9 mm or .40 cal - - Why Get One Over The Other?

[DblEGT 1]

I will be purchasing a Beretta 92A1 as soon as my FID / hg permit arrives. As you know this is a 9 mm.

 

Question:

Why would one want to get the 96A1, which is .40 cal, instead? I guess its a more powerful round, but again for range shooting and possibly (if ever?) home defense, isn't the 9 mm sufficient? Isn't 9 mm ammo cheaper than .40 cal ammo?

 

Or is it like the guy with the small-block V8 vs the guy with the big-block V8 ... the guy with the big-block wants the biggest and baddest version, and sometimes just because... Your thoughts?

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Or is it like the guy with the small-block V8 vs the guy with the big-block V8 ... the guy with the big-block wants the biggest and baddest version, and sometimes just because... Your thoughts?

 

 

That would be the .45 ACP

[vjf915 456]

9mm is cheaper than .40. Both rounds are relatively common though. 9mm is easier to shoot, however in the Beretta I wouldn't be surprised if the .40 was easier to tame. Ability to control and effectively put shots where they need to be is much more important than caliber. 9mm to the chest is more effective than .40 in the shoulder. Your best option is to shoot both guns and decide if the .40 is a manageable round for you. If not, there is no shame in going with the 9mm.

[Malsua 1,422]

Cost aside, .40 isn't as fun to shoot. I'd much rather shoot 9mm or .45.

 

If you're worried about stopping power, the difference between 9mm, .40 and .45 is very small. The #1 man killer is .357 magnum and even with a long barrel, it isn't something you want to run 100 rounds through. I can do 100 rounds of 9mm with each hand as a warm up

[Soju 153]

For your application, there is zero reason to get a .40S&W over 9mm in any handgun. 9mm is cheaper, generally easier/more fun to shoot, and more common/readily available. Also, the Beretta 92 platform was designed around the 9mm, while the 96 was designed for the .40 off of the 92 platform.

 

The .40 is a bigger round with more stopping power then the 9mm which people might like if they are in a position where this matters, like law enforcement. For range use, my 9mm does just as much damage to targets and the next guys .40. The only difference is I paid less then he did.

 

Get the 92.

[bry@n 195]

Personally, I have both. I shoot both calibers often enough and can't decide which one I would choose over the other. As far as follow up shots, I shoot both well, but the 9mm is easier to see the sites faster. It's only a fraction of difference though.

 

Of course, I am more of a SIGaholic and not a fan of the Beretta.

[ronhonda 86]

Speaking strictly from a competitive note;

I would get a 40s&w.

Gives me ability to use same gun in different divisions.

Also if you reload, minor or plinking loads for a 40s&w are super sweet.

[vjf915 456]

If you are going to be using this gun for HD, then shooting one ragged hole at 25 yards isn't that important. Consistently getting COM hits at 7-10 yards is a lot more important. If you can do that with a .40, that's what is important.

 

However, there is one more thing to consider......round type. Self defense 9mm rounds will be a better home defense round than FMJ .40. Point being...get self defense rounds regardless of which caliber you select.

[Maksim 1,504]

Humn. Why limit yourself?

 

Personally, I much prefer 9mm, and 45 over 40, however i just picked up a 40 caliber gun.

 

40 is a great round, however not as pleasant to shoot as it is much snappier, as opposed to the push of a 45, or a joy of a 9mm. The type of gun makes a difference too... are we shooting 40 out of a plastic glock that will rip your hand after 50 rounds, or a steel gun like a full size Sig 226 or a 1911/2011?

 

If you are going to shoot competitions, a 40 is more versatile for USPSA, especially if you reload. If not, go get a 9mm.=)

[GRIZ 3,369]

I have absolutely no use for the 40 and don't have any intentions of owning one. AFAIC the 40 was a gimmic to sell more guns after LE agencies went to 9mms in the 70s and 80s. More than a 9 less than a 45. The 40 is a little better than the 9mm. It doesn't do anything a 45 can't. Yeah there is a bit of personal prejudice here but I've got no use for a 40.

