Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:18:18 AM EDT
I'm thinking about getting a Glock.

is the 40 really that much better than the 9?

i don't like guns that have a lot of muzzle blast & recoil.

i know a lot of guys think that it is sissy to admit that, but if you remove the he-man factor, most people are better served by a gun that they can actually hit with.

a clean miss with a 44 magnum is less effective than a hit with a 357., etc

anyway, is there a significant difference in recoil? power? effectiveness?

thanks
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:19:02 AM EDT


GET BOTH.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:22:48 AM EDT
I've heard friends criticize the 9 for being weak and ineffective.

I say, "Yep. Everybody knows a 9mm will just raise a welt, kinda like a paintball gun. How about standing over there and letting me shoot you with it?"

I carry a 9mm and don't feel undergunned. That's not to slam the .40 in the comparison.

Sure, the .40 (or .45) packs more punch, but I believe the 9 is a competent defensive round.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:24:01 AM EDT
BTW, you'll get a LOT of opinions here.

The bottom line is for YOU to get a gun that YOU have confidence in and YOU can handle well.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:24:02 AM EDT
A bigger hole with a more powerful round is always a good thing, provided you can shoot it accurately.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:26:48 AM EDT
I'd skip the 40 (especially in a Glock) and get either a 9 or 45. The 40 has a "snap" to the recoil compared to the 45's "push". If you're recoil sensitive, go with the 9mm over either of the others. Also, 40 cal Glocks have a way of self destructing. That's a by product of it's oversized chamber and unsupported feed ramp. The Glock 9's have neither of those problems.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:29:39 AM EDT
My Glock 19 (9mm) and .40 Sig P229 have very similar felt recoil. I carry the Glock because I have more confidence in my ability to make good hits with it. The initial double action trigger on the Sig REALLY throws me off.

I am thinking about getting a Glock 23 (.40) because I would like to shoot the larger caliber, but I am concerned that it will be too snappy for me to want to use as a carry gun. I need to find someone who has one to try it out.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:30:59 AM EDT
Shot placement counts
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:31:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 8:32:09 AM EDT by 89grand]
I have a Ruger P94 in .40. In all honesty, the main reason why I bought it over a 9mm was at the time when I bought it, the magazine limit was 10 rnds. It didn't make sense to me to buy a 9mm that held 10rnds over a .40 that also held 10 rnds. In addition to that, I already own 2 9mm so I wanted something different.

Maybe it's just the size of the .40 that makes me feel this way, but I would feel better armed with a .40 than a 9mm. The facts are there too, that a .40 has more stopping power than a 9mm, although either one is only as effective as the shot placement.

.40 ammo is pretty cheap these days too, although not quite as cheap as 9mm, but close.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:31:49 AM EDT
I like .40...9mm is ok. Shoot both at a range and see if you can tell a difference. It may not be that different for you.


ByteheBullet (-:
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:36:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By red65:
is the 40 really that much better than the 9?

no
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:40:21 AM EDT
It is hard to beat Springfields XD40 & XD9 as far as function / looks & price.

I own 4 Pistols ( listed in preference as to which I would grab if my life depended on it )

1. Colt Combat Commander 9mm 70 series
2. Glock 21 ( .45 ACP )
3. Springfield XD40 ( .40cal )
4. S&W 3913 ( 9mm )

all the above are great firearms or I would not own them
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:44:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 8:44:28 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Get whichever one you are most accurate and comfortable with.

Winging a baddie three times with a .40 or .45 is a lot worse than hitting him once COM with a 9mm.

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:44:22 AM EDT
You may not be profeshional enuf to handle a Glock 40. Stick w/the 9.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:45:27 AM EDT
no. I do not like .40 at all.

Its either 9mm or .45 for me now.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:48:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 8:49:03 AM EDT by cwd10]
Recoil will mean absolutely nothing to you, when you have to shoot someone, or something in self defence. Trust me on this, I have direct experience in that area. Given that the .40 has been shown to be slightly more effective, go with it if you can stand packing a larger frame pistol. If you need that smaller frame, then go with the 9. They're that close.

