re: "9mm vs 40 sw" The great handgun debate

quote:

---

That's what the OP wanted to know.

---

Fair enough. All other things being equal, I would recommend 9mm of the 2.

quote:

---

So far, the .40sw camp has presented no reason why .40sw is advantageous over 9mm.

---

Well, Carson dropped some knowledge on the pro-9mm side, but this quickly devolved into ".40 is shite" (again, at least partially triggered by Carson, a poster I consider an eFriend). That can't be denied, the posts are there.

Then OB Caliber War Smackdown #17456 started up in earnest.

I own pistols in the 3 major calibers.

quote:

---

the OP wants to buy a gun today.

---

Again, fair enough.

quote:

---

You're just creating an argument for the sake of arguing.

---

Wouldn't be the first time I was accused of that.

If it gets folks thinking, instead of reacting, it's worth it. Critical thinking skills are essentially lost to most Americans, particularly younger ones.

Pissing matches are never ending. I agree with you. Shoot what you want. I carried a 357 for 20 years as a trooper(back when troopers were troopers ). I have a 40 I like because I can qualify with it easier than reloading a wheel gun. If I had to choose, my first would be a 357. Between the 9mm or 40? Who cares-both are adequate rounds if you are recoil sensitive. If you think any auto has recoil, I can not help you.

Old dinosaurs like me always f with the kids now that followed us. Just like the old hands gave us shite.

quote:

---

Who cares-both are adequate rounds if you are recoil sensitive. If you think any auto has recoil, I can not help you.

---

I can offer a (potentially) entertaining anecdote on this. The OP specifically asked about the P320, the polymer, striker fired Sig. I'm mainly a metal frame Sig guy, but I have owned Glocks and the Sig P2022.

So, I gave the G23 to the boy for Christmas. We went to the range to shoot it and I also brought my new pistol, a P226 (9mm). I also have P229 in .40 S&W and a P245 in .45. They feel very similar to me, from a recoil standpoint, although I can fire the .45 more accurately and the other 2 more quickly.

Anyway, while shooting the G23, with just run of the mill factory WWB 180gr ammo, my wrists were hurting. I used to shoot the same pistol with hotter Cor-Bon 165gr a few years back with no problem. I remember thinking, "my wrists are getting too old for all this shite" - and I was not, historically, recoil sensitive. I was a big bore, .45 ACP guy for decades.

quote:

---

cant give em away.

---

I'll take one if you're giving them away

I am very accurate with my G23 with 180 grain loads. Absolute tackdriver at the range. I dont buy into the argument and just shoot what I have. I also carry .38+P sometimes and I like both.

Perhaps I should get a 9mm then I might be a world class marksman.

Ace Midnight, you seem to make logical statements that are not biased one way or the other...

I don't favor either caliber but I do have a question about something I keep reading on the OB.

If .40 was "better" than 9mm long ago and ammo has gotten better so they are pretty much equal now... why would only 9mm ammo get better?

Does it make sense that .40 ammo would have gotten better too? Or is there a ceiling for performance and 9mm has just closed the gap and their respective ceilings are very close?

This is a real question.

The 9mm guys are definitely bringing in facts, but I don't see anything from the 40 cal guys. I know I want the p320 full sized. Just not sure between the 2 calibers. I have a friend who Hayes 9's with a passion, but he hasn't given me much reason. The 9 has me tempted, though.

Are the pressure handling capabilities of the 40s keeping them from doing to the 40 cartridge what has been done to the 9? I mean, the capacities are a bit different.