That's an awesome score, I'm having fun but I need to shoot more.  

This.
Got caught with my pants down.
Bought a police turn in G22 for $369. Primarily use a lone wolf 9mm barrel but I retain the .40barrel and mags in a pinch.

The alternative view is to spend that $200 or so and stockpile 9mm ammo.

Correct.  40 and 9mm have the same max pressure, both higher than 45.  I'm not sure why I added 45 in there, my mistake.  The rest of my post makes sense I think.



 

Even with modern defensive ammo a 9mm is still a twink load compared to the .40 and .45 cals. If you are sensitive to recoil or have a grip strength of a girl shoot the 9mm. Or since it's all about shot placement go with the .22 LR so you can get even faster follow up shots.

NAD

You are correct. The haters gloss over (ignore) this fact while desperately trying to prove the 9 is finally just as good as the .40.  

I'd guess that the two main reasons that folks don't like the .40 is one, they prefer (or are invested in) something else and two, they don't realize the versatility of the cartridge.
Using my Gen4 35 as an example, I can load up very light recoiling "gamer" loads, which would hush up most of the "40 is snappy" crowd real quick, they recoil even less than many 9mm's I've shot and are lights out accurate, I say that only because some folks are so dated they still think the .40 is inaccurate.  On the other hand, I can drop in a KKM 6" barrel and run 180gr JHPs to over 1350 fps or 200gr JHPs to over 1250 fps if I want to take it as a hunting tool.  I mean, not to step on any toes but people go out and spend good money on a 10mm when the .40 can get them all they'll ever need from a Glock platform.
The 35 can be loaded up with a good premium JHP for use around the house, now as to whether it's better or worse than the 9mm or .45 will warrant thousands of very heated opinions.  I've got and shoot all these and I feel confident with them all, but for the size the .40 offers the most in terms of potential, you won't get full potential using factory ammo since the good JHP's are designed to perform about the same anyways. Bullet technology has benefited all calibers, not just the 9mm although I will say the 9mm has probably benefited the most with the better bullet designs since by nature it shoots the smallest, lightest bullets of the three.

the best answer is of course, get all 3. 9, 40 and 45. best feature of 40 is that ammo is always available. even during the height of the panic I could walk into a store and get it.

.40 is effective.

If you're recoil sensitive you may prefer 9mm (you need more push-ups too)

Loaded with top quality hollow points the wound channel in soft tissue may be similar between 9-40-45

That said the bigger, heavier, more powerful loads perform better when they strike bone.

Carry what you shoot well... I use 9mm in compact guns but for work I prefer .40 or .45 based off years of seeing actual results in street shootings.

This is the reason my next handgun purchase will be a .40.

 

I started off with 9mm's mostly because of the price of ammo, I have never been able to find .40 or .45 as cheap as the plinking/practice grade 9mm for training and practice. Also when I started pistol shooting it was just that, shooting and small game hunting, I was not worried about self defense and CCW. I do think the 9mm is a little flatter shooting than the 40/45, not by much, but enough to make a difference on a rabbit sized target at 100yds or so.

Most people that have looked into it find the 9/40/45 all perform about the same in soft tissue, or if not the same, then 9mm is adequate and a pistol is a poor replacement for a rifle.

I do find the .40's more "snappy" than similar size/style 9mm's. I am not saying it is painful or even uncomfortable, just more jumpy. When fired. In a full size/weight handgun such as a S&W 4006 it is almost none, but get into subcompacts such as my Walther PPS in .40 and it is readily apparent compared to a similar sized 9mm. I am not comparing 9mm to "downloaded or gaming load" .40, just standard weight/charge rounds.

So I go by the Arfcom advice and get both a couple of each in the common calibers. I have a fullsize and a carry size in 40/45/9/357mag/380, so I can practice with whatever is on the shelves during the "panic" or shortage and also have a variety of choice for self defense and carry ammo.