Added: If you do get a .40, skip the Glock and get the XD-40.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:55:35 AM EDT
I've never fired a 9mm before but I've shot a .40, IMO the recoil wasnt much at all. I was supprissed cause so many people moan and complain about a high recoil. Wasnt noticable at all for me. (weapon was berreta so maybe its a bit heavier then others im not sure).

I'd say shoot both before you buy and see if you can tell the difference in the recoil.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:55:49 AM EDT
I've had both a Glock 19 and Glock 23,both with Hinie night sights. Shot then side by side doing speed drills and doulble taps. You could shoot the 9mm faster and get better hits. I sold the 23.
I carry the 19 with a 15rd mag in the gun and a 17 rd glock 17 mag if I need a reload. Shoot prem 9mm ammo.
fwiw
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:56:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
I'd skip the 40 (especially in a Glock) and get either a 9 or 45. The 40 has a "snap" to the recoil compared to the 45's "push". If you're recoil sensitive, go with the 9mm over either of the others. Also, 40 cal Glocks have a way of self destructing. That's a by product of it's oversized chamber and unsupported feed ramp. The Glock 9's have neither of those problems.


I concur with the "snap." I've fired a Glock 40 and a Beretta 96(a stronger version of the venerable 92SF), and "snap" is definitely noticeable. The overly large 40S&W Glock chamber is also a fact. My buddy reloads the 40S&W, and he has to cull out the fired Glock 40S&W cases(as characteriszed by the Glock rectangular firing pin strike on the primer), because of the excessive chamber size in the Glocks; during the resizing step, the brass is not resized but pushed in ahead creating a little dimple of brass which prevents chambering of the reloaded round. I would beg, or borrow a 40S&W and try it out with a couple of boxes of ammo and see what you think for yourself.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:56:39 AM EDT
All guns have different felt recoil, but with .40 usualy being the snappiest. Though I have fired a KAHR 9mm that seemed more punishing than a 226 in .40.

All I see .40 having over 9mm is penatration when dealing with heavy clothing, or things like windsheilds. But a shot to the heart isan't going to be very picky about how big the hole is.

I also think you should carry the biggest round you can effectivly use, so if you can afford the slightly extra money for ammo, and don't mind the extra recoil, then go for .40.

Just be sure to put a few mags through it before you get it.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:00:42 AM EDT
Ditto that. The XD 40 is a much better pistol in my opinion. Built stronger than a Glock, feels better in the hand, and loaded chamber/action ready indicators.

Best pistol purchase hands down.

I have an XD40, no problems, and the felt recoil is very mild in my opinion.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:00:44 AM EDT
I think as far as terminal effects, todays highly developed ammunition will perform near equally from either. Get what you like best.

I think the argument that .40 is better than 9mm, as far as terminal effects, is true for plain, round nose ammo and the argument started when .40's first came out.

Ammunition development has been highly refined in the last 10 years.


Shoot both, get what you shoot best.

Dan
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:00:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:01:11 AM EDT
is a 9 better then a 380?

yes...
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:07:20 AM EDT
9mm for me and only 9mm. I can buy thousands and thousands of FMJ practice ammo for less than 10 cents per cartridge. The 147 gr JHP isn't a pushover, it will kill with proper shot placement.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:13:32 AM EDT
The 9mm may expand, but the 45 will never shrink.

That said, a Glock 17 serves to defend my family, home, and property.

I think the 40 should have never been invented. It's unnecessary.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:14:01 AM EDT
do what I do. I just carry a tape recording of a 12 gauge pump shotgun having its action worked. That usually scares off any trouble.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:14:09 AM EDT
I have both a 9mm (Browning Hi Power) and a .45 (SIG P220), and feel pretty confident with either. I think shot placement is more important than caliber, within reason.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:14:25 AM EDT
"Dat's tight, man, dat's tight."
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:26:40 AM EDT
The gun will make as much difference as the caliber. I shoot a Hipower in .40, put 400-500 rounds a week through it. There's a good snap but nothing punishing, or I wouldn't be shooting it that much, I'm a wimp. It's a steel, full-size auto. I have a little Steyr S-9, polymer compact 9mm, the kick on it is at least as much as the .40 because of the difference in size.

