• 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

T-Unit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Think Glock 21. It holds 13 + 1. The much smaller Glock 30S holds 10 + 1.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt. The John Wick franchise is just an elaborate infomericial for TTI products and 3-gun Cosplay. They go out of their way to mention 9mm major like the newest wizbang tactical hot sauce as he is gearing up for his big gunfight. I chuckled and thought JW is such a gamer.
Another funny thing about that scene was all of the braced pistols in hanging up in the Continental armory vault. As if super-elite-secret-assassins care about tax stamps and ATF regs.
 
I haven't read all the responses, but what irritates me about .40 is that it was a solution in search of a problem. Its existence literally serves no purpose. But hey, if you like it, have at it.

-chris
 
Plus Khar's suck...

drgrant said:
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]

If I was ever going to buy a .40 ever again, I sure as hell am not breaking that rule.

-Mike
Click to expand...
 
ThePreBanMan said:
IF the .40 is good enough to hunt bear, it's surely good enough for self defense. Why you want to tickle the bad guy with that pussy ass 9mm?
Click to expand...
Hunt? Like you intend to meet a bear with a .40?

The only reasonable bear application for .40 is shooting someone else in the leg while you run.
 
T-Unit said:
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.
Click to expand...

I bought my glock 22 in 1994. Since then I've had 2 glock 30's, a glock 23 and a glock 23C, so its hard to say that I didn't give the 40 a fair chance. To say that the 40's recoil is about the same as the 45acp is just not true. In like handguns, the 40 always takes longer to acquire the sight picture, for follow up shots, than the 45acp.
You go on to say that the 44 magnum frame( I assume that you refer here to the N frame, smith and Wesson ) 8 shot, model 327 R8, is a dumb idea. Have you owned one? Have you shot one enough to know what you are talking about, from personal experience? I highly doubt that you have given the 327 R8 enough use, to say that you have given it the fair chance, that I have given the 40., yet you voice, what seems to be a very personally inexperienced opinion that it's a dumb idea. I have smith J frame, 5 shot 357"s, a K frame, 6 shot .357, a L frame, 7 shot, 357 and the N frame, 8 shot, 357. They are all very good handguns and each serves a different and useful purpose. While I like my single stack 9mm handguns,with lasers, I'd never consider them better than the N frame, 327 R8 with it's laser grips and rail mounted light. I'll go ahead and assume that you don't berate the .357 caliber itself, since it's long been known, that it's the #1 man stopper ever.
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
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]

If I was ever going to buy a .40 ever again, I sure as hell am not breaking that rule.

-Mike
Click to expand...
I'm buying it mostly to see how much a steel frame tames the felt recoil. There are a number of polymer Kahr 40's going for $200 or less and the reason is because they are murder on the shooter's hands. The steel models I have to believe are better. I'll find out in the future.
 
M60 said:
I bought my glock 22 in 1994. Since then I've had 2 glock 30's, a glock 23 and a glock 23C, so its hard to say that I didn't give the 40 a fair chance. To say that the 40's recoil is about the same as the 45acp is just not true. In like handguns, the 40 always takes longer to acquire the sight picture, for follow up shots, than the 45acp.
You go on to say that the 44 magnum frame( I assume that you refer here to the N frame, smith and Wesson ) 8 shot, model 327 R8, is a dumb idea. Have you owned one? Have you shot one enough to know what you are talking about, from personal experience? I highly doubt that you have given the 327 R8 enough use, to say that you have given it the fair chance, that I have given the 40., yet you voice, what seems to be a very personally inexperienced opinion that it's a dumb idea. I have smith J frame, 5 shot 357"s, a K frame, 6 shot .357, a L frame, 7 shot, 357 and the N frame, 8 shot, 357. They are all very good handguns and each serves a different and useful purpose. While I like my single stack 9mm handguns,with lasers, I'd never consider them better than the N frame, 327 R8 with it's laser grips and rail mounted light. I'll go ahead and assume that you don't berate the .357 caliber itself, since it's long been known, that it's the #1 man stopper ever.
Click to expand...
No, not saying the .357 is bad, I'm saying it being in a large revolver simply to add an extra round is. As big a fan as I am of .32 revolvers, the .327 fanboys are always spouting this "it holds 20% more ammo than a .38 or .357 does" and what they mean to say is it holds one more round. The only benefit that the .32's have over .38's is they get that extra round in the same size revolver. Going from .44 to .357 to get an extra round is asinine considering the increased cost of the gun and the size and weight of it compared to a 686+ or 7 shot GP100.

For a home defense gun for those being capacity cucked in the AWB states... if you don't mind blowing $900 to a grand, by all means go for it. I'm plenty capable with my 7 shot revolvers that I don't see the need for an extra 14% ammo capacity.

