9mm or .40? Advice please.
- Thread starter hjm
- Start date
Agreed, I also own the CZ 75B in .40 S&W. Of all the .40's I've shot from (Sig, Glock, and Ruger); the CZ is the softest recoiling and most accurate .40. The .40 is actually VERY TAME and a tackdriver when shot out of the CZ 75B.
Ok, back on topic. From Glocks IME, the .40 is much more noticable in terms of recoil (snappy and sharp). If recoil is a problem, your better off with a 9mm Glock. OTOH, if you can handle a .40 Glock (most people can), its a great weapon and offers a slight stopping power edge over 9mm. Try both (9mm and .40) Glocks, and see which one you like better. Its best to test a potential gun buy out yourself rather than relying on strangers to give you advice.
Blue Duck357,
May I suggest you do some research on the Trooper Coates shooting? The chronology and events you describe are not consistent with the actual event.
I do not have the links handy despite doing some research on the incident in the last few months.
In any case, Trooper Coates .357 rounds did not down the subject as none of them penetrated sufficiently in order to strike any vital organs. The subject went to the ground as a result of a physical struggle with Coates. Notably, penetration was inhibited due to the subject weighing in excess of 300 lbs.
May I suggest you do some research on the Trooper Coates shooting? The chronology and events you describe are not consistent with the actual event.
I do not have the links handy despite doing some research on the incident in the last few months.
In any case, Trooper Coates .357 rounds did not down the subject as none of them penetrated sufficiently in order to strike any vital organs. The subject went to the ground as a result of a physical struggle with Coates. Notably, penetration was inhibited due to the subject weighing in excess of 300 lbs.
Blue Duck357
New member
Jager,
My info is just from other posters and may well not be exactly correct (should have researched it before I posted). The point was "cannon" (9mm and up according to Brandon) rounds don't always kill and small rounds like the .22 can be very deadly. I belive the incident is a proper example of this as it involved a person taking 4 hits from a 357 magnum and surviving and a victim being killed with one 22LR bullet.
My info is just from other posters and may well not be exactly correct (should have researched it before I posted). The point was "cannon" (9mm and up according to Brandon) rounds don't always kill and small rounds like the .22 can be very deadly. I belive the incident is a proper example of this as it involved a person taking 4 hits from a 357 magnum and surviving and a victim being killed with one 22LR bullet.
Last edited:
eger precision
New member
Anyway,
Since the man mentioned he was going to get a Glock, here are a couple things to consider as it relates to the Glock specifically.
The Glock was designed to shoot 9mm ammo. Many adjustments have been made to the base gun design to handle the bigger calibers, additional pins to the locking block and frame, stuff like that.
The one adjustment that has bugged me is the redesign, or throating, of the barrel in the 40 cal guns. To keep the edge of the truncated bullet from sticking to the feed ramp, they went in and incresed the angle of the ramp, so the gullet wouldnt hang. Then of course, this lead to the unsupported chamber we all have heard about and the blow ups. Supposedly the ammo makers strengthened the web of the case on the ammo and all was solved, as shooting the cartridge one time would not stress the case enough to blow out.
Then again, we reload and shoot lots of reloads as well, which glock says is a no no. Not going to get into that debate here.
Also, if you look at the barrel hood on the 40 cal Glocks you will see a little shiny spot starting to wear and somewhat bevel where the hood hits the slide. This is accelerating the wear and loose breach will develop faster than with the 9mm guns.
Also, I have seen a few trigger springs break in the 40 and 357 sig guns.
I have also seen 9mm Glocks with over 100k rounds through them and still going strong.
So, I dont think you could go wrong with the model 19.
Just wanted to add a different perspective. Good Luck.
Since the man mentioned he was going to get a Glock, here are a couple things to consider as it relates to the Glock specifically.
The Glock was designed to shoot 9mm ammo. Many adjustments have been made to the base gun design to handle the bigger calibers, additional pins to the locking block and frame, stuff like that.
The one adjustment that has bugged me is the redesign, or throating, of the barrel in the 40 cal guns. To keep the edge of the truncated bullet from sticking to the feed ramp, they went in and incresed the angle of the ramp, so the gullet wouldnt hang. Then of course, this lead to the unsupported chamber we all have heard about and the blow ups. Supposedly the ammo makers strengthened the web of the case on the ammo and all was solved, as shooting the cartridge one time would not stress the case enough to blow out.
Then again, we reload and shoot lots of reloads as well, which glock says is a no no. Not going to get into that debate here.
Also, if you look at the barrel hood on the 40 cal Glocks you will see a little shiny spot starting to wear and somewhat bevel where the hood hits the slide. This is accelerating the wear and loose breach will develop faster than with the 9mm guns.
Also, I have seen a few trigger springs break in the 40 and 357 sig guns.
I have also seen 9mm Glocks with over 100k rounds through them and still going strong.
So, I dont think you could go wrong with the model 19.
Just wanted to add a different perspective. Good Luck.
Kevin,
Your "different perspective" is right on as far as I'm concerned. It seems that all .40s were originally designed for 9mm, then modified to handle a slightly larger bullet, significantly greater mass, and higher pressures. Elegant machine designs seldom scale up well because the physical forces involved exponentially instead of linearly. If somebody put out a .40 designed from the start as a .40, I'd be interested, but a "bored, stroked, high pressure" 9mm design shooting .40 almost certainly is compromised in important ways.
Your "different perspective" is right on as far as I'm concerned. It seems that all .40s were originally designed for 9mm, then modified to handle a slightly larger bullet, significantly greater mass, and higher pressures. Elegant machine designs seldom scale up well because the physical forces involved exponentially instead of linearly. If somebody put out a .40 designed from the start as a .40, I'd be interested, but a "bored, stroked, high pressure" 9mm design shooting .40 almost certainly is compromised in important ways.
brandon_h3
Moderator
50 yard personal defense shot
There is a line between "stop" and "kill". The question was asked in my CC class if you were supposed to shoot until the guy was dead, and someone answered "Yes" and was then given a 20 minute personal lesson on what CC is. He was almost refused his CC permit for that anser. Yes, if you shoot someone with a small caliber firearm you can easily kill them in one shot. However, since it is not your job to take a life, you are able to have a better chance of not killing this individual. I see a bunch of you have the wrong idea. You don't have a license to kill. Better lose that attitude or you'll spend a few years in jail. 50 yards is beyond the threat range, so I do advise you don't shoot at someone 50 yards away, or you'll spend many nights with "Bubba." I don't really care if you agree with the fact that you're responsible for the damage your bullet does, but simply stated, you are! You pull that trigger and shoot that innocent pedestrian......you are now a murderer and will be treated as one. Hope some of you change your ideas about what carrying a concealed weapon is all about, or an armed society will inevitably become a dangerous society.
You don't have to agree with the "caliber" part of my argument, or any part of my argument for that matter, but I love discussions like this. This is a free country and lets use all of our constitutional rights, including free speech! I encourage everyone to respond, get your opinions out there, it's what being an American is all about!
There is a line between "stop" and "kill". The question was asked in my CC class if you were supposed to shoot until the guy was dead, and someone answered "Yes" and was then given a 20 minute personal lesson on what CC is. He was almost refused his CC permit for that anser. Yes, if you shoot someone with a small caliber firearm you can easily kill them in one shot. However, since it is not your job to take a life, you are able to have a better chance of not killing this individual. I see a bunch of you have the wrong idea. You don't have a license to kill. Better lose that attitude or you'll spend a few years in jail. 50 yards is beyond the threat range, so I do advise you don't shoot at someone 50 yards away, or you'll spend many nights with "Bubba." I don't really care if you agree with the fact that you're responsible for the damage your bullet does, but simply stated, you are! You pull that trigger and shoot that innocent pedestrian......you are now a murderer and will be treated as one. Hope some of you change your ideas about what carrying a concealed weapon is all about, or an armed society will inevitably become a dangerous society.
You don't have to agree with the "caliber" part of my argument, or any part of my argument for that matter, but I love discussions like this. This is a free country and lets use all of our constitutional rights, including free speech! I encourage everyone to respond, get your opinions out there, it's what being an American is all about!
Shake,
"Except for, of course, the very fine H&K USP! "
If the H&K USP .40 was designed from the git go as a .40, there would be very little parts commonality with its 9mm sibling, and it would be a very fine shooting pistol! Do you know for a fact that it's an original .40 design and not a reworked 9mm?
"Except for, of course, the very fine H&K USP! "
If the H&K USP .40 was designed from the git go as a .40, there would be very little parts commonality with its 9mm sibling, and it would be a very fine shooting pistol! Do you know for a fact that it's an original .40 design and not a reworked 9mm?
brandon_h3
Honestly, if a shooting is justified, the caliber used will be the last thing on anyone's mind. Many justified shootings will never make it into a courtroom. If you mind your Ps and Qs, your choice of caliber shouldn't be an issue.
