M&P 9C or M&P 40C

[G30fan]

I have a Sig P220 and I am looking for subcompact. Is there really that much difference in recoil between the 9c and 40c?
I really like the M&P's.
Thx

[Kanewpadle]

For me, yes there is. It's not bad but takes a little longer to get back on target with the 40. I've put at least 1000 rounds through each and that has been my experience.

I stuck with the 40C and installed a 357 Sig barrel.

[buskerpcr]

Have a 9c & 40c
Bought the 40c first for a self defence gun . Liked it so much got a 9c for action pistol shooting indoors. ( Traded in a full size M&P 9 for the 9c)

I now use both indoors and find little difference between shooting the 9 & 40

The 40 is about as easy to shoot as the 9 and both guns shoot like a bigger gun - These guns are fun and easy to shoot.

FYI

[ptiller]

I initially wanted the 9c having never shot a 40S&W but heard about snappy recoil. A used 40C was found locally at a very good price. I picked it up with the expectation I would get the conversion barrel and 9mm magazines, and thus have a 9c. I took the 40c to the range to try it with a few 40 rounds. Was I suprised. The 40c was very controllable and nothing like my impression from the stories I heard. Of course this is subjective person to person.

Lets just say I have not bought the conversion barrel.

[scootle]

I'd recommend trying them both out side by side if possible and then deciding. Everyone perceives recoil a little differently.

Then there is the "cost of ammo" issue to consider... 9mm is by far the cheapest centerfire pistol caliber out there.

Good luck!

[Fastbolt]

Yep, felt recoil is very subjective and can easily change from one person to the next ... or one day to the next.

I own a M&P 40c and have done some shooting with the 9c using 124gr +P duty loads in the 9c and 180gr duty loads in the 40c. I perceive the felt recoil of the 9c to be quite a bit more controllable, especially in fast shot strings, than my 40c.

The owner of the 9c, another longtime firearms instructor, agrees with me, as did another instructor who owns neither but tried both side-by-side. We don't often agree that quickly on many things.

Really, it just depends on the individual.

I do find my 40c to offer noticeably better recoil management & controllability than my G27 & 4040PD, but not better than my 4013TSW (and the M&P 40c & 4013TSW are fairly close in size).

If you can, find examples of each to try out at a local range.

[SMMAssociates]

Gotta +1 fb....

I have one of each (and a full size M&P40 too).

The 9mm is a lot more pleasant to shoot - for me anyway. But the .40 isn't at all bad. I'm basically a 1911 guy so the recoil and control issues aren't all that much. The .40 just sort of snaps at me ....

If you're a believer in the ancient "must be a .4x" rules and can handle the .40 (or are used to a .45) you shouldn't have any problems with the .40. It's not that bad.

Mostly what's going on here - for me anyway - is a belief that you WILL need a second shot with a 9mm and the gun won't hold you back. The .4x - presuming you get the first shot in properly - is going to make it harder to make that second shot for some people. If you need one....

Overall - buy one of each ....

(Or buy two 9's and send fastbolt one ....)

Surprisingly btw my 40C is slightly more accurate (in my hands) than my Full Size .40.... The 9mm's about as good as the 40C. I won't admit to having to remove and reinstall both the front and rear sights on that big one....

Regards

[Fastbolt]

Hey Stu ...

A free M&P 9c?!?

I'll grant that if I'd handled and fired both compacts before ordering the M&P 40c, I'd have bought the 9c.

I didn't, though, and I ordered the 40c after a mental coin toss (and I'd already added a M&P .40 extractor bar gauge to my armorer tools, anyway). I owned a handful of great smallish 9's and wasn't looking for yet another one, but I was still looking for a "better" small .40 S&W ...

I find that shooting my .40's makes me shoot my 9's even better, so I work hard with my various .40's, trying to balance the 9's & .40's mostly equally. (Okay, it also helps balance the damage I do to the ammunition inventory at my former agency, too, since I still keep my hand in things as an armorer & instructor ... which means I do a fair amount of shooting. )

I invested quite a bit of time in learning the nuances and balance of the M&P 40c. I figured that I was finally about there when I'd just finished a drill doing some rapid shot strings while moving around some threat targets, and one of the other instructors asked me if I was shooting a 9mm. He was surprised when I told him it was a .40, apparently because I'd been shooting it so fast & acurately that he'd thought it was one of the number of 9's he often sees me shoot.

Training and frequent practice can help with the .40's, as with other calibers ... but the M&P 9c is really easier for me. It makes my G26 feel as though it has more felt recoil.

Maybe I'll add one to my growing 9 collection sometime. I just ended up making a spur-of-the-moment purchase of another G26, this time an OD model. I thought it was probably time to give my 10 year old G26 a bit of a rest, since it's coming up on 11,000 rounds.

Why not a M&P 9c? After I order my M&P 45c, of course.

Later Stu,
fb

[mikee1973]

9c for me 2 reasons:
1. also have a FS 9
2. holds more rounds for carry and i always carry a FS Spare. at least 30 rounds with me at all times

[SMMAssociates]

fb:

Sorry to take so long to respond.... Too much mayhem....

The M&P40C is a little handful, but it's only slightly worse than the Full Size .40, and us 1911 guys use those for backups .... (Well, at least we can expect to handle them.)

My little one actually shot better than the Full Size until I put the XS sights on it. Non-problem in an SD situation (I've been using those for a long time on other guns - including the CS45), but rotten for paper punching. I can see why your buddy got confused. Besides it looks exactly like the 9C....

(I think I could swap the sear block, barrel, and magazine, and shoot 9mm's in the .40C frame, and vice versa. The 9mm ejector is slightly different - mostly 'cause it's sort of turned into the chamber area, while the .40's are straight up.)

The .45C ought to be OK, too, now that you're used to the .40C. Can't be worse than a CS45 .... (I'm still amazed at that thing.)

And, yes, the 9's are much easier to shoot. We're way past that , but as I mentioned, my daughter may get this one, and while she can handle a .45, she'd actually want to shoot the 9mm. She loves my M39, and my old wheelguns. 'Bout the only downside (other than me "losing" a gun) is that she may be moving to New York. I think they won't stamp your visa if you're even related to a gun owner.... )

Anyway, don't sell the .40 short. If you're used to the .45, it's just ever so slightly nastier. If you're good with a .45, the .40 won't slow you down once you get some time with it. The real issue with the little one is the time to get back onto target. As long as you're not afraid of it, it's tolerable.

The real question is what am I going to buy if the kid takes the 9? My budget barely covered the DCAEK kit for it....

(Guess I could sell some un-needed body parts.... )

Regards,

[Simmy952]

For me there is a noticeable difference in felt recoil on my Glocks when going from 9mm to .40. On my M&P c models, there is not that much of a difference. I believe a lot of that has to do with the ergonomics of the frame. I picked up a 9c and then found a .40 topslide. Just swap out the slides and mags, and I am ready to go. The .45 seems more like a shove than a recoil. I have a FS and am waiting for my .45c to show up. I like shooting 9mm but I like to shoot what I carry and I usually carry my .40.

[rangemeister]

I went about looking for a 9c. Found a 40c in a great package deal and although I have never shot a 40 very well, this is a great pistol. There is very little recoil, as compared to Glocks, SIGS, and Kahrs I have owned. Bottom line, I wanted a 9 for a carry gun, now very happy with the 40. Very nice handgun.