Originally Posted By: 2cool
If concealment were paramount, the 9 wins.
The guns are the SAME SIZE. LMAO.
If concealment were paramount, the 9 wins.
The guns are the SAME SIZE. LMAO.
sr9c or sr40c?
- Thread starter donnyj08
- Start date
- Status
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.
.40/9MM are identical in performance (when using recent good JHP) Shot placement is all that counts.
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, the size of the bullet, the muzzle velocity, energy and the weight don't matter in determining round effectiveness? At all? None? Zilch?
Back in the late 80’s, early 90’s, police departments were switching from 9MM to .40 s. At that time, .40 did offer a substantial increase in performance, simply due to the fact that bullet technology was poor then. Since then, bullet technology has improved substantially and the bullets perform almost identically.
.40 might have a 1-2% increase in ballistics (penetration, energy, expansion) over 9MM. But when all factors are factored in totality, the 9MM has quicker follow up shots, more capacity, lower cost, and officers are generally more accurate and score higher qualifying scores with the 9MM. Many police departments have also analyzed all this and are switching back to 9MM from .40.
Over the years, I’ve attended a bunch of ballistics workshops. Using various calibers, I’ve shot into ballistics gel. I’ve also shot through auto glass, auto doors, wooden doors, auto upholstery and god knows how many other mediums. I’ve spent hundreds of hours researching calibers and ballistics as my scientific nature has compelled me to do so. And the conclusion that I have after all this research and experimentation is that 9MM is a fine caliber and would be my choice over .40.
So, the size of the bullet, the muzzle velocity, energy and the weight don't matter in determining round effectiveness? At all? None? Zilch?
Back in the late 80’s, early 90’s, police departments were switching from 9MM to .40 s. At that time, .40 did offer a substantial increase in performance, simply due to the fact that bullet technology was poor then. Since then, bullet technology has improved substantially and the bullets perform almost identically.
.40 might have a 1-2% increase in ballistics (penetration, energy, expansion) over 9MM. But when all factors are factored in totality, the 9MM has quicker follow up shots, more capacity, lower cost, and officers are generally more accurate and score higher qualifying scores with the 9MM. Many police departments have also analyzed all this and are switching back to 9MM from .40.
Over the years, I’ve attended a bunch of ballistics workshops. Using various calibers, I’ve shot into ballistics gel. I’ve also shot through auto glass, auto doors, wooden doors, auto upholstery and god knows how many other mediums. I’ve spent hundreds of hours researching calibers and ballistics as my scientific nature has compelled me to do so. And the conclusion that I have after all this research and experimentation is that 9MM is a fine caliber and would be my choice over .40.
The follow up shots and qualification scores are precisely what I was talking about above, in my much earlier posts. The round has to be effective in the hands of the shooter using it, or it's a poor choice. So. I think we agree on that point.
But I've put over 10,000 rounds through .40 S&W H&K USP compacts over the years, both my duty weapon and my personal one, including a lot of qualification events, and that would be my 1st choice, for ME...
Based on familiarity, muscle memory, range performance and yes, ballistic advantage of the round over the 9mm, I would chose that weapon in that caliber...but just because it works for me, doesn't mean that the caliber makes sense for all shooters. The .357 Sig has some good ballistics, but I don't own a gun in that caliber and haven't shot it...so, I wouldn't pick it for me despite the evidence and testing performance of the round.
But I've put over 10,000 rounds through .40 S&W H&K USP compacts over the years, both my duty weapon and my personal one, including a lot of qualification events, and that would be my 1st choice, for ME...
Based on familiarity, muscle memory, range performance and yes, ballistic advantage of the round over the 9mm, I would chose that weapon in that caliber...but just because it works for me, doesn't mean that the caliber makes sense for all shooters. The .357 Sig has some good ballistics, but I don't own a gun in that caliber and haven't shot it...so, I wouldn't pick it for me despite the evidence and testing performance of the round.
Last edited:
Well guys I picked up a new SR9C. I'm waiting for a good day so I can go shoot a couple hundred rounds.
I picked .40 for one reason - ammo availability. Walmart and most of the local stores here are out of 9mm (and .45). They all have box after box of .40.
Originally Posted By: wvrailroader
I picked .40 for one reason - ammo availability. Walmart and most of the local stores here are out of 9mm (and .45). They all have box after box of .40.
