Talk me into the 40

R

rifleman0311

New member
Hello, I know this is has been debated a million times but I have a dilemma and need some help deciding which to carry. I have a Sig p320C in 9mm and a G23 with a lone wolf conversion to 9. Looking at the current threat with more vehicle bourn attacks, ie vans mowing down crowds, does a 40 have any benefit shooting through a vehicle over the 9? specifically doors and glass. I can shoot both calibers fairly decent; my G23 gen 4 is a little snappier but I'm equally accurate (maybe a little slower with the 40 for follow on). I know government agencies are going back to the 9 but with my experience in the govt, some of these reasons may be due to the cost savings. I know someone will mention the "improvements in ammo with the 9 over the years" but doesn't that relate to the 40 as well? If I take the best round 9mm has to offer vs the best round the 40 has to offer who takes the cake? I know shot placement and accuracy are key; but my concern is the bullet may have to go through something and still have the power to stop the threat.
 
Yes the 40 also benefits from improved ammo no matter what the 9mm people say. The problem is being able to go through stuff depends just as much on the angle of penetration, type of material and type of bullets used, etc. Will it penetrate stuff slightly better sure, but will it be enough who knows.
 
Honestly, if you need to shoot through barriers you probably need to either use a rifle or run the other direction.

And while the .40 has certainly seen the same improvements the 9mm has, it's still gives up capacity to the 9mm. If you're talking about shooting into a moving vehicle, I think having a few extra rounds to make a hit is pretty important as well. So I'd call it a wash (extra rounds vs extra penetration). I decided long ago that I wanted to limit the handguns rounds I stocked, so the .40 went away.
 
I carry 9mm. When I want barrier penetration I carry a more powerful version of 9mm. The .357 Sig .
 
The 10 miker miker has an even better track record for disabling vehicles and neutralizing tangos. The 10 turns cover into concealment better than any Tactical battle cartridge for handguns.
 
I have defensive type handguns in a large variety of calibers, but usually carry a 9mm....just because I have one laying around handy. If penetration into a vehicle would be a concern for you, I'd definitely be carrying a .40. The increased bullet weight could be a big benefit where penetration of safety glass is concerned. 30 or 40 grains more of bullet weight would be my choice if penetration is an issue.
 
Sure, more energy will do better. But I will echo the post suggesting .357 Sig. It was designed for exactly that, improved barrier penetration. Throw in some FMJ ammo, and you're good to go. That said, your odds of stopping a vehicle with a handgun are slim.
 
maybe a little slower with the 40 for follow on
Click to expand...

IMHO, that is a bigger factor than some people want to think. We talk all the time about how handgun rounds are not reliable one-shot stops. Another way of saying that is that the second or third round is likely to be the one that does the job. I want my followup shots to be as fast and as accurate as I can make them, and I am better at that with 9 mm than with .40.

As far as being effective against vehicles, I am not sure that an unguided vehicle (driver incapacitated) is immediately safer than one with a driver. Taking out the driver would not be my first thought in such a situation. And even then, pretty much all other situations are covered in the first paragraph, so what is the relative likelihood of the scenarios?
 
People tend to assume that 40 penetrates better because it's heavier, but it's also larger in diameter which also effects penetration. I'm not convinced that 40 penetrates better than 9mm. Anyone have specific tests or data on this?
 
I like to think of the forty as being a compromise pistol: Compared with the 9mm: bigger caliber-wise but in the same-sized pistol. More power but more recoil, less magazine capacity and more expensive ammunition.
Compared with the .45ACP: Smaller caliber-wise and less powerful but a smaller-sized pistol having a greater magazine capacity, less recoil and cheaper ammunition.
When compared with the 9mm and .45 ACP, some might consider the .40 to be "neither fish nor fowl"; others may think it has the "just right" Goldilocks factor.
Me? I own several of all three but if I had to be limited to just one, it would be the .40 Smith & Wesson-and I'd never look back. Well, maybe a peek or two...:o
 
rifleman0311 said:
Hello, I know this is has been debated a million times but I have a dilemma and need some help deciding which to carry. I have a Sig p320C in 9mm and a G23 with a lone wolf conversion to 9. Looking at the current threat with more vehicle bourn attacks, ie vans mowing down crowds, does a 40 have any benefit shooting through a vehicle over the 9? specifically doors and glass. I can shoot both calibers fairly decent; my G23 gen 4 is a little snappier but I'm equally accurate (maybe a little slower with the 40 for follow on). I know government agencies are going back to the 9 but with my experience in the govt, some of these reasons may be due to the cost savings. I know someone will mention the "improvements in ammo with the 9 over the years" but doesn't that relate to the 40 as well? If I take the best round 9mm has to offer vs the best round the 40 has to offer who takes the cake? I know shot placement and accuracy are key; but my concern is the bullet may have to go through something and still have the power to stop the threat.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on being able to stop a vehicle with a handgun.
 
