I don't mean to start another 9mm vs .40 S&W war, but...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if a .500 magnum has ever been used in a SD situation? You know somebody, somewhere has one in the night stand and thinks to themselves ..... 10mm pffft, how quaint. :)
 
From the FBI propaganda machine
"9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, I outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI"
 
Interesting. It's such a hot round already (relatively speaking). I should have guessed Buffalo Bore would have been the one to ramp it up.
 
Barrier penetration also depends on the round. 9mm and 7.62s that can penetrate body armor have existed for a long time. Depends on the bullet.

If you like the 40, fine. Boring debate now.
 
It probably doesn't matter.

Admittedly, I am a pretty big guy, but 9mm and 40 and 45acp all have about the same recoil to me if fired from pistols of roughly similar weight, size, and shape.

10-15 rounds is plenty enough for SD, IMHO, and you can always have more magazines handy.

A good hit from any of them will ruin someone's day. A miss is a miss is a miss.

Shoot the one you like. No one will care.
 
The .40 is designed to shoot a bigger, heavier bullet at faster speeds than the 9mm can.
Click to expand...

You are basing you conclusions simply on energy and velocity numbers which can be useful. But if interpreted wrong can lead to false conclusions.

In any rifle or handgun cartridge you can shoot same bullet weights to faster speeds with the larger caliber assuming similar powder capacity. The bullets are shorter in relation to weight and have less resistance in the barrel. This helps them shoot faster, but also hurts penetration.

It is also true that similar bullet weights in the smaller caliber will penetrate deeper regardless of impact velocity assuming similar bullet construction. The bullets are longer in relation to weight which is the key to penetration.


Not a factor in a handgun debate, but with rifles the smaller caliber shooting a similar bullet weight will eventually catch up and be faster downrange because of aerodynamics. Usually somewhere between 100-200 yards. This might be a factor at longish handgun ranges, but I've never run the numbers like I have with rifles.

The key to stopping a game animal or threat in a SD situation is shot placement and bullet penetration. Bullet diameter, velocity and weight are very much secondary. The best 9mm loads shoot 147 gr bullets at about the same speed as 40S&W shoots 180 gr bullets. The 147 gr 9mm bullet out penetrates it every time.

At the end of the day 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP are strikingly similar in actual performance. Assuming equal numbers of rounds available and of the same construction, one is as good as another. But it is hard to ignore that in similar size guns the 9mm will always hold more rounds, will always be cheaper to shoot, will always defeat barriers better, will always recoil less and will be more accurate in most hands.
 
Probably because it would be hard to legitimately argue that a smaller diameter, lighter bullet is better than a larger diameter, heavier bullet traveling at comparable velocity.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Define better.
 
TruthTellers said:
The .40 is designed to shoot a bigger, heavier bullet at faster speeds than the 9mm can. The whole kerfuffle with 9mm isn't that it's a superior cartridge to the .40, it's that it's cheaper to shoot, has less recoil in smaller pistols, doesn't wear out the same sized frame pistols as .40 does, and it's not "that bad" for defense.

I can agree with the first three points, but never have I read ANYWHERE that said 9mm is superior to .40 S&W.

Anyway you look at it, 155, 165, or 180 grain, the .40 S&W respectively beats the 9mm in 115, 124, or 147 grain. If all you want is a "get off me gun" or something at point blank range, then sure, you don't need a .40 S&W and you may not even need a 9mm either, .380 will do the job, but if you want something that can punch through barriers, something law enforcement and federal agents are required to do time to time, the .40 S&W is still the better choice.
Click to expand...

The .40 S&W was originally created to push a 180gr JHP upwards of 980fps. A little heavier bullet than the typical 9mm of the period (147gr) and with acceptable sectional density.

Over the years the cartridge has been in-service there's been a bit of experimentation with lighter bullets weights for duty loads, but in recent years the emphasis has gradually returned to the 180gr bullet weight in LE/Gov use.

The 155's used by one major fed agency were somewhat rough on both guns and many shooters, and when it was eventually (briefly) replaced with a lighter 135gr JHP, that load was "down-loaded" somewhat, compared to similar bullet weight loads available over the counter. It was specifically ordered to run 1200fps, with an allowable +/- of 50fps (meaning it could vary from 1150-1250fps). (Again, the 180gr bullet weight has been making a significant comeback.)

The 165gr bullet weight has been produced in both "standard" and somewhat reduced recoil (reduced velocity) versions for LE users over the years. It's also been a popular alternative load for consumer sales, too.

Yes, the .40 is harder on guns (and many shooters) than the 9/.45, but that's more of a maintenance/support issue, and newer models have been designed around the caliber, instead of having been modified from existing 9mm guns, as in the early days of the caliber.

Yes, in recent years there's been a growing segment of LE users transitioning from using .40's to using 9's, and many proponents list addressing training issues (initial and recurrent) at the top of their list of reasons. Naturally, most armorers won't mind a little less wear & tear on the weapons they support, but again, the newer models designed around the cartridge have been making those chores easier, too.

Now, I presently own 5 pistols chambered in .40, and I've carried 3 issued pistols chambered in it, too. I've invested enough time in the caliber in the years I've been using it (since 2000) to have fired some few ten's of thousands of rounds of it in the various guns I've used, as well as some training guns.

I own 6 pistols chambered in 9 and 9 pistols chambered in .45, though.

I even own more 5-shot snubs (.38/.357) than I own .40's.

The .40 is a fine caliber for its purpose. Probably not for everybody, but what caliber is? ;)

I've no doubt it'll remain within the top 3 service/defensive caliber pistols calibers for many years to come.

Doesn't mean I'll not carry my 9's & 45's (and snubs) as often, or probably more often, though. :)

Suit yourself. Just make sure your range time and training/practice regimen support and justify your choice of carrying it, and your confidence in using it in dynamic, chaotic and fast-paced situations.

It's generally more about the caliber user, than the specific caliber.
 
No, the .40S&W is not inherently superior to the 9mm...in a carry gun or in a tactical shooting situation.

Effective hits on target ( with tactical accuracy -- roughly center chest and an 8" wide by 11" long rectangle around center chest - where the spine and major organs are - will get the job done)...whether its from a 9mm or .40 S&W.

I own a variety of guns in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 acp...( mostly 1911's and a few Sig Sauer ( 226's, 239's )...my choice on a carry gun had very little to do with caliber - its about the gun I shoot the best / and then in the caliber I shoot the best in that platform. I have carried 1911's in .45 acp for a long time, I carried a Sig 239 in .40 S&W for awhile - and now I carry a 5" 1911 in 9mm.

I don't feel impaired by caliber... 9mm is plenty.
 
I prefer 9mm because I get a few more rounds than .40. I have one .40 which I like and which I do carry from time to time.

I've never understood the .40 v. 9mm debate. Buy both, carry both and have fun!
 
Define "nonsense."
Click to expand...

"Nonsense is a communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning. Sometimes in ordinary usage, nonsense is synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top