40 or 9mm

[Sqhertz]

I'm debating whether or not I should sell/trade my ruger p95 for a m&p. It's a full size 9mm that I shoot very well and I would like to replace it with something of higher quality.
I'm stuck between getting a 40 or another 9. Cost of ammo isn't an issue but I'm unsure how well I would shoot 40 because of the recoil. After shooting a few mags in the shield, the ruger feels like nothing.
Can anyone tell me how the felt recoil is in a 9mm shield compared to a 40 compact or full size?

 

[dullh]

Felt recoil is less with a 9mm.

Recoil is subjective; that means that recoil is different for different people. Be prepared for as many answers as replies. What doesn't bother me will bother you and vise-versa.

Since ammo cost is no object for you, sleep on it. When you wake up first thing tomorrow morning buy the M&P in the first of the two calibers that pop into your head. Flip a coin. Roll the die. Whatever...

 

[dajogejr]

Shooting well and reliabilty are the most important aspects..
Are you experiencing reliability issues with what you have?

Before offing your current gun, I'd rent what you are thinking of replacing it with.
Is this going to be a carry gun, target only, mixed duty?
I love my 40c, but I carry it daily. (My gf has a 9c I like as well)

I'm looking for a full size 9mm for target and comps. Mainly....the ammo is cheaper and it's easier to hold on target for longer sessions.

What's wrong with your current rig and what are you looking to do?

 

[speedyquad]

i have a shield 9, shield 40, and a 40c...

felt/perceived recoil between the shield 9 and 40c is about the same...and to be honest the shield 40 does not have that much more recoil...or so i perceive

 

[Sqhertz]

Nothing wrong with it. It's been 100% since day one. After owning my shield and handling the compact and full size at the shop, the quality, fit and finish are way above my ruger.
I first got my ruger to introduce myself to pistols since it was cheap, robust and very trouble free from everything I've read and heard and it has been.
Whatever replaces it, its role will be HD first then range fun second.

 

[steve462x0]

I enjoy both calibers, I agree with above statements that the 9 stays on target quicker, but I find so little difference between the two. I think the 40 is more fun to shoot because it makes me focus a little more.

 

[dajogejr]

Get a FS if you don't plan on carrying, a 9c if you do.

 

[kozmic]

Not to muddy the waters, but why not consider a .45acp? To me, the recoil is less snappy than the .40s I've shot. If cost of ammo isn't an issue and you are thinking of a larger round than your 9mm, it makes sense (to me anyway)!

 

[Duster340]

Go 40 and pick up a 9mm barrel and mags. Worked out great for me.

 

[CB3]

Nine is fine. Stick with the caliber you have.

I like both and have both. I was pretty quick to adopt .40 years ago when it came and have only had trouble shooting it in smaller guns (vs. the 9).
After reading reports that most ER docs see little difference in wounds from the two calibers, I have focused more on the 9 recently for cheaper ammo, slightly less recoil and higher capacity.

My primary home defense handgun is a full size M&P 9 with a Taran Tactical hi-cap mag extension. 23+1 will get the job done without reloading. Shoots easy and fast.

Your Ruger should work fine for home defense, but the M&P is great too. Not sure it is all that much more in quality, but ergonomics may be a little better.

 

[Whatgorilla]

I like that 9mm is cheaper (more practice!), increases capacity, has less recoil=faster sight reaquisition (for me), is cheaper, and also is cheaper. Good SD ammo these days won't make much of a difference between calibers.

MY only concern with the Shield is capacity and accuracy (in that order). I SURE like the idea of having 16rds and knowing that I can put them in a head at 25Y and COM at 50Y (not that under 99.99% of the already rare instance where I'm shooting would I have to shoot that far). But for summer in FL, the G19 just isn't an option.
I justified my Shield purchase because I know I won't carry the G19 BUT I also know that I SHOULD carry something more than the LCP, which to me is an anti-mugging gun (though 8rds of .380 in a gun that point shoots very instinctively for me, even out to 25Y, is pretty good).

Bottom line: IF this is a carry gun, and you won't carry that giant hunk of Ruger steel (which most won't), then I say go for a Shield. If it's primarily for HD and/or Target practice, stick with what you have.

 

[Irn-Bru]

Not to muddy the waters, but why not consider a .45acp? To me, the recoil is less snappy than the .40s I've shot. If cost of ammo isn't an issue and you are thinking of a larger round than your 9mm, it makes sense (to me anyway)!

I feel the same way as you. The .40 for me is a snappier harder to shoot round than the .45acp. Everybody's different but the .40 S&W round I shoot the worst with.