Shake
Glad I didn't have to pass a "quiz" to get my permit. What state do you live in?
You'll have to clarify this statement. Are you advocating using weaker calibers so that criminals aren't killed?
I haven't seen anyone in this thread insinuate that they believe the permit gives them a license to kill. I have seen people state that if lethal force is justified, and you have practiced with your firearm, and chosen an appropriate caliber for personal defense, there is a real chance that the criminal is going to buy the farm.
Has anyone said it isn't beyond the threat range? I haven't seen anyone advocating shooting anything other than a target at that range.
I don't see anything so far that needs to be changed as far as "ideas". Can you tell us what needs to be changed?
With this mentality, maybe you should consider carrying a BB pistol?
Honestly, if a shooting is justified, the caliber used will be the last thing on anyone's mind. Many justified shootings will never make it into a courtroom. If you mind your Ps and Qs, your choice of caliber shouldn't be an issue.
Shake
Brandon,
Your comments on attitudes are right on the money. Every shot fired at a person has to be justified, and even then the shooter is liable for any damages caused. Even for LEOs, pulling the trigger is the last resort. If somebody is threatening you from 50 yards away, you DO have several more attractive alternatives than firing.
If any of the Rambos who say their intent would be to kill should end up doing just that, they can be guaranteed that their posts here, their statements to others, etc., to that effect would confront them at their trials.
Your comments on attitudes are right on the money. Every shot fired at a person has to be justified, and even then the shooter is liable for any damages caused. Even for LEOs, pulling the trigger is the last resort. If somebody is threatening you from 50 yards away, you DO have several more attractive alternatives than firing.
If any of the Rambos who say their intent would be to kill should end up doing just that, they can be guaranteed that their posts here, their statements to others, etc., to that effect would confront them at their trials.
First, the original USP was the .40. The 9mm is similar because it is a scaled down pistol, rather than the .40 scaled up. So they have common parts, but for a good reason. The USP is one of the few accurate .40's as well.
I'm not quite getting the small caliber thing. A firearm is a tool that gives lethal force to anyone who has one, regardless of size or strength-that is the reason you carry one, so no person of any size or armament has you at a disadvantage. When someone attacks you they are throwing away their life by breaking the social contract. The bullet that quickly stops your attacker before he harms you is also likely to be the bullet that kills.
I on occasion carry a .22 auto instead of a 9mm. If a powerful attacker is after me I am much more likely to empty that gun than the one or two good shots I would have fired from the 9mm to stop him. The smaller caliber therefore INCREASES my chance of harming bystanders with all the extra shots.
In terms of bullet design, hollowpoints have the least chance of overpenetration. But slow, small bullets like .32 and .380 are less likely to mushroom and behave like hollowpoints, so their penetration is going to be about the same or MORE than the 9mm. Again the bystander issue.
I don't care about anyone who is immoral and foolish enough to hurt human beings for personal gain. Increasing the risk of injury to myself or bystanders with the Little Caliber plan to maim a sociopath instead of killing him is either foolish, or I didn't understand the benefits of the argument.
Stopping = killing. If the former happens without the latter, so be it, but any other plan is a fine line to dance upon.
I'm not quite getting the small caliber thing. A firearm is a tool that gives lethal force to anyone who has one, regardless of size or strength-that is the reason you carry one, so no person of any size or armament has you at a disadvantage. When someone attacks you they are throwing away their life by breaking the social contract. The bullet that quickly stops your attacker before he harms you is also likely to be the bullet that kills.
I on occasion carry a .22 auto instead of a 9mm. If a powerful attacker is after me I am much more likely to empty that gun than the one or two good shots I would have fired from the 9mm to stop him. The smaller caliber therefore INCREASES my chance of harming bystanders with all the extra shots.
In terms of bullet design, hollowpoints have the least chance of overpenetration. But slow, small bullets like .32 and .380 are less likely to mushroom and behave like hollowpoints, so their penetration is going to be about the same or MORE than the 9mm. Again the bystander issue.
I don't care about anyone who is immoral and foolish enough to hurt human beings for personal gain. Increasing the risk of injury to myself or bystanders with the Little Caliber plan to maim a sociopath instead of killing him is either foolish, or I didn't understand the benefits of the argument.
Stopping = killing. If the former happens without the latter, so be it, but any other plan is a fine line to dance upon.
Hey Blackhawk,
Yes, the USP was designed .40 first you can read about it here.
