Where does .40s&w fit in for a carry gun??

[Mike J]

I’ve used one called Make Ready Lite and one called Shot Trainer (which works with an Apple Watch to give a wrist-based timer) with success.

If you are curious about your time (and what shot timers are good for) you can use an app and get the info. If you find it useful you’ll probably end up buying a standalone, but for the 99% who don’t feel a need to own a shot timer and would rather spend the money on something else, an app will do.

Nowadays I have a MantisX thingimabobber and the app for that has shot timer functions but it’s not really the same and was $$$. If I was competing I’d own a standalone timer.

Thank You. I have been thinking about trying an app on my phone for a while but I always find myself wondering if they will work properly. I feel better getting info from someone who has used one.

 

[Ed Ames]

Thank You. I have been thinking about trying an app on my phone for a while but I always find myself wondering if they will work properly. I feel better getting info from someone who has used one.

You are welcome

They are fiddly and a lot depends on background noise, but I’ve made ‘em work well enough to decide that in my case it didn’t actually make sense to invest in a standalone.

 

[TTv2]

It’s a puzzling contradiction in 9mm cult land.
On the one hand, we are to believe that there is no difference between 9 and .40.
On the other hand, “.40 is snappy and hard to shoot”.
Don’t get me wrong, I like 9mm fine...I started carrying 9mm when most cops still carried .38’s, I’m perfectly happy relying on 9mm.
However, due to low cost police surplus, I bought a Glock 22 Gen4. Couldn’t resist, it was like new, with night sights. Come to find out I really like the .40. One trip to the range, and my G22 became my full time house pistol. I really like the 180gn HST.
Personally, for self defense use, I’ve always used +P or +P+ in the 9mm...
As far as shooting behavior, I don’t see much difference between a high powered 9mm self defense load in my G17, and SD load in the .40 G22.

From what I've seen the +P 9mm doesn't have much more velocity than standard pressure from most handguns, maybe it does from longer barrels, but most people can't stand carrying anything longer than a 4 inch barrel.

+P+ 9mm I rarely see and is being driven so fast the bullets are near falling apart when they hit soft tissue from longer barrels and barely penetrate, while from shorter barrels the expansion is reduced (due to velocity loss) and penetration is better. So, it works better in shorter barrels, but what's +P+ doing in those shorter barrels that standard pressure 9mm isn't? Going a bit faster? I don't think any extra 50 fps is worth the extra pressure, which we don't really know what it is with +P+, we just know it's over the 38,500 PSI limit set by SAAMI.

People complain about the .40 "beating up guns" quicker than 9mm, but imagine what the +P+ does to shorten the life of guns that were never designed to shoot even 9mm +P, let alone +P+.

.40, for whatever more recoil there is, the guns the manufacturers make are built to handle it. That may not have been the case 25+ years ago, but it is today.

 

[TTv2]

I have carried 9, 40 and 45 in HK USP Compacts. To me the 40 recoil was much sharper and since the grip of the 9 and 40 is slightly smaller, it moved in my hand when I shot it. The 45 compact does not. That's why I carried the 45. I now carry a 1911 in 45 - because I can. I don't pocket carry. Pocket guns just don't fit my hands well. I carry the same thing every day and practice with it almost weekly.

There are many variables to consider and we don't know them all (you may not either at this point and may change your mind later - I did). As for TTv2 saying there is no need to carry a .45, that's just an opinion (and not a very good one at that) - he cites ammo cost, I don't care about that as I reload. Maybe you do too - I don't know. Maybe you're rich and don't care.

It really doesn't matter what we all think. It's your life, your gun and your decision.

Pick something you like (I would suggest 9, 40 or 45) that you WILL practice with and if works, fine, if it doesn't, find something that does.

I didn't say there was no need to carry a .45, I gave reasons that made it a good choice, but outside of open carry for animal protection or suppression usage, I don't see what the .45 is doing that makes it better than the .40. I have found no difference in the recoil between .45 and .40, it's all more recoil than 9mm. That said, I've not yet shot a .45 that wasn't a full size pistol, so I'll have to take your word for it that .45 feels better in a smaller pistol than .40 does, but if I was looking to carry a smaller pistol, it would be a 9mm.

Another facet with .45, in both full size and compacts, is you're stuck with 10 rd mags and they're in physically larger pistols. None of this is an advantage for carrying.

You may reload .45, not many people do, and for new gun owners (or soon to be new owners) are constantly told that .40 is basically the worst caliber to choose for a handgun because 9mm is cheaper and easier to shoot and .45 is "more powerful" and easier to shoot. I find that to be biased and bad stuff to tell someone.

