Although I understand the appeal of a lighter recoiling 9mm pistol, 40 S&W is hardly 454 Casull. The first time I shot one, I couldn't understand what all the talk about snappy recoil was about. Also, I must admit that I still have a problem with the currently fashionable idea that the power of a cartridge isn't really important. I know all about the FBI study, but this just seems counter-intuitive to me. Otherwise, why aren't we all carrying .380s? Plus, the people who complain about .40 being "snappy", don't seem to have any problem with stout 9mm +P loads in a micro 9 carry pistol. I've fired 124gr +P Gold Dots out of a Ruger LC9s and found it to be FAR snappier than any .40 pistol I've shot! Both are very good cartridges... period.
Don't you be coming here with logic, reason, experience and evidence! You can prove anything with facts you know!! Show some decorum. This is the internet! 😂😂
Subjectively, recoil depends on the shooters skills and comfort level, objectively, .40 hits harder than a 9, shoots faster than a .45, and going through soft barriers maintains a flatter trajectory with less deviation than either. People who follow fads will always follow fads, but .40 ain't dead.
I personally feel all calibers have a place and none should be shunned, not even. 25 acp. My dad is very frail and weak. He has a .38 j frame he shoots and be carried a .25 as a deep back up. I even have a .32 for deep concealment when there's nothing else I can carry. I collect guns in .380, 9mm, .40, and .45 as well as .38 special and .357 magnum. When I can carry my .40 subcompact XD I do. But sometimes 28 ounces is too much so I go down in caliber. I like the heft to mitigate recoil and I live in a 10 round max jurisdiction so having 9+1 .40 is about as good as it gets. I only really carry it when going into LA tbh. I use a .45 XD as my night stand gun. .45 imho is better for indoors to save my ears. And I like those fat bullets for the 10+1 from the 5" barrel. I usually pack a pair of revolvers tbh. One in .357 and one in .38. I also am no opposed to .380, that's another good caliber and my wife likes her beretta cheetah and tomcat. .40 has its place for sure, more flexible than 9mm if you live in black bear or mountain lion country too.
@@taasch2505I know I can trust this because you don't limit the round to, "what stands out about it?" and address that it's not as simple as bigger numbers.
If y'all had trained as much with the .40 as you have with the 9, you would probably have shot it quite well. Is the .40 worth it? Each of us must make that decision. Personally I like them both and I carry and train more with the 9 because the ammo is simply more affordable.
what Colt said. Some of the 40 ammo gets into 357 Sig energies. Very worth it, if all you had was a 40 weapon. I like it. My go-to gun is more often than not a 40, simply because it lives in my truck. Concealing at work...that's a micro 9 or a 380.
9 is just a conversion barrel ammo for me. Strictly for repetitive drills to reinforce muscle memory, then swap barrels and go to the 40 for more drills. It's only budget, because shooting a thousand rounds a week of anything beyond 9 or .22 is prohibitively expensive. Pushing a backup or symbolic caliber (9) into primary use is not responsible
I appreciate the testimony of those that have personal experience with both .9mm and .40 cal. I feel those testimonies are more reliable and true. Most agree as I do, the .40 cal has advantages over the .9mm, especially when you practice as much with the .40 cal as you practice with the .9mm. Yet, most say the only rea-son they reluctantly still carry and practice with the .9mm is the cost of rounds. Please someone put all my anxieties to rest with the answer to this question. If .40 cal ammo were the same or below the price of .9mm ammo would we carry and practice more with the .40 cal?.
