There's not much difference in the two rounds. I switched from a Glock 22 to a Glock 19. Part of the reason was because the ammo was much cheaper (100 rounds/box of WWB at Wal-Marts for $19). Now 9mm is hard to find while .40 cal is much more readily available. I wish I has my .40 back.
.40 S&W or 9mm...?
- Thread starter wilkup
- Start date
DiscoRacing
New member
i have one 9mm and two 40s... like both calibers myself... not sure I could choose one over the other far as advantages or dis
MikeRussell
New member
Me personally, I never really cared much for the .40S&W round. It was a compromise, a watering down of a better round, the 10mm.
If you're good with the 9mm, have confidence with it, and have good quality ammo, then stick with it.
If you're good with the 9mm, have confidence with it, and have good quality ammo, then stick with it.
NightSleeper
New member
Exactly. If you read about the shootout, and the hits the BG's took, it makes you wonder how the FBI came to the conclusion that the 9mm and .38 spl were inadaquate. Platt got hit something in the ballpark of 11-12 times, but with the exception of one to the chest, he was only hit in the arms, legs and feet (not including the final rounds that finished him). This explains why he was able to keep shooting.
The other guy (forget his name now) only got off 1 shot in the whole shootout because he was hit in the head/neck region which incapacitated him temporarily. Basically, the reason the FBI agents took their lumps is that 2 of them lost their primary guns in the collision, and the rest weren't very good shots. One of them literally had to run up to point-blank-range and blast 'em to end the shootout.
But the good ole FBI didn't want to blame their agents or their training ... just blame the guns! Works every time ...
Watch enough TV and you would know that a hit to the arm will tear the man apart and he will be instantly killed as he is blown 5' backwards.
Inadequate training would reflect on management. That would never work. The FBI IS a government bureaucracy. Of course a research project and new hardware is always the answer to human failings.
Not to say, of course, that I'd be any better if I were in the the agent's shoes. I don't think I'd like people shooting at me either, it might mess up my concentration and aim
Ken
So with a 10mm what would I be giving up and what would I be getting to make it worth it?
Lack of available ammo and a high expense is a major DISADVANTAGE
Ability to pack this massive caliber as my woods gun as well as my CCW will be an ADVANTAGE
I've had my eyes on a compact Glock for awhile now and the 29 is catching my eyes after reading a bit about the 10mm.
I can reload my own bullets, so that takes care of the expense of these rounds - as long as I can find shells fairly cheap. I could just pick up .40 caliber Gold Dots to reload as my SD rounds too...
Well if nothing else I have more to think about now...
Lack of available ammo and a high expense is a major DISADVANTAGE
Ability to pack this massive caliber as my woods gun as well as my CCW will be an ADVANTAGE
I've had my eyes on a compact Glock for awhile now and the 29 is catching my eyes after reading a bit about the 10mm.
I can reload my own bullets, so that takes care of the expense of these rounds - as long as I can find shells fairly cheap. I could just pick up .40 caliber Gold Dots to reload as my SD rounds too...
Well if nothing else I have more to think about now...
LightningJoe
New member
9mm can do everything .40 S&W can do. You can get more of them in the same size gun and they cost less.
I think most people have jumped on the "9mm is cheaper bandwagon." Here in CT, its more difficult to get modestly priced 9mm ammo as compared with .40 and .45. There's been a real jump in the number of people who shoot handguns in the last year and a half. I think that many of these people have been encouraged to look for 9mm handguns. Im making this assumption just by what Im seeing and who Im talking to. You can find 9mms, but 9s at a good price are jumping off the shelves. .40s and .45 are always well stocked.
For a defensive use, I like all three but the difficulty of getting bargin 9mms for target shooting has me looking more at .40 /.45s these days.
For a defensive use, I like all three but the difficulty of getting bargin 9mms for target shooting has me looking more at .40 /.45s these days.
This is a very interesting article that raises some questions about bullet performance. It tends to lend credibility to the "big fat bullet" argument. Anyway, if this is accurate then ultra fast small diameter bullets will not be as effective in wound generation as larger bullets regardless of velocity. Read for yourself but this has certainly given me something to research further.
http://organizedwisdom.com/The_Bullet_Wound_Ballistics/16311/9306/health
http://organizedwisdom.com/The_Bullet_Wound_Ballistics/16311/9306/health
SwampYankee
New member
When I made the decision to start buying semi-auto's I decided to throw my lot in with a single caliber. I reload all my ammo and it's just to much energy to have a ton of different equipment and components that all fit the same niche.
I picked .40 S&W.
I wish I had picked .45 ACP. My second choice would be 9mm. My third choice would be .40 S&W.
I picked .40 S&W because it was a compromise. You got more rounds than a .45 but with a larger bullet than the 9mm. While the compromise makes sense, the lack of firearms in .40 S&W is frustrating. I would love to have a 1911. I cannot afford (or will not afford) one in in .40 S&W. I would love to get a small compact, particularly the SR9 Compact. But you won't find it in .40 S&W. The options in 9 mm and .45 ACP appeal to me more than the .40 S&W. If I bought factory ammo, it would be less of an issue. But I don't.
I picked .40 S&W.
I wish I had picked .45 ACP. My second choice would be 9mm. My third choice would be .40 S&W.