I remember being in a gun store a few years ago and two guys in their 20s or early 30s were in the store and one was showing a friend different guns (I assume the one guy was looking for his first pistol) and I remember the non-gun owner asking whether .40 is better than 9mm and both the clerk and the other guy said 9mm is generally better for someone to buy first.

I was checking out a Glock 27 I was picking up and the other guy saw and said, "Oh, a Glock 26." of course I corrected him and told his friend that with most .40 pistols you can buy a 9mm barrel and IMO for a new gun owner, I can think of no reason for them not to have that option and not having to buy a second gun to find out that .40 is shootable and more powerful.

It was interesting that nobody was recommending to this new gun owner to get a .45.

 

[TTv2]

It's a legitimate question. The poster stated "It is more effective." How do you quantify that? What do you compare? If I shoot you with a 9mm and someone else with a .40 who is incapacitated quicker?

I think it is deeper than just simple incapacitation. It depends on shot placement, projectile performance, penetration, etc. My view is the .40 has a larger margin for error than 9mm.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

My view is the .40 has a larger margin for error than 9mm.

And your view is based on?

I don't think .40 is a bad round I just don't think there's enough difference between it and 9mm to pick s .40

My view is based on research that I've read by recognized SME including the guy who literally wrote the book on terminal ballistics

 

[WrongHanded]

And your view is based on?

I don't think .40 is a bad round I just don't think there's enough difference between it and 9mm to pick s .40

My view is based on research that I've read by recognized SME including the guy who literally wrote the book on terminal ballistics

I would say that a larger diameter bullet is likely to expand to a larger diameter, create a larger diameter wound track, which has an exponentially larger wound circumference. A larger surface area of damaged tissue would likely lead to faster blood loss, and therefore faster incapacitation due to blood loss.

And let's be honest, after the first shot, if firing at a rapid cadence, precision is likely to be rather poor (with most people, including a lot of LEOs). The time to the first shot is not effected by recoil. After that, assuming the shooter can handle service calibers, the argument in favor of 9mm often comes down to split times.

 

[TTv2]

And your view is based on?

I don't think .40 is a bad round I just don't think there's enough difference between it and 9mm to pick s .40

My view is based on research that I've read by recognized SME including the guy who literally wrote the book on terminal ballistics

My view is that bigger is better... up to a point. I've already said this in the thread, but 9mm excels in certain guns, .40 in others, and .45 has a few niches it's good for. For a smaller pistol, 9mm is king for conceal carry, for larger ones it's .40 (I'd argue 10mm is even better, but people don't like recoil and the 10mm is generally in larger pistols and people like things small.)

.40 has more energy (50 to 70 ft/lbs more when comparing 124gr to 165gr and 147gr to 180gr) and it transfers it faster than 9mm because it expands to a greater diameter and creates more drag. This means shots that are not CNS hits are going to be more effective, especially if they hit bone.

This isn't very scientific, but I was shooting steel plates a few weeks ago with 9mm and .40 from a Glock 35 and the 9mm was barely knocking the plates over. I switched to .40 and it was slamming them down. Imagine those same bullets hitting a person, it will have a greater effect.

That's not to say 9mm is crap, but it's not better than .40, not in a full size pistol.

 

[TTv2]

I would say that a larger diameter bullet is likely to expand to a larger diameter, create a larger diameter wound track, which has an exponentially larger wound circumference. A larger surface area of damaged tissue would likely lead to faster blood loss, and therefore faster incapacitation due to blood loss.

And let's be honest, after the first shot, if firing at a rapid cadence, precision is likely to be rather poor (with most people, including a lot of LEOs). The time to the first shot is not effected by recoil. After that, assuming the shooter can handle service calibers, the argument in favor of 9mm often comes down to split times.

The premium 9mm ammo (like HST) is expanding very well, even beating some .40's and also penetrating as well or better, but in terms of energy the .40 holds more energy than 9mm does and as distance increases the .40's extra energy is beneficial to 9mm. In generaly, at 35 yards, the .40 will have the same energy as 9mm does at the muzzle.

When shooting 9mm I have found that I am more accurate than with .40 due to recoil. In terms of speed from shot to shot, it's the same.

 

[WrongHanded]

The premium 9mm ammo (like HST) is expanding very well, even beating some .40's and also penetrating as well or better, but in terms of energy the .40 holds more energy than 9mm does and as distance increases the .40's extra energy is beneficial to 9mm. In generaly, at 35 yards, the .40 will have the same energy as 9mm does at the muzzle.

