10 Rounds of .40 or 14 Rounds of 9MM?

[Ivy Mike]

No longer a lurker, I'm now registered and ready to contribute after finding this great forum.

Just wanted to get a pulse on what most people would decide between two guns being equal in all aspects except caliber and capacity. All things being equal, would you rather have a 9MM that holds 14 rounds or a .40 caliber that hold 10 rounds? I've kinda of decided on getting a Springfield sub-compact XD but can't decide upon the caliber. Love that the 9MM holds 14 in such a small package but would love to have the stopping power of the .40. Is it worth losing those 4 rounds to get the .40? I know shot placement is king and caliber is queen which makes me lean towards the 9MM. Any other suggestions are welcome (besides Glock). Sorry, wish I could force my self to like the Glock but it just doesn't feel as good as the XD.

Thanks for the feedback guys!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIGP250]

No longer a lurker, I'm now registered and ready to contribute after finding this great forum.

Just wanted to get a pulse on what most people would decide between two guns being equal in all aspects except caliber and capacity. All things being equal, would you rather have a 9MM that holds 14 rounds or a .40 caliber that hold 10 rounds? I've kinda of decided on getting a Springfield sub-compact XD but can't decide upon the caliber. Love that the 9MM holds 14 in such a small package but would love to have the stopping power of the .40. Is it worth losing those 4 rounds to get the .40? I know shot placement is king and caliber is queen which makes me lean towards the 9MM. Any other suggestions are welcome (besides Glock). Sorry, wish I could force my self to like the Glock but it just doesn't feel as good as the XD.

Thanks for the feedback guys!

This is a quote from a respected member of another forum:


>>9MM vs. 40SW
GlockWorld.com
9mm vs. .40S&W


Is there a lot of difference between the 9mm and the .40S&W? If so, how much of a difference?

If you're talking about premium bullet design and both expand to their potential, there isn't a lot of difference. However, if both don't expand, there is a significant difference.

They are both medium powered, medium bore‑size handgun cartridges. Which one is better depends on what the evaluation criteria are.

"Price" is irrelevant when talking about caliber selection; relevant if comparing different gun manufacturers

"Stopping Power" is the ability of a bullet to cause a target to stop advancing and to bleed out as fast as possible? Again, if a 9mm Hydra-Shok 124 grain +P+ and a .40 Remington Golden Sabre 165 grain each achieve maximum expansion, you probably won't notice much of a difference. However, if a 9mm and a .40's hp get clogged, it is indisputable that the .40 will produce a larger permanent wound channel resulting in quicker a bleed out/incapacitation. Same goes for a .45 over a .40S&W.

"Accuracy" can be equal with each round. For the recoil sensitive, the 9mm would probably produce better accuracy. For competition shooters, 9mm seems to allow faster split times.

"Shootability" relates to the ease of handling the recoil. Of course, the 9mm's recoil in noticeably less than the .40S&W. However, there are many shooters who find the .40 S&W quite manageable.

"Reloading Potential"

In general, for target factory ammo: 9mm is going to cost about $2/box of 50 less than .40 for a brand like PMC or Blazer.

"Availability"

The 9mm is more commonplace in the U.S. and throughout the world. There are many areas in the U.S. where .40S&W are hard to come by and too expensive for many shooters as compared to the 9mm.

ADVICE:

Try both calibers, including the .45, in as many different platforms as you can. There is no substitute for firsthand experience in determining which round you will feel more comfortable with and have the most confidence.

ONE OPINION:

I find the 9mm is consistently more controllable for me out of a Glock 26, PT99,

PT92C, Glock 17, and SIG P228. No variations. This is for all major factory loads in FMJ, JHP -- fast follow‑up shots, and I can keep a 2‑3 inch group from 7‑15 yards in semi‑auto fast fire and point‑shooting.

In the .40S&W, I am dead accurate with the P229, but my results vary with the G23 and 27. I have practiced a solid grip without limping the wrist, tried different ammo, magazine extenders, and such. The P229 with Hogue grip results in a 1‑2 inch group at 7 yards; always. With the 23, I get about 2‑5 inch groups. Hopefully the data from list members can validate concerns, but I know that if I have to shoot for self‑defense, my placement would have little doubt if I were to use Glocks in 9mm, and SIG in 40SW. Experiment for yourself.

A SECOND OPINION:

I have recently gone through the same comparison process. The logic that I found most persuasive was this:

The TOP PERFORMING rounds in 45, 40, and 9 provide an equivalent level of stopping power. The differences are insignificant compared to the human variable.

If this is true, then why should anyone carry the lower capacity, hard recoiling 40 or 45?

Two reasons:

1) In the 45, almost any modern hollow point is a good choice. In the 40, many of the modern hollow points are good choices. In the 9, a couple of the modern hollow points meet the performance of the 45 and 40.

2) The larger calibers are generally thought to have more generous performance envelopes (e.g.. the 45 tends to maintain consistent performance through adverse conditions (too low or too high velocity, bulky clothing, cover, etc.)longer than the 40 and 9 do.) Clearly this is a more difficult thing get a handle on but it seems correct intuitively.

So basically it comes down to the gun. If you find your M27 controllable and the ammo costs are not killing you there does not seem to be any reason to step down to the 9. If you are looking for a smaller carry package, you will probably end up with a 9.

