EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In identical full size M&P guns, both are more similar than I would have thought.

Went to the range with two M&P full size, one in 9mm and one in .40. I'm used to the nine as it's my EDC gun. But I wanted to see how it compared to the .40.

.40 ammo was:

165 grain Winchester white box FMJ
180 grain hardcast handloads, max load in Accurate Arms reloading guide

9mm ammo was:

115 grain Winchester range fodder
115 grain FMJ handloads, loaded to max +P load in Accurate Arms reloading guide


This is not a quantitative test, just my impressions:

I fired not super rapid fire, but flash sight firing, about a round every second.

I expected .40 to be a whole different category of recoil. But it's really not all that much different. With a firm two hand hold you get a some more muzzle flip. Flip is much more noticeable shooting one-handed. I think if you timed ten-shot strings you'd get ten off a bit quicker out of the 9mm, but not a great deal of difference. If I get a chance to do this test I will.

Firing at the rate I was shooting, accuracy at seven yards was equal. I was putting them in a fist-sized hole in the paper, with occasional outliers. Either one is combat-accurate at ordinary defense distances.



The 9 and the 40 are more alike than they are different, at least in full-size M&P. Certainly neither is in the territory of my XDM 10mm with full power loads. That one is a bigger handful. The M&P is known as a soft-shooting gun and you might have a different impression in some other pistol. I'd bet that there's a bigger difference, say, in 9mm Shield vs. .40 Shield.

I wanted to do a three-way test with the M&P45, but none was available.


In a full-size plastic pistol, either 9 or 40 should be fine for self-protection. I'd still give the edge to the 9mm. Save for possible barrier penetration, the 40 won't do a thing that the nine won't do on a bad guy, and you still have the advantage of more rounds, cheaper ammo, and less recoil.

I've got a pair like that: Beretta PX4 Compacts in both .40 and 9x19. You can tell a difference but...well, service rounds just aren't very snappy.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

These days I’m seeing 40 ammo cheaper than 9.

The magic of the wonder-nine wins again !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

I do comparison testing on two very similar guns in different calibers every range trip. I have two M&P 4" compacts one in 9mm and one in .45, and usually shoot both.

They are more alike than different. The .45 has noticeably more recoil but it's not too bad. I'm equally accurate with either and they feel about the same in my hands.

You shot both a 9mm AND a .40 from identical models and the .40 didn't rip you arm off ?????

I am shocked.....that is NOT what the interweb says! I shoot all three calibers 9, 40 AND 45, and still have my arms with hands attached!!

A wee bit of sarcasm to start the day............

Randy

Good post Univibe !.

Knowing the recoil and energy differences between 9 an .40 cartridges this only proves how well M&P series was designed.

I'm 9mm guy, but tried .40 once, shooting my friend's Glock (it was G22 or G23, don't remember). I felt huge difference..and didn't like it ...

I agree with that. Glock's a good weapon but I just don't mesh with them.

I've shot the G19 9mm and the G23 .40. I didn't shoot them back to back, but my memory is that the G23 was quite a bit sharper in recoil than the G19. I could be wrong about that and it wasn't really a fair test.

That is what I decided too. When I did a back to back comparison the 40 had more recoil but it was not like going from a 38 Special to a 357 magnum. If I had to come up with a number I would say the 40 had 30% more recoil. Both are high pressure rounds but the 40 seemed to have noticeably more muzzle blast for some reason. Even with ear protection I think the noise is one reason the 40 has such a bad reputation for being hard to shoot.

If I thought I was gaining a significantly more effective round I would go with the 40 but I don't. I think the 40 has an edge but not enough of one to make up for the increased recoil, noise, ammo cost in normal times and reduced capacity.

I've always believed that M&P is one of the best designed modern handguns.
I was pretty sure that one would be a Military M9 replacement.

I think so, too.

When I finally decided to get off the 1911 bus for EDC, I shot several competing designs.

Glock 19: I just don't like Glocks. Very good weapons but I don't get along with them.

HK VP9: These are really pretty awesome. You feel like you're "driving" them like a sports car. I almost went with the VP9.

Ruger SR9: I think this is a sleeper and another one I almost got for EDC.

Springfield XD: Nothing wrong with these.

Smith M&P: it just felt more substantial and fit my hand right out of the box. Unlike the others it had an option for thumb safety to avoid "glock leg."

I have been shooting 9mm since about 1970 with Lugers, P38, Browning Hi Power, S&W gen 1-2-3, Glock, Kahr, Beretta 92, and probably a couple others that don't stand out in memory.

