9mm, 40 cal, or 10mm?

[Marbles]

Caliber and gun opinions are like armpits.

I love 9mm. Cheap enough for a college/student/limited paycheck.

You must remember. Not everybody can afford to buy lots of ammo. Economy isn't what it used to be 40 years ago.

I know somebody that believes if you get hit -anywhere- with a .40cal/10x23mm you're dead as a rock.

Shot placement, terminal velocity, stopping power, energy displacement, bullet hole size, etc along with the remainder of hogwash terminology doesn't mean anything. You will not be attacked by paper targets moving at .1m/s at 50m.

 

[Indifferent]

The post above me, and this post (in qoutations, not my post), are the two best posts on here.

As I read thru all the suggestions, I see a major problem.

First gun and new to shooting.

With that being stated.

First gun in a handgun should be a wheelgun in .22 long rifle; and about a couple cases of .22 ammo. After he/she feels that they are proficient with .22 caliber handguns then they move up to larger calibers.

New shooters should also consider getting into reloading. I have shot for over 40 years now and have been reloading that long also. Having loaded everything from .380 acp to .50 BMG with tens of thousands of rounds of .40 S&W and 10mm on progressive presses. By reloading your shot groups will get smaller, and cost to make your own rounds are normally a quarter of that of factory ammo.

Best defense caliber - 9mm, 357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, 45 acp ?

They all work great, depending on shot placement by the shooter.

A consistence shooter with ANY caliber is more lethal then which caliber or what weight bullet they are shooting. I shoot mainly .357 mag, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 Colt in both semi-auto and revolvers. I also would also feel comfortable if I only had one of my .22 LR pistols if that was what was at hand. Repeat shot placement, recoil recovery, and feeling comfortable with what your are carrying are a lot more important than big, or small calibers. I personnally like the 10mm and either carry a semi-auto or a revolver in that caliber.

Practice, and practice offen. I normally run miniumal of 200 rounds a week at the range, for any day that I shoot. Cost does factor into the totals of what you can do. In the efford, you would be wise to look into reloading what you are shooting. Pickup your brass at the range; in fact pickup all brass at the ranges, it is good trading material if you are not shooting that caliber, others do. Costs to reload is 1/4 or less of buying factory rounds. Calibers do not matter, as components costs are about the same for all. It might cost a little to setup at first, but the pay off is great. The more you can afford to shoot, the more you can shoot. Try to find a friend whom is into reloading to help you get started.

Safe shooting.

 

[DougDubya]

Part of me loves the thumpability of the 155's and the 165's.

The other part is pouting in the corner for the loss of the 10mm.

 

[tpaw]

I'm with the other folks here, that don't trust the 9mm. Yeah, they hold 18 rounds, but you might need all 18 of'em to put the bad guy down.

Nothing not to trust about the 9mm. What's not to trust is the .40 cal. Kaboom factor. There have been too many horror stories about that. I would not like thinking that at a time when I needed it for SD, it blows up in my hand.
Anyway, to each his own. Whatever rocks your socks!

 

[easyg]

Nothing not to trust about the 9mm.

The 9mm has been around for a long time....but it's never enjoyed a great reputation as a fight stopper.
And while it's true that there have been many advances made in 9mm ammo, it's just not big enough and heavy enough to be as effective as the .40S&W or the .45ACP.
Just about every novice shooter that I know started with the 9mm....but very quickly they moved on to the larger calibers.
I recommend that one skip the 9mm and save themselves the money....they'll eventually buy a .40 or .45 anyway.
I know I did.

 

[easyg]

What's not to trust is the .40 cal. Kaboom factor. There have been too many horror stories about that. I would not like thinking that at a time when I needed it for SD, it blows up in my hand.

Do you wear protective glasses when shooting?

If so....why?


The truth of the matter is that there have been KB's in about every caliber known to man.
It's always a risk when shooting any firearm....especially when shooting reloads.

 

[DougDubya]

Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes? what caliber shooting glasses do you suggest, easyg?

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.

Sounds like a selective agenda on someone's part.

 

[easyg]

Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes?

Protective glasses might save one's eyes IF their weapon explodes....regardless of caliber or make and model.

Only a complete fool would believe that every Glock or every .40 caliber pistol is destined to explode.

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.

Well, it's like this....

