Started By
Message

re: M&P 40

Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:41 am to
Posted by CP3
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
7416 posts
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:41 am to
9mm is cheaper. Performance difference is pretty insignificant. More capacity with 9mm. Less recoil... not that 40 isn't manageable, but why work harder for the same results?



Posted by Artie Rome
Hwy 1
Member since Jul 2014
8757 posts
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:45 am to
That's fair. I don't find my MP40 kicks bad at all. Put 200 rounds through it a couple days ago. I love shooting it.

That said I've never owned a 9 so I'm comparing it against revolvers I've owned.
Posted by Hammertime
Will trade dowsing rod for titties
Member since Jan 2012
43030 posts
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:52 am to
I think the more capacity thing is why people tout the 9 over 40. It really doesn't kick that much harder, and price per round isn't much at all. I got the 9 because that was what was available in my gun at the time. It didn't come in 40. All of the rest of my guns will be 9mm because I can just bring a box of ammo and they will all shoot it. No worry about mixing them up. I have a 10mm too, so I don't need to worry about mixing rounds because they won't fit in a 9.

When it comes to capacity, there isn't much difference in 16 or 17, so just get whatever one you want. If you can't kill something with 16 rounds, you aren't gonna be able to kill it with 17. Doesn't really matter to be honest
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram