Nine Versus Forty

I clearly remember the press conference where Smith & Wesson’s Tommy Campbell announced the .40 S&W cartridge along with the Model 4006 pistol to fire it. The announcement created such a stir that almost anything “Forty” was a viable product. Like so many things, the .40 was a compromise, an effort to increase stopping power without increasing gun size or inadvisably reducing capacity. Most of those design criteria were pretty well met. But I want to make a couple of points here, and that means putting the situation in context.


The need for the .40 came as a result of perceived inadequate performance of the 9 mm cartridge, which dates to 1904 and the Luger pistol. It had scant history in America until after World War II, when it came back in the duffle bags of soldiers. In the 1960s and 70s, police agencies grew restless about the suitability of.38 Spl. revolvers for police work in the auto age. At the time, the order of the day was 9 mm semi-autos with DA/SA triggers, and the various makers competed vigorously. When 9 mm pistols—with the ammo of that day—began to fail, the search for something better began. The .40 was the result. The 9 mm pistols of that era usually had 15-shot magazines, while the .40 contained 11 or 12 rounds. Engineering changes and improvements have given today’s 9 mm magazines as many as 19 rounds, while the newest 40s are around 15 or so. In my book, this renders the capacity difference a very moot point.


It is also a good idea, however, to look at the ammunition. When those old “Wondernine Wars” got rolling in the early 1970s, we were using almost primitive ammo. Sure, it was accurate, clean-burning stuff, but the bullets were 115-grain JHPs of early design. Much effort went into getting the 9 mm to shoot bigger than it had before, even as more makes and models came along.  The trend was toward heavier bullets, usually 147 grains or sometimes 124 grains. Today, most 9 mm ammo in service is one of these two weights, and the hollow-point cavities are engineered for reliable expansion. The point is simply that 9 mm ammunition today performs much better than it ever did. And most 9 mm pistols carry many more rounds than ever before.


However, the .40 S&W situation was not stagnate. Almost as soon as the first S&W and Glock pistols and ammunition came along, they started changing. The same improvements that were made to the 9 mm were made to the .40. While the majority of .40 loads featured 180-grain bullets at the start, lighter weights began to appear. The mean is probably around the 165-grain point today. It should also be obvious that neither caliber is frozen in time, and that great effort is underway to make all handgun ammunition perform better. 


Handguns in 9 mm Luger and .40 S&W account for the greatest number of police service pistol sales and a big portion of civilian personal defense choices. In the latter category, there is an understandably large slice of the market going to snubby revolvers. Staying with the “Nine and Forty” comparison, it is interesting to note that in several ways, the two are growing closer, rather than farther away. In bullet weight, magazine capacity and bullet velocity, the two cartridges are closer than when they started. Bullet diameter cannot change, but it is established that the more popular round, as far as sales is concerned, is the 9 mm, even though the .40 seems to have a better stopping record.


I’d like to ask my readers to give me their input as to why this is happening. Let me know why you rate one over the other. Please stick to the 9 mm versus .40 S&W issue and not slide off into why you think the .41 Long Colt or .38 Super or whatever is better. I’ll compile them and let you know about the consensus.


Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

19 Responses to Nine Versus Forty

JimE wrote:
November 22, 2012

I am a firearms instructor for a 300+ man agency in Missouri. This entire 10mm/.40 thing started in 1985 with the Miami shootout as Mr. Clapp stated. The FBI has always been in the "response"/knee-jerk mode when something bad happens. The results for LE was very positive though. FBI went from 10 to .40. This could have been partially due to the power of the 10mm being too extreme for what they wanted but I would add that this could also be because some of the agents probably couldn't handle the recoil of the 10mm cartridge. Face it, not all LE folks are shooters, in fact some barely pass their quals when it comes time to fire. Our agency issued the Glock 22/23 platform for the first time in 1994. By 1998 we had switched to the 9mm and there were several reasons for this change. First was the fact that upkeep on the G17 was less than that of the G22. Glock DID NOT make a .40...they simply switched a .40 barrel for a 9mm barrel...don't believe me...all parts interchange with the exception of the barrel. This increase in power results in earlier wear on parts in the G22/23 platform. Thus, it leads to higher costs to maintain those firearms from a dept. armorer standpoint. Second, another cost factor we could purchase 28%-30% more training ammo in 9mm than in .40. Our instructors decided that we would rather have officers hitting what they shot at so an increase in training was considered a plus. Third, along with #2 was that the advancement in ammo design made the caliber a moot point. Granted the .40 has more muzzle energy than a 9mm (or a .45 ACP) but if our officers placed rounds where they were intended then the result was the same. Good guys-1...bad guys-0. We had several shootings with the 9mm afte the switch with a couple of "one shot" encounters which went to the officer's favor. The bad guys dropped like rock with shots to the heart. This is just a small glimpse into what LE instructors are doing. Thanks Mr. Clapp for your service and committment.

