I want YOUR opinion.

uuugghh

The 9/40 debate is endless. By this I mean ENDLESS!!

I highly prefer 9mm becasue of less recoil, cost of ammo, and capacity.

There is nothing wrong with the .40 in my opinion. A lot of police departments use it to great effect.

Good choice on the gun by the way. Nice piece of hardware.

PS: if you are looking for another gun at some point, try SharpShooting Indoor Range here in Spokane, if you haven't already.
 
I have three Sig's a 220, 229 and a 226, these people that talk about recoil differences are a mystery to me as I don't notice much of a difference in them and the .40 is a compact, I do know one guy that didn't like his .40 but he was uh...... of smaller build.

I have Rugers in .45 and 9mm and the recoil difference is just no big deal.

as I have never shot anyone with any caliber I can't speak about stopping power, but I would think a quality hollow point would do the job if properly placed.
 
The .45 is a good round but I dont think its as accurate as the .40cal.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of drivel. You cannot produce any evidence of this and it really doesn't matter anyway. If the handgun is decent at all, it will out shoot 99.99% of the shooters.
 
I am a fan of the .40 S&W. That's what I carried everywhere until I discovered a .45 that holds 14 rounds. I realize that my hands are larger than average and not everyone would be comfortable holding my Big Hawg though.

There are two different kinds of bullets. Big and slow. Small and fast.

The .40 S&W is a nice cross between them.

If by .357 you mean the .357 Sig than my opinion on it is this: It's a 9mm round in a .40 casing. That just makes a small fast bullet even faster. I'm not a fan of that round at all. I really don't see the point in it. Will it stop BG? Absolutely! So if it's your cup of tea than by all means drink up. It's just not mine. As always shot placement is key. A hit from a .22 LR beats a miss from a .50 BMG every time.
 
A hit from a .22 LR beats a miss from a .50 BMG every time.
Click to expand...


I don't know, I could probably survive a hit from a .22 unless it hit a vital organ, if a .50bmg round whizzed past me I'd probably have a heart attack and die on the spot. but that's just me.
 
In order of preference:
357
45
40 (if I must have it)

That said, I think there was no need for 40 when have 45. 40 and 357Sig might be great rounds but to me just another gimmich to make money.:o
 
My opinion is that 45 ACP is better than 357 Magnum and 40 S&W for defense against other humans. Especially with a light 185 gr. hollow point load. (I had my Ruger P90 loaded with 185 gr. 45 ACP +P Federal Hydra-Shoks)

357 Magnum may be a reliable expander at those high velocities, but a 45 will never be smaller than 0.452". A 357 may be as small as 0.357".

Ditto with 40 S&W.

357 Magnum and 40 S&W both carry more energy, but in my opinion this is wasted if one isn't a cop. It is more likely to become a liability as it smashes through one wall after another.

That said, I don't think you made the "wrong" choice. They are all effective self-defense cartridges. Just make your next gun a 45. You may decide that you no longer need the 40, or you may decide that you prefer the 40's higher energy level.
 
Why is it that everyone always brings the stupid arguement that "shot placement is more important than caliber" into caliber comparison threads? Obviously shot placement is important, but lets assume that the shots are equally well placed and eliminate that variable so we can compare apples to apples... not apples to orangutangs. Frankly, if I was going to get shot, I would prefer to get hit by the WEAKEST round.

I have another issue with typical caliber arguements. Many people will argue that hydrostatic shock is non-existant at handgun velocities. As seen in an earlier post, they will also argue that the 9mm may expand, but the .45 won't shrink either. I say both arguements are pretty much meaningless. If bullets only injured by punching a hole through flesh, what difference would there be compared to gettimg shot with an arrow (of the same caliber as the bullet)? What about getting stabbed through and through with something that is the same diameter as bullet? There have been many incidences where people have been impaled by object greater than 1 inch in diameter and survived. Google javelin accidents or impaled by objects such as rebar. Bullets injure by transferring energy into the target, causing more damage than simply leaving a bullet sized hole. This transfer of energy damages surrounding tissue and causes greater hemmoraging and tissue damage. Ask hunters what the meat surrounding the bullet wound looks like.

What is the point of this whole long drawn out post? Caliber does matter as the greater the energy of the round, the greater its potential to do damage to a target. The difference of .07 inches (difference from a 9mm to a .45) is not that significant. Meanwhile, I think few will argue that a .357 magnum is more effective than a .380 despite the same diameter bullet.

