Anything gained .40 over 9mm?

[jcap412]

In my head here lately I've been contemplating switching out my 9mm XD Sub compact for something with maybe a bit more power, like .40 S&W. But really would there be much benefit? The other thing partially motivating this is ammo availability...I don't seem to have too much trouble find .40 anywhere vs 9. I'm just not very up on handgun calibers and am looking for some opinions, as this would more then likely be a carry gun as well.

 

[AD Marc]

You gain recoil in exchange for less ammo. That's it.

 

[cedartop]

You gain recoil in exchange for less ammo. That's it.

And cost.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I don't think it's worth the trade-offs. Go up to .45ACP or stick with 9mm in my opinion.

 

[Bluedragon]

If you want power skip 40 short & weak and go 10mm.

 

[jwh20]

There is some overlap in ballistics performance between the various 9mm options and the .40 S&W options but the TOP end for .40 S&W is greater. In other words the "hottest" .40 round has more energy than the hottest 9mm.

I have two handguns that are similar in size, one in each. The 9mm is a Beretta 92F and the .40 is an HK P30. There is a noticeable difference in recoil in the .40 vs. the 9mm in my experience but it's certainly not objectionable.

My concern is that in a smaller/lighter handgun, the difference is going to be more significant. My EDC is a Beretta Nano in 9mm and it's pretty comfortable to shoot at the range but nowhere nearly as much as the 92F. It's a lot smaller and the grip is both shorter and narrower. So the recoil is more. Supposedly there will be a .40 S&W Nano but I've not seen one. My guess is that it will be a bit harder to handle.

Since you're contemplating a .40 to replace an XD Sub, I suspect you're wanting to find a .40 of similar size. I don't see any way it's not going to be somewhat harder to control the recoil but probably not terribly so.

For a similar sized weapon the magazine capacity will probably be -1 from the 9mm capacity.

Recently, the availability of .40 ammo is a lot better than 9mm. Normally it's a little more expensive but I've purchased both 9mm and .40 in the last 60 days and the .40 was less expensive. But long-term that should not be the case.

You might also want to look at something like the Springfield XDs in .45 ACP. If you like your XD Sub, I am sure you'll like the XDs.

 

[Aaron1776]

I don't think it's worth the trade-offs. Go up to .45ACP or stick with 9mm in my opinion.

You gain recoil in exchange for less ammo. That's it.

Since you're contemplating a .40 to replace an XD Sub, I suspect you're wanting to find a .40 of similar size. I don't see any way it's not going to be somewhat harder to control the recoil but probably not terribly so.

For a similar sized weapon the magazine capacity will probably be -1 from the 9mm capacity.

Recently, the availability of .40 ammo is a lot better than 9mm. Normally it's a little more expensive but I've purchased both 9mm and .40 in the last 60 days and the .40 was less expensive. But long-term that should not be the case.

You might also want to look at something like the Springfield XDs in .45 ACP. If you like your XD Sub, I am sure you'll like the XDs.

These are the responses you're looking for.
The .40 cal by itself isn't a bad round, but I would argue that, especially in your situation wanting a smaller sized gun, that it is a pointless round.
The muzzle flip is atrocious, much worse than a 9mm or .45, and it has less ammo than a 9 and less power than a .45.

Stick with what you have or upgrade to a .45 where you have less muzzle flip and a more noticable power difference.

 

[ZX-14R]

One of my carry pieces (that I carry less often than my 9mm's) is an M&P 40c.
This is the ammo I keep it loaded with, the recoil is STOUT. The velocity and energy is impressive though.

40 S&W +P 135 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Box of 50

Muzzle Velocity: 1500 fps
Muzzle Energy: 675 ft. lbs.

Basically, you can get substantially more power out of a .40 loaded hot than a 9mm loaded hot....but its unnecessary for carry defense.

 

[wesnellans]

I'm in the same boat with ammo availability - 40 is pretty easy to get around my neck of the woods.

As to ammo potency, I guess I'm a little old school - I like those bigger heavier bullets (from my 45 days, I guess) that are easy to get in 40 and always seem to perform well at the end of their run (in the target!).

Bigger holes, more damage, I always say. As to lower capacity, it's only a round or so usually from a 9mm equivalent. I'd rather do more damage per shot.

Recoil? My Shield in 40 is a creampuff to shoot. YMMV

 

[Mark-DuCo]

.40 is a step up from a 9. It is a bigger, hotter round. Yes you are going to lose a little bit of mag capacity and have more recoil. It is up to the individual to decide what they want out of a round. I traded in my 9 for a .40 two years ago and I haven't looked back.

