.40 or 9mm?

[NumberCruncher]

OK, I'm having trouble pulling the trigger on my first gun purchase (yeah, I meant the pun). Originally, I was sold on the Ruger P95 because from everything I've read, you can't beat the durability and reliability for the price.

Now, I'm starting to lean more toward a .40, like the XD4 and I'm having trouble finding a P95.

As I understand it, there's not a lot of difference, but it seems like the ammo availability for the .40 is better right now. I don't want a gun I can't find ammo for.

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[HoughMade]

Either are good choices assuming good defense ammo.

I carry a 9, but I could go either way. One thing I would caution is making decisions based upon ammo availability now. I don't think the present situation is the "new normal". I think 9mm will become more available when the panic of the lemmings subsides and will, again, be less expensive than .40.

 

[Sling10mm]

Cruncher, if there is any way you could try shooting both before buying, I would go that route. It has been forever since I have been to Pop Guns, but at the time (3-4 years ago) they had a good selection of handguns that you could shoot on their range.

I had an XD40 and liked the ergonomics, but it was a little finicky with ammo. It may have just been the one I had, but it was going to be a carry gun, so I got rid of it. My wife has an XD45, which is a great gun. I have never handled a P95 though.

Good luck in your search.

 

[Manatee]

What do you want the pistol for? carry? competition? plinking?

My general feeling is that a 9mm will do better for a newer shooter than a .40. Ammo, when available is quite a bit less in cost, has a good variety of weights and 9mm defensive projectiles are extremely effective nowadays.

People tend to train more, on average, with a 9mm, which makes them a better shooter (all else being equal).

My suggestions, generally, for people looking at calibers is: first a 9mm, then a 45ACP, then something in between.

 

[BLACKCAT]

There is so much to learn. Just buy a gun and take off. I carry a Ruger SR9c and a SR40c as a back up. If I am in my truck I also carry a S&W 645

 

[Joq867]

I too would say 9mm, I a carbine in 9mm and just can't justify another caliber. And I think for a first gun the 9mm is just a little more tame to shoot.

 

[netsecurity]

Ammo for the .40 is 50% more expensive, which surely the only reason more of it is available now. Both 9mm and .40 caliber are extremely popular--.40 more so with LEO, and 9mm more so with military civilians. Forget price and availability, even though 9mm normally is far and away a more affordable range gun, and focus on usage and practicality for a minute:

--> A 9mm full size magazine hold about 15, whereas a .40 caliber full size holds about 12.

--> A 9mm has much less recoil, and therefore can be easier to shoot and more accurate for novice users.

Price plus those two reasons are why I've standardized on 9mm. I could probably shoot a .40 pretty good now, but my first pistol was a .40 and I couldn't hit the side of a barn with it. I would never suggest a .40 for a new shooter, but unfortunately many people do.

 

[pudly]

This is one of those eternal/religious arguments. There are pluses and minuses to both options. Best if you understand those pluses and minuses and make your own decision. Neither option is bad. Just find which works best for you (as long as it is 9mm ).

 

[Glocker 400]

Ammo for the .40 is 50% more expensive, which surely the only reason more of it is available now. Both 9mm and .40 caliber are extremely popular--.40 more so with military and LEO, and 9mm more so with civilians. Forget price and availability, even though 9mm normally is far and away a more affordable range gun, and focus on usage and practicality for a minute:

--> A 9mm full size magazine hold about 15, whereas a .40 caliber full size holds about 10.

--> A 9mm has much less recoil, and therefore can be easier to shoot and more accurate for novice users.

Price plus those two reasons are why I've standardized on 9mm. I could probably shoot a .40 pretty good now, but my first pistol was a .40 and I couldn't hit the side of a barn with it. I would never suggest a .40 for a new shooter, but unfortunately many people do.

Lots of misinformation here.

.40 is not popular with the military. 9mm NATO is standard issue. .40 is very popular with law enforcement, being the dominant pistol caliber.

In most pistol platforms, capacity differences in 9mm and .40 are within 2 or 3 rounds. Glock 17 (9mm) mags hold 17 rounds, Glock 22 (same pistol in .40 caliber) mags hold 15. A whopping 2 round difference. Same for the M&P series. Same for the Ruger SR series. There's a 3 round difference in the XD-M series.

.40 does recoil more in equal platforms, but it also launches a bigger, heavier bullet at the same velocities as 9mm. And the recoil isn't dramatically increased, unless you are unusually sensitive to recoil. Small stature female police officers handle the .40 just fine. In my Glock 35, Tula and Prvi Partizan ammo in .40 shoots just about as soft as standard 9mm, and cycles the weapon just fine.

When the ammo initially dried up during this current silliness, all I could find on the shelves was .40 caliber. It's an LE round, it's manufactured in huge quantities, and will usually be available when other calibers are not. Same thing happened during the 2008-2009 hoarding frenzy. People are quick to snatch up 9mm ammo, due to SHTF fantasies involving zombies and scavenging burning NATO convoys for compatible ammo.