Each caliber has its merits, I am not a hater of any of them, but stockpile 9mm much deeper than 40/45/357mag/380.

Transitioned from a 9 to a 40 about 10 years ago. The Glock 19 had slightly less "sharp" recoil than the Glock 22, but the Glock 22 isl still manageable.

I love my 40's.  I added a Shield 40 to the collection today in fact.  I only own 1 9mm, and it is because it is a rare, in the box Beretta from long before the M9.  

That said, I'll add a Sig M25 to my collection someday.  Most of my research, which was admittedly done many years ago, led me to believe the 40 was superior for self-defense.  I now read that it is really on par with 9mm for most uses.  9mm is definitely cheaper, and you can get more capacity.

In all my years of owning 40's, I've never had an issue with snappiness, and I love the round, so buy what you like and disregard the haters!

+1

I never seen the need to get a .40S&W caliber pistol.  I started off with 9mm then .45acp pistols and then that was it.  Never seen the need to get one more pistol caliber other than .22lr.  I put all my energies into these calibers and that's all to it.

I've owned several 40s.  Several 9s as well.  I simply shoot the 9s better.  I tried to love the 40, but it just isn't for me.

That's a good observation; my M&P .40 is actually a very soft shooing gun with percieved recoil comparable to that of a pistol designed for 9mm, when firing +P ammunition.

The ONLY reason I have a .40 was to make shooting my .357Sig P226 affordable for plinking.

From website Ballistics 101,

9mm    124 gr    1126 fps vel    351 ft-lb
40        180 gr     1000 fps         400 ft-lb
45 ACP230 gr      850 fps          369 ft=lb

What is wrong with the 40?  I like it as well as the other two..

Maybe I'm the only one, but I dislike .40 and Glocks for having to shoot a very early Glock 22 so much.  A long, long time ago, Glock came out with a 9mm and the world was happy.  Then along came the .40 round and it became the "in" thing.  Glock quickly introduced the model 22 based on the model 17 and offered agencies free upgrades from the 17 to the 22.  I had the carry one of the first series of Glock 22's.

Let me try to describe what it was like shooting these guns.  First, the trigger safety wouldn't fully depress so all of the trigger pressure was on a very thin line of metal.  Then, when the gun fired, it was a very sharp recoil pulse.  It took some getting used to but it was manageable (although it was still sucky).  Unfortunately, with the awful trigger safety bar, it was a literal pain to shoot.  The sharp recoil pulse would transfer some of the pulse to the trigger safety and into your finger.  It delivered a pain similar to a pinching sensation with every round fired.  To make things worse, when the guns starting breaking years later, Glock was very unhelpful with us.  Also, fired brass from these guns had bulges that were almost cartoon-like so case blow outs with reloads was a very real possibility.

.40 is a round that needs a gun designed for the round to fire it comfortably, or at least have enough mass like a metal frame to deaden the blow.  9mm and .40 has the same max pressure but the bullet of the .40 weighs significantly more.  Newton's laws explain why the recoil is more with the .40 than a 9mm.  The best way I can describe how the early Glock 22's were was like firing a .357 mag in a revolver designed around the .38 special round but chambered in .357 mag.  It works but it takes a beating on you and the gun.

I know Glocks have came a long ways since back then but it left a bad taste in my mouth.  

For what its worth, I'm a believer that all handgun rounds are terrible compared to rifle rounds, so I have no problems if .40 is your preferred choice.  For me, I now use .45 for my full size guns and 9mm for my compact guns.  I shoot .45 well and believe the big .45 bullet is a fail safe in case the bullet fails to expand or fragments.  However, if I wasn't so invested in my .45 guns, I would go completely to 9mm as I shoot it the best quickly and I'm starting to believe in gun capacity.

 
Many folks don't believe in physics here.

The hate for .40 S&W is a recent trend.  

I remember back in the mid 2000s everyone on the gun forums hated 7.62 NATO.  It didn't matter how many times you pointed out that the military loves it in their GPMGs.  When the SCAR 17 came out all of a sudden it came back in to favor.

