View Full Version : All 9mm all the time
I have come to the conclusion that is what is going to work for me. Ive have been splitting time between 9mm and .45 since I was old enough to own a handgun.
When it came time to pick a duty weapon to use at the Police Academy, I now had a dilemma, my Glock 17 or my Glock 21. After reading a lot of information on this board and another reputable board posted by people like Dr Roberts and USMC03, I decided to go with the 17. I ran that pistol well and even got top shooter in my Academy class. And then the light bulb went off. Do I really gain anything by going back to .45 over the 9mm? For me, the answer was no. I shoot the 17 better, its cheaper to feed which means more training, and I'm more than comfortable with the ballistics when using good ammo.
I have made the same conculsion in a carry weapon as well. The Glock 19 to me is the perfect carry/off duty for me. Is displays all the characteristics of the 17 that I love in a smaller package.
I didnt make this post to say 9mm is the wonder caliber that everyone should carry. I made it to say thank you to the many people on this sight that provided the info that helped me examine what works for ME and for ME its Glock 9mm's on duty and off. Thank you for your wealth of knowledge.
You made the right choice. The 17/19 are great weapons.
operator81
04-15-10, 17:53
I too have come to this conclusion. Unless issued something different, I will continue to carry a 9mm on duty. My current duty gun is a G34 with a 26 on my vest and a G19 for off duty. I still keep a G22 and G21 around just for giggles, but the 9mm is what I use for social business.
I basically subscribe to that.
But I do like having a G21SF and a Baer TRS around.
1. I like shooting .45 ACP
2. If one of these days JHP is banned (I know but I do live in CA) or scarce I'd prefer .45 FMJ than 9mm FMJ.
3. And well, I gotta have at least one 1911.
So it is more of a luxury than need for me.
I too shifted from my USPc45 (which I sold recently) to my Beretta 92FS 9mm as my carry gun. I shoot the 9mm consistently better - and I can go for longer range sessions before fatigue sets in
9 is just a great round. check out the g26 for a backup gun too.
9 is just a great round. check out the g26 for a backup gun too.
Im looking at picking one up as soon as i sell my Glock 30.
buckshot1220
04-15-10, 22:44
There is nothing wrong with the 9mm round especially when combined with modern JHP technology.
For people, 9 JHP is fine at normal ranges.
My question is at what range does the 9 stop behaving like a JHP and behave like FMJ.
AND
How does it do against animals?
TheSmiter1
04-16-10, 02:35
You have to figure that 9mm was invented long before hollow points were used in non-hunting calibers. It was used for a long time sans hollow point technology, even while coexisting with larger rounds. Yet still it survived, and thrived.
Even in FMJ, I'd prefer a 9mm (unless I got free ammo). I would still train with it more, and thus I would still shoot better with it. I'd be fine using FMJ, but I have the mindset of putting at least 5 rounds on the target and adding as necessary. Which you'd probably end up doing with a .45 anyway.
9mm all the way.
SWATcop556
04-16-10, 03:29
Glad we could help.
Good to hear you snagged a holster as well. :cool:
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-10, 07:11
You have chosen....wisely.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/lastcrusade-knight.jpg
Bulldog7972
04-16-10, 08:17
For people, 9 JHP is fine at normal ranges.
My question is at what range does the 9 stop behaving like a JHP and behave like FMJ.
AND
How does it do against animals?
Shot a pit that was dragging it's owner by the leg down the street the other day. One shot, 9mm 124 grain bonded Ranger to the torso. Doggie went down and ceased all activity and bled to death.
For people, 9 JHP is fine at normal ranges.
My question is at what range does the 9 stop behaving like a JHP and behave like FMJ.
AND
How does it do against animals?
Can't tell you the exact range. But, it is a safe bet that the range in question is BEYOND the range where a CCW holder can usually claim imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Could there be an exception? Maybe a whacko in a shopping mall or a Mumbai situation? Seems far fetched to me. In general, defensive use of a handgun happens at close range. Very close. 9mm will perform as intended at that range.
I have standardized on 9mm as well, though I still have a couple of 1911's plus an M&P .45.
For me as non-LE, caliber is a pragmatic decision. Given that all the current service calibers give you pretty similar performance when comparing quality ammo of the same type, my decisions about caliber are not really based on terminal ballistics differences anymore. So my caliber decision tends to hinge on issues like:
1. Cost
2. Capacity
3. Availability
4. How effectively I can shoot it given the available platforms
5. Current legislative environment that influences ammunition
Currently 9mm wins (IMO) on issues 1-3. For me, the .45 could potentially win on issues 4 and 5 (I can shoot my 1911 more accurately and faster than any other ). However, this could all change in the future. Say that the legislative environment changes: JHP for civilians is banned, hi-cap mags are limited, or something like that.
