Someone settle the 9mm vs. .40 debate...

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ankeny

New member
Good grief, why can’t physics, experience and common sense solve the 9mm vs. the .40 Smith debate? A couple of years ago I started shooting 9mm pistols because the ammo is cheap and quality rounds like the 115 gr. CorBon supposedly offer stopping power as good as any and better than most. Around here, people laugh at me when I speak of how great the 9mm shoots.

Well now I am shooting a G35 and G27 (.40 Glocks) and I am finally considered sane. Heck, our newest Glock dealer won’t even stock a new Glock in 9mm. I counted his Glocks the other day and he has every Model except the new 36 and all of the nines. Claims he can’t sell a nine to anyone but old ladies and wimps.

Every law enforcement agency in this county has abandoned the 9mm. All but one has gone to the .40 S&W. The Game and Fish and State Troopers switched from 9mm to .40 S&W too. I asked a Game and Fish guy if he thought the .40 was better and he is sure it is superior. Not many bandits get shot here, but the Troopers and Game Wardens shoot many crippled dear and antelope that get hit by motorists. Their collective experience in killing injured game animals is that the .40 is vastly superior. Of course people aren’t deer but isn’t tissue damage the same regardless of species?

Please can someone show some statistical data comparing the two? Or is it really as simple as bigger is better?
 
There have been many articles written by experts on this subject. I will throw my two cents in. Basically, the caliber cannot compensate for "poor shot placement" and "lack of proper training". Ballistically, the 9mm seems to be a bit weaker except in the LE +P+ loadings. Many agencies are hoping to adopt the FBI "magic bullet" but only qualifies their officers twice a year. I believe the 9mm is taking a bad rap for lack of proper firearms training. Let's not forget most of the SWAT uses MP5 chambers for 9mm.
 
if the dealer you are going to think's 9mm.'s are for wimp's perhap's he should look at it from the other end of the gun. i don't care if you own a small artillery field piece, if you do not practice shooting you will probably miss what you are shooting at. yes the .40cal is nice( if that is your preference of cal). what i want to know is that if the 40cal is the "rage" at the moment. why don't they resell as fast. at gun show's or store's most dealer's shy away from them as they do not move as fast as the 9's or 45's. just wait until the fed's decide to go back to .357 mag. see how fast that become's the cal. of the month.
oh the reason for the switch to .40. most dept's complained about the 9mm ability's stopping power and jamming problem's. as posted above
1)lack of training
2) using ball instead of some form of hollow point corbon, hydrashok etc.


[This message has been edited by jimc (edited September 13, 1999).]
 
Yes, I think the Services play a graet role n public perception - as do police unions and federations !
The trendy fashion here is also switching to the 40S&W with our club members (and government state and federal authorities too). They are giving up their excellent .357s at bargain prices to snap up a new plastic-fantantic with those magic bullets! The manufacturers must love them and know they get far more profit on a AUD$850 Glock 19 sold to a civilian than a AUD$350 one sold to the NSW Police Service.

Also of course, when the Services are using any calibre pistol (or rifle) it tends to lower ammo prices and free "droppies" for civillian reloaders are nearly always available.....now THAT is completely sane and rational !!

------------------
***Big Bunny***
 
With all other factors being equal, the .40 will poke a larger hole in the target than the 9. That's all that you can really count on with the exception of the most important factor of all, which parts of the anatomy are poked.
 
The trend toward the 40 is not purely ballistic although it does have an OSS rating almost equal to the 45. The trend, on the LE side at least, is due to capacity. They get a bigger/better round than the 9mm and almost the same magazine capacity. The other big shot in the arm for the 40 is IPSC competition. It's the smallest caliber allowed in Limited class that still makes major power factor. So compared to the 45 they get more capacity, less recoil and still make major.

For CCW it probably doesn't matter near as much as shot placement. Most real world gunfights are over long before an 8 round mag is emptied. As for me, I compete with a 40 but I pack a 45! When my a$$ is on the line I want a proven war vet on my side.

Mikey
 
This debate can't be settled because there isn't enough difference between 9mm and 40 to matter a damn. I'm not trying to start a *&%$storm here, but the differences in final results between handgun rounds are much more affected by shot placement than the actual cartridge being fired. Assuming a quality hollowpoint, the exact placement of the shot makes all the difference, not the caliber. Peripheral hits simply won't do the job, no matter if they are 9mm, .45, or .416 Rigby. Carry the one you shoot the best with. As always, YMMV and IMHO, of course!

------------------
With my shield or on it...
 
It is all personal preference.