D Dixon wrote:
September 14, 2012

Intuitively, I believe much of the reason for the continued success of the 9mm has to do with concealed carry issues and weight. Size of the handgun is becoming less of an issue but cost of ammunition is the other main factor.

Dale wrote:
September 14, 2012

I'm sure Mr.Clapp that you know that the FBI went back to the 9mm when the 10mm failed before going to the .40. I would choose the 9mm because of cost of ammo and I have a supply of +P+ 115 JHP, also I had a Glock 22 .40 (older model) blow up in my hand. So I'm still alittle gun shy of the .40.

Mack Missiletoe wrote:
September 14, 2012

@Jeff I'd rather have my Sig .40 in that Deputy's case!

Dan S. wrote:
September 13, 2012

Too much snap to the .40 cal, tears the web of my hand.

Scott wrote:
September 13, 2012

I have pretty much been shooting 9mm from the time it became our standard military round. The economic reality from that moment on, has always been that I could shoot more for any given amount of dollars. Having received no training with the 1911 it seemed fiddly in my young uninformed opinion, and ballistically it was right out of the 1st world war, another young opinion in a world where only us reloaders skated the edge… and clearly short tubes did the round no favors. I got really excited about the 10mm which SHOULD have become our next standard military side arm, but by that time I had practiced enough that I could pretty much hit what I needed quickly at 15 yards out, and I was invested already. After graduate school I once again standardized my house on 9 mm for the same reasons I made that choice 15 years earlier. Really packing 9 mm for me simply means I can't get my hand on my ten round 30-06. Postscript-shot a full size Glock 40 a couple years ago, and with the realities of aging I am again glad and comforted that I use 9 mm with the best commercial ammo made.

Jeff wrote:
September 13, 2012

I carry the nine because it's performance with new ammo such as hornday and winchester pdx have passed the fbi tests. But I'm still impressed with the 40 especially when I Massad Ayoub's report on the large predator release in Ohio last year. Essentially the Deputy had put his Ar in the trunk,closed it and from 10 yards away was confronted by a Bear. He only had time to draw his issued Glock with 165 grain 40 Sw and dropped him at his feet with a head shot. Now that is impressive any way you slice it.

P.R. Stair wrote:
September 13, 2012

I chose the S&W M&P 9c over the .40 because the .40 recoil was too much for my fiancee'. The 9 mm seemed just right, plus the ammo cost is much less.

Cdr p.w. Prawl, USN, ret wrote:
September 13, 2012

I have a 9 mm auto, 9 mm carbine with scope and red dot sight with light because it is the second cheapest ammo WALMART carries, $11/100 rds. Cheaper than .22 mag, which is why I haven't bought a Pmr 30 by kel-tec. 9mm +p+ is A HOT LOAD, compares favorably to .40. I am 77 w/ arthritis, and .40 is too much for me.

Cdr p.w. Prawl, USN, ret wrote:
September 13, 2012

I have a 9 mm auto, 9 mm carbine with scope and red dot sight with light because it is the second cheapest ammo WALMART carries, $11/100 rds. Cheaper than .22 mag, which is why I haven't bought a Pmr 30 by kel-tec. 9mm +p+ is A HOT LOAD, compares favorably to .40. I am 77 w/ arthritis, and .40 is too much for me.