If I could only have a 10rd mag maximum, or if I could only use FMJ ammo, things like that, I'd definitely go back to .45 without hesitation. I'd probably carry my M&P .45 mid-size, might even go back to carrying my LW Operator 1911.
varoadking
04-16-10, 19:38
I have standardized on 9mm as well, though I still have a couple of 1911's plus an M&P .45.
For me as non-LE, caliber is a pragmatic decision. Given that all the current service calibers give you pretty similar performance when comparing quality ammo of the same type, my decisions about caliber are not really based on terminal ballistics differences anymore. So my caliber decision tends to hinge on issues like:
1. Cost
2. Capacity
3. Availability
4. How effectively I can shoot it given the available platforms
5. Current legislative environment that influences ammunition
Currently 9mm wins (IMO) on issues 1-3. For me, the .45 could potentially win on issues 4 and 5 (I can shoot my 1911 more accurately and faster than any other ). However, this could all change in the future. Say that the legislative environment changes: JHP for civilians is banned, hi-cap mags are limited, or something like that.
If I could only have a 10rd mag maximum, or if I could only use FMJ ammo, things like that, I'd definitely go back to .45 without hesitation. I'd probably carry my M&P .45 mid-size, might even go back to carrying my LW Operator 1911.
I find it curious that cost is a seemingly a big deal in these caliber discussions...but let some poor sap mention cost when he talks about his handgun purchase choice and we find endless ways to blast him.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so...
If there were no choice other than a .45ACP, I imagine I'd be well satisfied...
Just sayin'...
SWATcop556
04-16-10, 20:44
I find it curious that cost is a seemingly a big deal in these caliber discussions...but let some poor sap mention cost when he talks about his handgun purchase choice and we find endless ways to blast him.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so...
If there were no choice other than a .45ACP, I imagine I'd be well satisfied...
Just sayin'...
Considering that with modern bullet technology, shot placement is king over caliber. If you foot the bill for training then yes, cost is a factor.
If some poor guy spends $500 on a piece of shit when the same money could buy a proven and reliable platform, then it's a stupid decision.
I agree with the previous statement that shot placement is king, everything else is just extra. I learned to shoot a pistol with a .38/.357, but .45 was my first semi-auto sweetheart. I still carry the same Sig P220 off-duty that I purchased some 15 years ago. All that said, I practice with other calibers such as 9mm just in case SNAFU and 9mm is all you have. If you can, why not cross-train.
MarshallDodge
04-16-10, 21:20
Congratulations on your purchase.
Shot placement will always win the battle. :cool:
Business_Casual
04-16-10, 21:21
I agree with the previous statement that shot placement is king, everything else is just extra. I learned to shoot a pistol with a .38/.357, but .45 was my first semi-auto sweetheart. I still carry the same Sig P220 off-duty that I purchased some 15 years ago. All that said, I practice with other calibers such as 9mm just in case SNAFU and 9mm is all you have. If you can, why not cross-train.
Well, if you are convinced, as many very smart and very experienced people are, that 9mm is adequate and shot placement is the key, then why bear the extra recoil and expense of 45 ACP? Sure, maybe you can afford it or the ammo is free, but are your splits slower, you pistol wear higher, your practice time compressed, etc.
Just a thought.
B_C
Can't tell you the exact range. But, it is a safe bet that the range in question is BEYOND the range where a CCW holder can usually claim imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Could there be an exception? Maybe a whacko in a shopping mall or a Mumbai situation? Seems far fetched to me. In general, defensive use of a handgun happens at close range. Very close. 9mm will perform as intended at that range.
a 9mm retains more velocity at say 100 yards than a 45. granted the 45 is already bigger..
i'd say on longer shots like that the low recoil and high capacity of a 9mm would be very helpful. not to mention the extra training time you can afford. :o
I've done something similar, all my serious pistols are Glock 9mms of various sizes, and my BUGs are S&W J frame .38s (mostly, I also kept my Glock 26).
After our G22 debacle I sat down and looked at what I had in the gunsafe and made some decisions, ended up selling off my Glock .40s and HK .45s.
I've always been OK with the 9mm. We swapped to pistols from revolvers well before the .40 showed up. That +P 9mm isn't that far behind the ballistic output of my old .357mag wasn't lost on me.
On my job we have been shooting bad guys rather successfully for a long time with our 9mms, with no problems to report.
Well, if you are convinced, as many very smart and very experienced people are, that 9mm is adequate and shot placement is the key, then why bear the extra recoil and expense of 45 ACP? Sure, maybe you can afford it or the ammo is free, but are your splits slower, you pistol wear higher, your practice time compressed, etc.
