Posted: 7/14/2006 8:51:59 PM EDT
|
I've read a lot of things saying that the 40S&W is a round priced close to the 45ACP but with the punch of a 9mm. I would like to buy a fullsized Glock (please, no wars over that, i have plenty of 1911's). I would normally go with the G21 in 45ACP, but I really don't like the wide frame and slide. The G17 and G22 are the same size only narrower, and they fit my hand well. Should I go for the G22 in 40S&W, or just get the 9mm G17? FWIW, in NJ we can only have 15round mags so the G17 would either come with a 10 round mag or some type of blocked mag, so the extra rounds don't count in this poll. |
|
energy wise (for most common .40sw) the .40sw will provide more energy than regular 9mm with stats closer or a little above .45acp; prices have dropped and its more in between the price of .45acp and cheapo 9mm w/ modern JHP loads (and i'm not talking about the old hydrashoks, etc), 9mm/.45acp/.40sw/.357sig will get you roughly the same penetration and terminal balisitics (tested in gel)--all are adequate for self defense, regarding pistol rounds h/w, .40sw is a pretty high pressure round; recoil is (imo) is noticiably more "snappy" and muzzle flip and flash is also more noticible--i do not like the .40sw; i prefer 9mm and .45acp for carry (less recoil, smoother shooting) and shooting and for everthing else, 10mm all i can say is, try to try em out for yourself and decide if you like the .40sw or if you like the others better, and then compare price and shootablility if the # of rounds is limited and my hand fitted the frames, i would just get the Compact Glocks (G19/23/32) as they are better for CCW and the larger frame does not help any w/ the ammo capacity and the slightly longer bbl will not be that more beneficial; if not, i would just go w/ a .45acp since my ammo count is limited....you have got to move  |
I absolutely hate the recoil of the .40 S&W round. My G-21 .45 ACP had much less recoil. The G-17 and G-19 are a pleasure to shoot. In your situation I would purchase a G-19. It has 15 round high capacity mags. It is easier to conceal than a G-17 too. I have two G-19s and am very happy with them. Ammo is cheaper too. Good Luck.....
|
....well that would make sense--guess NJ wont allow CCW either?
|
Kinda depends on what you want it for. Casual shooting: a 9MM is more fun to shoot and is ammo cheaper. Self defense: the .40 is more powerful than a 9MM – that’s why it has the snappier recoil. Admittedly, whether or not that extra power translates into meaningful stopping power seems to be an unresolved issue at the moment. FWIW, (and at the risk of inadvertently hi-jacking your thread with a hot button issue!) Glock .40’s are the ones that have the occasional KaBoom issues – apparently with poor quality ammo. |
|
It's practically a religious debate. The question is: do you like the way .40 feels when you shoot it? If you like the feel, it's a great cartridge. Some people don't like it. We call them women.  It stops better because it makes a bigger hole. Yes, 9mm lovers, it makes a bigger hole, even bigger than 147g talons. |
This is practically the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Stops better because it makes a bigger hole?!?! You clearly have no concept of how/why bullets work in the human body....The .40 S&W offers no terminal advantage over the 9mm when using JHP ammunition. All the duty calibers perform nearly the same and no one caliber has an advantage over any other. The research is out there, familiarize yourselves with it. As far as which Glock you should buy, only you can decide that. When using JHP ammunition, there is no difference in the performance of the 9mm and .40. Shoot both and buy whichever you prefer. When it comes to terminal ballistics, neither has an advantage...its a tie. |
Sorry Ryno_the_wyno You dead wrong. The research is out there, and I have familiarized myself with it: demigod.org/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php The largest hollowpoint expansion in bare gellitan for the 9x19 (9mm) round was 0.69". That's the biggest. 