40 or 9mm

I am seventy five years old and a new Shield 40 S&W owner. I added a Pachmyhr sleeve grip to take the edge off the recoil. It now is close enough to my Taurus CH85 recoil to not matter. If you are holding the gun well it will just rise a little further when recoiling. The thing to remember about recoil is the equal and opposite reaction law. If gun comes back at you harder the bullet is going to hit harder also. Statistics may not show a lot of difference but each circumstance is different.
 
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.

How does buy a Glock as an answer help at all?
 
Hm, I've been thinking about those trade ins as well. The conversion seems like the way to go if anything. I will definitely look into that option too.
 
A friend of mine is a Police officer. She taught me to shoot. She has a 40, service gun and me a 9mm. I shot her gun, and yes it is loud, but I'm yet to see what the big deal is about using a 40. I think using a 9mm with decent grain (124 or something) will do just fine. Again, this is my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm
 
I rented a M&P 9mm w 4" barrel and shot a 9mm today for the first time. After just 45 minutes, I was shooting mostly bull's eyes at 20 feet.

I have more trouble getting good shots with a .40, like my son-in-law's Glock 23. I am a little guy, with small hands, and the .40 is a bit of a challenge. The 9mm however, was just right.

I say shoot the gun that puts the bullets where you want them. You can always load the mag with Hornady Critical Defense hollow-points for more stopping power.

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
 
I know in my CORE I do not notice the .40 that much more recoil than when i use the 9mm barrel. Now when I shoot my Kahr CM9 I get a fairly good kick.As far as ammo goes I choose .40 because I can find it easier than 9mm, plus I believe the laws of physics are more in my favor.
 
i have a 40FS with a Storm Lake 40 to 9 conversion barrel.

when i go to the range, i shoot both calibers for comparison.

i really don't notice much difference in recoil between the two.
i shoot very slightly more accurate with the 9, compared to the 40, but not enough to make me use 9mm for Home Defense.

and i'd never own a Glock until they decide to change the "block of wood" grip.
if they came up with a grip comparable to the M&P, then i'd probably buy one.
 
I think hard ball is the worst defensive round we choose in both 9mm and 40.
Now that is said.
There are many expensive specialty defense rounds.
Just for the heck of it lets us assume all we have is ball ammo.

What would I want?
The heavier larger caliber one would be it. 40

I would choose Corbon, Buffalo Bore or Critical Duty if possible though in either caliber.

As for the mention of limp wristing an aut
 
I have an m&p 40c that I shoot well.
It is the first 40 that I've shot, and after reading reviews on the round I was a little apprehensive about the recoil.
After shooting it, I really don't see what all the fuss was about.
I know that recoil is subjective, but to me the recoil of the 40 is easier to control than my full size 1911.

I know that it has nothing to do with a defensive scenario where follow up shots would be required, but mine is accurate enough to shoot snakes in the head.
 
40 vs 45 acp, when the 40came out a few years ago, the NE state police ditched the 9X19, and bought 40 for everyone. 4 years ago, the 40 went bye-bye and now 45 acp
is the new guy on the block FWIW


john
 
I've been wondering the same thing. I went to the gun store today to look at a 9 FS and a 9c, and a nice couple in there started telling me how great their 40s are. He has a FS, she has a compact. He said the 40 bullet is less likely to go right through someone. He also said the 40 was easy to find and comparable to the 9 in price. From what I can see on ammoseek, the 40 is averaging 5 cents more per round.
I had a 9c, and I loved it...and I might get another one. But should I really consider a 40? I won't be buying extra barrels, etc. My budget is very, very skinny.
 
Recoil - it's all Newton's third law; When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. More on one side means more on the other.

So a 40 won't penetrate a body as much as a 9? That gave me laugh. What did he think about his misses, the ricochets and report, too? Would guess that fellow was continuing to sell the idea to himself and maybe more so to his wife on why he got her the 40 in compact.

In the days before the bullet technology was as good as now, there were significant differences. Not so much any more.

Choose the biggest caliber that you can shoot well on the first shot as well as on your follow up shots, too. That will be the right caliber for you.
 
I have both the 9mm and 40 in the Shield, and honestly, love them both. I also have a Ruger P85 mkII that I have had for the better part of 20years and its still a favorite of mine, shoots great and very reliable gun, just too big for a conceal carry IMO hence why I went with the Shield (s) . Home defense is still my Glock 21 gen 2.

Is there more recoil with the 40? Yes, but at the end of the day, you need to get what caliber YOU shoot best with ! See if you can rent both at a range and try them out for yourself first to give you a better idea of which is best for you. Side note: I would recommend getting quality factory ammo for the 40 ;-)
 
Back
Top