Right. We're talking about the margins here. What some perceive as a marginal (negligible?) increase in felt recoil might result in a marginal (negligible?) increase in penetration, wound channel diameter etc.

For me, the difference in felt recoil is low. I like the terminal performance of .40 across a variety of relatively inexpensive readily available defensive loads. The best argument against the G23 in my eyes is the 2 rounds that you lose in magazine capacity.

The best argument for 9MM is the $0.03/rd difference.

I've found that when your life might possibly be the final cost attempting to save money isn't the smartest act. Plus a barrel to shoot 9mm cost $125ish if you really need to practice cheaper. The mags will even work but the FTF about 10% of the time on my 23 with 9mm ammo. I use it for practice, FTF drills with a true randomness.

We certainly are talking about margins. 9mm allows a faster tempo of accurate shooting, slightly less effective bullets hitting vital organs FIRST are going to be better than slightly more effective bullets fired too late.  When I see my raw time scores compared to other people I usually think to myself that if it had been for real being down one, a half second faster than the other guy who was down zero means I got a decent hit on him and would have kept him from being down 0 and most likely down 5 or more with an FTN. The best round in the world won't make a difference if it was delivered too late.  Speed and accuracy are 9mm traits where winners and losers are determined by split second differences.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

As a 9mm guy, of course I agree with all its supporters posting here. What I would add to my prior comments about my positive experience switching from 40 to 9 is how big of a difference shooting 9mm improved my one handed shooting. That's certainly a skill that could come in handy in a deadly force situation.

I carry whatever ammo my work supplies. I am issued a 3rd gen G23 that is about a year old. Smoothest one I have been issued.
Once I retire and have to completely fund my own carry rounds, I probably will order a case of Ranger 127 grain +P+ and dig the Gen 2 G19 out of the safe. I don't notice a real difference in recoil between the two guns.

I own both and carry both. Free .40 ammo so I have more experience on the G23.  That being said, as far as I'm concerned, both are great guns and I won't be getting rid of either any time soon. Just wish my employer would switch to Glock and dump the M&P...

I guess if one shoots a G19 with 115gr FMJ it will recoil a little less than a 23 using 180's, but who carries standard pressure 115's for self defense?  Sure some do, but most carry some form of +P or +P+ which takes an already small difference in recoil and makes it even less.



I like the 9mm and the G19 is fantastic but I agree with the idea stated earlier, if someone thinks a 5 shot string shot 1/10 second faster with the 9mm makes all the difference, why is the larger caliber of the .40 not considered at all, wouldn't the bigger/heavier bullet of the .40 more than make up for it?  I have no reason to dislike the 9mm and it's certainly just as lethal as the .40 or .45, but lethal does mean equal either.

Ammo cost is negotiable and I have targets that prove you different about being harder to shoot more accurately.  

There is nothing wrong with either gun they but do what they are designed to do with good ammo.

I will be buying a 19 when able but it is in no way a worlds better gun than the 23 and cant blame anybody for wanting a 23.

My prior 40 duty load was 180gr Ranger Bonded. My current 9 duty load is 147gr Ranger Bonded. FWIW, to me there is a very noticeable difference in recoil between those two loads--shot strings faster, groups tighter, more accurate and faster one handed shooting. All of that translates to more confidence in what I'm carrying now over what I was carrying before. As always, YMMV.

I have both a 19 and a 23.  Love them both.

But when it comes down to brass tacks I feel better about carrying the 23.  Yes, the perceived recoil is greater, but not significantly enough to offset the larger caliber advanrage in my way of seeing it.  A 40 JHP will always be at least .400" and most likely expand from that. A 9 JHP will most likely expand too, but like any JHP, sometimes they don't and you're left with a .355" slug. Sure it isn't much...but I'll take that heavier larger bullet advantage over a few extra milliseconds between shots.

I would probably carry a 45ACP if I could find a platform of similar size to the G23 that didn't take a huge capacity hit. The G38 was a good concept, but 8 rounds is little below my comfort level.

Went from the 23 to the 19 because I could just shoot it faster.

I shoot a Glock 19 gen 3 for years now.  Never ever had a reason to or the justification to go with .40S&W.  The only other round that has piqued my interested is the .45ACP caliber.  Bigger and heavier round to blast through targets.  Nice.  Unless there is a good justification that I can actually say I have to have .40S&W handguns I doubt I will ever own one.

I think the .40 has an edge when it comes to animals. If I had to deal with nuisance black bears or wild boars Id switch to a .40 for edc. I currently go from 9 to .45 colt for woods carry up north or out west.

Is there any good data on the 9/40 debate in wildlife shootings?

147 grain gold dots worked well on deer, yotes, and raccoons ime and if I am carrying a 9 up north I carry it with 147 fmj flat points but 180 grain fp would be better

Well now I'm carrying a G27. Even though I can conceal my 23 just as well and I have a 19 in the safe.

9mm has lower recoil, so it is easier to shoot faster, cheaper to shoot, and has a higher capacity. Most people will prefer that, and when shooting at a human, without body armor, without barriers, you would be hard pressed to notice any terminal difference between 9mm and .40.

However the 40 has more power on paper, can shoot heavier bullets, and penetrate further through soft targets and barriers. It's a great law enforcement round, because many of their shootings occur in and around vehicles.

The 40 has more recoil, less capacity, but you have a slight edge in power, mainly in the form of penetration.

I think they both have their place. 9mm is hard to beat for EDC and civilian self defense, it is certainly lethal with a good JHP, and won't zip through your target with as much force as a .40 could.

.40 has a heavier bullet, with more powder, more mass, more kinetic energy, you feel the recoil to prove that being true. The increased penetration is physics, it can not be denied, but it's really not necessary.

Some argue that the bullet diameter is an advantage. There's not a huge difference in .40 and .355, but there is a difference, they both expand to a greater diameter, but the .40 expands more, it's technically more lethal, but dead is dead. If there is a BG that's been shot by 9mm, and a BG shot by .40, the one shot by .40 is not more dead, and it doesn't matter what caliber you're shooting if you can't get shots in center of mass. All handgun rounds are limited, and if you want to stop someone in their tracks it would be wise to hit them several times in the center of their chest. If you can't do that with 9mm, you can't do it with .40, but if you can do it with .40 you can do it faster with 9mm.