-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
40 cal vs 9mm; why the hostility
- Thread starter nordic alien
- Start date
This is the ONLY reason I own any guns in 40.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Coda
NES Member
If you are looking to do a P80 then .40 cal has an upside. Lately there are a lot of LEO trade ins that are stripped and sold as “kits” (you get everything but the frame). If you want to build a Glock using Glock OEM parts this is the most affordable way to do it.
Okay, I'll bite: I have seen a few (small) studies that suggest 40 muzzle flip vector is more random than 9mm vector.
Specifically, using something that can monitor that, like a mantisx, you fire 10 rounds out of a 9mm, and you get a more consistent line than out of a 40, which while not all over the place, did seem to be less of a straight line.
Other than tester error (I think one of these was done on one of those bench-mounted handgun vices that allows it to flip and stay in position), any idea why that might be? Tolerances? Ammo variance?
Specifically, using something that can monitor that, like a mantisx, you fire 10 rounds out of a 9mm, and you get a more consistent line than out of a 40, which while not all over the place, did seem to be less of a straight line.
Other than tester error (I think one of these was done on one of those bench-mounted handgun vices that allows it to flip and stay in position), any idea why that might be? Tolerances? Ammo variance?
gerrycaruso
NES Member
I've read that todays technology allows the 9mm to perform like a .45. If this is true, why can't that same technology be used to increase the performance of the .40 and .45? I could get a Glock model 20 and have both power and high capacity but the model 20 is a bit thick to conceal well.
Short answer, the 9mm had room to grow without exceeding pressure tolerances in a way .45ACP couldn't.
When John Moses Browning designed the .45ACP it blew the pants off 9mm. Germans were amazed at the superiority of the American cartridge. Both were FMJ with early 1900s powder formulations. Now we have HP and more advanced powders. But the 9mm gets more advantage from today's powders because it can be fully packed and not exceed pressure tolerances, obtaining a velocity that drives expansion and competes so well with .45ACP terminal performance . On the other hand, shake a .45ACP and you'll feel it's half-empty. Today's powders are so potent that you can't fill that casing without exceeding pressure tolerances for the barrel. I'm not a reloader but I hear a running joke among that crowd is the newbie who decides he's not going to waste that extra space, then KABOOM.
And the .40S&W is a shortened/softened 10mm released in 1990. Not so much change in technology since conception. Glock decided to try the same using new powder and cutting out the excess casing for .45GAP. Smart engineering but a business flop. It's hard to overcome a century of .45ACP tradition and ubiquitous availability.
At least one remaining advantage with .45ACP: being inherently subsonic, you can shoot it suppressed without reducing its power like you must with 9mm. Reduce 9mm to subsonic and it lacks some of that velocity necessary for expansion.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I don’t get it, but I like it! My kind of weird.
Can you please point me toward this?
Where were all the 357 sig nerds? Hilarious
I shoot and carry both. I like guns.
This thread was everything I knew it could and would be.
As I recall, Mrs Mountain was fond of the 357 at Cowboy DayAny of those would be better than being a 9mm soyboy. Even my wife thinks shooting 9mm is 'meh'. I guess we should be accepting of all types, including the soft hands, limp wrist crowd; and should be happy that there's a caliber for them.
![[devil2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/017.gif "Devil2 [devil2]")
Because Americans have no use for that silly French Metric System?
Nothing wrong with .40 S&W, it just doesn't have much of an advantage vs. 9mm these days other than slightly better penetration now that hollow point technology has made wound channels all just about functionally similar. 9mm has slightly better control, capacity, and a lower price giving it the edge. In a state limited to crippled magazines the capacity issue is out the window, so it comes down to control vs. penetration. Most people aren't shooting through car doors or windshields defensively so the easier control of 9mm recoil is still going to make it a more favorable round for most situations.
State Highway Patrols have been sticking with .40 S&W, .357 sig, and .45 ACP because of penetration issues. But remember they are dealing with situations on highways involving cars all the time, pretty much the same environments with limited variables. That's different than the average person or police officer with greater environmental variety in their daily routine.
Do you drink Coke or Pepsi? Or Royal Crown Cola? Same preference type situation really.
I use to dig that, but the more I see about it and it's lack of effectiveness at distance, the extra work it requires reloading vs a straight wall case, the less interested I have become.
About the only bottleneck pistol cartridges I see now that have any merit are .22 TCM (cheap and very fast), 5.7 (when using the AP ammo), 7.62x25 (almost as fast as 5.7, but is a bigger/heavier bullet), and .32 NAA (would be a great choice in a lot of the pocket pistols today due to lower recoil).
