Recoil difference between 9mm and .40 S&W?
- Thread starter Trey Veston
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Trey Veston
Member
I took it a step further and shot four carry pistols, 5-shots, fairly quickly, at 7 yards, and compared the speed and accuracy of each.
The difference between the slowest and fastest was .13 seconds. The most accurate was very surprising...
It was so surprising, that I did it again with the exact same results...
Now, was my exercise scientific? Nope. The G19 did poorly because the red dot washed out on the bright white plate and I was basically point shooting.
Did the exercise prove anything? Only that I shoot 9mm, .40 S&W, and 10mm all about the same. Yes, my split times were very slow, apparently. I'm not a competitor, other than GSSF indoor matches, where accuracy is more important than speed.
Have someone else shoot the exact same guns with the exact same ammo, and they would likely get different results. It does show that when choosing a carry gun, recoil should not factor into my choice.
The difference between the slowest and fastest was .13 seconds. The most accurate was very surprising...
It was so surprising, that I did it again with the exact same results...
Now, was my exercise scientific? Nope. The G19 did poorly because the red dot washed out on the bright white plate and I was basically point shooting.
Did the exercise prove anything? Only that I shoot 9mm, .40 S&W, and 10mm all about the same. Yes, my split times were very slow, apparently. I'm not a competitor, other than GSSF indoor matches, where accuracy is more important than speed.
Have someone else shoot the exact same guns with the exact same ammo, and they would likely get different results. It does show that when choosing a carry gun, recoil should not factor into my choice.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Calculating recoil force is not the same as felt recoil. Most especially for handguns. Long guns would be a bit more accurate.
The reason why is due to a variety of issues. Mass distribution of the handgun, how the handgun operates mechanically, the individual's grip on the handgun, shape of the handgun, etc.
Two handguns of the same mass and same caliber firing the same ammunition can have radically different felt recoil due to these factors.
The reason why is due to a variety of issues. Mass distribution of the handgun, how the handgun operates mechanically, the individual's grip on the handgun, shape of the handgun, etc.
Two handguns of the same mass and same caliber firing the same ammunition can have radically different felt recoil due to these factors.
OP
OP
Trey Veston
Member
I'm well aware of that. Don't have one.
Anchorite said:
Out of pure curiosity, why did your department switch to different weights over the years? Cost? Availability? Politics? Science?
I thought that was obvious Anchor, it was recoil, recoil, recoil. Each load from the 155 grain .40 S&W jhp to the 135 grain, 180 grain and finally 147 grain 9m.m. recoiled less than the previous round.
Jim
Out of pure curiosity, why did your department switch to different weights over the years? Cost? Availability? Politics? Science?
I thought that was obvious Anchor, it was recoil, recoil, recoil. Each load from the 155 grain .40 S&W jhp to the 135 grain, 180 grain and finally 147 grain 9m.m. recoiled less than the previous round.
Jim
OP
OP
Trey Veston
Member
Sorry I triggered you. Was just trying to have fun at the range and didn't know that I had to have a fancy shot timer in order to get impressions of what pistols I can shoot effectively.
Anchorite
Member
Thanks, Jim, for the definitive clarification.
While I can feel a bit more recoil from a .40 CC load in my P226 (155's by Hornady), vs. a 124 gr Speer Gold Dot 9mm round with the other barrel installed, I doubt it makes a spec of difference in actual street or field use 2nd shot time. For the handgun games, split times matter, but in street use, the 1/4 to 1/2 second difference (if that) I doubt it.
Range time hardens a shooter to recoil...trigger time if you will...and short of the magnums, is not a significant factor in shooting prowess nor accuracy at combat distances, say less than 25 yds. Toughen up buttercups...you'll eventually get used to it...part of the fun...Rod
Range time hardens a shooter to recoil...trigger time if you will...and short of the magnums, is not a significant factor in shooting prowess nor accuracy at combat distances, say less than 25 yds. Toughen up buttercups...you'll eventually get used to it...part of the fun...Rod
RODFAC,
The difference becomes quite obvious when you have a large pool of shooters. Some have no problems qualifying and others are marginal with some failing to qualify. My agency has thousand of shooters, of all descriptions and the move to lighter recoiling rounds has been ongoing for the past 20 years. We started with a round that equaled the previous standard issue round, the .357 magnum. The recoil was serious enough to wear out the BERETTA pistols in 10 years.
