Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Already have a 9mm- should I get a 40?

I have an older Browning High Power 9mm and it shoots pretty good but it has a Bomar ramp sight attached to the slide which adds weight and bulk. I removed the slide today and was able to hit pretty well without any sights at all. I am considering carrying it like this- with no sights. But I am also considering buying a new handgun for concealed carry. The BHP without the ramp sight and empty weighs 35 ounces so is on the heavy side. I see that Springfield has a XDM Compact with 3.8" barrel that weighs 27 ounces empty and am considering that but not sure if I should stick with the 9mm (which I reload for already) or switch to the 40. Any thoughts? Am I crazy to consider carrying the BHP without sights? Any major real world differences in the 9mm versus the 40?

only if you just want another pistol in a different cal.

I'm not well versed on the XDM, but you may look at the possibility of getting a 40 that had barrel/magazine swap to 9mm. Maybe this is an option with the XDM. That way all bases are covered.

I went that route with the Glocks. Glock 17 followed by a Glock 22 plus a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel.

pretty much sums it up! I have 45's,44's 357's 38's and 22's and I carry a 1911 Colt and a Glock 26 or S&W 642 ( you have one of the very best handguns ever made)

You should always get another gun

With modern loads, there's very little justification for getting a .40 if you already have a 9mm. Law enforcement agencies make the switch because it's only the tax payer's money, so they consider it free.

Just heard about the S&W M&P Shield. Looks like another good option. I kiind of doubt that I would regulary want to carry my Browning High Power as heavy and large as it is. I would be more likely to regulary carry a smaller, lighter handgun. Not sure how small to go though. The Shield only carries I think 8 or 9 cartridges in 9mm (of course that sure ought to be enough for 95% or more situations).

I like my Shield in 40 cal

Personally, I would not carry a handgun with no sights. I would not feel confident in hits much past seven yards with no sights. I am a big 40 fan but would not spend money to "upgrade". In reality all you would really gain is recoil and expense compared to your 9.

-Z

BEA- what is the capacity on your Shield 40?

agreed.

i wouldnt carry without sights unless i had no other options. I have the XDM in 9. Love it. No reason not to have both a 9 and 40. You already load for the 9 so why not get another. Then again dies are cheap so i would probably go with the 40. But i am a perpetual gun buyer/tinkerer (bushism?). I say go for the 40

then again i like the 1911 bobtail as my carry choice so i may be a little off center.

Any major real world differences in the 9mm versus the 40?

no

You could get another BHP in 40 S&W. Check out gunbroker.com
But no one will be less wounded by 9mm than by a 40.

Since you have a High Power, like it and shoot it well, I'd get another as a carry gun with appropriate sights. Yes, I know they make the HP in the .40, but you are already setup with 9mm stuff.
The only real difference between them is or was the .40's ability to shoot through barriers like auto glass. Is that important to you ? Nines often hold a few more rounds. Some prefer that. E

rufous,

The Belgian Hi-Power is one of the best handguns ever made. British SAS used to carry it. If you're comfortable with it, I wouldn't switch. If you want another handgun, I'd suggest giving serious consideration to a 1911A1.

Fixed it for ya.

Otherwise, good post, E!

6 in one mag and 7 in the ext mag, plus one in the spout .

I wouldn't say crazy, you just don't know schit from shinola about handgun marksmanship.

Go shoot a local IDPA match with your Hi-Power sans sights and let us know how it works out.

I am not interested in competition marksmanship but combat. Of course they are largely the same but different also. Not sure how I managed to heart shoot my last bear at 80 yards with my open sighted revolver since I know nothing bout marksmanship. So very grateful to you take a hike.

I like my High Power but really think I would prefer a smaller and lighter overall package for regular carry.

Me neither. Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.

I admit I have plenty to learn about defensive carry and use which is why I ask questions. To be degraded is not helpful and I have noticed the same BS from you in other posts so unless you care to add something useful take a hike.

I'd say get a 40 if you are looking for something new, also throw the sights back on your browning and rock on....

I do plan to go hiking tommorrow Rufus.

To the OP:
From an ammo perspective, the consensus seems to be that there is not that much difference between 9mm and 40 - assuming you are using the best defensive ammo for each. For the same pistol, a 9mm will likely hold a bit more ammo. For the same pistol, the 40 is likely to have more recoil.

If you get a lighter and smaller pistol in 9mm, it will be easier to carry, but there will also be more recoil. If you go to a lighter, smaller 40 compared to your Browning 9mm you will definitely notice more recoil. This could affect your ability to deliver repeat shots or shots to multiple targets. Whether this difference in recoil makes a significant difference to YOU is something only you can decide. Best to borrow, beg or rent the pistol you are thinking of buying and trying it out compared to your Browning before making a decision.

One of the many nice things about the Browning is because it is a service pistol it is quite pleasant to shoot and easy to shoot well. Smaller and lighter pistols can sacrifice that, at least to some extent. Comfortable concealed carry is partly a function of weight and bulk of the weapon, but also a function of the holster - a good holster (and if you are using a belt holster, the belt should also be considered a part of the whole system) can assist greatly in carry comfort and concealment - and don't forget that a couple of magazines on the other side can help balance things out so you don't feel as lopsided.

By the way, wouldn't it be possible to get another slide for the Browning with good fixed sights? Interchangeable parts and all that.

I carry a 40 at work, but prefer the 9mm.

In today's world i'd be more apt to consolidate my defensive handguns to one cartridge, if at all practical.

And, depending on load, a 9mm is about as effective as a .40, or .45.

I wouldn't have a handgun without adequate sights...

I tend to disagree with this , I prefer to diversify rather than consolidate. If all I have is say a .380 and I can't get ammo, I'm screwed .If I have a 9mm and a .38 and a .357 I will have ammo for at least one available. Just a different point of view

Why L? It's nice when a LEO responds to questions like this. I figured most would prefer the 40 if given the chance. I recently bought a 9mm even though I already had a 45 and 40. I figured I'd practice with it more since ammo costs less and it is more enjoyable to shoot and probably a little easier to handle.

I have a Glock 27 and reload for it. With proper care and feeding I can duplicate the most common velocity in the same bullet weight of standard factory 10mm. Tough to do that with a 9mm.

I've taken mule deer with my G27 and don't feel undergunned anywhere with it concealed. At 20oz. empty it is light and works great in the accuracy department.

Last weekend one of our sons and I were out in the desert shooting balloons that were bouncing by at 25-40 yards and hitting a surprising number of them. Him more than me.

I've worked on the trigger on mine, put on some rubber anti skid grips on it and replace the barrel with a KKM, and it came with night sights.

I've shot our sons' XD40 and its a great value as well, just like the Glocks better. (Watch Hickcok45 Utube on the Glock 27)