Sion

going to be buying a handgun soon, in one of the two mentioned calibers. which do you prefer and why?

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

seretogis

For what purpose are you acquiring said handgun? If it's for self defense, I would say 9mm.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Leviathan[NCV]

If you're going for self defense, go for a .40. It has much more stopping power, but still a nice smooth action (assuming an auto loader). The 9mm is... rather underpowered IMO due to the fact that your aim may not be what it is at the range, and you'll want every shot to count if the need arose.

For target? 9mm, cheaper, less recoil....

seretogis

Well, for personal protection you don't want the bullets to go THROUGH someone, and then through someone's wall, and into the head of a sleeping child. Let someone shoot you a few times with a 9mm and see if you're still walking around just fine.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

fhqwhgads

Depends on how experienced you are too. The 9mm has less recoil, so it's easier to learn on. If you are looking for self defense reasons and can handle the .40, I'd go for that.

I'll never forget the first time I shot my .40 with a 3.5" barrell. I was anticipating the recoil so much that I was dropping rounds way below target...

joebmel

what about if theres like 5 guys coming at you?
you would want the bullets to count right?

Sion

the purpose for the gun is both self/home defense as well as target shooting for enjoyment.

my level of handgun shooting experience is limited, but I have fired the following calibers: .22, .357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum and .45. I had no difficulty with any of these.

I am leaning toward the .40 caliber because a) I prefer the greater stopping power, and b) the nicest handgun I ever fired was a S&W .40 caliber FBI model that a buddy of mine owns. I liked this gun a LOT. great balance, you hardly noticed the heft of the gun.

As I see it, the .40 (generally) has a lot of stopping power without having to have a really heavy frame, such as the larger calibers do. For example, my father-in-law's .44 mag revolver is a really nice gun, but is so damned heavy. After 6 shots, my arms were noticably tired. Not so with my buddy's .40, I could shoot that sucker all day and barely notice.

on the other hand, the ammo for 9mm is likely to be more plentiful and cheaper, Im guessing.

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

Lebell

Truthfully, a 9mm loaded with hydra-shoks or gold dots will be just fine as a defensive round.

If you look at the penetration and expansion of some different makes of 9mm and .40 caliber, the numbers are not that far different:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs.htm

What swings it for me is that 9mm is MUCH cheaper to practice with.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

seretogis

To me, someone carrying around a 40 or 50 cal pistol just screams "compensation." Then again, I think that a Derringer is neat. :P To each his own, I suppose.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

1337haxor

Try both and go with the one you feel you are more comfortable with or think you can handle more easily under high stress situations.

debaser

You had to go there, didn't you...


As Lebell pointed out, modern 9mm ammo is perfectly capable of stopping an attacker. Add to that the fact that it is easier to control, has a flatter trajectory, and you can carry more ammunition, and it becomes the clear choice over .40 S&W, IMHO.

If you must have a more powerful round (which I can't imagine you would), look at the 10mm, which mimics the performance of a .41 magnum.

__________________

Blistex

Go for the 9mm, with the right ammo you can have the same stopping power for a fraction of the price, plus without the worry of killing somone in the next house.

kel

Sort of a thread jack, what do real life situations mimic? The denim covered gelatin or the regular gelatin?

The .45 ACP penetration seems kind of scary when shot into denim covered gelatin.

__________________
"It better be funny"

Exodus

IMHO i would go with the 9mm hands down. I carry my Glock loaded with Federal Hydra-Shocks. I can guarantee you I will bring down a human just the same with those as any kind of .40. And also for practicing 9mm is a lot cheaper. And practice makes perfect.

Moonduck

I've had fairly unimpressive experiences with .40 S&W. Maybe it is just the guns I've put it through, but none of them have ever been anything more than "acceptable" in accuracy. As this list includes a Sig 229 and a S&W Performance Center piece, I don't think it is a quality of pistol issue.

I just wonder if the loads commonly available aren't that great or if the rounds' characteristics are antithetical to the tack-driving accuracy (in comparison) that I seem to be able to pull out of just about every 9mm handgun I've fired. As this list includes everything from Glocks to Hungarian copies of the Browning Hi-power, I don't think I am biased from using very high quality 9mm pistols.

