Originally Posted By: bubbatime
As a gun enthusiast, ex-cop, gun trader/collector, quasi ballistics expert, armorer on numerous platforms, I would absolutely recommend the 9MM. The .40 has no benefits. None. Zilch. Nothing but downsides. Slower split times, more expensive ammo, more recoil, less capacity, same ballistics. Just get the 9 and be done with it. I sold off my entire collection of .40 guns and replaced them with 9MM.
.40/9MM are identical in performance (when using recent good JHP) Shot placement is all that counts.
So, the size of the bullet, the muzzle velocity, energy and the weight don't matter in determining round effectiveness? At all? None? Zilch?
Taking the Speer Gold Dot line, my preference, I carry the 165 gr JHP IN .40. Muzzle velocity is 1150. Energy is 484 ftlbs.
A comparable 9mm +P weighs 124 gr muzzle velocity is 1200, 410 ftlbs energy.
So with an equal bullet design (Gold Dot in this case) a 20% increase in bullet cross-section, a 30% increase in mass, and a 20% increase in energy all mean nothing? They only increase recoil? They don't increase the effect in the target?
Why even carry a 9mm then? If those things mean nothing, let's just carry .25 ACP...easy to shoot, since we're not concerned with the mass, cross section, or energy of the round...and let's tell our SOF and Marine Recon to stick with 9mm instead of .45ACP...since they're good at shot placement, are using similar ball rounds in both guns and size, mass and energy don't matter...
I made my point about shot placement and effective shooting already, but if we're talking round effectiveness vs. shooter effectiveness, the .40 is a more effective round than a 9mm. The 9mm is an effective round, but mass, energy and size matter.