Firing identical 9mm and .40 pistols. UPDATE: Sold the. 40

[Univibe]

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.

 

[33jayman]

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

 

[Echo40]

@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.

 

[GaryHK]

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

As are the guns firing them.

 

[Univibe]

@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.

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.

 

[LostintheOzone]

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.

 

[dla]

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.

 

[Univibe]

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?

 

[rosewood]

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

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

 

[Echo40]

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.

 

[Univibe]

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.

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.

 

[Fate]

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.

 

[Echo40]

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.

 

[rosewood]

Well said!