.40 over 9mm

[Kruel J]

Ya, that one I had been looking at as well how do you like the G20?

( Side note spent allot of time with our Granddaughter, out doors, camping, living life, not stressing over it. )

It's a really chunky Glock. Shoots well like any other Glock with a bit more recoil of course.

 

[User 1234]

.40 is like 9mm, but for men.

 

[Reacher120]

I have and enjoy both, but with all the Meth users in Portland's homeless, I like a little more stopping power provided by .40, or .357.
Hope none is ever needed.
Sig 320 with 9,40,357 sig conversions, try them all
Sig 365 in 9mm is great for pocket carry

 

[mark9fogger]

I've trained with and carried a G23 off-duty for over 16 years. I am now with another agency that mandates a G23 for duty carry. I am totally used to the snap of a 40 so I never had the temptation to go to the 9mm until recent advancements in 9mm ballistics got me to consider it. So last month I purchased my first 9mm, a Glock 19 gen 5 (black slide grey frame). I haven't shot it yet, but I have no doubt I will love it.

 

[The Heretic]

I've trained with and carried a G23 off-duty for over 16 years. I am now with another agency that mandates a G23 for duty carry. I am totally used to the snap of a 40 so I never had the temptation to go to the 9mm until recent advancements in 9mm ballistics got me to consider it. So last month I purchased my first 9mm, a Glock 19 gen 5 (black slide grey frame). I haven't shot it yet, but I have no doubt I will love it.

Try a SIG P229.

My mom used to say "just try it, you don't know what you are missing unless you try it" when she was trying to get me to eat something I didn't want to eat (usually because of the smell - like liver, or cooked spinach - both of which I can't stand - either taste or smell).

I've shot a lot of Glocks. Owned some. Once I tried a SIG DA/SA, I was never going back to a Glock or any other striker fired gun again - I have yet to shoot one where I liked the trigger, always disliked that mushy trigger.

 

[mark9fogger]

I have shot a P229 Elite in 40 and liked it. The only thing about it is the DA/SA trigger. Just not used to it. Yes, I do own a DA/SA pistol chambered in 45ACP (FNX-45). Awesome tackdriver, but I just can't get used to the DA/SA trigger. I just happened to stumble on an incredible price for it in a gun store out in the middle of nowhere. I knew it was DA/SA, but at a price of 700 bucks for a brand new one (a steal years ago) I could not resist, lol.
Yes I agree about the Glock trigger but I am used to it.

 

[The Heretic]

I have had no trouble getting used to DA/SA - but everybody is different. I find it closer to a DA/SA revolver, but lighter on the DA than most revolvers. The SA trigger of many revolvers is better than that of the SIG, but I have several S&W PC revolvers that have excellent triggers so I am spoiled there. I am going to have most of my SIGs Burked so that should make them excellent.

I like the fact that I have restrike capability if I get a dud - supposedly most failures to fire are due to the primer and that a restrike on the primer will remedy the problem some 80% of the time. Pulling the trigger again is a lot faster than racking the slide too, and then if it still doesn't fire, rack the slide and move on.

Being able to carry safely with the hammer down and a round up the pipe is great, and they just pull the trigger.

The decocker is great too - safer than some SA hammer fired guns for lowering the hammer, and safer than a striker fired gun as the trigger pull in DA mode is longer and heavier, so less likely to get the trigger caught on something.

Overall, I like my SIGs - so much so that I can't stop buying them.

 

[mark9fogger]

I respect Sig. If I had to choose one of their pistols to protect my life it would be the P227. I shot a buddy's P220 carry version years ago and it was the first pistol I have shot that had hardly any recoil as far as I was concerned. Unbelievably accurate, too. The P227 was the successor to the P220 so I was planning to buy it someday, but it got discontinued! WTH, Sig?