Yeah some 9mm projectiles perform better than some .40 projectiles. But that's because some bullet designs are better than others.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I switched to .40 and it was slamming them down. Imagine those same bullets hitting a person, it will have a greater effect.

Except it apparently doesn't. There is no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers. No one has been able to document that getting hit by a .40 has a greater effect than getting hit by 9 millimeter or has a greater effect than getting hit by a .45.

Pistol calibers just aren't all that. You're really not looking for which performs the best you're looking for which sucks the least.

There've been documented cases of people being hit in the heart and still being able to stay on their feet and return fire at least for a couple of minutes.

If you want to impact somebody hit them with a baseball bat

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I would say that a larger diameter bullet is likely to expand to a larger diameter, create a larger diameter wound track, which has an exponentially larger wound circumference. A larger surface area of damaged tissue would likely lead to faster blood loss, and therefore faster incapacitation due to blood loss.

But again, no one has been able to document that.

Again, if 40 Smith & Wesson was dropping people faster and more consistently than 9 mm everyone would be carrying it

 

[Ed Ames]

Does this whole argument boil down to group vs. individual decision processes?

If I’m choosing a weapon for a group, I’m going to select minimum standards for weapon effectiveness (terminal ballistics), and minimum standards for user effectiveness (accuracy, time to target, follow up shots, etc.) and I’m going to have as large and diverse a sampling of my group as possible try all the weapons that meet the weapon minimums, and select the weapon that gives me the largest number of people who meet the user effectiveness minimums.

That combination means I can successfully hire and train a broader range of potential users, I can equip and continue their training for the lowest cost. I can defend that decision if it is questioned on fiscal or effectiveness grounds. It’s the safe and sensible decision for equipping a group.

It’s also basically meaningless for an individual.

 

[TTv2]

But again, no one has been able to document that.

Again, if 40 Smith & Wesson was dropping people faster and more consistently than 9 mm everyone would be carrying it

They wouldn't because they would make up a fallacy to say that because 9mm is cheaper, recoils less, which means they shoot better with it so that makes it better, but when the ballistic numbers are brought in and it shows .40 having a bigger, heavier bullet and more energy then the argument becomes "it has no extra effect."

There are a handful of .380 loads that will penetrate a bit less than 9mm, expand a bit less than 9mm, recoil less than 9mm in similar size guns, but they'll be 150+ fps slower than 9mm and I see no one advocating for .380 over 9mm. Why? Because 9mm is still perceived as "better" because of the fractions of an inch improvements in penetration, expansion, and the higher velocity, but really would that be the difference in stopping an attacker?

If the argument being made is the 9's extra velocity and bullet weight (total energy) makes it better than .380, then the same must be inferred with .40 over 9mm.

It's true that we cannot determine if a person was shot with a 9mm and a .40 in the exact same spot at the exact same moment the extent the greater effect the .40 would have, but we know from the ballistics that .40 has more power than 9mm, so it is reasonable to conclude that the .40 has more effect, same as 9mm over the few .380 loads that perform well.

 

[Hartkopf]

The human body absorbs the extra energy from the 40 over 9mm. That little extra energy does nothing measurable. Pistol energy just pokes little holes.

Rifle energy matters.

That should be a new political movement!

 

[Trunk Monkey]

it is reasonable to conclude that the .40 has more effect,

It would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that there is no data set that shows that

 

[TTv2]

It would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that there is no data set that shows that

Same can be said for .380 vs 9mm. Problem is that any that is out there is going to involve cheap junk .380 ammo that doesn't expand and comparing it to non junk 9mm that does expand.

 

[WrongHanded]

It would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that there is no data set that shows that

That's where science could take us, but basic human decency won't allow. If the Nazis had won WWII, we'd know for sure because they had no problem conducting those types of experiments on people.

We obviously don't stoop to such levels. And usually there are more important things going on when someone is shot with a service calibers than timing the event and taking other measurements.

But is that a good reason to say that a bullet which performs better in gel, and also with basic calculations of energy on its side, isn't any better than another.....because we don't have proof in a data set that requires serious bodily harm and possibly death to attain?

Because, that's exactly how we pick one 9mm JHP over another, isn't it. With the data we have.

 

[amd6547]

Like I said, 9mm is a fine round. I do believe that load choice is more important than .40. That is, in the age of ammo shortages, just about any .40 JHP will perform well. 9mm, not so much. And, if it came down to having to use that box of FMJ, I’d rather be using the flat nosed .40 than the round nose 9.
For a lot of years, I used the +P+ 127gn Ranger load for carry, and I shot it in several different pistols. Haven’t found any for a while, so my G17 is loaded with BPLE 115gn +P+, while my G26 is loaded with 147gn +P HST.