9mm -Low: 0.37" -High: 0.69" .40 S&W -Low: 0.50" -High: 0.84" .45 ACP provided even larger holes, but just by a little. Please do not listen to people who do not provide sources and who formulate opinions and seem to state them as fact. The 9mm creates a smaller wound cavity than the .40 S&W round. It is generally agreed upon that a well placed shot, combined with adequte penetration (12 inches) is what is needed to stop a threat. Wound cavity increases blood loss, and also translates to more damaged tissue. The reason the .40 S&W is recoiling more is because it is a more powerful round. It travels at speeds close to the 9mm, while pushing an even larger bullet at the target. Disadvantages include: Higher priced ammunition and more recoil, along with reduced capacity magazines. Lets take a quick example: HK USP .40 S&W 13 Round Magazine HK USP 9mm 15 Round magazine Wal-Mart pricing (Winchester Whitebox) -9mm 100 rounds 115gr. FMJ: $13 -.40 S&W 100 rounds 165gr. FMJ: $17 So with .40 S&W you loose two rounds in the magazine, and pay $0.05 more per round. My life is priceless, so when I choose to defend myself money is no object. The question is, is your life priceless? |
|
Cost is an issue. If you can't afford to get the hollowpoints for caliber x, you'll get the cheap shit instead and end up regretting it. Not to mention, all the guns in the world don't mean a goddamn thing if you can't afford to feed yourself. That being said though, I'd go with the .40 over a 9mm. It's only marginally more effective (so much so that, in civilian use, you'd probably never notice a difference), but I'll personally take all I can get. Thus the reason I like 10mm. However, a lot of people bitch about Glocks KBing with the .40. I don't buy into it myself, but if it worries you at all, get a 9mm and some decent hollowpoints. It's not like you'll be undergunned; dead is dead, whether they used a .45 or a 9mm is academic to the corpse. Another thing to keep in mind is that modern hollowpoints, while very good and generally quite reliable, won't always expand with 100% reliability. In which case, a .40 hole beats the .35 hole any day of the week. This shouldn't be a main concern of yours, though. |
|
I find the G22 very easy to shoot. 40 S&W does produce snappy recoil, but the larger G22 is less affected by it than the G23 or even the USP40C. To me, the USP40C is the worst, and I own all the guns I mentioned. If it were me, I would go with the G22. If you can find a range that rents them, try to shoot both the G17 and the G22. You might find the G17 is faster back on target when shooting rapid fire, but with practice, you can control the G22 very well too. And note that 9mm +P is no slouch in the recoil dept. either. |
|
To me 180 gr 40 have more of a snap in reoil than the 45 230 grain loads. I tried a box of 165 40's I did not there recoil. HP mean nothing to him he is from NJ. They have some screwed up law about owning HP ammo. Reason Federal came out with the expanding FMJ. |
|
| There was a thread awhile back on here where it took 14 rounds total of 9mm hallow points to kill a possum. It is archived now so I can't get you a link to it. Some good reading in that thread. There is a reason why military and cops are moving away from the 9mm. 9mm are fun to shoot but... |
|
40 S&W definitely has more punch than normal 9mm. If you use 9mm +P+, it's right up there in power with the 40, but you'll be spending more on the ammo, and the recoil will be right there with the 40. I personally don't mind the 40's snappy recoil. I carry a S&W PC Shorty 40 2000, so it snaps quite a bit, but I can control it just fine. The price of 40 is right between 9mm and 45. DW |
Ryno, I am familiar with the research, but I appreciate your concern. I myself will tell you that all pistol calibers suck and shot placement is king. The difference between pistol calibers is very minute, and the time it takes a pistol to stop a threat is shockingly long. I don't believe that a pistol will instantly stop somebody from hurting me. Second to shot placement, however, is the size of the hole you make. Bigger hole means more damage, which will affect the performance. This effect may be small; it will be much smaller than the "hit your target" factor. However, it does exist. Also realize, HPs don't always expand as they're designed to. ETA: Note that I'm not some idiot who's talking about the temporary wound cavity and "knock down power" stopping an attacker. I'm making a simple, undeniable statement of fact: all other factors being equal (as in, you hit the same place), a bigger hole is better than a smaller hole. Now, you may have a better chance of hitting the right spot with the 9mm, if .40 recoils too much for you. Shot placement is king. |
Fact is, nothing dies nice most of the time. It could very well have happened with .40. I heard a funny story the other day involving a deputy, an emu, and 30 rounds out of an MP5. 
