9 vs 40? seems like a lot of 40s around and no 9s?

[M1911]

I don't get all the hostility towards the .40. Not as big as .45, true but i doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference if they were shot by one or the other.

I won't say that I have "hostility" towards .40. I just don't care for it much. I find .45 and 9mm to be more comfortable to shoot that .40. Most of the .40 guns that I have tend to be significantly more snappy than their 9mm equivalents.

 

[Mikey]

Guys it is not about "killing" it is about STOPPING. .45acp and .357 mag have proven over and over to be the best "man stoppers".

There are many studies and accounts of 9mm just not doing the job, don't take it personal.

 

[jar]

Jeff Cooper talked about a guy in South America who survived a bunch of gunfights. Due to laws there, he was limited to 9mm ball. His strategy was summed up as: "First I shoot them a bunch of times in the chest. If that doesn't stop them, I shoot them a bunch of times in the head"

 

[dwarven1]

I don't get all the hostility towards the .40.

I'm not hostile towards the .40S&W, I'm indifferent towards it! I just don't see the need for me, personally, to go buy a gun in yet another caliber. I already have .38, .357. 9mm and .45 pistols... I just don't feel like I need the .40 for any reason, so I don't bother with it.

 

[45collector]

I've shot 3 .40s over the years:
Kahr K40
Glock 22
S&W (model#?)
I didn't like any of them and I'll never own a .40
.45 ammo isn't that much more expensive, and I trust my Colt '70 over anything else for a big-bore carry gun. I shoot it well and it eats whatever I feed it. If I can get to the range twice a month to practice with my carry guns, I feel confident with them. be it .380, 9mm, .45...
The .40 just never felt right to me. stopping power aside.

 

[Scrivener]

I don't get all the hostility towards the .40. Not as big as .45, true but i doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference if they were shot by one or the other.

Nor do I. I like balance and the .40 is an excellent balance between the 9 mm and .45 ACP. More power than the former, greater capacity in the same size than the latter (and with a flatter trajectory). There's a reason why the LE market dumped the 9 and adopted the .40 in droves (although the FBI blaming the Miami Shootout fiasco on the alleged "failure" of the 9mm was a factor).

From a practical standpoint, it's the minimum caliber to "make major" in USPSA Limited / Limited-10 competition. I bought a P-16 for that purpose and sold it only when I got the SVI to replace it. Barring a highly unlikely major rules change, I will have a .40 in the safe for the foreseeable future.

 

[drgrant]

I'm pretty sure the guy getting shot wouldn't know the difference between getting hit with any bullet for that matter. Seeing how gangbangers have been killing eachother with .380's and 9mm's I think the whole caliber war crap is a farce. It doesn't matter. hit what your aiming at a lot of times and it will go down, period!

One thing to keep in mind-

Death does not always = incapacitation in the amount of time required to stop an attack. Contrary to popular belief, many people hit with gunfire actually take time to die- it's not like in the movies where james bond hits a
guy with a .32 and he's dead in a half second. In many cases a subject was hit with (insert favored or hated caliber here) and kept on going. I can find significant "stop failures" in every handgun caliber out there but the amount of them tend to increase dramatically when you slide below .38 SPL / .380 ACP area.

"Caliber Wars" generally suck, but IMO completely ignoring the issue of ballistic capabilities because the issue might be controversial is a bad idea. Even people that should know better are in constant denial of certain inexorable facts- they can't come to grips with the possibility that their uber cool (insert favored anemic or powerful caliber here) might fail to stop the bad guy. Too many people think that handguns are instant death rays, and while they might kill people pretty effectively killing someone and -incapacitating- them in short order, are two different subjects. I am amazed at the folks I run into that don't see the difference.

This is noticeable by the layperson even in hunting game. A person shoots an animal in the wrong place with an inadequate caliber- the animal might walk/run for mile(s) before it dies- obviously the combination of shot placement and caliber was not ideal wrt incapacitation if that happens. Humans are not much different in this regard, when it comes down to raw terms- if the BG isn't psychologically inhibited (by fear, shock, etc) then wound ballistics (and thus, phsyical incapacitation) is the only thing that matters.

(insert all the usual disclaimers about having a gun, training with it as much as you can afford , handguns being inferior to rifles, etc, SHOT PLACEMENT here. )


-Mike

 

[Xak]

Nor do I. I like balance and the .40 is an excellent balance between the 9 mm and .45 ACP. More power than the former, greater capacity in the same size than the latter (and with a flatter trajectory). There's a reason why the LE market dumped the 9 and adopted the .40 in droves (although the FBI blaming the Miami Shootout fiasco on the alleged "failure" of the 9mm was a factor).

From a practical standpoint, it's the minimum caliber to "make major" in USPSA Limited / Limited-10 competition. I bought a P-16 for that purpose and sold it only when I got the SVI to replace it. Barring a highly unlikely major rules change, I will have a .40 in the safe for the foreseeable future.

Scrivener, have you tried the .357Sig? Ever since I dropped a .357 barrel in my P239 the .40 barrel has been collecting dust. I find it much more accurate, just as (if not more) powerful, and with less recoil than the .40.

 

[Scrivener]

Scrivener, have you tried the .357Sig? Ever since I dropped a .357 barrel in my P239 the .40 barrel has been collecting dust. I find it much more accurate, just as (if not more) powerful, and with less recoil than the .40.

No. Having sold my G22 some time ago, I have nothing to drop a .357 SIG barrel into.

 

[Nickle]

Mikey,

I only pee sitting down if I'm dropping a big duece Besides, I don't need to overcompensate for having smaller appendages by gettin a large, expensive caliber. all in good fun!

Same here.

 

[drgrant]

Scrivener, have you tried the .357Sig? Ever since I dropped a .357 barrel in my P239 the .40 barrel has been collecting dust. I find it much more accurate, just as (if not more) powerful, and with less recoil than the .40.

I don't get this ".40 is inaccurate" thing. For me, .40 is accurate enough. I can hit the same 8-10" gong at 50 yards with my USP .40 that I can with my other guns. One thing I did notice is the 165 gn bullets seem to fly a hell of a lot straighter than 180s do, though. (It's way easier to hit the gong with 165's. ) If one is shooting bullseye at 25 or 50
yards it might not be the right caliber for that, of course.... but at that point one is in custom 1911 land anyhow.

.357 Sig is a nice cartridge but if you're not set up to reload it the expense is pretty insane.

-Mike

 

[the jeff]

I shot 9mm all the time, but i like the .45 Colt 1911 much MUCH more!