JesseGDeluca
New member
Just ordered a Glock 22, Gen 3 with OD frame. I am not a big user of .40 S&W, so I have a question on best self defense ammo. Which do you guys prefer...180 grain or 155-165 grain?
I always considered. For 9mm, 115g to be light, 124g medium, and 147g to be heavy.I've been happy with 165. I feel like they offer the right balance of mass and velocity for .40 S&W.
Regarding the above post, I don't know where the idea of notorious under-penetration got started. This is actually the first I've heard that. I've never shot a person but from everything I've heard, they work just fine. Shooting varmints and "fun" targets like water jugs, fruit, etc.; they're fine. During tests on complex "meat targets" designed to simulate bad guys, they are fine. In the Lucky Gunner tests on specific ammo linked below, they are fine.
I sometimes encounter a largely superstitious idea that using "heavy for caliber" ammo is always better. That's not necessarily true. In general, I've had good experiences with mid-weight ammo such as 115-124 in 9mm, 125 in .357 Sig and .357 magnum, and 165 in .40 S&W.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#40SW
Shadow9mm said:But that's just me. Lots of people use different stuff. You will probably get a million and 1 answers.
Even if they malfunction in the firearm of your choice?Because it is the best round (measured by penetration and expansion and no need for massive velocity to perform) AND because of price, HST or Gold Dot should always be the answer.
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammunition/federal/handgun/default.aspx
Pretty much.My free advice:
165 grainers for 40 S&W.
Save the 180s for 10mm Auto.
This is what I do, for all the pennies that is worth.My free advice:
165 grainers for 40 S&W.
Save the 180s for 10mm Auto.
And of course, free advice is worth every penny you paid.