More Powerful, 9mm or 40 caliber?

i think instead of power, what you are asking is which round delivers the most kinetic energy to the shooter and to the bullet's target

the best idea is to pull up ammo spec sheets for each round from the same manufacturer. take a look at the following links, for instance

9mm:
http://www.hornady.com/store/9mm-Luger-115-gr-Critical-Defense/
kinetic energy = 332 ft lbs

.40:
http://www.hornady.com/store/40-S-and-W-165-gr-Critical-Defense/
kinetic energy = 506 ft lbs

Chevy Corvette Z06:
http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06/features-specs/
potential energy to drivetrain = 470 ft lbs

therefore:
energy to target and energy from recoil for .40 = 1.52 energy to target and energy from recoil for 9mm
energy delivered from .40 = 1.08 energy delivered to Chevy Corvette Z06 drivetrain

Best Regards,
- MN
:)
 
Chevy Corvette Z06:
http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06/features-specs/
potential energy to drivetrain = 470 ft lbs
Click to expand...

I see what you did there! :eek:

However, you are comparing torque (moment) to kinetic energy, and they aren't all that similar, at all!

Torque (moment) is defined as the tendency of an object to rotate about an axis, whereas kinetic energy is defined as the energy an object possesses due to its motion.

It's an apples to oranges comparison! (Twisting motion, torque, compared to pushing or pulling).
 
Recoil depends on the gun. Given the exact same gun, 40 has more recoil. It isn't a lot worse though. Just a little. As far as power, I prefer my 40 to my 9s. I like to leave a bigger hole. Nothing wrong with 9mm though and you do get a few extra rounds. Take your pick.
 
Fired from the same gun, the .40 will have more recoil. It also has more energy than a 9mm.

Keep in mind I said energy because stopping doesn't really exist. Shot placement matters more than just energy as a measurement.
 
Last edited:
Good morning
Us e the same frame and yes the 40 is going to recoil more with a heavier bullet at the same velocity. But it is not that much... and impact on target is propertional. If I had a choice and I do I would shoot a 40. If many a police department thought the 9mm was so great they would never have switched to the 40. Practice and familiarization with overcome any recoil problem.
 
Kenetic energy is really only useful as a VERY rough yardstick when looking at effectiveness, and I'm being generous. Bullet construction (design and materials) are far more important. Maybe not the best example, but imagine a wax bullet with 400 ft lbs of energy, or a lead wadcutter with 200. Which would you bet your life on? Yes, energy is of course required to get the projectile moving, and the 400 ft lb wax bullet certainly looks more impressive on paper, but clearly KE isn't directly responsible for the incapacitation ability of a little chunk of metal.

And I'd bet the aforementioned wax bullet with 400 ft lbs would barely break the skin. Given a determined attacker, it's safe to assume that such a round would have no effect on his fighting ability at all, despite the fact that all 400 lbs are "transferred" to the target. It's just a little piece of metal (or wax ;)) after all, and it really isn't carrying that much energy.

Assuming reliable function first and foremost, adequate penetration is key. Expansion with adequate penetration is a nice bonus. There are plenty of loads in both 9mm and 40 that will do that, among many other calibers, even the "lowly" 38 Special with its often unimpressive KE figures. Sure, the 40 has more power on paper, but it is IMO irrelevant. The 40 is slightly bigger, which gives it a slight advantage in that regard, but 9mm recoils less all things being equal (same platform) and often costs less. Go with the one you can shoot best, taking into account ammo cost and availability in your area.

So take your pick.
 
With multitudes of different ammo available these days variables can be talked to death with no actual hard evidence one is better than the other. Bottom line, it's an endless argument.
 
Given comparable loadings, the .40 S&W is slightly more powerful. Because it is more powerful, a .40 will also have more recoil than a 9mm in comparable guns.

As to terminal effectiveness, the .40 would be, theoretically, more effective because it delivers more kinetic energy to the target, gives a slightly larger expanded diameter, and penetrates slightly deeper. However, the terminal performance of all the major service cartridges (.38 Special, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP) is really more alike than they are different. For the most part, modern JHP ammunition is designed to do pretty much the same thing regardless of caliber: expand to 0.5-0.6" and penetrate 12-14" in 10% ballistic gelatin. Also the difference in kinetic energy between the major service cartridges is not great enough to make any meaningful difference.

