View Full Version : Most sensible cartridge for CC?
Bobert0989
02-13-10, 05:01
I'm have a bit of delimma in my life right now... and my searches didnt turn up exactly what I was looking for... so I thought I'd just ask.
What's a good, reliable round to carry on a daily basis? I used to be a huge .45ACP fan, but just recently a gentleman in LE informed me that the .45 is more likely to cause secondary injuries/casualities in bystanders (penetration of target) if fired in a public facility. He said a .40 will still have adequate stopping power for defense, but is less of a threat to others in the area (less penetration potential). Is there truth in this?
I have decided to splurge on an H&K USP compact to carry, but cannot decide on the .40 or the .45, and was hoping to draw some subjective knowledge on the topic. Is there a better option for CC than the .40 or the .45? I also own 9mm's, but was thinking something larger would be beneficial to me to carry.
Then I look at capacity... my Sig P6 9mm is set up as 8+1, but I can get the USP in .45 with 8+1, or the .40 is 12+1 (I think). I have also noted the XD-M in 9mm, with an amazing 19+1 cap... and I think to myself, "Gee, self, it's a smaller round, but I've got twice the number of shots in one magazine..."
Please give me your opinions and your reasoning behind that as to what is the "PERFECT" carry-concealed weapon/caliber. Open to any and all types/brands/frame designs as well. Doesn't have to be an H&K at this point, but under $1000 is the goal. This could include various Glocks, Kahr's, 1911's, etc.
PS- I like the idea of a 10mm Glock, but ammo is a pain to get, and a pain to buy when you find it. I'm not a big Glock fan... based on personal experience. I would rather have an M&P or an XD before Glocks... unless the 10mm is your choice of CC weapon.
Thanksk all,
~Bobby
thopkins22
02-13-10, 05:30
What's a good, reliable round to carry on a daily basis? I used to be a huge .45ACP fan, but just recently a gentleman in LE informed me that the .45 is more likely to cause secondary injuries/casualities in bystanders (penetration of target) if fired in a public facility. He said a .40 will still have adequate stopping power for defense, but is less of a threat to others in the area (less penetration potential). Is there truth in this?Not really. .40S&W, .45ACP, 9mm, and so forth are all quite likely to punch through a bad guy and keep on rolling.
I also own 9mm's, but was thinking something larger would be beneficial to me to carry.Why? Do you see yourself shooting through windshields? Or do you just not like to shoot much?
Please give me your opinions
I'll answer that with a slightly modified quote...
"i don't know, dude.. just get the g19." And put 124gr+p Gold Dots in it.
Or ideally you could just read http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887 and make an educated decision for yourself instead of relying on opinions....;)
From that post/thread by DocGKR:
Basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition. The platform picked tends to dictate the caliber. For example, Glocks and Sigs tend to run best in 9 mm; the S&W M&P is the first .40 S&W pistol that seems to offer an ideal ergonomic and shooter friendly package; while a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they would be better served with the S&W M&P45 or HK45
Robb Jensen
02-13-10, 07:06
Nothing wrong with 9mm.
Whatever you decide to carry be sure that you can put the rounds where they need to go.
Business_Casual
02-13-10, 07:36
Why not just keep the Sig, and spend the money you were planning to use on the HK and go to a formal training class with a tier 1 trainer? Then you would know a couple of things, such as: How well can I get effective hits? Do I have to overcome flinching or anticipation issues first? How well can I do a reload under time pressure? How well can I see the stock sights?
There are a number of issues around shooting a pistol that are more important than which one you have, bullets exiting the body or relative size of the bullets is not one of them.
M_P
I used to be a huge .45ACP fan, but just recently a gentleman in LE informed me that the .45 is more likely to cause secondary injuries/casualities in bystanders (penetration of target) if fired in a public facility. He said a .40 will still have adequate stopping power for defense, but is less of a threat to others in the area (less penetration potential). Is there truth in this?
I'm sorry to tell you this, but a lot of law enforcement officers are not as knowledgeable as you may think. The fact that he even mentioned "stopping power" is a red flag that he might not understand the concepts of terminal effects. Pistol bullets punch holes......and they only stop someone if the person freaks out(OMG!!! I've been shot!!), or the bullet damages enough of the person's anatomy that they collapse because of direct nerve damage or they bleed out resulting in not enough oxygen to the brain. As long as the caliber has ideal penetration, the only other criteria is that it is wide enough to hit something vital. 9mm, .40, and .45 have ideal penetration.
Any of the major calibers will offer a similar threat of collateral damage if you miss your target. If you are using a JHP, the threat to a bystander is very minimal after it has punched through a badguy because the bullet slows down a LOT. The real danger to bystanders is when you miss your target, from which any of the major calibers will likely be just as dangerous. Do not fear overpenetration after shooting through a person.
As far as caliber selection goes, bigger and heavier calibers make bigger holes and they tend to punch through internal bone structure better as was proved in the 1993 Dr. Lane FBI study, and was followed up by the 1994 Canadian study. They are less prone to deflection and retain their energy more while passing through commonly encountered barriers. So there is a benefit to using them over smaller alternatives. Training costs go in favor of the 9mm which you can usually purchase for $.20-$.25 a shot. Training ammo for .40S&W usually averages $.25-$.30 a shot, and .45acp usually runs for $.30-$.40 a shot for training ammo. Other benefits to the 9mm are that it allows for a smaller and lighter pistol with less felt recoil and more magazine capacity.
In regards to the 10mm or .357sig, they are expensive to train with and in my opinion offer nothing that the other calibers don't already offer. The .357sig will cost you about $.40-$.45 a shot to train with, it has excessive muzzle flip, and there is little evidence to show that it is any improvement over a good 9mm load. The 10mm runs for about $.50-$.60 a shot for training ammo. The 10mm does have better penetration ability, but it is debatable if its worth it considering that it still just makes a .40S&W sized hole and the .40 often has enough penetration to usually exit the body anyhow.
