sacrifice capacity too much, then the .40 is the way to go. Reloading puts you out of the fight, and the less time you spend out of the fight the better. Also, hand and arm injuries are common in a gun fight, and reloading with one hand puts you out of the fight even longer.

Anyway, we all pick what we feel is best. Most seem to go to the extreme ends of the spectrum. 9mm shooters usually train around the high capacity easy shooting of the 9mm, while .45acp shooters are very focused around the cartridges terminal effects and will adjust their training accordingly. Some split the difference between the two philosophies and go with the .40. Just weigh all your options yourself before closing doors.

[DRT]

For any of the big three (9mm, .40, .45), my first choice is heavy HST or Ranger T series offered in each caliber, 147gr (also 127gr in Ranger
T only), 180gr (also 165gr in Ranger T only), 230gr, respectively (+P versions if applicable). 2nd choice would be heavy versions of Federal Tactical Bonded, 3rd choice would be Gold Dot, 124g+P, 180gr, 230gr.

[tpd223]

Costs? Duty ammo prices are very similar, as well as training ammo.

Not sure where you (or you guys) buy ammo, but when I was running our program and buying 200K rounds of 9mm at a time, .40 was like 30-40% more expensive.

Most folks see the same thing at Wal Mart when buying ammo by the box.

30% is quite a bit less shooting for the money.

[eo500]

I agree that too I would feel comfortable with any of Doc's picks, but you really need to shoot both of them in your gun to figure out which works best.
I bought two boxes each of 127gr+p+, and 147gr Winchester Ranger T JHP's for my Glock 26, and 19. They all went bang, the groups were similar, but the decision maker for me was the fact that the 127gr+p+'s consistently threw the brass back at my face with the G19. Since I don't expect to wear eye-pro every time I'm carrying, I figured that I didn't want to worry about being blinded by flying brass if SHTF. So for me the choice was the 147 gr.
Your story may be different, and if I ever get a different carry gun, I will be certain to try out a variety of ammo to figure out what works best, and what I feel most comfortable and confident with. Just my $.02.

[Entropy]

Not sure where you (or you guys) buy ammo, but when I was running our program and buying 200K rounds of 9mm at a time, .40 was like 30-40% more expensive.

Most folks see the same thing at Wal Mart when buying ammo by the box.

30% is quite a bit less shooting for the money.

Current DOI pricing for Winchester Ranger Talons:
-9mm 124gr+P, 127gr+P+, or 147gr = $.25 a shot
-.40S&W 155gr, 165gr, or 180gr = $.28 a shot
-.45acp 185gr, 200gr, or 230gr = $.34 a shot

Training ammo Winchester DOI pricing(we have to use the green crap):
-9mm 124gr+P = $.21 a shot
-.40S&W 180gr = $.24 a shot
-.45acp 230gr = $.28 a shot

From an agency standpoint, the costs for us are minimal and we can carry any of the three. Another angle you can look at, is if you are wanting good windshield penetration the .40S&W can do it pretty well in the standard Ranger-T design. In order for the 9mm to do it as well you'd need to bump it up to the Ranger Bonded load which is $.31 a shot thus increasing procurement costs.

From a civilian standpoint, all the surplus and contract overrun 9mm can be awfully appealing though.

[Jake'sDad]

Why choose 9mm when their are so many good .40 platforms on the market today? The same thing could be said for the .45acp.

I started off as an anti .40 guy, mostly because everyone told me that 9mm was the way to go for duty use. .40s beat up guns, they were hard to control, and the cost of ammo wasn't worth it. That is until I actually started to try out the .40 for myself. Since becoming a Sig armorer for the DOI, I learned over the years that our .40s were actually our most trouble free pistols in service versus our 9mm and .45s. Some of the P226s/P229s at the academy were running close to 100k rounds and still had the original frames, slides, and barrels. As for controlling the pistol, the best overall duty load for the Fed govt is the 180gr which has a felt recoil somewhere in between a 124gr+P 9mm and a 230gr .45acp. In timed courses of fire, I shoot both the 9mm and .40 equally as well on the score sheet. The shooting speed of the 9mm versus the .40 seems to be hard to measure with trained acolytes of both calibers and is an inconsequential increment to trained shooters. Costs? Duty ammo prices are very similar, as well as training ammo.

Most full sized pistols are 17+1 in 9mm, 15+1 in .40, and 10+1 in .45acp. If you want a bigger exterior and interior hole than 9mm, as well as overall better barrier penetration, but don't want to sacrifice capacity too much, then the .40 is the way to go. Reloading puts you out of the fight, and the less time you spend out of the fight the better. Also, hand and arm injuries are common in a gun fight, and reloading with one hand puts you out of the fight even longer.

Anyway, we all pick what we feel is best. Most seem to go to the extreme ends of the spectrum. 9mm shooters usually train around the high capacity easy shooting of the 9mm, while .45acp shooters are very focused around the cartridges terminal effects and will adjust their training accordingly. Some split the difference between the two philosophies and go with the .40. Just weigh all your options yourself before closing doors.

Well said, and extremely good points.

I concede .40's better barricade performance. Usually. (Though it often isn't as dramatically different as many think it is). I just haven't felt the difference was worth the increased recoil, decreased magazine capacity, and in my experience, more gun issues. I'm also not pushing a beat car these days. If I was, and I was making car stops all day, I might feel differently, though I'd still probably go with .45.

[dookie1481]

It's had great success with a number of agencies that shoot people a lot.

Haha I don't know why, but that made me laugh

[vicious_cb]

Would the heavier loads perform better through auto glass?

