I don't see how 9mm is the "least" what bias person wrote that test up
Most pro firearms instructors will tell you that you shouldn't carry a caliber less powerful than 9mm. This is based on years of objective cartridge testing. The .380 ACP is a notoriously underpenetrating round, and some suggest that if you do carry .380 to carry FMJ to mitigate that. Having said that, I don't care what you carry, it is your life. People have been shot with .25 ACP and died. Would I carry a .25? No.
What I object to is people who criticize others for the caliber they carry, if it is an effective round, and the argument against .40 most often used is that it is a compromise caliber. Hey, guess what, all rounds and pistols are a compromise.
Person A: You shoot a .40? That’s a compromise round.
Person B: Yes, I compromise size for capacity, and it has more muzzle energy than .45 ACP. What do you shoot?
Person A: 9mm (G19, M&P, XD).
Person B: And you’re not compromising round size or power for recoil? GTFO.
Person A: You shoot a .40? That’s a compromise round.
Person B: Yes, I compromise size for capacity, and it has more muzzle energy than .45 ACP. What do you shoot?
Person A: 9mm (G26, Shield, XD-S, LC9).
Person B: And you’re not compromising round size or power or capacity or sight radius or barrel length or grip area (amplifying the slightest operator error) for gun size? GTFO.
Person A: You shoot a .40? That’s a compromise round.
Person B: Yes, I compromise size for capacity, and it has more muzzle energy than .45 ACP. What do you shoot?
Person A: 9mm, +P
Person B: Why, so you can get .40 standard pressure velocity only with less power using a smaller bullet because 9mm standard load is insufficient? GTFO.
Person A: You shoot a .40? That’s a compromise round.
Person B: Yes, I compromise size for capacity, and it has more muzzle energy than .45 ACP. What do you shoot?
Person A: 9mm, Buffalo Bore +P+++++
Person B: Why, so you can get .40 standard pressure ballistics using a smaller round because 9mm standard load is insufficient? GTFO.
Person A: You shoot a .40? That’s a compromise round.
Person B: Yes, I compromise size for capacity, and it has more muzzle energy than .45 ACP. What do you shoot?
Person A: .380 ACP (G42, P3AT, LCP, P380, P238, Bodyguard)
Person B: And you’re not compromising round size or power or capacity or sight radius or barrel length or grip area (amplifying the slightest operator error) or penetration for a tiny gun that’s small and easy to carry using a round with notoriously poor stopping power? GTFO. Now.
Every gun and round is a compromise in some respect. A pistol is a compromise for a rifle. 5.56 NATO is a compromise for 7.62 NATO. A .45 ACP is a compromise for a .357 Magnum (by most accounts), yet cops jumped on the chance to use a .45 ACP over a .357 Mag. Shoot what you want and what you can control and what you will carry.
People who criticize .40 S&W carriers are just like the CCers who criticize OCers, and they do it using the same myth tactics. Stop it.
Curiously enough, we don’t see the same controversy and condemnation with .357 Sig as we do with the .40, even though a) it is more expensive than .40, so you’re not going to shoot it as much, b) it has much more blast (noise/pressure) and isn’t as pleasant to shoot as the .40, so you’re not going to shoot it as much, c) it isn’t as soft shooting as the .40, so you’re not going to shoot it as much, d) because of the necked down cartridge it is harder to reload than the straight-walled .40, so you might not shoot it as much if you are a reloader. So I would say that if the choice of going to a .357 Sig means you’re not going to shoot it as much in practice during the year, it’s probably a poor carry choice. Like the 10mm, it’s not a novice cartridge.
