Is a .40 really a good compromise between .9mm and .45?

Question

Theoretically it seems like a good balance, but a lot of people seem to not be satisfied with it--either leaning toward a 9 mm or .45.

I'm considering a .40 for a first handgun since it seems it would be a good balance between the .9mm and .45.

Would you agree with this or is it better to stick with the .9 mm or .45 (if so I'm leaning toward the .45 --is this reasonable?)? Thanks.

Answer 1

The 40SW is a good round but in my opinion it is "all business". I shot a Glock 22 and a CZ-75B SA in .40 and the round is impressive but not as friendly as the 9mm or .45ACP for having a good time. Maybe that is just me. I think that .40SW is the best LE round to gain such wide acceptance since the .38 SPL (9mm was really just an interim replacement for .38SPL). Despite what some people think, .45ACP never got that wide of acceptance for general police usage like the others. Ignore the "stopping power" nonsense. When it comes to the "Big Three" (9mm, .40SW, .45ACP) bullet design and velocity change a lot of misconceptions.

Answer 2

I suggest you see if you can find a local range or club where you can learn to shoot, and 'try out' different weapons first. Becoming a good shot takes much practice, and you have to take into account the cost of ammunition as well as weapon cost.

Everybody seems to like large caliber handguns, but you are much better off being able to hit the target THE FIRST TIME.
For a defense weapon however, if that is why you want a handgun, I would recommend 9mm or larger, that you can shoot WELL.
Of the ones you mentioned the 9mm has the least recoil and if you have small hands would be easier to handle.

Personally, I have 1-.22, 2-.44 Black Powder, 1-9mm auto (with a .22 conversion kit), 1-45 Long Colt revolver. (The conversion kit allows practice with cheaper .22 ammunition. Coversion kits are available for many makes and calibers.)

I use the 22 for 'plinking', the .44's for fun, the 9 for concealed carry, and the .45 for a hunting 'sidearm' just 'in case'.
I am proficient with ALL of them, (as well as several hunting rifles), AND I also reload ammunition which keeps the cost down on the bigger ones.
I ALSO have a private range on my property!

Answer 3

Yes the .40 is a good compromise. But like many compromises there are things that it doesn't do quite as well. 9mm is a little cheaper about 5 bucks per 100 rounds. That may not mean to much if you don't shoot a lot but it adds up for those of us who do. The 40 is snappier than both the 9mm and the .45 but not by any means hard to handle. I have noticed some who do not like it as much. The post about it being all business is an interesting one. But it really does a good job at everything it was designed to do.

Good capacity, good energy, good penetration, good barrier penetration, good bullet. I would make it my personal caliber if I could just get my wife to shoot it... But then surplus is harder to get a hold off as well and there is the price to consider.

Nothing is perfect.

Answer 4

I own and shoot all three calibers and while that certainly doesn't make me an expert by any reasonable definition of the word I have developed a few opinions. I admit that I am partial to the 45 ACP especially in a 1911 and my preferred gun is a Series 70 Commander. With that being said there are certain benefits to the 9mm/.40 S&W sized pistols namely being their smaller size and higher magazine capacity. With modern ammunition choices I think you'd be served well with any of the 3 calibers mentioned so my advice would be to try as many different pistols as you can at your local shooting ranges until you find the best fit for your needs.

Answer 5

on the ballistics charts- the 9mm look anemic against the 40 and 40 5 acp. although-that is all purely numbers calculated from weight and speed of the bullet. In rather human shootings, there's no seen distinction in all 3 calibers. the archives says the 9mm has a ninety one% a million shot score, collectively as the two the 40 cal and 40 5 acp have a ninety 4% score. you are able to no longer tell the version . you are able to in uncomplicated terms degree it on paper. I carry the Taurus PT-111 (9mm) on a daily basis for ccw. I even have the Taurus 845 beside my mattress. in case you like a provider weapon.....then you definately would can argue for the three% distinction. yet for domicile risk-free practices and ccw- there's no distinction. in case you are able to desire to shoot a grizzley....there could be a distinction. Then why do I carry a 9mm and yet have a 40 5 via my mattress??? purely by way of fact I even have one. sometimes I swap them out.

Answer 6

Like many others inhere, I have owned and shot all three of the calibers mentioned for the past 15 years. I have a total of three .40 cal pistols in my house.
As for a good compromise, yes I think it is a great one. My wife shoots a Glock 23 and a S&W Sigma40SWVE.
She has no use for a 9mm, nor do I.

Not to say that you can't have one, it is your choice, but in my house we like larger calibers. I also have a Kimber .45ACP which I absolutely love, but 1911's are not for everyone.

My ("mine" doesnt mean it has to be yours!) first choice would be the .45, but for mag capacity, weight and ease of carry, I would carry a Glock .40 any day.

It all comes down to what you are most comfortable and effective with.

My wife doesn't like the feel of the1911, but she sure can shoot the centers out of targets with it! I like the way her Glock feels but I still like my "steel" guns.

Try a few out before you go by what anyone else says. It will be your gun, so you have to make the final decision!

Whatever you choose, practice practice prctice. The biggest gun in the world serves no purpose, if the operator doesn't know how to use it.

Answer 7

First gun I would say go with a 9mm. My first gun was a .40 caliber and I did not like it. I prefer 9mm and .45ACP. Both are smoother shooting rounds. If you want to be sure I would say get with someone who has a all the calibers or rent a gun at a range if possible and see what you like the best. But I made the mistake of .40 and 4 months after getting my first gun I traded it for my second in 9mm. I now have a .45ACP as well. Both are Springfield XDs/

Answer 8

I own a variety of handguns and my first pistol was a Beretta 92FS. I owned that pistol for about 3 years and it has worked great for me. I aslo own othere handguns that fire 40 S&W and 45 ACP and so on.
All three rounds are good and leave some nice holes in the targets I shoot. I'm sure you would be happy with a 40S&W but like other people had mentioned go to a range and try out some guns and see which ones work best for you.

Answer 9

Having owned and shot all three, yes I think a 40 S&W is a good balance.
I would never recommend a centerfire pistol as a first pistol however, simply because it is more difficult to learn to shoot a pistol accurately, hence you need more practice, and therefore is best to start with a 22 rimfire.
I personally don't have much use for a 9mm.

Answer 10

I own all three. The .40 has a nice balance of capacity to lethality, but I really prefer the .45 ACP. What ever you choose, make sure you can hit really well with it. A hit from a .22lr is more effective than a miss from .44 mag.

Good luck.