|
This was the law I was thinking of. njsp www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/weapons16.pdf |
| I ment no offense, so thanks for not getting your panties in a twist. I just get so tired of people seriously talking about how the .40 and .45 have more "stopping power" because they make a "bigger hole". The most accurate depiction of the performance of all the duty calibers is a picture of gel testing done by DocGKR. The 9mm/.357 Sig/.40 S&W/.45 ACP were all fired into ballistic gel using Speer Gold Dots and the results were placed right next to each other. It showed that wound cavity/penetration was nearly identical between all of them. Any perceived difference is indeed quite small and would surely be inconsequential on the street. DocGKR is one of the foremost authorities in the field and works at the Army lab in CA and has likely done more with Jello than Bill Cosby. After exhaustive testing and review of officer involved shootings, all of the duty calibers rank equally. No one caliber is more effective than any other...why people fail to understand that, I have no idea. Automatic handguns provide a comparitively low level of lethality and as stated, shot placement/tactics are the most important component. 9mm isn't the only caliber plauged by horror stories in which officers have made repeated center mass hits, with no avail. These stories surround every caliber used in law enforcement. Its the nature of the beast....To believe that any caliber larger than 9mm gives you any advantage is sheer fantasy. |
|
I'll always take a bigger bullet. the .40 recoil doesn't bother me... In fact, I choose to shoot a USP compact in .40 in IDPA matches. It's accurate enough and the slightly larger diameter may make the difference between a "-1" and a clean shoot. FWIW: the .40 and .45 ALWAYS put down the steel silhouettes, whereas I have seen the 9mm (Glocks and 1 1911) require 2 and sometimes 3 shots. Granted these weren't COM, but neither are all of the .40 and .45 shots. back to the thread: If you aren't going to conceal the pistol then get the fullsize. You'll enjoy faster recovery, quicker doubles, and a longer sight radius. |
Ryno: Shot placement matters most. Second to shot placement is penetration, which most modern JHP loadings are able to meet. The FBI requirement for penetration is at least 12 inches. Third is wound cavity. A larger bullet creates a larger temporary wound cavity. A larger wound cavity equates to more damaged tissue and increased blood loss. How is it sheer fantasy that a .40S&W bullet will give me an 84 caliber cavity, when the best 9mm bullet will only make a 69 caliber cavity? That's pure fact, not fantasy. As much as the 9mm crowd pushed their little bullet, when it comes down to the cold hard facts, the bullet is inferior in every rating: Wound Cavity and even Energy ratings. You can make up as many phrases you like, quote as many doctors as you want, even show after action reports, but the round will still and always will remain factually inferior to the .40 S&W. This is why so many people who actually may have to use their weapon: SWAT, LEO, and Spec OPS, prefer a larger wound cavity. Usually the .45 ACP or the .40 S&W. It's easy to argue with opinions, but facts never budge. And, the .40 S&W has the 9mm beat. No opinion required, just a little reading. |
|
|
You dont happen to have a source for all of this do you? |
|