Some folks have settled for the 9mm.
The most common reason that I hear is the size/weight factor....
Plenty of folks prefer a small pocket-pistol, plain and simple.
And larger calibers are not much fun to shoot from a light-weight pocket-pistol.
So, folks are willing to compromise.....they are willing to sacrifice caliber effectiveness for less weight, a smaller package, and greater concealability.

There's nothing wrong with this....after all, every handgun is a compromise in power and effectiveness when compared to long-guns.
When we carry a handgun we willingly sacrifice power and effectiveness in exchange for portability and concealabity.
But one must not decieve oneself....one must acknowledge the compromise.

No one argues that a .45Colt from a 5" barrel is more powerful than a .38 special from a 1.5" barrel....yet more folks carry .38 snubbies rather than .45Colt long-barrel single-action revolvers.
They are willing to accept the compromise.
They are willing to settle for the weaker caliber.

As for those who claim to prefer the 9mm in a full-sized handgun....
They have also settled, in my opinion.
Some just don't realize it or simply refuse to admit it.
But there are some who know that they have settled...but not because they wanted to, or because they are truely satisfied with the 9mm....but because of their physical limitations.

And there are some who are rather new to shooting and they took someone's advice and bought a 9mm.
But just give them some time and they will eventually go bigger.

 

[Lonestar49]

Selective, growth, knowledge, comes in all forms

Quote: Oh, so protective glasses will save tpaw when his trigger group is ejected from his Glock when it explodes? what caliber shooting glasses do you suggest, easyg?

And, again, people answer you that they are satisfied with the 9mm. And you dismiss them.

Sounds like a selective agenda on someone's part.
...............................
...

While I agree with you DD, I also agree with eg's statement about starting off with a 9mm (for many) and moving up to 40cal, 45cal, or both, is a truth for a lot of shooters out there.

I'd take any of these (calibers) with my guns, depending on shot placement, SA being online, first-shot, and any follow-ups, being motivated by training, time-spent, point to aim accuracy, staying current, and living the La Vida.. Leave me in peace and I will do the same for anyone..

But, when it comes to choice caliber out the door for SD, 90% of the time it's gonna be either 40cal or 45cal..

Weight and "spread size" is the key in my book, along with IF I can obtain the same higher velocity of a 9mm with a 180gr 40cal, then the choice is a matter of choosing the best caliber with the most punch, backed up by round counts per mag, even though, if I'm doing my part right, then 8+1 min, should more than take care of the business of life, at hand..

But when I'm ever in doubt, I have no question of the biggest, baddest, one shot, steel on target, kill, and that is with my 120mm ccw M1-A1, used of course.. lol


Ls

Of course when I have to draw out the big bad boy, I usually wear full goggles for eye protection, just in case..

 

[DougDubya]

I mention the Glock kaboom because, well, are shooting glasses going to be a fallback weapon if the Glock suddenly has no trigger assembly in the middle of a gunfight due to a malfunction?

As for the .40, logic and science say it's a great, fight-stopping round, but it's generally far less accurate than 9mm or .45 (except in rare, fine platforms like the Browning HP-40 or the Mk40 from Kahr). In my soul, however, the .40 is an intruder, an abomination that killed a fine cartridge (the 10mm), doesn't do more than proper pressure 9mm Luger (American companies gelded the round so as not to disintegrate late war Nazi takehome guns which were made of pot metal with poor welding - 9mm +P and +P+ are more in line with what a true Luger/Parabellum was for the original P.08), and just doesn't have the same spirit and oomph of the .45 ACP.

They haven't settled. Not when the CZ-75, P226 and 92F are lauded for their accuracy and soft shooting ability. Not when the Browning Hi-Power and Glock 19 are considered the perfect packages of capacity, accuracy, power and ergonomics in a concealable size by large groups of people.

Sure, there are .40 versions of these firearms, but except for the Hi-Power, none are as accurate, or more accurate than the 9mm variant. None have the same favorable firepower ratio as the 9mm - why give up two rounds of 9mm +P for one millimeter of overall diameter?

I will concede to you, though, a deep love of the .45 ACP. Rather than notice the foul chowderpellet, if I'd need more than a 9mm, there are options out there that put the .40 in its shameful little posing pouch.

