9mm or .40? Advice please.

H

hjm

New member
I have decided to get a Glock G19 or a G23. I now need some advice on whether to get the 9mm or the .40. Anyone have any sound advice about the price of ammo, the recoil, the accuracy of the caliber? I can’t decide which one to get. I intend to use it for CCW, target shooting, and home defense.

Thanks for any responses.

HJM
 
Honostly, as much as a lot of people hate the 9mm when it comes to the .40S&W, it is a great round, especially for home defense because it has less recoil than the .40, and when you use Hydra-Shock 148grain Federal ammo, stopping power is not something to worry about.

I buy a box of a 100 rounds of 9mm from walmart for just $10.97! That is very economical if you ask me.

I like both, more of a personal matter....whatever you are more comfortable with. Just keep in mind that 9mm is definatly cheaper, and that the .40 was designed for hollow point use. I've seen better accuracy off of the 9mm normally.

Either way you can't go wrong, both the glock 19 and 23 are fabulous for what you want.
 
Um, you mean 147gr Fed. HS, right? :)

Both are good defensive firearms.
I have a G19, and I have experience with the G23. In my opinion, the recoil of the .40S&W is "snappy", quite a bit sharper, but that's about it.

If you plan to visit the range a lot, the 9mm would have the advantage of cheap target ammunition.
Both caliber are potent stoppers with the right load, but I would say the .40S&W has the edge.

Go with either, good luck.
 
.40, Of Course!

Our local Sheriff's dept. switched from 9m(ickey) m(ouse) to .40 because of failure-to-stop despite multiple hits. Local City Police still use 9s, but again have been problems with multiple hit FTSes.

Yes, 9mm is less expensive to shoot, but what's your life worth?

Personally, I hump a .45.


Yr. Obt. Svnt.
 
hjm,

Two of the pistols I own are CZ 75Bs: one in 9mm and the other in .40 caliber. Both are very accurate with a slight edge to the .40. Cost of ammo is no real concern, since I reload both anyway. As to recoil, the CZ 75B in .40 handles the recoil very well, so I have not found that to be an issue. My advice would to go with what feels right to you.

--
Mike
 
I would research kaBooms here and on Glocktalk before I made a decision.

The 9mm, due to it's shape, is a bit more feed reliable, but the 23 doesn't jam much.

9mm Glocks are more accurate than .40 versions.

Are you underarmed with 16 rounds of +P 9mm vs. 14 of .40?
 
Anyone have any sound advice about the price of ammo, the recoil, the accuracy of the caliber?
Click to expand...

Let's take these in order.

Price of ammo: 9mm is about 50% cheaper than .40 S&W, both for practice and defensive ammo.

Recoil: .40 S&W snaps off quite a bit more sharply, though with the Glocks and their lower bore axis this is lessened somewhat.

Accuracy: In my experience, the 9mm is more accurate than the .40 S&W. Not a wide margin, but noticeable.

IMO, shot placement counts more than "stopping power". The fact that some police and sheriff departments have problems putting down BG's with 9mm's is more a function of the inability of the officers to put their rounds on target than the power of the cartridges involved. This is where cost of ammo and accuracy come into play. More practice with your sidearm will result in improved accuracy, and more practice can be had for the same money with the 9mm over the .40 S&W.

I own a G19, and I stoke it with 124-gr +P Speer Gold Dots. I don't feel "undergunned" in the least. Neither should you.
 
I would recommend you shoot a couple hundred rounds of each caliber through the guns you have in mind and buy the one you shoot best. Then purchase the best ammo for that caliber. ;)
 
I recently sold my 23 and bought a 19, but this was just due to the fact that the third generations finger grooves on the 23 did not fit me well and the second generation 19 was what was available at a decent price at the time.

In my view both are good calibers but for defensive usage the 40's more powerfull and still controllable with practice, thus better. If you buy your ammo at wally world you will save almost half by using the nine, if you order online from someplace like natchez thier is not much price difference.

The way I look at it, if I could only have one defensive handgun it would be a Glock 40. Since I'm not limited to that I'll keep the 19 for cheap practice and work on getting my gal into shooting (the 23 was way too much for her, the 19 doesn't intimidate her nearly as much). When a good deal on a G-22 comes along I'll pick it up as my main handgun, but till then I don't exactly feel unarmed ;)
 
Like both, suggest you try both at the range & base your decision on which YOU shoot better.