Bought my first .40S&W in about 2004, Kahr P40. 16.1 oz. empty weight, polymer frame, very light, compact. After a few hiccups during the first 100 rounds the Kahr settled in nicely as a reliable and accurate piece. Recoil in the lightweight pistol was noticeable; I would call it sharp, abrupt, very brisk, and a few other adjectives. Not a combination I would enjoy an all day range session with, but a good and reliable piece.

My more recent .40S&W (November 2018) is a Sig P229. Compact version of the P226 series, 12-round magazine, DA-SA-Decocker, alloy frame. Very good ergonomics and enough weight to take the recoil of service-grade 180-grain loads in stride. Also extremely accurate and completely reliable with everything I have fed into it.

Based on this limited comparison I would agree with the OP. There is little difference in felt recoil or recoil impulse when compared to 9mm pistols of similar weight (Browning Hi Power, S&W 5906, etc).

As an old 1911 .45 aficionado I am pretty well accustomed to pistols with some recoil, and I appreciate some weight to control that. Overall, I like the .40S&W quite well and recommend it for serious "social work".

In Pre-Covid days, I was shooting in a weekly competition at the local indoor range. Sometimes it was speed over accuracy, other times the opposite. There were a few times I shot the comp twice; once with my 9, then with my 40 (Glock 17/22, FS M&P 9/40). Accuracy was not an issue with either caliber and my speed/times were almost identical (9 was just slightly faster than 40). I don't find the 40 to be objectionable in recoil, especially in FS handguns. In light weight, compact guns; it would be a different story. Although, I have Shields in all 3 calibers and don't mind shooting them either.

9mm shield is my EDC in the summer, 40 compact M&P in the winter
both carried @3 o clock in a Milt sparks VM2
I try to shoot them both every range trip since the 9mm shield is smaller and lighter I really don't see any difference in recoil than with the slightly bigger heavier 40 compact and I find them both a joy to shoot.

I have had 9mm Shield and currently have a 40 Shield. I notice very little difference, if any at all between the two.

9mm and 40 S&W Walther PPS. You can definitely tell the difference when these two go off. While still manageable, the 40 is a handful in this little package.

When it comes to manageable recoil I'd choose a bigger gun over a smaller caliber. I have Compacts in both 9mm and .45 and a Shield in 9mm. To me the little Shield 9mm has recoil similar to the larger .45 Compact. The Compact 9mm is far more comfortable for long sessions than either of the others.

I'm going to agree with Univibe here... a sign of the apocalypse?

In identical pistols, the 40 S&W will give more felt recoil than the 9x19mm. Why? Simple. Bullet weight and velocity. The closest comparison without getting into boutique ammo would be 147 grain 9mm ammo vs 155 grain 40 S&W ammo. The 9mm load is going to give around 975 fps, a hair over 1000 fps in +P. The 40 S&W load is going to exit the muzzle around 1050 fps. Heavier bullet with more velocity equals more recoil, but it's not like going from 38 Special to 357 Magnum. I'd say it's more like 38 Special to 38 Special +P in terms of the difference in felt recoil.

Now let's go to a 45 ACP size pistol, chamber one in 40 and the other in 45. The 40 S&W is not loaded with 230 grain bullets, so compare 180 grain 40 S&W to 185 grain 45 ACP, full power, not target wadcutter ammo. The 40 S&W load is going to exit the muzzle around 980 fps, the 45 ACP load around 1000 fps. The heavier bullet and higher velocity of the 45 ACP results in more felt recoil. Again, more recoil from the 45 ACP, but it's not that much more and not like going from 44 Special to 44 Magnum.

The magic of the 40 S&W came from it's ability to launch a 180 grain bullet at just a little less velocity than a 185 grain 45 ACP load, but the 40 S&W could be crammed into a 9x19mm size pistol. This is what the FBI wanted and now what they have abandoned in favor of the 9x19mm.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

I have both the M&P40 FS and the M&P40 Shield. I have 9mm barrels as well. IMHO there is a noticeable difference in felt recoil. But not so much that I prefer one over the other. I think it a good idea to have a firearm that can be converted to 40SW, 357Sig, or 9mm simply by changing barrels and magazines.

UPDATE:


Went out today and did the same "experiment." This confirmed my opinion that there is little felt-recoil difference between max-power loads in either 40 or 9mm, at least in the big M&P.

Buddy shot the same test and I observed that there was little more muzzle flip between the two.

There is a greater difference between max power 40 and softie 9mm 147 grain stuff. But shooting simulated self-defense loads, not so much.


I did also shoot a few factory 180 grain / 950 fps loads. These were softer than the defense-spec load and came quite close to the 9mm +P.

Sold the .40 at the gun show today.

I figured, 40 won't do anything to thugs that the 9mm won't do, and it still recoiled a bit more, so down the road it went.

I threw a little ammo in to sweeten the sale, so I got about what I paid for it.

This has been an interesting thread. I wanted to add a couple points based on my experience as a former LEO.

I had worked at a couple different department and carried .45 acp and .40 S&W. Never carried a 9mm.

At my first job I worked part time at a very small rural department. In the fall and winter months there was very little to do except work car/deer crashes. In the fall it would not be uncommon to work two of these crashes in a shift. When I worked that job I carried my own pistol, a .45acp with 230 grain Remington Golden Sabers.

I had to dispatch a lot of severly injured deer. I alway shot them in the head. The results were bang, flop. The Golden Sabers were like a light switch.

I worked there for a couple years and probably dispatched 15-20 deer and every result was the same.

Later on I got a job working at a county Sheriff Department and was issued a Glock 22. We used a couple different .40 S&W rounds, Winchester Rangers, Speer Lawman, Remington Golden Saber (bonded). The first time I shot a wounded deer with my Glock I was horribly unimpressed. The deer did not immediately stop thrashing with my head shot. I found this to be the case with all the deer that I dispatched over the years. I would not have guessed that. I had been told that the .40S&W was a superb round.

I was able to take a training position and work full time at our department firearms range. We had the pleasure of testing ammo and researching terminal ballistics in order to select the best ammo for our needs. This was interesting to say the least.

We had a Officer Involved Shooting of a homicide suspect and I was tasked to pull all of the firearms data from that shooting. I had the recovered bullets and all the forensic information to study. I won't get into further detail on that but this led us to test and evaluate a wide range of .40 S&W.

Federal Ammo Company and one of the equipment suppliers (who would sell us our duty and range ammo) came to one of the outdoor ranges that our department used and we did a full on ballistic workshop using all the FBI protocols. We tested, 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 acp and 12 gauge ammo. We not only tested Federal ammo, we looked at all the other major players at that time. Bernie Ness, from Federal LEO/Military sales was a busy guy.

We measured penetration and expansion in 10% ballistic gelatin. We weighed the recovered rounds to determine retention as well.
We fired directly into the gelatin, through heavy denim, through drywall and automobile glass. It was a long day.

In the end we settled on a Bonded Remington Golden Sabers.

How does that apply to the topic above? I also got to see the 9mm performance. The penetration and stretch cavity of the 9mm rounds was less than impressive compared to the .40 S&W. Now keep in mind that this was 13 years ago and I know that ammo has come a long way since then. Bullet construction had improved dramatically. That is just my experience.

Jayman

@Univibe
I must admit, after all of the disparaging remarks that you've made over the .40 S&W cartridge in the past, it surprises me to hear not only that you owned an M&P40, but that you held on to one for this long.
Even more surprising is the fact that you wrote such a balanced evaluation without denigrating the cartridge at every turn, nor proclaiming that everyone ought to use their M&P40s as doorstops or that they should be disposed of in the garbage in exchange for M&P9s. You've certainly come a long way.

That being said, as a fan of the .40 S&W cartridge, I will continue to stick with it in favor of it over the 9mm Luger cartridge. The M&P40 tends to be cheaper and more available than the M&P9, as is the ammo that feeds it. Besides, with the distinct possibility that magazine capacity will be restricted to 10 rounds across the board in the future, I would especially prefer to carry 10 rounds of .40 S&W over 10 rounds of 9mm Luger. Should I ever come around to the way of thinking that there's no benefit to .40 S&W over 9mm Luger, then I can always pick up a 9mm conversion barrel down the line.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

As are the guns firing them.

__________________
aka "Mooncat"

Yeah, I managed to hold onto it for several weeks before letting someone else adopt it. Just long enough to compare it to the 9mm.


It is true that the .40 is more available and cheaper than the 9mm M&P, because of all the police trade ins (Same story with Glock 22) and because it's no longer trendy. I paid $400 for mine, and sold it for more or less the same price. I doubt you'd find a M&P9 in this market for four bills.

