.40s&w vs 9mm

[fg12351]

Buy a .40 and get a 9mm conversion barrel

Then you can shoot both calibers through one gun in SHTF. That's why I bought a Glock 23. Cheaper to practice with as well.

From what I have seen in stores and read about from others, the .40 was easier to find than the 9mm over the past year.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

My vote would be to go with a G23 or a G32. The .40 and .357 barrels are dimensionally the same, get the opposite to what model you find. Get 9mm conversion barrel and have all 3 calibers, 9mm, .40 and .357 Sig. Some KCI G19 mags will set you up for 9mm work and the .40 and .357 mags are identical. Swapping barrels is a cinch.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

. A 147 grain 9mm bullet has 317 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. A 180 grain .40 has 420 ft/lbs of energy at its muzzle.



Ballistic numbers from
Speer Speer Ammo - Ballistics Tables

.357 Sig 125 grain -506ft/lbs @ muzzle

If we're just talking numbers.

 

[Indy317]

I don't think there is that much difference. Both have been a factor in the death and injury to many, many humans. I have seen police shooting videos where cops armed with .45s shoot people point blank and they keep on fighting.

What I do is look at the pistol. If I wanted a .40, I would get a pistol designed around it. The HK USP was designed around the .40. For 9mm, Glock is the way to go, as that pistol was developed around the 9mm, and most Glock issues I hear of happen with the .40S&W round.

 

[cce1302]

I wouldn't call 9mm a marginal round. I mean after all it was good enough for the german army in WWII. Also it has been around since WWII and still going strong. Kinda says something about the round and it's capabilities if it's used in so many applications from pistols to submachine guns. Als if I am not mistaken there is very little difference in balistics between the 9mm and the .40S&W when fired into ballistic gel.

Greg

Panzer tanks and metal helmets were good enough for the losing army in WWII as well, but they're pretty much obsolete these days. Do you carry a luger? As far as use in pistols and submachine guns, the .40 S&W is used in both as well.

Here is something to think about, the majority of the damage from a bullet isn't done by the hole it created its done by the temporary cavity created by the transfer of energy into a body. It is easy to see this after you field dress a deer after its been shot by a shotgun, the bullet doesn't touch most of the tissue that has been destroyed. So I feel the best way to compare bullets is with by using the energy it transfers. A 147 grain 9mm bullet has 317 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. A 180 grain .40 has 420 ft/lbs of energy at its muzzle.

the temporary wound cavity argument is only relavent with rounds going faster than your handgun ammo (fast 9mm at 1200? fps). Even a 12 gauge sabot slug will leave the barrel @ 1800-2300fps.

Sure thats a 103 ft/lbs difference, but both are inadequate when you really look at the numbers. Compared to a .223 (1282 ft/lbs) even the .40 is 3 times less powerful and the 9mm is 4 times less. Like all guns shot placement is key, but a bullet that is .045 inches wider isn't going to hit anything the 9mm can't. I only carry a pistol because its not really possible for me to carry a rifle around with me everywhere.

So in the end I say pick what you like the best and can shoot the best, as well as what your budget allows you. Shot placement is absolutely the most important, so whichever you can shoot the tightest group and shoot the fastest while still placing accurate aimed shots is the round to buy. I mean sure you can buy a 500 S&W but if you can't hit anything what good is it.

Ballistic numbers from
Speer Speer Ammo - Ballistics Tables

Remington Remington.com - Products - Ammunition - Ballistics

Smaller rounds have no inherent accuracy advantage over larger rounds. That point is absolutely worthless.

 

[wtfd661]

Keep your .40's since you already have them and buy your wife her own 9mm that way if the SHTF you have 2 caliber ammo to find doubling your chances.

I have both .45's and a 9mm.

 

[Glock Lover]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

 

[youngda9]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

You wouldn't volounteer to be struck with such a worthless round I don't think.

FAIL

 

[cce1302]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

 

[IUGradStudent]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

 

[mk2ja]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

Well, come on, man. We're having a pseudo-educated type debate here. Can you at least try to give reasons to support your view? I know that my NRA-certified instructor in Fort Wayne — who was totally great, very knowledgeable, etc, etc — made the blanket statement that the ".40 was created to answer a question that didn't need answered" or something like that. I wish I would've asked him what I'm asking you:
Why do you think it is worthless?


