Im new to the pistol world and chose the ruger sr40c for my carry gun, i chose the 40 because i wanted a bigger hole and more punch than the 9mm and is still semi cheap to shoot. Not a fan of the tried and true .45acp, while it works and people love it. Its just pricey and kind of a -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- imo, yes it big but its slow. Now i have a hi point 995 carbine in 9mm love the gun and ammo is cheap, but even out of the longer barrel carbine the 9mm is weak. At 20 yards with the sr40c and its 3.5in barrel the bullets rock my steel targets as every bit as hard as the 9mm does out of my carbine at the same distance. So to me there is a huge power difference, but like others have said shoot what your accurate with. A powerfull round is useless if you cant hit the mark. Btw even though im new to the pistol world, im not new to gins and have far to many to list in many different calibers. I also for one would not feel out gunned if i had a .22lr if i knew i could hit the mark!
9mm or 40cal
- Thread starter Frankie1449
- Start date
- Status
bedbugbilly
New member
It's all about shot placement . . .
A 9mm in central mass is better than a 40 grazing an arm or hitting the wall next to the perp . . . .
That's why it is important to practice, practice and then practice some more with your SD handgun.
A 9mm in central mass is better than a 40 grazing an arm or hitting the wall next to the perp . . . .
That's why it is important to practice, practice and then practice some more with your SD handgun.
stephen426
New member
I have guns in a bunch of different calibers, but I carry a Kahr PM9 in 9mm. The .40 S&W is a bit snappy in such a small package. I have a Glock 26 and I shot the Glock 27. The 27 was a bit too snappy for a 2 finger grip in my opinion so that is why I went with the 9mm Glock 26. I haven't tried the PM40, but I imagine it would be like the Glock 27, but slimmer.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
I carry an XDs in .45 acp, my wife carries a Taurus PT 111 G2 in 9mm. I have other .45acp and 9mm pistols and honestly I don't feel under gunned with any of them.
I am sure this will be controversial but I have simply never seen a reason to own a .40 caliber handgun of any type. I always looked at it as an answer to a question that never needed to be asked in the first place.
I am sure this will be controversial but I have simply never seen a reason to own a .40 caliber handgun of any type. I always looked at it as an answer to a question that never needed to be asked in the first place.
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
9x19
Lot's of opinions about the "best" round for personal defense. Mine is that to often that requirement gets blurred with what might be best for combat. In combat you facing a foe who knows he might get shot and comes at you anyway and may be very willing to keep coming at you even after getting shot multiple times. So, one looks for a weapon that delivers the most traumatic impact to the opponent.
In a personal defense situation your more likely to encounter a person that's looking for an easy opportunity to take advantage of a situation where his opponent is weak and at a disadvantage. In that scenario, most will retreat simply at the site of an armed opponent and if shots are fired will not advance after being hit. So, the power of the weapon in use is much less important than your ability to bring the weapon into action.
In a personal defense situation your more likely to encounter a person that's looking for an easy opportunity to take advantage of a situation where his opponent is weak and at a disadvantage. In that scenario, most will retreat simply at the site of an armed opponent and if shots are fired will not advance after being hit. So, the power of the weapon in use is much less important than your ability to bring the weapon into action.
scoobysnacker
New member
I would say 9mm in a big pistol, like a CZ 75 or something similar (Beretta 92, Sig P226). Less recoil, and the larger gun will suppress that recoil even more. You will have 15 rd available minimum, unless you live in a state that prevents more than 10.
We're talking pistol calibers, and modern cartridges. The old tale of swapping to .45 because drug-crazed islanders were walking through lesser rounds, that doesn't apply to what you get nowadays.
A hit (or several) from a 9mm will stop someone just as well as a .45. Shooting someone with a .40, .44, .45 or 10mm will not make them explode into sparks, they are not phasers set to disintegrate.
We're talking pistol calibers, and modern cartridges. The old tale of swapping to .45 because drug-crazed islanders were walking through lesser rounds, that doesn't apply to what you get nowadays.
A hit (or several) from a 9mm will stop someone just as well as a .45. Shooting someone with a .40, .44, .45 or 10mm will not make them explode into sparks, they are not phasers set to disintegrate.
Tucker 1371
New member
^ This!
And that there is, IMO, a significant difference in 9mm FMJ and a 9mm HST or Gold Dot. Modern defensive 9mm bullets will expand to somewhere in the neighborhood of .6" to .7" and dump more of their energy in the target than military ball ammo.
lee n. field
New member
Adequate "shot placement" accuracy should not be difficult with either.
You answered your own questions with that short and pointed sentence.
The fact that handgun calibers are unreliable one-shot stops means that the speed and accuracy of follow up shots can be critically important. If the .40 is bothering you, it is likely that your subsequent shots are affected. Some people say they are just as quick with .40 as with 9 mm, but I'm not one of them, and if you aren't either then your choice is clear.
ninjarealist
New member
Personally, I think the terminal ballistics of 9mm and .40 are both more than adequate.
I'm torn between which round I prefer because I can shoot 9mm more accurately but in my experience .40 has been the more reliable cartridge in terms of failure rates.
I'm torn between which round I prefer because I can shoot 9mm more accurately but in my experience .40 has been the more reliable cartridge in terms of failure rates.
Tucker 1371
New member
What 9mm are you shooting?
Limnophile
New member
I remember when MO was called the show-me state. Even today there are Missourians who haven't abandoned empiricism.
When the FBI chose the 10 Auto in the late '80s they had good reason to do so based on terminal ballistics performance of the round. Not long after they switched to .40 S&W for good reasons, as the grip on 10 Auto pistols was uncomfortably large for some agents, and the 10 Auto recoll was more than most agents could handle.
Two years ago the FBI had good reasons for selecting the 9 Luger, and unlike drive-by detractors, they documented the reasons in the memo I previously cited:
- Due to advances in bullet design and construction, JHPs in 9 Luger are now available that provide excellent terminal ballistics performance (adequate penetration and reliable expansion), which was not the case in the late '80s.
- Greater magazine capacity, which is important because the LEO hit rate in gunfights averages only about 25%.
- Less recoil, which translates into faster and more accurate shooting on average.
- Lower cost of ammunition.
- Less wear on the weapons.
- Greater observed reliability rates.
That said, bigger bullets, all else being equal, do make bigger holes. However, a master with a .40 S&W is virtually certain to be even better with a comparable 9 Luger.
Cosmodragoon
New member
I've heard this a few times with respect to .40 S&W. I know that guns can take extra wear from particularly hot or "+p" ammo but is there good reason to believe that .40 is just particularly rough on firearms? Is it because so many guns in .40 were originally designed for 9mm? Even then, not all guns are equal. Of course, I've also heard that some grain weights in .40 S&W are harder on guns than others. Could someone who actually knows shine some light on this issue?
- Status