*The .40 Smith and Wesson got a BAD REPUTATION. Not because of the cartridge itself, but the RECOIL SPRINGS of the guns that chambered it.* *HAVE A DPM Systems spring system, in my .40 M&P 2.0 Compact... and it's GREAT.*
Greetings. I think I can add to this discussion. I’ve been shooting the .40 caliber for over 20 years. I’ve qualified with it on various platforms and I’ve seen the ballistic tests and unfortunately, the end result of actual shootings with it. My agency transitioned to the 9mm Glock 17 from the Glock 22 last year. I shoot them equally well, but the 9mm is a little more docile. The accuracy, capacity and softer recoil are great advantages. With that said, I’ve seen the result of more recent shootings with the 9mm G2 Gold Dot and I’m not impressed to be honest. The .40 has better barrier penetration, better against auto glass and heavy clothing. The final diameter is ever so slightly bigger than 9mm, which would hopefully hit something vital to stop a threat. Handguns are terrible “man stoppers,” but I want to extract as much advantage out my weapon’s terminal ballistics. My preference for a full-size duty weapon is still a .40 caliber handgun. That is my preference, but I think the 9mm is adequate most of the time and will prefer it for smaller concealed carry weapons.
I used to shoot a lot of 40 before arthritis started taking over. I never really had a problem with the recoil but I trained with it often. The 40 definitely has more energy. It’s a great round.
9mm is a great caliber, especially for women since the recoil is slightly less. But as a man, i carry a .40, more power, heavier, faster, will drop a subject faster. I choose the .40 over the 9mm, as i choose the 9mm over the .380
It just depends on how effective you want your shots to be. The 40 S&W is just clearly more effective in stopping power. The 9mm gives you a couple of more shots in most pistols. Since I don't plan on getting in a 50 or 60 round shoot out, I like the .40 S&W.
When I made my first choice of 45 over 9mm it was because I had learned to prefer the recoil impulse. To me .45 had a push, 9mm had a snap. I've of course switched to 9mm since then and also discovered plenty of firearms that aren't snappy in 9mm.
I have the original Shield M&P .40c (compact) I've used as my EDC for almost 10 years now. I've never been more dead-on accurate out of the box with absolutely zero failures or jams. I have big hands (need XXL) gloves and the clip they provided with the pinky extension fits like a dream in my hand. That being said I also recently picked up a Taurus G3c in 9mm so now I have the best of both worlds... I can be proficient in multiple calibers and any ammo shortages will affect me less.
Interesting and thoughtful comparison. I have six .40 cal pistols (and one carbine), and I carried a Glock 27 the last 10 years of my LE career. But now that I'm retired, I stick with 9mm for my daily carry. The .40 is "snappier" than a 9 and I'd almost rather shoot a .45 than a .40. But this video did get me looking into the DPMS recoil reduction system.
@@chipwhitley3906 In terms of just pure performance it is. 9mm is closing the gap with +P ammo, but then you have added recoil and wear on your guns anyway.
@@chipwhitley3906 You’ll still get faster wear on internal parts such as recoil spring, trigger spring, extractor, slide lock spring. It’s just physics, +p generates higher pressures so it will cause wear at a higher rate than regular 9mm ammo. But that’s beside the point. In terms of pure ballistics the .40 cal is a bigger bullet, has more power, offers better penetration and expansion. No question about it. But it has its drawbacks so you can’t really say it’s superior to the 9mm because these differences in performance are becoming less noticeable with modern 9mm ammunition loads. But with 9mm you get more Magazine capacity.
@@R.Tafolla not entirely you can get the same round count with something like a glock shooting nothing but plus p. I have seen it I guarantee I shoot much more then you. Also 9mm does penetrate better and the wound channels between to the two are virtually the same. With 9mm I get cheaper ammo and ballistically superior projectile cause 9mm slugs are typically longer, higher capacity faster follow up shots etc etc. 40 sucks signed a professional shooter
Thank you for comparison. I transitioned from magnum revolvers to autos in late 90s. I carried snubby up to 6" 357 mags for a good # of years. Originally intending to go with a 10mm, I settled on the 40. Though I have carried some 9mm & 45acp on occasion, my primary carry has been 40 for over 2 decades. I do typically get 9mm conversion barrels for range & course/training. That is mainly for economic reasons. Recoil isn't a major factor. But it is noticably less with 9 but not substantial with defensive ammo in my opinion. Thank you again. Well done.