It's unlikely that there would be a situation where a 9mm would perform better on target than a .40.  

You might actually find better prices on .40 by buying it off of people who are switching to 9mm.  

The differences in magazine capacity and recoil in a Glock 22 are pretty minimal vs. a Glock 17.  You lose two rounds in the bottom of the magazine and the recoil on a G22 is about the same as that of metal-framed 9mm pistols (i.e. not that bad at all).  

My overall advice:  Buy the gun you like and stop worrying about its caliber.  Each caliber has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.  Take advantage of the strengths and shield yourself from the weaknesses.

I've shot all three a great deal in competition, and for work. The three calibers have different recoil impulses when shot in similar platforms. What it amounts to, for me, is longer splits between shots in .40 and .45. We are talking about hundredths of a second here, so I don't consider that significant.

I understand the terminal ballistic data, and don't disagree. But I have spent decades shooting steel with all three, and .40's and .45's POUND the steel. I believe this means something.

I think the 9mm is a great caliber, and it is a blessing in light compact guns and for shooters who are recoil sensitive or lighter framed.

I carry a .45. I carried .40's for a long time. When I don't want to carry, I carry a 3" J-frame in .357.

The terminal ballistic data may convince you that more is NOT better. I continue to believe that too much of a good thing is barely enough, and I am big enough, and experienced enough, to deal with it.

Let's do a thought experiment:
- if .40 was the top end (no .45) how would you feel about it?
- if .40 was the bottom end (no 9mm) how would you feel about it?

For all those who say it's too snappy...

My wife prefers to shoot my 40 over all of my other calibers. 45, 9mm, 38 special and 380. She shoots it well, very well and insists that it is her bedside gun. She's a little thing, but with that full size XDm in her hand, you won't want to see her angry.

That is a solid analogy. Both my M&P40, a mid-size and "c" models have very moderate recoil with 180 grain ammo (the most common loading anyways.) I've said many times the mid-size M&P with 180 grain ammo is comparative to shooting my Beretta 92FS with Nato ball ammo, (basically a pussy cat.) My first .40 was a 3rd gen G27 which sucked in the ergonomics and recoil department. Then I tried M&P's, which were designed to be a .40 first and then the .40 became a favorite round. I carry an M&P40c because I have a real possibility that I may have to shoot thru auto glass and/or doors. I'm very comfortable & competent with it, (fast shots on target), and because it's very easy to shoot ergonomics and recoil wise. I use the M&P mid-size with a TLR-1 for home defense for virtually the same reasons. Glocks almost ruined me on the .40 caliber; but I'm glad I tried a pistol that was designed for the .40 caliber and not a 9mm that shoehorned a .40 into it. The .40 is an effective round, with good barrier penetration, very comfortable to shoot, and quality SD and ball ammo can be found just about anywhere in times of feast or famine. Haters can keep reiterating folk lore fallacies about the .40 all they want, I don't care. It just leaves more ammo and pistols for those of us who know better...

I've tried three times to like the 40 and I just can't do it. Two Glock 22's and a Springfield XDM40. The guns just didn't shoot well for me and when it came to reloading, it was a pain. I had to buy an EGW undersize die just to get the "bulge" out. I finally gave up on it and gave a five gallon bucket of brass and all of my 40 supplies to my oldest son who shoots competition and swears by it.

My reason for owning a Fo-tay right here.  I have to shoot .40 for major power factor, otherwise i'd be all in with 9mm.  

Living in a commie state of Hawaii we have a legally mandated 10rd cap on handgun mags,  the 9mm has no capacity advantage over a 40S&W unless we are talking about subcompact or single column mag guns.   With conversion barrels,  many 40s can shoot cheaper 9mm as well as the 357 sig.  In Hawaii, we have to endure a PITA handgun registration process and waiting period.  One handgun that can shoot mulitple rounds is a benefit since they require no additional red tape

That being said,  the 9mm handguns still outsell their 40S&W counterparts by a large margin.  The biggest reason i have heard people picking 9mm over 40S&W is ammo cost/availability (a major issue considering everything in Hawaii has to be shipped or air freighted in across half an ocean)  and lower recoil.

