9 mm. vs 40 cal

[mr.72]

Actually, according to Federal's site, regarding the HST loads

1. .40 Caliber HST 180 grain bullet delivers 408 lb/ft of energy at the muzzle
2. 9mm 124 grain HST +P bullet delivers 396 lb/ft of energy at the muzzle.
3. 45 acp 230 grain HST bullet delivers 404lb/ft of energy at the muzzle

The reality is that each round has pros and cons, and on balance they are approximately equivalent. It would be difficult or probably impossible to make any argument that is not purely baseless opinion that one is better than the other from an objective viewpoint. Of course the internet forums are the domain of the baseless opinion, so you see exactly such meaningless arguments all over the internet.

In some cases, a 9mm is going to be best. In some cases, a .45 may be best. In other cases, maybe the .40 is the best. Unfortunately you don't get to pick the conditions under which you are going to need to fire a defensive weapon. No matter what you carry, it is a compromise in some way.

Two things I will point out in favor of the 9mm is that #1 the 124gr HST +P are 50% cheaper in 9mm than the comparable rounds in either .40 or .45. I am carrying 124gr 9mm HST +P in my Kahr right now. It has noticeably more recoil than 115gr WWB and dramatically more recoil than most reloads or other cheap practice ammo such as Monarch. So it is a big advantage to be able to afford to practice more with the exact ammo you are going to carry, if you are limited by finances at all. And #2, 9mm is ubiquitous, and the physically smaller rounds are smaller and lighter to carry in any quantity. For example, a Glock 26 holds 13 rounds of 9mm and is smaller in almost every dimension and lighter when loaded than the 36, which only holds 7 rounds of .45ACP. The 36 is about 1.5mm thinner but otherwise is bigger than the 26 in every dimension. You give up 6 rounds of capacity and get nothing in return, unless you are absolutely convinced that, despite the ballistic data and numbers, one round of .45 is nearly as good as two rounds of 9mm as a man stopper.

[Stupid]

Comparisons between handgun rounds and rifle rounds based on caliber alone are not valid.

The much higher velocities of rifle rounds bring temporary wound cavity effects that damage tissue well beyond the actual projectile path through tissue. This dynamic doesn't occur with 9mm, .40 and .45 handgun rounds because the bullets don't travel fast enough to cause this effect.

Inside 100 yards while the .223 is still running hot enough to cause the bullet to yaw and break up upon entry, this round is a highly satisfactory man stopper. It loses effectiveness beyond that distance as it slows down and just punches .22 caliber holes which are often adynamic wounds, but that battlefield reality is not generally a concern to a civilian. If someone is more than 100 yards away, you probably don't have any business shooting at him anyway.

I am curious about the statement that a .308 is a poor man-stopper. Most folks hit in the torso with this round go down right then and are not in any condition to continue the fight. Where did the "poor man stopper" rating come from?

I was just making a generic statement which is probably too broad. People survived small calibers shots left and right. There's no-one-shot-stopper/focus on shot placement was my point.

[The Annoyed Man]

First, welcome to the board.

The thing is with small calibers including even .223 and the mighty .308 are poor man-stoppers. Shot placement is the key.

I have to respectfully disagree, unless you are talking about FMJ, and even then, I'm not sure I'm buying it. When you are talking apples to apples, such as comparing hollow point pistol rounds to hollow point rifle rounds, your chances of surviving a hit with a rifle round are significantly lower than with a hit from a pistol round. Plus, you'll be bleeding out of two holes instead of just one with a .308 round. I don't want to be shot, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd take getting hit by a .45 ACP over a .308 any day of the week. Ask any thin-skinned game animal like a white tail (or a human). Pistols just aren't in the same league. I've seen a lot of shot people in my time, and the ones hit with rifle bullets were always hit harder than the ones hit with pistol bullets.