I never understood the logic that says "if I'm limited to ten rounds only, I want bigger rounds than I'd normally carry." Right now I can carry 17+1 of 9mm. I shoot 9mm better than .40 (and so does everybody else whether they admit it or not). So even if limited to ten, I want the ten I shoot best.

There is no benefit to .40 over 9mm for personal protection, save and except possible "barrier penetration": a 180 grain bullet might be superior in defeating auto glass or some other barrier. But against bad guys? The radius of the bullets differ by what, about 1/50 of an inch? Is that enough difference that you'd live if you carried a .40, and die if you had only 9mm? Nah.

BOTTOM LINE: nothing wrong with the .40, but it should never have been born.

(same for .45 ACP but that's another story . . . . )

.45 to shoot at the range.

.40 to sell at the next gun show.

9mm to stay alive in the big city.

9mm is for military/LE bean counters. 357 Sig and 40 was all the rage until it came time to purchase 20K rounds of ammo for training. The US military really wanted 45 ACP but NATO mandated 9mm.

9mm is a serviceable cartridge and cheap compared to 357 Sig and 40. Nobody is complaining when the budget requests are reviewed.

I have it from someone who purchases ammo for LE that 9mm is still about 0.20/rd. Of course that won't be the price in a month but that's what it is now. 9mm is a good choice for LE and military budgets.

When you think about 32 and 380 ACP being a defensive cartridge in Europe forever, 9mm Luger looks awesome. I used to have a .380 H&K model 4 that I carried. You probably don't want to get shot in the face or chest with that.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

I don't spend my worry focused on things like recoil, muzzle flip and whether the 9mm can equal the 40sw. I just shoot a 40sw.

If muzzle flip and recoil are no concern, why don't you be a real man and EDC the Ruger Alaskan .454 with 2.5 inch barrel?

Interesting, I have had the opposite experience. The 40 is far more stout than the 9mm in the shield to me. In fact, I really don't like shooting the 40 in the shield and the 9 is pleasant. Don't get me wrong, I am a 10mm fan first then 40S&W 2nd and probably own more 40s than anything else. I have come to the conclusion in smaller framed guns, I prefer the 9mm and in larger frame guns, I prefer the 40. I also have a Taurus PT140 in 40 S&W and I hate shooting it. I imagine it would be much more pleasant in 9mm.

Comparing a SD9 with a SD40, there is no doubt noticeable difference in recoil, but not enough to favor the 9mm over the 40. In the SD frame with full size grip to hold on to, I feel just as comfortable with the 40.

Rosewood

It depends on what loads you're shooting. A Standard Pressure 115gr 9mm is going to generate a lot less snap than any .40 S&W load, but if you compare a 147gr 9mm +P to a 180gr .40 S&W out of a Shield, then the recoil impulse between the two is going to feel much more comparable.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I tested the spectrum in the two guns.

Testing my max-published 9mm+P load against .40 factory 180, there wasn't much difference.

Running 147 grain 9mm FMJ against my max-published .40 load, there was considerable difference.

My handloads for each were designed to simulate hot defense load specs. This comparison was in the full size M&P, as noted above.

I would assume the same to be true for a Shield in each caliber.
When I carried a 9mm Shield I used Q4318 NATO, which is more or less a +P round. It was peppy but not obnoxious. Probably a different story with warm .40 loads.

Anybody with both a .40 and a 9mm Shield is encouraged to do a similar experiment and tell us what they think.

I like all 3 calibers being discussed. I have full size 40 and 45 and a Shield in 9mm that’s my usual EDC choice here in Mayberry.

I had a 40c once upon a time but much preferred shooting the full size over the compact.

Folks often make broad statements to support their choice of carry.

Personally, I feel that 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are all proven cartridges, that none of them are objectively better than the others, and that they each come with their own distinct advantages as well as disadvantages. Which one to carry is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as the ideal one-size-fits-all cartridge for self-defense, and in my experience, folks who say otherwise are either arrogant, suffering from an extreme case of tunnel-vision, or otherwise extremely self-conscious, using their cartridge of choice one way or another to compensate for a perceived shortcoming. Hence arguments/insults like, "Anybody who don't carry a .45 is a wimp!" or "Anyone who carries anything other than a 9mm is an oaf!" or even "People who don't carry .40 S&W are either wimps or oafs depending on what they carry!"

Carry what you feel confident with, learn to shoot it well, and don't fall into the trap of second-guessing your choices to the point that you'll never become proficient with anything because you're constantly swapping out what you carry in search of the illusive ideal, one-size-fits-all self-defense platform.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Well said!