I am also unwilling to call it a recoil issue. I regularly shoot both .357 magnum and .44 magnum and have no trouble with recoil in either one. The differences between recoil and 'kick' between 9mm and .40 S&W are minimal in my eyes.

Then I look at the magazine capacity. Average 9mm holds 15rds and you'll have no trouble getting hi-cap mags for most normal 9mms. Average .40 S&W holds 11rds and you will likely have a tough time getting the hi-caps. As the difference is one round, it is not really worth the trouble to most people. Thus the 9mm has 50% again the capacity for only a slight decrease in terminal efficacy.

Lastly, I look at cost of ammo. The primary factor in determining the outcome of any shot you take under stress is how much practice you have had with the gun you are using prior to the shot. If the ammo for one gun is precipitously mor expensive, this will translate into less time spent on the range.

Bottom line - I say go for the 9mm if you want the efficient choice. The only caveat is that you should, in the end, go for whichever gun/caliber that makes you happiest. You will need to be confident in what you carry should you ever, god forbid, need to use it. All the efficiency in the world cannot beat willingess to commit to an action fully because you are confident that your gear will function as you expect it to.

Good luck, Sion, and let us know which you choose and how well it shoots.

pocon1

In Maryland a few years back, a criminal stole an ambulance. When the police tried to stop him, he tried to run them over. Some of their 9mm rounds bounced off the windshield. Now the cops are moving to .40. I myself have a Beretta .40. Full sized, same design carried by the military and many police depts, just a larger caliber.

fhqwhgads

There is a big problem with the Beretta .40 though... they took the 9mm and resized the barrell to handle the .40 round. After you put a thousand or so rounds through the weapon and it loosens up, the larger .40 cal round has a tendency to get stuck on the loading ramp. You'll have to field strip the weapon in order to clear the jam. Not very practical in a live fire situation.

This is why our department got rid of our .40 Berettas...

edit: spelling errors...

Moonduck

.40 S&W has no more ability to penetrate a sloped and curved surface (ie a windshield) than a 9mm. Additonally, windshields, especially on heavier vehicles like ambulances, are fairly tough critters.

Fhqwhgads does bring up one more strike against most .40 S&W. The VAST majority of them are just built-up 9mm standards. Very few manufacturers are bulding .40's from the ground up. H&K did it that way with their USP series, but the majority are still 9mm's that have been beefed up. I don't care for that concept, especially on something as notoriously weak as a Beretta.

bigdrunk92107

I usally practice with 9mm Barretta, 40 H&K USP, and a 1911 45ACP. Don't limit yourself to a 9mm or 40! Do your research on 45ACP or possibly a .357. If you want something accurate look into a 1911 style pistol. They can be pretty pricey.

BlackShadow

I own a Glock 22 and 23 both in .40 S&W have shot out about 12000 rounds in the 23 and about 8000 in the 22 had no problems ever, but prefer the 22 over 23. Note I have also shot with many different hand held weapons before making the choice and read many reports and articles. The 22 takes 15 rounds ( South Africa ) and the 23 13 rounds both carry enough rounds already if you need more, buy the plus 2 mags or the 28 round mag. In the US you might have a 10 round restriction - go for .40 before 9mm in this case. Why did the US army go back to .45 if 9mm is so great??? Why does the FBI use .40S&W and LA Highway Patrol many more... have changed. The fact is .40S&W is the better cal than 9mm it’s been proven. Buying the right tools for the job will help - the gun's make and ammo types. But just take a 9mm round and a .40 and put them next to each other - you decide. Bigger does help. In the G22 the recoil is very acceptable even for a female shooter. People talking about projectiles flying though walls - must be US walls, and 9mm goes though those walls too so.... what’s the point? My Dad's Walter PPK .380 auto has a more uncomfortable recoil than both Glocks. If recoil is a problem with your gun just get a softer recoil spring, this will reduce the recoil you feel. Reload your own rounds for the "cost" effect - you will also learn a lot about the whole concept of ballistics and how things work and it will provide enjoyment. If you going to own a gun it’s worth while to master the full range of aspects associated with it and accepted the full responsibility of owning one!!!!

Then again: any gun is better than no gun.

As far as the cal goes 9mm VS .40S&W - .40S&W wins all-round.

tropple

Over penetration is not a problem if you have the right round.

Check Glaser Safety Slugs:
What they are: http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.p...2665&page=1981
FAQ: http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.p...2665&page=1980

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Moonduck

"As far as the cal goes 9mm VS .40S&W - .40S&W wins all-round."

Except in that whole capacity category.

Dawson70

I don't get it? Are you shooting widley in a dense neighborhood? Why is everyone so concerned about a bullet going through walls and stuff??? Just a question. A .22 will go thru drywall with ease. Or does he plan on shooting only in his basement or bomb shelter?
.40 cal is more expensive for shooting. 9mm, being a NATO round is massed produced and is cheaper on the wallet. .45 cal is my choice of carry. The rounds are cheaper than the .40 and no matter what I hit, it's going down! Most Deputies that I know have traded in their .40 cal and gone back to the .45 cal. Don't take this the wrong way, I love my 9mm. It's fun to shoot and rarely gives me any trouble. No matter what you buy, learn it and use it skillfully. You'll be fine.
But of course, this is only my opinion.

__________________
"I Finally Finished My Goal....You Can Too!

Yippie Ki Ya...

Kurtz

Don't listen to this stuff. the .40S&W DOES NOT have much more power than a 9mm. In terms of preformance the two rounds are basically identical. In equalvlant loadings, a .40s&w will have a bullet only very slightly heaver, very slightly slower, and one mm wider. The effect on a human target will not be noticably different. If you don't belive me go to the store, get a box of each, and compare the factory data. The difference in almost noexistent.

9mm ammo is cheaper, you'll be able to practice more. But really, It come's down to whatever works the best for you. Worry about the model of the gun, not between 40 and 9.

sci

357 sig... i just like it

Kurtz

If you haven't made up your mind yet, he has a point with the .357 sig. The recoil and noise will be worse, and the ammo costs more, but you would get a big increase in penatration and still get similar mag capicity and frame size to the 9 or 40. Are you still shopping, or did you get one already?

Kadin

These people who are claiming you should go with 9mm instead of .40S&W because of the risk of "shooting through walls," are mistaken, IMO.

The risk of over-penetration with 9mm is significantly HIGHER than with .40 or any of the larger-caliber rounds. Especially if you use ball ammo (not a hollowpoint or softpoint).

The 9mm is an extremely high-velocity round, and there are many documented cases of over-penetration with it. Also, there are a number of rather bizarre horror stories of junkies being hit multiple times with 9mm ball rounds and not stopping.

If you have a 9mm, I wouldn't say that you should take it back or anything, because modern ammunition has greatly made up for the weaknesses of the cartridge. Get some Hydra-Shoks or CorBons for carrying to prevent over-penetration, and learn a double-tap shooting technique.

However if you are in the market, I would strongly steer you towards a .40S&W. It is actually a 10mm bullet (some people call it the "10mm short") and has a greater cross-sectional area and somewhat lower velocity than the 9mm. Historically the .40 evolved out of the 10mm Norma cartridge, which was designed for FBI use but was deemed too powerful and hard to control.

My favorite thing about the .40, though, is that most practice ammo for it has flat-nosed bullets, which more closely simulate hollowpoint ballistics. Plus, they make a neater hole in the paper. For carry, I would still spend the extra money for CorBons.

Oh -- and take a defensive shooting class. Even if you don't plan on getting a CCW permit soon, or don't need to take a class to get one where you live, I promise you'll learn something useful.

Snakedance

I have had the the chance to see virtually every pistol caliber in the world seen in action. Lets say post action, meaning I have seen people shot, and had the misfortune of taking care of these GSWs. The most common I have seen is the .22. Kills a lot of people, but I dont carry one. In the case between 9mm vs .40, please shoot me with the 9mm. That extra millimeter makes a difference. The .40 is typically a one shot ordeal, with the 9mm needing more than one shot. Obese people are not penetrated well with the 9mm and I have seen the recepients shot multiple times before the police felt they were no longer a threat. Rarely have I seen someone shot more than once with a .40 before they were incapacitated. All these things depend on the loads however. I bought myself two Glocks in .40 about a year after seeing their "true perfomance". I am not talking about the range, but the holes they make in people. I think the .40 is as controllable as the 9mm and my wife has no trouble shooting a .40 Glock. If you are getting a pistol, be sure to get hydrashocks or Golden saber or some other similar expanding round. Just stay away from the FMJ type rounds which are good for target. I have never seen a 9mm or .40 go all the way thru a torso shot. For your home get a cheap mossberg pump and load it with birdshot. I have seen extremities removed with birdshot at close range and you dont have to worry about it penetrating too many walls in your home before all the kinetic enery is exhausted.

