9mm Or 40S&W, which way to go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
so let me get this straight-glock is selling thousands of .40 s&w to the fbi and pds around the country and any moment now those guns will blow up?
i'm not sure about that.
as to 9mm or 40- as a beginner go with the nine. it is cheaper to shoot and a very accurate round.
when you feel and if you feel you need more power-go to a 45acp. a very nice and user friendly round.
i also liked the idea of a .357 magnum revolver. you can shoot 38 specials and 357's and build up your skills.
the secret to all of it is practice,practice and more practice.
it usually takes me about 30-40 rounds before i get really humming at the range.
have fun and be safe.
 
I can empathize with your situation - I'm pretty new to firearms as well.

FWIW, I chose 9mm for my first semiauto. I didn't know if I'd ever have another, so I wanted the greatest flexibility possible. 9mm ammo is very common.

Most important advice you're getting - try before you buy. Rent various guns, and find the one that fits you. Shot placement is everything, and if you can't hit with it, 9mm vs. .40 won't matter one bit.
 
Unless you're extremely recoil sensitive, I think you should consider getting the .40 or even a .45. My first gun was a 9mm and was purchased because I thought the larger calibers would be too much to handle. I found out after a few range sessions that I actually liked the larger calibers better.

It's funny but I don't perceive that much difference in recoil between all the semi auto calibers available (though I've never shot the 10mm). You'd think by all the postings here reagding felt recoil that there would be a large difference between them. The reality seems to be the opposite. With the right pistol and load, any caliber can be easy, and a pleasure to shoot. I suggest you make a decision based on the gun that feels good in your hand and aims naturally. Unless you're looking to shoot magnum loads or +P out of a ultra compact or stubbie, forget about the caliber thing because there's just not that much of a difference.
 
This closely resembles the question I had when I was shopping around for either a .40 or 9mm USP.

.40 has marginally better stopping power than a 9, but being a relatively new caliber, there has not yet been as much research towards perfecting the round (and what it takes to shoot it) as there has been on the .45 and the 9mm, hence many of the problems you hear about pistols firing .40 rounds.

This isn't to discredit the .40. The guys at my range are turning in their 9s for .40s, and I was originally looking for a .40 in a USP. But, since 9mm ammo is more available and less expensive than .40 (there are a lot more specials on cases of 9mm than there are .40), and since future travel plans include spending an appreciable time in Europe, I went with the 9.

Of course, when it comes to stopping power, you'll hear it repeated time and time again that shot placement is crucial. An accurate shooter can drop an attacker with a .22



------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.
 
Have to Say that I agree with Trevor both calibers are excellent choices. Stopping power is more a funtion of the Ammo you are using, 115 gr corbon round supposedly hits like a 125 gr .357 round. again either caliber is a great choice, I own two Beretta's, one in each caliber and I absolutely love them. Sweet shooters with a very low ( and I mean very low) failure rate. Accurate & reliable...get both you won't be sorry...I am not

------------------
...Those that are willing to give up some of their rights for a little security deserve neither...Benjamin Franklin

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe
 
I just love all the stopping power BS that is being shoveled around here. But that is a smell I've experienced all too often.

The real issues as far as caliber choice is feed reliability, availability, and most importantly...What caliber are you comfortable shooting. DO NOT allow any of these boneheads tell you (as they pat you on your head and send you on your way) that the 9mm is an inferior round. That is nothing but a great big load from those who can't hit what they aim at. If your shot placemant is on the money, it really won't matter what caliber you choose. Its really the shooter behind the gun that makes the difference.

Just to let you know, I've heard all this stuff before on many diferent subjects. Whether its somebody telling you a DA/SA is inferior to a DAO or SA or safe action. Maybe its these guys who believe that bigger is better and if you don't shoot a caliber that begins with a "4" your just a beginner and they talk to you like your some retarded kid from down the street. I can't tell you how much grief I get when i show up to informal shooting comps or sessions because I use a SIG 226 in 9mm, but by the time the sesion's over, and all the scores are tallied, they now understand its where the round goes not how big it is.

By the way, on the subject of feed reliability...ITS 9MM all the way. The tappering of the case does the trick. If you still have concerns, consider the Remington 115jhp. The round has the best profile on the market. They make a +p version too, if I am not mistaken.

9mm is available world wide, whereas .40, .45, can be more difficult to track down, but that may not be a major issue if you don't travel.

Hope this helps

------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
Peter - on the subject of feed reliablility, how can you beat 100 per cent? None of my .40s have ever had a feed problem. Perhaps 9mm has a theoretical advantage here, but, in good quality firearms, not a functional one.
 
Morgan,
What I am speaking of is inherant(am I spelling this correctly)feed reliability. When the .40S&W first arrived on the scene, feed reliability was the major concern. When the CHP picked up the Smith 4006 and the 180gr jhp. it was all over the place. The feed reliability was horrible. I do understand the 9mm round has almost a century of lead time over the 40 so I hope I'M not being to harsh. i was respoding to a concern over which to choose. The 9mm is not as tempermental as ANY OTHER semi-auto round.