 

[jbm]

I didn't say there was no need to carry a .45, I gave reasons that made it a good choice, but outside of open carry for animal protection or suppression usage, I don't see what the .45 is doing that makes it better than the .40. I have found no difference in the recoil between .45 and .40, it's all more recoil than 9mm. That said, I've not yet shot a .45 that wasn't a full size pistol, so I'll have to take your word for it that .45 feels better in a smaller pistol than .40 does, but if I was looking to carry a smaller pistol, it would be a 9mm.

Another facet with .45, in both full size and compacts, is you're stuck with 10 rd mags and they're in physically larger pistols. None of this is an advantage for carrying.

You may reload .45, not many people do, and for new gun owners (or soon to be new owners) are constantly told that .40 is basically the worst caliber to choose for a handgun because 9mm is cheaper and easier to shoot and .45 is "more powerful" and easier to shoot. I find that to be biased and bad stuff to tell someone.

I remember being in a gun store a few years ago and two guys in their 20s or early 30s were in the store and one was showing a friend different guns (I assume the one guy was looking for his first pistol) and I remember the non-gun owner asking whether .40 is better than 9mm and both the clerk and the other guy said 9mm is generally better for someone to buy first.

I was checking out a Glock 27 I was picking up and the other guy saw and said, "Oh, a Glock 26." of course I corrected him and told his friend that with most .40 pistols you can buy a 9mm barrel and IMO for a new gun owner, I can think of no reason for them not to have that option and not having to buy a second gun to find out that .40 is shootable and more powerful.

It was interesting that nobody was recommending to this new gun owner to get a .45.

You said ".45 has no place as a carry gun outside of open carrying out in the wild for protection from animals or if you're a Spec Ops soldier using it with a suppressor to off some guards outside a safehouse holding Osama Bin Laden." I'm sorry, when you said "no place" I took that to mean no place. Why would the 45 be better for animals? Why is better for Spec Ops soldiers for offing people?

So some guys in a gun store said something and that is now gospel? That's funny. Please refer to the multiple threads on multiple forums about dumb things said in gun stores (by customers and employees).

I recommended that he get what works for him. I have seen new shooters do very well with 45s. It really depends on the person and unfortunately with this type of thread ("what gun should I get") we really don't have enough information to suggest anything.

Brad

 

[TTv2]

You said ".45 has no place as a carry gun outside of open carrying out in the wild for protection from animals or if you're a Spec Ops soldier using it with a suppressor to off some guards outside a safehouse holding Osama Bin Laden." I'm sorry, when you said "no place" I took that to mean no place. Why would the 45 be better for animals? Why is better for Spec Ops soldiers for offing people?

So some guys in a gun store said something and that is now gospel? That's funny. Please refer to the multiple threads on multiple forums about dumb things said in gun stores (by customers and employees).

I recommended that he get what works for him. I have seen new shooters do very well with 45s. It really depends on the person and unfortunately with this type of thread ("what gun should I get") we really don't have enough information to suggest anything.

Brad

When did I say what people in a gun store said was gospel? It's widely agreed that for a first time/new gun owner getting a 9mm is far from the worst idea. I think the general reason .45 isn't recommended is because it costs more than 9mm and let's not bring reloading into this, no first time gun owner goes into owning a gun already being a reloader.

I said .45 is better for animal protection because it penetrates well and big animals that are a threat to you usually are charging you in a way that requires penetration in excess of the 18" max that the FBI specs for their testing criteria. The .45 with a suppressor is very quiet, good for black ops missions that require infiltration of a compound. If suppressed 9mm pistols were better, don't you think those would be the standard for special ops?

 

[Ed Ames]

This is just something I find amusing amidst all the talk about 9 vs .40 vs .45, magazine capacity, and so on.

Over the years I’ve had a few home defense pistols in various configurations including 9mm, .40, and .45. If I look at the longest serving of each, the 9mm was 16+1, the .40 was 15+1, and the .45 was 15+1. not a huge difference IMO.

I’ve also had double stack subcompact concealed carry pistols in 9mm and .45. Both were 10+1 capacity. Yes the 9mm was smaller, both were big enough to need a holster and proper belt, and small enough to conceal in all but the most difficult scenarios, so I’m not sure the difference matters in the big picture.

