[11B]

Man I love my walther p99 before s&w took over the distribution. It's .40 s&w, love it and it's a great shooter. I love carrying it. While its large, I am very comfortable with my caliber choice.

I totally can agree with the 9mm comment about control and capacity. In fact I've even on the fence on getting a 92f in 9mm. Might just have to grab one now. You can't argue logic

 

[ScotchMan]

OK, I buy the 9mm in modern rounds is just as effective if not more accurate than the .40... however if given the choice, I'd opt not to be on the receiving end of a .40, lol. Who really cares anyway about sub MOA unless your punching paper anyway? I'll stick with the G23. No worries there... I do want to find a 9mm that my wife is comfortable with, lol...

No one is talking about accuracy. Capacity (the number of rounds in the gun) and controllability, for lack of a better term (your ability to rapidly fire the gun and stay on target) are the main advantages. Ammo cost might be a distant third.

.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?

 

[nosdog2]

Chevy vs Ford.....9mm vs 40.......

 

[ScotchMan]

:err:

 

[k2jlx]

Glock 23 w/Trijicons for me, in a Desantis softtuck IWB holster. Been this way for three years now, love that piece.

 

[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?

 

[ScotchMan]

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.

 

[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.

 

[40Rock2]

My opinion as an avid competitive shooter is that the caliber debate is splitting hairs. I shoot all of the calibers mentioned. I carry and compete in IDPA with.40. I find no difference in recoil between the 9, the .40 or the .45 in respect to getting multiple hits on Target. I prefer to carry a Glock in .40 and I also recommend the 9mm to new shooters for 1 reason only. Ammo is cheaper so hopefully they train more!

 

[Evild]

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.

There is no hard data to point that one is more effective than another, they are essentially all the same. In theory, sure, but in practice, no.

 

[Les]

I recall Dr. Mauer saying "It doesn't matter what caliber you shoot, it's where the shot placement is that makes ALL the difference". Having quoted this, you should know that I shoot a .45 and a 9mm. A 9mm is much cheaper to shoot than a 40, which means you can practice more and improve that shot placement part of the equation. Just my 2 cents.

 

[big_cigar]

I owned 2 Glocks and sold them both. Just my opinion for my use. I have my Sig P229 from way back and still like it the best. P229

 

[IDF]

i converted my g19 to a g23. it's definitely heavier with that full mag in it.

 

[NoBama]

40 M&Pc with iwb Alessi holster.

 

[11B]

Like others have mentioned caliber choice is personal preference. The only thing you need to worry about is being able to hit center mass under duress. Two rounds of any of the popular choices mentioned will indeed ruin anyone's day.

 

[Twogunwilly]

i converted my g19 to a g23. it's definitely heavier with that full mag in it.

I just traded for a G23 for the opposite reason, wanna sell your barrel & mag?