That is not to say that different cartridges do not have distinct advantages and disadvantages, terminal ballistics isn't the whole picture. Given comparable guns and loadings, a 9mm will typically have a higher capacity than a .40 and will offer less expensive ammunition. A .40, on the other hand, offers enhanced penetration through certain intermediate barriers such as auto glass.
 
I don't think many would argue that out of the same platform (Glock 26 vs 27, Beretta 92 vs 96, for example) a shooter will feel somewhat more recoil from a .40 than a 9 mm. The performance in ballistic gel is so similar, though, that it is most likely that shot placement and the BG's reaction to being shot will be bigger factors than caliber in whether the BG's mischief stops after one shot.
 
Whether the standard .40 kicks harder than the hotter loadings of the 9mm is sorta splitting hairs, folks. We're not talking about running a 90 pound jackhammer with one hand.

The fact is that you can master either of these cartridges if you apply yourself to that end. If you don't, you're not going to shoot either well enough to shut down a drugged and/or determined adversary.
 
as stated many times the recoil depends on the size of the gun. If both guns are the same then the 40 will kick more.

The 40 will have more Energy.
 
The 40 S&W is larger caliber, and has more energy. I personally don't care for the snappy recoil.

All law enforcement agencys in our area carry the 40 S&W.

Both have failed, and both have worked to stop BGs.
 
All other things being equal...the .40 is more powerful than the 9mm para.



Kenetic energy is really only useful as a VERY rough yardstick when looking at effectiveness, and I'm being generous. Bullet construction (design and materials) are far more important. Maybe not the best example, but imagine a wax bullet with 400 ft lbs of energy, or a lead wadcutter with 200. Which would you bet your life on? Yes, energy is of course required to get the projectile moving, and the 400 ft lb wax bullet certainly looks more impressive on paper, but clearly KE isn't directly responsible for the incapacitation ability of a little chunk of metal.

And I'd bet the aforementioned wax bullet with 400 ft lbs would barely break the skin. Given a determined attacker, it's safe to assume that such a round would have no effect on his fighting ability at all, despite the fact that all 400 lbs are "transferred" to the target. It's just a little piece of metal (or wax ) after all, and it really isn't carrying that much energy.
Click to expand...

Energy transfer definitely matters.
We had a guy brought in to our ER who had been struck with a golf ball to the head.
There was zero penetration, no temporary wound cavity, and no permanent wound cavity, but it killed the guy.
 
We had a guy brought in to our ER who had been struck with a golf ball to the head. There was zero penetration, no temperary wound cavity, and no permanent wound cavity, but it killed the guy.
Click to expand...

Well - this proves it - slower, larger caliber projectiles are superior.

My newest HD weapon: The "Jugs" M1200 Super Pitching Machine


Booya - 12" projectiles in yo face !

attachment.php


I'll drop a note to Marshall & Sanow - let the data collectin begin !


.
 

Attachments

  • JUGS_M1200-2T.jpg
    JUGS_M1200-2T.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 215
My FNP-40 with WWB 165gr kicks much more than my FNP-9 with WWB 115gr. Pretty much the same gun both with low end FMJ rounds. Now when I fire 180gr JHP from the FNP-40 it really kicks then, much more so then firing 127 JHP +p from the FNP-9. If both gund were in my nightstand and someone was breaking in, no question, I'd grab my FNP-40. Thats until I get my FNP-45 Tactical with a red-dot sight! :D
 
.40 for bigger holes.

9mm for more holes.
Click to expand...

I get so tired of this. :eek:

I can put the same amount of rounds down range out of my P2000 SK (subcompact) .40 S&W as I can with my P30 9x19mm (full size) in the same amount of time. The accuracy differences at 0-15 feet are nonexistent.

Yes, I carry 9x19mm at times, and I carry .40 S&W at times; I don't prefer one over the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top