They did it right too in my opinion. My H&K USP .40 is my most accurate handgun (in my hands).
I prefer buying handguns in the caliber they were designed for. some handguns just "belong" in certain calibers (BHP, GLOCK, 1911, Beretta, etc.).
Shake
Yes, the USP was designed .40 first you can read about it here.
They did it right too in my opinion. My H&K USP .40 is my most accurate handgun (in my hands).
I prefer buying handguns in the caliber they were designed for. some handguns just "belong" in certain calibers (BHP, GLOCK, 1911, Beretta, etc.).
Shake
I concur with Shake, the original design usually works better than the re-engineered model. I feel that way about .40 bullets in general; making a 10mm with the short overall length of a 9mm was a poor idea.
Looking back over Brandon's comments, I wonder why he carries a gun rather than a taser, bean bag launcher or mace. If carry size wasn't an issue I'd rather have a taser than a .22.
Looking back over Brandon's comments, I wonder why he carries a gun rather than a taser, bean bag launcher or mace. If carry size wasn't an issue I'd rather have a taser than a .22.
Handy,
Less than a .32 might just enrage an attacker. With adrenaline, an attacker DOESN'T feel any pain. I saw a training tape of an actual holdup where the 62 year old shopkeeper was shot in the chest point blank with a .45, and yet he still grabbed a baseball bat and began a swing before collapsing since there just wasn't any blood going to his brain.
Police shootings with 9mm bullets don't really count in the stopping-an-attacker scenario. How many perps are really trying to mug LEOs or otherwise inflict harm on them as their first intent? Usually, they're trying to get away or avoid capture, both of which are likely to put their adrenal glands into overdrive.
In the personal defense arena, you're trying to get the perps to reconsider attacking you, even if it takes fatal persuasion. In other words, they need to KNOW they've been shot or are being shot at so their own instincts tell them "Whoa!"
When Hinckley shot President Reagan, he didn't even know he'd been shot until later! Unless a bullet delivers a few hundred foot pounds of energy absorbed into the body, the perp may not even know he's been shot!
If after stopping a 9mm bullet, the perp keeps coming, give him another one. The key to stopping somebody is a triple digit energy delivery that's well placed. A .22 can't do that due to lack of energy, and large calibers are overkill on energy and harder to place optimally for some people.
The choice of a CCW boils down to whether you can always hit a 10" diameter target from 10' away on the surprise draw. If you simply can't do that with your cannon of choice, it might be time to choose another one. Slow, careful aiming is a luxury that you just won't have in a "situation" so driving tacks at 50' with aimed shots is irrelevant. So is 9mm versus .40. The weapon and you constitute a defense system that's no better than its weakest link.
Less than a .32 might just enrage an attacker. With adrenaline, an attacker DOESN'T feel any pain. I saw a training tape of an actual holdup where the 62 year old shopkeeper was shot in the chest point blank with a .45, and yet he still grabbed a baseball bat and began a swing before collapsing since there just wasn't any blood going to his brain.
Police shootings with 9mm bullets don't really count in the stopping-an-attacker scenario. How many perps are really trying to mug LEOs or otherwise inflict harm on them as their first intent? Usually, they're trying to get away or avoid capture, both of which are likely to put their adrenal glands into overdrive.
In the personal defense arena, you're trying to get the perps to reconsider attacking you, even if it takes fatal persuasion. In other words, they need to KNOW they've been shot or are being shot at so their own instincts tell them "Whoa!"
When Hinckley shot President Reagan, he didn't even know he'd been shot until later! Unless a bullet delivers a few hundred foot pounds of energy absorbed into the body, the perp may not even know he's been shot!
If after stopping a 9mm bullet, the perp keeps coming, give him another one. The key to stopping somebody is a triple digit energy delivery that's well placed. A .22 can't do that due to lack of energy, and large calibers are overkill on energy and harder to place optimally for some people.
The choice of a CCW boils down to whether you can always hit a 10" diameter target from 10' away on the surprise draw. If you simply can't do that with your cannon of choice, it might be time to choose another one. Slow, careful aiming is a luxury that you just won't have in a "situation" so driving tacks at 50' with aimed shots is irrelevant. So is 9mm versus .40. The weapon and you constitute a defense system that's no better than its weakest link.
Blackhawk,
What are you responding to in my post? I'm a proponent of bigger calibers, as you apparently are too.
If you're addressing me because I admit to sometimes forgoing a 9mm for a .22, I can understand that, but the little .22 is better than the F word.