Personally I prefer to use the larger caliber(.40 or .45) provided that I shoot the particular pistol well in a timed and dynamic course of fire. Although, I tend to carry a Sig P239 9mm off duty a lot because there's just something nice about how light and small the overall package is. If in doubt, maybe you should just stick with 9mm as with modern ammo it doesn't have the shortcommings that it had 20yrs ago. That being said, the .40 and .45 have equally improved with ammo technology over the years too *shrug*. It's hard to argue with a modern day .45acp load that can do this:
Winchester Ranger Bonded(standard pressure):
.45acp 230gr(905fps)BONDED: (Penetration/Expansion)
Bare Gel: 13.8”/.76”
Through Denim: 15.4”/.69”
Through Heavy Cloth: 15.4”/.71”
Through Wallboard: 14.3”/.70”
Through Plywood: 16.1”/.72”
Through Steel: 14.6”/.58”
Through Auto Glass: 12.5”/.68”
Sensible for concealed carry?........I'd say 9mm for the weight, size, and capacity advantage. I like to go bigger on duty or when I'm carrying with a higher expectation of trouble(like under cover).
Why not just keep the Sig, and spend the money you were planning to use on the HK and go to a formal training class with a tier 1 trainer? Then you would know a couple of things, such as: How well can I get effective hits? Do I have to overcome flinching or anticipation issues first? How well can I do a reload under time pressure? How well can I see the stock sights?
There are a number of issues around shooting a pistol that are more important than which one you have, bullets exiting the body or relative size of the bullets is not one of them.
M_P
I'm not terribly familiar with Sigs, but have heard that the older ones were very good.
As other posters/threads have stated, caliber is mostly a non-issue with proper ammo selection.
Platform is somewhat dictated by caliber...e.g., Glocks are said to be most reliable in 9mm, M&P was designed starting with the .40 and could be a better selection if you decide that you want a .40 (or bigger).
The more 'quality' (with good instruction) time behind your current piece, plus maybe trying some other platforms/calibers will allow you to arrive at your own conclusions...you will feel more comfortable knowing that you picked your platform/caliber.
No matter how your proceed, good luck!
-Rainman
John_Wayne777
02-13-10, 09:17
What's a good, reliable round to carry on a daily basis? I used to be a huge .45ACP fan, but just recently a gentleman in LE informed me that the .45 is more likely to cause secondary injuries/casualities in bystanders (penetration of target) if fired in a public facility. He said a .40 will still have adequate stopping power for defense, but is less of a threat to others in the area (less penetration potential). Is there truth in this?
First things first:
You must learn and accept the fact that out of 10 people who will talk to you about terminal ballistics, maybe one of them actually knows what they are talking about.
Using modern JHP ammunition recommended by the IWBA experts (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887) I'm unaware of any agency that has had problems with overpenetration using .45 ACP. The .40 when loaded properly will work well. So will the .45 ACP. Neither are terribly likely to overpenetrate.
I have decided to splurge on an H&K USP compact to carry, but cannot decide on the .40 or the .45, and was hoping to draw some subjective knowledge on the topic. Is there a better option for CC than the .40 or the .45? I also own 9mm's, but was thinking something larger would be beneficial to me to carry.
Real world results show that the 9mm when loaded with modern JHP ammo mentioned earlier is killing lots of bad guys. There are a number of agencies issuing 9mm's with excellent results.
Please give me your opinions and your reasoning behind that as to what is the "PERFECT" carry-concealed weapon/caliber.
"Perfect" is a completely subjective concept based on your needs. Most people find that a weapon like a G19 or an M&P serve them quite well.
Open to any and all types/brands/frame designs as well. Doesn't have to be an H&K at this point, but under $1000 is the goal. This could include various Glocks, Kahr's, 1911's, etc.
Unless you are a 1911 expert, skip consideration of a 1911 as a carry gun.
As far as carry guns go, Glock 9mms, M&P's, classic Sigs, or H&K's would all be reasonable choices.
PS- I like the idea of a 10mm Glock, but ammo is a pain to get, and a pain to buy when you find it.
No offense intended here, but folks need to get over the Dirty Harry thing. The most critical determinant of outcome in a real gunfight is going to be your training. Training is kind of difficult when the ammo costs a sheik's ransom and is hard to locate. The guy who puts 10,000 rounds of 9mm downrange every year is going to be in an immensely superior position than the guy who has put 1,000 rounds a year through his hand cannon. One of the great benefits of the 9mm is the reality that it's the cheapest centerfire handgun to feed. That means more training potential for X dollars spent...a not insignificant advantage.
I'm not a big Glock fan... based on personal experience. I would rather have an M&P or an XD before Glocks...
I wouldn't take an XD for free....but that's me. I don't like Glocks much either, but I'd rather have one any day over an XD.
You are worried about "overpenetration" and like the idea of a 10MM Glock:confused:
Most CC needs can be met by the standard calibers of
9MM (I like the G19)
.38Special (Pref is a Smith J Frame spec'd for .357mag) Speer Gold Dot 135Gr +p here.
.45ACP (1911)
The .40 makes no sense to me for civilian purposes; as it more expensive than 9MM and offers little increase in performance over modern 9MM self defense loads (i.e. Ranger T's). The price difference equates to more trigger time on the gun; which to me trumps any arguement for civilian or "out of pocket" sustainment.
I like the .45ACP as much for the 1911 platform as I do for the bigger and heavier mass. Big and heavy .45 is ideal for engagements with two legged "foe" at "intimate" distances.
whichever on you can afford to run 2000 rounds a year through.
all that really matters in this field is shot placement.
i shoot and carry 9mm purely because i can afford more trigger time on it.
Most "sensible" cartridge for concealed carry?
For reasons already stated above, the 9mm.
Personal preference and individual needs may dictate otherwise.
Beat Trash
02-13-10, 12:01
As some have stated above, if you do some research, gathering information from individuals qualified in the topic of wound ballistics, you will find the difference between the three major calibers (9mm, 40, 45) when using the same type of modern design projectile, is small.
The trick to a defensive handgun isn't really a trick at all. It's ALL about putting rounds on target. To do this requires training and a lot of practice. For a civilian, a lot of practice equates to money. The bottom line is that 9mm ammunition is much cheaper to buy, thereby giving you more ammunition to train with for your dollar.
In real life, no matter the caliber, sometimes it takes more than one shot to stop an individuals aggressive actions. There is no "Wonder Caliber" in handgun cartridges.
Get a reliable, durable gun that you can shoot well, in a caliber that you can afford to shoot often. Train, practice, repeat.
citizensoldier16
02-13-10, 12:02
124gr+p Gold Dots
Exactly what I carry in my G17, G19 and 92fs. However, I picked up 2 50-boxes of Black Hills 124gr JHPs the other day from Gander Mountain for around $32/box.