Looking at other carry guns I’ve had over the years, they ranged from 5 shots to 17+1, and the cartridge only loosely correlated with capacity. The 9mms generally ranged from 7-12 rounds with one 17+1 added to the mix, the .45s from 7-10, the only .40 I’ve carried held 15. Am I comparing apples to apples? Only to the extent that these were all guns I actually carried concealed. Other than that, I’m not going to pretend they are alike. But they all carried fine, worked fine, and I shot them all what I call well (which means I’m sure y’all shoot better, but I can generally outshoot most folks at a public range).

The reason everyone argues about all of this stuff is that there aren’t clear universal answers. The answer for me doesn’t need to be the answer for you, and the fact that they are different doesn’t make either of us wrong. Nobody is ever going to win the caliber wars because it’s a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” type question. There is no right answer, so the argument can never be settled.

Get what speaks to you. If you are a “it meets the minimums and has non-ballistic advantages” person, yay. If you are a “Good enough isn’t” person, also yay. Make your choice and move on. Concentrate your mental energies on learning to shoot your chosen weapon well.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

This is just something I find amusing amidst all the talk about 9 vs .40 vs .45, magazine capacity, and so on.

Over the years I’ve had a few home defense pistols in various configurations including 9mm, .40, and .45. If I look at the longest serving of each, the 9mm was 16+1, the .40 was 15+1, and the .45 was 15+1. not a huge difference IMO.

I’ve also had double stack subcompact concealed carry pistols in 9mm and .45. Both were 10+1 capacity. Yes the 9mm was smaller, both were big enough to need a holster and proper belt, and small enough to conceal in all but the most difficult scenarios, so I’m not sure the difference matters in the big picture.

Well, good for you I guess. The reality is that the size of the round dictates the capacity and the size of a gun. For example I had an FNP-45 Tactical that held fifteen rounds and the grip was about the thickness of my ankle. On the other hand a Glock 19 holds the same and is a fraction of the size. Again, in the actual world we live in a good percentage of the population couldn't even get their hand around a 15 shot .45 ACP and it would be a nonstarter for 90% of people that CCW. Especially when you consider the sales of guns like the Springfield Hellcat.

Since people generally can't change the size of their hands they have to choose a firearm to fit the hand they were born with. So novelty guns aside the range of sidearms that most folks consider appropriate for CCW falls into a fairly specific range. You may not mind carryin' the Deagle appendix style but normal humans will opt for something smaller.

 

[Ed Ames]

Well, good for you I guess. The reality is that the size of the round dictates the capacity and the size of a gun. For example I had an FNP-45 Tactical that held fifteen rounds and the grip was about the thickness of my ankle. On the other hand a Glock 19 holds the same and is a fraction of the size. Again, in the actual world we live in a good percentage of the population couldn't even get their hand around a 15 shot .45 ACP and it would be a nonstarter for 90% of people that CCW. Especially when you consider the sales of guns like the Springfield Hellcat.

Since people generally can't change the size of their hands they have to choose a firearm to fit the hand they were born with. So novelty guns aside the range of sidearms that most folks consider appropriate for CCW falls into a fairly specific range. You may not mind carryin' the Deagle appendix style but normal humans will opt for something smaller.

Wow. You said exactly what I was trying to get people to say, but with emoticons and a tone that indicate you think you are arguing against what I said. Sorry to disappoint you, but that was my point. Get what works for you.

But yeah if you read my post you’ll see I differentiated between home defense guns (which included an FNX-45T), and concealed carry guns. I didn’t include the FNX-45 in the concealed carry guns because it has quite a long grip frame that makes concealment tricky. Plus mine had a red dot and a suppressor so not really intended for concealed carry. Great home defense gun though.

But there are plenty of easily carried guns in all of the common calibers. My 10+1 .45 was 22.2 ounces, 6.125 inches long, 1.25 inches wide, and 5.125 inches tall, which is not a lot different than a Glock 26 which also holds 10 rounds and was a wildly successful concealed carry gun. People are making a big deal about differences that aren’t that big.

Note I said easily carried, not easily shot. But a gun I have a hard time shooting well might be easy for a bunch of people. Why should my limits affect their choices?

Your choice should be limited to what you can shoot well, and carry well. Not what the FBI wants to issue to thousands of people without having to worry about whether it’ll be too much gun for 10% of their otherwise qualified candidates. Not what a bunch of people on the Internet are convinced was best for them and therefore of course must be best for everyone. You.

 

[Trey Veston]

Just got done loading up some 9mm and .40 S&W for my defensive pistols and thought of this thread. Placed two XTPs side by side and the size difference was stark.

I know all the studies and gel tests and arguments about there not being much difference in getting shot with a 9mm vs. a .40 S&W, but actually holding each round in your hand sure doesn't seem like that makes any sense...



Still, I believe the numbers and don't feel undergunned with my 9mm.