[Shane45 807]

When I was a member of the Ammolab, our findings were that with modern ammo, little seperated the effectiveness of most combat apllication calibers AS LONG AS it was a known performing round. The reason I would go 40 is simply mag avalability that meets max or below for the stupid capacity laws in this state!

[M4BGRINGO 139]

I have shot .40 with my friends Glock, followed by 9mm in another friends 90-TWO Baretta, followed by .45 in the first friends Taurus Judge (along with .410 shotgun shells).

 

I think the Glock with .40 had the most kick.

 

The 90-TWO was very smooth.

 

The Taurus was also very smooth, suprisingly! It feld about the same as the 9mm.

 

Even after all that I still plan on buying a Beretta 96FS INOX, I love the look and the feel.

 

And we won't get into the SB vs BB debate, I happen to have a SBC that will out-run most BBC's.

[Soju 153]

The reason I would go 40 is simply mag avalability that meets max or below for the stupid capacity laws in this state!

 

15 round magazines for the pistol he is looking at (in 9mm) just as common and available as the 17 rounders they are now using. And the .40 cal version is only 12 rounds...

[Dan 177]

IMO , 9mm is your most versatile and economical choice for range shooting / home defense usage. It was my first handgun round, and I recommend it to any new gunner. Cheap range ammo for the range, and good quality self defense ammo for home defense.

 

Afterwards, you can start toying with the idea of something different if you so choose to want something with a little more bang (.40,.45, etc or my favorite .357 sig). You will like having the 9mm first, as it could get expensive to feed these other mentioned calibers. I always fall back to my 9mm pistols when the ammo funds are low.

 

Good luck!

[bry@n 195]

I starter with .40 and like the round a lot. Like many have said, if you reload, it's a great round.

[vjf915 456]

It doesn't do anything a 45 can't.

 

.40 S&W (180gr at 950)

.45 ACP (185gr at 1000)

 

Very similar velocity for similar bullet weight. You can also get a lighter weight and get a pretty significant gain in velocity. You also get more rounds for similar size mags. It's a difference of opinion....but to say that .40 doesn't have it's place isn't an accurate statement.

[tommy3rd 132]

Since you also asked about HD rounds and people are talking about reloads on the .40, please don't ever use reloads for home defense. Buy factory made ones and practice as much using those same rounds you buy.

[Vlad G 345]

As far as I can tell there are 3 purposes for owning a handgun: self defense, competition, plinking.

 

For self defense, most studies, research, etc will tell you on the average it takes at least 2 rounds to incapacitate someone, no matter what the caliber, including the mighty .357. This is assuming quality self defense ammunition which has made huge strides in the last 10 years or so and proper shot control. 9mm recoils less, its cheaper (which means you can afford to practice more), it is more available, and it fits more rounds. The last one is not as insignificant as it sounds ("Wait, wait, you just told me 2 rounds was all I needed") because that 2 round number still only works around 50% of the time.

 

Yes, yes, real men use a .45 and nothing else because the 9mm might expand to .45 caliber in a self defense situation, but the .45 starts there, blah blah. The .45 is great round, but it costs twice as much, recoils twice as much, guns hold half the rounds but it is not twice the cartridge. Fun to shoot, but not what I want on my bedside, for one simple reason: I don't practice with it as much.

 

Keep in mind that 9mm Parabelum and .45ACP are over 100 years old now. That's not something terrible by itself, but they are cartridges designed for a certain era in handgun design, and spec'ed to certain materials technologies of the day. They are both contemporary with the model T, the biplane, steam trains, the Titanic, and the end of the cowboy era. They sure still kill people, but can we do better?

 

I am a big fan of the .40S&W (also known as the .40Short&Weak by 10mm fans, but they are just silly). It has nearly the muzzle energy of a .45 and nearly the capacity of a 9mm. With modern bullet design it performs as well as anything else if not better. If you hand load it is a VERY flexible cartridge, if you buy factory ammo it splits the difference in price between the other two. Its one drawback is perceived recoil, it is more of a snap then the push of a .45, and frankly it somewhat reminds of what a .357 feels like, but less so. On the the other hand my wife is 5ft tall, with little upper body strength and she likes her personal .40S&W so man up . It is also the favorite of competition shooters.