LockenLoad
02-13-10, 17:00
just make a sticky if you don't know what to get, get a Glock 19
I guess I'm with DocGKR on caliber, and the quote of his above says it all: the 3 common pistol calibers (and probably .357 Sig) are all perfectly adequate for SD and CC, provided that you get quality, proven defensive ammo.
The considerations for choosing your CC caliber shouldn't really be driven primarily by subjective criteria like "stopping power," because this is not a very meaningful or measurable concept. IMHO, it is far more helpful to choose a pistol caliber based on more practical considerations.
A few examples of practical issues that may effect caliber choice:
* Gun size that you want. Because 9mm is a smaller caliber, you can create smaller framed guns to fire it, which is helpful for CC. If you want a really tiny pocket pistol for instance, 9mm would be a better choice than .45.
* Gun platform that you want. As has been implied, sometimes you may know that you want a particular GUN, like a G19. If that's true, then that predetermines your caliber. Similar, if you want a 1911, your best caliber choice is a .45. In either case, no worries: get good ammo and all these calibers work.
* Ammo capacity. With 9mm, obviously you can carry a lot more ammo than with a single-stack 1911 in .45 acp. Some shooters like having the extra capacity, so they go with 9mm or .40.
* Ammo cost and availability. Because 9mm is probably the most popular centerfire handgun caliber in the world, and is the NATO caliber, it is HUGELY popular, available everywhere, and is most affordable. The .40 is probably next most affordable and available, since many LE agencies use it. Worth considering: if you cannot find or afford much ammo in your favorite caliber, then you can't shoot or train very much either. Current example: cost for 1000 rounds Federal AE 9mm FMJ practice ammo at AmmunitionToGo.com = $259.95. Cost for 1000 rounds of the same ammo type in .45acp = $384.95.
* Ballistics. Due to their ballistics, each of the calibers has a different recoil profile (9mm has the lightest recoil, many shooters describe the .40 as having the sharpest or most "snappy" recoil of the three, and the .45 caliber is often described as having a "big gentle push"). The .357 Sig, because it is much higher velocity than the others, is the flattest shooting of all, and may therefore be preferred for some scenarios. Example: A few LE agencies have adopted the .357 Sig, and one common reason is the enhanced penetration capability of this caliber. If you want to research ballistics and performance differences between the calibers, check out Firearmstactical.com and TacticalForums.com (see "The Terminal Effects forum").
* Terminal ballistics. This is NOT the same thing as popular concepts like "stopping power." If you read the research on wound ballistics by folks such as Dr. Fackler and our own DocGKR, there are small but worthwhile differences among the calibers in terms of how far they penetrate in certain materials, how large of a "permanent wound channel" they create, and etc. Some of these differences can give a SLIGHT edge to one caliber over another in CERTAIN shooting conditions. For example, a number of years ago before many of the advancements in modern ammo brought the 9mm up to par with the .45, you probably WERE better off using a .45 over a 9mm, especially if you were limited to FMJ ammo. But with modern ammo, most of the differences have been reduced, and it seems like the consensus among the smart ballistics guys like DocGKR today is that these differences are not substantial enough to clearly establish any of the calibers as being head-and-shoulders "better" than others. So, pick what you like and train a LOT!
Anyway, if you work through these kinds of issues, you'll end up with a caliber that makes sense for you.
In my opinion, as a regular guy, buy the pistol that you shoot the absolute best under static, dynamic and simulated stress. If that is a G19 in 9mm, you will find a cartridge that is capable of incapacitating a BG with great penetration, and great wound channel. If it's a 1911, ditto on the ammo choice/performance. Just carry two or three mags. :cool:
I have a 1911 on my "first line" belt because it makes a great secondary weapon to an AR15 primary. I shoot it fairly well, this past weekend at USTC notwithstanding.
However, I conceal carry a G19 on a regular basis. I like the extra capacity, smaller size, and great ballistic performance of the Ranger T's 127gr +p+ or the Gold Dot 124gr +p.
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-13-10, 23:25
Currently, I carry a 9mm because it is a proven-manstopper and it is available in handy platforms (like the Glock 26 or Kahr PM9) that can be carried daily with a minimum of hassle.
But honestly, if I was going to get into a pistol fight, I would want a sorted-out 1911 in 45 ACP. I want the biggest bullet I can get out of the most shootable platform. I know this is heresy these days, but I have seen the pendulum swing too many times from one caliber to the next during my lifetime.
crowkiller
02-14-10, 03:36
You are worried about "overpenetration" and like the idea of a 10MM Glock:confused:
Most CC needs can be met by the standard calibers of
9MM (I like the G19)
.38Special (Pref is a Smith J Frame spec'd for .357mag) Speer Gold Dot 135Gr +p here.
.45ACP (1911)
The .40 makes no sense to me for civilian purposes; as it more expensive than 9MM and offers little increase in performance over modern 9MM self defense loads (i.e. Ranger T's). The price difference equates to more trigger time on the gun; which to me trumps any arguement for civilian or "out of pocket" sustainment.
I like the .45ACP as much for the 1911 platform as I do for the bigger and heavier mass. Big and heavy .45 is ideal for engagements with two legged "foe" at "intimate" distances.
Does the .40 have any advantages over the 9mm? Thanks
.40 is reported to be better than 9mm at penetrating barriers such as autoglass by Dr. GKR. I also have an easier time
finding .40 at WalMart.
Bobert0989
02-14-10, 04:55
Thanks for all of this insight.
So, what I'm gathering here is that you would recommend putting more money into training than the firearm itself. That makes total sense to me.
A couple have mentioned firing through different surfaces, such as auto-glass... Is a 9mm round fully capable if required to penetrate auto-body glass? Say BG is on the other side of the car, and need to fire through one or both side-windows? The windshield is usually two-paned 1.8-2.1mm laminated... or about the equivilant of one panel of body-glass...
I know I can shoot accurately and quickly acquire my target with my current Sig P6 (German Surplus), and really like the gun. Although that is the case, I've been "craving", so-to-speak, a USP compact. Many people say they're over-rated and overpriced, but I believe that you get what you pay for. (Same theory with 1911's, and I know a nicely set-up 1911 would be out of my $1000 budget).