Recoil is sharper in the .40, but it also depends on what load your using. I prefer the 180gr. weight, which exibits less muzzle blast & flip, and has more of a push recoil when compared to the 155/165gr. full pwr. loads.

9mm is more load selection dependent, but w/ the advancement of ammo technology, some excellent loads do exist. Some loads I use in my 19: 124 +P GD, 124 +P GS / 147 GS, 124 +P+ HS (LEO), also looking forward to trying ProLoads new 140gr. +P GD. If you can obtain some the 127gr. +P+ Ranger Talon (LEO) are also excellent.

Best, JNB01!
 
Both are fine weapons and both pretty much will have the same feel to them. There might be minor differences in weight when fully loaded, but thats' about it.

I personally can't reccomend a .40 for someone not familiar with shooting that caliber. You would best be served by a softer shooting 9mm. Buying ammo will be a lot cheaper so you can afford to practice more. You also have a wide selection of premium ammo to choose from for defense. The Corbon 115gr +P JHP is an excellent choice.

Good Shooting
RED
 
The only .40 caliber handgun I have right now is a 10mm. I don't care for the .40S&W because the caliber doesn't offer me any advantage over anything I already have. It's not a bad round. I prefer 9mm to .40S&W because it's cheaper.
 
I'm going to quote myself from a discussion of 9mm Kahr vs .40 Kahr

I have a thought on the recoil of .40S&W.

Had I read all the talk I've read in these forums about how nasty the recoil of the .40S&W cartridge is I would never have bought one.

I had the "pleasure" of being completely surprised by the recoil the first time I fired my Steyr M40...but you know what...it's still significantly less then what one would think it would be if they read the comments in this forum.

Yes, the recoil is harsher then a 9mm, but frankly it's not worse then .45acp...it is different but not worse (the .40 is a very fast recoil whereas the .45 feels more like it's pushing).

Additionally, had I read all the discussion of the "nasty" recoil of the .40 after I bought my Steyr but before I fired it, I imagine I would have had a serious case of flinch from the very beginning.

Yes, the .40 will have more recoil and muzzle flip then a 9mm, but it's not like you're firing a .50BMG out of a handgun or anything. It's quite manageable in my Steyr and I image it is in the Kahr too.

Don't psych yourself out...if possible fire one (and keep an open mind and try not to flinch ;) )

Remember that felt recoil is primarily in your head...not your hand.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps you might also consider the SIG P229 in .40S&W.

With that handgun, you can also purchase a 9MM conversion barrel and have both!

After all, isn't 2 better than 1?

Wm.
 
Do you like chocolate or vanilla? As it was simply put by someone, "I can do more with less". I had a G22 and just didn't care for the 40 round, the snappiness of the recoil wasn't for me. My G19 is a different story. This is one great package.
 
9mm bullets at .335
40SW bullets are .401 in diameter

Basically same size hole but more energy with 40.

cheaper to shoot 9mm.

People get more pleasure out of 9mm due to lighter recoil and faster followups too.

Have both but prefer shooting 9mm most of the time.
 
What a joke......

I love these discussions. I read several responses from people who know someone who knows someone who knows someone who heard that someone uses this gun for concealed carry, so that uses this gun, so that's what they tell people to use. Many have no personal experience using the caliber, and no real facts to back their "beliefs". 9mm is a small cannon, and .40 is a bigger cannon, both will kill. If you remember in your CC class, it was stated that it is your job to "stop the threat", not kill the guy with the least amount of shots possible. Who cares about shot group sizes at 50 yards???? It was also stated that it is your job to avoid conflict, and if your threat is 50 yards away, chances are he isn't a direct threat to your life, unless he is sporting a nice firearm himself. That being the case, accuracy is more important than gun size. Some god-awful percentage of conflicts occur within 20 feet, so why bother with the expense and risk of a larger gun that chances are you would never wreak the benefits from? You will spend many days and nights with "Bubba" in that jail cell after you explain to the jury that the reason you bought a hand-held cannon was so you could kill your attacker as fast as possible. I personally would like to have the choice as to whether I want to end this guy's life, or just stop the attack. Although one may not happen without the other, I perfer to make that choice myself. It will sound good in court if you can tell the jury, "I carry a small firearm in order to minimize the chance that I kill the attacker. My job is to stop him, not kill him." It will make you sound educated and not like a murderous, gun-toting terrorist and will greatly increase the chances of you enjoying a home cooked meal that night. Of course the cops will want to carry larger caliber guns, they look for the bad guys and deal with them daily. Also remember......you are responsible for that bullet and the damage it does. If you miss and hit a bystander and you have a small firearm, chances are this person won't be killed. If you sport a .45 and miss, chances are if someone is hit they have a much greater chance of being killed, and you would then be responsible for taking an innocent victim's life. Big bullets from big guns just love to penetrate walls and tend to find sleeping victims in their beds. I am certainly pro-gun and pro-self defense, but I am also someone who doesn't get enjoyment from killing someone in an act that wasn't necessary. The bigger the gun, the smaller the line between "stop the attack" and "kill the guy dead as a doorknob." If the attacker continues, then another shot or two will end his life. My point is.........bigger isn't always better. Either one of those guns is plenty. If you want one shot stops every time I recommend a SAR1, SAR2, FAL, Mauser, Mosin Nagant, etc etc. They have huge "one shot stop" percentages. A little hard to conceal, but a trench coat isn't that expensive............;) BTW.....I do carry concealed everywhere I go. I believe that if I can save just one life, then my CC permit has paid off 100 times over. Don't live your life scared, or you're letting the terrorists win!!! Live your life aware and armed! :cool:
 