I decided I liked the performance of the Speer Gold Dots. John Koppel at Proload uses these bullets in most of his premium products. He recommends the 155 gr. Gold Dot for my M27 and the 124gr +p Gold Dot for my Kahr MK‑9.

A FINAL OPINION:

Why is the current flavor for the last months for FBI special agents and DEA the Glock .40's? Could it be because the different groups have different operational needs? I give more credit to the different units getting what they need for their particular mission. If I was on FBI SRT, my concerns might weigh more heavily toward the most accurate gun, with the best trigger, because head shots will be a more likely possibility. Also, I'd want the .45 because it simply punches through obstacles and is guaranteed to make a larger permanent-wound channel if the hp clogs. FBI special agents need an all-purpose handgun at a sensible price; thus, the Glock .40. SOCOM, FBI SRT, and Phoenix SWAT for that matter, have different mission needs and so get to customize their arsenal to their unique mission requirements.<<

[retsupt99]

from Centra Florida!

I prefer making bigger holes...namely .45, but you're getting closer.
If you can't do it in 14 (or 10, or 7...), you're already in touble.

ret

[Cougar]

I voted for the 10 of .40

Strictly 'by the book' that is the correct answer. It has better stopping power.

However.... as a practical mater "it depends" on a wide variety of factors.

To spin the question on its side: If the sudden and urgent need ever presented itself, I'd rather have 8 rounds of 9mm in my possession than 10 rounds of .40 in my vehicle 300 yards away ;-)


And then I have to get this jab in.... Here in the PRK (Peoples Republic of Kalifornia) us civilians can not obtain anything with a capacity over 10.

[Guns and more]

Here's my take. 9mm is cheaper. So it's easier to go to the range and practice. Practice makes perfect (or so my mom told me.)
So, you are better served with a gun you practice with.

I think that sums it up, no one else need respond.

[harley2007]

For me, a 9 is more contollable, but I just ordered a. 40 cause I like the ballistics better.

[MitchellCT]

If you are asking questions like 9mm v. 40S&W, the answer is get training from a reputable instructor.

[atctimmy]

I would feel confident with either.

[10thmtn]

In this thread, I wrote about the oft-debated 9mm vs .45. I choose 9mm for the reasons given:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...s-over-me.html

[mengel4228]

Sometimes I carry 8-9mm and other 8-.45. I feel perfectly safe with either. In all honesty if you can't get it done with 3 or 4 rounds of almost any caliber; you should prolly hit the range a little more.

[PM]

I carry a 9mm mostly the price of ammo at the time I was looking for my first carry gun. I went with a second 9mm cause that is what I had. I have shot a .45 both the 1991 style and a compact back in the day; I would carry a .45 if I had one; I would also need to practice with it cause the recoil is a bit more than the 9mm. As a former EMT (and a hunter) I would agree that you need to a) make a big wound so as to bleed out the shootee and b) place that wound in a place that has many BIG blood vessles c) hole(s) in a vital (many big blood vessles) area should do the trick.

[rikochet]

I voted for the 9mm for a couple of reasons.

1. I know that .40 is a more powerful round, but in a defensive situation you will be nervous and the less recoil of the 9mm will be helpful IMO. Since we are talking about sub-compact guns remember the grip is smaller. This usually means tucking your little finger underneath instead of around the grip and this can make a difference.
2. More rounds in case you have multiple targets (He did not mention carrying extra magazines, so this is important to consider).
3. I'm not sure of the XDSC but typically the 9mm are lighter weight and smaller.
4. Since the guns are typically lighter and smaller they are easier to conceal and if your wearing tighter clothes or feeling kinda heavy one day that's important to consider as well.

For the record, I own guns chambered in .45, .40 and a 9mm and have carried them at various times over the years and I find myself taking the 9mm more often because of weight and ease of concealment. The 9mm I take is a G26, though you don't like the Glock, I didn't until I got mine. I also find my Glock easier to clean than my XD, but maybe that's just me.

[archer51]

Big question is which do you shoot better? Shot placement means more than rounds shot. 1 9mm round COM is better than 2 .40 in the arms. Go with which one you shoot best, either caliber with a quality defensive round will do it's job, provided you do yours.

[Ivy Mike]

The XDSC I'm looking to get will be replacing a .45 with a 4 inch barrel I carry on a daily basis. Love the .45, shoots very accurate but damn is it heavy with a full magazine. I'm getting to the point where I don't want to lug the heavy thing around everywhere I go anymore, but will until I get something more concealable and lighter. Enter the XDSC.

I'd also rather not carry a spare magazine if I can and is the main reason I like the 9MM. More rounds, more options. I know their is many different takes on this question. If you're accurate good you don't need that many rounds or a large caliber. More room for error with the .40.

Just want to ask if you think losing those 4 rounds is worth it to you to gain the additional stopping power of the .30.

Also used to have a Kel-Tec PF9. Loved it! Accurate little dragon. Super light and concealable and 9MM power. Just want something with a little higher capacity.

[Diablo]

Every handgun I have is 9mm except for a 38+P snubbie.

Theres no one handgun caliber that is going to stop a treat 100% of the time with a single shot unless it's a head shot (38 up). For this reason I don't care at all about the caliber wars and go with what is going to let me put a second shot on the quickest...9mm.