I have 9 Glocks so I am biased toward them, lol

 

[The Heretic]

I respect Sig. If I had to choose one of their pistols to protect my life it would be the P227. I shot a buddy's P220 carry version years ago and it was the first pistol I have shot that had hardly any recoil as far as I was concerned. Unbelievably accurate, too. The P227 was the successor to the P220 so I was planning to buy it someday, but it got discontinued! WTH, Sig?

I have 9 Glocks so I am biased toward them, lol

There are still new and like new 227s out there that you can buy, but the 14 round mags are almost unobtanium now - the 14 round mags being the straw that broke the camel's back due to their problems (fixed by replacing the spring). Of course, you can still get the ten round mags.

The 220 you shot may have been an all steel model, so the extra weight would help with recoil. The 227 is an alloy frame, and does have more recoil than most other SIGs. I have a 227 Tactical and it has the most recoil of all of my SIGs, but is also very controllable as the grips and weight full loaded help a lot. The next in line for recoil would be the 224 in .40 as it is smaller and a little lighter.

None of my SIGs are objectionable for recoil IMO - though the 224 needs the larger 12 round mag with the pinky extension - my hands are large, not huge, but large enough that I can't get my pinky on the 224 with 10 round mags. My favorite of all of them is my Mk25 with the .40 conversion, but if I were going into a gunfight, I would choose the 227 with 14 round mags.

 

[No_Regerts]

9mm easier to double tap and it'll always pop the skull

My splits between a G22 and a G17 are far more dependent on how I feel when I wake up vs the differences in recoil. I shot 6 matches with a G22 and 6 with a G17 in the same year. If I were shooting against myself, My G22 self would have beat my G17 self 4 times out of 6. Probably because I slept better or some other outside factor other than the gun or chambering.

 

[No_Regerts]

I respect Sig. If I had to choose one of their pistols to protect my life it would be the P227. I shot a buddy's P220 carry version years ago and it was the first pistol I have shot that had hardly any recoil as far as I was concerned. Unbelievably accurate, too. The P227 was the successor to the P220 so I was planning to buy it someday, but it got discontinued! WTH, Sig?

I have 9 Glocks so I am biased toward them, lol

The 227 never seemed to take off. A few agencies bought it, a few people liked it, but its bigger, heavier, and has less capacity than a G21. The M&P45 is thinner, lighter, and far cheaper for the same capacity. The P220 has lesser capacity, but IMO, feels much better in the hand.

 

[powermad]

While I like to shoot .40 and .357 Sig, the bottom line is that I can shoot a lot more 9mm for the same money.
No doubt .40, .357 and .45 smack the plate with more authority.
But 9mm 124gn NATO makes a nice ping too and I can get 1000 rounds for about the same as 700 rounds of .40

 

[The Heretic]

The 227 never seemed to take off. A few agencies bought it, a few people liked it, but its bigger, heavier, and has less capacity than a G21. The M&P45 is thinner, lighter, and far cheaper for the same capacity. The P220 has lesser capacity, but IMO, feels much better in the hand.

There are 14 round mags for the 227, but they do not sit flush as the 13 rd mag does with the G21. I have shot and owned both. I prefer the SIG and don't mind that the 14 round mag extends down so far as to me, neither is a gun I would carry concealed, but more a gun I would use in open combat - although I have carried the G21 concealed more than once (because it was the only pistol I had at the time).

Glock 21s have had a long head start, but I think the main reason is that most LE orgs, etc., have gone to 9mm and .40, turning away from the .45 as there is not a lot of hi-cap standard production .45 handguns.

 

[No_Regerts]

There are 14 round mags for the 227, but they do not sit flush as the 13 rd mag does with the G21. I have shot and owned both. I prefer the SIG and don't mind that the 14 round mag extends down so far as to me, neither is a gun I would carry concealed, but more a gun I would use in open combat - although I have carried the G21 concealed more than once (because it was the only pistol I had at the time).

Glock 21s have had a long head start, but I think the main reason is that most LE orgs, etc., have gone to 9mm and .40, turning away from the .45 as there is not a lot of hi-cap standard production .45 handguns.