Just a thought.
B_C
I also learned a long time ago "If it aint broke, don't fix it." I shoot just as well with a .45, I do not notice the extra recoil, due to aftermarket modifications and a bigger piece of copper jacket and lead hitting a target is still just a bigger piece hitting the target.
When all else except size is equal, size wins out.
Congratulations on your purchase.
Shot placement will always win the battle. :cool:
This, coming from a dyed-in-the wool .45 ACP 1911 carrier... ;)
To the OP:
Excellent caliber choice; the reasons you listed are exactly why I chose 9mm when I bought my pistols, and why I'll stick with it as my main carry choice even when I branch out to other calibers.
Can't tell you the exact range. But, it is a safe bet that the range in question is BEYOND the range where a CCW holder can usually claim imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Could there be an exception? Maybe a whacko in a shopping mall or a Mumbai situation? Seems far fetched to me. In general, defensive use of a handgun happens at close range. Very close. 9mm will perform as intended at that range.
I believe in understanding the limits of the tools, then and only then should we talk scenarios.
But since we want to talk scenarios, I was on my bicycle tonight riding in the country. If someone would have taken a shot at me with a rifle....
Thanks for the kind words tusk. :cool: The Glock 19 has been my daily duty / off duty gun for the last 8 or 9 years. Perfect compromise between shootability and concealability.
http://03designgroup.com/photo/why-glock-why-9mm/icon-why-glock-why-9mm.jpg
03designgroup | Why Glock, why 9mm? http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm)
MarshallDodge
04-17-10, 09:44
This, coming from a dyed-in-the wool .45 ACP 1911 carrier... ;)
Hey! Back off! I own a plastic gun or two... :D
Thanks for the kind words tusk. :cool: The Glock 19 has been my daily duty / off duty gun for the last 8 or 9 years. Perfect compromise between shootability and concealability.
http://03designgroup.com/photo/why-glock-why-9mm/icon-why-glock-why-9mm.jpg
03designgroup | Why Glock, why 9mm? http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm)
Jeff, I dont know if you recall (you probably dont), but when I was trying to decide on a gun for the academy we traded a few im's. That article got the ball rolling on evaluating what works and makes the most sense for me.
RogerinTPA
04-17-10, 11:35
I also learned a long time ago "If it aint broke, don't fix it." I shoot just as well with a .45, I do not notice the extra recoil, due to aftermarket modifications and a bigger piece of copper jacket and lead hitting a target is still just a bigger piece hitting the target.
When all else except size is equal, size wins out.
I believe that only when discussing wedding tackle and pleasing women.
A lot of folks (Not saying your one of them) go for a larger caliber to compensate for their lack of shooting skill. Large calibers can be more effective "IF" you can hit your target effectively (shot placement) and often enough, that it ceases to be a threat. Most folks can't do that on a one way range, let alone a two way range. It has been said and proven a gazillion times, shot placement (Brain, CNS) is critical and way more important, than caliber alone.
varoadking
04-17-10, 12:34
If some poor guy spends $500 on a piece of shit when the same money could buy a proven and reliable platform, then it's a stupid decision.
Is $500 some sort of magic number for a handgun?
Some folks will spend far more than $500 for a piece of shit...
SWATcop556
04-17-10, 20:27
Is $500 some sort of magic number for a handgun?
Some folks will spend far more than $500 for a piece of shit...
G19 and G17 can be had locally for about $500 so yes it could be considered a magic number.
That is an excellent article USMC03 wrote. I have it bookmarked and sent it to plenty of people. Not bad for a jarhead grunt. I was an 0311 myself btw. ;)
Thanks for the kind words tusk. :cool: The Glock 19 has been my daily duty / off duty gun for the last 8 or 9 years. Perfect compromise between shootability and concealability.
http://03designgroup.com/photo/why-glock-why-9mm/icon-why-glock-why-9mm.jpg
03designgroup | Why Glock, why 9mm? http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm)
TheSmiter1
04-23-10, 01:14
That is an excellent article USMC03 wrote. I have it bookmarked and sent it to plenty of people. Not bad for a jarhead grunt. I was an 0311 myself btw. ;)
I'm in the Reserve. Not infantry, though. Most of the (former) grunts in my unit are NCOs. They all like the 9mm. I try and learn what I can from them.
Of course the Lance Cooley's (such as myself), regardless of MOS, all know 9mm sucks because they heard it did from another Lance Cooley that saw a hadji get lit up 1,000 times in the chest and head with an M9 and continue to fight
I like 9mm even though I know I'll get shit for it and need at least 1,000 rounds to bring someone down.
