[ADKeagle]

The 40 allows you to shoot heavier bullets & reach higher energies (about 25% if you compare Speer 124 +p 9mm to Speer 155 .40). I don't find .40 to be any harder to control than 9mm. Sure, it may be a little snappier, but no big deal. Go for it if thats what you're interested in. HOWEVER... as suggested above, maybe you should check out the G29

 

[ADKeagle]

.40 does have more recoil. Perceived recoil is another matter, but I think for MOST people, they will perceive more recoil from .40 loads. Sure you can shoot a .40 just as well as a 9mm, it is just more difficult and may require more training and practice. And nothing is going to make more rounds fit in the magazine, but that isn't a huge difference. What it comes down to is when the 9mm is effectively identical, why burden yourself with the disadvantages of .40, no matter how minor?

I guess the same could be said the other way around. With the differences in recoil & capacity so neglibile, why would you choose 9mm with all of it's disadvantages? Less energy, less bullet weight, smaller diameter projectile, etc. In your mind maybe the 9mm is effectively identical. How about this: Is a 9mm effectively identical to a .45?

 

[ADKeagle]

Yes, 9mm is effectively identical to .45.

And it isn't "in my mind." This isn't really "my" info. I am passing along what I have read and learned. It's based on all the statistics, knowledge, and science we have on the topic today. Dr. Mahler (sp?) gives a great lecture at GCL from time to time; he is a brain surgeon and firearms enthusiast, and he seems to think 9, 40, and 45 all have the same impact on the body and the same chances of stopping someone. All the statistical reports I read about real world gun fights tend to look the same regardless of how big or heavy the bullets were. When I hear the same thing from Massad Ayoob and all the other credible authorities in the industry, I tend to believe them. The only people who seem to say that .40 or .45 have more stopping power seem to be people who did their research 10-20 years ago when that was true, or just people who own guns in those calibers and want to feel good about said ownership.

And for the record, I'm not saying the recoil and capacity differences between 9mm and .40 are minor, I'm saying even if YOU think they are minor, why accept even minor challenges if you don't have to? Me, personally, I believe that .40 is significantly harder to shoot that 9mm, at least out of the guns I have fired it in. That's not to say its hard, but more that 9mm is very easy.

Truthfully I don't have a problem with the 9mm, .40, or .45 being used as a self defense piece. However, to say that there are no effective differences and that performance would be the same out of each is just an opinion that you've arrived at. I just don't buy it... penetration, bullet speed, weight- there are just too many differences between the three calibers to result in the same exact performance. We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I think we can both agree on the answer to the OP's question, yes the .40 would be fine for CCW.