HOWEVER: If I decided to go with a larger caliber such as the .40 or .45ACP, would it be irrational of me to spend the extra $$$ on the H&K, rather than buy the M&P or XD-M? Where woul a Kahr fall into this discussion?
Thanks again, you are all very helpful. That's why I chose this forum for my foundation of knowledge.
~Bobby
Fire_Medic
02-14-10, 07:45
You would not go wrong with an HK over an XDM or an M&P. Especially it being a USP which has long proven itself. The USP's in 40 and 45 shoot very well and the compact versions carry nicely.
It's basically a matter of preference now since you seem to have narrowed down the caliber you would like.
Let us know what you decide.
A couple have mentioned firing through different surfaces, such as auto-glass... Is a 9mm round fully capable if required to penetrate auto-body glass? Say BG is on the other side of the car, and need to fire through one or both side-windows? The windshield is usually two-paned 1.8-2.1mm laminated... or about the equivilant of one panel of body-glass...
A sliding glass window or auto glass is a very unique barrier. Light and fast projectiles visibly shatter it more, however the glass tends to absorb a LOT of kinetic energy resulting in drastically slowing down the bullet. In general, the lighter your bullet the more it gets slowed down resulting in less penetration after its gone through the glass. This is why the 9mm and .357sig are almost identical in the penetration ability after being shot through a windshield. A 5.56 rifle round is actually quite weak against a windshield. The only way to get lighter calibers to effectively go through a windshield is to use bonded bullets. For 9mm, you would need to get Speer GD 124gr+P, or another bonded bullet alternative in order to get reliable windshield penetration. With regular JHPs, the 9mm typically penetrates 30-40% less than the ideal standard of 12" in the ballistic gel. However, the larger and heavier calibers have a definate advantage when shooting through glass substances. They will often do it well without the need for bonded bullet technology, but when using the bonded bullet technology they will often well exceed the testing requirements. For example if I had to shoot through two layers of glass in order to hit my perp, I would be much better off using bonded .40S&W or .45acp(or +P) loads.
HOWEVER: If I decided to go with a larger caliber such as the .40 or .45ACP, would it be irrational of me to spend the extra $$$ on the H&K, rather than buy the M&P or XD-M? Where woul a Kahr fall into this discussion?
~Bobby
When you get into the bigger calibers, you want to makes sure that the pistols is designed for it. It's easier to build a 9mm pistol than it is to build a .40 or .45 pistol in general. For years manufacturers retrofitted(only minor changes) their existing 9mm pistols to shoot .40S&W. This led to reliability and durability problems in those .40 models. The same applies to some Euro manufacturers that have done half-assed jobs at producing .45acp pistols. The H&K pistols are some of the best overall designs around. You can be confident and sleep at night knowing that if you bought a H&K in .40 or .45 that it will be a reliable, durabable, and high performance pistol. The M&P is also a good choice for the .40 and .45, although I prefer the H&Ks.
Get a g19, mags, and ammo and a call it a day.
Does the .40 have any advantages over the 9mm? Thanks
Unless you're shooting into cars, no.
Back in the 90's when the .40 became popular, the 9mm ammo available was not as good as it is now. Then, the .40 made sense.
If the commie bastard governor of Wisconsin hadn't vetoed our CCW Bill, I would be carrying my Glock 19 now with Gold Dot 124 Gr. +P ammo.
Bobert0989
02-15-10, 03:25
Okay. I've drawn a conclusion from our discussion thus far...
I'm opting for the USP .45 Compact. Got an offer this morning too good to turn down on the Sig 9mm, so I figured it was meant to be.
Now, another question...
If I plan to carry in the waistband, should I opt for the stainless slide, or are there methods of protecting a blued slide from normal carry-wear that will not violate warranty or hinder performance in any way? I think the blued looks a little cleaner, but I'm thinking the stainless would prove slightly more durable for a daily-carry weapon... is that correct?
Thanks
Bobby
Alpha Sierra
02-15-10, 05:19
Don't worry about the gun's finish. It's a tool.
Keep the inside of your holster clean and free of grit, is the best you can do.
John_Wayne777
02-15-10, 06:50
The dark colored slide on the USP is not blued...it's a polymer finish over top of a metal treatment similar to the tennifer process used by Glock. It's extremely durable.
Littlelebowski
02-15-10, 08:06
HOWEVER: If I decided to go with a larger caliber such as the .40 or .45ACP, would it be irrational of me to spend the extra $$$ on the H&K, rather than buy the M&P or XD-M? Where woul a Kahr fall into this discussion?
~Bobby
No, if the HK fits you well and you have money in your pocket to be able shoot it and preferably take a training class. If it came down to money, you'd be better off with the M&P and ammo over the HK. The XD is not recommended by folks in the know and this site's search WILL return results on that.
The Kahr is designed for carry, not prolonged shooting/training. You'd be better off with a dual purpose gun like........the Glock 19.
Bobert0989
02-16-10, 08:42
The dark colored slide on the USP is not blued...it's a polymer finish over top of a metal treatment similar to the tennifer process used by Glock. It's extremely durable.
Wow... really didn't know that! Just when the stainless lide-look was growing on me! lol. I think they're both nice-looking guns, so I gess I'm just looking for the best price now.
Thanks for all of your help, folks! It's much appreciated!
No, if the HK fits you well and you have money in your pocket to be able shoot it and preferably take a training class. If it came down to money, you'd be better off with the M&P and ammo over the HK. The XD is not recommended by folks in the know and this site's search WILL return results on that.
The Kahr is designed for carry, not prolonged shooting/training. You'd be better off with a dual purpose gun like........the Glock 19.
i wouldn't discount the glock 26 either. you can run that little bastard hard.
i got mine purely for practical reasons, and to my surprise i actually enjoy shooting it nearly as much as my 19. a couple hundred rounds at the range really is a pleasure with that gun.
I'm a pretty die hard 1911 fan.
I like .45 ACP, I use .45 ACP, any defensive handgun I ever buy is going to be in .45 ACP. (Unless it's a BUG to a weapon chambered in .45 ACP, then I'd back off of that statement)
That being said. Those might not work for you. The most simple conclusion I've come to is, pick the gun you're not afraid to fire (flinching, excessive recoil in your frame) and you can shoot well (do bill drills well with, double taps, triple taps, etc. Hit what you want in a reasonable amount of time).
If that's a 9mm, that's a 9mm, if it's a .40 S&W, it's a .40 S&W, there isn't a text book correct answer to this.