I can't imagine shooting one of those little Kahr's in .40, that would be a punch.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:28:03 AM EDT
my pistola round preference top 5 in order from best to worst
1 .45
2 .45
3 .45
4 .40 but only if a .45 isnt handy
5 a sharp stick
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:28:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 9:28:58 AM EDT by npd233]
Mathematically speaking:

9mm vs 40S&W (first let's convert this to equivalent in mm) = .40 x 25.4 = 10.16

so, 9mm vs. 10.16 mm. Winner by 1.16 mm: 40

G17: 16+1 capacity
9mm x 17 rounds = 153mm


G22: 15+1 capacity
10.16mm x 16 rounds = 162.56mm

Winner by 9.56mm: again, the 40
162.56mm - 153mm = 9.56mm

now, this is just the diameter of the round. We need to consider the full footprint of the round, how much more area does the extra 1.16 mm diameter of the round add?

Well, area of a circle cannot be determined without getting ¶ involved. Area is determined by multiplying ¶ by the square of the circle's radius (half the diameter). The formula is

¶ r²

9mm:
3.14 x (9/2)²
3.14 x 4.5²
3.14 x 20.25 = 63.585 mm² area covered the round
multiply that by 17 rounds = 1080.945 mm², the total footprint of all the rounds from a G17


40:
3.14 x (10.16/2)²
3.14 x 5.08²
3.14 x 25.8064 = 81.032096 mm² of area covered by the round.
multiply that by 16 rounds = 1296.513536 mm², the total footprint of all the rounds from a G22

Again 40 wins out, by a having 215.568536 mm² more area covered considering all rounds expended, than the equivalent sized 9mm handgun (an area that is the equivalent of 3.39 more 9mm rounds)

The real question is: Are you professional enuf to carry a 40?

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:29:52 AM EDT
For what its worth...

The Denver Police Department authorizes the 9mm and the .45acp. They see no advantage to the .40 over the 9mm so the .40 is not authorized.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:30:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 9:30:25 AM EDT by Hokie]

Originally Posted By npd233:
)(*&(*)*W&%)&Q*)*O&SIULKJXFAPWUPXVFBPXCBVUGA{UGWPIUGPCIUYAGPI!*@­(*Y%PS{Ahsdjhfpjh{piwugp(&@(*_&



WOW!

You're like, smart n' stuff!
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:36:25 AM EDT
Glock is a great choice since it's reliability, accuracy, and general carry-ability (light, smooth, etc..) is well documented... Beyond that if you choose the 9mm, and you can shoot it well, load it with top quality ammo and lets move on... The trick to this whole thing is where you hit them not what you hit them with... I generally carry .40 or .45 in Glock as my primary weapon and they work for me. BUT, I own several 9mm and I've never felt under-gunned carrying one... The key is practice, practice, practice....
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:36:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
The 9mm may expand, but the 45 will never shrink.

That said, a Glock 17 serves to defend my family, home, and property.

I think the 40 should have never been invented. It's unnecessary.



+1 on the Glock 17. 9mm gets a bad rep from the FMJ performance, but I can afford to practice more often with the 9mm than with 45 or 40. If 7-8 shots of 9mm won't get the job done, maybe 33rd of 9mm would work... If not, it should slow them down enough so I can grab the big guns.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:40:55 AM EDT
Those coveted ballistics numbers that everyone point to put the 9mm just about as good as .45 when you carry a proper defensive round. That plus the availability of plentiful cheap practice ammo and there's my choice. .40 what now?
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:45:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:49:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:
For what its worth...

