Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
Zee
Posts: 28,456 Senior Member
.40cal to 9mm conversion barrel. Question!
Zee
Posts: 28,456 Senior Member
I have a G23 that is one of my most oft carried CCW sidearms. Not to mention the one I did that draw testing on the practice distance thread.
I used to have a G19 that I stupidly sold in the mid 90s and regretted ever since.
With the resurgent popularity of 9mm and it’s certain transition on the horizon for many.........folks........I’ve been contemplating.
First, I thought of getting a G19 again. That’s the cost of a new gun. Then, I thought of getting a Lone Wolf 40/9 Conversion barrel to turn my G23 into a 9mm (like a G19). This can be accomplished for a fraction of the cost as compared to a new gun.
But then I thought, it ain’t like I suddenly won’t have .40cal ammo. So, why/when would I swap out barrels and carry a 9mm cartridge as opposed to a .40S&W cartridge with proven ammo?
So my questions to you are as follows:
-Would you buy a conversion barrel as opposed to a new gun for the sake of saving money?
-Would you carry a 9mm over a .40 S&W it nothing were different than the barrel in regards to platform if you had both?
In other words......if ammo was not an issue.....why should I carry a gun in 9mm as opposed to .40 S&W when it’s theoretically the same platform?
I could see getting the barrel for practice and what not. But, should I really swap the barrels with intent to carry a different cartridge?
What would you do and why? If you don’t mind.
I used to have a G19 that I stupidly sold in the mid 90s and regretted ever since.
With the resurgent popularity of 9mm and it’s certain transition on the horizon for many.........folks........I’ve been contemplating.
First, I thought of getting a G19 again. That’s the cost of a new gun. Then, I thought of getting a Lone Wolf 40/9 Conversion barrel to turn my G23 into a 9mm (like a G19). This can be accomplished for a fraction of the cost as compared to a new gun.
But then I thought, it ain’t like I suddenly won’t have .40cal ammo. So, why/when would I swap out barrels and carry a 9mm cartridge as opposed to a .40S&W cartridge with proven ammo?
So my questions to you are as follows:
-Would you buy a conversion barrel as opposed to a new gun for the sake of saving money?
-Would you carry a 9mm over a .40 S&W it nothing were different than the barrel in regards to platform if you had both?
In other words......if ammo was not an issue.....why should I carry a gun in 9mm as opposed to .40 S&W when it’s theoretically the same platform?
I could see getting the barrel for practice and what not. But, should I really swap the barrels with intent to carry a different cartridge?
What would you do and why? If you don’t mind.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
Replies
When my daughter was with the Bureau, some female agents used a Glock 23 converted to 9mm, she preferred the .40, I just smiled.
No one can predict the future. It might become handy to have a choice.
Probly not, but its possible, maybe.
On the other hand, switching barrels can be an avoided chore as opposed to the ease of switching guns.
Yes, guys do it, and yes, presumably, it works, but Glock builds the guns with different extractors, ejectors, breechface cuts, etc... for a reason. Believe it - if they felt they could get away with a single set of parts, they would: the Gen 3 .40 ran on a 9mm recoil spring and they broke stuff; the Gen 4 got some re-engineering for the .40 and they tried running the early Gen 4 9mm's on THAT recoil spring. . .and they didn't work.
So yeah. . . not a fan just for the engineering of the gun, but also because of the inherent pitfalls of playing "musical parts". I illustrate it a lot with the concept of the convertible house/hunting shotgun. Murphy says that the day your wife of kids need your riot 870 is the same day you've got a 28" barrel bolted to it and are out with your buddies hunting quail. Or you get home from that quail hunt at 10:00 pm, decide to clean it tomorrow, and leave it in the case, unloaded, with the long barrel and the 3-shot mag plug in. Guess when the home invasion will happen?
Now ponder pistol mag swaps, barrel swaps, ammo swaps.
Now think about how silly you - a guy who builds a full-tilt, quality-optics bolt gun at the drop of a hat - may sound if you talk about saving money by not buying a relatively cheap pistol. It's a Glock, not a Les Baer.
You and I differ on this topic - Despite access to a Dillon and a lot of free brass, my .40's will likely be GONE as soon as I reach a point their fuel is no longer free, so yeah, I would unhesitatingly prefer to carry an otherwise identical 9mm. Don't see any real edge on the terminal side and a lot of disadvantages on the recoil side.
And the new Gen 5 seems to have some edges to the innards and the grip shape (dumbass fiinger grooves GONE! YAY!), so there's that. . .
Time to repent for your error and buy a new 19.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Same rational you posed; could a conv barrel work as well and save ~2/3 the cost of another pistol?
In my case, yep.
NRA Endowment Member
I have several 9mms and the only one I carry on any regular basis is my G43 and that’s due to size. Otherwise, it’s likely some flavor of .40cal.
A S&W Sigma is going to run about $270 and is so close to a Glock, that S&W had to pay Glock millions.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
If you're comparing Jell-O shoot data for the heavy-for-caliber duty round options (147gr 9mm, 180gr .40, 230gr .45), you'll see a tendency for the 9mm to penetrate deeper except where it falls slightly behind in the auto glass test.
You kill a lot of pigs. Let me rephrase that, you kill pigs by the metric buttload, and have no problems waiting to set up a specific shot and meticulously probing through the resulting gut pile to confirm the results. The latest chapter of the "Duty Caliber A versus Duty Caliber B" debate is, "if you can't tell the difference with a smaller round (in incapacitating effect), and you get more and better-placed hits across your workforce overall, then why pay for the difference (in ammo cost, weapon wear, and shooter-related recoil issues)?" The operative in all of that is of course "Can we REALLY see a difference?"
Just sayin', you're probably one of the best guys on this sphere to put the various bits of lab data and beer-drinking hyperbole to a practical field test. You've already done a fair job of testing 5.56 on swine. . .If that helps you buy a new pistol, my work here is done.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Doll it up with a threaded barrel and a brake. May even splurge for the MOS model and put a red dot on it?
Threaded barrel and a ________?
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
NRA Endowment Member
Got nothing against "Cool and Bitchin'", it's just that I've got this decided nagging preference for "WORKS" and comparative "Safety From Stupid".
Maybe I'm overly clingy to my axes made of stone. . .I'm just not sure they're showing us bronze or iron yet.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Screw that thought! 😳
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
I’ve seen the effectiveness of the .40cal terminal performance and I’ve been impressed. To walk away from that on theoretical evidence is difficult.
Not saying the new 9mm ammo doesn’t work. I’m saying I know the .40cal does.
I’m more of a “show me” than a “tell me” kind of guy.
And controlled gel test ain’t it.
When I walk out with a .40cal, I know what it can do. When I walk out with a 9.......I hope it will.
if if it were me, I’d stick with 40, simply for the ammo supply issue. It’s exactly the reason I stick with 9mm. Guess I’m confident enough with 18 rounds of 147 grain hollow points in the gun and another 34 ready if needed. But, a hog test would be cool. For science...
They ain’t cooperating.