Hey everyone. Thinking about getting a new CCW gun. It has to be a Glock haha. Glock 26 vs Glock 27? I would like some opinions on the .40 vs the 9mm. I know the .40 is said to have more recoil, but is it enough to warrant sacrificing the size of the hole put in the bad guy? On the flip-side, is the 9mm that much less effective at stopping bad guys to warrant sacrificing shootability? Thanks!
.40 vs 9mm?
- Thread starter Goku9000
- Start date
I'd recommend sticking with the 9mm for a few reasons (even though I may get flamed by other gun guys here)
9mm generally includes a couple extra rounds in the magazine, which is a great thing to have in a carry gun.
The newer 9mm self defence rounds are extremely effective, compared to the old days.
The recoil is less, which means more accuracy on follow-up shots.
And with a short barrel, the velocity doesn't make much of a difference.
I hope this helps.
9mm generally includes a couple extra rounds in the magazine, which is a great thing to have in a carry gun.
The newer 9mm self defence rounds are extremely effective, compared to the old days.
The recoil is less, which means more accuracy on follow-up shots.
And with a short barrel, the velocity doesn't make much of a difference.
I hope this helps.
A matter of personal preference, but I too would suggest the 9mm over the .40 S&W. As mentioned, quality modern hollow point defensive ammunition pretty much makes the caliber debate a moot point. Shot placement is everything and rapid repeat hits is more so. The 9mm has the edge in this respect. I have a M27 in .40 S&W and can shoot it "OK", but a 9mm would be easier, cheaper practice ammo and higher magazine capacity.
I recently overheard several federal agents making these same points. I would tend to agree with the professionals in the field, who have tested the differences with both before making there personal choices in carry firearm.
I much prefer 9mm. If you cannot stop the bad guy with 9mm, perhaps a little more time at the range can do the trick. I will readily admit that I do not know the statistics and percentages, I'm speaking strictly clinically. A 9mm does serious damage to the human body. Admittedly, a .40 does more, but I'll keep my 9mm for home defense. YMMV.
This will be cheaper with a 9mm
Choose either. Perhaps just remember that shot placement is King and always will be. IMHO
Until the early 80's, the 1911 cocked and locked .45 ACP was king. Then came along the double stacked, high capacity wonder nines in 9mm. There were plenty of so called 'gun experts' and magazine article writers, who would debate, argue and verbally abuse each other, in the attempt to gain the invisible control of which side of the 'only caliber to own' debate, that they preferred.
Then came along the Strasbourg tests and other modern research that, instead of relying on paper and chronograph ballistics, relied instead on wound channel and overall trauma ballistics, from actual real-time shooting incidents. This research, nullified the intense debate from both sides of the extreme .45 vs 9mm debate, concluding that terminal ballistic testing showed they both had the exact identical ballistics, they both just went about it differently.
Terminal ballistics show that the .45 ACP is like an 'anvil'. It's big and slow, (230gr @ 800fps) and it is the sheer size and weight of the caliber that cause it's level of destruction in the human body. Drop an anvil on someone, no matter how slow, it's gonna hurt. However, with the 9mm, it is the exact opposite of the .45. It is like a 'brick'. It is a small caliber bullet, but it is moving really fast, (115gr @ 1200 fps) And it is the sheer speed and velocity that it is moving, in which causes the exact same wound ballistics and destruction in the human body. Throw a brick at someone as fast and hard as you can. Even though it's small, it's gonna hurt.
So research has found, that with modern ammunition, the .45 and 9mm are identical. Then came along the late 80's and early 90's. The Smith & Wesson company, created a new caliber, called the .40 S&W. Early research showed, that it was far superior in 'terminal ballistics' than either of the .45 or 9mm. Why you ask? Simply because it is the best of both worlds. It is a big bullet, like the .45, but it's moving, really fast like the 9mm.
So yes, the .40 is superior to the 9mm in terminal ballistics. And this is why it's popularity has soared with law enforcement over the years. However, new research, in modern pistol weapon craft shows, that what makes the .40 superior in terminality, big bullet moving fast, it also makes it inferior when it comes to close quarter combat. Because of the bullet size and velocity of the .40, recoil and muzzle rise are more pronounced and timing for quick follow up shots are slower because of this.
Combat research has shown, that while the .40 is superior in terminal ballistics, the .45 and 9mm are no slouches either when research shows that accurate shot placement is the one most superior thing a person can do as a deciding factor in a gunfight.
I believe a trained person with the caliber and gun they choose and practice with, will make no observable difference whatsoever, when it comes to one of those 3 calibers. I shoot, train and do police qualification courses and marksmanship courses quite often with all three of those calibers. And my scores from all three are always quite consistent and comparable.
Bottom line; Shoot and get good with what you like and prefer, and the rest will take care of itself.
"Beware of the man with just one gun. He probably knows how to use it." -Clint Smith
Last edited:
My EDC is a Glock 19. I like the Sub compact but its just too small to fit comfortably in my hands, the Compact (Glock 19) fits great in my hands and still conceals easily. I like the 9mm over the .40 simply for the price of ammunition. 9mm ammo is much less expensive then the .40 and you aren't sacrificing much by way of performance in my opinion. The variety of ammo in 9mm alone is excellent...Glock 19 FTW.
Off duty, I also carry a Glock 19. On duty, I carry a Glock 23. I also have a Glock 30 that just seems to collect dust anymore.
However, if ball ammo was all that I could obtain? I would be breaking that Glock 30 out of the gun safe.
However, if ball ammo was all that I could obtain? I would be breaking that Glock 30 out of the gun safe.
I own the 27, so I'm biased towards the .40. Bigger bullet.
- Thread starter
- #13
Cool thanks for the responses everyone. I'm leaning 9mm at this point. I may look into the Glock 43 as well. It's really tiny, and I would like a gun I could take running. I own the Beretta Nano now, and it just can't make the cut. It's a few ounces too heavy and weirdly balanced in my opinion. Most accurate gun I've ever shot though. Plus I just always come back to wanting a Glock in my head. Everyone in my family has a Glock and their sheer functionality and raw utility is hard to beat for me.
I chose the 27 as well,my mind was made up after I read that Fat Pete took a dozen rounds of 9mm to the torso,and is still walking around...http://jrrusso.blogspot.com/2009/02/peter-fat-pete-chiodo.html
Either way going Glock is not a bad choice.
My two cents...the .40 is the better option, without going into ballistics and all that jazz the stopping power wins out for me.
My two cents...the .40 is the better option, without going into ballistics and all that jazz the stopping power wins out for me.
garyg
B&B membership has its percs
I love the caliber debates, 9mm vs .40 is not even the latest in a line that probably goes back much further than I do. But, and just my humble 2 ¢, those that expouse the big capacity magazines do none of the gun owners a favor. If you are so lame a shot that 5 can't make it, for once you should take it ..
Dopers that shoot sideways, sure. Teenie boppers with zombie problems, right. If you can't hit on shot one or two even, you deserve it.
Dopers that shoot sideways, sure. Teenie boppers with zombie problems, right. If you can't hit on shot one or two even, you deserve it.
9mm. I'm a G19 fan as well.
Surprised to hear you say the nano is the most accurate gun you've ever shot. Not a comment I had heard about that particular weapon.
Surprised to hear you say the nano is the most accurate gun you've ever shot. Not a comment I had heard about that particular weapon.
- Thread starter
- #19
Haha really? I guess mine might be special then. Definitely super accurate for a subcompact. I pinged four full mags in a row on the target from about 25 yards a while ago.
I don't know much about these things. I did think this article was pretty interesting: http://concealednation.org/2014/10/...d-have-tons-of-science-behind-their-decision/
Similar threads