 

So to conclude .. Buy the 9mm. You will practice more, the lesser recoil doesn't induce bad habits as much the others, it works just fine with proper ammo, the extra practice will help with shot placement which is what really matters, it is cheaper, and frankly ... it makes your range bag weight less. The last one sounds silly until you decide that it would be cool to shoot a 3gun match with your 1911 and after you pack up all the gear you realize how much 200 rounds fo .45 REALLY weighs, trust me, I know.

[Sigman 41]

I would go with the 92FS (9mm) for a first gun and add other calibers down the road. I shoot many different calibers including .40S&W. The gun will make a big difference in the felt recoil. A Sig P226 in .40S&W will recoil about the same as a glock 9mm. I have a .40S&W Sig P226 which shoots awesome - very smooth shooter. A metal framed gun will absorb more recoil. This is my perception, others may have different thoughts. I don't think I would get a polymer framed gun in .40S&W unless it was a full size frame. I've shot .40 sub compacts and don't care for them.

[Shane45 807]

One thing to consider is the bullet launcher its self. So if the role is defensive/offensive and its a 1911, only the 45 will do IMO. If its a crunch and ticker, get whichever one blows your skirt up.

[NJdiverTony 27]

I'm fairly new to handguns, but I can say from personal experience while firing several different pistols of several different calibers, the .40 was the least pleasant to shoot. Very snappy, almost rude, recoil. This is just own my opinion of the .40 caliber round... There are others that will tell you that they really like it, though. So it's all subjective.

 

The 9mm is a pleasure to shoot in the Beretta 92, and of course the .45 ACP through a 1911 is just awesome to shoot as well. That is why I picked up the 92A1 as my first pistol (and I love it!) and now have a new 1911 waiting at the FFL's shop for me until my OGAM waiting period is up.

 

Eric, if I were you, just stick with teh 92A1 for your first pistol... and you will not regret it. After you get your 92A1, and you spend some time with it at the range, try shooting some other pistols of various calibers and see what you like before deciding on what you want your next pistol purchase to be.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Good discussion, which is of particular interest to me, for reasons I'll explain. Lots of well-considered replies, especially from Vlad G. (Do we really have two Vlads on here?)

 

My only firearm so far is a Glock 23, which is a S&W .40 caliber, for anyone unfamiliar with it. I had planned on getting a 9mm, not that I knew anything about it, but just because I had heard of it. I ended up with the .40 caliber because my LEO friend told me I was less likely to put a round into my neighbor's house with it. Also, his buddy was selling it.

 

Without any frame of reference for comparisons, in my first session shooting it, I was stunned by how powerful it felt, and how loud it sounded. As I have become more familiar with it, and acquired better hearing protection, it has become a lot more comfortable (and accurate).

 

Nonetheless, when I get my next set of P2P's (in the next few days, I hope), I plan to get a Glock 19. I've already stocked up on 9mm ammo, and am looking forward to what I hope will be a smoother shooting experience. After that, I'll get a Beretta 92A1, thanks largely to the strong recommendations of NJdiverTony and others.

 

As others have noted, there's no reason to limit yourself to one or the other. Get one of both. Better yet, get a few of both!

[bry@n 195]

Good discussion, which is of particular interest to me, for reasons I'll explain. Lots of well-considered replies, especially from Vlad G. (Do we really have two Vlads on here?)

 

My only firearm so far is a Glock 23, which is a S&W .40 caliber, for anyone unfamiliar with it. I had planned on getting a 9mm, not that I knew anything about it, but just because I had heard of it. I ended up with the .40 caliber because my LEO friend told me I was less likely to put a round into my neighbor's house with it. Also, his buddy was selling it.

 

Without any frame of reference for comparisons, in my first session shooting it, I was stunned by how powerful it felt, and how loud it sounded. As I have become more familiar with it, and acquired better hearing protection, it has become a lot more comfortable (and accurate).