I'd say all of them perform well with the correct pressures, caliber and JHP. I found I liked the .45 ACP best, I'm not that impressed with the 9mm personally. (My brother met a guy who'd been shot near 10 times with a 9mm, and showed him the bullet wounds) But the .45 ACP does limit capacity. I'd probably feel comfortable tucking a XD or Glock with 15+ round capacity into my waist band and be fine, but I want at least one spare magazine when carrying a 1911, as I've got 9 rounds.
Also, shot placement is really what it boils down to. So again, controllable for you is key.
Trade offs. I've found the .45 ACP expands better than the others, and from the research I've done, doesn't over penetrate in JHP. Also 10mm? 10mm to me is a caliber looking for a purpose, as an 230 GR FMJ in .45 ACP can penetrate over 26+ inches of ballistic gelatin.
If I was going into bear country, I don't see a big enough difference between .45 and 10mm that I'd go with 10mm, I'd prefer to get a shotgun with slugs, realistically for the guys that make that argument. The other thing is, now there have been a lot of advancements made in weapons chambered in 10mm, I'll concede that, but the rounds that everyone wants for 10mm also beat the crap out of frames and slides.
Bren Tens have routinely been record having broken frames or slides after a few thousand rounds of "True 10mm". I mean if you need to upload the pressures and powder loading to the farthest degree possible, You need a big caliber, period paragraph, go grab a .44 Magnum.
Look at what your physical frame is, I'd recommend a compact .45 ACP like the XD .45 or maybe an M&P, I've never fired an M&P, but I have fired Glock's, XD's, 1911's, and I found the glock grip angle is awkward and takes some getting used to, I could shoot it well (when I shot it frequently), I just don't point it naturally very well after handling my daily carry gun and practicing presenting it, etc. . I found I have to compensate down with the glock, otherwise I shoot high.
Anyway, this turned into a really long winded post. But, I'd say shoot what you can control well, and are comfortable shooting. I think 9mm's very controllable recoil and typically higher capacity magazines will probably make up for the lack of expansion compared to a .45 ACP, as you'll probably put more rounds on target anyway.
Don't you dare get a single stack 9mm :D.
I would not go smaller than 9mm for a primary carry gun.
That's my opinion on the matter.
ETA: I also wanted to add something, I noticed you said you'd stop carrying a .45 ACP after you spoke to a guy in LE.
I hate to say this, and I might catch some serious shit for it. There are a lot of guys in LE that know there stuff, and in the military as well.
But I've heard some of the worst firearms myths permeated by "experts" just because they're in that field doesn't necessarily make their say correct.
I had a guy that did two tours in Iraq tell me he spoke to an armorer and he told him filing down the firing pin would make a gun full auto. I look at him and said "Come on dude... let's use some critical thinking here... What's going to strike the primer if you file down the firing pin? How would that make it full auto? Maybe spot welding the Firing pin in the exposed position would make it full auto, but filing it down, you'd have no contact with the primer at all."
Again, I have a world of respect for LE and Military personnel, but, I wouldn't necessarily take someone's word as gospel because they work in a certain profession. (Not saying you were, just saying)
YMMV.
Bobert0989
02-17-10, 21:17
I'm a pretty die hard 1911 fan.
I like .45 ACP, I use .45 ACP, any defensive handgun I ever buy is going to be in .45 ACP. (Unless it's a BUG to a weapon chambered in .45 ACP, then I'd back off of that statement)
That being said. Those might not work for you. The most simple conclusion I've come to is, pick the gun you're not afraid to fire (flinching, excessive recoil in your frame) and you can shoot well (do bill drills well with, double taps, triple taps, etc. Hit what you want in a reasonable amount of time).
If that's a 9mm, that's a 9mm, if it's a .40 S&W, it's a .40 S&W, there isn't a text book correct answer to this.
I'd say all of them perform well with the correct pressures, caliber and JHP. I found I liked the .45 ACP best, I'm not that impressed with the 9mm personally. (My brother met a guy who'd been shot near 10 times with a 9mm, and showed him the bullet wounds) But the .45 ACP does limit capacity. I'd probably feel comfortable tucking a XD or Glock with 15+ round capacity into my waist band and be fine, but I want at least one spare magazine when carrying a 1911, as I've got 9 rounds.
Also, shot placement is really what it boils down to. So again, controllable for you is key.
Trade offs. I've found the .45 ACP expands better than the others, and from the research I've done, doesn't over penetrate in JHP. Also 10mm? 10mm to me is a caliber looking for a purpose, as an 230 GR FMJ in .45 ACP can penetrate over 26+ inches of ballistic gelatin.
If I was going into bear country, I don't see a big enough difference between .45 and 10mm that I'd go with 10mm, I'd prefer to get a shotgun with slugs, realistically for the guys that make that argument. The other thing is, now there have been a lot of advancements made in weapons chambered in 10mm, I'll concede that, but the rounds that everyone wants for 10mm also beat the crap out of frames and slides.
Bren Tens have routinely been record having broken frames or slides after a few thousand rounds of "True 10mm". I mean if you need to upload the pressures and powder loading to the farthest degree possible, You need a big caliber, period paragraph, go grab a .44 Magnum.
Look at what your physical frame is, I'd recommend a compact .45 ACP like the XD .45 or maybe an M&P, I've never fired an M&P, but I have fired Glock's, XD's, 1911's, and I found the glock grip angle is awkward and takes some getting used to, I could shoot it well (when I shot it frequently), I just don't point it naturally very well after handling my daily carry gun and practicing presenting it, etc. . I found I have to compensate down with the glock, otherwise I shoot high.
Anyway, this turned into a really long winded post. But, I'd say shoot what you can control well, and are comfortable shooting. I think 9mm's very controllable recoil and typically higher capacity magazines will probably make up for the lack of expansion compared to a .45 ACP, as you'll probably put more rounds on target anyway.
Don't you dare get a single stack 9mm :D.
I would not go smaller than 9mm for a primary carry gun.
That's my opinion on the matter.
ETA: I also wanted to add something, I noticed you said you'd stop carrying a .45 ACP after you spoke to a guy in LE.
I hate to say this, and I might catch some serious shit for it. There are a lot of guys in LE that know there stuff, and in the military as well.
But I've heard some of the worst firearms myths permeated by "experts" just because they're in that field doesn't necessarily make their say correct.