We'll, Brandon I do agree with the signature of your post, but thats about it ;)

Lethality and "stopping power" are different things entirely. the 22LR is one of the most lethal rounds available due to it's propensity to wander around the body after entering the target. Yet it's a very poor stopper. 22LR and other small calibers have usually been the choice of assasins and there is a reason for it. You could even make a case that more powerfull rounds are LESS lethal because an attack can be stopped with one or two shots as opposed to having to shoot someone multiple times to end the confrontation.

Good example is the Trooper Coates(sp?) incident discussed recently on this board. Trooper shoots bad guy with 357 magnum drops him on the spot. He then unfortunatly stands over subject to radio for help. Subject recovers to some extent and shoots the officer with a freedom arms 22LR. The bullet goes through the arm hole in the bullet proof vest and nicks a major artery. The officer finds cover returns fire radios again for help. 10 minutes later the POS is in the hospital (he survives) Officer has bled to death.

I respect the fact that your thinking outside the box, but still belive you might want to reconsider your approach a bit.
 
It will sound good in court if you can tell the jury, "I carry a small firearm in order to minimize the chance that I kill the attacker. My job is to stop him, not kill him."
Click to expand...

If an individual is enough of a threat that I have to use deadly force against such individual, I will do so with the intent of killing that person. If you shoot an individual center mass or in any other vital organ you are doing just that...shooting to kill. There can be no other way to explain it. If you shoot someone in a non vital area then you risk additional confrontation. If you shoot someone with an ineffective caliber you also run the risk of having the BG continue his actions towards you. I would rather shoot once or twice and be done with it. You have to also deal with the psychological trauma involved with shooting someone with an ineffective caliber and not having them stop and having to shoot over and over. A nightmare come true.

Who cares about shot group sizes at 50 yards????
Click to expand...

I do. A small group at 50 yards means an even smaller group at close range. You also have to factor in the stress involved in a confrontation. You may jerk the trigger or shake badly, both affecting where your shot will land. That combined with a weapon that displays poor accuracy may lead to a miss. Another reason..Pride. Pride builds confidence. If I know I can deliver Center Mass hits as 50 yards, then I know I can do so with confidence at shorter ranges.

A short scenario...someone takes my wife or child hostage in my home or away from home with a knife. I see that they are willing and are starting to kill my loved one. Can I make the headshot that I need to make to incapacitate the individual or am I worried about the mediocre accuracy of my weapon and accidently hit my family member? I know I can make the shot.

I personally would like to have the choice as to whether I want to end this guy's life, or just stop the attack.
Click to expand...

A dead witness is the best witness. He can't get a lawyer to sue you for injuring him. He can't press charges against you for shooting him. He cannot lie to contradict your story. In a deadly force situation where you must use a weapon there can be no remorse, no decisions to be made to spare or take a life. Use the largest most effective caliber possible as well as the most reliable and accurate pistol you can use and you won't go wrong. We have heard time and time again...never point the muzzle of a weapon at something you aren't willing to kill. You have to be prepared to do just that. It's a simple matter of survival.


Good Shooting
RED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top