Which round is better for self defense, 9mm or .40 S&W

[tabasco_joe]

Ran across this interesting article comparing 9mm to .40 S&W for self defense.

http://www.imakenews.com/valhalla/e_...2Cbj7QPlVl%2Cw

Kind of reflects my own views in picking the 9mm for myself.

[mollymayhem82]

The one you're most accurate with is the one best for self defense. I carry .45ACP, only because I like 1911s.

[GregorOneEye]

The one you're most accurate with is the one best for self defense. I carry .45ACP, only because I like 1911s.

Whatever you can hit with. You can't miss fast enough.

[rwb1500]

I like Pepsi, but my brother likes Coke.


Good article though, I like the "evolution" of teaching concept.

[ooticamitica]

he has some great points, never looked at it that way but i carry both 9 and .40 so i dont mind either of them.

[FNG19]

The one you're most accurate with is the one best for self defense.

Point. Set. Match.

Misses don't count. This thread can now be closed.

[daustin]

Having read the majority of that article, I can see only one conclusion was really drawn from the author.

There is not enough of a credible difference between .40 and 9mm to justify the larger round.

Basically I see a number of points, but for those who understand the meaning of TL;DR, it was pretty straightforward. The 9mm and .40 round have their differences, none of which seem to be credible enough to justify going with a lower capacity and more expensive round when comparing nearly identical firearms.

Better example than what the author illustrated would be a real life scenario. Take as an example you are forced to defend yourself against any number of attackers. This could be one, it could be two, it could be six. Your choices or firearm are between a Glock 26 and a Glock 27. The G26 is a 9mm pistol with a 10+1 round capacity, where it's .40 brother, the G27, has a 9+1 round capacity. With the difference between these two rounds being only a millimeter in diameter, a few grains of weight, and a few ft/s difference, is it really worth those small factors over having the extra round (or more if you add extra magazines into this equation)?

He also states even with everything else there aside, the lower cost of being able to constantly practice in the long term gets you more sessions and more rounds for the same or less cost. "Practice makes perfect"?

My $0.02 on it. Honestly, I prefer 9mm myself, but I really have no issue with either round. That's why I have a Glock 27 and a 9mm conversion for it. Same gun, dual purpose, cost savings or bigger bullet. I can do both.

[tabasco_joe]

The one you're most accurate with is the one best for self defense. I carry .45ACP, only because I like 1911s.

In a round about way that is my prime reason. Since it was always lower cost I bought a lot of 9mm components and shoot it a lot. Thus improving my accuracy and gun handling with my 9mm. Since I'm adding a compact 9mm as my main carry I've already decide to forgo capacity for concealment.

I've always maintained the ballistic difference between a number of common self defense rounds mattered much less than ability to place them.

[Neko456]

As a reloader I see noticeable difference in re-captured rounds that gives the edge to the 40 cal in one shot possible stops. The 9mm still has the capacity edge but just like the FBI and most Police departments have found the 40 cal has the advantage of big bullet and near same fps in the 155-165 grain rounds and near 357 mag fpe in the 135 grain rounds. Some of the +p+ 9mms can produce 357 mag FPE but still won't have the bullet expansion that the 40 cal produces.

In my finding the 40 cal beats the 9mm in overall performance expansion (wound channel) and on average FPE. The 9mm in it best form can equal 40 & 45acp in FPE but not in round expansion. my 2 cent. I have confidence in both.

[mollymayhem82]

I like Pepsi, but my brother likes Coke.


Good article though, I like the "evolution" of teaching concept.

RC Cola > Pepsi > Coke.