I have a Polymer80 with 9mm & 40 S&W barrels and springs. Yes, there's a difference, but not much. Since it's strictly a range/gamer setup (NOT self defense), the 9mm setup has a lot more mileage. For EDC my pocket guns are 9mm, my full sized guns are .40, 10, and .357. My P365 in 9mm is a lot less fun to shoot than my 1911 .40 S&W.
I have both a 9mm and .40 S&W 2.0 compact and the difference in recoil is hardly noticeable. I do tend to shoot the .40 more at the range it is my designated nightstand pistol loaded with 180 HST but also have the 165 HST in the safe. Personally I feel it’s an underrated and under appreciated round.
What I don't understand is people Gripe about the RECOIL of the 40cal. But they can shoot a MORE POWERFUL 10mm. ("IMO") it's just whatever the biggest youtube'r is Promoting & putting on the pedestal
Though groups like Leviathan Tribe certainly try to sway your opinion, I think it comes down to the pistol and the recoil impulse. To me 10mm has more push than .40, but that's also very platform-dependent.
I have a gen 1 Glock 23 with almost 60k rounds through it. Love the gun and carried it daily for almost 25 years and 30 classes. As much as the 40 can provide superior ballistics over 9mm the need really isn't there when 9mm is cheaper, lighter weight, lighter recoiling and has a higher capacity while offering enough penetration to reach vital organs even after getting through barriers. I carried a CZ P10C for a few years and now a 365 or XL.
I’ve always had a .40. I wanted a new updated firearm and couldn’t find what I wanted in a .40. I settled for a 9mm. We’ll see if I can adjust and like it. BTW I have been as accurate with the .40 as any of the shooters in my group of friends on the range using 9mm.
Shot placement trumps caliber. Use what you can get hits with reliably and what you're willing to train with. One advantage to 9mm is capacity. Another is longer life of your guns and parts.
Shot placement is difficult for average Joe’s who don’t practice and aren’t trained. Hell, most police don’t hit center mass when the 💩 hits the fan. I’d take 9mm all day long over 40.
@@69deputy Standing still and shooting at paper isn't training at all. It's practice. I assume the choice of gun for most people, outside the collector and competition world, is personal defense. Shot placement is most important in that context. Training will address awareness, assessing risk, how to place shots under stress, while moving, seeking cover and more. The first to get hits on anatomically significant zones is usually the one(s) to survive. That's valuable a skill set. Its worth determining what cartridge gives you the best odds of such a successful outcome. Right?
If you buy a pistol that was designed around the .40 and not a 9mm somebody decided to shove .40 through it'll make a difference. I've got a Rugers SR40/SR9 and S&W M&P 40/9 mm and there's not much difference in the recoil. My SR40 is my wife's favorite next to her Ruger American 9mm. There is no difference in the wear and tear with 9,000 plus rounds through the Rugers and just over 5,000 through the S&Ws. Each their own. I'm going to try and scrounge up something in .357 Sig when ammo comes back to reality.
It's definitely a swap you gotta train your brain to accept. When you do, it's just a slight difference that doesn't affect anything but your preferences. I respect the purpose of .40 and carry it. I still question that decision and the answer will come when and if the situation comes. Thanks for your veiwpoint!
About 20% more energy ain't bad at all if you don't mind the ammo cost and increased recoil. Like most things, what you train with is what you'll be best with.
I also added the DPM Recoil Management System to my Glock 23, Gen. 3. Primarily to save the polymer frame from getting battered from additional training as it’s my primary CCW pistol and have been very pleasantly surprised with how easier it is to get well aimed, follow-up shots on target. A step-up of approximately 20% more in ballistic performance, is nothing to sneeze at.
Thanks for your post. I have pistols in 9mm and 40 S&W. Both are manageable but the 40 S&W does have more felt recoil. That said, there are good reasons why our local police departments continue to carry 40 S&W pistols, specifically Glock 22s.