As to the .40 and .45, I can't speak to how the 23 or 30 shoot, I can in regards to the 22 and 35 do compared to the 21 and to me they're equal. I'm not focused on time to acquire a sight picture, for me it's "can I shoot this fast and effectively enough?" and I'm equally effective with both.

The difference is the .40 holds more rounds and is a higher energy projectile and is cheaper to shoot. For those who complain about the Glock grip angle and won't do Glock and can't afford the FN .45, their only option is the Walther .45 or be stuck with .45's that hold 10 rounds vs .40's that hold 15 rds.

But if you're capacity cucked the potential to hold more rounds of .40 vs .45 means nothing to you.
 
chrbla2000 said:
I haven't read all the responses, but what irritates me about .40 is that it was a solution in search of a problem. Its existence literally serves no purpose. But hey, if you like it, have at it.

-chris
Click to expand...

Of course it serves a purpose. 10mm was too much for FBI girls and girly-men. .40 is to 10mm like .380 is to 9mm. Though overall the ranking is of course 10mm>>40>9mm>380.
 
I'd also like to add, if .45 ACP was so good then why is it not being used by more police departments, federal LE agencies, and LE/armed forces around the world?
 
T-Unit said:
I'm buying it mostly to see how much a steel frame tames the felt recoil. There are a number of polymer Kahr 40's going for $200 or less and the reason is because they are murder on the shooter's hands. The steel models I have to believe are better. I'll find out in the future.
Click to expand...

It won't. Small .40s are generally pretty dumb.

-Mike
 
T-Unit said:
I'd also like to add, if .45 ACP was so good then why is it not being used by more police departments, federal LE agencies, and LE/armed forces around the world?
Click to expand...

LOL. .45ACP is being used by police departments. Even my local police department uses .45acp, as does the neighboring town. So that covers law enforcement. Since we're in the U.S., I don't guess it matters to us, what other countries use. As for U.S. armed forces, the Marine Corps, not so long ago, cut an order for new 1911, 45acp's, with a light rail, because commanding officers, returning from combat duty, told the Marine Corps, that Marines in the field weren't happy with the lack of stopping power in their presently issued handguns. I suspect that the Marine Corps and its Marines, know what they are talking about. So that covers armed forces. The Maine Corps thinks that the .45acp is in fact, as you say, that good. What else have you got?
 
Last edited:
Brewer said:
Hunt? Like you intend to meet a bear with a .40?

The only reasonable bear application for .40 is shooting someone else in the leg while you run.
Click to expand...

LIES!!! The mighty .40 S&W is good to go for Kodiac Brown Bear... You may have to step up from the 165 grain to the 180 grain for African Buffalo though...
 
T-Unit said:
I'd also like to add, if .45 ACP was so good then why is it not being used by more police departments, federal LE agencies, and LE/armed forces around the world?
Click to expand...

A whole bunch of PDs have moved onto .45 in the past decade or so. Do some research. Some came from 9mm, way more from .40. This is partially because of ergonomic
improvements on .45 ACP handguns over the years.

As far as feds go, lots of them still wedded to .40. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now the # of fed LEOs using .40 exceed all the others, nationally.

Military? handguns are secondary weapons, so it's almost like a "who cares" thing, as well as a logistics/supply chain thing. Like M60 says though, there are some little
units here and there using .45, but not enough to make a huge difference.

-Mike
 
M60 said:
LOL. .45ACP is being used by police departments. Even my local police department uses .45acp, as does the neighboring town. So that covers law enforcement. Since we're in the U.S., I don't guess it matters to us, what other countries use. As for U.S. armed forces, the Marine Corps, not so long ago, cut an order for new 1911, 45acp's, with a light rail, because commanding officers, returning from combat duty, told the Marine Corps, that Marines in the field weren't happy with the lack of stopping power in their presently issued handguns. I suspect that the Marine Corps and its Marines, know what they are talking about. So that covers armed forces. The Maine Corps thinks that the .45acp is in fact, as you say, that good. What else have you got?
Click to expand...

I suspect this desire, if it existed (at least pre P320 adoption or m17 or whatever they call it) had more to do with the fact that a lot of people hate/hated the 92 (M9) and asking for a .45 was a great way to not get a Beretta. [laugh] Not to mention companies already had a history of making one off 1911 runs and that kind of thing for special operations types. It's an easier sell to say "we need a new gun because the caliber this one uses sucks at stopping bad guys" than it is to say "we need a new gun becuase we don't want to spend as much time learning how to shoot".

-Mike
 
ThePreBanMan said:
LIES!!! The mighty .40 S&W is good to go for Kodiac Brown Bear... You may have to step up from the 165 grain to the 180 grain for African Buffalo though...
Click to expand...
Lies? Son, I’ve put more 40S&W in critter flesh than most LE departments have in paper. Granted I only found .40 adequate for grizzly because I can faithfully pull off double eye shots. Just seems more elegant, and taking that follow-up shot for the second eye before the charging and enraged 600-lb beast closes distance is quite a thrill. Can’t expect everybody to perform like me, so that was general advice above.

