9mm Vrs .40SW for varmints II
OP by Farmer Brown.
I frequently see coyotes while in the tractor or combine. I don't want to use a rifle cartridge because of the proximity of houses, farms, and livestock. I built a 9mm AR that I now use. I recently have become intrigued with the Keltec Sub 2000 in .40. It will fit much better in my cluttered cabs. Ballistically, what am I looking at between the two calibers with both being fired from a 16" barrel as far as effective range, bullet drop, etc. I'm currently using Israeli surplus +P+ ball in the AR and it is suiting me well.
__________
Orignally posted by Quickmajik
9mm would be good enough IMHO. With +P+ hollow points you should be able to kill stuff dead at 150 or 200 yards with alittle kentucky windage.
The Sub2000 in 9mm that uses glock 17/18 magazines is a good option because of the plentiful but cheap Korean made glock mags in 17 and 33 round capacity.
_______________
Orignally posted by TSR
Sorry, but that is totally irresponsible. Encouraging the spray and pray tactic in the near proximity of dwellings.
Best
_____________
If his current AR has iron sights, it would seem a safe assumption he would already be capable of useing the Keltec. I'd also most likely assume, safely, if he is useing a standard A2 upper, it is not calibrated for the non standard 9mm round he is useing.
I did not encourage or advocate spray and pray, for lack of an optical sight, the iron sight must be used. The iron sights on a Keltec are not easily adjusted for bullet drop and wind.
That has to be done useing the iron sights as is.
In order to compensate for wind and bullet drop the iron sights are the way to do it.
I'd imagine most people with alittle practice could consistantly hit a 5 gallon bucket at 150 to 200 yards with the kel tec sub 2000. I can anyway. Usually on the first trigger pull.
Magazine capcity has little to do with hitting the target. Korean Glock magazines cost less then half of what decent beretta magazines retail for.
9mm is easier to find at an economical price. It has .380 like wound ballistics at 200 yards.
I frequently see coyotes while in the tractor or combine. I don't want to use a rifle cartridge because of the proximity of houses, farms, and livestock. I built a 9mm AR that I now use. I recently have become intrigued with the Keltec Sub 2000 in .40. It will fit much better in my cluttered cabs. Ballistically, what am I looking at between the two calibers with both being fired from a 16" barrel as far as effective range, bullet drop, etc. I'm currently using Israeli surplus +P+ ball in the AR and it is suiting me well.
__________
Orignally posted by Quickmajik
9mm would be good enough IMHO. With +P+ hollow points you should be able to kill stuff dead at 150 or 200 yards with alittle kentucky windage.
The Sub2000 in 9mm that uses glock 17/18 magazines is a good option because of the plentiful but cheap Korean made glock mags in 17 and 33 round capacity.
_______________
Orignally posted by TSR
Sorry, but that is totally irresponsible. Encouraging the spray and pray tactic in the near proximity of dwellings.
Best
_____________
If his current AR has iron sights, it would seem a safe assumption he would already be capable of useing the Keltec. I'd also most likely assume, safely, if he is useing a standard A2 upper, it is not calibrated for the non standard 9mm round he is useing.
I did not encourage or advocate spray and pray, for lack of an optical sight, the iron sight must be used. The iron sights on a Keltec are not easily adjusted for bullet drop and wind.
That has to be done useing the iron sights as is.
In order to compensate for wind and bullet drop the iron sights are the way to do it.
I'd imagine most people with alittle practice could consistantly hit a 5 gallon bucket at 150 to 200 yards with the kel tec sub 2000. I can anyway. Usually on the first trigger pull.
Magazine capcity has little to do with hitting the target. Korean Glock magazines cost less then half of what decent beretta magazines retail for.
9mm is easier to find at an economical price. It has .380 like wound ballistics at 200 yards.
0
-
Yep...right...OK...what ever you want to make yourself think. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
Yep...right...OK...what ever you want to make yourself think.
Right back atcha pilgrim.0 -
I think the first thing FarmerBrown needs to do is a ballistic comparison between the 9mm, the .40 S&W and the .223. That includes terminal ballistics. Because, I think Hawkshaw nailed it when saying fast and light will blow up, heavy and slow tend to cause ricochets. That would IMO, also apply to using FMJ's. They tend to ricochet more than soft tipped or hollow-pointed bullets. If you don't believe that, you should get to watch a night live fire sometime....watch all the ricochets.
Anyhow, with a light fast varmint round there is a lot less 'Kentucky windage' and elevation involved. Therefore less chance of a miss. Anytime you have to calculate a hit on a target as opposed to point of aim/point of impact, you decrease the margin for error.
My bottome line is NEITHER a 9mm or a .40 for a varmint round. Get a HV varmint round in a short handy rifle and use that. Maybe even go with an AR Pistol. Another possibility is a T/C Contender.
-good luck with your choice.0 -
a slow heavy solid bullet will be more likely to ricochet in one piece and retain energy then a fast and light bullet.
a 9mm 124 grain bullet will have a 500 ft pound of energy at the muzzle, about 300 at 100 yards and what 150 at 200 yards.
bullet drop would be about 3 inches at 100 yards and a solid two feet at 200 with a 100 yard zero.
a .223remington with a 40 grain varmint bullet will have 1200-1300 ft pounds of energy at the muzzle depending on velocity, and about 250-300ft pounds of energy at 400 yards.
at 200 yard the bullet would be near the bore line, at 400 yards bullet drop will drop alittle over a foot.
there is no comparison to be made, the .223remington is the superior round.
Thats said I know of no .223remington with a stock that would fit within the cab of most tractors comfortably. Atleast none that are legal to buy without also buying government permission.0 -
This is all largely speculative, since the original poster never mentioned the distances involved.
