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.
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.
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
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!
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:
[i]"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."[/i]
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”.
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/78036189@N07/7816277480/in/photostream
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.
Last weekend my adult son and I went out to shoot both the Glock 19 (9mm) and 23 (40 cal.). We obviously didn’t know this thread would show up, and since we were both interested in the difference between the two while shooting, we thought we would give it a try.
While shooting, we shot each gun five times, and then traded off. Five shots, trade, five more, trade, until the mags went dry. The ammo used was full power hollow points in both, and pretty much the same ammo many PDs use.
Without saying anything first, I asked my son who doesn’t have much experience with the .40 and none with the 9, what he thought. He told me he couldn’t really tell the difference between the two. I, being a more experienced shooter, could tell the .40 bucked harder, but it was in no means enough to make shooting it difficult for me in any way.
Why couldn’t my son tell the difference? I’ve trained him to use a very firm grip, and good stance. His lack of experience with these two specific handguns shows the difference between them may not be as big as some believe. The differences can many times be ammo dependant, which is the reason I chose full power, service type ammo.
Even with my years of shooting, I have found if you don’t actually take out two guns side by side, and alternate between them, it’s impossible to have enough real time info. to make a good evaluation. Even shooting one a day after the other, the true impressions are gone, even if you’re writing it down in a notebook.
The Glock 27 (40) is a different story. Can’t get enough of a grip for a load that kicks. I feel the lack of a full grip is much more of a factor than the gun weighing less. The 27 can be mastered, but with loads of practice, with the load you will actually be carrying. If I have to have a gun of the size of a 27 or smaller, I go with something in 9mm.
If you’re asking whether it has better stopping power, the evidence says not significantly. Besides Doc’s writings, I saw a video on a website where an Anesthesiologist was lecturing to a student class and basically his findings were the same as Doc’s and basically most people that are shot with a pistol survive, no matter the caliber. Now part of that is bad shot placement, but it also gives you and indication of how close actual performance is of the major defense calibers.
Now not significantly is not the same as no and you have to decide whether or not that amount of extra performance makes a difference to you. In addition, you have to see whether or not the extra recoil negatively effects your shooting. Only you can decide this. I’ve seen LEAs change calibers because they felt 9mm wasn’t working for their situation. It’s a legitimate concern, but not working for them and not working for you isn’t always the same thing.
And let’s not forget the extra expense because shooting is expensive no matter what and unless you’re going to reload or have an endless free supply of ammo, shooting anything outside of 9mm is approaching non affordable.
Having shot a Glock 23, I wouldn’t, but I train with guys that love that gun. If you’re talking about the HK USPc, maybe. To be honest though, I don’t like .40 personally. I don’t believe the extra recoil is worth what little performance edge I get from it. If given the choice, I prefer 9mm or .45. But that’s me and I’ve shot all three in different types of guns, so I have an idea of what I like and what I don’t. More importantly, after working drills against a clock, I have a much better understanding of what works well for me and what doesn’t work as well.
Doc has posted some great points that people need to think hard about prior to a purchase.
I like the 250 rounds + per week rule and it put into words and draws a line that sounds realistic and usable. I have a huge respect for the .40 S&W caliber after owning them since around the time it originated in 1990. My first was a Firestar, then two G27s, two G23s, a G35, three H&Ks, a STI VIP (worst flip ever) and now a PPQ. I would not recommend the .40 to a new shooter at all and personally feel that the caliber is really optimized in a full sized gun for all but the most accomplished shooters.
My PPQ is extremely accurate in this caliber and I find that by incorporating it into my training routine with my 9MM PPQs (second 9MM to arrive this week), it exacerbates issues that I feel that I am finally accomplished enough to recognize and overcome the natural tendency to develop the bad habits prior to them starting. There are days when I have no problem putting the .40 PPQ away and sticking with the 9MM knowing that due to my being without enough recent practice sessions or me just not shooting up to what I expect of myself that day for whatever reason, the .40 would be detrimental and counter-productive to my training / practice session. The nice thing about incorporating the .40 into my training is that I find it makes my 9MM practice seem very easy and very productive.
I can remember a time that I set up some targets in the desert and practiced with my G23, perhaps ten years ago or so. I was getting very frustrated as I had no idea as to why my shooting kept getting worse and worse. I must have shot over 600 rounds of .40 trying to overcome my eroding trigger control, flinching and anticipating issues that I had developed and had no clue that it was even happening at the time. Now I can detect these issues when I first see them rearing their ugly heads and take corrective measures. To this day I am very aware that these problems can still affect me (much easier to develop with the .40).
.40 looks good on paper (165gr. looks the best). But I’m starting to think 9mm 124gr. +P is another good way to go.
If I’m not mistaken the .40 will have a slightly larger wound cavity than the 9mm, if you could call it a wound cavity. From the same tests, the 9mm and .40 stopped around the same depth in gelatin.
I have a Glock 22 and really like it. But, I’m starting to look for a Gen 2 Glock 17 because of ammo costs. Even when reloading, 9mm is 15% less than cost of loading .40.
darr3239: Rather than go on subjective feelings of how a firearm shoots, I prefer to assess things using cold hard objective data that is derived looking at a shot timer and accuracy/score on the target. Nothing else really matters. Say I have two pistols I am assessing–one that “feels” perfect and one that “feels” bad. With the one that feels good I am consistently getting a first shot from the holster at 2s, splits of .27s, and primarily C-zone hits, while the bad “feeling” one I am getting a 1.3s first shot, splits of .19, and all A-zone hits. That is a no brainer, I am choosing to use the pistol that subjectively feels “bad”, but objectively shoots great as the other is a total no go, despite how nice it “feels”!
lhoward81: In general, the 180 gr loads offer the best terminal performance, although there are some lighter loads that also work well.
I generally prefer the 9mm and don’t feel the .40 adds significant capability for most users. In the M&P the .40 isn’t bad and it’s almost a wash between 9 and 40, with the main difference being ammo cost.
I’ve found the same to be true. I’ve carried and extensively worked with Glocks. I’ve found the G23 to be snappy and it slows target acquisition on subsequent shots when firing more than one round in succession. The G19 doesn’t have the same problem. Consequently, I carry the G19 off duty and the G22 on duty.
That’s a great point DocGKR. Putting the scientific method to use would eliminate most other factors, such as “feeling” a gun fits your hand better, when others do the job better.
Of course, the end results will differ from shooter to shooter, in many cases, so you have to do the experimentation on your own, to find what’s “best” for you using all available testing methods.
darr3239: Absolutely shooter specific–everyone’s physique is different!
gunnut284: The M&P40 is definitely the softest shooting .40 I’ve tried; the G35 with a light is also OK.
I keep seeing the comment that (paraphrasing): if you don’t expect to have to shoot through barriers, the 9 should be fine.
I always wonder what type of defensive encounter is being envisioned. When I think about my own life, I see barriers everywhere. I see a major area of vulnerability to be coming and going to my vehicle (often surrounded by lots of other vehicles). Why would I assume I will not have to shoot through auto glass or similar barriers?
I guess this post is half comment and half question.