9mm or 40cal
- Thread starter Frankie1449
- Start date
- Status
9mm
Yes, I would and I do trust my life with 9mm. I'm not a fan of 40 cal, but that is most likely due to the pistol I initially chose for 40 S&W. It was a Springfield SD compact in 40 S&W. It was difficult for me to hold that little pistol with my big mitts, couple that with the recoil of an SD load in the thing, and It just became annoyingly unpleasant.
I have since fired 40 in full size handguns, and I feel it's a respectable cartridge, but I've got a whole fleet of 9's and feel it's more than adequate.
Yes, I would and I do trust my life with 9mm. I'm not a fan of 40 cal, but that is most likely due to the pistol I initially chose for 40 S&W. It was a Springfield SD compact in 40 S&W. It was difficult for me to hold that little pistol with my big mitts, couple that with the recoil of an SD load in the thing, and It just became annoyingly unpleasant.
I have since fired 40 in full size handguns, and I feel it's a respectable cartridge, but I've got a whole fleet of 9's and feel it's more than adequate.
I've been training people with the 40 since it came out. Small men and girls can be taught to manage its recoil, shoot it well and run it just fine. I've also seen dozens of issue G22s and G23s kept in service for 10-12 years w/o breakage. The magazines will give out before the guns do.
If you just like the 9mm, that's great. Defense/Duty ammo is far better than it was 25 years ago.
If you just like the 9mm, that's great. Defense/Duty ammo is far better than it was 25 years ago.
Skarekrow88
New member
9mm every single time. I own no .40s and never will. Anyone that knows the origin story of the .40 S&W knows it was a solution looking for a problem. It is the culprit in more catastrophic malfunctions than other handgun calibers due to its higher pressures and causes far too much recoil to not be any ballistically better than it is.
Overall, it's no better or worse than 9mm or .45 as far as ballistics go but worse in every other way so I see no reason to choose .40 over 9mm but several reasons vice versa.
The only handgun I've shot that was chambered in .40 that didn't make me say "wow, that's crappy" was the HK USP .40 that I was required to qualify with after I was hired as a detention officer and I credit that to the USPs outstanding recoil reduction system
Let zee flaming begin.
Overall, it's no better or worse than 9mm or .45 as far as ballistics go but worse in every other way so I see no reason to choose .40 over 9mm but several reasons vice versa.
The only handgun I've shot that was chambered in .40 that didn't make me say "wow, that's crappy" was the HK USP .40 that I was required to qualify with after I was hired as a detention officer and I credit that to the USPs outstanding recoil reduction system
Let zee flaming begin.
Last edited:
Limnophile
New member
Sarge,
But, the majority of such folks will, given the same pistol chambered in 9 Luger, manage the recoil better and shoot it better, while having more rounds available and, providing wise ammo selection, sacrificing little, if anything, in terminal performance.
While dozens of anecdotes do not trump a systematic assessment, the FBI's 2014 memo fails to mention any basis for their claim of less wear and better reliability for the 9 Luger relative to the .40 S&W. Thus, consider these two points withdrawn from my prior post, as I cannot think of a good reason why there should be such differences.
The final paragraph of my prior post is based on the FBI downplaying the effective of differences in expanded frontal area between the two calibers. Every terminal ballistics comparison I recall seeing shows modern premium 9 Luger JHPs expanding dramatically, but equivalent .40 S&W bullets expand to an even greater size. The FBI dismisses this difference by saying the differences in the wound tracks are not noticeable. Whether one can determine a difference by eyeball is immaterial; it is the impact on the target that counts. If two bullets penetrate to the same depth, the one expanding to a diameter of, say, 0.7 inch has more damage potential than one that expands to 0.6 inch. Despite improvements in 9 Luger JHP design, bigger bullets still make bigger holes.
But, the majority of such folks will, given the same pistol chambered in 9 Luger, manage the recoil better and shoot it better, while having more rounds available and, providing wise ammo selection, sacrificing little, if anything, in terminal performance.
While dozens of anecdotes do not trump a systematic assessment, the FBI's 2014 memo fails to mention any basis for their claim of less wear and better reliability for the 9 Luger relative to the .40 S&W. Thus, consider these two points withdrawn from my prior post, as I cannot think of a good reason why there should be such differences.
The final paragraph of my prior post is based on the FBI downplaying the effective of differences in expanded frontal area between the two calibers. Every terminal ballistics comparison I recall seeing shows modern premium 9 Luger JHPs expanding dramatically, but equivalent .40 S&W bullets expand to an even greater size. The FBI dismisses this difference by saying the differences in the wound tracks are not noticeable. Whether one can determine a difference by eyeball is immaterial; it is the impact on the target that counts. If two bullets penetrate to the same depth, the one expanding to a diameter of, say, 0.7 inch has more damage potential than one that expands to 0.6 inch. Despite improvements in 9 Luger JHP design, bigger bullets still make bigger holes.
Limnophile
New member
I, too, have heard this claim, but when Sarge called me on it I could find nothing readily to support it. Thus, I withdrew the claim of less wear and greater reliability for the 9 Luger.
