.40 S&W or 9mm...?

Something that's been eluded to, but not directly addressed here is that most SD JHP loads are good for the same depth and pretty close to the same expansion in the jello.

Since the jello has never attacked anyone, it's only part of the equation.

Increased ME does translate to more force on target, and this is why the special forces, FBI, and everybody and their brother chooses the .45 over a 9mm. The .40 is an excellent performer, but it's a bit more to manhandle due to being a higher power cartridge than the .45 - some call this "snappy." Successive shots are where this comes into play. If you can only get the first shot on target quickly under ideal circumstances, you're screwed should the SHTF (because history has shown us that even the best shooters have a really bad hit ratio in the field). Doesn't matter if you're shooting nuclear powered perp decimater explosive tip bullets if you can't put them where they need to go.

.45's do cost more; such is life. If you don't already have one, get a 1911. ;)
 
You have guns that chamber 9mm already and like them, so why switch for a potentially small gain after considering the cost. Also, for me time on target is important. A 9mm with a 4" barrel is pretty easy to control.
 
I would swap for the 40 if this for a CCW.

I think 9mm is fine and perfectly acceptable but I have researched this issue heavily and my conclusion is that the 40 is definatley more potent. 45 is more potent than 40, etc. Many will say that no one caliber in particuliar is a sure thing, and there is no such thing as stopping power and they are 100% correct!!! But the other side is there are averages and trends and tests that will conclude that overall the 40 is superior to the 9mm. Do research yourself look at tables of similar loads, look at gel tests, etc and compare. Look for averages and trends not specific examples because you will find a 9mm round that outperforms the 40 and vice versa but on a global level, the 40 pushes a bigger bullet very fast and providing more Energy than the 9.

Like someone said, maybe here or maybe elsewhere, Energy is the ability to do work. That may or may not translate into actual work produced depending on many circumstances but the point is the 40 has the ability to produce more energy than the 9. That's why I would go for the 40.

If you find that you cant hit anything with the 40, then obviously you need to make a change but recoil and becoming proficient is a matter of practice regardless of what caliber you use. Sometimes a little 380 loaded with some hot ammo can have more felt recoil than a a full size 9. So there are many factors to consider but if you have 2 comparably sized guns, I would go for the larger caliber because handguns are already a compromise in power.
 
I am just going to share a what I was told in a recent conversation. I was told that our local police dept had just changed from Glock 23 to 19. When asked why he told me that for faster follow up shots and with the advancement in ammunition. I was told that most of the officers shot the 19 better. I know that a miss with a 50cal doesnt mean squat. Again not a caliber debate but I would consider investing what I would spend in a new gun on more ammo. More ammo = better shooting. While I shoot the 40 well two handed with perfect stance. I find it to be a little snappy for one handed weak hand shooting.
 
Modern relativity...?

Hmm... more to think about, I guess. I feel there will never be a firm answer for this question. Even if you describe what you'll be using the round for in vivid detail, it will still ALWAYS be up for debate! Each round has it's time and place to be the "best" option offered.
 
I carry both 9mm and 40 caliber. IMO there's no difference in the way they shoot. 40 is snappier but can certainly be controlled. The biggest difference is you get more round capacity with 9mm and you get a harder hitting round with 40 caliber. The round count thing regarding 40 caliber is probably not too important. I have two 40 caliber guns, one holds 11 + 1 while the other holds 14 + 1. Would the extra 2- 3 rounds in a 9mm be that important? Who knows.

Like you, I reload. I'm not a big fan of the heaviest bullet for any given caliber. 125 grains is a good middle weight for 9mm and 155 - 165 is a good weight for 40 caliber. With the middle bullet weights it's easy to keep the velocities high. And IMO maximum or close to maximum velocities are important.
 
Doesn't really matter, pick one and go with it.

Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg


Pic lifted from here
 
The 40 has a slight advantage in size and a big advantage in the weight of the bullets it fires.

This means you might only have to shoot a bad guy once with the 40 while you might have to double tap him with a 9mm.

I am surprised that some new shooting data has'nt come out saying that the 40 smith round is doing much better on the street then the 9mm ever did.

I would expect there to be some kind of proof that the 40 is a better performing round.

While it is true the 9mm can have 147 grn bullets,when it does,the lack of speed can really effect it's expansion characteristics.

(The 9mm was initially designed to use the 115 grn round.)

Whereas,a 40 smith shooting a 155 grn bullet is a sledgehammer round for the 40 smith caliber.

Plus,if you like to target shoot paper targets-the 180 grn 40 smith bullets make real nice clean holes in the paper.

I'm leaning towards the 40 smith myself.

But I own two p95 Rugers in 9mm that are just fine for right now.
 
Actually that picture tells me 2things.

1) The wound channel from the 9mm looks pretty dismal as compared to the other calibers. The 357, 40, and 45 look similiar in terms of wound channel

2) The 357 and 45 appears to have the largest wound channel.

I don't know what if anything that means, but to me it seems to coincide and confirm with the ballistic research and testing that I have researched and analyzed. The more and more I research, the more I believe that I would rank handgun calibers from 10mm, 45acp, 357sig, 40sw, 9mm, 380 in that order. Furthermore, there seems to be a significant step between the 9 and the 40, much like the 9mm is a significant step up form 380acp. The difference between the others doesn't seem to be as wide.
 
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it...

Even in "Small-N" studies, it seems to me that forensic analysis of gunfights offers more authoritative data than anecdotes or gelatin. People, especially when escalated, have a nasty habit of doing what experts insist can't be done. One important example (some background reading):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs8.htm

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?12814-FBI-Miami-Firefight-of-11-April-1986

Lots of verbiage there, but it boils down to several key findings that are germane to this discussion:

* Platt took a solid shot with a 9mm that was fatal (in that had Platt immediately been transported to a hospital, he would have died anyway).