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,500
More likely Taran Butler picked it out for him. Did they mention 9mm major in the movie? Might be counter productive since powerfactor is m*v and major is often attained by heavier bullets and less speed.
I think the hostility comes from people having to believe that they're right and feel superior to those who argue against them. I use to be a big believer of the .40 years ago, but have come off it now when it comes to the debate between .40 and 9mm; now I think they both have their place and reason to exist.
It's .45 ACP that I have trouble justifying owning if you don't also own a suppressor. There is a recoil difference between 9 and .40, but IMO, there is no difference in recoil between .40 and .45, they both feel the same. The difference is you can get .40's that hold 15 rounds while most .45's (Glock, Walther, and FN .45's aside) hold only 10 because of all the BS state mag capacity laws.
I'm not obsessed with capacities when the differences between calibers is 1 or 2 rounds, at least not in full size pistols that hold 15 or 17 rounds because mag changes take seconds, but when the difference between .40 and .45 is 5 rounds, 7 rounds with 9mm and .45, that's significant.
Then when it comes to the single stacks where you are limited with the capacity of magazines I think it's best to go with the 9mm as it offers the highest capacities. Besides, the .40 will beat a poly framed single stack to death quicker, if your hand would allow you to shoot it that much.
Anyway, I own both .40 and 9mm, only .45's I have are revolvers. When I was big into .40 and bought my .40's, I was buying a full size Glock and a Kel Tec Sub 2000, so small size for conceal carrying wasn't what I was looking for. My opinion is that if you are going with a big pistol, buy a bigger caliber, if you get a small pistol, buy the smaller calibers. All these .357 revolvers that I'm seeing that hold 8 rounds because they're built on .44 Mag size framed revolvers... it's one of the dumbest fads currently gripping the revolver world.
Sure a full size pistol in 9mm is the same caliber as your carry gun, but that doesn't make it a better gun than a .40 because when it comes down to it, a .40 will always propel a bigger, heavier bullet faster than 9mm can. What situations does that advantage come into play and tip the scales vs the disadvantages? IDK, but I like the extra capability.
Speaking of disadvantages, what are the tropes people often repeat with .40 vs 9mm?
1. Recoil- As I said, there is a difference in the recoil. People often say with .40 it's a "snap", I've found it to be more of a "bounce." People make you think .40 is near going to break your wrist vs 9mm and I think that's people who don't shoot enough or have poor technique. I shoot a Glock 27 and while I can't put 10 rounds into the target as fast as I could with 9mm, I'm able to put enough holes in the target fast enough to be effective.
I have thought about buying a 9mm barrel for the G27, but I don't think the recoil will be that much less to make it noticeable.
2. Firearm lifespan- Another one is that .40 kills guns faster than 9mm because the frames are built for 9mm, not .40 stresses. That's true, but the length of service of the guns depends on the amount of times shot and if you're not shooting 1000 rounds a month, the .40's will last just fine, at least long enough for you to get a lengthy amount of service from them.
I don't think the small single stack .40's will last long tho if you're putting a few hundred rounds a month thru them tho. They're not meant to be shot much, not even the 9mm's are meant to be shot much.
3. Ammo price- This is the big one people focus on and while target/practice ammo in 9mm can be found for $8/box of 50, the defense ammo is generally going to cost you the same for the premium stuff (HST, Gold Dot, PDX1, etc.) but for the non premium JHP ammo, I've found the Winchester Bonded .40 (same ammo the FBI used) for a few dollars less than Winchester or Remington 9mm non bonded.
Most of what people shoot tho is FMJ and the savings in price of 9mm vs .40 or .45 is significant, to the tune of $100 less for 1000 rounds and that is the reason I started buying 9mm guns recently.
OP, good choice on a steel frame .40 Kahr, I'm looking at getting one used as they're under $400.
It's .45 ACP that I have trouble justifying owning if you don't also own a suppressor. There is a recoil difference between 9 and .40, but IMO, there is no difference in recoil between .40 and .45, they both feel the same. The difference is you can get .40's that hold 15 rounds while most .45's (Glock, Walther, and FN .45's aside) hold only 10 because of all the BS state mag capacity laws.
I'm not obsessed with capacities when the differences between calibers is 1 or 2 rounds, at least not in full size pistols that hold 15 or 17 rounds because mag changes take seconds, but when the difference between .40 and .45 is 5 rounds, 7 rounds with 9mm and .45, that's significant.
Then when it comes to the single stacks where you are limited with the capacity of magazines I think it's best to go with the 9mm as it offers the highest capacities. Besides, the .40 will beat a poly framed single stack to death quicker, if your hand would allow you to shoot it that much.
Anyway, I own both .40 and 9mm, only .45's I have are revolvers. When I was big into .40 and bought my .40's, I was buying a full size Glock and a Kel Tec Sub 2000, so small size for conceal carrying wasn't what I was looking for. My opinion is that if you are going with a big pistol, buy a bigger caliber, if you get a small pistol, buy the smaller calibers. All these .357 revolvers that I'm seeing that hold 8 rounds because they're built on .44 Mag size framed revolvers... it's one of the dumbest fads currently gripping the revolver world.
Sure a full size pistol in 9mm is the same caliber as your carry gun, but that doesn't make it a better gun than a .40 because when it comes down to it, a .40 will always propel a bigger, heavier bullet faster than 9mm can. What situations does that advantage come into play and tip the scales vs the disadvantages? IDK, but I like the extra capability.
Speaking of disadvantages, what are the tropes people often repeat with .40 vs 9mm?
1. Recoil- As I said, there is a difference in the recoil. People often say with .40 it's a "snap", I've found it to be more of a "bounce." People make you think .40 is near going to break your wrist vs 9mm and I think that's people who don't shoot enough or have poor technique. I shoot a Glock 27 and while I can't put 10 rounds into the target as fast as I could with 9mm, I'm able to put enough holes in the target fast enough to be effective.
I have thought about buying a 9mm barrel for the G27, but I don't think the recoil will be that much less to make it noticeable.
2. Firearm lifespan- Another one is that .40 kills guns faster than 9mm because the frames are built for 9mm, not .40 stresses. That's true, but the length of service of the guns depends on the amount of times shot and if you're not shooting 1000 rounds a month, the .40's will last just fine, at least long enough for you to get a lengthy amount of service from them.
I don't think the small single stack .40's will last long tho if you're putting a few hundred rounds a month thru them tho. They're not meant to be shot much, not even the 9mm's are meant to be shot much.
3. Ammo price- This is the big one people focus on and while target/practice ammo in 9mm can be found for $8/box of 50, the defense ammo is generally going to cost you the same for the premium stuff (HST, Gold Dot, PDX1, etc.) but for the non premium JHP ammo, I've found the Winchester Bonded .40 (same ammo the FBI used) for a few dollars less than Winchester or Remington 9mm non bonded.
Most of what people shoot tho is FMJ and the savings in price of 9mm vs .40 or .45 is significant, to the tune of $100 less for 1000 rounds and that is the reason I started buying 9mm guns recently.
OP, good choice on a steel frame .40 Kahr, I'm looking at getting one used as they're under $400.
Lol, have fun with that thing beating the shit out of you. Anything smaller than a G27 is pretty dumb and abusive. You know WHY they're used under $400? Because nobody wants them- because the original guy that
bought it fired it a few times, and got sick of it beating the shit out of him...
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
If I was ever going to buy a .40 ever again, I sure as hell am not breaking that rule.
-Mike
.40 has stable supply demand curve. When next panic occurs (probably 2020) you’ll see a spike in 9mm prices and sparse availability. Since nobody likes .40 it will be available. In some places .40 ammo is approx same price as 9mm. In the future it may be cheaper until they can sell off excess stocks. The main reason to get into .40 is exactly this one major benefit. Otherwise I have no need for it although like most cartridges it’s fun to shoot too.
As I recall, Mrs Mountain was fond of the 357 at Cowboy Day
Yep, and not only that- she wants one for her birthday! She says Lady Radtekk's 357 is much smoother shooting than a 460 Mag she tried at a Women On Target (yeah, no kidding!). In regards to the OP, Mrs. Mountain does like 9mm as well. Her G43 is barely noticeable in her purse.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,167
- Likes
- 33,119
I'm a "big" fan of the .40 because I have several 40cal pistols AND a cache of ammo. Oh, and a pile of preban Glock mags in .40.
silversquirrel
NES Member
I am out of .380 ammo, but have a bunch of 9 accumulated over the years, but no 9mm gun.
So Im in the market for something to shoot it with. And 9 is cheaper than .380 most days.
.22, .40 and .45 are covered.
Any suggestions for a nine, Lol?
So Im in the market for something to shoot it with. And 9 is cheaper than .380 most days.
.22, .40 and .45 are covered.
Any suggestions for a nine, Lol?