Yup, One of the reasons i love my .40....everyone else seems to listen to the internet drama that it's crap. More ammo around for guys like me who like it.

I'd bet money it's true.  Modern duty ammo in all the major calibers does almost the exact same thing:  12-16" penetration, .65-.70" recovered diameter, near-100% weight retention, and no jacket/core separation.  Sounds suspiciously like the FBI standard to me.



We know what a bullet needs to accomplish; it's not a damn national secret.  The big three are all more than capable of accomplishing "it"... so that begs the question:  Why, for all practical purposes, do we need more than one of those big three?



 

From what I've observed most 9mm loads equalling .40 are +P or +P+ loads that completely invalidates the whole easier to shoot silliness.

I personally find the difference in shooting 9mm vs 40 S&W negligible with a proper two handed technique. If people still trained in offhand combat shooting in the traditional one handed stance it may be a different story.

To each their own. Bottom line is that some professional organizations have gone back to 9mm as it's good enough and works better for the average person with minimal training.

That's been enough for some folks to deem the .40S&W obsolete, which is just nonsense. It's always been less popular for target use, hence there always being plentiful target ammo on the shelf. I have no "range" guns. I shoot what I use and carry daily.

The 9mm aficionados say 40 is too much. 10mm guys say 40 is too weak and a girly man round. I think it is what it is, a great compromise in a standard sized gun.

The 147s aren't +P

Equal where? Power, penetration, retained weight, expanded diameter? Maybe in one but certainly not all.

Non tech pic removed - Maynard

The same people that think there is something wrong with 40S&W are the same people that can't figure out what texting is for (they probably don't even have a smart phone), probably thought the plane couldn't take off from the conveyor and that 0.999-repeating is not equal to 1.

Granted, though that's one of precious few +p 147s (there aren't any others outside of boutique loaders, IIRC), and there is also a standard pressure 147 HST that works perfectly fine.  It works well enough that I'm not even sure why they bothered with a +p version.

Winchester did a Ranger SXT 147gr +P load. I know because my former agency issued it to officers that carried 9mm Glocks.

180 gr HST .40 expands to .96" in bare gel and .80" in heavy cloth/gel.  I haven't found a 9mm round yet that will do that.

Link? I don't think I've ever seen a video or article showing that much expansion.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_20/155281_Handgun_bullet_performance_data_spreadsheet_.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COVoBwR1oww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRqrJRq4T0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWy2AB_AQYo

Well, all of the variables aren't going to be exactly the same across the various calibers and weights. So as far as equal is concerned, I suppose you are right. I'm just saying that many of the agencies that are now switching back to 9 millimeter from 40 are using standard pressure 147 grain 9 millimeter as a viable replacement. If you believe 40 is a better round that's totally fine. I'm not a 40 hater. But i believe standard pressure 147 9mm is effective and easy to  shoot compared to 40. That's all I'm saying.

a lot of folks don't like.40 because it tends to accentuate the flaws in their own shooting skills.

Which also makes it the worst in a truly SHTF situation because it is going to be the last thing you will be able to pick up "off the ground".

 

LOL !!!!!!

10mm Auto is the only .40 I'll own...

@ that point, aren't you better off w/ a .357" SIG w/ better sectional density?

I enjoy shooting 9mm better because of less recoil, but I don't mind 40 cal. My first gun was a Glock 23 and I still have it.

Forty Cal, great round. Solid alternative to .45 or 9. I got several of all three, nothing at all wrong with .40.

You know what, you are certainly on to something there...

Unless given one from a relative I'll never own another 9mm again. .40cal & .45Acp's are all I shoot/carry/load...