I like to keep things simple, easy and consistent. I love to train and training cost me money. I shoot about 500-1000 rounds per month. 9mm Glock is my choice and my tool. Ill take round placement and training over caliber any day. I do train failure drills so no matter what caliber I am running every target gets at least 3 rounds (that is why I like the inexpensive 9). I run a G19 CCW, and G26 for back up. Since they take the same mags I thought this was very utilitarian. I use Speer gold dot 124 for CCW, and 147 FMJ flat nose if I am hiking (for penetration of animal threats).
I did own 9mm, 40, 45, Dropped the 40 without even looking back. It was hard to down size from 45 but I eventually did. Just my personal choice and what works for me. We are all different so it is a good thing there are so many calibers and platforms our there.
That is an excellent article USMC03 wrote. I have it bookmarked and sent it to plenty of people. Not bad for a jarhead grunt. I was an 0311 myself btw. ;)
Yes!!!! Sounds like my story to a T. I agree with this article 110%. I lost a lot of money and training time screwing around with different platforms, calibers, and holsters, and the whole 40 S&W Hype, and 1911 Hype.
TheSmiter1
04-23-10, 02:54
I like to keep things simple, easy and consistent. I love to train and training cost me money. I shoot about 500-1000 rounds per month. 9mm Glock is my choice and my tool. Ill take round placement and training over caliber any day. I do train failure drills so no matter what caliber I am running every target gets at least 3 rounds (that is why I like the inexpensive 9). I run a G19 CCW, and G26 for back up. Since they take the same mags I thought this was very utilitarian. I use Speer gold dot 124 for CCW, and 147 FMJ flat nose if I am hiking (for penetration of animal threats).
I did own 9mm, 40, 45, Dropped the 40 without even looking back. It was hard to down size from 45 but I eventually did. Just my personal choice and what works for me. We are all different so it is a good thing there are so many calibers and platforms our there.
I'd take a 9mm over a .45 any day. Even in FMJ. Why? Because I have much more experience shooting 9mm than .45. And 9mm has a lot more rounds in a mag for comparably sized pistols.
Also comforting is the fact that 9mm has been around since 1902, and for it's first many years was solely in LRN and FMJ form. All this while existing along side larger, heavier calibers. It wouldn't have become so popular if it sucked as hard as everyone said.
John_Wayne777
04-23-10, 07:12
I find it curious that cost is a seemingly a big deal in these caliber discussions...but let some poor sap mention cost when he talks about his handgun purchase choice and we find endless ways to blast him.
That is generally because an extra 100 bucks can generally ensure the purchase of a weapon that will offer reliable service over an acceptable lifespan, whereas the extra expense of a .45 ACP over a 9mm just gets bigger with every trigger pull, and only with benefits that can be described as marginal at best. If money is no object then that's not a big deal...but for most money is a limited resource and ammo expense makes training and practice more limited. I'm hitting my financial limits trying to feed training and practice with a 9mm...with a .45 I would be hitting those limits much sooner.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so...
Well, I look at it like this:
Back in the day most of the bad guys were limited to 6 guns too. They aren't anymore. It would suck to run out of ammo before running out of gunfight.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_2dd02134-477f-11df-aba6-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=video
...the officer in that video fired a lot of shots in just a couple of seconds...about 4 a second if I counted right. A bunch of guys in white coats working for a big government agency figured out that under stress most people fire a shot every 1/4 of a second from studying numerous videos of gunfights caught on camera. They were also able to determine that most gunfights last 3-5 seconds. 6 shots is 1.5 seconds of gunfight. 15 is 3.75. Statistics don't tell the whole tale in every fight...but I certainly know which side of those stats I'd rather be on if I have to be in a fight.
If there were no choice other than a .45ACP, I imagine I'd be well satisfied...
A .45 will get the job done if the guy behind the trigger can put the big bullets where they need to go...without question. It's just that it's easier to develop the things necessary to put those bullets where they need to go when training and practice are less expensive. Since ultimately the greatest determinant of success in a fight will be the ability of the guy behind the trigger to put bullets into the vital bits of a bad guy's anatomy rather than the extra .08 inches of bullet diameter offered by the more expensive (and harder to get, these days) round, it seems logical for most to invest their limited resources where it will do the most good.
I find it curious that cost is a seemingly a big deal in these caliber discussions...but let some poor sap mention cost when he talks about his handgun purchase choice and we find endless ways to blast him.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so...
If there were no choice other than a .45ACP, I imagine I'd be well satisfied...
Just sayin'...
Cost is a big deal for many on here because their training/practice tempo is quite high. For me, 1k rounds or more in a month is not uncommon, and there are some here whose round counts are far above that.