I carried a G22c as a duty gun for years. Being compensated made it feel more like a 9mm, but I swapped back to 9mm when the opportunity arose. I'm not a 40cal fan. Cost, increase toll on pistol parts and availability issue, 9mm wins 🏆
.40 is no higher in pressure than any standard 9mm load. Idk where the “harder on parts” rhetoric comes from or why it’s so often repeated. Just change parts when the mfgr recommends and it will last you no matter what it’s chambered for
Great job! I think the general public has been sold on the 9mm because of round count and being a softer shooter. I have both and see the advantages of both. It's like comparing the .380 and the 9mm using the same argument. Thier is nothing wrong with .40 S&W folks! Just think of it as 10mm short. Just my opinion
I have a Sig P226 ST with .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and Bar-Sto 9mm conversion barrels. The extra weight of an all stainless steel full-sized gun tames the recoil of .357 and .40 nicely. However, it still demonstrates what most older guys have known for 30ish years. 9mm has less recoil and is generally easier to handle than .357 Sig/.40 S&W in the same gun. I reckon people can say they can't tell any difference if they feel it scores them extra points. I like them all and don't have any issue handling recoil, but I can tell the difference. You can't change the laws of physics. 9mm just doesn't have the same energy. I'm not saying it's not enough; it's just not as much, and you should be able to feel the difference.
People think caliber is the engine when it's just the tires - at most. Shot placement is pretty much all that matters especially with lightweight short barreled subcompacts.
I'm not much for caliber debates, so I use multiple options of Glock with the DPM system. It's hard to beat the overall cost of the 9 or the flexibility of the 40. I have used the 40 for years with a hardcast for hunting purposes. Yes, it's legal where I hunted. I added in the 10mm and all bases are covered. I think you two did a great job. I hope the comments stay civil.
@@GBGuns they have worked incredibly. I saw the biggest difference in 40S&W and 10mm. But it smoothed the impulse on the 9mm so much I can stay on a running jackrabbit quite easily. I have had them for about 10 or 12 years now.
The only 40 cal I'm interested in getting is the USP40. Insfead of whaf many companies do where they take a 9mm gun and scale it up for the 40s&w, it is one of the only if not the only gun specifically designed around the cartridge which really peaks my interest, on top of the recoil reduction mechanism
I have guns chambered in both 9 and .40, and they both have their place. 9mm is definitely easier to shoot fast, but it's not as versatile as the .40 S&W. If I'm hiking or camping in bear country, I want my .40 with some Buffalo Bore or Underwood +P hard cast. The 9mm might get it done with the right ammunition, but a hot .40 load is on par with 10mm or .357 magnum. It can definitely do some things 9mm can't.
Love them both. I grew up shooting only .40 and .45 (that's what my dad shot and that's what he used to teach me) so I'm very familiar with the recoil. I didn't really started shooting 9mm until I found a really good deal for the original M&P Shield when S&W constantly ran those promotions back in the day. I still prefer the benefits of .40 but I also trust my life with 9mm. The Glock 23 and Beretta PX4 Storm in .40 are my EDC during the winter months while the M&P Shield is what I carry in the summer or whenever I go exercise.
I have a 9mm subcompact G26 and a .40 full size G22. 124gr +P 9mm seems to be snappier than 165gr out of the .40 in these firearms. I rotate the two as EDC depending upon my mood, the weather, and where I’m going.
After years of shooting revolvers (.45 Colt, .38 Special, .357 Mag.) I got my first training with semiautomatic handguns on 9mm. And, in all honesty I've always found them to be on the lite side. Almost a "Ladies" gun, for those of dainty builds. My .45 acp and my .40 S&W shoot about the same. I've never even thought much about "Recoil" as being a factor in my shooting. BUT, if I did competition shooting, it might be a different story. When the US military switched over to 9mm, back in the 80's, all the "Old Timers" were laughing about it for years. And everyone, without exception said: "If you can't handle .45 , YOU DON'T BELONG IN THE MILITARY!!!" A sentiment I'm in total agreement with. 😉
I can handle any caliber however, if I were in a gun fight I'd rather have something that doesn't make me wince at the thought of the next shot. Signed, yours truly, Army Veteran Teya 😉
@@asherdie wince /wins/verb To give a slight involuntary grimace or shrinking movement of the body out of or in anticipation of pain or distress. Sometimes called a flinch on the range
I liked your review! I adjusted my spring by removing 1/4th with my tools and dropped the recoil below my 9mm pistols. This is my 1st .40 SD40VE from a pawn shop. Under $350.
