9 or 40???? - Page 2

UpstateGlocker · January 12, 2011, 08:36 PM

Notice how the 9mm guys always say "its almost equal to a 40", but the 40 guys never have to say "its almost equal to a 9" ? Just sayin.

In any event, for a first time shooter I recommend a 9, since it has less recoil and is a perfectly acceptable HD firearm (I know you said you are not a first timer, but the same principle applies). The .40 is definitely more powerful (which is why LE has moved over to it), but you feel that with more recoil. How much more? It depends on you (how well you control the gun, etc.) Most of us will acknowledge the 40 recoils more, but most will also say the difference is small. To some extent this is a Ford vs Chevy argument where the Ford is a 250 with a bigger engine/better suspension. Is it "better"? Yes, but how much and does it matter for your expected use? The U.S. armed forces seem to think 9mm is adequate (yes, I know about the NATO politics).

Bottom line: go with the 9 until you feel comfortable with it, then upgrade to a .40 if you feel you need the extra umph.

jmr40 · January 12, 2011, 08:47 PM

With the bullets availble in 1990 when the 40 was developed it did offer a significant increase in performance. That is no longer true today. Many PD's never switched and the trend in LE is going back to the 9mm with todays better bullets.

Not that I dislike the 40. I owned several for many years before advancements in bullets made it no longer necessary. The only reason I no longer own one is because I own a 10mm. The original 40.

LockedBreech · January 13, 2011, 03:13 AM

I believe the snappiness issue of the .40 to be one of the most exaggerated claims on gun forums.

My main is a .40 polymer. I have shot the cream of the 9mm crop beside it, including the Sig 226, Walther P99, and Glock 17. I shoot both with nearly identical speed and accuracy.

NWCP · January 13, 2011, 03:51 AM

I own a 9mm and a 40 HK USP. I practice a lot with my 9 due to ammo costs and carry my 40 on occasion. The 40 has more recoil than the 9 but given the right platform it's very manageable. My two pistols are identical with the exception of the caliber and I'd feel comfortable depending on either one to protect myself, or the family. 9mm is cheaper to shoot. Enjoy whatever you decide on.

spodwo · January 13, 2011, 08:19 AM

Ok - I shoot both .40 and 9mm. I have the S&W M&P in the 9mm. I shoot the .40 in a 229 Sig and G22 Glock. I also have a G19, a Kahr PM9, etc...

Here is the rub - with the platform you are getting - you will have a bit more of a snap from the .40. But frankly - all this "stopping power" stuff is moot if you can't obtain a critical hit. The true mantra is "bullet placement, bullet placement..." That M&P 9 is a fantastic and accurate shooter. Trigger is a littel mushy to me but you can get real accuracy with practice.

The 9mms have a variety of loads plus it is cheaper to shoot. The .40 is the primary Law enforcement load so you have that as a consideration.

But having both and liking both - I would go with a 9mm. Get proficient with that pistol and maybe down the road - go .40...the 9mm loads out there now are excellent.

I also have a .38 S&W J frame snubby - I wouldn't compare that to a .40...I would compare it to my 9mm Kahr PM9 with standard 9mm 115 gr loads.

FoxtrotRomeo · January 13, 2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

I'm not a .40 fan, either. Want "punch", get a .45. Want lotsa boolits, get a 9. I like my 7-shot .45 and my 17-shot 9.

Since the OP is not a first time shooter I'm going to say .40 I'm going to say that because if you get the right pistol, you can get a conversion barrel and the right mags and shoot both.

Problem solved. Why choose when you can have both?

And yeah I'm a .45 guy guy myself.

Quote:

if ya want punch get one a these

Yeah I got one of those too.

January 12, 2011, 08:36 PM	#26
UpstateGlocker Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2009 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 104	Notice how the 9mm guys always say "its almost equal to a 40", but the 40 guys never have to say "its almost equal to a 9" ? Just sayin. In any event, for a first time shooter I recommend a 9, since it has less recoil and is a perfectly acceptable HD firearm (I know you said you are not a first timer, but the same principle applies). The .40 is definitely more powerful (which is why LE has moved over to it), but you feel that with more recoil. How much more? It depends on you (how well you control the gun, etc.) Most of us will acknowledge the 40 recoils more, but most will also say the difference is small. To some extent this is a Ford vs Chevy argument where the Ford is a 250 with a bigger engine/better suspension. Is it "better"? Yes, but how much and does it matter for your expected use? The U.S. armed forces seem to think 9mm is adequate (yes, I know about the NATO politics). Bottom line: go with the 9 until you feel comfortable with it, then upgrade to a .40 if you feel you need the extra umph.

January 12, 2011, 08:47 PM	#27
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,974	With the bullets availble in 1990 when the 40 was developed it did offer a significant increase in performance. That is no longer true today. Many PD's never switched and the trend in LE is going back to the 9mm with todays better bullets. Not that I dislike the 40. I owned several for many years before advancements in bullets made it no longer necessary. The only reason I no longer own one is because I own a 10mm. The original 40.

January 13, 2011, 03:13 AM	#28
LockedBreech Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Location: Rocky Mountain West Posts: 3,395	I believe the snappiness issue of the .40 to be one of the most exaggerated claims on gun forums. My main is a .40 polymer. I have shot the cream of the 9mm crop beside it, including the Sig 226, Walther P99, and Glock 17. I shoot both with nearly identical speed and accuracy.

January 13, 2011, 03:51 AM	#29
NWCP Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2006 Posts: 1,903	I own a 9mm and a 40 HK USP. I practice a lot with my 9 due to ammo costs and carry my 40 on occasion. The 40 has more recoil than the 9 but given the right platform it's very manageable. My two pistols are identical with the exception of the caliber and I'd feel comfortable depending on either one to protect myself, or the family. 9mm is cheaper to shoot. Enjoy whatever you decide on.

January 13, 2011, 08:19 AM	#30
spodwo Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 839	Ok - I shoot both .40 and 9mm. I have the S&W M&P in the 9mm. I shoot the .40 in a 229 Sig and G22 Glock. I also have a G19, a Kahr PM9, etc... Here is the rub - with the platform you are getting - you will have a bit more of a snap from the .40. But frankly - all this "stopping power" stuff is moot if you can't obtain a critical hit. The true mantra is "bullet placement, bullet placement..." That M&P 9 is a fantastic and accurate shooter. Trigger is a littel mushy to me but you can get real accuracy with practice. The 9mms have a variety of loads plus it is cheaper to shoot. The .40 is the primary Law enforcement load so you have that as a consideration. But having both and liking both - I would go with a 9mm. Get proficient with that pistol and maybe down the road - go .40...the 9mm loads out there now are excellent. I also have a .38 S&W J frame snubby - I wouldn't compare that to a .40...I would compare it to my 9mm Kahr PM9 with standard 9mm 115 gr loads.