Bought the wife a .40 semi pistol for her first, then found a nice carbine that used the same mags. Can't dig the lead out of the range faster than she puts it in. The mix 160gr semi wad cuter mix lead, 4.5 bulls eye and Winchester primer
She has a 38 hammerless S&W with after market grips she and shoots it right well. When choosing a pistol, I'm not as particular about caliber as I am the firearm.
Sapper likes 357 sig and 40 cal... same gun 2 barrels and twice the ammo choice... personally i'd go with 9mm.. cost of ammo lest costly to reload ammo... more options in replacement weapons as well...
i went with 9mm because its more managable in recoil in compact and sub compact size guns used for concealed carry and its more economical to shoot and reload for. if i were a larger person then the .40 would have been a serious contender.
I think most reasons are covered here. My reasoning for migrating from 40 to 9mm guns recently (in glocks) was because the recoil was a bit stout for my wife and her G27 and G22. That was all i needed to move to 9mm guns knowing they're already cheaper, have slightly more capacity, and in glock-speak, the 9mm offerings are a more accurate and reliable caliber - the glock was designed and first "perfected" using 9mm....then gen 4 came out and ruined everything. lol 1) greater capacity mags 2) cheaper 3) more options than 40 4) more plentiful 5) slightly easier recoil management 6) more portable
I've not read the entire thread, so this may have already been covered, but I choose all three out of one platform ... A SIG P229 with interchangeable barrels. I bought the pistol in 40 S&W then bought a barrel for it in SIG 357, which is what I now carry every day. But for cheaper practice I also bought a Bar-Sto 9mm barrel for it that slips right in and works like a charm ... gives me three options out of the same platform. The really beautiful part of all of this was when I stumbled across a 22 LR conversion kit for it at Sportsman's Warehouse - so now I'm able to also shoot 22LR out of the same platform for even cheaper trigger time. Moral of the story is go with a quality pistol in 40 S&W or 357 SIG, the two are interchangeable, then, if you invest in the right platform you can also convert it to 9mm or 22LR depending on which platform you decide to invest in. BUT, and this is very important, remember, you can go down in caliber with some platforms you choose, but not up. Mine is a DAK SAS Custom Shop SIG P229. You cannot go wrong with SIG. I've got several ... a couple of P226s included.
Personally, I prefer 9mm for weight, expense and the fact that I have a variety of 9mm carbines...3 of which use the same mags as the Glock 19 I carry daily.
I go with the 40S&W in my carry Glock27 Gen4. Have been looking for some 40S&W carbines for home/range use....anyone know of any.
If I were to learn from my experiences, I would have done things slightly differently than I did. I have three pistols that I would trust my life to. A full size SW M&P9, a SW M&P9c, and a Kahr PM9. Let me first say that I love each of the pistols, each fits great and shoots exactly as I want and need them to, for their intended purposes. However, I would have bought the Smiths as .40SW and got the conversion barrels, but they were not available at the time. At least I don't think they were. My first centerfire pistol was an older Smith and because of caliber compatibility I bought the PM9 instead of a PM40. I carried the PM9 for nearly ten years concealed. When I decided to get a higher capacity carry pistol, I went with the MP9c because I was already stocking the 9mm. I later added the FS MP9 for magazine, caliber, and parts compatibility. Like others have said in the thread before me, consider multi-caliber conversions on a single platform. Even if you don't stock the ammo, if you have the parts, you still have ammo choices down the road.
Here's an interesting take on the .40 vs _____ debate. Skill Set: Why I Don't Like the Forty : The Tactical Wire
Yeah. For some reason, I've always thought the 40 was a solution looking for a problem. If a semi is what's wanted, my feelings are that 357 Sig makes better sense. (But I don't know enough about the Sig to campaign for it.) Coogan makes a a 357 mag auto loader, but it's BIG and HEAVY.
I think it's a market-penetration issue now. A lot of LEO agencies go with what the feds (read "FBI") use. And, at the time the .40 came out, the .357 Sig was not in existence yet. What the article doesn't say is that the FBI went to the 10mm first after the Miami shootout, and found the recoil to be "excessive." So, they go to something a little less excessive...because the ballistics are better than the tried and true .45ACP....because, as you know, when you're in a gun fight, you need to be able to shoot far....and, of course, they're the .gov, so why not shoot for the moon. (/dripping sarcasm off/)
Too recoil intensive for women you mean? If so, then you are correct. The men did not complain. I read the column you posted and thanks for posting, but I disagree with it on so many levels. First of all, any pistol you put an inordinate number of rounds through is going to show wear. The 40 S&W no less, no more. Secondly, 40 S&W recoil is no sharper than 45 ACP or SIG 357. I shoot all three regularly, along with 9mm, and only the 9 would be considered to have considerably less recoil than the other three. Thirdly, the FBI, as well as the CIA and their PMCs, not to mention the Air Marshalls, are all carrying 40 S&W (in SIGs and G22s) for a reason ... over-penetration is usually avoided plus their is good, compromising energy transfer associated with the 40 S&W. With that said, I prefer SIG 357 not only for its ballistic advantages but also for accuracy and reliability reasons - but I would not feel under-gunned carrying a good platform/pistol loaded with 40 S&W. Finally, is it not odd that the Internet gun crowd has spent the past decade poo-pooing 40 S&W as 40 Short & Weak ... but now someone pens a column claiming that it is so drastically hot that, not only does it hamper a shooter's accuracy but it also destroys the platform from which it is being fired? Think of the irony in that one.
Well spoken, Airborne Monkey. The .40S&W is that tweener cartridge that gets a bad rap from above and below - as much deserved as undeserved. When I bought my first handgun, it happened to be .40s&w so that was what I built everything around. Doing things all over again is too expensive and impractical, although I've done what would have been unspeakable to me a while back - added 9mm to the mix. I don't regret havng two main cartridges now (and I'd add a third if it was advantageous to do so).
Personally, I believe it is a cross between Madison Avenue marketing and user comfort zone. A bud said he was glad he learned hard ball wasn't adequate until after he fought in a war using it.