That and diversity brings smaller hands. The G21 is not very female friendly. If I could, Id carry a Sig on duty. The P220 fits my hand better than anything and the P226 isn't far behind.

 

[The Heretic]

If you look at what ammo is available for 9mm, .357 SIG and .40 S&W, you can find 9x19 +P+ ammo that approaches but doesn't quite reach 'standard' .357 SIG ballistics, albeit the ammo is more expensive. I am given to understand also that NATO 9x19 ammo is loaded to +P pressures.

There doesn't seem to be anybody that claims +P much less +P+ for .357 SIG loadings, probably because it is already loaded pretty hot?

If you look at Buffalo Bore, Underwood and Double Tap (three well known ammo companies that specialize in 'hot' loaded ammo) and compare .40 S&W light bullet (135 gr) loads to .357 SIG loads (125 gr), they are pretty close in velocity and energy.

When you go up in projectile mass, the .40 S&W starts to edge out the .357 SIG, and then even more mass and the .357 SIG is left behind having no offerings above 147 gr (that I could find), where you can get .40 S&W up to 200 grains, more than 50 grains heavier than any .357 SIG load I have seen offered.

While it matters little whether an animal (including humans) is hit by a 125 or 150 gr. projectile when the projectile is traveling at handgun bullet speeds (usually well below 2000 fps) and it penetrates to vital organs and it expands the same - penetration can be affected by striking bones and/or other hard tissue (ligaments, cartilage, dense muscle) - in which case, projectile mass can overcome these barriers.

Interestingly, with some hard barriers (glass, metal, etc.), velocity seems to have an advantage - so there are pros and cons. That said, I prefer projectiles with more mass when they don't give up too much in velocity.

I've never shot any human, but I have shot a few deer and witnessed the results (including butchering the deer) ranging from a lightly constructed high velocity bullet (early 7mm rem mag 150 gr.) to a lower velocity bullet more appropriately constructed (.30-30 150 gr) for its velocity. As an aside, the 7mm took two shots to put the deer down because the first shot was thru the neck where the second shot was thru the shoulder (the deer was running after the first shot), whereas the deer that I took with the .30-30 only took one shot to stop it.

Bullet placement is the strongest determinant IMO of lethality, then penetration to vital organs/tissue, then whether the bullet expands (or fragments) such that its sharp edges cause tissue damage.

Thinking about all of that, I prefer the .40 S&W over the .357 SIG. IMO, in most loadings, it has ballistic advantages over the .357, it is more versatile (wider range of effective bullet weights), is less expensive, wider availability of ammo and guns, the same capacity in mags, and although I haven't shot my .357 SIG yet, I suspect the recoil is about the same or better.

 

[No_Regerts]

If you look at what ammo is available for 9mm, .357 SIG and .40 S&W, you can find 9x19 +P+ ammo that approaches but doesn't quite reach 'standard' .357 SIG ballistics, albeit the ammo is more expensive. I am given to understand also that NATO 9x19 ammo is loaded to +P pressures.

There doesn't seem to be anybody that claims +P much less +P+ for .357 SIG loadings, probably because it is already loaded pretty hot?

If you look at Buffalo Bore, Underwood and Double Tap (three well known ammo companies that specialize in 'hot' loaded ammo) and compare .40 S&W light bullet (135 gr) loads to .357 SIG loads (125 gr), they are pretty close in velocity and energy.

When you go up in projectile mass, the .40 S&W starts to edge out the .357 SIG, and then even more mass and the .357 SIG is left behind having no offerings above 147 gr (that I could find), where you can get .40 S&W up to 200 grains, more than 50 grains heavier than any .357 SIG load I have seen offered.

While it matters little whether an animal (including humans) is hit by a 125 or 150 gr. projectile when the projectile is traveling at handgun bullet speeds (usually well below 2000 fps) and it penetrates to vital organs and it expands the same - penetration can be affected by striking bones and/or other hard tissue (ligaments, cartilage, dense muscle) - in which case, projectile mass can overcome these barriers.