In GENERAL, a 9mm luger +P will launch a 124 grain projectile at 1350+ fps from a carbine, and you can go faster yet with certain loads, and/or lighter bullet weights.
That's .357 magnum-like ballistics and certainly plenty of "gun" for a 35 lb coyote.
Bullet drop is only an issue if you're shooting past 100 yards. . .we don't know if that is or isn't the case here.
.40 SW could work too for much the same reasons, though the rounds cost more and with typical bullet weights don't shoot as flat. I don't see capacity as relevant here.
In short, I don't see any advantage to a .40SW in this setting unless you also want the same gun to double as an anti-human gun, and/or especially if you want to share magazines between your .40SW carbine and your .40SW pistol.
So to answer the original question (and ONLY that question), if the coyote hunting choice is between a 9mm luger and a .40SW carbine, I'd pick the 9mm, hands down.
I've shot the Kel-Tec and IMO, the limiting factor there is the relatively long and heavy double-action trigger, not the sights. The sights aren't all that great either, but they're "good enough" and could be upgraded.
Edit #1: If the original poster just wants a shorter/lighter gun, replacing the fixed
Now, whether or not its wise to use a 9mm round in this particular application depends on the typical shooting distance and the distance to the background houses, information we don't have.
Again, personally, I don't think EITHER a centerfire rifle OR a centerfire pistol are going to be appropriate if there are houses within a few hundred yards, though careful shot selection (ie know what's BEYOND your target) and also BULLET selection could mitigate the risk of miss or ricochet by quite a bit.
I'll leave the "debate" about which is less inappropriate to others, but I'll just add that the less power you're starting with, the less likely that a miss or ricochet is going to cause inadvertent injury.
For short range coyote shooting (ie inside pistol round distances) what's wrong with a .22 magnum or (maybe better) a .17HMR?
Edit:
quote:I guessing the OP mentioned the 2 pistol calibers because he was assuming the bullets are [NOT] going to ricochet or travel line of sight as far as a centerfire rifle will. I think safety of near by homes were in mind. They probly wouldn't normaly be first choice for him.
Yes, I think that was implied in the original post.
You can go back and read the "debate", but some are claiming that a .223 rifle poses less of a danger from miss/ricochet than a pistol caliber carbine. In other words, some are saying the original poster's premise/paradigm in choosing a pistol caliber here is wrong.
Rather than voice an opinion on rifle vs pistol caliber (I think the answer isn't so straightforward. . .its going to depend on both the bullet in question, and the nature of the miss/ricochet), again, I think the best way to minimize off-target risk with a rifle is to use the weakest caliber suitable for your purpose.
As I mentioned in the original thread a shotgun is the "best" choice for reducing that sort of risk (and I think these are a farmyard staple for just that reason), but it will limit your practical range considerably, and it also probably doesn't satisfy the original posters need for a light compact gun.
My suggestion of a .22 magnum may (or may not) help.
Also, if the original poster just wants to reduce weight and bulk, swapping his 9mm AR-15's fixed stock (assuming he's using one) for a light telescoping one could help a little bit there too.0 -
I agree with the .22 magnum idea BTS put up, but since the farmer didn't say he had one, I'm guessing it's not in his quiver. Also, he said space in his cab is a premium, so unless it's a handgun or very small carbine, it'll probbaly be too big. (He could always mount a hard case to the rig I guess)
As for the pistol rounds discussed? I personally wouldn't use them for the intended purpose if I had better options, (which I do, but others may not) but to each his own. And as long as farmer follows the basic commandments of shooting safety, I think he'll be ok with whatever he chooses to eliminate Wile E on his place.0 -
I guessing the OP mentioned the 2 pistol calibers because he was assuming the bullets are going to ricochet or travel line of sight as far as a centerfire rifle will. I think safety of near by homes were in mind. They probly wouldn't normaly be first choice for him. 0 -
Get a Sub2000 with Glock 17 (9mm) handgrip anyway if you can find one.
It's more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
My warm handloads are getting about 1350 fps using 124 gr bullets but with 90 gr hollow points, velocity will be much higher and more apt to come apart when hitting anything.
The trigger is far from great but at the plinking range it hits better than pistols and impressed me and others into buying them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
a slow heavy solid bullet will be more likely to ricochet in one piece and retain energy then a fast and light bullet.
a 9mm 124 grain bullet will have a 500 ft pound of energy at the muzzle, about 300 at 100 yards and what 150 at 200 yards.
bullet drop would be about 3 inches at 100 yards and a solid two feet at 200 with a 100 yard zero.
a .223remington with a 40 grain varmint bullet will have 1200-1300 ft pounds of energy at the muzzle depending on velocity, and about 250-300ft pounds of energy at 400 yards.
at 200 yard the bullet would be near the bore line, at 400 yards bullet drop will drop alittle over a foot.
there is no comparison to be made, the .223remington is the superior round.
Thats said I know of no .223remington with a stock that would fit within the cab of most tractors comfortably. Atleast none that are legal to buy without also buying government permission.
That is because before you use what resources you have, you start writing. Perhaps you should read more before you write? Almost 16 posts per day over a 3 year average, since 2008...get real.
There is a very nice short carbine in 223 that would fit nicely in the cab of a tractor...it is the CZ 527 carbine.
Another is the Thompson Center CONTENDER carbine, with the Super 16 barrel. I have one in 22 Hornet, but with the 21 inch barrel. It is an awesome little shooter...extremely accurate.
Best0 -
I don't think any handgun or pistol that will kill a coyote at any range is safe with the background factors mentioned. Used with utmost a shot gun with a slug or large shot might be ok, but only if the background items are far away. Really I don't think a coyote is worth the risks involved. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments