[supergreek441]

I was just wondering if anybody has shot the compact in both 9mm and .40 and if so could you comment on the two. I'm mainly wondering about the recoil. Is there much of a difference? I would love to be able to shoot both side-by-side before I make a decision but ranges don't seem to rent them and I don't know anybody who has either one.

 

[ront]

I do not own both, not have I shot both. I do have the .40 Compact. I traded my Glock G27 for it. The M&P definitely has softer recoil than the Glock did. But in general the .40 is a pretty snappy round, and I would figure that there is a fairly noticeable difference in recoil between the two. I am sure that someone who has shot them both will be along soon though and can really answer your question.

Welcome to the forum BTW.



Ron

 

[supergreek441]

Thanks for the info and the welcome. That is interesting that the recoil of the 40c is that much less that the Glock 27. They are about the same size I wonder why there is that big of a difference.

 

[MP Dick]

I've got both. As you'd expect, the 40c has a tad more recoil but it's certainly controllable and not the least bit uncomfortable. I've got a Kahr PM-40 that is a "handful" compared to the M&P 40c. I've fallen so much for my M&P 40's (full and compact) that I'm selling all my 9's (including the M&P 9c).

 

[40SX]

I've shot both the 9 compact and 40 compact, now I own both. The first time me and my girlfriend shot the M&P compacts was about three weeks ago at Smith & Wesson days at a gun shop near me. First we shot the 9 compact with very good results. We then wanted to shoot the 40 compact to compare the two. We were told that we would probably not care too much for the 40 compact because of the recoil, the sales person didn't know both me and my girlfriend shoot my S&W 340PD 12 ounce .357 magnum revolver everytime we get to the range, so recoil is not a factor, at least for us. There was several minutes between shooting the 9 and the 40, so I really can't say the 40 had much more recouil than the 9 compact. Both are great handguns, reliable and accurate. In fact my girlfriend's target had all six shots touching one another at fifteen yards when she fired the 40 compact, great excuse to buy one.



That day I brought home a M&P 9 compact, and this past Saturday I brought home my 40 compact that my dealer ordered for me. I wish I knew where to purchase some 9C and 40C mags, I understand their pricing for mags is a bit more than H&K USP compact mags.



Dennis

 

[slove_mp9c]

dennis,



you might check the store here. i got 2 mags for my 9 here and they were a fair price and delivered quickly.

 

[2xTap]

We own both as of yesterday.

Mine is the 40C and my wife's is the 9C. I haven't shot hers yet (or vice versa) but she did remark that the 9C has a little more recoil to it than her XD9SC does. I hope to give a good range report on both of them later today after we've had a chance to put a couple hundred rounds down the pipe on each.

 

[ParkPopo]

I would like to revisit this thread and see if more of you own or have shot both side-by-side (Dan??). I'm debating between the two right now. Is there a significant difference in recoil between the two?



I'm issued a .40 and so if I got a .40, I'd get a couple boxes of ammo free every month. But, if I got the 9, ammo that I did buy would be cheaper, especially if I ever left my position or just wanted to put 500 rounds through it one weekend. I'm not terribly concerned about ballistics performance between the two. IMHO, a 9 will stop a bg just as fast as a 40 if placed well enough.



Right now I'm leaning toward the 9 because my local gun store has them in stock, and .40 has a wait!



Any comments would be appreciated!

 

[R Salesman]

I've got the 9c and have been very pleased with it. I shot a .40 full-size, and was REALLY impressed with how it handled the recoil. Haven't shot the .40c, so I can't really answer the original question.



What I can say, however, is that I chose the 9c over the .40c primarily for the greater capacity in 9. Ammo's cheaper, you know the recoil is going to be softer (how much softer is up for debate), and good quality self-defense 9mm ammo is on par with other calibers with respect to penetration/expansion. For me, I'm able to perform aimed double-taps and quick follow up shots with greater accuracy with 9mm than I can with .40 S&W, so that's why I chose to go with the 9c.



Regarding mags . . .



I bought two from the online store here. Great purchase experience. The mags were shipped promptly, and arrived at my door when they were supposed to.

 

[DHart]

I haven't shot the 9C but after shooting my 40C for around 650 rounds, I will honestly testify that I see no reason to buy the nine unless having slightly extra capacity is so important to you that you don't mind giving up the potency of forty. The 40C feels about like my Glock 19 with 124 gr. +P 9mm loads. Similar felt recoli. The 40C is a very easy gun to shoot well... quite manageable... makes 40 feel quite moderate, actually.

 

[targatop]

...the sales person didn't know both me and my girlfriend shoot my S&W 340PD 12 ounce .357 magnum revolver everytime we get to the range, so recoil is not a factor, at least for us...

You are brave souls. I have the 340PD and I can't stand to run anything hotter than a .38+P through it because it's like shaking hands with the devil. That said, I'm not adverse to recoil. My camping carry is a 329PD - that's a scandium .44 magnum - and I love that gun.

 

[Walker]

IMHO, get a .40. You will not regret it.

 

[DennisE]

I shot .45s and .40s for years believing that 9mm were worthless. All of my pistols including my new M&P compact are now 9mm. 9mm is much cheaper to shoot. It is just as much fun to shoot and easy to shoot well. Loaded with Gold Dot or Golden Saber bullets it has plenty of capability to get you out of a nasty situation. 9mm is plenty for people, if your attacker is an armored reptilian creature from another star system then grab the most powerful large bore rifle you find. Dennis

 

[RepeatDefender]

.40

 

[Kraigster414]

If this question was posed 5 or so years ago, I would have said without question, go with the .40, however there have been great strides made in beefing up the 9mm round without significantly bumping up the recoil (or pressues in the case of the +P), that I would have no hesitation recommending the M&Pc in 9mm for carry or home defense. The 9mm equates to higher capacity, lower recoil, quicker follow-up shots, and it's cheaper to shoot. And the cheaper to shoot, the more you shoot. The more you shoot, the more proficient you become. I keep my 9mm's loaded with the new Corbon DPX. It is an outstanding round with very impressive penetration and expansion qualities.



In short, the 9mm has come a long way in recent years and the reasons for going .40 are not quite as strong as they used to be.

 

[DHart]

I've been rethinking my opinion on the .40 vs. 9 thing. In recent days I've come to appreciate 9mm a lot more. I bought a Glock 19 and have really enjoyed the size, capacity, reliability, etc. Of course it doesn't feel as nice in the hand as an M&P, but it's a great pistol nonetheless. Sixteen rounds on tap in a fairly small size, with 17-round back up mags gives quite a bit of capacity.



With today's top choices in modern defense ammo, I do feel that the difference in potency between 9 and 40 is less important than the difference in capacity and in rapidity of follow-up shots. 9mm definitely has the advantage of extra capacity and quicker return to target... two very significant factors in the equation. I think an M&P 9 Compact may join my .40 Compact someday! ;-)~ I still like having and shooting forty, but nine has recently come way up in desireability for me. And I really like the Glock 19, which has had a lot to do with my change of view.

 

[Dan Burwell]

I have shot plenty of both the 9 and the 40 compacts, if I were buying one for myself it would certainly be a 40. Recoil is difference is very minimal, both are very controllable and I don't find any difference in follow up shot times.



I guess I have some screwy thoughts sometimes like; a 9 may expand but a 40 will never shrink, and I also think that if the difference in capacity (2 rounds) makes a difference in a gun fight I am probably screwed regardless.



These are my own personal rationalizations yours may vary! :wink:

 

[choochboost]

FWIW, I have found the "snappiness" of the .40 allows the front sight to consistently settle right where I want it. In California, capacity is a non-issue since everything is maxed out at 10 rounds.

 

[Kraigster414]

I have shot plenty of both the 9 and the 40 compacts, if I were buying one for myself it would certainly be a 40. Recoil is difference is very minimal, both are very controllable and I don't find any difference in follow up shot times.



I guess I have some screwy thoughts sometimes like; a 9 may expand but a 40 will never shrink, and I also think that if the difference in capacity (2 rounds) makes a difference in a gun fight I am probably screwed regardless.



These are my own personal rationalizations yours may vary! :wink:

But what if you already own three .40's Dan?

I guess I am one of those who although owns and shoots the 40SW, never quite warmed up to the caliber (I have since converted two .40s to .357Sig). Quite snappy/cracky the .40SW - I will always prefer the "woomph" of a .45. For me, the progression is 9mm then full speed ahead to .45ACP. Each to his own and that's what makes this fun. Bottom line, today's 9mm is a very formidable caliber. Do your part by becoming proficient and purchasing quality ammo and you will be well-protected indeed.

 

[BonoVox]

Thanks for the info and the welcome. That is interesting that the recoil of the 40c is that much less that the Glock 27. They are about the same size I wonder why there is that big of a difference.

From my unscientific examination it seems the M&P 40C has a heavier slide than the G27.



I own the G26 and I feel the recoil is lighter on my M&P 40C than the 9MM G26. I am qualifying with both tomorrow. I will give you first hand experience tomorrow night on shooting both side by side 72 rounds each.



BTW I actually like the M&P 40C without the extended grip too. The same way I shoot the G26.



But either way I would shoot both and decide for yourself. When I did that with the 9MM G26 and .40 G27 I knew I had to get the G26. There was a huge difference in recoil.



Now when I shoot the M&P 40C vrs the 9MM G26 I see no difference. Or if anything again the M&P 40C has less recoil.



So long answer short seriously consider the 40C over the 9C. Unless ammo prices are a huge factor for you.