XD-subcompact: 9mm or .40

[Wazzu]

First of all, I've read all threads here and elsewhere about "stopping power" of the 9mm vs. the .40 which has made things clear as mud, so my intention here is not to start another one of those threads.

Here's my situation:

I've been carrying a Springfield XD-9 (4" barrel) since I got my HCP about a month ago but it is kind of heavy and bulky so I've decided to buy another XD in the subcompact (3" barrel) size. From what I've read, the weight is around 20 oz. vs the 26 oz. of the one I'm carrying now.

Here's the question:

Would you buy another 9mm or go .40 cal for the new gun?

I think the obvious advantage of the .40 is the stopping power (assuming that I am equally proficient with either gun).

However, will the shooting characteristics of the .40 be different enough from my current 9mm to require a great deal of practice with the .40 in order to be equally proficient? If so, then I guess the higher cost of .40 ammo would weigh into the equation.

Would the convenience of having both guns use the same ammo be enough to have any impact on your decision?

Is the weight difference between 13 rounds of 9mm ammo and 9 rounds of .40 ammo at all significant? Would the 13 round mag capacity of the 9mm vs. the 9 rounds of .40 sway your decision?

Just looking for some opinions. Thanks.

[Guest friesepferd]

Well the first question is- how many times have you shot a 40?

Plenty of people love the 40. Personally, I can't stand it. As far as recoil goes and the feel of the gun, I would take a 45 over a 40 any day. Heck, I would take a 10mm over a 40 any day.

My description of how the 40 feels is similar to what most people I know (that dont like it) say. a 9mm and a 45cal 'push', while a 40cal 'snaps'.

Some people like it, as mentioned. But if you have not done a lot of shooting with a 40 yet, then dont run into that boat without checking the waters first.

Find a place that you can rent a 40 a few times and see if you like it better.

Personally, I shoot a 9. I like 45 a lot as well, but I just happen to be a 9 person. Stopping power is plenty, especially with a JHP. The round count is significant in my book. I now carry a XDm 3.8" compact. My first mag holds 13; my backup mag holds 19. I used to carry a small 9mm 1911 that held 8+1 and 9+1 secondary. Although I certainly dont plan on getting in a firefight where I need 33 rounds.. I also realize this:

1) I don't always carry a backup mag. It depends on my setup that day - Thus assume that I only have 9 rounds vs 14 rounds (assuming i carry with the shorter mags)

2) If a bad guy is worth shooting once, he is worth shooting 3 times.

3) Depending on the situation, it is possible that bullets will be flung that wont stick

That means that in my mind, I see it very possible to use 3-6 rounds against an attacker

Now, how many attackers do I want to be prepared for? I dont run around prepared to take on an army of course, but what I do find very possible, is for example, being attacked by a group of 3. For me, a group of the means a minimum of 9 rounds, and very possibly more. That was what I was carrying with my old setup, and thats one of the reasons I switched over to the XD.

So, 9 round in the 40 may be plenty for you, and plenty of people carry guns with only 5. Just personally, I found that I felt a lot better having a few more.

As far as your other questions go- keeping the same ammo is a factor for me. Its actually the reason I havnt gotten around to buying a 45 yet. Having all (ok most, 22 doesnt count) my semi autos shoot the same round is SO convenient, and so much cheaper. And yea.. the 40 costs more... and I hope you plan on practicing with your carry gun, so it is indeed a factor for you.

So obviously as you can see my vote is a 9mm.

Not saying that the 40 won't work great for you. It does for a lot of people, just not me.

Edited May 10, 2011 by friesepferd

[D3vo]

I can tell you the XDSC .40 is not 20oz and I don't think there is a dimes worth of weight difference in the 9mm. I believe the fully loaded XDSC .40 (9+1) is about 32oz. If someone doesn't beat me to it I will throw the it on the scale tonight.

[Jonnin]

I went with the 40 when faced with this choice. However, after it was all said and done, I think that was a mistake. .40 is pricy, and 33% or so of the brass you find is ruined from a glock if you want to reload it (need extra step and aggravation). Its a bit more powerful than a 9mm but its like bowling... you can get a strike with an 8 pound ball if you hit the pins right, or you can leave stuff with a 16 pounder... its all about what you hit and for any handgun that means you have to hit heart or CNS areas, period.

The main thing I would say going for a .40 over a 9mm is the bullet weight. Heavier bullets just do better in almost any realistic testing you can research. Gel testing does not make as big an impact but if you look at cadaver/rib-slab testing with bones and such, the heavy stuff does a better job, a slow moving .45 round tends to outperform a hypervelocity 9mm, half the speed and twice the mass, mass wins every time (placement being equal). This is a touchy subject so from here I invite you to read the studies and results and form your own conclusions. Before you make a decision, you really, really need to understand that "stopping power" is a silly, nonsense term -- equal and opposite reaction tells you that a cannon is required to "stop" a man in his tracks by sheer physics (IE the heart and CNS are not hit).