Also note, that the great promoter of the .40 S&W round, the FBI, has gone to the 9m.m. If there is little real difference in recoil and control, they why go to the lesser round?
In my case, as I have gotten older, I find hard recoiling rounds wear me out. I used to shoot .41 and .44 magnums and my carry gun was a COLT Lightweight Commander. All of that is behind me now.
If you are not recoil sensitive and some are not, that does not mean that others are not.
Just my experience,
Jim
The difference becomes quite obvious when you have a large pool of shooters. Some have no problems qualifying and others are marginal with some failing to qualify. My agency has thousand of shooters, of all descriptions and the move to lighter recoiling rounds has been ongoing for the past 20 years. We started with a round that equaled the previous standard issue round, the .357 magnum. The recoil was serious enough to wear out the BERETTA pistols in 10 years.
Also note, that the great promoter of the .40 S&W round, the FBI, has gone to the 9m.m. If there is little real difference in recoil and control, they why go to the lesser round?
In my case, as I have gotten older, I find hard recoiling rounds wear me out. I used to shoot .41 and .44 magnums and my carry gun was a COLT Lightweight Commander. All of that is behind me now.
If you are not recoil sensitive and some are not, that does not mean that others are not.
Just my experience,
Jim
Second shot shot time is but one issue. The issue is one of how many shots one can get into the upper chest area in the time available to the defender. That drives the likelihood of hitting something critical in an attacker who is moving at perhaps 180 inches per second.
It does not change the laws of physics, slow the movement of the gun, or increase the number of hits that can be achieved.
Patocazador
Member
I can shoot very heavy loads with a handgun (.44 mag, etc.) and feel little recoil but I am very sensitive to rifle loads from 7mm mag and up.
The hands and arms move with hot handloads in pistols/revolvers unlike the static situation with a rifle. The movement induced by a handgun load dissipates felt recoil.
The hands and arms move with hot handloads in pistols/revolvers unlike the static situation with a rifle. The movement induced by a handgun load dissipates felt recoil.
Not triggered.. when you attempt to pass something off, have verifiable proof..
So very curious here... how are you measuring "0.13 seconds" difference without a shot timer?
Zerodefect
member
My experience mirrors Trey's. Yes, with a shot timer.
3 targets, three rounds each. Glock 23 is only a fraction of a second different than a Glock 19. Sometimes the 23 wins. It's that close.
9mm JHP has a disappointing amount of muzzle flip. It's not the recoiless mouse, that everyone claims it is.
The common denominator that I've found: Is grip strength and the overall weight of the shooter. Guys with bigger arms arent handicapped by 40, 45, 10mm as much.
3 targets, three rounds each. Glock 23 is only a fraction of a second different than a Glock 19. Sometimes the 23 wins. It's that close.
9mm JHP has a disappointing amount of muzzle flip. It's not the recoiless mouse, that everyone claims it is.
The common denominator that I've found: Is grip strength and the overall weight of the shooter. Guys with bigger arms arent handicapped by 40, 45, 10mm as much.
Last edited:
I agree, from experience, that stronger and larger forearms make a difference. I’ve also seen this in many other activities such as punching. Building a fence can improve ones shooting.
Zerodefect
member
Oh yeah. A CZ Ts2 has a weight and recoil advantage over a Glock 34.
But any guy can add entire pounds of weight to their arms whenever they want to.
But any guy can add entire pounds of weight to their arms whenever they want to.
I don't have identical other than caliber pistols to compare shooting 9mm & 40 but I have owned & shot a few .40's. I have owned a Ruger P-94 chambered for .40, a XD-40, & shot a G-23 among others. The last time I bought a 40 I took the advice of folks here & bought a platform that was originally designed for the .40. The recoil of the .40 in my M&P 2.0 Compact isn't bad. It does a better job of mitigating recoil than the old Ruger P gun or the XD I had (both of which have a higher bore axis).
40 recoil doesn't really bother me but I have been a Sheet Metal Worker since 1989. We use more power tools now but we used to laugh about old tinknockers having Popeye arms (big forearm, bicep not huge) from using snips & swinging a hammer all day.
40 recoil doesn't really bother me but I have been a Sheet Metal Worker since 1989. We use more power tools now but we used to laugh about old tinknockers having Popeye arms (big forearm, bicep not huge) from using snips & swinging a hammer all day.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