__________________
"When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity. - Albert Einstein

Furious M

There's one very good reason that 9mm generally has a higher capacity than a .40: it takes a hell of a lot more bullets from a 9mm to stop someone. Since you want it for protection I'm going to assume you'd like 1 shot takedown. Unless you're extremely good with head shots, I'd suggest the .40 for your desired use. Yes, the ammo is a bit more expensive, but you'll only need 1 shot pretty much wherever you hit them.

Moonduck

"There's one very good reason that 9mm generally has a higher capacity than a .40: it takes a hell of a lot more bullets from a 9mm to stop someone."

Yeah, no way it could have anything to do with the fact that the rounds have a smaller diameter and you can thus fit more of them into the same size frame. That'd be silly.

"Since you want it for protection I'm going to assume you'd like 1 shot takedown. Unless you're extremely good with head shots, I'd suggest the .40 for your desired use."

Why would you assume a single shot takedown? Ever looked at how often that happens? Even the police, who are pretty much gonna have more training than you or me (not ability, mind you, but certainly more training) are generally trained to do double-taps. Why? Because one-shot stops are unreliable regardless of caliber.

You are also making the fatal assumption that the primary role of a firearm in a defense scenario is to actually shoot. More often than not, the mere presentation of the gun will stop criminal intent in its' tracks. A 9mm is as good as a .44mag insofar as presence of firearm is concerned. You still have some screwy ideas of ballistics and terminal effectiveness though if you think that 9mm is an utter failure and .40 S&W is the magic pill.

"Yes, the ammo is a bit more expensive, but you'll only need 1 shot pretty much wherever you hit them."

Yup, because Winchester packs fairy magic into every .40 S&W round they sell. Even if you shoot some perps' left hand, he will die on his feet from transmitted shock.

Yeah, I'm being real snarky here. I'm not actively trying to flame but I am pretty tired of people that obviously know jack about ballistics and terminal effectiveness coming in and touting one round over another when said round is minimally different from the other. If you want a true one-shot stopper, better toss that .40 S&W and start carrying a 7.62 NATO, probably the most proven one-shot stopper in history.

Oh, if you're wondering what handgun round actually has a good one-shot record, .357 magnum, hands down. .40S&W is a moderately good round, nothing more, and trying to elevate it to magic pill status is just passing on junk marketing or, worse, patent untruths.

tropple

I remember back to when M-16s were being pushed real hard and the M-14s were being confiscated. That what "They" used to say trying convince everyone to give up their 14s.

All that transmitted shock stuff is pure malarkey and only applies if you hit center chest.

As I've probably mentioned enough to bore everyone all to hell and back, you want reasonable one-shot chances, send a Glaser.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Moonduck

M-16 : Lighter, cheaper to produce, ammo is cheaper, less scary for REMF's during required rifle training.
M-14 : Kills bugs dead, can be used as a club if need be, not made by a major toy company
Army: Didja say that the ammo for the M-16 was cheaper? Gimme 765,000 of em.

In the case of these two rifles though, there is a major substantive difference in the terminal performance though, making the discussion of comparative worth by caliber more valid.

Interestingly enough, the Army used the same shoot-em-anywhere-and-they'll-drop argument with the .45acp in the Phillipines. Not saying that the .45acp doesn't perfomer, just that it is interesting that they re-used the argument.

Moonduck

As an aside, Glasers work so well because of complete energy dump. Hollow-points are effective for the same reason. Glasers beat hollow-points because the frangible interior just liquefies what it hits, preventing any sort of return to even partial function in the damaged area. Mag-safe has a similar design using somewhat larger shot and is apparently even more effective in various tests (including the infamous goat test). Neither has any greater one-shot-stop potential than a properly designed hollow-point anywhere other than a trunk hit though.

The lesson here is aim for center mass, know your weapon well (through practice), and use the best load you can with whatever weapon you choose.