This would make for an interesting experiment... If someone loaded a .357 to fire a 230 grain projectile (same as a typical .45 acp) at around 800 fps (same velocity as a .45 acp), I would guess the wounds would be pretty similar.

When its all said and done, carry the most powerful caliber you can shoot well.
 
This transfer of energy damages surrounding tissue and causes greater hemmoraging and tissue damage.
Click to expand...

The short answer... bullets require approximately 2000fps to have this effect. It is virtually meaningless below that speed.


If bullets only injured by punching a hole through flesh, what difference would there be compared to gettimg shot with an arrow (of the same caliber as the bullet)?
Click to expand...

If I could choose? I'd take the bullet, thank you. (Assuming we're staying with handguns)

When its all said and done, carry the most powerful caliber you can shoot well.
Click to expand...

On this, we agree.
 
The short answer... bullets require approximately 2000fps to have this effect. It is virtually meaningless below that speed.
Click to expand...

peetzakilla,

I would have to disagree with you on this point. 2000 fps is not some magical cut off point where hydrostatic shock simply occurs. There is less shock at lower velocities, but there is still shock.

Lets work off this idea... The human body is about 55% - 75% water. If you take a rock and drop it into a pool, it will splash. If you throw it into the pool, it will splash more. Water does not compress well and the force is transferred away from the path of the bullet, due to tissue displacement.
 
There is less shock at lower velocities, but there is still shock.
Click to expand...

The question is not so much one of "Is there shock?" There is shock from the arrow. The rock in the water example is a good one. The rock causes "shock", ripples, but does it kill any fish? No. Why? There's not enough energy. The tissue of the fish is strong enough to resist that level of shock. The same is true of bullets. Your tissue is strong enough to resist the shock wave from bullets below, roughly, 2000 fps. Also, for the original question of caliber, even if shock did matter, the difference between a 9mm and 40 or a 45, or any other common semi-auto handgun caliber, is insignificant.

BTW... I'm not trying to convince you, there's plenty enough people who disagree.
 
I feel "Good" carrying a 10mm (with sometimes a 9mm BUG).

What will you feel "Good" carrying?

It's really about you, what you can do, and what you want.
 
Caliber wars are fun, as long as you keep the right attitude

And a historical perspective. Remember the 9mm has been in service since 1908 and the .45 since 1911. The .40 and .357 Sig are comparative infants.

While the .40 has proven itself on duty for a couple of decades now, the only real reason it exists at all is because of politics in law enforcement and a timely decision by S&W to exploit them.

The much hyped "failure" of the 9mm in the 1986 Miami shootout led to the political decision that 9mm wasn't enough. And since no govt agency seems to be able to ever look backward, the .45, which had been ok for service before the adoption of the 9mm was not considered. They did re-authorize use of the .45 (as a temporary measure), but felt a new cartridge was needed. So they went to the 10mm. Depending on who tells the story, it was problems with recoil, and/or the size of the guns that led first to the lighter load for the 10mm, and then when S&W came up with it, the .40 S&W.

The .40 took off like a rocket, being hyped as the perfect round, a masterful compromise of all the needed things. Nearly as big as the .45, bigger than the 9mm, able to fit in 9mm frame size guns, holding more rounds then the .45, a fast speeding bullet able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, etc.

With the FBI stamp of approval, police depts all across the country started using the .40. Another factor was that due to changes in the seizure laws, police agencies could spend some of the seized drug money on new guns, just when new guns and a new caliber were coming on the market.

70+ years and a couple of world wars didn't bring out the need for a .40 caliber pistol, but a political decision and money to spend did.

I have nothing personal against the .40, I just don't own one for two basic reasons, first, I have no need/use for the round, and second the cost of tooling up for yet another caliber that I don't need, or really want. I have shot them, they work, and if it floats your boat, its your baby.

Why is it that everyone always brings the stupid argument that "shot placement is more important than caliber" into caliber comparison threads?
Click to expand...

as to this, most importantly, the argument isn't stupid. ANY bullet that gets in where it needs to go does the job, from a .22 to a .50, FMJ to JHP, if the placement is right, the rest does not matter. It only makes a difference if the placement isn't right. Then differences is bullet size and energy become crucial. And in a life or death situation every tiny possible advantage is to be desired.

Argue all you want about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Its fun to watch. Just remember that even one dancing there gets the job done. And thats all that really matters.
 
