Decisions, Decisions - 9mm or .40?

[OldCop876]

Hi guys. I was all set to "pull the trigger" so to speak on an M&P (my first). I was looking at the Compact, or the Full Size, either one brand new with night sights and three magazines at $455, shipping included. The upside is that the 9mm is cheap to shoot and I can also use it for students in training classes pretty easily.

But then I came across the .40 in Full Size, with standard sights, three magazines, also brand new, for $379 including shipping, but in .40 caliber only. This seems like the deal of the century on a brand new gun.

I don't currently have a .40 of any kind, having gotten away from the caliber living overseas the past few years where it is not popular. I never had anything against the .40, and think it would probably be sort of fun in a full-sized pistol like the M&P which was designed for it. I also already have about a dozen pistols in 9mm. They are just easier for others to shoot and cheaper to feed.

What does everyone think? Which would you choose? The only real difference in the deals is caliber and night sights.

 

[BAM-BAM]

With modern defense ammo....... to me it's no big deal.

I try to stock as few calibers as possible......... prefer one deep pile to many smaller ones........

 

[oldafsp]

I keep things simple. One caliber for my autopistols. 9mm

And with todays modern defensive ammo the old worries of the 9mm are put to rest.

I shoot both a 9mm Pro Series 4.25 in and a Shield 9 in IDPA competition. Both very accurate and effective weapons that have been trouble free since day one.

 

[mike from st pete]

Stick to 9mm

 

[Rick_A]

I like to keep a full size 45, mid size 40, and compact 9mm. That keeps them fun, manageable, and makes the best use of their respective cartridge capacities.

 

[model17]

9mm is the way to go!

 

[alleycat7002]

9Mm dont look back

 

[Rick_A]

As far as cslibers, the best of the bigger caliber will always outperform the best of the smaller, there is no denying that. Shot placement and proficiency with you choice is always the most important. Every gun has a caliber that makes the most of it.

 

[Hhenry]

Another vote for 9mm. Cost effective and capacity maxed!

 

[McE]

No reason whatsoever to go with 40cal unless you're shooting competition and need to make major power factor.
Lower round count, slower followup shots, more expensive ammo, all of these are not sensible tradeoffs for elusive speculative terminal performance.

And if you do any amount of regular shooting, remember any initial price difference is dwarfed by ammo cost difference.

 

[OldCop876]

9mm is no doubt the practical choice and I would not have to stock another caliber. I'm not at all worried about performance differences between the 9mm and the .40 cartridge.

Part of me just can't resist a good deal, and another part of me said that as a firearms instructor, I really ought to have a .40 lying around somewhere, lol.

I was considering spending about $400 or less on one of those 1911's made in the Philippines just to keep something locked in the trunk of my vehicle for when I forget to take something bigger with me. But now I'm thinking that a brand new M&P with three magazines in .40 at $379 might be a better buy for that duty and I wouldn't have to worry about rust or capacity. 15 rounds of .40 would be hard to argue with.

Maybe I'll order a 9mm Compact with the night sights and use it for training and carry, and order the .40 as a trunk gun. Hard to say. Of course, in the 9mm, there's always the Shield to think about as well.

Too many good choices. I remember the old days when if you wanted small, you got yourself a J-frame revolver and if you wanted something larger, you got a 1911, lol. Simpler times.

 

[Wishoot]

I have one .40 in my stable and that's only because it was easier to find .40 ammo during the scare a couple years back than it was 9mm.

It's a 4006. I have no plans on selling it nor do I have plans on adding another gun in .40.

 

[MyDads38]

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say go for the 40. I had never owned a 40 before because of all the bad reports about "snappiness" and "kabooms". Then I had a chance to shoot a Beretta 40 compact and it wasn't bad at all. So on a whim, I traded my Ruger P89DC for a new SD40VE and liked it so much I bought a FS M&P 40; and now I'm enjoying the heck out of my new Shield 40! And yeah, I'm back to 3-9mm pistols (SD9VE, FS M&P 9 & Shield 9) and my Ruger SR1911 and FS M&P 45 (need another 45 to round out the group).

I find the 40 S&W to be a joy to shoot and my Shield 40 feels more like a 9mm to me. If you don't mind something different in your "stable", sounds like a very good deal @ $379 new.

 

[McE]

A Shield 40 feels like a Shield 40. You just need to adjust what you label how things feel. Do you really mean to say you can't tell the difference between your Shield 40 and your Shield 9?
Obviously shooting a 40 isn't going to knock you on your arse, but a 9mm is always going to be more of a 'joy to shoot' no matter who you are. Unless your criteria for joy includes punishment.

Speaking of kabooms, a Glock 23 (40sw) did last week at the range with factory hydrashok ammo.

It's a good time to get on the 40 train as many shooters and departments abandon it. But just like a dropping price on a company stock, it warrants investigation on why. I say it falls under false economy and will never overcome that categorization.

 

[WarDamnSW]

Only reason I'd get a .40 is if I had plans for a drop-in 9mm barrel. If not, 9mm is the easy choice.

 

[TTSH]

What does everyone think? Which would you choose? The only real difference in the deals is caliber and night sights.

All other things being equal (which they rarely are), between the two I'd go 9mm in a plastic pistol.

 

[Florida J Frame]

I just don't see any advantage to the .40. You will quickly make up the price difference with cheap 9mm ammo, higher capacity and no difference in terminal effect if used for serious applications. 9mm is the winner.

 

[OKFC05]

another part of me said that as a firearms instructor, I really ought to have a .40 lying around somewhere, lol.

I sold my loaner .40s because advanced students have their own guns, and beginners couldn't keep their grip when firing a .40. YMMV

 

[MyDads38]

A Shield 40 feels like a Shield 40. You just need to adjust what you label how things feel. Do you really mean to say you can't tell the difference between your Shield 40 and your Shield 9?
Obviously shooting a 40 isn't going to knock you on your arse, but a 9mm is always going to be more of a 'joy to shoot' no matter who you are. Unless your criteria for joy includes punishment.

Speaking of kabooms, a Glock 23 (40sw) did last week at the range with factory hydrashok ammo.

It's a good time to get on the 40 train as many shooters and departments abandon it. But just like a dropping price on a company stock, it warrants investigation on why. I say it falls under false economy and will never overcome that categorization.

Just saying I've shot some 9mm handguns that have worse recoil than my Shield 40 has. I just started shooting 40 caliber and if I thought it was punishing or a punishment to me to shoot; I wouldn't have 3 of them in my meager collection. I shoot for fun and pleasure, and to stay proficient for SD/HD-if that ever occurs. I shoot standard calibers (my choice) and stay away from the magnums (again, my choice). Sorry if my statements were misleading in any way, not my intention; just stating how the Shield 40 feels/shoots to me. It's just my opinion, that's all

 

[muzzleblast]

The more the merrier. If you don't have a .40 in the house, you should. I own a pile of 9mms, far more than any other semi-auto pistol cartridge. My favorite carry pistol is the compact S&W 3953. But when it's cold and evil doers are likely to be clad in layers under Carharts or leather jackets, I find a 180 grain 40 caliber, or a 230 grain 45 caliber more comforting than the 9.

Just my opinion.

MB