 

[alwslate]

Nothing wrong with it. It's been 100% since day one.
I first got my ruger to introduce myself to pistols since it was cheap, robust and very trouble free from everything I've read and heard and it has been.

Don't fix something that isn't broken. The P95 is a great
pistol, some ruger fans think it is probably Ruger's best semi
auto. I have one. Same with the 9mm cartridge. You will
gain nothing by going to the .40 caliber round except more
cost and recoil. The P95 is not slick and refined but is a high
quality gun and one of the best buys on the market. If you
want another gun, and who doesn't ?, keep the Ruger and
buy another 9mm. Hard to have too many.

 

[Sqhertz]

Thanks for everyone's replies.
It's been on my mind for a while now and I haven't got rid of anything yet. Another reason was because my wife can't shoot it without limp wristing just enough to cause a ftfeed. These rugers need a solid grip but she's still working on proper technique.
I didn't mean to imply that ammo cost isnt an issue but the difference between a box of 9 and 40 is only a few bucks in my area with the 40 being available locally. I think I'll hold onto it for a bit longer with the hopes of squeezing another handgun into the collection.

 

[srderb]

I've read some very good, technical comparisons and with the right ammo there does not seem to be (IMHO as others will say differently) a huge difference between the 9mm and .40 rounds for self defense. I am in Mass and have the 40c. All things being equal I chose the larger round. I think that as long as you put the time in to get used to the new weapon you'll become accustomed to the recoil in the larger round quickly; it is not hugely different. You should also feel the recoil difference more in the compact versus the full size. You cant go wrong either way so what a great choice to have!

 

[Tpsfoto]

I too find that the 9 and 40 recoil is about the same. I do find that the 9 ammo is cheaper, but harder to find in local stores. They always have 40 target but limited on 9 here in Vegas.

 

[WA101]

I have the full size M&P 40, and I would definitely recommend it.

First, when there is a run on ammo like we had early last year, it is far easier to find 40 cal than it is to find 9mm. In my area, 9mm was very hard to find for several months but 40 cal was always available. That's why I got the 40.

The second thing about the M&P 40 is that you can buy a factory 9mm barrel and magazine from Midway or Brownells and quickly convert the 40 to 9mm. I have a factory 9mm barrel that I put in my M&P 40 and it works great as long as you use a 9mm magazine.

Since I shoot both 40 cal and 9mm from the same gun, I can tell that I can't really tell much difference in terms of recoil. The 9mm might be a little less recoil, but it's hard to say for sure and not something I'd worry much about. In terms of fun, I do prefer shooting the 40 cal.

Here's some good info on the M&P 40 to 9mm conversion using a factory barrel.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_16/1...photo_comparison_UPDATE_IN_OP_Range_test.html




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tat2dchad]

Go 40 and pick up a 9mm barrel and mags. Worked out great for me.

Most bang for the buck. Buying in 9 just makes no sense. Finding a factory direct barrel is an adventure but there are a few companies that make quality replacement barrels for the swap

 

[Sgt.Peck]

Been carrying a Glock since 1989. Started with 9mm but, then I had to carry a .40 for 12 horrible years. I thoroughly dislike the .40. Too much recoil, and no more effective than a 9mm in a shooting situation. Especially now days with the good quality +P ammunition. Finally, my agency went back to 9mm due to numerous problems the .40 . The recoil caused breakages to parts, like extractors. My agency also recently dumped the M&P they tested. There were over 300 in service, had many malfunctions, to numerous to mention. After two years with that, most back to Glock 17, or 19.

 

[DASA]

I bought a used police trade-in M&P 40 and really like it, but I purchased it with the intention of converting it to 9mm with a factory barrel. That hasn't happened yet due to non-existent supply of spare barrels/S&W inability to produce spare parts of all types to support their products.
The reason my pistol was so cheap and why 40 S&W ammo is usually available in stores is that the .40 is being abandoned in droves by both LE and consumers in favor of the 9mm. The 9mm in modern loads can get it done just as well as .40 (and gasp, .45 too!) and do it cheaper with less recoil and weight.
Why buy .40 S&W at .35 cents a round when you can shoot 9mm for .25-.30 cents a rd or the much more fun .45 at .40 cents a rd? I carry a Glock 21 or 17 everyday in the tropics, a full sized pistol is not too hard to hide with a proper IWB holster strongside (not behind the hip). You are planning on a home defense gun so a full-sized M&P 9 or 40 with extra 9mm barrel would be my bet. Why not do what I did and pick up one of the cheap police trade-in M&P 40 pistols for around $350? The folks at CDNN are well-stocked at the moment.

Stay safe.