9mm vs .40 Smith & Wesson - What happened?

[CLT65]

I also like and shoot all three. As much as I do like the .40, if I could only have one I would choose the 9mm. I wouldn't feel under-gunned with the 9, and it seems like the practical choice.

I bought a S&W Shield last year, in 9mm. I had the chance to shoot a 9mm and a .40 side by side. The .40 was noticeably more snappy. I didn't mind it so much, but my wife strongly preferred the 9mm.

I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell:
1. Cost of ammo.
2. 9mm is good enough.
3. Experienced handgun shooters are good with more powerful rounds, but the average shooter/officer is better served by something that's a little easier to shoot, especially when it's good enough. I think the 9mm is in many ways the best balance between power and controllability for the average person.

I still like the .40 though. I can shoot it well, and if good enough is good enough, then better must be even better, right?

 

[CLT65]

Not this time.
The OP asked: "...why the loss in favor?".
People have tried to answer.

I understand, and my comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I apologize if it looked like it was. It was just a general insight in human nature, and is typically true about many things: sports teams, vehicle choice, politics, religion, etc...

 

[Dreadi]

There's still plenty of gamers using 40cal.

 

[Retired Guy]

I was working at RSR Wholesale when the .40SW came out. It was quickly nicknamed the "40 Short and Weak". But within a year it had racked up quite a reputation as a "manstopper".
Within a few years, I had a SIG P229, Browning HP, and SW 4006 in .40SW. Within a couple years, I had dumped them all. Good round but I found it very unpleasant to shoot. It had a sharper recoil than my .45's.
I honestly think it's simply that a lot of folks and police officers are realizing that it's better to hit with a 9mm than miss with a 40SW.

 

[DB is Here]

Wait, your having a caliber debate w/o stating the glory of the .45?


Kidding...

 

[Retired Guy]

Wait, your having a caliber debate w/o stating the glory of the .45?


Kidding...

I was trying to avoid going there! But since you started it....

Long story short, it's better to hit with a .22LR than miss with a .44 mag. Now that I'm getting older, we make do with what we can.

 

[DizzyJ]

Man.... I thought this had been settled YEARS ago?

9mm.

 

[DB is Here]

Tastes Great............Less Filling!!!

 

[DizzyJ]

Tastes Great............Less Filling!!!

 

[gjwill46]

LGS pointed out last time I was in they have very few .40s in stock just due to the demand falling off the cliff. Never really thought about it but ya my own buying habits have all been 9mm in place of the .40. I even recently picked up a conversion barrel for my G35 to run 9mm. I reload both but shoot 10:1 9mm to 40. I am told most cops are still are mostly with .40's.

Any thoughts as to why the loss in favor?
Was it the ammo shortage and the cost of .40 going up that did it for consumers?
FBI's switch back to 9mm a few yrs ago?

All of the popularity changes in calibers is mainly due to the very rapid advancement in ammunition technology. Just 15 years ago I would have poo-pooed anyone thinking of selecting a .380 as a primary carry pistol. Today's ammo for 380 allows it to out perform any popular brand of 9mm 15 years ago. I think that some folks are considering that if the ballistic performance of 9mm today is nearly equal to the .40 S&W 15 years ago, why not gain the added mag capacity and reduced recoil (and cheaper ammo) by switching to 9mm. I have two .40s but when I started carrying 8 years ago, I selected a Kahr P-9 as my daily carry pistol. It is comfortable, accurate and super reliable. My carry ammo is Hornaday's Critical Defense, and I believe there is even more advanced ammo on the market than that. But back to your question, it is my opinion that it's not that .40 S&W is not respected, in fact I recently watched a video that ran the .40 against the .45 and based on ammo, the velocity of the .40 really helped it make up for the lesser mass, I was both surprised and impressed as to how it did. Ammo technology is the issue and it will keep having an impact on attitudes.

 

[CLT65]

Just one last thought to toss in, from my personal perspective: I mainly shoot for fun. I'm not a hunter, competitor, or big into tactical or cutting edge carry gear. I just enjoy going to the range for recreational marksmanship.

To be honest (and this is just me) I don't particularly care whether the 9mm is "better" than the .40, or vice versa. I just shoot what I like to shoot. SO, I'll go ahead and bow out now, as my particular perspective is not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Besides, everyone KNOWS that Chevy is better than Ford. How is that even a question?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I wouldn't mind an Inox Beretta PX4 storm in 40.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[DirectDrive]

Confucius Say :

"40 Craze" over
9mm cheap
10mm winning king's favor

 

[leadcounsel]

Because people have finally woken up to the fact that the relatively small performance improvement of the .40 round, doesn't justify the added recoil, added price, and less capacity compared to the 9mm.