I like the higher velocity/flatter trajectory of the 9mm, and the minimal recoil.

It is good enough for elite military units world wide. Good enough for me.

The 9mm, like the 45, has a great history for stopping power (look at WW2, or more recent world events).

I also like the fact that world wide it is probably the most prolific caliber, therefore probably the easiest to find ammo for anywhere.

But this is JMO.
 
Whats the difference between 9mm and .40? If you closed your eyes could you feel the difference between a .355 and a .40 slug held in your hand?
Shoot them at similar velocities with correctly designed bullets and the difference is negligible. Whats to debate?

What if the best 9mm slugs expand .05 of an inch more than .40 slugs? Doesn't that negate any difference?

The difference between 9mm, .40, .45 and .357 in the real world is not worth considering. Only hits count so use the handgun that you shoot best.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
I think that the .40, if certain precautions are taken, may be a slightly better man stopper. However, I don't think that anything is lost with a 9mm. I carry a S&W 4006 on duty and a Glock 27 off duty, but I will be getting a 9mm very soon.

The .40 has an extreme amount of chamber pressure. I would hesitate at shooting reloads in a .40. I really like Glocks, but the unsupported chamber of Glocks and the chamber pressure of the .40 lead to more kabooms.

I think that as long as you are shooting quality ammo in a .40 with a supported chamber, you'll be okay. I don't shoot any reloads in my G27.
 
So far I agree with what you guys are saying. I have been using a 9mm with 115 CorBon for a couple of years and I don't feel under gunned. I picked up a pistol for IPDA last spring and I was going to get a 9mm but I went with .40 instead. I also bought a .40 carry gun the other day. Frankly, I caved in to "peer pressure" of sorts.

The State Troopers and Game and Fish switched from 9mm Berettas to the same pistol in .40. Several local agencies have switched from the G17 to the G22. These guys are actually switching to a pistol that has more felt recoil and less capacity. They are convinced the .40 has superior stopping power and it is worth the switch. Can any of you tell me why LE is so sure the .40 is vastly superior to the 9mm. Are all of us missing something here?
 
As far as I'm concerned, the stopping power debate is just a bunch of B.S. to sell magazines and give "Experts" some way to appear superior. As to the LE community always switching equiptment, a lot of it is trainers trying to justify their jobs as well as political purchasing agents being "sold" on technology over training.
Get a pistol, Get some ammo, Practice, Practice, Practice. "If you can't hit it, you can't hurt it."

------------------
TJS

[This message has been edited by Tim Schlosser (edited September 14, 1999).]
 
Unlike us CCW folks who can pretty much choose our ammo, most LEO's I know have that dictated to them - usually by someone more concerned with cost than premium performance.

I think that's how the 9mm got the bad rep. Hardball in 9mm is not what most of us would want to carry. If you don't have control over the performance of your ammo you tend to go with the biggest hole you can make while maintaining an adequate supply on the belt. The 40 is probably the best compromise and it's a fine cartridge to boot!

JMHO - Mikey
 
It seems as though some of us suffer from some sort of mental diseases. some of us have fallen under the spell of "Dirty Harry". The old notion that bigger is better. While there is some truth to this argument, considering the balistic differences between a .22LR and .38spl., there are just not that many differences between the 9mm and the .40. The reality is that we, as responsible shooters, who have taken the awsome responsibility to carry a weapon as either an LEO or a permitted citizen, must set aside the rediculous notions that others fall prey to. We must choose the appropriate weapon in the appropriate caliber, and practice, practice, practice.

In the movie Magnum Force, we learn a little secret from Harry...he loads light specials in his old Model 29. Isn't that interesting, he is not loading full house magnums, but specials. Back in those days, the .44 special was a balitically similar performer to the .38 special. Not really much to wright home about. Yet the movie producers would have us believe that if you got hit in some minor extremity you would fly 50 feet and land in an unconcious state. What a bunch of hooey!!! I have personally seen individuals recieve almost a dozen rounds of service ammo in at least 3 different calibers and still function for 10 to 15 seconds. 10 to 15 second in a gunfight is an eternity!!!


The choice between the 9mm and the .40 cal. should not be based soley on how big a bullet is. The difference between a 9mm and a .40cal is .05 of an inch...big fat harry deal. The choice should first be based on what the mission is. Then, a weapon must be chosen in an appropriate caliber. You must go out and shoot to find what gun performs best in what caliber. Once that is done, a reasonable choice can be made.