If you look at a $400 gun vs a $800 gun it's not that much different over a few years, but double the ammo cost and that now becomes very significant.
gotta have at least one 1911.
.
Is that not the 11th Commandment?
"Back in the day most of the bad guys were limited to 6 guns too. They aren't anymore. It would suck to run out of ammo before running out of gunfight." JohnWayne777
I agree, even back in the 70s people were walking around with .25s, and .32s pocket pistol Saturday Night Specials. Bad guys like hi cap mags and bigger bullets these days. They like Tec 9s because they are cheap and can convert to full auto easily. I see that a lot of 380 pocket pistols are popular for CCW nowadays. A lot of criminals are attacking in packs like animals. All the stats a gunfight only lasts about 3 rounds....I won't take my chances, I trust my life with my training and my 15 rounds in my Glock 19, with one reload of 17 rounds.
I see USMC and 03 and I assume some form of 03 walkalot. i was only ever issued 1911's during my career including after the much despised Beretta and ball 9mm was forced on us. 9mm in ball sucks and always has. 9mm in a modern JHP is excellent. But everyone knows if you get hit in the arm with a .45 it will take your arm clean off...:) i will always have a fondness for .45. Even though I am mostly 9mm after a lifetime of .45 lets not forget that a larger, heavier, bullet is a good thing. Last time I checked they make .45 in JHP too.
I'm in the Reserve. Not infantry, though. Most of the (former) grunts in my unit are NCOs. They all like the 9mm. I try and learn what I can from them.
Of course the Lance Cooley's (such as myself), regardless of MOS, all know 9mm sucks because they heard it did from another Lance Cooley that saw a hadji get lit up 1,000 times in the chest and head with an M9 and continue to fight
I like 9mm even though I know I'll get shit for it and need at least 1,000 rounds to bring someone down.
GermanSynergy
04-23-10, 18:39
OP,
I've come to the same conclusion. For years I've had a plethora of pistols in all sorts of calibers, but now I'm selling them all and standardizing on the Glock 17/19/26 and M&P series.
TheSmiter1
04-24-10, 00:24
OP,
I've come to the same conclusion. For years I've had a plethora of pistols in all sorts of calibers, but now I'm selling them all and standardizing on the Glock 17/19/26 and M&P series.
I never thought of going with two similar platforms, as opposed to only one platform. I've only got a Glock 19 now, but now that I think of it, I hope to have both Glocks and M&Ps someday. They both have the same manual of arms. Their triggers are different, but I can interchange between the ones at the range and my Glock pretty well. Good choice on platforms.
TheSmiter1
04-24-10, 00:28
I see USMC and 03 and I assume some form of 03 walkalot. i was only ever issued 1911's during my career including after the much despised Beretta and ball 9mm was forced on us. 9mm in ball sucks and always has. 9mm in a modern JHP is excellent. But everyone knows if you get hit in the arm with a .45 it will take your arm clean off...:) i will always have a fondness for .45. Even though I am mostly 9mm after a lifetime of .45 lets not forget that a larger, heavier, bullet is a good thing. Last time I checked they make .45 in JHP too.
I'd never say .45 isn't better than 9mm in all forms, but I don't know that the difference would ever matter to me personally, or many other people. Hence my choice to go 9mm. Although I hope to get into reloading after college, so .45 may be viable someday. Then it would be M&P45 and 45c for me!
Ordering Warren Tactical sights and shipping off my M&P9 to Apex in the next couple of weeks.
I'll be selling the rest of my centerfire semi-autos - which I guess is down to a Les Baer TRS and a 9mm Springfield Loaded at this point. I've fallen out of love with the idea of a supremo badass custom 1911 - too much money, .45 costs too much (I realized that I'm never going to be a reloader) and there's nothing the round does that 9mm doesn't do just about as well IMO. Get this M&P done, save up some more $$$ and buy a backup and I'll be set.
Assy Mcgee
04-24-10, 04:12
i have 9mm, 40, and 45's. i prefer the 45 most, but feel more than confident in my 9mm with +p+ LE jhp's that i have in it.
you're good to go either way, so stick with what you like to shoot best :)
"Back in the day most of the bad guys were limited to 6 guns too. They aren't anymore. It would suck to run out of ammo before running out of gunfight." JohnWayne777
I agree, even back in the 70s people were walking around with .25s, and .32s pocket pistol Saturday Night Specials. Bad guys like hi cap mags and bigger bullets these days. They like Tec 9s because they are cheap and can convert to full auto easily. I see that a lot of 380 pocket pistols are popular for CCW nowadays. A lot of criminals are attacking in packs like animals. All the stats a gunfight only lasts about 3 rounds....I won't take my chances, I trust my life with my training and my 15 rounds in my Glock 19, with one reload of 17 rounds.