I made (almost) the very same experiment recently. I always stuck with 9mm, using the same theory I use for down-loading my Cowboy Action Shooting ammo: I want fast follow ups! Also, the real world FBI shooting stats available showed there was no noticeable difference between 9mm, .40 and .45 so I stuck with the fast follow up theory, but… After noticing there was more .40 on the shelves this past year the .40 Beretta PX4 Storm LE trade in I found at the latest gun show seemed like it might be something to have around in a pinch. It was the right price so I bought it. The shooting experience with the rotating barrel system was not too bad. Note that I don’t have the same gun in 9mm so I can only compare it to a variety of Sigs, Glock clones and a VP9. So my conclusion is that for day to day use and carry I will stick with 9mm but it wouldn’t be a big deal to switch to the Beretta if I had to. Now, here’s something else: I also have a 9mm pistol caliber AR pistol (P320 mag adapter). I have to wonder why more .40 people didn’t also get/make a matching .40 AR pistol to go with their handgun. A .40 AR pistol,seems like it might be something to behold but I don’t ever remember seeing one. I have a JRC .45ACP carbine that rips the center out of the target at 25-30 yards and I’d have to think the same thing in .40 would be fearsome, indeed! Anyway, that’s all I’ve got. The .40, to me, has always been a perfectly valid round. I just rejected it for my personal use.
@CaveWyatt gen4 G22 & G35 and CMMG BANSHEE 40CAL. They all share several 15rd & 22rd glock mags and a 50rd drum. Took them to the range yesterday to test POI of my new batch of 180gr Federal HST. Took shots at 25, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 100yrds. The banshee put all shots from 25yrds to 80yrds into a 1.5" hole and only a 6" drop at 100yrds. The 165gr HST has a 2" rise at 50yrds and the 60, 70, & 80yrd shots are within 1" back down to 🎯 and a 5.5" drop at 100yrds. Even though I'm hooked on an M&P 2.0 I purchased a year ago, I love that 40cal trio. And the Banshee loves the 180GR HST vz. the 165gr HST, go figure.
@fernandoperez8587 CMMG BANSHEE has a 40cal with an 8" barrel vs. their 10mm with a 5" barrel. Chronographed several different brands and grains of 40s&w vs the same brands and grains in 10mm. The velocity (fps) and energy (ft/lbs) were slightly better out of the 8" barrel. So I'm getting 10mm performance and ballistics out of 40s&w ammo for the much cheaper 40s&w prices, and more readily available ammo at any given time.
GREAT VIDEO, thanks for taking the time to do it, I like 180 grain 40S&W with the DPM recoil system, its a hard hitting round with less over penetration compare to the the 115 grain 9mm.
I enjoy watching demos between the 9mm and 40 cal. My HK p30 v3. 40 handles the 40 great and with less recoil than many 9mm I tried. My 5'2, 110lbs girlfriend was able to rapid shoot my hk p30 and she loved it. I believe the quality of gun used makes a big difference
Was the test done to see if the extra cost of the .40 was worth it? or the ease of shooting the .9mm makes one a more accurate shooter? No! the test was done to determine, between the two, .9mm vs .40 cal is the most powerful. Score 1 for the .40 cal.
The first semi-auto I ever shot was a Colt Commander .45acp and my very first carry piece was a J Frame model 60 in .357 mag. So to be honest, recoil sensitivity has never been an issue for me. That being said, my first semi-auto carry pistol was a Beretta 96 in .40cal. To be fair the pistol was a boat anchor weight wise so recoil would not be nearly as abusive as 40 is out of a polymer pistol. I have since shot M&P Shield 40 and 45 Kahr Arms poly framed pistols and it is far from a pleasant experience and is something that you have to acclimate yourself to through consistent training to become proficient and immune to the increased impulse. I think the reason that 40cal popularity dwindled is that with so many defense departments and LE departments transitioning to a polymer striker fired sidearm for capacity versus weight pushed ammunition manufacturers to really fine tune 9mm ballistics. It has proven to be a very effective caliber for personal defense and let's face it a 30 caliber variant has been in use with a sidearm effectively for nearly 2 centuries. 9mm is just the most recent and popular of those variants. It could be argued that a larger projectile not moving at as fast of a rate has more "man stopping/knockdown" power, but when it comes to lethality of a round the .22 has the highest statistics for lives taken of any caliber known. How can you justify the argument when statistics such as that suggest that size and speed are for the manly ego?