I had a guy that did two tours in Iraq tell me he spoke to an armorer and he told him filing down the firing pin would make a gun full auto. I look at him and said "Come on dude... let's use some critical thinking here... What's going to strike the primer if you file down the firing pin? How would that make it full auto? Maybe spot welding the Firing pin in the exposed position would make it full auto, but filing it down, you'd have no contact with the primer at all."
Again, I have a world of respect for LE and Military personnel, but, I wouldn't necessarily take someone's word as gospel because they work in a certain profession. (Not saying you were, just saying)
YMMV.
This makes a WHOLE lot of sense... Thanks for your input. I did take into account that the smaller round (9mm) will usually allow for more capacity, thus a higher percentage that the shots fired will result in "on-target" hits. Some people I'm sure will put all 13 rounds of .45ACP from an XD into their target, but that takes lots of time and training. Having almost double the capacity in 9mm rounds available just logically says "pick-me!"...
But I do really like the idea of the H&K USP compact. They are very well-known for performance, reliability, and workmanship. I believe that I can train with the USP .45 to achieve adequate results for a CC.
But seriously, thanks for your post... It was exactly the type stuff I was looking for.
Take care!
~Bobby!
This makes a WHOLE lot of sense... Thanks for your input. I did take into account that the smaller round (9mm) will usually allow for more capacity, thus a higher percentage that the shots fired will result in "on-target" hits. Some people I'm sure will put all 13 rounds of .45ACP from an XD into their target, but that takes lots of time and training. Having almost double the capacity in 9mm rounds available just logically says "pick-me!"...
But I do really like the idea of the H&K USP compact. They are very well-known for performance, reliability, and workmanship. I believe that I can train with the USP .45 to achieve adequate results for a CC.
But seriously, thanks for your post... It was exactly the type stuff I was looking for.
Take care!
~Bobby!
Glad I could be of some help. Now I'm going to be the first to say, I'm not the most knowledgeable voice or close to it on the forum.
But that's what I found to be true for me.
Keep in mind you probably want to carry a spare magazine as that is one of the most problematic portions of a firearm regardless of what you carry. But in a Glock 17, 19 can carry 17 and 15 rounds respectively.
I mean, again, what you can keep controlled on target is going to be your best bet. I'll admit, even though I do advocate .45 ACP and love it, that's the round I was taught on, and it took me some time to get sorted out with it, as it was one of the first handguns I fired.
It was probably a bad idea to hand that to a rookie to learn to shoot with. I had to overcome a lot of issues to become a decent pistol shot, after pretty much only exposure to .45 ACP in the beginning, like jerking the trigger, anticipating recoil, flinching, closing my eyes while firing. But I also think all new shooters deal with that to an extent. Maybe not as severely as I did.
I might look at the XD Service model (4'' Barrel) in 9mm, it has a 16 round magazine capacity. I was pretty impressed with the XD pistols I've been exposed to.
But I haven't seen them in any kind of torture test.
I haven't handled or used an M&P, but, guys with a lot more experience than me favor them quite a bit.
I'd go with one of the polymer framed, double stacked 9mm's if I was going to go 9mm for concealed carry.
You mentioned H&K, I'd give them a good look, I don't like DA/SA triggers... Just my preference, I'm not wild about the Glock Triggers they have a somewhat longer trigger pull, but I like the consistency of them at least.(that's the other thing, after firing a 1911 predominantly, it took a minute or two for me to get re acquainted on how far I had to let the trigger release to reset).
I'd also try to decide on a defensive ammo, there's a bunch of white papers out there on them by different Law Enforcement Departments. HST seems to be the best JHP from the last information I read, I simply don't carry it because I can't find it, and I wasn't willing to get on back order lists of 90 days or more.
I really think Federal should dump the Hydra-Shok line and just use the HST. http://le.atk.com/general/federalproducts/pistol/tacticalhst.aspx Especially with what I've seen in the tests I've seen conducted of the Hollow point clogging and the Hydra-Shok's over penetrating.
Anyway, I'll say it one more time, being controllable on target and shot placement is what's going to be ideal. I mean really you're aiming for a almost fist size target in the chest and anything at eye level or above on the head.
I'd keep asking around. If there's anything I can help with, let me know.
I also don't know enough about higher pressure loadings and the real benefit of them or lack there of, as I simply have never looked into them in 9mm, but I'm sure more will be along later. But with a muzzle velocity of around 1150 out of the standard 9x19mm in HST... I don't know how legitimate a need there is or isn't.
Brandon.
We've been shooting bad guys with our 9mms around here for a long time, never had an issue, even when shooting through glass, this with 124gr +P Gold Dot and Ranger-T.
The Ranger-T, even being a non-bonded bullet, works more than just fine on large men after going through side window glass. I know this for a fact.
I think a 9mm single stack makes a dandy carry pistol. I wish I still had my 3913 sometimes, and the Kahr P9 sure is a nice little gun.
cmiller683
02-18-10, 07:33
If you're looking for more info on H&K's, check out their forum (http://hkpro.eaglesfm.com/forum). They have some good stuff on there.
I know you're sold on the USP, but it would be sacrilege if I didn't mention the P2000, P30 and HK45. And since you've decided on a .45ACP, look at the HK45 because the other two are not offered in that caliber.
I carry the P2000 in 9mm, using a Milt Sparks VMII. Here's my line of thought behind the 9mm...
Cost - I can't afford ammo. I can't afford food, gas, electricity, toys, beer. But I still buy them, thanks to student loans and what little money I earn. The 9mm platform gives me the most ammo and therefore practice for the cost in a caliber that I have absolute confidence in as a man-stopper. And when you look at the stats, for handguns, more people are killed using the .25ACP and .22LR than any other handgun caliber in production. EVERY caliber is lethal. Some more than others.
Recoil - The .40S&W is just too snappy for me. It's a hot round. With that comes a stronger performance, some say. However, I am not comfortable with it yet. The 9mm I feel much better with. Lower recoil, quicker follow-ups and sight acquisition. What about the .45ACP? I love it. Not snappy at all, more of a push. I was surprised the first time I ever fired one (side by side with the .40S&W on the same platform). However, with the .45, it costs more. In the wallet and more importantly, in the mag.
