# M&P 40 or 9?



## tmodesto (Nov 19, 2007)

I am deciding to buy a M&P for Xmas (mostly for range may be for home prot), but not sure about caliber -9MM seems to be cheaper and more fun for range - 40 more power, someone told me M&P 40 is more accurate than 9, folks who shot or have both is that true that M&P 40 is more accurate than 9?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Your analysis of the two calibers is pretty well spot-on. The 9mm is perfectly adequate for defense, by the way.

I doubt one M&P is appreciably for accurate than the other. Either is more than accurate enough for fighting, which is what the M&P is designed for.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Sorry for the mini-hijack, but it's relevant.

Mike, 
In your ballistics and penetration research/understanding, I understand the 9mm penetrates very similarly to a 40 or a 45, and expands reliably enough and large enough to be sufficient for PD. (I now carry a 9mm daily, as you know.)

Am I correct in saying that the only reason a 40 would be superior to a 9mm, or a 45 superior to a 40, would be if the BG where wearing heavier, or multiple layers of clothing... or where the bullet may encounter more bone enroute to a vital organ... giving the edge to a heavier bullet at the same penetration?

I'd love your opinion.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Since pistols are basically just remote control drills, we have to look at the size and depth of the hole that a given bullet drills.

Let's say our hypothetical rounds do the following:

9mm penetrates 14" while expanding to .65".

.40 penetrates 14" while expanding to .70".

.45 penetrates 14" while expanding to .75".

These seem like pretty average figures for modern, premium loads. Obviously, the bigger bullets have an edge in tissue damage, since they are physically going to touch/crush/tear/disrupt more flesh and organs. However, the differences are relatively small, measured in hundredths of inches, or perhaps a tenth of an inch at most. 

Does that outweigh the advantage in "controllability" and ease of fast shooting in a 9mm versus a larger caliber? It's really up to the individual to decide. I like 9mm quite a bit, and can shoot it very fast with acceptable accuracy, though I did buy a .40 from a forum member here and will give it a whirl when I get back. As you know, I am not terribly picky about caliber.

As far as going through heavy clothing, all the good modern JHPs have been tested in the FBI "four layers of denim" protocol, and to the best of my knowledge all have passed.

Hitting a heavy bone is something else entirely. Even rifle bullets can be deflected or radically damaged by hitting something like the femur or the pelvis. Handgun bullets are weak in comparison. Fortunately, the bones in the human torso are not terribly thick or heavily constructed, and bullets punch through with relative ease. The skull, however, being round and thick (thicker on some people than others ;-)) does tend to deflect bullets more than any other.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I have both the M&P9 and M&P40. 5000 rounds or so back they both were capable, on the days I was, of putting 5 bullet groups inside a 3/4 " circle at 15 yards. The last time I ran a bench test for accuracy, 3 weeks back, they did it again.

I carry the .40 more than the 9 because I can and it has a bit more energy. I load my own and .40 bullets cost approximately $50 per thousand more than 9MM. I supply a gun for my grandson to shoot when we can get together and end up providing around 15000+ cartridges per year combined. I believe the 9MM has actualy paid for itself in lower bullet cost while providing the same feel during practice as my main carry and a spare for my grandson to use when he visits.

I have hunted Deer, Elk, Javelina etc for 53 years. I have found that bigger bullets and or higher velocities take big animals down much faster than small slow bullets. That said, I use a .308 for all bigger than rabbits. :mrgreen:



:smt1099


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Do Glock Owners have thicker skulls???

couldn't resist...


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> Do Glock Owners have thicker skulls???
> 
> couldn't resist...


I can't find a good argument against that Jeff so you must be correct. :anim_lol: :anim_lol:

:watching:

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

No, no, no, Jeff...it's Beretta guys who need thicker skulls because of the slide breakages! (Old news, I know....)


----------



## RoadRnnr69 (Dec 23, 2007)

No scientific data from me but I have the .40 and it shoots GREAT!!!
It is very smooth and feels like less kick than my Sigma .40.
I can shoot it much more acurately than my Sigma as well.
The ammo for the 9 mm is definately going to be less money.
I get the Remington UMC 250 count box at Bass Pro Shop for $64.95, the 9 mm is $49.95 for 250. That saves $15 right there.


----------



## MarineMom (Dec 26, 2007)

My son is deploying to Iraq in 3 months and I would like to buy him a new sidearm to take. Any suggestions?


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

MarineMom said:


> My son is deploying to Iraq in 3 months and I would like to buy him a new sidearm to take. Any suggestions?


I wasn't aware that you could do that. Anyway, it would be best to let him try out as many as possible - you can't predict what he'll think of each gun's ergonomics. Thank your son for his service. :smt1099


----------



## MarineMom (Dec 26, 2007)

He said that as long as he checks it in the armory he's good to go. S&W and Glock are quality firearms? Any other brands that I may want to research? I've looked at S&W and Glock, 40's and 9's. I have limited knowledge of handguns and he is based NC. I am trying to do this as a gift (secret) but it doesn't sound like that is a good idea. He really needs to be involved.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

MarineMom said:


> He said that as long as he checks it in the armory he's good to go. S&W and Glock are quality firearms? Any other brands that I may want to research? I've looked at S&W and Glock, 40's and 9's. I have limited knowledge of handguns and he is based NC. I am trying to do this as a gift (secret) but it doesn't sound like that is a good idea. He really needs to be involved.


Yes, S&W and Glock are high-quality firearms. Springfield and Walther are also excellent choices in the polymer-framed, semi-auto category. It'll still be surprise enough if you drive him over to your local gun shop and tell him to pick one out! I can imagine how excited I'd be anyway. :smt023


----------



## MarineMom (Dec 26, 2007)

LOL, You're right!
Thanks for the info.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

If I was going to do that I would check out who supplies the ammo for the guns over there and besure that what I got would work well together. Mike might know more about that than anybody.


----------



## casher (Mar 11, 2007)

While I have shot both the 40 and the 9mm and would have been happy with either, my wife liked the 9mm better (slightly) and so now we have a "his and hers" pair of 'em... Both have at least 1,500 rounds through them without so much as a hiccup or failure of any kind.

Having shot only a few pistols in her life she commented that it was an easy gun to pick up and shoot well (compared to my GLOCK 22 or Beretta PX4).

I know that this doesn't help narrow down the selection process, but you would be hard pressed to make a bad choice here.


----------



## kcdano (Dec 13, 2007)

I have the .40 and love it. I do think my glock 22 has a softer recoil.


----------