I have no idea who said this or where it came from (might even have been from here) but someone wrote something lately that made a lot of sense to me. they said there are two types of shooting altercations that you can get involved in - one is a shooting and one is a gunfight.
a shooting involves one person doing the shooting and generally lasts about three rounds. a gunfight, however, is when both parties are shooting and generally involves either or both parties emptying their weapons, regardless of the capacity.
OP, I recently decided the same thing. After trying various 45s and 40s, I sold them off and now I only have 9mm handguns. I still have a nice variety of Sigs, M&Ps, and a BHP. I shoot 9mm better than anything else, and that was my main consideration.
gtmtnbiker98
04-24-10, 16:00
I am a big advocate for platform consolidation, but I could not go to a single caliber. It's bad enough being married! Have to have some variety.
For people, 9 JHP is fine at normal ranges.
My question is at what range does the 9 stop behaving like a JHP and behave like FMJ.
AND
How does it do against animals?
I shoot a coyote last summer with a +P 124gr Gold Dot. I did not realize a mammal could hit the ground that quickly. After hitting the ground it rolled over and was done.
You can argue calibers all you want, I belive it was USMC03 that said it better than I ever heard/seen before. Something to the effect of; I've never seen a 9mm fail when a .45 would not have failed. I've never seen a .45 work when a 9mm would not have worked.
That sums it up pretty well IMO, choose what ever caliber you feel comfortable with and I'll be just as happy as you are. Please don't try to convince everyone that "your" caliber is the only way to fly.
I shoot a coyote last summer with a +P 124gr Gold Dot. I did not realize a mammal could hit the ground that quickly. After hitting the ground it rolled over and was done.
You can argue calibers all you want, I belive it was USMC03 that said it better than I ever heard/seen before. Something to the effect of; I've never seen a 9mm fail when a .45 would not have failed. I've never seen a .45 work when a 9mm would not have worked.
That sums it up pretty well IMO, choose what ever caliber you feel comfortable with and I'll be just as happy as you are. Please don't try to convince everyone that "your" caliber is the only way to fly.
Distance please?
Bullet recovery?
When I said animals, I was thinking something larger like deer, but I appreciate the information on field tests.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so...
I used to read a lot of Jeff Cooper when I was a kid, and he always made fun of the "wonder-nines" and would always ask "what do you think you need 15 rounds for anyway?" "I suppose you plan on missing a lot!". It was his way of making people feel silly for carrying anything but his beloved 1911 in .45acp.
I was always confused by him making these statements, while at the same time stressing fast reloads and carrying extra magazines on your person. One would think that if seven rounds of .45acp would end any violent encounter, he shouldn't have worried his students (Gunsite) about reloads and extra magazines.
Just some food for thought, as I see many 1911/.45 proponents bring up the first issue and never mentioning the second in the wondernine vs. 1911 discussions.
One shot one kill. Gee 6 shooter that's all it had back then. One never knows what one may walk into. Tis better to have and not need. Then to need and not have.
I'm in the process of consolidating to 9mm, .22, and 38/.357. My duty gun is a glock 22, but It has had issues. I still want to keep my training consistent, so I decided to practice more with a 17C. I've managed to hang an X300 and crimson trace grips on it. It shoots great and feels great. No more slide bite!!!
I ended up pre-ordering a Tactical Solutions upper to shoot .22. I can also train new shooters and start them off on .22 and build them up to .40.
I'm tempted to pick up a spare 17 for when I take a class. I ordered a spare regular 17 barrel for my 17C to use for low light/CQB.
Now I don't know what to do with a few 1911's and an M&P .45. I don't shoot them much. I can sell them and buy more ammo!!!
Distance please?
Bullet recovery?
When I said animals, I was thinking something larger like deer, but I appreciate the information on field tests.
Distance was around 25yrds, approx. Did not dig into him to recover the bullet but it would have been interesting to see.
One shot one kill. Gee 6 shooter that's all it had back then. One never knows what one may walk into. Tis better to have and not need. Then to need and not have.
I tend to agree with this. I've faced 4-5 "trouble makers" on two different occasions now. I no longer carry a 5 shot snub, I've replaced it with a G26. And feel much better about it.
Beat Trash
04-28-10, 05:25
One shot one kill. Gee 6 shooter that's all it had back then. One never knows what one may walk into. Tis better to have and not need. Then to need and not have.
In the real world, sometimes it takes more than one shot to stop (kill) the suspect. Would rather end the encounter with one extra round, than short one round.
They all work (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP). In polymer framed pistols 9mm is best for me: less felt recoil, faster splits and better groups at speed. It's also cheaper to purchase and train with and has higher capacity.