[fhpchris]

Why choose 9mm when their are so many good .40 platforms on the market today? The same thing could be said for the .45acp.

I started off as an anti .40 guy, mostly because everyone told me that 9mm was the way to go for duty use. .40s beat up guns, they were hard to control, and the cost of ammo wasn't worth it. That is until I actually started to try out the .40 for myself. Since becoming a Sig armorer for the DOI, I learned over the years that our .40s were actually our most trouble free pistols in service versus our 9mm and .45s. Some of the P226s/P229s at the academy were running close to 100k rounds and still had the original frames, slides, and barrels. As for controlling the pistol, the best overall duty load for the Fed govt is the 180gr which has a felt recoil somewhere in between a 124gr+P 9mm and a 230gr .45acp. In timed courses of fire, I shoot both the 9mm and .40 equally as well on the score sheet. The shooting speed of the 9mm versus the .40 seems to be hard to measure with trained acolytes of both calibers and is an inconsequential increment to trained shooters. Costs? Duty ammo prices are very similar, as well as training ammo.

Most full sized pistols are 17+1 in 9mm, 15+1 in .40, and 10+1 in .45acp. If you want a bigger exterior and interior hole than 9mm, as well as overall better barrier penetration, but don't want to sacrifice capacity too much, then the .40 is the way to go. Reloading puts you out of the fight, and the less time you spend out of the fight the better. Also, hand and arm injuries are common in a gun fight, and reloading with one hand puts you out of the fight even longer.

Anyway, we all pick what we feel is best. Most seem to go to the extreme ends of the spectrum. 9mm shooters usually train around the high capacity easy shooting of the 9mm, while .45acp shooters are very focused around the cartridges terminal effects and will adjust their training accordingly. Some split the difference between the two philosophies and go with the .40. Just weigh all your options yourself before closing doors.

I think by your own logic you pretty much say you might as well carry a .45 because although .40 is impressively similar to 9mm in many ways, why not get a large step up in stopping power for a clearly easily shoot-able platform... like a .45 1911. I see the benefits of both 9mm and .45, but I think .40 is just a bad compromise. I either want something big, or I want alot of them. You didn't even mention 10mm. Why go .40 when you get better power and the same capacity? Afik a Glock in 10mm is considered much less prone to exploding like the .40 ones.

I sold my 5-7 because I just didn't believe that it would actually do anything with the ammo civilians can get. I do not think my 9mm will be relegated to that same fate. If you are giving up capacity and using something that recoils more why not go bigger.. 10mm/.45 acp/.45 super/.44 mag where does it end? I think a good 9mm +p is fine, along with 9x23, 38 super +p, 9x25 dillion, 357 sig, and all the other calibers that can tout 500+ lb/ft with a good modern projectile. I didn't include .380 on that list....

Would I really want to depend on a M9 with FMJ NATO stuff? Nope. Give me a P226/G17/USP/1911 in 9mm and hollow points and im happy. Give me a single stack .45 1911 and Im still happy. I just might try to make my shots count more It doesn't matter how big it is if you cannot connect. I might be able to shoot a .45 very well, but the female officer that tries to grab a double stack .45 might not be able to do the same thing.

Right gun for the right job. Training rules all. There will always be a trade off in capacity/weight/size/recoil.

[Entropy]

I think by your own logic you pretty much say you might as well carry a .45 because although .40 is impressively similar to 9mm in many ways, why not get a large step up in stopping power for a clearly easily shoot-able platform... like a .45 1911. I see the benefits of both 9mm and .45, but I think .40 is just a bad compromise. I either want something big, or I want alot of them. You didn't even mention 10mm. Why go .40 when you get better power and the same capacity? Afik a Glock in 10mm is considered much less prone to exploding like the .40 ones.

Actually, you fit into my mold exactly when it comes to the typical 9mm shooter and .45acp shooter. You're either focused on lots of ammo and easy shooting with the 9mm, or making as big of a hole as possible and compromising other attributes for the .45acp. It's harder to find guys that take the middle ground and try utilizing the .40 unless they got a feel for it in service use. The combination of good magazine capacity, hole size, and barrier penetration make the .40 a very appealing choice particularly with law enforcement who often engage in gun fights with perps who are more willing to fight to the death in dynamic barrier environments, versus your typical civilian self defense shooting which ends in 1-2 shots by voluntary surrender or a fleeing suspect.

The 10mm seems like a good cartridge, but it is fairly uncommon and virtually non-existant in law enforcement or the military. It costs approximately 2-3 times as much to train with 10mm versus .40S&W, and available platforms and accessories are lacking. Also, other than the early 1990s case failures in generation 1 .40 cartridges the modern day .40 doesn't KB any more than other cartridges. The internet likes to turn early development issues into chronic unending legends. FLETC Glynco goes through about 1-million rounds of .40S&W per year and when I report to the training division I get their stats. The 1st generation .40 had a thinner case, and when used in chambers with less 6 o-clock chamber support like the Glock you ran the risk of a burst in the casing. The .40 was redesigned in 1993 to correct this issue with thicker case walls. Winchester also got rid of the large rifle primer used in the "10mm short" as it did not leave a safe enough amount of rim room for the ejector to avoid impacting a live primer. During testing, the FBI actually had the occasional live round detonate when ejecting......a flaw of the 10mm design. The .40S&W is one of the most tested and proven modern day handgun cartridges available. For service use, which often means that the pistol is beat up and run dirty, we actually have more problems with our 9mm and .45acp pistols than we do our .40S&W pistols.