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.<<