Mack Missiletoe wrote:
September 12, 2012

I've got a .40. Let me loudly proclaim, I would never argue with it! I got it bad (hehe, the good kinda bad) in a Sig SP2022 polymer frame. The recoil is sharp without a Hogue Handall. With the Hogue rubber grip it is an easy shooter. This is with 180gr loads. This is for me personally. I met a young man who was shot several times with a 9mm and survived. Whoever shot him did not aim properly, and I heard he still had a bullet or two in him. Not real sure about that last part, but if he were shot with .40 I wonder if he would have been so cocky. Even if it were a few less shots... I also heard this same guy had been shot a few other instances and survived. Someone didn't learn about modern hollow points... I don't wish bad for this man, but he didn't seem like a nice kind of guy. He was cocky and very foolish. He'll turn up dead soon with the 'tude he had, thinking he was invincible--instead of relying on God and realizing his luck or miracle(s). We must also realize there is a chance that .38 Special and .380 ACP may be mistaken for 9mm during an autopsy--or after someone has been shot and the bullets are recovered. Really, I think a lot has to do with hitting vital areas. Pistols are not rifles. A 9mm or .40 is no .308! This is the way I feel: If you favor .40 and are both comfortable and accurate shooting it with your pistol of choice, why not? More power to ya--literally. I want an M9 in 9mm. I want the extra ammo capacity. I feel I can control 9mm a little better than .40, especially in a full size battle pistol. But it has more to do with the price. 9mm is so cheap I often notice a little condensation coming from the .40 boxes ...in the form of tears. The prices of [certain] brands of ammo just makes me sick sometimes. I should reload! .22WMR, .38 Special, 9mm, and .223 Winchester are so affordable--why not!? Yet when you open that .40 S&W box for the first time and hold them fat phat rounds you may not want to go back

Harry P. wrote:
September 11, 2012

3/3 As to your question about why the 9mm is still more popular than the .40S&W when it appears the .40 has the better “stopping” record, I think there are several reasons with the first (and clearly foremost) being cost. Nothing is cheap to shoot these days but 9mm ammo (especially bulk purchases of 9mm ammo) is a lot cheaper than the corresponding number of .40caliber rounds. If you want to get better (or if you just like to practice) you have to shoot and for all the people out there who don’t handload, the .40 simply loses out on this account. Second, I have been lucky to have been shooting the .40 since the moment it was released and even at the beginning and especially in a firearm like the all-steel 4006 in which it was introduced, I never felt that it was a hard or difficult caliber to shoot or even get used to. But there are some minigun platforms into which it has been installed since then that are not enjoyable (and therefore for some, not practical) to operate and control. Lastly (although there are probably more points to consider as well), in agreeing with your hypothesis that ammunition performance (obviously not bullet diameter) has increased, today’s (not 20-years-ago) expandable 9mm rounds are definitely better performers and most likely closer in their performance to the .40S&W than they were back then. So the need to move up to the .40 is not what it was in this regard. In addition, they generally remaining more comfortable for a wider group of people to shoot, and as already stated, it allows those people to (in the case of ball ammo anyway) to shoot more for less.

Harry P wrote:
September 11, 2012

2/3 First, I admit that I am a big bore (.45) fan. I believe that it is the better choice for one of the reasons stated by Gary (below). A bigger hole to start with not only offers a better chance of hitting “something important” but the damage to that something important can (not always) be greater because the hole is bigger to start with & depends less on expansion of the projectile for it to be “bigger” than something smaller to start with. And reliable & sizeable expansion of any handgun bullet in that 89-90 timeframe was as you so correctly state, “primitive” at best compared to today’s standards. Additionally, the .40S&W was not an attempt to “compromise” (a term that because of today’s political climate has taken on a connotation of weakness or something less than ideal) but instead was intended to be something (perhaps the “middle ground” that compromise once represented) that would offer .45-like performance (in some aspects; obviously not diameter) in a gun platform that more than just the large-handed could handle if it was designed to accept more than the 6-8 rounds that the high cap people felt lacking. The whole idea was to give agencies whose ranks were already filled with a wide range of body & hand types, a better performing (again, .45-like) projectile in a package that could be utilized by the large number of people who simply couldn’t get themselves wrapped around a high-cap (generally double column) .45 caliber frame. That’s what the .40S&W truly represented. This was borne out in a 2nd video used by the company at the time, which followed the initial, performance-oriented one starring Mr. Campbell. In it, another company spokesperson explained these reasons in detail: better performance than the 9mm; some characteristics of the 185gr 45; an increase in capacity over the revolvers they were replacing & the 1911’s some were embracing; everything in a package no bigger than the “Wondernines” that many officers & police unions were arguing for.