The Denver Police Department authorizes the 9mm and the .45acp. They see no advantage to the .40 over the 9mm so the .40 is not authorized.



Yeah, studies have shown that the walls in your typical school are more vulnerable to 9mm than 40...better for recon-by-fire when walking into a school full of innocent, terrorized kids.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:10:04 AM EDT
Not to mention 9mm is a popular cartridge throughout the world, you can get ammo practically anywhere in the US in case you have to fight zombies and resupply at various locations throughout the US.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:19:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
The 9mm may expand, but the 45 will never shrink.

That said, a Glock 17 serves to defend my family, home, and property.

I think the 40 45 G.A.P.should have never been invented. It's unnecessary.



fixed it for you

.40 offers 10mm (factory, not hot handloaded) ballistics in a small frame pistol. Recoil is a bit snappier than a 9.

Shoot both and get the one you can control. I liked the .40 and picked up a USPc in .40.

muzzle blast is nowhere as loud as a .357 SIG, yet pushes a pretty substantial pill (up to 200gr).


the 45 GAP on the other hand is a dog.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:26:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
The 9mm may expand, but the 45 will never shrink.

That said, a Glock 17 serves to defend my family, home, and property.

I think the 40 should have never been invented. It's unnecessary.



Don't forget, it was only "invented" because women and some of the whimpier male agents in the FBI couldn't handle the 10mm....pussies....
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:28:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
A bigger hole with a more powerful round is always a good thing, provided you can shoot it accurately.

yep. I want the biggest gun that I can shoot fast and accuratly with. I carry a Glock 22 .40
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:30:37 AM EDT
I am new here so my opinion probably shouldn't carry much weight. Having said that, here it is.

I have had 3 9mm's. A cheap something or another, a ruger and a beretta. All 3 have been sold over time. My wife got me the XD40 5" (tactical) for christmas. It is probably the sweetest shooting pistol I have ever owned. As far as recoil goes my 9 year old daughter shoots the .40 and she loves it. She is small-framed and with good ear protection she has no problem with the .40 recoil. I have a Kimber .45 compact and a CD .45 and am scrapping together the money for the Kimber Desert Warrior. I love my .45's but for just going out and shooting the .40 is my new favorite. It has become the new bedside gun also. Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:37:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:
For what its worth...

The Denver Police Department authorizes the 9mm and the .45acp. They see no advantage to the .40 over the 9mm so the .40 is not authorized.

Well if Denver disagrees with the Majority of LE agencies in the country then we should all listen huh. The most widely issued police side arm is the Glock22
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:40:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By red65:

........................a clean miss with a 44 magnum is less effective than a hit with a 357., etc




Dude. The SLIPSTREAM will kill 'em!
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:41:48 AM EDT
When two calibers are so close dimensionally that people keep mixing them while loading magazines, You are going to have a hard time convincing me that one is superior to the other.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:42:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By red65:

........................a clean miss with a 44 magnum is less effective than a hit with a 357., etc




Dude. The SLIPSTREAM will kill 'em!

That like the .700 nitro, you can miss them by what, 8 inches, and they'll still be injured?
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:42:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
Mathematically speaking: Are you professional enuf to carry a 40?




I like where you are going with the math/numbers, but don't forget the SPEED factor!
Speed * weight/size = force of projectile (ie:"stopping power" even though I hate that phrase)
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:44:14 AM EDT
Recoil depends on a lot of factors. I had a SIG P226 in .40 and have an XD9 Subcompact. Care to guess which one 'snaps' more?

I could afford to practice lots with the 9mm, less so with the .40 cal SIG. So in the end I kept the XD9 and sold the SIG. I may pick an XD40 subcompact up sometime but for now I've seen the wound channel for all three and I'm not convinced one will knock a man off his feet while the other will just make him mad.

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:46:18 AM EDT
Get the .40 I have owned two of them and I really liked the caliber. A harder hitting handgun for the same money. Hell yes.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top