I'm nat saying anything new here. We have all heard it before. For me i finally settled on a SIG 226 in 9mm. Why??? I chose the 9mm for several reasons, none of which had any thing to do with how big the bullet is. I chose the 9mm for reliability, accuaracy, consistent performance, 9mm will not beat up a gun as quickly as a hot .40cal, and the fact I just spent $800.00+ on a gun...9mm is much less expensive than .40 cal and I can get it world wide (important to me).

I shoot my 226 like I wish I shot all firearms. For some reason it just melts into me and becomes a part of my hand, I just can't explain it.

I am always willing to compete with individuals who mock and BS with me because I carry a "sissy 9mm". Mostly, this applies to the .45 1911 crowd. Once the smoke has cleared and the shooting is done, somebody is usually bying me a beer and offering me excuses as to why I cleaned his clock. then telling all would be different if I "moved up" to the .45. i just snicker and finish my beer.

DO NOT get caught up in this argument. If you find a 9mm that you are dog nuts with, and a .40 or.45 you were mediocre with, you would be a fool not to go with the 9mm. You would be just as big a fool if you went with a .40 or .45 just because the caliber starts with "4".

Be wise and THINK, don't fall into the trap of feeling.



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

PeterGunn
 
I would just like to add that many of the law enforcement agencies that are switching from the 9mm to the .40 never experienced any "failures to stop" with the 9mm. Two agencies that come to mind are the Indiana State Police and the San Bernadino County Sheriffs Deptartment. The Indiana SP reportedly had 5-7 (I can't remember) shootings with their 9mm load and it dropped the bullet recipient quickly every time. The SBCSO went from the 9mm to the .45 and reportedly never had any failures with their 9mm load. Another example is the LAPD which adpted .45's after the North Hollywood shooting even though the LAPD has had extremely good success with their 9mm rounds.

Many agencies switch to the .40 because their 9mm's are getting old and need repair. Indstead of repairing them, they can trade them in for .40's at a VERY cheap cost. Still other agencies switch because they too read too many of the popular gun magazines and Marshall and Sanow's crap and are diluted into the notion that the 9mm will get you killed should you rely on it for self-defense, and that manly men carry .40's and .45's. In the case of the SBCSO, the troopers jsut plain said they "wanted" them. And as far as the LAPD goes, they too just "wanted" them, though why some of the officers there think they would have made a difference in North Hollywood is beyond me.

The real differences between any of the major calibers from 9mm through .45 is so negligible that I now laugh when I see people so caught up on this magical idea of "stopping power."

The bottom line is that you should shoot what feels the best for you. Bigger calibers do not make up for peripheral hits. All handgun rounds are very underpowered for the task of incapacitating a violent and determined aggressor. If I want power, I'll use a shotgun or rifle.

I'm perfectly content with my "wimpy" and demasculating Glock 17 9mm. I shoot it better than other guns and other calibers. And that's all that matters for me.
 
"Wild Bill" Hickcock, the first really famous frontier lawman/gunfighter killed many foes, and at least one friend, with a pair of .36 cal Navy Colt cap and ball revolvers. The ballistics were more dismal than 2.1 grains of Bullseye behind a 148 gr. hollow base wadcutter. No high capacity, no fast reloads. All that he had to count on was good shot placement.
 
There is no debate...

It not 9 vs .40... it's about where you put it! And If you can put it there each time.

Thats the problem.

------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."[/b]
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
Now, now, don't go blaming Marshall and Sanow for the .40 S&W hype! If one READS the data, you'll note theres very little difference between 9mm, .40, .357 and .45 with the BEST loads.
Thats the lesson I draw from the Marshall stats - choose a load, not a caliber!

The 9mm is just a few percentage points behind the .40 but you could make the argument that the 9mm may be getting short shrift because many of the 9mm shootings nowadays are with short-barreled hideout guns. How much more effective is the 9mm with a 3.5 or 4 inch barrel than with the the little 2 inch belly guns that are often used?


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Dosen't "parabellum" mean "ready for war"? Which would you rather be shot with, a .40 cal JHP in the leg, or a 9mm FMJ in the head or heart? Bullet placement. IMHO, if you want something bigger than a 9, might as well step up to a .45 ACP. But like it was mentioned earlier, if you can shoot center mass all the time with a $300 worn out Glock 9mm, and can't hit the target with a $800 Performance Center .40, go with what you shoot best. Confidence is everything. Confidence = good bullet placement = you win the fight. Another one here: Would you rather be shot at with a .22lr revolver, or a 14 rnd capacity .45? The .22lr you say? What if I told you that a world class assassin had the .22, and a FNG to pistols had the .45? Get my drift?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top