I think a hot 9mm fmj would do a fine job of getting into a car.
But if I really wanted to shoot at a car with a handgun, I'd use my Tokarev in 7.62x25.
 
When the .40 S&W first became available, 9mm was considered by most of the knowledgeable to be a subpar performing caliber, so I was more than a little interested in the .40 S&W. So, of course, my first gun in that caliber was the S&W 4003. At first, I really liked that gun; it was well-made, and very accurate, and carried a decent number of rounds. Unfortunately, I soon found that I had issues with that gun, the worst of which was the snappy recoil. Over the years I bought and sold several .40s, but with all of them I had the same issue with the snappy recoil.

Then I found the Beretta PX4 Storm. Somehow Beretta tamed the .40 in this platform, and it carried just as many rounds as most of the 9mm guns available at the time. Now I could shoot the more powerful .40 S&W just as quickly and accurately as I could any 9mm pistol.

A little while later I found that SIG had created another answer for me in the P229. For my money, the P229 is the perfect .40 platform. Extremely accurate, decent trigger (even better with the aftermarket short reset trigger kit), good capacity, and very reliable. Now I shoot more .40 S&W than 9mm or .45 auto, and couldn't be happier. It helps that I handload, so a box of .40 costs me just under what you'd pay retail for a box of brass-cased 9mm.

Of course, that's my story. For you, the OP, you'll have to find your 'perfect' .40 on your own.

Good luck in your search.
 
40 caliber is a fun cartridge. It makes a pretty big bang. It makes pretty big holes in things. I like it. I have three 40 caliber pistols and am picking up my 4th tomorrow. To me it seems as good a SD cartridge as 9mm or 45acp.

I am not as sure about what to use against vehicles. A Ma Deuce is not very portable. I am old-fashioned and not sure of the newer technology, but would go with the modern equivalent of a panzerfaust or LAW.
 
does a 40 have any benefit shooting through a vehicle over the 9? specifically doors and glass.
Click to expand...

So I've done a little more digging since my previous reply, and while its difficult to find solid data, I did manage to find this. Compare the results from Hornady Critical Duty 135 grain 9mm to 175 grain 40 S&W. 9mm out penetrated the 40 S&W in four out of six barrier types, and matched it on a fifth. Granted the difference wasn't substantial and this is only one specific cartridge.

http://www.hornady.com/store/9MM-135-gr-FlexLock-Critical-DUTY/
http://www.hornady.com/store/40-S-and-W-175-gr-FlexLock-Critical-DUTY/

Hopefully this is helpful.
 
"Looking at the current threat with more vehicle bourn attacks, i.e. vans mowing down crowds."

Interesting question, but IMO the O/P should be asking himself the following. What are the odds of being in the area were a vehicle attack happens, will I have time to react to an attach of this nature, and will I be able to safely shoot at the attacking vehicle?

You never know how you would react to an attack such as described, but I believe that my concealed handgun’s main use is to protect myself and anyone who is in my care. My personal care generally does not extend to the public at large.
 
For vehicle based threats I would say carry a penetrating round like Critical Duty or some of the Underwood Extreme Penetrator or similar. You lose expansion, but they are probably still betyer than FMJ. Short of .357 sig, there seems to be little consistent evidence about vehicle penetration in the testing I've seen.

Personally for that type of threat (moving vehicle) I'd want more hits over anything else. Testing shows more holes in glass makes further shots penetrate better, and with panic, dodging, etc lots of bullets is your best bet.

All that said, I stick with my usual HST and keep a mag of Critical Duty in my truck. Most likely any threat I ever see will be the 2 legged criminal on foot.
 
If you really are thinking about stopping a car with a handgun. I would be looking at revolvers and desert eagles.
For what it's worth I shoot and prefer 40 for home defense. Partly because of the ballistic advantage. And partly because I grew up when 9mm was truly a underpowered round and my dad instilled that in my head.
 
Honestly I would not trade your 9mm in for a .40
2 legged non armored BG's are still the primary threat you'll face.

For what it's worth I think the boarder patrol adopted .357sig for barrier penetration... even so I don't think they're going after cars but the drivers.

Do keep in mind that bullets can behave weirdly when going thru slanted safety glass used for the windshield.. you might be dead on for the driver and have it deflect into the dash or something.

I would hesitate firing on a vehicle that jumped a curb.. could be a medical emergency.. you really wanna kill some poor sob having a heart attack or diabetic reaction?

As for your own safety I'd suggest you move off at 45 degree if you see a car coming instead of firing into to try and stop it.. even if the driver is a BG and you kill them the car probably won't come to a halt.

lee n. field said:
I wouldn't count on being able to stop a vehicle with a handgun.
Click to expand...
Agreed, heck you'd have to move pretty damn high up in the power scale of rifles too.

Only time I ever hear about trying to kill a vehicle's engine on teh spot .50 BMG is the usual suspect.. maybe something a little weaker with AP ammo?

I think the best we could hope for is driver neutralization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top