What made you realize you should have gotten a 9mm instead of a .40 S&W?

For me there is no regrets in getting the 40c

I have the 40c and 2 drop in Storm Lake Barrels .. so the best of 3 worlds .. the 9mm barrel shoots as accurately as the stock 40S&W .. 1 3/4 inch 10 round groups at 30 feet ..

The 357 sig barrel I got for this Christmas from my kids and haven't shot it yet but expect the same results .. both barrels can be had for under $120 dollars each if you look around .. Bud's a good place to start ..

With the 9c or any 9mm you would only be able to shoot the 9mm round .. with the 40 S&W you have an option not available to the 9mm hand gun ..

So for versatility the 40 is the way to go .. Practice in 9mm which is cheaper though not half as much cheaper as some have said and carry in the stock 40 S&W or 357 sig for the add power ..

No regrets at all !! and really don't think many will have .. at least with the 40c .. why ?? the 40c shoots very softly and hasn't much more felt recoil then the 9mm ..
 
Last edited:
20 ga., 12 ga., .38, .357, and don't feel under gunned. Can shoot them all very well.
 
I have been a 1911 .45 kind of guy, never really cared for the .40 cal that much now after owning .45, .357sig, 9mm and .40 I can really appreciate each caliber for what they are:
.45 a large caliber, generally low capacity extra weight......
.357sig very nice hybrid caliber, higher capacity, much faster round that stays flat for a very long distance.
.40 nice caliber, higher capacity, hard hitting, readily available
9mm very universal, inexpensive, modern technology makes this round very dependable, ballistics show it is capable, high capacity lighter weight maybe not by much but it is.

I try to not get into the whole caliber debate simply because they all work quite well. The stopping power thing is age old and is negligible.

My GLOCK 32 has 3 barrels to allow me to shoot .357, .40 and 9mm which I really enjoy and just the mere fact that I can do the very same with the M&P .40 I feel I now have the MOST comfortable, high capacity, universal handguns available.
 
I like the .40S&W. Recoil is more compared to a 9mm but the .40 has heavier bullets and more ft/lbs to offer. I think it's a nice "in between" round and they do come in small packages incl. high(er) capacity magazines, unlike the .45ACP.
 
I like both 9mm and 40. Actually all three, as I shoot 45 as well. As to the price? I just did a quick check of my favorite online ammo supplier. New manufacture, bulk ammo was running at $10 a box for 9 vs 12$ for 40. The price difference is decreasing.

While I have stocked up some reserves, another "panic" time and I'll be glad that I hung onto all three calibers. More options is a good thing. Variety is also quite fun during times of plenty.
 
The 9 is a good plinker cartridge so I bought a Lone Wolf barrel for the Glock 23. Great for shooting rats and grasshoppers and such.
Maybe. But I think I'd use a .40 cal on those grasshoppers!

You may be right. The 9mm might be a little on the light side -
 

Attachments

  • hopper.jpg
    hopper.jpg
    47.6 KB · Views: 152
Bought my shield .40 because the 9mm were on a waiting list. Never looked back since. Own other .40s now. No desire to own a 9mm now. Went the other way to .45 and 10mm. If I could get a 9mm barrel for my shield I may make the move. Happy with my .40 for now.
 
Last edited:
Last range ammo (FMJ) purchased on sale was .24/rd for 9mm and .26/rd for .40 S&W. I can usually find the SD ammo in .40 on special as well. I would not buy .40 at 2X the price of 9mm.
 
Last edited:
I never gotten into the which is better debate. I buy what I like. To me the answer is simple. This is America and if I want one of each I can! So I did the American thing And got both!

I did the same thing! Got both the 9mm and 40. I like them both for different reasons and both are fun to shoot.
 
I always thought of .40 as the answer to a question I wasn't asking. Never owned one.

I think of 9mm as the minimum acceptable round. I'd rather not trust my life to the minimum anything. All I carry is 10mm, .45acp or .357Sig.

Sure 9mm is cheap but is that seriously the criteria for selecting a caliber?
 
Last edited:
I have both.

I like both.

If I had to give up one or the other, I'd say its a toss-up.

I shoot maybe 500 rounds of auto-pistol per year.
The price difference is not the issue.
Range time is the hard part.
Most of my trigger time is on rifle.
 
W.E.G.-

That are you doing up this time of day? I'm just heading to the barn.
 
I did not go for a 40 in the first place, read about it, compared it to my 9's and asked myself "What for?"
In the context of self defense terrorists are using body armor and I wouldnt surprised if we start seeing some street thugs using it also. This is a game changer in terms of training, caliber, and bullet type. I dont have the answer but a 9mm isnt very effective against body armor. The 40 may not be as well and the 357 magnum may be an even better choice. I believe we have to rethink everything now including training for shot placement.
 
I've got both 40 and 9mm. I shoot both equally well. It's nice to have a few different calibers around because I can always find ammo. And speaking of ammo, right now I can't get 9mm for 20 cents per round or 40 for 23 cents per round so price wise it's still a toss up.
 
If your not sure---

I have a 40 MP and bought a .9mm barrel on ebay, not a Storm Lake but a Smith for 85.00 new, and a couple Mags from Cheaper than for less than 20 ea. Shoots great and you have your choice. I also have the .357 Sig barrel for it, that uses the .40 Mags
 
My first "carry" pistol was an FNX 40. It felt real good in my hands at the gunshop. WAY too much snap of recoil for this old man's wrists.(maybe the gun, maybe the caliber, maybe both????) Two magazines and I was done shooting for the day. Never felt comfortable enough with it to carry. Two of my brothers-in-law have M&P 9s. Shot those and knew that was the way to go for me. Bought a 9 full size and a 9 compact and have never looked back .I can go thru 500 rounds of 9mm in one shooting session and have no soreness of the wrist at all. No disrespect at all to the 40 or shooters who like it; it just ain't for this old man.
 
One of the family members wanted either 308, 9mm or 40 ammo for Christmas...........

At Reno's Cabela's store, the 40 was only $2.00 a box more for ball target ammo.
 
For me it's seeing the lower cost of the 9mm ammo.

Half the cost of the .40

20 yrs ago - It was recoil (my perception - because I was just learning to shoot handguns) and cost/availability of ammo.

4 years ago - cost and downsized calibers to just three (9mm, 22lr, and 12 gauge).

Today - I added it back

I just recently started shooting 40 again. Because the availability of ammo has improved along with the cost (because ALOT are ditching 40 and going back to 9mm)
 
What made you realize you should have gotten a 9mm instead of a .40 S&W?
I just did a quick count and I own almost exactly twice as many 9mm pistols as I do .40 pistols. And except for the smallest plastic pocket pistols, I shoot .40's noticeably better than I shoot 9's. So why do I own only half as many 40's as I do 9mm's? :confused:

The answer is simple: Resale value. :D

This thread is a perfect example of the current bias against .40's, particularly in the used marketplace. The good news is that you can often find more of them and buy .40's cheaper than similar 9mm's. The bad news is that resale value of a .40 is also going to be lower. If you are buying a new gun and you are concerned about resale liquidity and value, you should always buy a 9mm IMHO. :)

The silliness about ammo cost being too high and about how 9mm's are really just as good as .40's these days is just that: Silliness! :p I always come back to this: If I ever found myself in an ugly, nasty, life-or-death self-defense or family-defense situation... would I rather have a .40 with me or a 9mm with me? :confused:

I know what I'd rather have. :D Your mileage may vary. ;)
 
Back
Top