As to the subject of the thread, I don't own a 9mm, but I do own a .40 in a compact pistol, and I have fired other folks' 9mm's a few times. I'm not a huge fan of the .40, based only on my own ownership experience. I am a huge fan of the .45, and I find it much easier to shoot than a .40, even when fired from a small pistol (3" Kimber), but you didn't indicate that you would be interested in that caliber. In retrospect, I think I might have preferred a 9mm over the .40 - partly for the ammunition cost which others have mentioned, and partly because it seems to be an easy shooting round. If you are still a relatively novice shooter, you'll probably develop better shooting habits with the 9mm than with the .40. You can always step up to a larger caliber later if you want to; and as a lot of 9mm owners on this board will tell you, you're probably just as well armed with a 9mm as with any other caliber; and as KRM45 said, the .380 in your pocket is better than the .45 you left at home.

All of that was a rambling way of saying "welcome to the world of buying multiple guns!"

[Liberty]

Lots of good input on the merits and disadvantages of both amunition. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be more kabooms with 40 than 9mm or even .45 its been reported that a lot of .40s guns are just retooled 9MMs and this results in an unsupported chamber. I haven't had any experiance with KBs but thats only what I've read. Safety may be worth concidering though.

[Furyataurus]

Get the 9mm. Better control, faster follow up shot, less expensive, and higher capacity are the reasons I got a 9mm first.

[Mcoupe]

After 20 years of shooting guns, I finally admitted that I prefer the 9mm+p and that my favorite platform was the Glock 19 and Sig P228. I just wish I knew that before spending so much money over the years...

[jbirds1210]

Lots of good input on the merits and disadvantages of both amunition. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be more kabooms with 40 than 9mm or even .45 its been reported that a lot of .40s guns are just retooled 9MMs and this results in an unsupported chamber. I haven't had any experiance with KBs but thats only what I've read. Safety may be worth concidering though.

I have read the same and even had some friends experience it. I have never seen it happen with my own eyes and I am around handgun shooters more than the average joe. I really think alot of this is poor handloading and internet urban legend.

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

[WildBill]

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

And people [humans] will justify/rationalize why their particular choice of a certain diameter hole is better than the other.

[edmart001]

I am in the process of purchasing a sub compact handgun for business and home protection. I just finished the CHL class which was awesome. I passed the shooting with a 9 mm, regular size (that was the first time I had shot a pistol). I've been told so many stories about the 9mm vs the 40 cal. What kind of information can you guys give me concerning this. I'll be purchacsing a gun in about 2 weeks.[/b]
Thanks

357

There has been a lot of good advice given so far and I am not going to contradict any of it. I am however, going to add my opinion that the bottom line as I understand it is that there is no magic bullet. This especially applies to all handgun calibers. There are only well placed shots and misses. If you do not land well placed shots with any handgun round, your target is not going to stop being a threat. In addition to this, there is no accounting for the mindset of the adversary. When wounded, some people seem to just lay down until they die or get help, others seem to fight until they physically just can't anymore. So, in addition to landing well placed shots, my plan is to continue to do so until the threat is obviously neutralized.

My eldest son has recently completed five years of active duty service with the US Army, 3rd Infantry Division, including two combat tours in Iraq. He once saw an insurgent take three rounds center mass from a .50 caliber machine gun. He said the guy's entire torso was nothing but pink mist. However, although apparently fatally wounded, the insurgent's will to fight was so great that he still dragged himself to his RPG and got off an aimed shot at a Bradley fighting vehicle. To end that story, the RGP did not penetrate the Bradley's armor, and the Bradley finished the insurgent and the surroundings with a hail of 20mm HE rounds from it's cannon.

On the other hand, if you happen to be one who believes the Bible (like me), David dispatched Goliath with one shot in the caliber of a rock.

So, my point is, what you shoot isn't nearly as important as how well you shoot it. I doubt anyone serious about concealed carry would try to CC a .50 caliber anything, but I have an eye witness account of how even a machine gun in that caliber, a weapon that has been a mainstay of the US military for generations, was insufficient to immediately stop one guy committed to doing harm.

Again, the conclusions I've reached from all of this is to carry what I shoot well. Practice so that if I ever need it, I will shoot it well. And, if I ever do need it, I plan to continue landing well placed shots until the threat is no longer moving.