The 40 is not that much heavier and if you have less of it in the mag, the weight difference is a wash. You will not notice the difference.

The price of 40 is a huge drawback if you like to practice. Availability is another issue. On top of those, same caliber for your weapons is a big bonus.

Having extra shots in each mag of 9mm balances out most of of the advantages of a 40 caliber.

In your situation I would use the 9mm.

[Erik88]

the xd subcompact is much heavier than 20oz and you honestly won't notice much difference between carrying it and carrying the 4".

If you really want something smaller and lighter to carry you are not going to notice a huge difference unless you get something single stack like a PPS or Ruger LC9

[peejman]

Stopping power is a myth. Get the caliber you're most accurate with. Misses with .50 BMG do the same amount of damage as misses with a slingshot.

[hipower]

For all the stated reasons in the above posts, I'd go with the 9mm. I have shot and own several examples of the two calibers from different manufacturers, and don't reallly think the 40 is greatly more difficult to shoot/control in the majority of handguns. But there are some in shich the felt recoil is more pronounced, but not uncomfortably so.

As said, it really comes down to what you like to shoot. I really like my G30 and XD9sc in 9mm, but the G22 in 40 is not bad at all.

So I really haven't helped you here; it's still the old choice. More lighter bullets or less heavier bullets. My advice...pick the one you are comfortable with, like the best, and can afford to shoot regularly. If you don't shoot enough, you'll not be consistant witha any gun or load. jmo

[Wazzu]

Thanks for the input everyone. I'm feeling much more confident in my leaning toward the 9mm.

This post did give me some pause though:

the xd subcompact is much heavier than 20oz and you honestly won't notice much difference between carrying it and carrying the 4".

If you really want something smaller and lighter to carry you are not going to notice a huge difference unless you get something single stack like a PPS or Ruger LC9

Has anyone else carried both guns and felt little difference?

On a side note, I also plan to get a supertuck or similar holster at the same time so I don't have to walk around with my shirt untucked all the time.

[Erik88]

To elaborate on my first post. I have both a Glock 19 and 26 which could be compared to having the 4" XD and the Subcompact XD. I honestly don't notice a drastic difference in carrying the compact vs the subcompact.

If you really want something that is going to be noticeably lighter and smaller then I don't think the subcompact is what you are looking for.

I had the XD40 subcompact and loved it but the term "subcompact" is used very loosely in the gun industry.

[Jonnin]

If stopping power were a total myth we would all carry .22s or bb guns. There is something to physics, else the army, police, etc would all carry a .22 LR for the economics.... again, educate yourself on it, the term is surrounded by nonsense and myth but I can assure you a 230 grain 45 has "something" that a 30 grain .22 does not. Both can kill, sure, but which one is more likely to be effective at ending an attack on your life if your shot is nonfatal? Why? That is what has to be understood. There is a reason that chart starts at 9mm. Again, its a touchy subject with too much baggage to really ramp up a debate here, but IMHO every HCP holder should be able to answer my 2 questions at a basic level for their own peace of mind and so they can discard garbage encounted on the web as they happen across it.

[monkeylizard]

You'll save some weight by switching from the 4" to 3", but not a lot. Mostly you'll notice the shorter grip (w/short mag) is easier to conceal. I have an XDsc.40 kept in a CompTac Minotaur on a Crossbreed belt. I don't like it*. It's still too heavy. I'm breaking in a Kahr PM9 today at CHMR that I picked up here on TGO. The XD will be relegated to nightstand duty. Kahr has released the CM9 to compete with the Ruger LC9. Don't skip that one if you decide to evaluate the "pocket 9" world.

+1 to getting a big gain in size/weight by going single stack. The downside is of course fewer bangs.

* I love the holster. It's the weight of the gun I don't like.

Edited May 10, 2011 by monkeylizard

[Guest friesepferd]

i doubt the subcompact is a ton lighter, but it will be easier to conceal. the length of the grip is one of the most important aspects of concealing.

2nd only to the holster in my opinion. check out the SuperTuck Deluxe

Its what I got for my XDm 3.8" compact and its amazing. I'm hoping to post a review here soon.

I also highly suggest either getting the combat cut, or get the normal cut and do the combat cut yourself - which is what i did. easy to do with just a pair of scissors.

[Erik88]

i check out the SuperTuck Deluxe

.

I have(and use) the Supertuck and I think it is one of the most OVER-rated holsters on the market. $70 for a piece of leather and kydex. I use it almost daily but wouldn't buy another one. Next time I'll get a Kholster for 1/2 the price. Not trying to derail the thread, just thought I would throw out an alternative to the Supertuck.

