9mm or .40

[t1066]

Just want to say thanks to everybody who has contributed.

My vote is .357 SIG. Hot and fast, more recoil than 9mm, but less than .40. Ammo can be pricey though.

As far as guns, the P226 and P229 are both great guns and great choices for duty. I have both in multiple calibers and don't remember having any issues with any of them.

Surplus City in Feasterville often has P226 police trade-ins for $350-450 in .40SW. The guns are in decent shape, with mild to moderate holster wear. I don't see any Sigs currently on their website, but they do have Gen4 Glock 22s for $325 w/ 2 mags. That might be a good starter option for you until you have funds to trade up to something better.

Since .40 has fallen out of favor lately, the prices of guns in .40 have come down. Tanner's and Surplus City often have great deals on new and used .40s. While the cost of the gun is lower, .40 ammo is generally a few bucks more than 9mm. I have purchased many firearms in .40 and later picked up a .357 conversion barrel for about $100.

I'm planning on going to Classic Pistol on Friday afternoon to do some shooting. If you're around, you're welcome to join me and try out my various Sigs, Glocks and HKs to help get a feel and narrow down your choices.

I would indeed be interested! I'll PM to check on timing.

[scruff]

Here's a store that has a number of Sig trade-ins. They have P226's for as low as $450 in fair condition, $500 in good condition, even less for older ones without a rail. They also have DAK models (double-action only), which I think is a crime against humanity.

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperst...rand/SIG-SAUER

ETA: Wow, here's railed P226's in good condition for $399. https://www.recoilgunworks.com/sauer...n-p-37947.html

[mrat]

I always thought the 40 cal. was a solution in search of a problem.
Other than my 45, all my service sized auto's are 9mm.

^^^Exact same situation, here.^^^

[solrac7]

My vote is for the 9mm. I have never liked the recoil of of the .40, I prefer the slow push of my .45 or the easy recoil of the 9mm - the .40 has always felt to "snappy" for me (for lack of a better term) - 9mm bullet design has been vastly improved of late, but if you think windshields and car doors might be problem then the .40 might be a better choice (I personally would go with the 45 then for the recoil...)

[scruff]

My vote is for the 9mm. I have never liked the recoil of of the .40, I prefer the slow push of my .45 or the easy recoil of the 9mm - the .40 has always felt to "snappy" for me (for lack of a better term) - 9mm bullet design has been vastly improved of late, but if you think windshields and car doors might be problem then the .40 might be a better choice (I personally would go with the 45 then for the recoil...)

That might be an issue with a Tuppergun, but a metal-frame P226 soaks up the recoil. IMHO, it's definitely not "snappy". It's a joy to shoot in 2-day training sessions.

[PHLJJS]

They also have DAK models (double-action only), which I think is a crime against humanity.

I have a P229 DAK in .357 and don't think it's bad, although I do prefer the HK LEM trigger over the DAK. I took a liking to the DAK a few years ago after being introduced to it by a FAM that I shot with occasionally. Tanner's had a deal on them a while back so I scooped one up.

[Emptymag]

Makes sense. ^^^
I had a Glock G27 (40S&W) and couldn't shoot more than two mags through it before I never wanted to shoot a gun again.

It hurted my girly widdle wists, so I solded it.

[jmh308]

Ill be the lone voice of dissent here: 40 S&W is a great round in modern duty sized guns that were designed for it. Its a bit much in compact guns, IMO, but very manageable in full sized pistol.

It puts .45 acp levels of muzzle energy into 9mm sized pistols, and it only comes at the expense of a few rounds of capacity. Whats not to love?

Its almost as though cartridge design evolved over the course of the intervening century and we got a round thats just plain better than 9mm or 45 ACP.

I really dont understand why everyones running away from .40 cal, but I hope it continues. Ill take advantage of the great deals that result.

[j_h_smith]

In my opinion, the 40 doesn't offer that much of an advantage over the 9mm. Now if you were to compare the 10mm to the 9mm, I'd probably have to lean towards the 10mm.

[bluetrane2028]

Makes sense. ^^^
I had a Glock G27 (40S&W) and couldn't shoot more than two mags through it before I never wanted to shoot a gun again.

It hurted my girly widdle wists, so I solded it.

I've got girl sized hands (literally my wife's are the same), and small wrists. The 27 is no problem and one of my carry guns. I do prefer shooting 9mm though, especially on the ammo cost. Most often, I carry a Glock 43, it's too convenient to not bring along.

I used to have a ton of .40 pistols, just the G27 and a G35 now. If Glock made a 43 sized gun in .40 I'd consider it, just on the count of the ammo I have on hand.

In terms of ballistics, I always liked 155gr .40. With regard to muzzle energy, it certainly does better than my current load of choice, 124gr 9mm +P Federal Law Enforcement HST (shoots very similarly to a boatload of 124gr NATO ball ammo I have for practice). On paper, the .40 155gr has a clear advantage. 500ft/lbs is the magic number many regard for true stopping power. 10mm makes that number reliably, .45 does in loads with light for caliber bullets, .357 Sig makes it more often than not, .40 in 155gr and 9mm can sometimes in +P+ loads. Light bullets with high velocities are what we are looking for, regardless of the old .45 "hit it with a truck" mantra. I'd probably carry 135gr .45 if I cared to expand into that caliber.

Real world though.... same stuff different day with all calibers and loads, so long as it's at least a 9mm and a quality hollow point. Shoot what you like.