However, a steel-framed, full-size 1911 causes me to pause. I'm a better shot with it in every regard. Period.
The "problem" with the 1911 (when compared to, say, a Glock 17 or M&P9) is initial buy in cost, ammo cost, limited capacity, cost of maintenance (i.e., parts replacement which for most people will require gunsmithing services).
I've never felt the "need" for .40 S&W though it has grown on me.
Now I don't know what to do with a few 1911's and an M&P .45. I don't shoot them much. I can sell them and buy more ammo!!!
I'm a hard core, "gamebred" devotee of John Moses Browning's beloved 1911. What makes/models do you have? :D
Yep, just above this I sing the praises of 9mm, polymer guns. I know. But I did state (or should have) "they ALL work". :)
I was once a believer in "the more, the merrier" philosophy wrt to handguns and calibers. (then again, I did and do shoot and train with handguns waaay more than long guns:D) These days, though, I am down to 9mm and .45ACP, with an emphasis on 9mm. Pretty soon I will be totally consolidated on M&P/Glock/P2000-type platforms, with the odd 1911 for fun. No more .40SW, .357 Mag, .357Sig etc etc. IMO it just doesn't make sense to source so many types of ammo.
Moose-Knuckle
04-28-10, 17:33
IMO it just doesn't make sense to source so many types of ammo.
It's not economically viable. I stick with the 9mm as well. I keep a 22/45 for plinking fun, and a GP-100 my folks gave me when I left home for the option of shooting .38 Spl and .357 Mag. I always wanted a .45 but it's not in my best interest to start a new caliber at this point.
Modern ballestic technology has changed the game.
mkmckinley
04-30-10, 23:16
I have no problem with carrying a 9x19 but I also have a lot of other guns and calibers. I think I have 6 different calibers but reloading reduces the "overhead". Variety is the spice of life and I like shooting different platforms to keep things interesting. From a pure defense-training standpoint I can see the wisdom of picking a gun and shooting the crap out of it.
When I was looking for a carry gun I read a lot what was said here, especially the ballistics and the newer 9mm JHP stuff.
And even though I put my preference on a Glock 19 I also rented the M&P9c to try out and found out I was a better shot with it than the Glock, it felt a lot better in my hands.
Yesterday I sadly went to the gunshop and traded in a rifle I don't shoot anymore (bolt gun) and the M&P9c, but did so because I felt a full sized M&P would suit my needs better.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/UPSkald/MP9Hand.jpg
Thats a pic of the full size in my hands. The feeling of my pinky dangling at the bottom always drove me nuts mentally that I felt I could overcome, but not really.
I do have a 1911, but its very much not for regular carry, but may have to bring it back to carry duty til I get a new holster for the M&P9.
nobody knows
06-12-11, 23:41
I have always been a 1911/45 Guy. But recently I have Gone to carrying a g19, just for the simplicity and reliability of the design. I do not feel under guned with 31rds of +P+ ammunition. I will always love the 45 and The 1911. but for cost of ammunition I can shoot three to four times as much with the 9mm VS the 45. As many others have said modern bullet design and shot placement level the playing field. Plus with all the extra ammo I can train more witch in turn makes me a better shooter and that leads to better shot placement. Problem solved
I grew up reading Cooper's Corner, the Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip, etc. I was convinced that any real man packed a .45 1911 and that was that. I started CCWing during the AW ban, and at that point, 8+1 rounds in my 1911 was, to me, better than 10+1 in my Beretta. Once the ban ended, and I could afford standard capacity magazines, I started to really ponder it. At the same time, I had moved out and begun shooting on my own budget, which meant I preferred to shoot the 9mm over the .45 in both training and competition. I found that I shot the Beretta faster, more accurately, and overall better than the 1911. The more I looked into ballistics with modern ammo, the more I realized that any infinitesimal loss in terms of terminal ballistics from going with the 9mm would be more than made up by the faster shot-to-shot time and additional capacity.
The end result is that I haven't carried my 1911 for years, and it rarely leaves the safe for anything than an occasional fondle. The last time I had it out, I found the feel of it in my hands to be just... odd. It didn't feel like I was holding a gun. I had become so used to the Beretta that I expected that feel instead of the 1911. I still love my CQB, no doubt, but the Beretta rides on my hip these days.
I consolidated all of my pistols to 9mm for the same reason. I hated like hell selling the 1911s, but once I took the emotion out of it and realized that a) aside from a couple mags here and there I stopped shooting them, and b) I stopped carrying it as a CCW once I got my Glock.
Shooting 9mm is so much less expensive and just made a lot of sense to me.
