Search found 2 matches

by DoubleJ
Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:49 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: 9 mm. vs 40 cal
Replies: 40
Views: 4694

Re: 9 mm. vs 40 cal

LarryH wrote: I'd be interested in some detail on why the 40 is "easiest" for you. I shot all three at the range yesterday (admittedly my 9 and 45 (plus my wife's 45), someone else's 40) and thought the 40's recoil was about the same as (if not greater than) either my 45 or my wife's (her's is RIA full-size, mine is Kimber Pro Carry). The 40 is a S&W model, I believe. Definitely preferred the grips on my guns to his.
you may also consider that a RIA full-size is an all steel frame/slide, and a Pro carry is also steel, but with a shorter barrel (so, one would reason that the Pro Carry would have more recoil).
then factor in that most guns in .40S&W are 4", polymer framed guns. I believe, and this is merely my own conjecture, that this would factor into why recoil is different.

course, if I had the oppurtunity to shoot a Beretta 96 (.40S&W) and a Beretta 92 (9mm), I may be able to tell differences in recoil, based solely on cartridge/caliber.
by DoubleJ
Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:05 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: 9 mm. vs 40 cal
Replies: 40
Views: 4694

Re: 9 mm. vs 40 cal

jbirds1210 wrote: Humans just weren't designed for holes. If you put enough holes in them, they will stop bothering you. Your liver, heart, lungs, and aorta could care less what the diameter is.

Jason
I'll tell ya what aorta do. Aorta buy a 10mm!

:lol::

Return to “9 mm. vs 40 cal”