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.
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:
Deep penetration
Ideal wounding mechanism through expanded JHP, or watcutter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re likely to face more than one opponent.
Good shot placement matters more than raw power.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.