Good comparison, but though the .40 cal penetrated farther than the 9mm regardless of old or new bullets, how much mass and penetration would you have with the newer bullet tech used on the 9mm, yet with the .40? Not dropping my .40. My EMP is constructed to handle the .40 handily and repeatedly, and reloading leaves little difference in price.
I started into pistols with .45ACP. What I quickly learned is that once you go below a 5" barrel you're not getting much out of the gun. I mistakenly carried a 3.8" for a while, didn't know any better until I was at a bowling pin match and noticed it was easier to clear the bowling pins with a 4" 9mm than a 3.8" .45. The reason: 4" 9mm has more energy! Not just how hard the round hits a target, but with defensive ammo you also run the risk of hollow points not hitting fast enough to open on impact. Fortunately these days there are projectiles and loads designed to perform well in short barrels, but it was eye opening for me.
I carry an XD subcompact 9mm in the summer and an XD sub compact.45 in the winter. I live in Iowa and in rhe winter in can get just a bit nippy out and people dress for it. So if a hollow point plugs up with material from a heavy garment and turns basically into ball at least it's big ball.
Here’s my argument… Both of you went into shooting the .40 with preconceived bias. I’m not buying the whole “painful to shoot” mantra. That is purely subjective. If you want 9mm characteristics, by all means use 9mm! One point you will be hard-pressed to convince others of is this - that choosing a 9mm combined with the smallest pocket carry you can find is more pleasant and easier to shoot than a full-size or compact .40. That dog don’t hunt! I agree that .40 pocket guns can be even worse, but that is to be expected. For those who swallow the FBI Kool-aid, keep in mind that “hollow point” bullet technology is not 100%. Far from it. The .40 was conceived due to deficiencies (real or imagined) with the 9mm. Any technology that goes into 9mm bullet construction can equally go into any caliber. When technology fails, physics won’t, and heavier bullets can be decisive. Manufacturers have beefed up slides on their offerings in .40 since the first ones were rushed into production. The additional weight is better for the gun and the shooter. I personally think the 40S&W is better now than it was at conception, and the manufacturers have addressed the deficiencies experienced in their early offerings. I think it is hilarious to hear people who champion the 9mm as the supreme caliber refer to the .40S&W as “short and weak” after complaining that they can’t control it. The .45acp and 10mm fans originally coined the phrase, as the .40 is more apt to cast shadows on their favorite cartridge -yet it’s the 9mm crowd who chants it the loudest. 😂 I don’t dislike the 9mm. It is a good cartridge and I have often wondered why the FBI didn’t arm themselves with long guns before confronting the bank robbers in the 1986 Miami shoot-out. They knew what they were going up against. We’ve all been taught to use your handgun to fight your way to a long gun… Maybe they thought their 9mm was superior as well?
I have 3 .40 S&W pistols. A Glock 22, M&P 2.0 Subcompact and a Beretta PX4 Storm. The Glock and M&P slam hard. The Beretta PX4 Storm with its rotating barrel mitigates recoil substantially.
Recoil is an individual perception. If you have a previous injury in your hand, wrist or elsewhere in your arm, you may be very sensitive to the recoil pulse. It bothers some but not others. I've shot both 9mm and .40 (10mm) and I can't really tell much difference. Of course, I've shot 41 and 44 magnums quite a bit so recoil doesn't bother me too much. Both cartridges operate at the same pressures but a fair test would be to try a 9mm with a 147 gr bullet next to a .40 S&W with a 155 gr or 165 gr bullet. The perceived recoil should be relatively similar. Of course, there is the ergonomics factor as well. If the pistol doesn't fit you hand, recoil may be more pronounced than another pistol that does fit your hand.