Yes, I do have a source. The picture I am referencing appears in multiple posts on this site and others. The experiement was done at the Army lab in Presidio by Dr.Roberts, one of the leading experts in the field. It was done to show that there is little to no difference in the performance in the popular duty calibers. The tests where done with Speer Gold Dot bullets and all duty calibers are represented. This picture is availible on this site and a www.tacticalforums.com in the terminal effects forum. Dr. Roberts is the leading expert in the field and he makes the occasional appearance on this site and others. Nobody on this site is in a position to challenge the conclusions of the leading experts in the field, myself included....though I happen to agree with him instead of some gun writer who makes terminal ballistic claims based on anectdotal experience rather than actual science. Despite what people around here think, .45 ACP offers no advantage over the 9mm or any other duty caliber when using JHP ammunition. In terms of lethality, all autopistols perform rather poorly and no one caliber offers any significant advantage over any other. All of the duty calibers have been proven man stoppers and have been in relatively constant use by LE agencies for years, with great success. The bottom line is, no one caliber has been proven to be more effective than any other. The exception would be FMJ ammunition. When it comes to terminal ballistics, bigger isn't always better. This is demonstrated clearly in the case of the 5.56 or 5.45 vs 7.62x39. The smaller rounds are much more effective than the larger/slower cartridge. Bigger doesn't automatically mean more effective. People can believe whatever they want...If you need to believe that carrying a .40 or .45 gives you a greater level of lethality, thats fine believe it. You will probably find some internet einstein that supports your conclusion. The fact of the matter is, the latest research and information compiled by the foremost authorities doesn't support your conclusions. |
Well, I would say if you like how the .40 shoots get it. As far as 9mm, .40, .45, 10mm blah blah blah. You can not tell me that a heavy bullet going the same speed as a smaller bullet (both being quality HPs) will not have more stopping power. Its Physics. The same technology that makes 9mm a better round today than years back makes the .45 better than years back also. The thing I like about .40 even though I am a .45 guy is that to get hot 9mm or .45 you have to pay the higher price while most all .40 is at a hotter loading because of what it is and how it came about. I carry a G19 often when I am not packing my .45 and do not worry but I still can not believe a hevier bullet going the same speed as a lighter bullet of the same design will not have more stopping power. 
|
Ryno makes a valid point. Specifically, there is no such thing as stopping power. With pistol calibers, the amount of energy imparted to the shootee is meaningless. Velocity, ft/lbs of energy mean nothing. The only three factors are shot placement, penetration, and volume of permanent wound cavity; shot placement is by far the most important factor. Regarding the second two: 40 has an advantage over 9 in that regard. 40 can penetrate deeper, though both penetrate enough to get to the vitals. 40 can make a bigger hole than 9; the best 40 loads make bigger holes than the best 9 loads. The advantage 40 provides is very minute and in reality may be meaningless, but there is an advantage. The problem is that the advantage is frequently overstated; it is VERY small. |
Also, this almost made me sick:
OF COURSE we will challenge anything and everything, that is the only way to learn and find new things. You are talking about a single picture (that you haven't provided) by a single man, and expect us to take that as an absolute fact? BTW, I am not arguing one way or the other, I am looking at it totally open minded (this is my thread deciding what caliber I get next, remember). But I must say, the way you are presenting things is showing a huge bias.
This is literally exactly like listening to a gun grabber "try" to present facts as to why guns are bad.