Capacity - I personally feel the 9mm has the best size/capacity ratio. Don't get too caught up in ballistics. I want more rounds. When I really need my gun as a defensive tool, I'm not going to be plinking ball ammo at a piece of paper. I'm going to be responding to a threat that is fighting back. And because of that, my performance in every aspect will be less than normal. My aim will suck. My hands will shake. My heart will race. So I want every round I can get.
When it comes down to it, we all want a handgun that fires a .50 BMG with a capacity of 30+1, all in a package that is the size of a Ruger LCP. Because lets face it, the handgun is a last ditch effort. If we knew we were going to fight, we'd get an M4.
Just my two cents, take it with a grain of salt.
I'm have a bit of delimma in my life right now... and my searches didnt turn up exactly what I was looking for... so I thought I'd just ask.
What's a good, reliable round to carry on a daily basis? I used to be a huge .45ACP fan, but just recently a gentleman in LE informed me that the .45 is more likely to cause secondary injuries/casualities in bystanders (penetration of target) if fired in a public facility. He said a .40 will still have adequate stopping power for defense, but is less of a threat to others in the area (less penetration potential). Is there truth in this?
I have decided to splurge on an H&K USP compact to carry, but cannot decide on the .40 or the .45, and was hoping to draw some subjective knowledge on the topic. Is there a better option for CC than the .40 or the .45? I also own 9mm's, but was thinking something larger would be beneficial to me to carry.
Then I look at capacity... my Sig P6 9mm is set up as 8+1, but I can get the USP in .45 with 8+1, or the .40 is 12+1 (I think). I have also noted the XD-M in 9mm, with an amazing 19+1 cap... and I think to myself, "Gee, self, it's a smaller round, but I've got twice the number of shots in one magazine..."
Please give me your opinions and your reasoning behind that as to what is the "PERFECT" carry-concealed weapon/caliber. Open to any and all types/brands/frame designs as well. Doesn't have to be an H&K at this point, but under $1000 is the goal. This could include various Glocks, Kahr's, 1911's, etc.
PS- I like the idea of a 10mm Glock, but ammo is a pain to get, and a pain to buy when you find it. I'm not a big Glock fan... based on personal experience. I would rather have an M&P or an XD before Glocks... unless the 10mm is your choice of CC weapon.
Thanksk all,
~Bobby
The most sensible load is one that you can afford to shoot (within reason). For most, that is the 9mm.
If you like the 45, but cannot afford to shoot it or train with it, then that is a poor choice.
C4
cmiller683
02-18-10, 07:43
Also, about the $1,000 goal. You can get most H&K's for under that. The P2000 ran me under $800. I've heard of the HK45 going for the $900's
bondmid003
02-18-10, 10:22
10mm is a great travel companion but you're right, ammo can be tough to find and its fairly expensive when you do.
Therefore, I'd recommend .40 because despite what folks in this thread have said it does have better ballistics than 9mm.
Really though, to each his own is what I always say. Its all up to your personal preference, how well you can shoot, and how comfortable you are with each caliber.
thopkins22
02-18-10, 10:37
Therefore, I'd recommend .40 because despite what folks in this thread have said it does have better ballistics than 9mm.
Nobody in this thread said that .40S&W didn't create a marginally bigger hole. I think mostly it was implied that it doesn't matter...however many hundredths of an inch difference pale in comparison to shot placement and many other variables.
bondmid003
02-18-10, 10:38
Nobody in this thread said that .40S&W didn't create a marginally bigger hole. I think mostly it was implied that it doesn't matter...however many hundredths of an inch difference pale in comparison to shot placement and many other variables.
To say the ballistics difference is simply marginal is misleading
Like I said, it all comes down to what the OP is comfortable with. If he can shoot .45 well then I'd recommend that in a heart beat as it trumps both .40 AND 9mm
thopkins22
02-18-10, 10:46
To say the ballistics difference is simply marginal is misleading
If it wasn't marginal, people could find ER doctors to say "The fact that he was shot with a 9mm and not a .4x saved his life."
bondmid003
02-18-10, 10:58
If it wasn't marginal, people could find ER doctors to say "The fact that he was shot with a 9mm and not a .4x saved his life."
:rolleyes: stretch much?
Business_Casual
02-18-10, 11:13
:rolleyes: stretch much?
Actually, he's right - you can read ER doctor's reports where they admit they don't know the caliber with which the victim was shot, and that a marginal difference in size wouldn't have mattered.
Go here:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165386
Read all the posts by X-Ray 4N6.
M_P
This presupposes that a trauma doc has the ability, during or after emergency surgery, to determine whether 1-2mm difference in diameter would have affected the bullet's trajectory, upset, expansion, etc.
I'm a firm believer that, based on both historical data and testing like DocGKR's, differences in terminal ballistics between the major calibers are slight. However, the only thing a trauma doc can tell you about a particular GSW is what that particular bullet did in that particular patient that particular time given that particular wound track. Predictions about how things would have been different if things had been different aren't as cut-and-dried.
bondmid003
02-18-10, 11:43
Actually, he's right - you can read ER doctor's reports where they admit they don't know the caliber with which the victim was shot, and that a marginal difference in size wouldn't have mattered.
Go here:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165386
Read all the posts by X-Ray 4N6.
M_P
So you're saying that ER doctors aren't ballistics experts? Next you're going to tell me news reporters aren't gun experts either.
I guess from now on before I go shopping for ammo, i'll stop by the local emergency room to get a doc's opinion :rolleyes:
Bobert0989
02-18-10, 11:49
I agree with the argument that shot-placement is in the top three things to consider here, along with capacity and hit damage. I feel that a .45 (or .40) to the forhead will not be any more damaging to a bad guy than a 9mm, IF you can put it there.
My main concern was with center-mass shot(s) having adequate power to disable the bad guy in a confrontation. If I only have time for ONE shot towards the chest, assuming I'm adequately trained with whichever handgun to hit my target, would the 9mm be as effective in stopping the bad guy as the .45? Talking top-shelf, high-dollar defense rounds now, whatever you want to put into the mag of the gun in my hand...
Will THIS round put him down?
Thanks
Business_Casual
02-18-10, 11:59
EMTs, docs, etc. will tell you that the round isn't the determining factor in the great majority of GSWs. What it hits and destroys (note) is the deciding factor. If you believe it, don't believe, whatever you believe, I really don't mind at all.
If I only have time for ONE shot towards the chest, assuming I'm adequately trained with whichever handgun to hit my target, would the 9mm be as effective in stopping the bad guy as the .45?