I picked .40 S&W because it was a compromise. You got more rounds than a .45 but with a larger bullet than the 9mm. While the compromise makes sense, the lack of firearms in .40 S&W is frustrating. I would love to have a 1911. I cannot afford (or will not afford) one in in .40 S&W. I would love to get a small compact, particularly the SR9 Compact. But you won't find it in .40 S&W. The options in 9 mm and .45 ACP appeal to me more than the .40 S&W. If I bought factory ammo, it would be less of an issue. But I don't.
(Assuming you live in the US, if not this is a wasted joke)I shoot mostly .40, but have a LITTLE experience with 9mm and the main thing that surprised me about 9mm after shooting .40 for a while was that the 9mm recoil really wasn't very different from the .40 recoil. people tend to go on and on about how .40 kicks like a mule so I was expecting 9mm to be drastically less. it wasn't.
that being said, I would encourage the OP to try out a .40
you're adding a little power, weight, energy on impact, and diameter without sacrificing anything. I think that was kind of the whole reason S&W invented it.
that being said, I would encourage the OP to try out a .40
you're adding a little power, weight, energy on impact, and diameter without sacrificing anything. I think that was kind of the whole reason S&W invented it.
yrralguthrie
New member
Helmet
Recently on the military channel I saw a demonstration of how effective the battle helmet was. The basic design of the steel helmet hasn't changed much since WWII.
First they shot at it with a .45acp. Range not given. The .45 acp put a crease in the side and cracked the helmet. Another round put a severe dent in the front of the helment.
Then they shot once with a 9mm. Dead in the middle of the helmet with barely a dent.
The .45 acp was clearly superior...but we are talking ball ammunition, not modern expanding rounds.
And not many of us will have to shoot through a helmet.
40 s&w should be somewhere in between.
Neither round demonstrated would have killed someone wearing the helmet.
ljg
Recently on the military channel I saw a demonstration of how effective the battle helmet was. The basic design of the steel helmet hasn't changed much since WWII.
First they shot at it with a .45acp. Range not given. The .45 acp put a crease in the side and cracked the helmet. Another round put a severe dent in the front of the helment.
Then they shot once with a 9mm. Dead in the middle of the helmet with barely a dent.
The .45 acp was clearly superior...but we are talking ball ammunition, not modern expanding rounds.
And not many of us will have to shoot through a helmet.
40 s&w should be somewhere in between.
Neither round demonstrated would have killed someone wearing the helmet.
ljg
It's funny I never see .357 SIG mentioned in these "caliber comparison" threads. One of my SILs bout a .357 SIG (Glock 32) recently. I shoot lots of 9mm, .40 and .45ACP.
The .357 SIG is HOT! It was accurate and was making Swiss cheese of a 1/8" steel plate. I have no idea what this does in gel or on the street, but casual observations indicates it would be a fight stopper.
I'm generally a fatter/heavy bullet is better type, but the .357 SIG would be one narrow, screaming bullet I would not mind using for defense at all!
The .357 SIG is HOT! It was accurate and was making Swiss cheese of a 1/8" steel plate. I have no idea what this does in gel or on the street, but casual observations indicates it would be a fight stopper.
I'm generally a fatter/heavy bullet is better type, but the .357 SIG would be one narrow, screaming bullet I would not mind using for defense at all!
Look at
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm
The ballistics gel graphs shows that 125 gr .357 Sig @ 1317 fps penetrates less than a 9mm 147 gr @ 1032 fps.
Yes, the .357 is better at barrier penetration, but apparently not as good in human penetration.
Ken
NightSleeper
New member
What's the recoil on a .357Sig? Similar to .40, 9mm? Never fired one before but I have been thinking of trying it out.
It seems sharper than .40. Not as much as a .357 Magnum or 10mm, but probably the sharpest recoil of a pistol among the 9mm - .45ACP group. It seems to have more of a CRACK! to the muzzle blast which is probably due to the supersonic velocity. I shoot mostly heavy bullets in other pistols so they leave the muzzle subsonic.
It is fun change in pace for sure.
Fractionally. Actually it dshows very similar performanbce across most handgun cartridges with premium bullets. Compring the .357 SIG to the 9mm loads the sig has a very small decrease in penetration (still over 12") but noticeably large wound cavity relative to the 9mm.
While it the .357 may not penetrate gel more, it certainly cannot be said the 9mm has any significant better performance either. I would like to see results for 147 gr in .357 SIG.
I've had many 9mm's in the past and I've liked them all. The two most recent 9mm's were two Glock 19's. I had believed all the negative hype about the .40 until I tried one myself in the Glock 23.
Bigger bullets in the same sized gun, only a few less rounds, how can you go wrong? And I don't need to buy the more expensive special +P or +P+ or whatever to make it work, the .40's standard factory loadings are effective enough for me so the advantages were worth it.
I don't think the 9mm's a bad round and I'd pick one up in a minute and use it with confidence if I had to. But when it's my money, I just prefer the more powerful .40s&w.
BTW I am a huge Glock 21 fan also, it's my Master Blaster.
Bigger bullets in the same sized gun, only a few less rounds, how can you go wrong? And I don't need to buy the more expensive special +P or +P+ or whatever to make it work, the .40's standard factory loadings are effective enough for me so the advantages were worth it.
I don't think the 9mm's a bad round and I'd pick one up in a minute and use it with confidence if I had to. But when it's my money, I just prefer the more powerful .40s&w.
BTW I am a huge Glock 21 fan also, it's my Master Blaster.