* Despite being fatally wounded with a 9mm round, Platt was able to continue his attack and wound or kill most FBI combatants.

* Platt was armed with a Mini-14.

* The FBI concluded that Platt's ability to continue the fight was a failure of the 9mm round, and went initially to the 10 mm round, then settled on the .40 S&W.

There are numerous other conclusions, they are still being debated today, and not everyone will agree with them. Moreover, ammunition design has improved over the intervening 20+ years.

Still, (IMHO) this episode offers lessons to anyone willing to study it.

A correlation has been demonstrated between size of the permanent wound channel and (speed of) relative incapacitation. All else being equal, larger diameter bullets make larger diameter holes.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

(The other finding is that a Mini-14 firing 5.56mm ammunition trumps most handguns in a gunfight.....)

Your mileage may vary.

FWIW
 
If you already reload and want something more powerful than a 9mm, I see no reason to bother with a .40. Were it me, I'd be looking at a 10mm as it gives you a much more significant increase in power than either a .40 S&W or .45 ACP. 10mm can drive 155grn bullets in excess of 1400fps and 180grn bullets to 1300fps. While not as popular as the .40, 10mm guns are currently made by Glock, Tangfolio (imported as the EAA Witness), S&W (currently in a revolver only), Kimber, Colt, Wilson Combat, and Fusion Firearms. Also, both Dan Wesson and S&W made semi-autos in this caliber in fairly large numbers which can be found on the used market. The best source of full power 10mm ammo is Double Tap (Buffalo Bore is good too, but DT offers wider variety and lower prices in this caliber).

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php

Also, 10mm ammo loaded by Remington, Federal, and Hornady are basically warm .40 S&W in terms of power, so you would basicall still have a .40 if you wanted. Winchester's 175grn Silvertip is a bit more powerful, but still not quite up to that of DT. Many people find that loading a good compromise as it's more powerful than most other semi-auto cartridges but still retains manageable recoil.
 
Alot of 9mm and 38 special +p's being fired out of 357 magnums in that firefight from the FBI side with little effect.

Not a good sign of caliber effectiveness.
 
Alot of 9mm and 38 special +p's being fired out of 357 magnums in that firefight from the FBI side with little effect.

Not a good sign of caliber effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Actually, when I read the report I found that the number of 9mm and .38 +P's that either missed entirely or were peripheral hits were not a good sign of the FBI's gunfighting skills. Only two of the shots that hit Platt could really be expected to be "incapacitating" and one of those two ended the fight. Also, the 9mm Silvertip that supposedly "failed" expanded and penetrated exactly as it was designed to (which at the time was what the FBI thought they wanted). Newer 9mm ammo performs much differently as a result of the FBI's change in penetration standards which resulted from the Miami shootout.
 
I am surprised that some new shooting data has'nt come out saying that the 40 smith round is doing much better on the street then the 9mm ever did.

I would expect there to be some kind of proof that the 40 is a better performing round.
Click to expand...
I would have expected this, too. However, after 20 years, the evidence of it's devastating superiority to the 9mm has yet to appear. And yet there are those who would have us think it is clearly just that. All because it is 1mm wider, and a little over 1/54th of an ounce heavier (remember, we are specifically concerned with the Federal HST +P 147gr vs. 155 gr .40s).
1) The wound channel from the 9mm looks pretty dismal as compared to the other calibers. The 357, 40, and 45 look similiar in terms of wound channel
Click to expand...
This is gelatin. Since it does not displace the same way as tissue, not having the same type of durable structures, it records the temporary cavity as if it were permanent. This gives the false appearance of a damage advantage to some rounds over others. The actual bullet path is the only sure and proven area of potential critical injury.

The difference is not significant enough to be worth the effort. Spend your money on practice ammo and training.
Click to expand...
Efficiently stated.
 
I use both.
I have a Smith & Wesson SW40F (gasp) Sigma under my pillow for HD and routinely carry either a G26 or Kahr MK9 in my pocket.
 
This means you might only have to shoot a bad guy once with the 40 while you might have to double tap him with a 9mm.
Click to expand...

According to the FBI report on Wounding Ballistics, the only thing that will cause an "immediate stop" is hitting the CNS (e.g. spine). As such, your chances double with a double tap.

I have a 40SW and just really never cared for the round. Of course, many do. The gun has probably only had 500 rounds through it in ten years. I carry either a 45 (1911) or a .357 magnum, both of which conceal easier than my 40SW (Sig P226).
 
I have several guns in both calibers, but I will tell you of my 239 comparison. I have a Sig 239 in 40 and 9mm. I shoot 124 gr. JHP in 9mm, and 180 gr. JHP in 40. The 9 is a little more pleasant to shoot and I can get it back on target a little quicker. The 40 in this gun is still very controllable and not unpleasant to shoot. I group very slightly better with the 9, but I doubt that it is enough to make a difference in a defensive situation. In this gun, I get one more round in the 9mm as opposed to the 40. (8+1 vs. 7+1). All in all, I am confident in either as a CCW; but mostly I carry the 40.
 
I use a .40 because that's what my employer issued to me. I have since bought two more as standby to the issued gun and as a BUG. If I'd been issued a 9mm I'd have done the same in 9mm and not worried about the perceived difference in performance.

If I were just outfitting myself, I'd carry a G19 and back it with a mini 9mm or .38.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top