In fact I will go so far as to say that the 9mm is the most reliable semi-auto load period. I have fired several .40's and have never had a feed problem either. But, my experience and your's for that matter is small compared to the BIG PICTURE. we cannot use ourselves as a measuing post for the total picture. Look at the preponderance of the facts and see if you don't come to the same conclusion.



------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
First, don't worry about your Glock blowing up. Guns blow up because of improper reloading. I work at a law firm and have never read about a single lawsuit regarding a Glock blowing up. BELIEVE ME, if Glocks were unsafe they would be off the market. Poor Bill Ruger, his revolvers made in the early seventies were made on the Colt model and thus, no transfer bar safty. He spent the next 20 years retro fitting the guns for free and he's still getting sued over them. I'm sure some guns have blown because of reloaders doing something foolish, but the product is not defective.

As for the unsupport breech, don't worry about it. Keep it SAAMI specs and you won't have anything to worry about.

As to which to buy, when it comes to handguns, bigger seems to be better. With respect to Big Bunny (i love that name.) There really wasn't been much movement in hand gun calibers. In the 1860's revolvers were commonly found in 36 (.375) and 44(.457) caliber. The 357/38 special/9mm are all around 36 and the 44mag(.429)and45 ACP(.454)
One of the earlist pistol rounds was the 30 Mauser and over penetrated so was increased to 9mm(A long and interesting story itself.)

If you can afford an HK, you can afford the 40. I find shooting the 9mm a rather ho-hum affair. The 40 has a nice thwack, and I'm a total sissy when it comes to recoil.

At handgun vel, go for the bigger bullet. As Elmer Keith said, "A big bullet lets out more blood and in more air."
 
Peter - I'm still not convinced. Proponents of the .357SIG round tout it's superior reliability due to the bottleneck cartridge, but... Superior to what? You can't do any better than 100%, no matter how many big words you use :).

What I'm saying is that if you're buying a high quality pistol don't choose one cartridge over another because you think it'll be more reliable.
 
Morgan: Let's try this one more time, and this time I will use smaller words...OK?

We are discussing inherant feed reliabliity. There are many factors that will play into this overall finality. Bullet design is one, pistol design is another, and there are others, but we don't want to muddy the waters to much now do we???

If you experience with the .40 is good, I am not knocking your experience, I can't. I haven't been there everytime you shoot. You could be telling the truth or you could be fibbing. Your conclusion that just because YOUR experience doesn't mean that, that is the overall concencus.

The 9mm cartriage has a slightly tapered case. By the simple laws of Physics, The 9mm will more than likely fed more reliably regardless of the gun. The .40, .45, 10mm do not have tapered cases, therefore they depend more on the design of the gun to properly feed the cartriages than the 9mm does. Allow me to use an example. The most sensitive 9mm I have ever fired is the old German Luger. Its feed system is not exactly the most reliable in the world, and it has a reputation that is consistant with that fact. Let's say you wanted to chamber the .40S&W in the old Luger. Would that gun be more or less reliable and for what reasons. i am not necessarily disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that any good pistol will not fire any round just because the gun is good. If the design of the gun is good and the round it is chambered for is a good one, you get a great package.

Let me remind you that the .40 cal did not gain a good or reliable reputation until guns that were specificly chambered for it were released.



------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
Redneck Joe... all I was saying was from my perspective we moved from a heavy 750FPS 455" Webley to a lighter and slightly faster 38 S&W for the services "to allow new recruits easier training" IE read "they might even hit what they aim at" ....

The 455(similar ballistics to 45 Colt) was much preferred in WW2(even in a S&W revolver) but then a 1911 Colt auto was prized...if you could get it "gash"!
From this perspective most of the new pistol rounds ARE persieved to be faster and smaller! EG The still current Aus army 9mm parabellum (interchangeable with 9mm F1 SMG, now superceeded)Luger round has been chronographed by us at 1,250FPS out of a 4" rowning Hi-power and also a CZ75!
The "BREN TEN" was a past failure, but I welcome the 40S&W as a return to larger more effective calibres for the services, even though a lot can be learned by any budding target pistolero by using the now much over-looked 38Spl, as I said previously.


------------------
***Big Bunny***
 
Get the gun that best fits *your* hand, and which *you* shoot the best. Then, get it in the caliber that *you* shoot the best.

If the USP is more accurate & reliable, and fits *your* hand, get it.
If the Glock is more accurate & reliable, and fits *your* hand, get it.
Etc.

If you're more accurate with the 9mm, get it.
If you're more accurate with the .40, get it.
Etc.

There ain't no magic gun, and there ain't no magic bullet.

FWIW, YMMV, etc.
 
PeterGunn, thanks for the info on the 9mm. You are right that reliability far exceeds power in importance, in terms of the big picture (yes and placement is even more important), and that the 9mm does seem to have an excellent track record of reliability, apparently due to the tapered cartridge. It makes sense to me that its feed reliability would be inherently better (in theory, big picture...) You've almost convinced me to switch to 9mm. Cool, now I have a new gun that needs acquiring. Now which 9mm....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top