I fire this one in both cals and can tell you that the 357sig has less mussel flip than the 40sw, however, less than the Colt defender.
1236252960996591796618.share.jpg

1386252790996545261555.share.jpg


As far as cals....the difference to me is minuscule in the real world.
 
The rock in the water example is a good one. The rock causes "shock", ripples, but does it kill any fish? No. Why? There's not enough energy.
Click to expand...

When a rock is thrown into a body of water (lake, swimming pool, etc.) there is a large area for the force to dissapate. When that rock is a bullet travelling through the human body, that force is contained within the body.

When it comes to blowing up fish, if the fish are close enough and the blast is great enough, it will kill the fish. Ever heard of dynamite fishing? My dad used to file a hole in a light bulb, fill it with gun powder, seal it with wax, and set it off underwater using a battery. (Don't try this at home kids ;):D) They tossed bread in water to attact the fish and then boom! I'm sure this is probably illegal, but that was in Hong Kong about 50 years ago.

Would you argue that a .357 magnum is more effective than a .380 acp? What about a .44 special compared to a .454 Casull? Neither the .357 mag nor the .454 Casull reaches 2000 fps. Few would argue that they are more effective than similar calibered rounds travelling at lower velocities. Why do people prefer the 10mm for a backup weapon for hunting over the .40 S&W? If velocity and power didn't have anything to do with it, I don't know what does.

At least we agree that we should carry the most powerful round we can shot well. :o
 
44 AMP said:
as to this, most importantly, the argument isn't stupid. ANY bullet that gets in where it needs to go does the job, from a .22 to a .50, FMJ to JHP, if the placement is right, the rest does not matter. It only makes a difference if the placement isn't right. Then differences is bullet size and energy become crucial. And in a life or death situation every tiny possible advantage is to be desired.
Click to expand...

Regarding shot placement, lets get specific. In most self defense situations, you aim for center of mass. It is the largerst part of the body and contains vital organs. Now if you are going to argue that a .22 fmj is going to be as effective as a .50 AE or .500 S&W for that matter, I'm going to need some convincing. When you are comparing calibers, you have to assume that you have equally good shot placement in order to make any MEANINGFUL comparisons of capabilility. That is the only claim I am making. I'd rather take a .50 AE to the pinkie toe than a .22 lr up the nose. That doesn't mean the .50 AE isn't more powerful.
 
"When a rock is thrown into a body of water (lake, swimming pool, etc.) there is a large area for the force to dissapate. When that rock is a bullet travelling through the human body, that force is contained within the body."

But the effect is largely the same in a small body of water, as well. If your input energy is too low, it's not going to have nearly the effective that you want it to have, or that you expect it to have.


"When it comes to blowing up fish, if the fish are close enough and the blast is great enough, it will kill the fish. Ever heard of dynamite fishing?"

That is what Pete is talking about, the application of FAR more energy than what is to be found in a dropped rock.

The explosive charge crosses the energy threshold of what the fish are able to tolerate.

That is, in essence, the difference between a bullet going slowly, and a bullet going a lot faster. The faster bullet crosses the energy barrier of what the flesh is able to sustain. That's why high velocity bullet wounds often exhibit tearing along the wound path that is outside of the direct path of the bullet.

Drop the velocity, though, and you don't reach that energy threshold, and the tissue around the wound is able to sustain the energy impulse without tearing.

Think of it this way...

Getting hit in the ribs with a heavy baseball bat at low velocity is going to knock the wind out of you. Sure, there's an effect in that you had the wind knocked out of you (shock), but there wasn't enough energy in the blow to do permanent damage.

Getting hit in the ribs with a light baseball bat at high velocity, and your ribs are going to fracture.

Every type of tissue has a level of energy/pressure that it can withstand. Don't broach that level, and the tissue won't be disrupted.
 
When it comes to blowing up fish, if the fish are close enough and the blast is great enough, it will kill the fish.
Click to expand...

That's my point. A handgun is a rock. A rifle is a stick of dynamite.

Would you argue that a .357 magnum is more effective than a .380 acp? What about a .44 special compared to a .454 Casull?
Click to expand...

Due to penetration, yes. "Shock", no. The casull MAY be approaching the numbers necessary, I've never looked at the cartridge, it's hardly a common SD caliber, regardless.

If velocity and power didn't have anything to do with it, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

First, who said they "don't have anything to do with it..." Power and velocity are agents of penetration. Placement is king, penetration is queen, "stopping power" is the court jester.

Second, I do know what does, shot placement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top