 

[eldirector]

I have a pair of .40's, both as subcompacts. A XD40SC and a Kahr CM40. I initially chose the .40 S&W as a compromise. I can carry more rounds in a smaller package than pretty much any .45. It has more energy than all but the hottest 9mm rounds. I also found some evidence that the .40 round maintains quite a bit of its energy our of a short barrel, as opposed to a 9mm (or even a .45).

The recoil is MUCH more noticeable than a similar gun in 9mm. I don't find it unmanageable, though. I wouldn't want to shoot my little Kahr all day, but that isn't its purpose.

Cost for self-defense rounds isn't much different than 9mm.

If someone were plinking or in competitions, then I would recommend 9mm over .40 S&W. For self-defense, I'd lean towards the most powerful cartridge in the form factor you choose to carry.

 

[BE Mike]

With high end personal defense ammo, the 9mm is a very effective cartridge. As has been stated, the .40 has more recoil, which is noticeable in small pistol, but not so much in full size models.

 

[ashby koss]

As a long time user of the .40 I say that you should get a .40 due to "conversion" barrels, and ammo availability seems better.

As for actual difference...none. 9mm is a world wide #1 handgun cartridge for a reason.

 

[nocash84]

I think it all depends what you are shooting at.

 

[40calPUNISHER]

I went with 40 because I noticed that nine times out of ten 40s&w was on the shelf and 9mm wasn't. Not true at the moment though. Mark my words, once the panic goes away you will find 40 before you find 9. You cant go wrong with either round as long as its fired from a Glock!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A few assumptions:

1) You are using quality hollowpoint ammo
2) You are most likely shooting directly into your target (no intermediate barriers)

Any differences are likely to be minor.

I always hear people complain about the "snappy" .40 round. It depends on the gun, how its sprung, bore axis, etc. As an example, the Beretta 9000S has dual recoil springs, a very low slide, a good grip, etc. and it shoots the .40 with less muzzle flip than many comparably sized 9mm handguns. The problem is guns that were originally conceived as a 9mm being re-engineered as a .40 without addressing the differences in the recoil wave. Ditto .357 Sig. It can be a very snappy round because many of the guns its chambered for were never designed to be a .357 Sig.

So, advantages for the 9mm:
1) All else being equal (which it seldom is) faster followup shots. But not by much.
2) More ammo. But not by much. Up to you how much you value capacity.

Advantages to the .40:
1) A higher energy round. But not my much.
2) Better performance through intermediate barriers. Up to you how much you value the ability to shoot through windshields, sheet metal, etc. and retain power on the other side.

It boils down to what you prefer and what hypothetical you are engaged in, there is no "best" for all situations.

 

[littletommy]

The only reason I carry anything less than one of my 45acps, is round capacity. My EDC is a .45 acp, but I will occasionally carry my SR9, as what it lacks in power, it makes up for in capacity. I've tossed around the thought of getting a .40 many times, but always decided on either a: larger caliber, or b:more rounds IN the weapon.

Disclaimer: I have been known in the past, to carry a 7.5" super redhawk .44 mag, or a super redhawk Alaskan .44mag.....always with at least one speedloader full as a "just in case"

 

[cosermann]

Here's a popular pic of some of the best representative defensive loads. I've masked the labels and mixed them up.

9mm, .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are represented.

Which 2 are the 40 S&W? (answer in link below)

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

 

[Que]

I like .40 because everyone else seems to use 9mm. I can find components for plinking and if I ever have to use my gun in a defensive situation, I doubt if flesh and bone will notice a significant difference at 0-21 feet. As for recoil, I have had no problem with any handgun I've ever shot. It's not like shooting a cannon or anything. If you are shooting competition, sure, go with something that provides less recoil.

 

[mdmayo]

Dont rely on our anecdotal replies is my best advice. I know these have been posted before, but in the interest of ease of use:

from AR15.com
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo

And from a coroner type/ex-leo empirical observations:
Terminal ballistics as viewed in a morgue

We are far too biased by pre/misconceptions to objectively or definitively answer your question. Only researching and ultimately, your personal preference, count in making this choice.

Good luck.

My .40s are neither short nor weak, or I wouldn't carry them. 180gr Federal HST is one of the most consistent rounds available for both penetration and expansion, which are really the only two things we should care about.