My personal carry is a 9 for the compact size and lighter weight. My duty carry is a 40. I like them both. Ammunition is key for performance, especially with the 9. I do prefer a 40 if could only pick one.
I have both the .40 S&W and 9mm in the exact same gun, both full sized polymer frames with 4.5" barrels and have been shooting the .40 S&W since the '90s. I was told a long time ago to relax my grip and not stiffen it as I was (I'm not going to share the exact words but that's what was conveyed). After putting that into practice my shots have always been in tight groupings and very consistent with my .40 S&W. I've gone to the range (not to boast, that's not my thing), set up my target (the typical person silhouette) at 20 - 40 feet which is what I'd consider a typical defense distance and put my two first shots in the middle of the head and heart from a defensive draw each time I go, call that practice, muscle memory or whatever, it works for me in a defensive scenario. I do have a natural ability for shooting but feel the advise previously mentioned really put my shooting on a different level and solved any negative anticipation in regards to recoil making my accuracy inside of 50 yards exceptional. Very infrequently when I've switched to the 9mm at the range to see 'what I've been missing', I've found the recoil to be 'bouncy' or 'springy', almost toy like and understand the difference most speak of. That isn't some macho put down of the 9mm it's to suggest that when shooting the .40 try and relax your grip instead of fighting it, just a suggestion since you already have the gun. I recently purchased a micro 9mm with a 3" barrel which resurrected my interest in the 9mm again which is how I came across your video. Try and loosen your grip on the .40 and see how that fairs, I'm looking forward to relearning and resurrecting my 9mm muscle memory which is most certainly suffering from atrophy, figuratively speaking. P.S. I came across a .40 S&W vs 9mm video I found very interesting (link below) it's worth the watch especially at the 12:55 mark, thanks for your video, enjoy! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LTTDgZZZFa0.html
I've been shooting the 40 since it was introduced. Before that I was shooting .357 Mag exclusively. Both are powerful and can be intimidating to new shooters. The one shot stop numbers over the years tend to favor the 40. It boils down to your personal comfort level. I can shoot a 40 all day and am thinking about shot placement not recoil. Of course the gun makes a big difference. How it fits your hand and how the the trigger breaks and resets are always factors. My CZ P-o6 .40 and my M&P .40 are great shooters but that said, I also shoot the 9mm versions of those guns just as well and enjoy them too! I carry factory ammo and shoot my reloads at the range.
I have my next range day all planned out, taking all three of my P99's in 9mm, .40 cal. and .45 cal. (this is a SW99) and compare the recoil of all three. I think I need to get a new recoil spring for my .40, it was a police turn in. Great Vid.
I have a 40 and a 45 from s&w TBH out of the box I did not notice a big difference in recoil between 40 & 45 granted this is not comparing against the 9mm
I prefer 9mm but, also have a G35 to play with. The one benefit of a Glock in .40 is being able to switch between different calibers with conversion barrels.
For us 9mm was a natural choice as it costs less per round and is the world's most popular handgun cartridge. Making videos is expensive so we do what we can to ensure it will be seen.
Did my own research a while ago...which admittedly involved a lot of looking at ballistic tables on lucky gunner. Recoil aside, which you just shown can be mitigated greatly with proper parts; in the end, it just comes down to what is the most comfortable, and reliably accurate, to shoot; for both you, and your wallet.
The DPM system's are great and definitely worth the money, only thing is they don't work in my revolver's. I do have 2 Ruger PCCs one in 9mm and 1 in 40cal. I don't feel much difference out of a rifle except when I use Buffalo Bore, but even that is still pretty easy. It does have more of a punch. I bought the 40 before our friend the Coronavirus came around and they were just about giving 40cal away. Have a great night my 2A brother's and sister's. Sincerely Ruger Rich
When you put the upgraded spring in the .40sw then come back and be honest about your comparison. I have identical xd pistols in both calibers and really can't feel the difference between the two. Balisticaly there is a substantial difference. Seriously you really need to get out more.