For me, my carry weapon is a CZ-75 D PCR, which is a compact 9mm decocker with a 14 round magazine. I carry it half cocked, 14+1, loaded with Corbon 125 grain +P JHP. I practice at least monthly and feel confident in my ability to defend myself against most anything I can imagine I might encounter. The reason I landed on a compact 9mm when I had the same question you posed is the combination of size (relatively easy to conceal), comfort to shoot, ability to stay on target for follow-up shots, ammo price (yielding more practice sessions) and shot capacity. The reason I landed on the CZ-75 D PCR is that it has a long reputation for being a rugged, reliable and accurate handgun, it fits my hand and natural shot stance very well and it's cost is moderate compared to many of it's competitors. I began to shoot it well with very little coaching or practice and I can put 200+ rounds through it with no discomfort at all in a range session.

I have shot .38, .40 and .45 guns and other guns in 9mm. There are many fine handguns out there. I agree with the advice previously given that you should try many and go with one that you shoot well. Some ranges have a rental fleet of handguns so that customers can try several. Some folks know folks that have several different guns. Either way works. But always remember, several rounds in the X-ring with just about anything is going to be far more effective than several misses with anything else.

[Excaliber]

Comparisons between handgun rounds and rifle rounds based on caliber alone are not valid.

The much higher velocities of rifle rounds bring temporary wound cavity effects that damage tissue well beyond the actual projectile path through tissue. This dynamic doesn't occur with 9mm, .40 and .45 handgun rounds because the bullets don't travel fast enough to cause this effect.

Inside 100 yards while the .223 is still running hot enough to cause the bullet to yaw and break up upon entry, this round is a highly satisfactory man stopper. It loses effectiveness beyond that distance as it slows down and just punches .22 caliber holes which are often adynamic wounds, but that battlefield reality is not generally a concern to a civilian. If someone is more than 100 yards away, you probably don't have any business shooting at him anyway.

I am curious about the statement that a .308 is a poor man-stopper. Most folks hit in the torso with this round go down right then and are not in any condition to continue the fight. Where did the "poor man stopper" rating come from?

I was just making a generic statement which is probably too broad. People survived small calibers shots left and right. There's no-one-shot-stopper/focus on shot placement was my point.

I would agree that there is no hand fired projectile that can be counted on to achieve a one shot stop unless it destroys a critical part of the central nervous system. Any caliber round that does that will deliver instant incapacitation, but a hit anywhere else has lots of variables and maybes.

Bullet placement is much more important than caliber.

Given hits in the identical spot, larger caliber projectiles do generally cause faster incapacitation than smaller ones due to more rapid blood loss through larger holes. This is an incremental advantage, not an order of magnitude.

Anyone armed with a 9mm/.38 or larger has what is needed to get the job done if he or she does his part.

[bryang]

I would suggest for you to go to a range that rents handguns and pick one of each caliber you are interested in and see which one YOU like the best. When buying a defence handgun it is very important to get the one that fits your hand and you can shoot comfortably. Pick out the caliber you like and practice, practice and then practice with it...shot placement is what counts.
Welcome to the forum!!

-geo

[DoubleJ]

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!

[Purplehood]

Personal preference all the way. The actual ballistic differences are not significant.

I carried the .45 ACP, 9mm and now the .40 S&W (carried, and shot all of these on a regular basis). I have found that shooting the .40 S&W is the "easiest" experience. So I stick to what works for me.

[LarryH]

Personal preference all the way. The actual ballistic differences are not significant.

I carried the .45 ACP, 9mm and now the .40 S&W (carried, and shot all of these on a regular basis). I have found that shooting the .40 S&W is the "easiest" experience. So I stick to what works for me.

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.

[Purplehood]

For the past 33 years or so I have found that I have the best control with the pistols in .40 S&W caliber. The .45 I shot well with, but was never comfortable with the grip (small paws). The 9mm always felt like I wasn't able to control it. I keep on target with the .40 cal.