Glock 19 to Glock 30. 16 9mm's to 11 .45's, excellent trade off if you have a hand that encompasses the fat 30's grip.
USP 9 to USP 45 - a much smaller difference in ergonomics. 16 9mm's vs. 13 .45's, even a friendlier trade-off.
Browning Hi-Power to Para-Ordnance or STI frame 1911.
FNP9 to FNP45.
XD-9 to XD-45.
MP9 to MP45...
The weakest transition is P226 to P220, 16 vs. 9. But with the P220, you've got such ergonomic joy and accuracy, I'm akin to SFW, it's a fair trade.

But the 9mm is perfectly good, as long as you're not hobbling it with garbage designed not to make a Radom Viz-35 or Walther P-38 built by Nazis in 1943 with substandard metals and manufacturing procedures come apart at the seams.

Especially if you know how to shoot. And 9mm prices being what they are in comparison to other calibers, you can learn very fast and very well with a 9mm.

Once the Illinois State Police restored the 9mm Luger to its proper velocities back in the 70's with the +P+, the full sized service 9mm autoloader became a good, fine defensive gun. Not a compromise. Not a limitation. Not a failure.

 

[buzz_knox]

Just about every novice shooter that I know started with the 9mm....but very quickly they moved on to the larger calibers.
I recommend that one skip the 9mm and save themselves the money....they'll eventually buy a .40 or .45 anyway.
I know I did.

And I know many very experienced shooters who went back to the 9mm when they stopped worrying about caliber and started focusing on skill and mindset.

I thought demonstrated a good understanding of the whole caliber issue:

I generally choose capacity over caliber in handguns for several reasons:


There is NO MAGIC BULLET.
Folks have survived being shot with every handgun caliber know to man.
Folks have taken numerous .45 and .357 rounds and lived to tell the tale.
So when it comes to 9mm and larger, there's not a lot of real effective difference between them.

Shot placement and accuracy trump caliber everytime.

I often shoot with one hand, and there's also the possibility that my wife might have to use the firearm as well, and she might need to shoot it with one hand too...so less recoil is better.

In the event of a prolonged shootout, more rounds between reloads is definitley an advantage.

And finally...

After a firefight, nobody ever said "Gee, I had too many bullets. Next time I'll carry less".

 

[DougDubya]

Lonestar, it's easier for me to be happy with the .45 ACP. I'm equally as happy with the 9mm. The .40... not so much, despite the .357-Magnum-like performance of the 155's, the 165's, and the 135 Cor-Bon.

Makes no sense.

 

[mavracer]

As for those who claim to prefer the 9mm in a full-sized handgun....
They have also settled, in my opinion.

THANK GOD IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION AND NOT FACT

 

[Lonestar49]

It makes no sense until..

Quote: Lonestar, it's easier for me to be happy with the .45 ACP. I'm equally as happy with the 9mm. The .40... not so much, despite the .357-Magnum-like performance of the 155's, the 165's, and the 135 Cor-Bon.

Makes no sense.
----------
...

My Beretta Px4 40cal, which was my first handgun, 1yr ago, and until I had some 800 rounds (flawless by the way) downrange, and on-target, with fast follow-up shots, unvieled my mind as, with the first 600 shots, I'd leave the range swearing that I had bought an Elephant gun.. not happy.

Then when I got my next gun, a Sig P229 9mm, it was so peaceful, perfect, accurate, from the very first shot thru 2200 flawless rounds to-date..

Then I got my third gun, Sig P220, and that just seemed so beautiful, easy, accurate, from the first shot thru 1250 flawless rounds to-date..

But a funny thing happened on the way right after I fired my P229 9mm's first 200 rounds, I then finished the day with my Px4 40cal with another 100 rounds and the recoil seemed more docile, than ever before, or since..

Well, now that the Px4 has 6200 rounds, but has developed an ongoing trigger-sting issue, which it appears, by others reports, I'm not the only one with this affliction with their Px4's and Beretta is dragging their heels in owning- up to taking a hard look at our guns or to find a fix, rather, just telling us, wear a shooters glove like the pro's.. And that answer to their "acknowledgement" that the sting can, and does, occur, is not acceptable, so I bought a Sig P229 40cal, and to my surprise, being heavier than the Px4, yet it has less perceived recoil and getting second, faster follow-up shots with it is far superior to the, my, Px4's soft/recoil, and no trigger sting on the same cold, or warm, days. And IF I shot both my 9mm or my 40 cal P229's with my eyes shut, seriously, there would be no perceived difference, in both accuracy, fast follow-up shots, but one thing I do know, is the 40cal offers a wider spread, harder hit, at almost the same speed as my 229 9mm..