(As an aside, I use Federal Hydra-shoks for carry. The only reason I don't use Glasers/Mag-safes is because I will not carry a load that I have not shot extensively, and I just ain't wealthy enough to drop a coupla dollars a shot on practice runs.)

Kurtz

When the FBI tested Glaser safty slugs they found them to produce inadaquate wound channels. And also "energy dump" doesn't mean much, a 9 or 40 has about the same energy as a fast baseball.

Furious M

Moonduck, I don't generally respond to flamers so I'm going to make this brief.

You can praise the effectiveness of a 9mm over a .40 based on what it says on paper all you want. My opinion on the differences between the rounds comes from actual shooting experience with them, not what it says should happen on paper. I've shot a hell of a lot of rounds through both guns, and my observations lead me to say pick the .40 over the 9mm if you're looking for protection. If you disagree with me fine, that's your opinion, but don't assume someone doesn't know jack about guns because they happen to disagree with you.

tropple

I have not used glasers extensively from a handgun, either. Glaser's aren't something you use for everyday carry. It's the sort of round you think about for clearing a room in a sheetrock apartment complex. I have run enough .45 to be comfortable with its performance to 15 yards. Luckily, though, it wasn't on my tab. It's too expensive to ever want to use it as a regular practice round.

The .308 is another story. That stuff is perfect. Fires just like nato hardball. It is a better round if you need to worry about over-penetration. This round won't leave a "target" ;-)

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Moonduck

Kurtz:
100% energy dump vs pass-through and energy lost out of the back-side of the target.

Energy dump does mean something. Basic physics tells us that an object that stops entirely is shedding more energy than an object that simply slows a bit and keeps going. Are you arguing that a round that passes through a target does more damage than a ballistically equivalent round that stops in the target?

--

FuriousM:
Reread my post. I did not praise the 9mm over the .40s&w. I said there was insufficient difference for the magic-bullet BS that is constantly spouted about .40s&w. Oddly enough, I happen to own guns in both calibers as well, a Glock 19, an H&K USP in .40, and a S&W Shorty Forty (that I'm trying unsuccessfully to sell). I will take the Glock 19's 15rds of tolerable 9mm over the USP's 10rds (can't be arsed to find LE mags for the minor increase in capacity) of marginally better .40 any day.

I will continue to say that someone doesn't know jack when they assert that two rounds perform radically differently when evidence shows otherwise. If you were arguing the relative merits of .357 magnum over 9mm, or .40 over .380acp, I'd be with you. There are substantive differences. Given the guns in which 9mm, and .40 are chambered, the applications to which they are intended, and the relative performance of each using similar quality load/bullet construction, there is simply not enough difference to justify the hype.

Moonduck

I forgot to add that I was not aware that the FBI tested the Glaser rounds. given their odd standards of necessary penetration and all that, I figured they would stay away from Glasers as a matter of course. I personally see Glasers as a scenario-specific load, useful in areas where pass-through must not occur (nuclear power plants for example).

Is that study posted anywhere? I'd be interested in seeing it and what conclusions it came to. I'd hate to think that I was parroting hype about the Glasers after giving someone hell for parroting hype about .40s&w.

Kurtz

Yes, I would argue that the bullet that keeps on going would do more damage, because It would make a bigger hole. The bigger hole would mean more damage. Basic Physics can tell you that the energy being "dumped" from a handgun round is very little, around that of being punched really hard. It is my personal belief that big wound channels are the most important factor in stopping a human target.

http://www.seark.net/~jlove/handgun_wounding.htm

Big Cholla

All handgun calibers/cartridges are notoriously weak energy deliverers to the human body in comparison to rifle cartridges. A more important issue is your ability to deliver multiple hits to the center of mass of your opponent in a short period of time. Modern bullet/cartridge design has given us very good ammunition for all big bore calibers. Select the handgun that you make a mental connection with as far as believing in your ability to shoot it accurately and quickly. You will be far more accurate with that handgun than with one selected solely on bore size. But, and here is a big "but", bigger is better. It might be a good idea to pick a firearm "family" and start with a 9 mm for a year or so of shooting and instruction; move on to the same in .40 S&W for a while and then on to the .45 acp. Stop at any level you are comfortable and practice, practice, practice. Any gun is better than no gun.

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equals."