Caleb

 

[jforrest]

the temporary wound cavity argument is only relavent with rounds going faster than your handgun ammo (fast 9mm at 1200? fps). Even a 12 gauge sabot slug will leave the barrel @ 1800-2300fps.

Smaller rounds have no inherent accuracy advantage over larger rounds. That point is absolutely worthless.

True the temporary cavity is bigger from my 12 gauge slug, and thats why I use it as an example, it is easier to imagine and understand. But a 9mm will still leave a temporary cavity, though not as big as a 12 gauage there will still be one. Look at any ballistic gel test and you see the disturbance created is wider than the hole.

It is very obvious in this high speed video, taken of a 115 Gr. 9mm bullet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omUjwaGCSRo

I never said anything about the bullet itself being more accurate I was talking about a person's ability to handle the recoil and get back on target faster. Those 2 things as well as many other factors will affect the accuracy from one caliber to the next. If you want to get technical though some rounds are inherently more accurate and cut through the air better than others, but then we would have to talk more about rifles.

 

[GlockRock]

If the price and availability of 9mm and .40 were the same I would pick the .40.

 

[cce1302]

True the temporary cavity is bigger from my 12 gauge slug, and thats why I use it as an example, it is easier to imagine and understand. But a 9mm will still leave a temporary cavity, though not as big as a 12 gauage there will still be one. Look at any ballistic gel test and you see the disturbance created is wider than the hole.

It is very obvious in this high speed video, taken of a 115 Gr. 9mm bullet.

Sure, you posted a video, but that doesn't make temporary wound cavity relavent to the discussion of handgun ammunition.

I never said anything about the bullet itself being more accurate I was talking about a person's ability to handle the recoil and get back on target faster. Those 2 things as well as many other factors will affect the accuracy from one caliber to the next. If you want to get technical though some rounds are inherently more accurate and cut through the air better than others, but then we would have to talk more about rifles.

Why would we discuss rifles? There is no inherent difference in accuracy in handgun calibers.

 

[Larryjr]

I love both rounds. Because the 9 is smaller I carry a 9 for comfort. I keep the 40 by my bed at night in always near me in the house for comfort. The 9 is cheaper to shoot (around here there are several walmarts carrying the Federal brand - box of 50 for $9.47).

 

[Larryjr]

come on man

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

lets be fair ... .40 is not a worthless round. I love it like I love many other calibers that you might say are worthless.

 

[jforrest]

Sure, you posted a video, but that doesn't make temporary wound cavity relavent to the discussion of handgun ammunition.
Why would we discuss rifles? There is no inherent difference in accuracy in handgun calibers.

How is the temporary cavity not relevant? The temporary cavity is what does the majority of the damage to the organs, blood vessels, basically everything but bone.

Actually there is inherent differences in handgun caliber accuracy, generally these differences do not matter because there is not enough distance to the target to make it noticeable. But once again I was not referring to inherent differences, I was referring to shooter ability and the different feel one gets from a different caliber. And we wouldn't discuss rifles here, which is why I put the smiley. Just trying to keep this a debate not people getting mad.

 

[HICKMAN]

I hate to say it but I think a big deciding factor may come from my wife. If she really likes the G19 that may be it. Of course all that she has shot in the .40 is my G27, Taurus PT140 and a S&W Sigma series. She really liked the Sigma, so I had her handle the G19 this morning. She really like the way it felt in her hand. At least I know that if I stay with .40 I can get a G23 and she will be happy as well. By the way I realize that comparing the G19 to the .40's I mentioned above is not the best comparison, but it is all I got. I'm actually excited to see how much difference I notice.

Thanks for everyone's input. Hopefully I will have a decision by this weekend.

Just a thought. Take the money that you would lose by selling your current gun, and add that to the money you would spend in the difference + the taxes and spend that on a Storm Lake .40 to 9mm conversion barrel and a couple of G19 mags.

Then you are prepared for both calibers.

 

[HICKMAN]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

I think me and a few hundred law enforcement agencies would disagree.

 

[gglass]

.40 is a worthless round. 9mm or .45 will do you just fine.

Your baseless opinion of the .40 S&W makes my head spin... Where do people come up with ideas like this?

According to real testing, derived from real firearms testing, I can provide evidence like the following...

Your evidence comes from???