9mm versus 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pitting the 9mm against the .40 S&W is bound to get peoples' attention. Muzzle energy is but part of the total equation. You might want to research the FBI's recent decision to return to the 9mm from the .40

I'd suspect it has a lot more to do with price per round than anything else. When you buy hundreds of millions of rounds of training and duty ammunition, even with a government contract - the price adds up.
 
Remember Jim Cirillo?

Jim was a member of the 1960s stake-out squad in NYC. He describes one encounter in which an armed robber absorbed two full loads of 12 gauge, 00 buckshot, remained on his feet and bolted for the door. He was brought down by a .38 SPL to the knee, at which time he asked the squad not to shoot him anymore.

Remember the Secret service agent who went down with a single .22 Rimfire to the gut during the attempt on President Reagan's life? If we judged .22s and buckshot on "knockdown power'" it is evident that we must discard our computer analysis and start over again.

In my opinion, the 9mm seems to be the upper threshold in which the average person can shoot in a reasonably competent manner without too much practice. I admire the younger guys with massive arms and shoulders that can lock up a .40 or greater cartridge and pour rounds into the 10-ring like they're shooting BBs. The .40 is a truly great cartridge provided you're willing to give it the extra practice needed to be competent with it.
 
Yes, I enjoy the Shield 40 very much, and I have no issues with recoil nor rapid-fire, as some report. I scored 241/250 in the Texas Concealed Handgun License class, and that included several 5-shot rapid-fire rounds.

Maybe it's just the scientific rigor I practice, but isn't your anecdote worthless without a baseline? That score tells me you weren't on the clock.
It's not very useful to say a person can shoot the same scores across calibers without any time component.
It's like me saying I once bowled a 190 barefoot. Can't infer whether barefoot is better than with shoes just from that.
 
knockdown power.....

Placement is more important than knockdown power and in my mind, the ability to repeatedly place good shots is important also. Calibers carried for SD don't have 'knockdown' power but if the bullet penetrates a vital area, usually the center of mass being the easiest target, it will stop an attack quicker than a shot to a less vital place. Hitting the Central Nervous System is the fastest put down with a vital artery or the heart being next for a quick drop in blood pressure.

In fact, I'm such a disbeliever in the 'one shot stop' that I train to pull the trigger several times, hoping that one round will hit a vital spot. In other words, "Fire until the threat is neutralized."

With this in mind, training is also more important than caliber. It's better to get a good hit with a smaller weapon than spraying a larger caliber gun ineffectively. Bigger is better ONLY if you can handle it well.
 
He describes one encounter in which an armed robber absorbed two full loads of 12 gauge, 00 buckshot, remained on his feet and bolted for the door.
. . .

Remember the Secret service agent who went down with a single .22 Rimfire to the gut during the attempt on President Reagan's life?
. . .
I admire the younger guys with massive arms and shoulders that can lock up a .40 or greater cartridge and pour rounds into the 10-ring like they're shooting BBs.

Your anecdotes are interesting but irrelevant. We all have stories like this, including me. There are lots of stories of people charged up on drugs like PCP that took many shots (15-20 or more) and still kept coming. If you are going to evaluate anything that involves human activity the only thing that is really meaningful, reliable, and actionable are statistics of a representative population.

Have you shot a .40 round? I am far, far from both young and strong, certainly NOT having "massive" arms, and I don't find the Shield 40 to offer any increased physical challenge. Like any gun, one must train on the gun he/she plans to use.

Although this may not be a perfect test, here is one test on video that shows little difference in recoil between a .40 and 9mm:
[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ETax3N5mDY&list=PLJRy9yFn5iq90exc0FAwYJOOF7PIIgnc-&index=18]M&P Shield 40 & Ruger LC9 Recoil Comparison[/ame]

But this is just one test, and probably not statistically significant. What I'd really like to see is a series of scientific tests where all factors remain constant except for the caliber, and the recoil is properly measured with accurate scientific devices. Perhaps the difference in recoil (between .40 & 9mm) varies with pistol. I don't know.

I'm all for reviewing and comparing facts. If you, or anyone, have other recoil tests you'd like to cite, please do so. Since you don't know me, and I don't know you, opinions don't really matter. As Sgt. Friday is often quoted as saying: "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts" :D
 
Maybe it's just the scientific rigor I practice, but isn't your anecdote worthless without a baseline? That score tells me you weren't on the clock..

That's laughable. :D On one hand you cite your "scientific rigor" while on the other hand you jump to conclusions without any facts whatsoever.

Turns out in the test I took, we were on a clock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top