If you haven't decided what you think after this many pages, why would another post or two convince you of anything? You are the consummate moderate - one day this, another day that.
M_P
John_Wayne777
02-18-10, 12:11
I agree with the argument that shot-placement is in the top three things to consider here, along with capacity and hit damage. I feel that a .45 (or .40) to the forhead will not be any more damaging to a bad guy than a 9mm, IF you can put it there.
Actually, the forehead isn't really as an ideal a target as you may think. It's basically armor plating and bullets, especially handgun bullets, have a bad habit of not penetrating that area. Thus the recommendation to shoot for the triangle of doom formed by the eye sockets down to the tip of the nose, as that's the weakest point in the skull and the best chance of taking out the CNS.
That being said, if you look at enough real life incidents generally speaking a shot to the grape is enough to make most folks reconsider their life choices if their cranium is still intact.
My main concern was with center-mass shot(s) having adequate power to disable the bad guy in a confrontation. If I only have time for ONE shot towards the chest, assuming I'm adequately trained with whichever handgun to hit my target, would the 9mm be as effective in stopping the bad guy as the .45?
There are a couple of issues there.
1. IF we assume that your ability to shoot handgun A in 9mm under stress is 100% identical to your ability to shoot handgun B in .45 ACP under stress, and that both rounds penetrate and expand reliably as designed...in other words, all other factors held to be 100% equal other than the size of the bullet...then the bigger bullet will do more damage.
2. Firing one shot in a gunfight is kind of rare. I'm not saying it never happens, but generally when you watch video footage of gunfights you rarely see a single shot. Playing through the dashcam video library in my head, I only know of one shooting where one shot was fired...and that was a contact shot to the back of the head by an officer who was on top of a dude who had a gun under him.
3. Note that I said in number 1 that the .45 would do more damage...I did not say it would be more effective, as "effective" is a rather vague term. The nature of our concept of a factor being efficacious is going to make a difference. If we're speaking of a bigger permanent crush cavity (basically punching a bigger hole in stuff) then the .45 is going to be more "effective". If we're speaking of making a bad guy stop what he's doing that makes it legally OK for us to shoot him, that's impossible to call.
What we can say based on real life shootings is this: IF you are using a reliable handgun and IF you are able to use that handgun to deliver accurate fire that punches holes in important stuff, THEN you are likely to come out of the fight as the winner. There are so many variables in gunfights (because they involve people, and there is almost infinite variability in people and how they behave and react) that you can only make precious few generalizations.
I think, however, it can safely be said that if you are using modern JHP ammo in at least a service caliber in a reliable weapon and you do your part on the trigger because of proper training, you have as good a shot as humanly possible of getting the job done whether that JHP round starts out at 9mm..38, or .40, or .45. If you don't have the "your part on the trigger" thing down then missing the bad guy with a .45 isn't going to do much for you over missing him with a 9mm.
Talking top-shelf, high-dollar defense rounds now, whatever you want to put into the mag of the gun in my hand...
Will THIS round put him down?
Thanks
If I put a Glock 19 in your hand loaded with 124 grain +P Gold Dot ammunition then, assuming you have the necessary training and mindset, you will be capable of handling any threat that a handgun can reasonably be expected to handle. If I put a Sig P229 chambered in .40 in your hand using one of the recommended service loads then, assuming you have the necessary training and mindset you will be capable of handling any threat that a handgun can reasonably be expected to handle. If I put an HK45 in your hand loaded with 230 grain Gold Dot ammunition then, assuming you have the necessary training and mindset you will be capable of handling any threat that a handgun can reasonably be expected to handle.
Notice a theme there?
Weigh your needs and find the appropriate balance for you. Many patrol officers use .40S&W, and many SWAT officers use .45acp. The needs and limitations of a uniformed officer are different from that of a civilian who is carrying concealed and has a relatively low possibility of engagement.
If your pistol of choice is reliable, durable, and you shoot it well in a timed and dynamic course of fire with likely scenarios, then I believe it is only to your benefit to go with the larger caliber. Shot placement is king regardless of the caliber that you select, but the larger caliber gives you a slight margin of shot-placement error in addition to better barrier penetration and better damage to internal bone structure. The training cost difference is minimal provided that each training shot is purpose driven, instead of spraying COM with your paper punching. In addition, the training concept that you will be able to dish out large volumes of fire in someone’s COM, or that you would be able to target the head or upper torso region is often not practical as has been observed in many OIS. Many times you are forced to shoot less than ideal portions of the body in which you want to break bones and cause as much bleeding as possible……in that case, the advantage goes to the larger caliber.
Remember that marksmanship is only a small part of the combat equation. Your ability to recognize a threat early, respond by putting yourself in a position of advantage over your opponent, and then quickly and aggressively executing your attack will take you MUCH further than shooting 20,000 rounds a year on a sterile, static gun range.
Stop worrying about bullets and worry about shooting well under stress.
bondmid003
02-18-10, 13:54
Stop worrying about bullets and worry about shooting well under stress.
Actually a good point, time yourself on some drills in order to induce a little stress.
Stop worrying about bullets and worry about shooting well under stress.
THIS.
Stop worrying about bullets and worry about shooting well under stress.
Tell him that and he's likely to pick a Bersa .380 and practice shooting off a treadmill :p
.40 is reported to be better than 9mm at penetrating barriers such as autoglass by Dr. GKR. I also have an easier time
finding .40 at WalMart.
I believe he said his duty weapon choice would be an M&P 40 with thumb safety. Other experts don't like the 40. There's a lot of drama surrounding it, but I'm comfortable carrying it.
For me it comes down to what you shoot well and can afford to shoot. everybody is different when it comes to what weapon they like to handle and shoot.
Some like Glocks, I don't, nothing wrong with them, good platform, but I don't like the way they feel.
You have to be comfortable with your choice, shoot it before you buy if you can, and get it in what every caliber, 9mm, 40 or 45 you like the best.
It is a personal choice to me, and any advice to buy a particular pistol is only based on someones personal preference.
Buy a Glock
Buy an M&P
Buy a Sig
Buy a HK
Buy an XPM
Buy a 1911
You will hear it all.
Buy what you shoot well in a caliber you like to shoot.
FWIIW I like the 1911 in .45 but a 1911 is not for everyone.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.