Harry P. wrote:
September 11, 2012

1/3 Mr. Clapp: While I don’t agree with a number of things expressed by “Gary” (below) in his expression of the facts, I also don’t agree with your statement that the .40S&W came about because of the “perceived inadequate performance of the 9mm cartridge”. In fact, I almost wonder if you believe it yourself for two paragraphs later, you remark that (especially in the 1970’s) “we were using almost primitive ammo”; a fact with which I fully agree. For it wasn’t until the 1980’s that ammunition really started getting better and it wasn’t until well into the 90’s (and the first part of the last decade) that technology really began to take off as far as bullet performance was concerned; especially in regard to Law Enforcement applications. Therefore, I don’t think it was a “perception” at all but in actuality a demonstrable fact (even back then). Forgetting for a moment where the .40S&W may or may not have had its beginnings, during the period in time that this cartridge was actually under development (the 1989-1990 timeframe), there was a real battle going on within police circles between the high capacity but questionably-performing-in-term-of-ammo “Wondernines” you mention (that were being embraced by the generally capacity-above-all-else mentality of those who believed that the police had become “outgunned” by their adversaries) and another group that felt that projectile performance on those adversaries was at least, if not more, important than how many of those projectiles it was that you carried around. The capacity-above-all-else folks tended to be those who looked for a quick solution to a problem (outgunning) that others even questioned existed, while the projectile performers tended to be more traditional in regard to the oftentimes mythical, oftentimes overrated (and oftentimes “unprovable”) capabilities of the .45acp.

Bob wrote:
September 11, 2012

The 9 is coming back simply because of economics. Ammo is cheaper and since almost everyone not in law enforcement is going to use the gun for recreational shooting or "having", the cost to use your gun trumps any ballistic advantage a 40 has. I sell guns for a living and that's what my customers are telling me.

Walkin trails wrote:
September 06, 2012

I too agree that when comparing FMJ rounds, the bigger bullet had it over the smaller one. I would also offer that the big bore 45 was an 'American' thing, but I doubt that many in the main stream would realize that today. I carry a .45 AGO daily, but mostly because I can and give lip service to the size of the hole argument; and I shoot well enough with it. I used to carry a 9 with +P+ round and never felt inferior, however. I've also carried 40s and have no ill feelings toward them. The longer I go and the more arthritis sets into my shooting hand, I will see myself carrying a 9 again one of these days. I will not be under gunned unless I am in grizzly country (and my 45 wouldn't cut it either). And even with a big bear, it is shot placement that makes all the difference. The great thing about this free country is that us shooters can shoot and carry all we can afford.

Roy O. wrote:
September 06, 2012

This article is very timely, as I find myself re-navigating back toward the 9mm. At one point I sold all but two of my 9mm pistols, the Sig P226 and BHP. I started adding .40 S&W to my cadre of .38/357 .45ACP pistols. I recently purchased a police trade in S&W 6906, for it's capacity and concealability. I also got an AR platform in 9mm as well. My reasons are thus. The 9mm round has been improved. It's still the military's go to pistol caliber, which makes it abundant and less expensive. I believe economics is the vast reason the caliber is seeing a come back, just like everything in .22 has. More shooting and availability in a center fire cartridge. Win, Win!

Nels wrote:
September 06, 2012

Not quite, Gary. The 9mm punches paper better and faster. Heed your own lesson on physics. The lesser recoil helps competive shooters get back on target milliseconds faster. If you get to that level, you will quickly realize that the 9mm is the superior competition caliber.

Gary wrote:
September 06, 2012

This is really too easy. As a benchmark, remember that the .45 FMJ has proven vastly superior to the 9mm FMJ in military combat. Why? Bigger is better because larger holes have a better chance of hitting something important, heavier bullets don't deflect off bones, and there is the "thump factor" when that big heavy bullet hits. The FBI came to the same conclusion and threw out the .38 Special and the 9mm in favor of the 10mm which was quickly watered down to the .40 in order to appease the less endowed. An individual must decide if he wants to go with ballistic reality and the laws of physics or his own flawed thinking. And do you really need a magazine that holds a box and a half of ammo just to take on one or two BGs? LEO's needs are different; they could get involved in a major on-going fight. I honestly believe that most defenders would go with the biggest and baddest cartridge available but they are afraid of the recoil so they rationalize away the advantages of it and go with a smaller cartridge. I mean, logically, what possible advantage does a wimpy cartridge have over a more manly cartridge besides less recoil? A while back there was an article that called into question just how much recoil a person could easily take. The answer was a lot more than they thought. Get out to the range and try out some bigger cartridges, you just might surprise yourself. And don't confuse the gun jumping under recoil with pain because the grips are so much better today they just don't hurt. My Ruger Alaskan .454 is a sight to behold under recoil but there is no pain because of the excellent grips they install on it. Bottom line: there isn't anything that a 9mm can do that a .40 can't do better. The FBI knows that. The military knows that. The law enforcement community knows that. Mr. Clapp knows that. Do you know that?