9mm +P vs. .40 S&W: Too Close To Call?
- Thread starter Single Six
- Start date
.40 makes a bigger entrance wound and generally will expand a little more than a 9mm +P. The 40 will also usually penetrate more than a 9mm +P, although the 147 Gr 9mm will penetrate as well or better than the lighter weight 40s. Also, if the bullet doesnt expand, which is a real possibility in colder climates with heavier clothing, the .40 will obviously create a larger wound channel than a 9mm.
So no, its not too close to call in my opinion, the .40 is clearly superior. A 9mm +P does recoil less than a 40 though, so its got that going for it.
So no, its not too close to call in my opinion, the .40 is clearly superior. A 9mm +P does recoil less than a 40 though, so its got that going for it.
There has been instances where "big" guys were stopped with well placed .22s, which is why one often hears the arguments: "it depends on who get shots" and "it depends on shot placement".
You will almost always carry more in a 9mm handgun than you can in a .40 handgun.
Stopping power is a highly debated topic, but let's use hunting as an example to discuss that topic. If I remember correctly, hunting regulations often request minimum 1000 ft/lb for deer. But if you ask hunters, many of them have taken deer with .357 from a 6" revolver (cleanly), which is what....800 ft/lb at best (feel free to correct me)?
So how significant is that ~200 f/t lb difference? If you look below, the difference might be even less than 200.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=118 <== 9mm
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=115 <== .40 S&W
That's for you to decide. Most people will be on the polar ends of the debate, i.e. "makes no difference" or "makes all the difference in the world". This bias is further amplified by modern JHP.
I am in CA, so I walk around with a 3" blade pocket knife. I'd be content with a bb gun.
You will almost always carry more in a 9mm handgun than you can in a .40 handgun.
Stopping power is a highly debated topic, but let's use hunting as an example to discuss that topic. If I remember correctly, hunting regulations often request minimum 1000 ft/lb for deer. But if you ask hunters, many of them have taken deer with .357 from a 6" revolver (cleanly), which is what....800 ft/lb at best (feel free to correct me)?
So how significant is that ~200 f/t lb difference? If you look below, the difference might be even less than 200.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=118 <== 9mm
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=115 <== .40 S&W
That's for you to decide. Most people will be on the polar ends of the debate, i.e. "makes no difference" or "makes all the difference in the world". This bias is further amplified by modern JHP.
I am in CA, so I walk around with a 3" blade pocket knife. I'd be content with a bb gun.
Coltman 77
New member
Thought provoking pic for your consideration. 
Plus a definitive link re: Best Self Defense Ammo:
(featuring the work of Dr. Gary Roberts, renowned ballistics expert).
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
Plus a definitive link re: Best Self Defense Ammo:
(featuring the work of Dr. Gary Roberts, renowned ballistics expert).
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
Then there are photos like these, and we have to remember the thump of the weight behind the size, and what kind of effect that can have on something like a backbone or a hip after traveling through much of a body, for example. Also, I find this photo in itself a bit misleading, as the .45 HST has been known to open up an inch in diameter on many occasions, and the 9mm HST to max out at about .80 average, when fired into water.
How often do we hunt hogs and larger animals with a 9mm? Ask yourself why not (and exclude the rare reports of the guy who got off a lucky shot with one)? I like the 9mm too, and believe it's the way to go in a compact gun, but I don't consider it equal in overall performance.
Both will get the job done when placed correctly, sure. But so will a .22. So why don't we just carry .22's? I think we all know the answer to that one.
If you're into .40, well there is this video, which is pretty cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-vMFaOAwE
How often do we hunt hogs and larger animals with a 9mm? Ask yourself why not (and exclude the rare reports of the guy who got off a lucky shot with one)? I like the 9mm too, and believe it's the way to go in a compact gun, but I don't consider it equal in overall performance.
Both will get the job done when placed correctly, sure. But so will a .22. So why don't we just carry .22's? I think we all know the answer to that one.
If you're into .40, well there is this video, which is pretty cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-vMFaOAwE
Last edited:
The FBI and most police departments went with the 40 over the 9mm for one reason, better and more consistent ballistics performance. You can make the case that the 9mm should be considered because its lower recoil is worth the slightly smaller hole and lower penetration, but strictly in terms of which bullet does more damage, the .40 is almost always going to be the winner.
Also, If you are shooting through a door, wall, a windshield or through heavy clothing, the .40 has an even bigger advantage over a 9mm +P.
Also, If you are shooting through a door, wall, a windshield or through heavy clothing, the .40 has an even bigger advantage over a 9mm +P.
In practical terms, it comes down to personal preference. My conclusions:
- If you go with 9mm, be careful to choose a modern +P load;
- Here in Kalifornia, the land of the 10-round mag, I would go .45 if I could not legally have high-cap mags;
- All other things being equal, .40 is a good compromise, and state-of-the-art.
- If you go with 9mm, be careful to choose a modern +P load;
- Here in Kalifornia, the land of the 10-round mag, I would go .45 if I could not legally have high-cap mags;
- All other things being equal, .40 is a good compromise, and state-of-the-art.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
I will go one further and even say the whole range of 9mm to .45 ACP is all in the same category. The perceivable difference in recoil impulse seems to inspire people to believe that there is a significant difference down range on the bad guy's end. There isn't. They are all within 100 ft/lbs of energy of one another. None of them are matching the energy of rifle rounds. Therefore, shot placement is what matters. Since shot placement is what matters... it really doesn't matter how much your gun recoils but how many rounds it holds per magazine.
So far I haven't seen anyone fault this logic.
So far I haven't seen anyone fault this logic.
Deaf Smith
New member
David Spauling, the LEO'gun writer, wrote that videos of shootings do show the larger rounds have a more pronounced effect on impact on felons.
He also wrote the difference in effect was not great but there was a noticeable on the films.
Deaf
He also wrote the difference in effect was not great but there was a noticeable on the films.
Deaf
For me it's the cost of 40 ammo that is mind boggling to me. Around me I can get Fed Champ in 9mm for $20 for 100 rounds. I can get Fed Champ in 40 for $17 for 50 rounds. I can get Fed Champ in 45 for $17.50 for 50 rounds. This is why I personally don't see a lot of point in the 40. At that point I'd rather have the 45, I like the recoil from it better and for $.50 big deal.
As for shooting through car doors, well I'm not LEO. If I get to that point I'll let you know. Of course if I get to that point I'll also likely be arrested.
As for shooting through car doors, well I'm not LEO. If I get to that point I'll let you know. Of course if I get to that point I'll also likely be arrested.