9mm vs. .40 s&w Which would you carry and why?

I'm wrestling with the same decision. My considerations here are for conceal-carry, not home defense. Here's my thinking so far (if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be "gently" corrected):

Any encounter I have will be strictly defensive situations as I am not a Peace Officer (meaning I won't have to chase bad guys). 99.9% of these situations will involve humans, not animals.

In my readings about OSS, there's little difference between a potent 9mm JHP round and a .40 s&w (and who shoots only once anyways); practice ammo is cheaper in 9mm; less recoil and muzzle flip; higher capacity mags; kabooms *seem* more common in .40; ammo more available; more accurate (maybe a stretch here).

For home defense, I want a shotgun. For camping/wilderness defense, I want a .44 mag.
 
I own both, but prefer the 9mm. My accuracy and recovery time are much better with the 9mm. I am not too concerned with the hyped "stopping power" verbage. I tend to lean towards shot placement and consistency. I didn't post this to get hammered from every angle, just giving my NSHO.

Semper Fi-
JJC
 
I'd opt for a 40 s&w over a 9mm every time.

Since I don't live in a remote overseas location ammunition availability, or lack thereof, is not an issue.
 
I only just recently bought a .40, after years of shooting only the .45 and 9mm. Why? Because I finally felt I needed to have one just for experience's sake.

Having done so, I still feel the same as I did before. The .40 is a very good round, but it still doesn't really do anything a 9mm won't. The only difference might be in a jurisdiction where JHP ammo is prohibited. The 9mm has benefited greatly from modern JHP bullet design, probably more so than any other auto pistol round. But if you go back to using FMJ in one then you're back to making the small entry/exit wound that first gave the 9mm such a bad rap.

In sub-comapct pistols I ESPECIALLY prefer the 9mm. A lot less recoil, a lot more controllability, and one to two more rounds of capacity.
 
OK , maybe I am just mentally challenged, but I dont understand the whole........."recoil is so much harder in the 40 than in the 9mm" logic. My experience with both rounds is that the 9mm has a snappy , annoying recoil, while the 40 is extremely accurate and controllable for me. seems like my front sight never lifts. Again maybe its just me but I really dont see any real difference in the recoil, and where I am 40 and 9mm are about .50 cents different per box in price. That being said I would go 40 every time. Especially considering that the guns are about the exact same size.

Why .40? Why not?
what do I know? I just work here!
 
Boy I'm really going to show my ignorance now. I've never heard or read anything regarding .40 Cal "hollow points." They do make them don't they? No flames please, I feel dumb enuf as it is!
 
In Duane Thomas' book "The Truth About Handguns" he has a lot to say about .40 vs 9mm, more favorable toward the 9. One thing I remember is that he said the .40 can beat up the gun a lot faster. But I have no experience with the .40 myself.
 
I carry my G17 quite a bit and dont feel underarmed in the slightest even though it's a 9mm. I have pleanty of rounds in the mag and Speer 124gr +p Gold Dots are some of the best 9mm rounds out there. So long as good ammo is selected for the 9mm and shot placement is there you will do fine.

The fact that 9mm is inexpensive doesnt hurt.
 
I carry them both on occasion and feel content with either. When I've got one of my 9's on me, I've got a few more rounds per magazine and more total rounds; when I've got one of my .40's on me, I've got bigger bullets and more muzzle energy per round. There's beauty in both situations.
 
Since as a civilian I'm limited to 10 rounds in my CCW, I prefer 10 rounds of .40 over 10 rounds of 9mm. In a full size without the Klinton mags, I'd take 15 rounds of 9mm over 10 of .40 auto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top