If you're making a big distinction between a .22 and a .32, I would direct you to your 10" at 10' criteria as most .32's have horrendous DAO triggers and it's a fairly useless caliber anyway. At least .22 is so cheap to shoot that I'm very good with my little auto.
So what exactly were you clarifying for me?
What are you responding to in my post? I'm a proponent of bigger calibers, as you apparently are too.
If you're addressing me because I admit to sometimes forgoing a 9mm for a .22, I can understand that, but the little .22 is better than the F word.
If you're making a big distinction between a .22 and a .32, I would direct you to your 10" at 10' criteria as most .32's have horrendous DAO triggers and it's a fairly useless caliber anyway. At least .22 is so cheap to shoot that I'm very good with my little auto.
So what exactly were you clarifying for me?
I think Handy may have put it in better words than I did.
This arguing over shoot to kill or shoot to stop is really just a play on words. No one is going to go into a court room, get on the witness stand and say that their intent was to kill the attacker regardless of how many bullets it took. They will say (hopefully truthfully) that their intent was to stop the threat. How do you stop the threat? By placing shots to center of mass until the threat is neutralized. If you place your shots to center of mass, you are most likely going to kill the person (unless you are using a mousegun with the intent of only wounding). As Handy said, the placement of a bullet that stops quickly generally kills. Any number of expert witnesses would be willing to testify that in a lethal force encounter the way to stop the attacker is to shoot to center of mass. The likely outcome of center of mass hits (with an appropriate personal defense cartridge) is death.
In my opinion, using a smaller caliber may serve to minimize the threat (i.e. if you really feared for your life, why did you not use a caliber of sufficient size to quickly stop the attacker?).
As I said before, if you are careful, use your head, avoid confrontation at all costs, and ONLY use your weapon when you are clearly in danger of death or serious bodily injury, odds are you will not be having this discussion in court. Sure there are grey areas, but for the most part those can be avoided.
This arguing over shoot to kill or shoot to stop is really just a play on words. No one is going to go into a court room, get on the witness stand and say that their intent was to kill the attacker regardless of how many bullets it took. They will say (hopefully truthfully) that their intent was to stop the threat. How do you stop the threat? By placing shots to center of mass until the threat is neutralized. If you place your shots to center of mass, you are most likely going to kill the person (unless you are using a mousegun with the intent of only wounding). As Handy said, the placement of a bullet that stops quickly generally kills. Any number of expert witnesses would be willing to testify that in a lethal force encounter the way to stop the attacker is to shoot to center of mass. The likely outcome of center of mass hits (with an appropriate personal defense cartridge) is death.
In my opinion, using a smaller caliber may serve to minimize the threat (i.e. if you really feared for your life, why did you not use a caliber of sufficient size to quickly stop the attacker?).
As I said before, if you are careful, use your head, avoid confrontation at all costs, and ONLY use your weapon when you are clearly in danger of death or serious bodily injury, odds are you will not be having this discussion in court. Sure there are grey areas, but for the most part those can be avoided.
Norman Bates
New member
I would not consider a GLOCK in .40
I love the .40S&W but i've read that most kB in Glock pistols happen in that cal. Of course there's nothing to be afraid but... I rather use an USP than a Glock.
A 9mm combat tupperware is fine in my book. I do own a G17
NB
I love the .40S&W but i've read that most kB in Glock pistols happen in that cal. Of course there's nothing to be afraid but... I rather use an USP than a Glock.
A 9mm combat tupperware is fine in my book. I do own a G17
NB
Blackhawk,
Hate to say it, but I'm not sure what that language is!
I've been extremely pleased with my H&Ks. I'm contemplating a third. I usually buy my guns in 9mm or .45, but my H&K full sized .40 is one I won't part with (it is the only .40 I own). It is just to accurate and too fun to shoot.
As a side note, the USP I'm considering is the 9mm. If the H&K .40 is tough and was designed for the .40, think how tough the 9mms are that were built on the .40 platform. The ones I've fired in 9mm have been very soft shooters.
Shake
Hate to say it, but I'm not sure what that language is!
I've been extremely pleased with my H&Ks. I'm contemplating a third. I usually buy my guns in 9mm or .45, but my H&K full sized .40 is one I won't part with (it is the only .40 I own). It is just to accurate and too fun to shoot.
As a side note, the USP I'm considering is the 9mm. If the H&K .40 is tough and was designed for the .40, think how tough the 9mms are that were built on the .40 platform. The ones I've fired in 9mm have been very soft shooters.
Shake