Many major pistol platforms have aftermarket barrels available to convert .40 pistols to 9mm for range use. This negates the "cost" issue for practice and allows flexibility in caliber selection. I have a 9mm conversion barrel for my Glock 23 (40), and it works flawlessly with range ammo or defensive ammo. In an emergency, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable carrying my G23 loaded with good 9mm ammo and my conversion barrel.

As far as actual cost goes, I have never seen a 50% price difference from 9mm to .40 caliber. That's pure bs. A smart shopper can find a box .40 within a couple of bucks of a box of 9mm, and in defensive ammo (Federal HST, Speer Gold Dot), the prices are really close. But then again....a conversion barrel completely negates this. And the recoil difference between a 9mm and a .40 is not dramatically different enough to affect training or actual use in self defense.

The only 50% figure that applies is.....I am 50% more likely to find the ammo I need on the shelf, with my G23 and 9mm conversion barrel. (For those who are unfamiliar, you cannot convert up to a .40 from 9mm, only the other way around)

 

[Sling10mm]

This would be a secondary or even tertiary consideration, but with many 40's you can also pick up a 357 SIG barrel and have another caliber available while using the same magazines.

Commercial 357 SIG isn't cheap though... that's why I roll my own.

 

[Faine]

That's a very thorough post, two above this one. To me the 9mm vs 40 debate is the most valid there is. Forget glock vs 1911. 9mm vs 45acp Pfft easy. This one however while I think the choice is clear, may not be black and white. I HATE the .40. It makes me cry seeing guns chambered in it. Ballisticaly and theoretically speaking it's not "necessary" as a round, much like the .380 (which I think is a fun round). The .40 is supposed to be the best of both worlds between the 9mm and the 45acp, I feel however that it's actually the worst of both worlds, the increased recoil and snappiness doesn't give worthwhile ballistic enhancement from the 9mm. Looking at it from 45acp perspective your recoil reduction is minimal but you do get more rounds, but if you just want more rounds what is wrong with 9mm?

In summary, 9mm k, thanks!

 

[VERT]

Now that I have seen two hoarder/panic buying episodes (2008 & 2012), I am of the opinion that a 40 caliber Glock, M&P, or XD is very multi purpose. Simply buy a 9mm conversion barrel and a couple mags then enjoy the ability to shoot both cartridges.

I own both. 9mm is easier to shoot, while 40 is a more powerful cartridge.

 

[longbarrel]

Why is there even a question?

 

[Mitchell0481]

This would be a secondary or even tertiary consideration, but with many 40's you can also pick up a 357 SIG barrel and have another caliber available while using the same magazines.

Commercial 357 SIG isn't cheap though... that's why I roll my own.

You could also buy a M&P 40 and get a 9mm barrel and magazine. Poof two guns!

 

[Beemer]

I have been really considering getting a .40, just because I would like to be able to switch to a 9mm or 357 sig if I wanted to. Mom always said keep your options open.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Well, Im no noob, been around shooting a long time. First gun I owned was a .45 Taurus. Traded it for a G22. Loved that Glock.
Sold it to my brother and bought a Gen3 G22 and a G27.

Now Im debating between the G19 and G23.
I shoot a 9mm better in the Glock format, but only marginally so. I shoot expert with the 40, by a good margin...so I dont care about accuracy....just want a smaller gun than the full size but bigger than the compact.

I guess you could say Im in the same boat sort of with regard to which caliber gun to get....but Ive been leaning towards the 19.
The point above though about switching barrels and mags does make it interesting with regard to getting the 23 though and a 9mm barrel and mags.

BTW, personally, I love the 45acp. I just cant get myself to get another .45 gun in any configuration but a 1911. Just doesnt feel right any other way.
And yes, I do have one....doesnt everyone?

 

[netsecurity]

Lots of misinformation here.

Sorry,I got my wires crossed with .40/.45. But that does not change any of my points one bit, only the math behind them. If a box of 50 9mm costs $10 at best, and a box of .40 cal costs $15 at best, then that is a 50% difference. So if a cheap box of brass .40 can be found for less than $15, then I stand corrected on that math too. Here are my points on the .40 as compared to the 9mm without involving mathematical information that could be scrutinized as "misinformation":

[in my best caveman voice]

1) COST MORE
2) RECOIL MORE
3) HOLD LESS BULLETS!

 

[Regnar]

Find a model you like and shoot well.
It doesn't matter what the caliber is if you can't hit with it.

 

[hillbilly undertaker]

I carry a .40 having been in the military and seen first hand what the 9mill round does i would rather carry and have the proven stopping power of the 40.

 

[warren5421]

I own a 9mm, a .40 S&W, and a .45 ACP. Why, because I will be able to get ammo for one or the other. What do I shoot? Most of the time a 10mm. What do I carry? Either a .45 ACP or 9mm sometimes a 10mm. If I could get a Chinese sidearm I would also have one. I have helped several small ladies learn to shoot and most like the recoil of the .45 ACP over the 9mm or .40 S&W. The .45 is a push back in the hand while the 9mm and .40 S&W are both a sharp hit in the hand. Most go for the 9mm as there are several small size pistols in the caliber and they like the smaller (less) recoil of the 9mm. What am I saying? You have to shoot and pick the one that fills right to you.