It's all in the gun, platform, one chooses for the 40cal, IMO, not that the 40cal is some kind of hybrid that could satisfy the person, woman, whatever, that couldn't handle the 10mm in a shorter gun, vs they can in a 40cal..

That is the truth why the FBI said NO to the 10mm, and NO to the 45 (mag load capacity) and yes to the 40cal..

It's a great round in this shooters opinion, both in accuracy, weight, and speed, along with, none of my 40cals has hiccuped once.. As again, IMO, it's more a thing with re-loads and those that think a little more powder is better, when there is a fine line between the max-load, and just too much, that any gun, any caliber, can't hold after the first crack occurs, and the next shot, the gun explodes..

It all makes sense to this shooter, but then, it's just my guns, my ammo, my learned and felt, experiences with no complaints.. and staying within the guidelines of each gun manufactures Do's and Dont's.. because of this unsupported chamber, to that, Aluminan or Plastic frames and +P or +P+ ammo can only be expected to last X amount of rounds before failure can, and will, occur..

IMO it's not about the caliber, but about user-error, one way or another in most cases.. not all, as bad guns make their way out NIB as well.

My Beretta Px4 40cal did..


Ls

 

[DougDubya]

Mavracer, no need to shout.

And I agree, I've been exceptionally snarky in my love for the 9mm over the .40.

 

[easyg]

....but it's generally far less accurate than 9mm or .45 (except in rare, fine platforms like the Browning HP-40 or the Mk40 from Kahr).

I disagree.
I don't find the .40 to be any less accurate than the 9mm or the .45.
I guess some folks are more accurate with a 9mm because they can't handle a bigger caliber....just like some folks are more accurate with a .22.

In my soul, however, the .40 is an intruder, an abomination that killed a fine cartridge (the 10mm),....

Give me a break!
The 10mm was never that popular in the first place.
And the .40 really isn't hurting 10mm sales today....but it is hurting 9mm and .45 sales.

None have the same favorable firepower ratio as the 9mm - why give up two rounds of 9mm +P for one millimeter of overall diameter?

It's not just diameter....it's also weight.
A bigger AND heavier slug moving at similar velocities as the 9mm is going to make a difference.
When shooting iron targets, often the 9mm will fail to drop the target while the .40 and the .45 will reliably knock them down.
It's not the extra diameter than knocks down the iron target....it's the extra weight.

And 9mm prices being what they are in comparison to other calibers, you can learn very fast and very well with a 9mm.

And again you're compromising....you're sacrificing power and effectiveness for cheaper ammo.
Why not go all the way and just shoot .22 ammo?

I generally choose capacity over caliber in handguns for several reasons:

There is NO MAGIC BULLET....

Yeah, like I said....I started out with the 9mm as a SD handgun, just like most folks.
And yeah, I was in denial about its abilities too, just like some folks here.
And yeah, the 9mm is easier to shoot for my wife and easier for me to shoot one-handed.
But I acknowledge the compromise.
I'm not deceiving myself (at least not these days)....the .40 and the .45 are both more powerful than the 9mm.

 

[DougDubya]

I feel you, Lonestar.

There are a lot of .40's that are just so pretty (CZ-75 .40 Stainless), cool (PX4 Storm), or magnificent performers (Browning .40) that I keep making exceptions. It's a hard fought process to like the .40 for me. 'Specially with beauties like the P229/9mm out there.

 

[DougDubya]

easyg - I don't know about you, but most of the opponents even my Science Fiction addled mind can think of aren't made of iron plate.

In jello and on the street, the 9mm is just as good.

And the .40 accuracy tests weren't from weaklings who can't handle a "man's round." This was bench rest and machine rest testing, not off hand. Why not give the world a break from your attitude that the 9mm is only good for committing suicide by using it as a defensive round against indestructible monsters that bound 9mm's like gumdrops?

 

[buzz_knox]

I'm not deceiving myself (at least not these days)....the .40 and the .45 are both more powerful than the 9mm.

That's a true statement. It's also irrelevant since "power" is pretty much a useless term these days. Most people who work with terminal ballistics on a regular basis focus on issues like penetration, reliability of expansion, wound channel, etc. When you start comparing service rounds, you find that they start being interchangeable very quickly. That's why most who work with terminal ballistics focus on things other than caliber.

