Recoil difference between the .40 S&W and 9mm in Glock mid-sized pistols.

[Idaho45guy]

Kept hearing that the .40 S&W is just too snappy, but I'd never really noticed much difference between it and my 9mm pistols. Of course, I wasn't looking for it and am not all that recoil sensitive, yet. Another thing to look forward to as we age is our hands starting to get a bit worn out and become sensitive to things like increases in recoil.

So I made a video with three different Glocks to see how much each pistol jumped.

What do you know? The .40 S&W is a bit snappier than the 9mm...

Go to around the 8:00 mark to avoid all my blathering about not being an expert and my background.

[Johnch]

Years ago I bought a Glock 22
I used it to shoot shoot steel knock down targets
It made major , where 9 mm didn't unless you were loading at LEAST +P
I had no problems with the recoil
But I knew the recoil was More than the 9 mm

Later I bought a Glock 17 extended / threaded barrel
It drops right in and works
I plan on adding a Suppressor as the muzzle blast causes headaches for me

I still feel the 40 S&W is a better 1 shot fight stopper over the 9mm
But if the extra recoil of the 40 S&W causes the shooter problems
I feel with proper loads the 9mm will do the job with less recoil

John

[9.3X62AL]

Just my opinion, to take or leave as you see fit--the 40 S&W in any given pistol platform will have a bit more felt recoil than will its 9mm cousin-in-law. That's just the Laws of Physics in action, and those statutes offer no plea bargains.

Understand my biases and viewpoints--I am a gun enthusiast, reloader, bullet caster, and was a LE range trainer for a large portion of my career. Most of the folks on this board have at least some if not all of those element on board as well. Most of us that post here are far better-versed in pistolcraft than are most LE recruits at the start of their careers (usually in an academy setting). I came into the career in late 1977, and even back then I was an unusual recruit in that I was thoroughly familiar and comfortable with sidearms and long guns, and had been reloading shotshells and metallic ammo for some time. In current times, such a person (barring armed services veterans) is quite rare among recruits.

In recent times--say, the past 5-8 years--there has been a steady buzz about relegation of the 40 S&W in favor of the 9mm for LE issuance and service. All manner of justifications get trumpeted for moving in that direction, but when you boil down all of the ingredients in this ghoulash of stats and charts, it boils down to cost factor. 9mm is cheaper to buy per round than is 40 S&W or 45 ACP. There are more "failures to qualify" with 40 S&W and 45 ACP than with 9mm (or 38 Special), a lot of which can be explained by (but not admitted to) as insufficient initial academy range training and/or deficient follow-up/in-service refresher training. Again, cost factor (salaries) rears its head. From the bean counter's point-of-view, the 9mm is cheaper to issue and use on a number of fronts.

Bean counters almost never get shot at for for a living. Their input on weapons/ammo selections should be seen and not heard, and that is as politely as I can express that feeling. (Stay in your cubicle). My shop has authorized the 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP since 1994. Almost no one carries the 9mm as a primary arm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP are the choices. Both work very well, and good hits make decisive stops. Serious stopping sidearms have a numeral "4" in their caliber designation, wheelgun or bottom-feeder.

Glock 23 in summer, SIG P-220 in cooler weather, if you're curious.

[Catshooter]

Al,

You're 110% correct. Cost, recoil sensitivity and very last capacity. I mean, the FBI endorses the 9. The FBI? Who in the wide world would listen to that pile of woke folk? Some of their very important "technology" has been proven to be a swarm of lies in the last few years, so why believe 'em now?

Yep, it needs a "4" in there.


Cat

[Bigslug]

If you crunch the numbers, the 9mm is running at something like 30-40% less recoil, depending on the load.

But as a force-over-time thing, the .40 definitely hits your hand with more, faster. When I had to sequentially test fire a bunch of Gen 3 Glocks, or have a long range day with one, there was definitely a sense of tennis elbow creeping in. Working with new or less dedicated shooters to get them proficient with it frequently felt like a death march for both of us. Saw lots of broken small parts, minor malfunctions, and engaged in a lot of early spring changes that a 9mm wouldn't have needed - simply due to it being a hot round shoved into a platform engineered around the 9mm (as most .40's were). A lot of ad-hoc fixes got applied by the industry to deal with the round over the years - - all to eventually conclude it brought nothing useful to the party and any performance issues of the 9mm from the '80's had been solved by about 1993. Institutional inertia is probably the only reason the .40 has hung on so long. Enough of the folks that pushed for its adoption had to retire for face not to be lost.

The HK USP is, to my knowledge, the only duty pistol that started life as a .40, and it's a good study in what a Browning-based design needs to be in order to deal effectively with the pounding that round dishes out - - a slide-heavy brick.

I was very happy to have a hand in kicking the round to the curb.

[FLINTNFIRE]

Funny more people I know have went to 40 then went to 9mm , the round is far from dead and gone , same with the 45 .