 

Nonetheless, when I get my next set of P2P's (in the next few days, I hope), I plan to get a Glock 19. I've already stocked up on 9mm ammo, and am looking forward to what I hope will be a smoother shooting experience. After that, I'll get a Beretta 92A1, thanks largely to the strong recommendations of NJdiverTony and others.

 

As others have noted, there's no reason to limit yourself to one or the other. Get one of both. Better yet, get a few of both!

 

 

I think with time, if you dedicate training to a .40 gun, you will get better at it.

 

I prefer 9mm and .45 myself but sometimes just shoot 40 for months and have no issues.

 

Not sure I will ever get a g23 though.

[DblEGT 1]

For your application, there is zero reason to get a .40S&W over 9mm in any handgun. 9mm is cheaper, generally easier/more fun to shoot, and more common/readily available. Also, the Beretta 92 platform was designed around the 9mm, while the 96 was designed for the .40 off of the 92 platform.

 

The .40 is a bigger round with more stopping power then the 9mm which people might like if they are in a position where this matters, like law enforcement. For range use, my 9mm does just as much damage to targets and the next guys .40. The only difference is I paid less then he did.

 

Get the 92.

 

Good advice, thanks !

[DblEGT 1]

IMO , 9mm is your most versatile and economical choice for range shooting / home defense usage. It was my first handgun round, and I recommend it to any new gunner. Cheap range ammo for the range, and good quality self defense ammo for home defense.

 

Afterwards, you can start toying with the idea of something different if you so choose to want something with a little more bang (.40,.45, etc or my favorite .357 sig). You will like having the 9mm first, as it could get expensive to feed these other mentioned calibers. I always fall back to my 9mm pistols when the ammo funds are low.

 

Good luck!

 

You guys offer the best advice ... thanks ! This is why I enjoy being a member on the NJGF.

[DblEGT 1]

I would go with the 92FS (9mm) for a first gun and add other calibers down the road. I shoot many different calibers including .40S&W. The gun will make a big difference in the felt recoil. A Sig P226 in .40S&W will recoil about the same as a glock 9mm. I have a .40S&W Sig P226 which shoots awesome - very smooth shooter. A metal framed gun will absorb more recoil. This is my perception, others may have different thoughts. I don't think I would get a polymer framed gun in .40S&W unless it was a full size frame. I've shot .40 sub compacts and don't care for them.

 

92FS? Ha! I'm going with the 92A1, the 2010 version of the 92FS. Wouldn't be seen with that "old" 92FS..... (just kidding)

[DblEGT 1]

I'm fairly new to handguns, but I can say from personal experience while firing several different pistols of several different calibers, the .40 was the least pleasant to shoot. Very snappy, almost rude, recoil. This is just own my opinion of the .40 caliber round... There are others that will tell you that they really like it, though. So it's all subjective.

 

The 9mm is a pleasure to shoot in the Beretta 92, and of course the .45 ACP through a 1911 is just awesome to shoot as well. That is why I picked up the 92A1 as my first pistol (and I love it!) and now have a new 1911 waiting at the FFL's shop for me until my OGAM waiting period is up.

 

Eric, if I were you, just stick with teh 92A1 for your first pistol... and you will not regret it. After you get your 92A1, and you spend some time with it at the range, try shooting some other pistols of various calibers and see what you like before deciding on what you want your next pistol purchase to be.

 

Tony -

Another new gun? And so soon? You Da Man !! I definitely will get the Beretta 92A1 (GREAT all-around pistol), but my son keeps mentioning "how about a 1911"? I'll just have to go to the range with you!! :-)

[DblEGT 1]

After that, I'll get a Beretta 92A1, thanks largely to the strong recommendations of NJdiverTony and others.

 

Thats now two people I know that Tony's convinced to get the 92A1. Hey, I wonder if he works for Beretta? :-)

[NJdiverTony 27]

Thats now two people I know that Tony's convinced to get the 92A1. Hey, I wonder if he works for Beretta? :-)

 

I wish! It probably would be more fun working for a gun company than working a boring corporate job like I do now!

[Ray Ray 3,566]

9mm, hands down