This is a discussion on 9mm vs. .40 S&W? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by CombatEffective To answer the question, it's basically a personal preference. Personally, I vastly prefer 9mm to the .40SW. I just don't see ...
.40's also have somewhat of a reputation for blowing up guns due to pressure spikes, and in my experience, .40's are really rough on a gun as far as longevity goes. IMHO, a .40 does not have anything to offer over a .45 or a 9mm.
What it all boils down to is good tactics, shot placement, and the lack of hesitation. These are the things that can help you survive a criminal attack. Having some mythical super whizbang instant manstopper round is a bunch of crap. My advice is to book a class with a guy like John Farnam, Randy Cain, Louis Awerbach, Chuck Taylor, Clint Smith or Gunsite and learn how to gunfight. THAT will do more to improve your survival odds than carrying an MP5 and a flamethrower.
I've been on a range various times in my life with Dave Spaulding, Ken Hackathorn, Rob Haught, and Paul Baumener (as well as some lesser known, but nonetheless capable folks). I've spoken face to face with Dave Blinder and Evan Marshall (and got a LOT of one on one teaching from the latter). These men are all top notch instructors and highly trained "gunfighters" for lack of a better term. I would MUCH rather have to deal with the average street creep (or gunshop commando, for that matter) armed with an Uzi, than any of these guys packin' a .32 KelTec. It ain't what you got - it's how you use it. Learn to use it! (And, getting back on topic, a 9mm is easier to learn with, and much cheaper to train with.)