I've read assertions that European .40s were generally less reliable than their 9s, because, as Oysterboy mentions, their .40s were just tweaked 9s. Supposedly Glock solved the problem by designing their Gen4 around the .40 instead of the 9. But, as far as I know, while the FBI maintained a large stable of .40 Glocks, they never did so concurrently with 9 Glocks so as to allow for a meaningful comparison of either durability or reliability.
If you dry fire consistently and go to the range every 2 - 4 weeks either will serve just fine.
I carry all three of the service calibers plus .357 magnum and just don't worry about it.
The only other thing I can think of is if money is a factor in how often you will actually shoot your gun, then 9 mm may help you get to the range more regularly.
Edit: I am just as accurate with any of the calibers, the difference is in split times, but I don't think the difference between .23 splits and .30 splits will be noticeable to the person being shot, assuming we are talking about defensive guns. And as already noted there are other factors such as the weight of the gun that come into play.
The video below is Jim Higginbotham shooting a .45 acp with factory loads and he seems to do just fine as far as split times and his accuracy is there as well. Not too shabby for an old man.
https://youtu.be/lXk2WmBGY_M
I carry all three of the service calibers plus .357 magnum and just don't worry about it.
The only other thing I can think of is if money is a factor in how often you will actually shoot your gun, then 9 mm may help you get to the range more regularly.
Edit: I am just as accurate with any of the calibers, the difference is in split times, but I don't think the difference between .23 splits and .30 splits will be noticeable to the person being shot, assuming we are talking about defensive guns. And as already noted there are other factors such as the weight of the gun that come into play.
The video below is Jim Higginbotham shooting a .45 acp with factory loads and he seems to do just fine as far as split times and his accuracy is there as well. Not too shabby for an old man.
https://youtu.be/lXk2WmBGY_M
Last edited:
IMightBeWrong
New member
I don't trust any handgun caliber. If you trust your caliber, it will let you down when you need it the most. Get good with what you carry and trust your skills instead. A professional boxer doesn't go into the ring trusting the size of their hands to finish the fight.
Elliottsdad
New member
Is this figurative language commonly used in the caliber conversation? Because if not, hats off to you! Can I have permission to reuse this?
Theohazard
New member
That's pretty much the same thing that went through my head when I saw this thread title...lee n. field said:
A little background, I ran my own training Company, in Ontario Canada, for 25 years.
Keep class sizes small, decide what the threat is (re Job) train for that real threat, what has happened in the past, document same.
Train all to hit the size of the target required to stop the threat/attack most of the time. Sticking a pistol out in front of you, looking over the sights, does not work, past a few yards!
As more and more females enter Security and Police, also smaller males, large framed hand guns, that recoil more, as in .40 S&W polymer framed pistol calibers, do not help in accurately placing shots.
Shots that miss? Not conducive to fight stopping.
A group of Special Forces Soldiers, the British SAS, used 9mm Browning High Power pistols, with mil-spec hardball ammunition, they did well with this combination. Why? Shot crates of ammunition in training, secondly, shot the right parts of the body, more than once. Head shots were utilized also.
My training did not have access to crates of ammunition, but as the first handguns used by the carriers of these self-defense weapons, both Police, and Security, used S&W .38 Special Revolvers, dry fire was a great option.
Looking through the sights, as opposed to over them was good, and trigger control is still paramount in firing hand-held weapons.
As the design of bullets/projectiles has advanced so much in the last few years, guns that recoil less, and carry more rounds, is easy, 9mm.
Keep class sizes small, decide what the threat is (re Job) train for that real threat, what has happened in the past, document same.
Train all to hit the size of the target required to stop the threat/attack most of the time. Sticking a pistol out in front of you, looking over the sights, does not work, past a few yards!
As more and more females enter Security and Police, also smaller males, large framed hand guns, that recoil more, as in .40 S&W polymer framed pistol calibers, do not help in accurately placing shots.
Shots that miss? Not conducive to fight stopping.
A group of Special Forces Soldiers, the British SAS, used 9mm Browning High Power pistols, with mil-spec hardball ammunition, they did well with this combination. Why? Shot crates of ammunition in training, secondly, shot the right parts of the body, more than once. Head shots were utilized also.
My training did not have access to crates of ammunition, but as the first handguns used by the carriers of these self-defense weapons, both Police, and Security, used S&W .38 Special Revolvers, dry fire was a great option.
Looking through the sights, as opposed to over them was good, and trigger control is still paramount in firing hand-held weapons.
As the design of bullets/projectiles has advanced so much in the last few years, guns that recoil less, and carry more rounds, is easy, 9mm.
breakthrough
Moderator
why hickock45 calls .40 a combat round?
ninjarealist
New member
Oysterboy said:
I have a USPc 40 and it eats .40's like butter.
Will Beararms
New member
I own both. It's wise to own both. I prefer 180 grain JHP. The primary reason for the reemergence of the 9mm is first cost and second because we are a poltically correct world where everyone gets a trophy. If you can't handle a .40, you don't meet the physical requirements.
- Status