As for not deceiving yourself, if you are hung up on caliber, you are still deceiving yourself. You had it right the first time: all handguns cartridges have failed historically, and will fail in the future. The real issue is what are you doing to do when the mojo of the magic bullet doesn't work as intended. And caliber has nothing at all to do with answering that question.

 

[DougDubya]

Twice an infinitessimal fraction of a human's weight is still infinitessimal. Stating that the extra weight of a .45 ACP round has magical properties in penetration or telling iron plates to lay down is not a measure of stopping power.

It's a measure of making an iron plate fall down. When the iron plates do rise and try to kill us, then by all means, I'll be packing a .45 auto for that time.

Until then, since human bodies shut down to 9mm fighting rounds, I won't have my conscience trouble me for suggesting a 9mm handgun.

 

[mavracer]

Mavracer, no need to shout.

sorry, cap lock was on and I didn't feal like retyping it.

The 9mm has been around for a long time....but it's never enjoyed a great reputation as a fight stopper.

actually the 124+p gold dots and 127 +p+ rangers have exelent reputations.check out San Diago PD reports.
and Doug I admit I agree with you about the .40,sure it works fine,but it's the answer to the question I never asked.

 

[DougDubya]

San Diego PD and the NYPD have enjoyed a lot of success with the 124- and 127-grain +P loads. Back in the 70's, it was 115 grains at 1350 fps, which is the same ballistics as what the US.mil loads into 9mm's.

If only those Berettas had expanding ammo, not hardball. Even a flat point would provide more contact area on meat.

 

[tpaw]

The truth of the matter is that there have been KB's in about every caliber known to man.
It's always a risk when shooting any firearm....especially when shooting reloads.

Very true, but the Glock 40 Cal. seems to lead the parade, wonder why?..

 

[jimbob86]

First Gun? Of the 3 choices, take the 9mm. More money to practice with. Take some of that money and buy some snap caps for dry-fire and malfunction clearing drills. Practice, Practice, Practice!

 

[easyg]

In jello and on the street, the 9mm is just as good.

Maybe in jello, but certainly not on the streets.
The 9mm's street rep is not that great.

Why not give the world a break from your attitude that the 9mm is only good for committing suicide by using it as a defensive round against indestructible monsters that bound 9mm's like gumdrops?

Let's not distort what I said....
I never said the 9mm is not capable of stopping a human.
It's just not as good as the .40 or the .45, that's all I'm saying.

It's also irrelevant since "power" is pretty much a useless term these days.

No, it's only useless to those who refuse to admit that certain calibers are more powerful than other calibers.
If you had a .380 pistol and someone asked you "Do you have something more powerful?", and you also had a .25 caliber pistol and a .45 caliber pistol in your safe, which one would you show them?

You had it right the first time: all handguns cartridges have failed historically, and will fail in the future.

It cannot be denied....certain calibers are more notorious for failing to quickly stop human aggressors than other calibers.

Twice an infinitessimal fraction of a human's weight is still infinitessimal. Stating that the extra weight of a .45 ACP round has magical properties in penetration or telling iron plates to lay down is not a measure of stopping power.

It's a measure of making an iron plate fall down. When the iron plates do rise and try to kill us, then by all means, I'll be packing a .45 auto for that time.

Are you saying that bullet weight has no bearing upon its effectiveness against humans?

Until then, since human bodies shut down to 9mm fighting rounds, I won't have my conscience trouble me for suggesting a 9mm handgun.

Not reliably....and often not without numerous rounds.
Which is not a problem so long as you have the time and opportunity to place numerous rounds in to the target.

San Diego PD and the NYPD have enjoyed a lot of success with the 124- and 127-grain +P loads. Back in the 70's, it was 115 grains at 1350 fps, which is the same ballistics as what the US.mil loads into 9mm's.

I don't know what you guys have been reading, but I recall the age of the "wondernine" very well.....and I recall numerous police shootings where the officer (or officers) dumped stupid amounts of 9mm lead in to targets with only marginal success.
What we learned during the 80's is what caused law enforcement to seek a better caliber than the 9mm.
It's no surprise that the .40 leads the way in law enforcement.
And I've never met a cop who shoots the .40 or .45 and wants to go back to the 9mm.