* Guns are the same price. If anything, price reductions actually benefit the .40s.
* Added recoil is negligible and easily handled by any average adult male or athletic female.
* Added cost is typically $50 per 1000 rounds, new retail. Trivial.

The reality is that apples to apples the .40 hits harder/faster, penetrates a little deeper, and makes a little bigger hole. I ran some numbers recently.

Every test with same/similar ammo I've ever seen puts the .40 caliber anywhere from somewhat better (deeper and/or bigger hole) to significantly better. I'm comfortable stating that my overall assessment puts the .40 generally about .1" larger diameter, and about 1-2" deeper apples-to-apples. That is significant. That's a deeper wound and .1 inch bigger hole for the entire wound cavity. That's a lot more volume of wounding damage.

Typical numbers for same brand/design might be:
9mm - .6" diameter, and 15" depth. 9mm wounding channel volume is 8.5 cubic inches
.40 cal - .7" diameter, 16" depth. .40 caliber wound channel volume is 12.4 cubic inches

That benefits the .40 by about 4 cubic inches more volume damage, in addition to 1" deeper penetration. That's something in the order of 50% more volume and not insignificant IMO.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[L84Cabo]

* Guns are the same price. If anything, price reductions actually benefit the .40s.
* Added recoil is negligible and easily handled by any average adult male or athletic female.
* Added cost is typically $50 per 1000 rounds, new retail. Trivial.

The reality is that apples to apples the .40 hits harder/faster, penetrates a little deeper, and makes a little bigger hole. I ran some numbers recently.

Every test with same/similar ammo I've ever seen puts the .40 caliber anywhere from somewhat better (deeper and/or bigger hole) to significantly better. I'm comfortable stating that my overall assessment puts the .40 generally about .1" larger diameter, and about 1-2" deeper apples-to-apples. That is significant. That's a deeper wound and .1 inch bigger hole for the entire wound cavity. That's a lot more volume of wounding damage.

Typical numbers for same brand/design might be:
9mm - .6" diameter, and 15" depth. 9mm wounding channel volume is 8.5 cubic inches
.40 cal - .7" diameter, 16" depth. .40 caliber wound channel volume is 12.4 cubic inches

That benefits the .40 by about 4 cubic inches more volume damage, in addition to 1" deeper penetration. That's something in the order of 50% more volume and not insignificant IMO.

However you need to rationalize it to yourself is fine with me.

 

[leadcounsel]

However you need to rationalize it to yourself is fine with me.

Yup science is hard.

Meanwhile it seems the 9mm crowd lives in fantasy land where a bullet that weighs less and travels slower and has a smaller diameter and radically less energy somehow does the same damage.

Look guy, I carry both, shoot both, etc. but I ain't under the illusion that 9mm is "as good" as .40.

Right now (apples to apples with same bullet brand/technology) if I had to take 1 random shot to save my life, or forced to be shot in a random spot, I'd take the .40 to save my life, and I'd pick to be shot by the 9mm. Isn't likely to matter in the head or heart or lungs but all those other places the .40 is going to do more damage. Science.

 

[No_Regerts]

Yup science is hard.

Meanwhile it seems the 9mm crowd lives in fantasy land where a bullet that weighs less and travels slower and has a smaller diameter and radically less energy somehow does the same damage.

Look guy, I carry both, shoot both, etc. but I ain't under the illusion that 9mm is "as good" as .40.

Right now (apples to apples with same bullet brand/technology) if I had to take 1 random shot to save my life, or forced to be shot in a random spot, I'd take the .40 to save my life, and I'd pick to be shot by the 9mm. Isn't likely to matter in the head or heart or lungs but all those other places the .40 is going to do more damage. Science.

Can't cheat physics.

 

[Kruel J]

Yup science is hard.

Meanwhile it seems the 9mm crowd lives in fantasy land where a bullet that weighs less and travels slower and has a smaller diameter and radically less energy somehow does the same damage.

Look guy, I carry both, shoot both, etc. but I ain't under the illusion that 9mm is "as good" as .40.

Right now (apples to apples with same bullet brand/technology) if I had to take 1 random shot to save my life, or forced to be shot in a random spot, I'd take the .40 to save my life, and I'd pick to be shot by the 9mm. Isn't likely to matter in the head or heart or lungs but all those other places the .40 is going to do more damage. Science.

Weird. Science......