Why 9mm over .40?

[loganp0916]

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.

[99HMC4]

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....

[KhanRad]

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.

[ImBroke]

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]

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]

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.

[tpd223]

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.

[rauchman]

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.

[okie john]

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

[one]

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.