You can't talk about "the latest research" and "information compiled" when the only thing you have is one single image. You also can't say it's from the "foremost authorities" when it's only from one person. BTW, I would really love to see some evidence showing this one man to be the "foremost authority" and "leading expert". Thanks! |
Are you saying that this one picture is definitive proof? Are you saying that all of the other tens of thousands of tests (that show discrepancies in the ballistic characteristics one way or the other) are wrong, and this one picture is correct? |
I'm not saying any of that. If you'll notice above, I carry a .40 and prefer the bigger hole it makes. But Dr Roberts DOES know his stuff; that is without question. My opinion, again, is that .40 is better but the amount by which it is better is greatly overstated. |
| i don't care about ballistics. all i know is there has been members here that claims it takes 14 shots to kill a possum with a 9mm. there is also a reason why the military anc police force is getting away from a 9mm. i had a friend that found a hit deer on the side of the road. one 1911 round is all it took. you guys can argue jello if you want. but the real world is what i live by. in 5 years not one soldier or cop will use a 9mm for duty. |
The problem is that even ballistically these "9mm" guys are wrong. Although real life events are what matters most, these accounts are not scientific in the least. Real life events have propelled the .40 S&W to be the #1 law enforcement cartidge, and real life events are pushing the .45 ACP back into the spotlight with the military. 1. Shot Placement 2. Penetration 3. Wound Cavity In these areas the .40 S&W round has the 9mm beat. It expands to 84 caliber in ballistics gel, compared to the 9x19 expansion of 69 caliber. With more energy and a larger slug moving at similar speeds, the .40 S&W is better at penetrating barriers. Why cannot "Ryno" and others see this? Their arguements are pointless. If one examines the facts, there is no way one could draw the conclusion that the 9mm is the better option. 9mm is not 5.56 NATO, 9mm doesn't fragment. The 9mm supporters are a complete joke and should not be taken seriously, end of story, PERIOD. |
I think that's a little harsh. One advantage 9mm has is in 1.) above. The lower recoil allows for quicker, better-aimed follow-up shots. The .40's sharper initial recoil impulse makes this more difficult (waiting for all the big bruisers to show up claiming they are immune to recoil ), especially for those with smaller hands.That said, I'll never give up my G27. 
|
Specifically, there is no such thing as stopping power. According to who and what? Are you saying that a hevier object traveling at the same speed as a lighter object makes no difference?
|
Actually in these cases, it is negligible. I did a physics study on this a while ago. I calculated momentum for several brands and loadings of 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP. The differences were slight enough to be ignored. |
|
I feel that personally, with my 9mm because of lack of recoil, i can get more rounds on target faster and more accuratly than any other cal. however iv been shooting it quite a long time(G19) and me and the gun have a special bond that cant be broken by any other gun or cal. ETA- the thing about me and my guns bond sounded a little gay, but yhou guys know what im talkin bout' 
|
No. I never said there is no difference. I've said the opposite. If you read above, I've actually said that .40 DOES have an advantage over 9. I've said I carry a .40. I've said that shot placement is king, penetration is second, and wound cavity volume is third. Shot placement is by far more important than the other two. However, "stopping power" doesn't exist. Stopping somebody has nothing to do with power. It has nothing to do with the ft/lbs of energy placed upon a target. It has nothing to do with velocity. I'm only talking about pistol calibers here. Once again, I'll say it: 45 has an advantage over 40 which has an advantage over 9. The advantages are VERY VERY SMALL. They are greatly overstated by many. I'm speaking specifically of comparisons between a single wound cavity from each, not pistol capacity / recoil / other factors. |
Yes but it is there. Even if it is small.
|
However, "stopping power" doesn't exist. Stopping somebody has nothing to do with power. Sorry I guess I missunderstood your post. I guess I am going to have to disagree with you about stopping power. Whenever I have seen something get hit with a hevier object it has caused the animal or person to take more time to recover from the hevier object that the lighter one. The differance may not be as big with one object or another but the difference is still there. I do completely agree that shot placement is more important when comparing 9mm and .40 or .45. Now when we start talking grenades it might not matter as much.
|
Here's the are where most people don't understand what I'm saying. If you're chucking rocks at somebody, of course bigger and faster is better. You're relying on that momentum to hurt the person. If you're shooting something with a rifle, bigger and faster are better. A lot of rifle rounds benefit from increased velocity because it causes fragmentation. With handguns, you're not relying on either of the above principals. All you have is the place you hit the person, how deep you penetrate, and how big of a hole you make. Again, I agree that a single round of .40 is better than a single round of 9, all other factors being equal; it will penetrate better and it will make a bigger hole (if you use the right ammo.) What I'm trying to state is just how LITTLE better .40 actually is. Same goes for .45. That being said, I shoot it well so I carry it. |
Correct. Just like your... oh never mind.
|
Hey!  You hurt my feeling and I only have one.
|