That's not a real concern. 9MM is the most common round and is historically easier to find than all other calibers. AT THIS TIME, the popular calibers such as 9MM, .22, and .380 are hard to find due to politics, but that changes overnight. 9MM can easily be found online and shipped to your door in 3-4 days.
I keep a case or two of all the major calibers in stock at all times at my house, so that I never have to worry about it being in stock or not at my local stores.
I picked .40 for one reason - ammo availability. Walmart and most of the local stores here are out of 9mm (and .45). They all have box after box of .40.
That's not a real concern. 9MM is the most common round and is historically easier to find than all other calibers. AT THIS TIME, the popular calibers such as 9MM, .22, and .380 are hard to find due to politics, but that changes overnight. 9MM can easily be found online and shipped to your door in 3-4 days.
I keep a case or two of all the major calibers in stock at all times at my house, so that I never have to worry about it being in stock or not at my local stores.
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Well guys I picked up a new SR9C. I'm waiting for a good day so I can go shoot a couple hundred rounds.
Good choice.
Well guys I picked up a new SR9C. I'm waiting for a good day so I can go shoot a couple hundred rounds.
Good choice.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The .357 Sig has some good ballistics, but I don't own a gun in that caliber and haven't shot it...so, I wouldn't pick it for me despite the evidence and testing performance of the round.
In my testing, .357 Sig is the absolute best handgun caliber. Accurate, reliable, and amazing performance, especially through barriers. It is expensive and has the same capacity as .40 though. I find that my split times with .357 Sig falls between 9MM and .40. It would be my first choice in caliber for a duty gun (if I didn't have to pay for the ammo).
The .357 Sig has some good ballistics, but I don't own a gun in that caliber and haven't shot it...so, I wouldn't pick it for me despite the evidence and testing performance of the round.
In my testing, .357 Sig is the absolute best handgun caliber. Accurate, reliable, and amazing performance, especially through barriers. It is expensive and has the same capacity as .40 though. I find that my split times with .357 Sig falls between 9MM and .40. It would be my first choice in caliber for a duty gun (if I didn't have to pay for the ammo).
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Hey guys I'm buying one of these two guns soon. I currently shoot a cheap Jimenez 9mm, which has actually been a great gun. A ruger SR series gun is the one I've always wanted. I can't decide between the 9c or the 40c. Both are the exact same price at a local shop. What are your thoughts? I do conceal carry as well as enjoy target practice. Both guns are relatively cheap to shoot as my Wal-Mart carries both calibers. Anyone own these?
Rugers are good guns. Jimenez are not. Sell your Jimi or trade it in towards a Ruger or better yet a Glock or Springfield. Beretta can be had in the $500 price range and overall is a much nicer pistol.
And stick with the 9.
Hey guys I'm buying one of these two guns soon. I currently shoot a cheap Jimenez 9mm, which has actually been a great gun. A ruger SR series gun is the one I've always wanted. I can't decide between the 9c or the 40c. Both are the exact same price at a local shop. What are your thoughts? I do conceal carry as well as enjoy target practice. Both guns are relatively cheap to shoot as my Wal-Mart carries both calibers. Anyone own these?
Rugers are good guns. Jimenez are not. Sell your Jimi or trade it in towards a Ruger or better yet a Glock or Springfield. Beretta can be had in the $500 price range and overall is a much nicer pistol.
And stick with the 9.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
I keep a case or two of all the major calibers in stock at all times at my house, so that I never have to worry about it being in stock or not at my local stores.
You and me, both, Sir.
You and me both....
I keep a case or two of all the major calibers in stock at all times at my house, so that I never have to worry about it being in stock or not at my local stores.
You and me, both, Sir.
You and me both....
Well I put 150 rounds of a few types of ammo through the Sr9c this weekend. It was spot on out of the box. Very accurate. Im in love with it! I also ran 100 rounds through the old Jimenez. Jimenez gets a rough rap, but ive ran 500+ rounds through it without a single issue. The ruger is 20 times the gun, but having personal experiences with the Jimenez, it isn't that bad. For less than 200$ it's a great little plinker. I've always had shotguns and hunted, the Jimenez was a cheap handgun I picked up to try the handgun scene out. It was successful in making me enjoy shooting handguns, so it served it's $199 purpose.
-Donny
-Donny
Glad you like it. I sure do like mine. Wouldn't part with the SR40C either.
- Status