[JeffL]

With a good belt (Beltman horsehide or Wilderness Instructor 1.5") and my MTAC holster, the weight of my Glock 23 is a non issue. My 5" 1911 is a bit more noticeable. If I were to get a subcompact I would get it in 9mm and load it with 124gr +P Gold Dots, HST, or Ranger T. I had thought about the Glock 26 Gen 4 but I think I'm going to get a Kahr CM9 and see how I like it.

[Oh Shoot]

I can tell you the XDSC .40 is not 20oz and I don't think there is a dimes worth of weight difference in the 9mm. I believe the fully loaded XDSC .40 (9+1) is about 32oz. If someone doesn't beat me to it I will throw the it on the scale tonight.

the xd subcompact is much heavier than 20oz and you honestly won't notice much difference between carrying it and carrying the 4"....

Loaded with 13+1 124 grain Golden Sabers, my XD SC9 weighs exactly 2 lbs on digital scale. Plus holster weight. (avatar)

- OS

[Guest Oaklands]

I have the XDSC in 9mm. The muzzle flip would be too much for me in a .40. The only .40 I own is a Sig P229 and it has less muzzle flip than any .40 I have shot. Currently it has a 9mm barrel and mag in it. Now if I could just find that .357 sig I bought for it.

[dou44]

i bought a galco king tuk for $47 delivered from opticsplanet for my xd sc, great holster and just as good as the supertuck. i have the 40 and it hides good and shoots great but you do have to get use to the muzzle flip if you use a 180 gr bullet. i like the 165 gr alittle better if i am shooting alot. ammo cost wise i wish i had went with the 9mm, Edited May 10, 2011 by dou44

[Guest Kamikaze]

I'll throw my two cents in. I love my 9sc. I love my 45c even more. I got a 40 and didn't much care for it. If you are already used to carrying the 4" barrel I would try a .45 compact. You will notice the grip the most when you are CCing. Your more than welcome to shoot mine if you are in the area. I did a comparison thread a month or two ago. You can see it for yourself there.

[Guest Kamikaze]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handguns/54599-xd-sub-compact-9mm-vs-xd-compact-45-a.html

[Guest 10mm4me]

Stopping power with handguns is a myth. It does not exist. You would be equally armed with a 9 or .40. The question is, do you wanna pay a few $$$ more for .40? If you are carrying a 9, .40, .45, .38, .357, 10mm whatever, as long as it is one of those, you're good. Skill is far more important. Practice presentation, holstering, sight alignment, trigger control, reloads and get whatever you like and don't worry about it.

[Guest mbushell]

Stopping power may be a myth. I made my decision on caliber when I read the story about a man cleaning his 1911. The chambered round went off putting a two inch hole in the palm of his hand. He was rushed to the hospital where he spent two days in intensive care and nearly lost his life due to blood loss. Also, the armed forces adopted the .45 because it was said that if you hit a man even in the hand with it he will be out of the fight. Simply put larger caliber...bigger hole...attacker out of fight. In your permit class they also advise carrying the largest caliber you can comfortably and accurately shoot.

I agree with the folks about the nasty "snap" a .40 has. I love my .45. It shoots well, and 12+1 and an extra mag is plenty.

A handgun is considered a "marginal weapon". That is why the military uses rifles. Smaller calibers with less energy are known to bounce off skulls and ribcages. Give me that 230gr. sledgehammer any day

[BigJim]

Stopping power with handguns is a myth. It does not exist. You would be equally armed with a 9 or .40. The question is, do you wanna pay a few $$$ more for .40? If you are carrying a 9, .40, .45, .38, .357, 10mm whatever, as long as it is one of those, you're good. Skill is far more important. Practice presentation, holstering, sight alignment, trigger control, reloads and get whatever you like and don't worry about it.

Good Advice!

[tnhawk]

I won't get into the caliber debate, I have several .40 and .45 pistols. My only 9 is a Beretta M9 and isn't an option for concealed carry. My choices for carry have gradually changed to smaller, lighter pistols. The next pistol I purchase will probably be a 9. The most effective pistol made, is useless it you don't have it when you need it.

[Patton]

I have(and use) the Supertuck and I think it is one of the most OVER-rated holsters on the market. $70 for a piece of leather and kydex. I use it almost daily but wouldn't buy another one. Next time I'll get a Kholster for 1/2 the price. Not trying to derail the thread, just thought I would throw out an alternative to the Supertuck.

The kholster is more comfortable too.

A very important point I learned is that a subcompact can almost be harder to carry at times due to less of the barrel slide to stabalize it in a holster. Almost like the grip of the gun wants to flop over.

I carry a 40 over a 9mm only because having a Law Enforcement background having fired thousands of rounds through 40's I might have a better defenve to in court if I ever have to use it. Otherwise I would carry 9mm+p.

[eapking]

I had this decision a while back on G26 versus G27. So I rented both and ran them side by side. Ended up with the G26. I did not enjoy the snap of the .40 on that G27.