Interestingly, with some hard barriers (glass, metal, etc.), velocity seems to have an advantage - so there are pros and cons. That said, I prefer projectiles with more mass when they don't give up too much in velocity.

I've never shot any human, but I have shot a few deer and witnessed the results (including butchering the deer) ranging from a lightly constructed high velocity bullet (early 7mm rem mag 150 gr.) to a lower velocity bullet more appropriately constructed (.30-30 150 gr) for its velocity. As an aside, the 7mm took two shots to put the deer down because the first shot was thru the neck where the second shot was thru the shoulder (the deer was running after the first shot), whereas the deer that I took with the .30-30 only took one shot to stop it.

Bullet placement is the strongest determinant IMO of lethality, then penetration to vital organs/tissue, then whether the bullet expands (or fragments) such that its sharp edges cause tissue damage.

Thinking about all of that, I prefer the .40 S&W over the .357 SIG. IMO, in most loadings, it has ballistic advantages over the .357, it is more versatile (wider range of effective bullet weights), is less expensive, wider availability of ammo and guns, the same capacity in mags, and although I haven't shot my .357 SIG yet, I suspect the recoil is about the same or better.

NATO spec is essentially SAAMI +P and 357 Sig and 40 S&W are loaded to that pressure. Thats why I laugh at people who talk about frame wear due to high pressure 40 S&W, all while shooting +P 9mm.

 

[PNWguy]

I shoot in GSSF indoor matches using a Glock G35, which is basically the long slide version of a G22. I use my own reloads using 165gr plated RMR bullets going around 900fps. They will do about 1.5" at 25yds.

Everyone said I needed to go to 9mm to get better, so I bought a Gen 5 MOS G19 and started developing loads for it. I discovered that the most accurate 9mm loads were about equal to the .40 S&W loads in terms of recoil and muzzle jump. I settled on plain Jane Federal 115gr brass cased ammo from Walmart for $17 per 100. It just wasn't worth it to spend three hours on a single-stage press making loads that grouped maybe 1/8" better than my handloads. My highest score of 497 out of 500 was with the .40 S&W, so I went back to it.

For self-defense, I carry a .40 S&W because I believe the coroner reports I saw regarding shootings. 9mm will do the job, but there is a greater chance that .40 S&W will do it better, and with fewer rounds.

I don't fault anyone for choosing the 9mm, I just "feel" better carrying a .40 S&W...

 

[The Heretic]

I notice a difference in recoil - in the same gun (I have conversion kits/barrels) - between 9mm and .40 - the latter seems to have more recoil.

The 9mm SIGs have a lighter recoil spring, and some of the 9mm SIGs (not the one I have with a conversion barrel) have a lighter slide for the 9mm. So that may make a difference, but I am pretty sure most, if not all of the difference is due to the difference between the projectile weight; 115 or 124 gr. vs 180 gr. for the .40 S&W. This is with factory ammo.

I don't find the recoil objectionable at all for the .40 - it is less than .45 ACP with 230 grain ball which I don't find objectionable either, just slower to get back on target. I have .22 conversions for my 229s and 226s, so I can practice with rimfire too - I find that without hardly any recoil, the rimfire allows me to pay attention to the trigger/etc. - not that I don't with centerfire, but for some reason it does, maybe it is the reset, and/or the anticipation so I grip differently with centerfire, I don't know, but that is how it is.

The only handgun I have that has objectionable recoil is my 329PD and I rarely shoot that - regardless of the ammo. My 460V has noticeable recoil, but with magnum loads it isn't objectionable - you just know that you are shooting a big magnum.

 

[Not BATFE]

Forgive me if this is has already been stated, but 180gr .40 is naturally subsonic, and cheaper than .45. The 200gr Hush stuff is even better.

 

[leadcounsel]

I'm primarily a 40 guy for the reasons already stated.

My close second choices are 9 and .357.

.45 just generally lags significantly in capability, or requires a much larger gun. And costs noticeably more for minimal gain if any.