We shoot 9mm because it's the dominant caliber in the world and as a result cheaper to shoot. That means more guns made in it and gives us a hope at the channel not being so expensive to run.
I enjoy the confident smooth feel of .40 through my px4 storm compact, not so much in my Taurus millennium. 40. I also have a p99C in 9mm which is crazy accurate. If someone was breaking in to my home, all things being equal, I'd grab for the .40 Beretta 100%
Idk the bias here seems heavy. If the shooter has the same amount of training and rounds fired on both platforms, I'll bet you get similar handling performance. As Teya said, there's absolutely a huge difference, but it's not a difference that can't be overcome with training.
started shooting the 40 about 30 years ago. already had a reloader because I had to feed a 44mag, so cost was never an issue. I shoot a cz75 which is a full size steel frame. yes there is a noticeable difference between the 9 and 40 but its negligible, especially in a heavier pistol. what you don't see on youtube is 9v40 comparisons using full power (but not +p) 40 ammo, and in a more efficient bullet weight. my carry ammo is not maxed out but is very warm - 155gr @1275fps. gets you around 560 energy. yes it is very noticeable but it's not target ammo, it's meant to be effective. but even with a 180gr it's moving around 1150 and hitting with over 500 energy. range loads are very manageable and fun to shoot too
There’s nothing wrong with being biased towards the the 9mm because you have more experience with that round and the platform. Yes both gun are somewhat the same, they both stiyhave different features as you implied. Other than that I have both calibers for my full-size M&P’s and feel confident in both for self defense.
I bought a .40 S&W P229 in 2012 and a P226 in 9mm in 2020...I shoot the .40 better. It is just practice, I bought a P365XL in 2021, still can't shoot it well...jus' sayin'...
I have a first generation 40 Smith & Wesson M&P, the thing I like about the 40 is with a simple barrel change I'm shooting 357 Sig. Yes it's more expensive to shoot, but I reload and it cost me about the same to shoot all three calibers.
I've owned 9 40 & 45. Nothing like shooting 45 out of a 1911/2011....... but when it comes to training and shooting a lot of ammo often ..... 9 makes the most sense.
You can buy a 4.2” 9mm barrel from Jarvis Custom. A first gen P99 in 9mm is something I’ve been wanting for a while now, they are a bit of a collector piece or are highly sought after. I’ve read the first Gen P99 in 9mm has a max width of only 1.1”, since .40 Cal doesn’t have the chamfered front of the slide like 9mm version, don’t know if same is true for first gen P99. I’d still drop the 4.2” 9mm barrel from Jarvis in there.
The p99 in particular has nasty recoil if it is a 40 for some reason. There is a much larger difference between 9 and 40 with that model than with anything else I have had the chance to compare them with.
FYI ABOUT PRESSURE OF 9MM AND 40CAL... What is the origin of the misconception that .40 S&W is a high pressure cartridge? To this very day, folks make comments about .40 S&W being a high pressure cartridge, yet if you look at SAAMI Specs, .40 S&W is actually equal to Standard Pressure 9mm Luger, with both cartridges specified as 35,000psi. In other words, even 9mm Luger is potentially significantly higher pressure that .40 S&W due to 9mm Luger +P loads being 38,500psi. (There is no official +P loading for .40 S&W.) The persistence of this misconception has endured for so long that I cannot help but wonder where exactly it came from and how it has lasted so long in spite of the fact that all it takes is a simple glance at SAAMI Specifications to see that it isn't accurate. Was the .40 S&W at one point in time loaded hotter or what? As far as I know, it has always been loaded to 35,000psi in the United States, and it was actually loaded quite a bit lighter in Europe at 32,600psi according to C.I.P. Specifications. So what precisely is the basis for the enduring misconception that .40 S&W is a high pressure cartridge? 10mm AutoPrimer typeLarge pistolMaximum pressure (C.I.P.)230 MPa (33,000 psi)Maximum pressure (SAAMI)37,500 psi (259 MPa)