As to recoil I myself do not find it to be hurtful or more stress on my hands wrists or elbows , I do like it for heavier weight and power over the 9mm , and lets face it folks this is a casting forum , where we are making none of those wonder 9 bullets that the feebs tout as making the 9 better , and the old argument on if it makes a 9 caliber better then same tech applied makes the 40 better still .

I shoot 9mm and 40 and 45 and find that I want the bigger heavy weight if it was needed , the 9 is fine for plinking but with cast hollow points or solids it is not better then the others , same old shoot what you can hit best with or what you feel comfortable with .

[Idaho45guy]

The HK USP is, to my knowledge, the only duty pistol that started life as a .40, and it's a good study in what a Browning-based design needs to be in order to deal effectively with the pounding that round dishes out - - a slide-heavy brick.

S&W 4006 was the first pistol designed around the .40 S&W round. Also, the M&P40, the Sig P229, and the Steyr M40.

Lot's of very smart people I know favor the .40 S&W.

[fivegunner]

Good job , Thanks for taking the time to do the test, I came to the 40 late in life, never thought that is was worth the money to leave the 1911 and start carrying the Glock23. but even old dogs find a bone or two . looking foreword to your next Video.

[FergusonTO35]

I hate shooting factory .40 ammo regardless of what kind of gun it is. Now, the .40 is a sweet round when loaded to .38-40 power level and will still get the job done. I shoot the Lee 401-175-TC with 4.3 grains Bullseye or 3.5 grains Clays in my Glock 22. Gets around 875 fps, is accurate, and recoils about like a standard pressure 9mm. I put this pistol together specifically for shooting this sort of round with parts scrounged from Gunbroker and this site. It has adjustable sights and an LWD barrel that was throated for cast and is my usual woods carry.

[dla]

I'm not sure why the concern about recoil. I watched a nice YT video where a fellow timed his shooting 9mm and 40sw - he was faster with 40sw.

I think people who don't shoot make a big deal about very little.

[robertbank]

I don't carry to defend myself among the human population but I do for Bruins. I carry the .357mag or 10MM for the bruins in a GP-100. Both will work for defensive situations. For all day carry for humans I will differ to my friend 9.3x60Al. The M&P in 40cal would be my choice based upon his assessment,

Take Care

Bob

[dverna]

I have a Glock 22 and a Lone Wolf 9mm barrel for it. Best of both?

I shoot defensive drills better with the 9mm. Recoil takes its toll on some people. If recoil did not have an effect, why have a power factor standard? I used to carry with the .40 barrel in it, but switched to the 9mm about 5 years ago.

Good video...but no surprises.

[downzero]

The HK USP is, to my knowledge, the only duty pistol that started life as a .40, and it's a good study in what a Browning-based design needs to be in order to deal effectively with the pounding that round dishes out - - a slide-heavy brick.

It also has a ridiculously high bore axis compared to its competitors, which is why basically nobody uses it in competition in any caliber.

[dla]

I have a Glock 22 and a Lone Wolf 9mm barrel for it. Best of both?

I shoot defensive drills better with the 9mm. Recoil takes its toll on some people. If recoil did not have an effect, why have a power factor standard? I used to carry with the .40 barrel in it, but switched to the 9mm about 5 years ago.

Good video...but no surprises.

Suppose it matters if you are playing games.
But not everyone is.

[Digger]

Picked up a Keltec P-11 in forty years back ...
Shooting that little puppy was a wake up for such a snappy little gun in that caliber.
One of the reasons they quit making them as the public was having problems with all the recoil , with that I picked up a mold from Miha that drops a nice 135 gr hollow point .
Down loading my rounds with different powders I have come up with some very enjoyable rounds for the pistol.
Along with a Keltec Su carbine in forty , both are a pleasure to shoot.

But on the other side of the coin , a Ruger P-91 ... what a brick ! , off the shelf factory loads in that feel "normal" ? for recoil with the weight of that Pistol.

[Bigslug]

Lot's of very smart people I know favor the .40 S&W.

[9.3X62AL]

Erik--

Behave.

[jonp]

I've found the recoil from a 40 in mid size to full size pistols vs 9 mm to be greater but nothing a person who practices can deal with. As I get older it might become too much and I'll have to stay with the 9mm and move from a Shield or Sig 938 to a M&P.

Many on this site including myself may not be able to give an accurate assessment of "controllable" or "too much recoil" given that we often shoot large bore revolvers that recoil far more than pistols so are used to it. If all you shoot is a 556 AR a 30-06 kicks like a mule. If you shoot a 45-70 or a Magnum on a regular basis the 30-06 isn't hard to deal with and doesn't seem bad.

Great video

[jonp]

Guess I'm a moron

[Lloyd Smale]

IMO if you cant handle a 40sw you need some more range time. I chuckle at this because many who defend the 9 using the 40s recoil as ammo own 45 colts 41 mags 44 mags. How the heck do they shoot them. With there train of thought the only handguns they could be casting for are 9s 38 specials 380s and the pop gun calibers like 25s. Id guess the majority of those that claim the 40 is to much just arent shooters period.