But seriously, I’ve never hunted.
 
drgrant said:
I suspect this desire, if it existed (at least pre P320 adoption or m17 or whatever they call it) had more to do with the fact that a lot of people hate/hated the 92 (M9) and asking for a .45 was a great way to not get a Beretta. [laugh] Not to mention companies already had a history of making one off 1911 runs and that kind of thing for special operations types. It's an easier sell to say "we need a new gun because the caliber this one uses sucks at stopping bad guys" than it is to say "we need a new gun becuase we don't want to spend as much time learning how to shoot".

-Mike
Click to expand...
If what you suggest is true, that Marines can't shoot, the beretta's higher capacity, would make more sense rather than less sense.
 
Brewer said:
Lies? Son, I’ve put more 40S&W in critter flesh than most LE departments have in paper. Granted I only found .40 adequate for grizzly because I can faithfully pull off double eye shots. Just seems more elegant, and taking that follow-up shot for the second eye before the charging and enraged 600-lb beast closes distance is quite a thrill. Can’t expect everybody to perform like me, so that was general advice above.

But seriously, I’ve never hunted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think we knew that you never hunted, when you talked about your "600lb" Grizzly bear.
 
M60 said:
If what you suggest is true, that Marines can't shoot, the beretta's higher capacity, would make more sense rather than less sense.
Click to expand...

My analogy sucked, a better one would be "We want a .45 because we simply don't like this gun". DOD probably doesn't like hearing that. So you have to sell the
idea. I mean lets be brutally honest, stopping power pseudoscience aside, if someone said "hey you can shoot this (decent quality) 1911 with .45 all afternoon" or you can shoot this Beretta 92 all afternoon" which one are you going to pick?

I have a love hate relationship with 1911s and even if the 1911 was a f***ing crapber I would probably choose that over a 92, at least in that question. :)

-Mike
 
T-Unit said:
No, not saying the .357 is bad, I'm saying it being in a large revolver simply to add an extra round is. As big a fan as I am of .32 revolvers, the .327 fanboys are always spouting this "it holds 20% more ammo than a .38 or .357 does" and what they mean to say is it holds one more round. The only benefit that the .32's have over .38's is they get that extra round in the same size revolver. Going from .44 to .357 to get an extra round is asinine considering the increased cost of the gun and the size and weight of it compared to a 686+ or 7 shot GP100.

For a home defense gun for those being capacity cucked in the AWB states... if you don't mind blowing $900 to a grand, by all means go for it. I'm plenty capable with my 7 shot revolvers that I don't see the need for an extra 14% ammo capacity.

As to the .40 and .45, I can't speak to how the 23 or 30 shoot, I can in regards to the 22 and 35 do compared to the 21 and to me they're equal. I'm not focused on time to acquire a sight picture, for me it's "can I shoot this fast and effectively enough?" and I'm equally effective with both.

The difference is the .40 holds more rounds and is a higher energy projectile and is cheaper to shoot. For those who complain about the Glock grip angle and won't do Glock and can't afford the FN .45, their only option is the Walther .45 or be stuck with .45's that hold 10 rounds vs .40's that hold 15 rds.

But if you're capacity cucked the potential to hold more rounds of .40 vs .45 means nothing to you.
Click to expand...

Geez, do some homework before you post. The Smith, 5", TR8 holds 8 rounds and weighs 34.7 oz.. The 6" smith, 7 shot, 686, .357 weighs 44.02 oz.. The Ruger 4.2", 7 shot, .357, GP100 weighs 40 oz. The smith, 327 R8, holds more ammo and is significantly lighter than both the Smith,686 and the Ruger, GP100.
 
drgrant said:
My analogy sucked, a better one would be "We want a .45 because we simply don't like this gun". DOD probably doesn't like hearing that. So you have to sell the
idea. I mean lets be brutally honest, stopping power pseudoscience aside, if someone said "hey you can shoot this (decent quality) 1911 with .45 all afternoon" or you can shoot this Beretta 92 all afternoon" which one are you going to pick?

I have a love hate relationship with 1911s and even if the 1911 was a f***ing crapber I would probably choose that over a 92, at least in that question. :)

-Mike
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly can't debate what you've here Mike.
 

Similar threads

For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
372
Uzi2
U
Why is it called a talo edition
2
Replies
37
Views
824
dcmdon
dcmdon
  • Locked
Navy scrubbed this photo can you see why?
Replies
17
Views
713
Mountain
Mountain
50 Cal Brass
Replies
3
Views
215
MassPete
MassPete
Getting a C&R Rifle: 30-06 vs 30-40 Krag
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
BigGreen2000
B
Back
Top Bottom