Recoil: 9mm+p versus 40
In the never-ending battle between 40 S&W and 9mm, it seems that 9mm proponents argue that the newer +p rounds offer much more energy compared to traditional 9mm rounds. Based off of www.balistics101.com, it seems that this is true.
My question: how are the 9mm+p rounds in terms of recoil? They seem to have comparable muzzle energy compared to 40 S&W rounds, so I'm curious if the recoil is also more similar to a 40 instead of a 9mm.
Originally Posted by globetruck
The +p 9mm is very similar to .40 in recoil.
The question is whether your gun can handle the additional pressure of +p.
Why not go with a gun that is designed to do what your trying to do and get a 357Sig? IMO it's the proper way to go.
In my Glock 23, shooting with the 9mm conversion I can tell no difference in recoil between WWB and 124 Grn +P 9mm. There is quite a difference between +P 9mm and 155 JHP 40 S&W at 1200 FPS. My Glock 31 C 357 Sig is about 1/2 way between the 9mm +P and the 40 to me. Recoil is subjective, I am a big guy and have been shooting for 40 years.
Shooting 9mm+p is isn't as bad as 135gr to 155gr. 40 caliber! The 357 sig recoil is like a very weak 40 caliber round but much more accurate!
Yes, I shoot and carry hot 9mm +P ammo, and Really hate .40 caliber recoil.
I'm not punished by hot .357 SIG recoil either..just the snorty forty.
Others may disagree, but after owning 3 .of the 40s, I gave up!
Much prefer a light kicking 9mm or the .357 SIG that has the split-second
recoil at the muzzle end.
Both calibers are much more accurate than any .40s I've ever shot.
To each his own, I guess.
That's also going to depend on the gun's weight/springs, n stuff. My .380 keltec feels markedly snappier than my 9mm Springfield - less weight to absorb that energy.