Magic_Salad0892
06-13-11, 08:22
I regret buying pretty much any handgun that wasn't a Glock 19.
JSTICFRALL
06-13-11, 09:45
I can say I'm part of the "I believe in the 9mm" club as well. When I was shopping for my HK, I had the choice of .40 or 9mm. I shot both and quickly realized that the recoil and price of the .40 just wasn't worth it to me. I'm more accurate, faster, and more consistent with a 9mm and don't regret my decision at all. Will I purchase a .45 in the near future? Of course! However like others have said, it will be more of a luxury gun which will no doubt result in it being a high quality 1911.
Doc Safari
06-13-11, 10:30
My two cents:
9mm is cheaper and easier to get good hits with less practice, but since the ammo is cheaper you will probably practice more.
I'd rather put a 9mm in a perp's brain box than a .45 in his shoulder just from lack of practice with the more expensive .45
Just sayin'.
I've recently converted from 45 to 9 mm. The biggest thing for me is cost and I know many people have questioned cost as a factor. Realistically speaking in the life of a pistol the initial cost is very low. A 9 mm pistol pays for itself within two years for competition. It only takes about 2 to 3000 rounds to pay for itself. Since I'm paying and I don't reload cheaper is better. I don't shoot that much and that's only about a years worth of shooting.
terrafirma
06-16-11, 23:06
I basically subscribe to that.
But I do like having a G21SF and a Baer TRS around.
1. I like shooting .45 ACP
2. If one of these days JHP is banned (I know but I do live in CA) or scarce I'd prefer .45 FMJ than 9mm FMJ.
3. And well, I gotta have at least one 1911.
So it is more of a luxury than need for me.
Completely agree. Until then, "the 9's just fine."
Completely agree.
Well, an update from that post a year ago............................I'm still consolidated on 9mm Glocks. But I sold my last .45 ACP, a G21SF a month ago. My TRS went bye bye a few months before that. I decided to get into DA revolvers in .357 Magnum instead of .45 ACP to supplement my handgun shooting. I'm enjoying shooting them quite a bit more than .45 autoloaders and they're a nice change of pace from bottom feeders in general. Since I've become more focused on 9mm its been easier to supplement my shooting with handguns that are more "fun" than "utility".
And between .45 and 9mm FMJ or JHP I no longer care to think about the difference.
Well, for the 9mm guys (like myself) who still wants at least one 1911 - get a 9mm one :)
I sold my Ed Brown, and have consolidated all my handguns to 9mm (except for one 22). But I still have a Springfield Custom Shop 1911 in 9mm. Great shooter
For me, the caliber I choose is dictated by the platform. Most if not all service caliber handguns, those chambered in 9mm tend to function best and are the most durable than those in 40/357/45. So the default choice for me is 9mm unless some other variable sidetracks me.
DeathMetal
06-17-11, 14:06
I too discovered a few years ago that 9mm was the caliber to carry. I was a strict .45 guy but I learned through countless trips to the range and many holster/Carry options later that 9mm is the perfect balance of size and fire power.
I love the 9mm and the 45, but there are differences. The 9 has more capacity, the 45 has more power/energy. The 40, on the other hand, has just about the capacity of the 9, and just about the power of the 45 with good loads, for defensive situations. What's not to like.
What 9mm offers over larger calibers, is greater capacity and controllability. Two very important factors, if your in a gun fight.
Scotter260
06-17-11, 15:26
I prefer 9mm and DAO/DAK/Glock NY-1/3.5 combos. Made the choice to focus on these in 2008 after purchasing a used K-Frame and actually learning how to properly run double-action.
Inexpensive, simple, and consistent regardless of manufacturer.
What 9mm offers over larger calibers, is greater capacity and controllability. Two very important factors, if your in a gun fight.
Very true, but if you are proficient with what you are carrying, then controllability should be a moot issue. True proficiency manifests itself in subconscious ability. That's what comes alive in real life shootings, when your actions revert to how you were trained.
It would seem the largest caliber you can handle, coupled with decent capacity, is preferable. But, in the end, the 9mm is obviously the best choice for those can't or won't take the time to become truly proficient.
Very true, but if you are proficient with what you are carrying, then controllability should be a moot issue. True proficiency manifests itself in subconscious ability. That's what comes alive in real life shootings, when your actions revert to how you were trained.
It would seem the largest caliber you can handle, coupled with decent capacity, is preferable. But, in the end, the 9mm is obviously the best choice for those can't or won't take the time to become truly proficient.
Generally a very good read:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Two of the most well respected and idolized trainers out there are Ken Hackathorn and Larry Vickers. Both have extensive field experience, and years of working with the special forces community. They also train many domestic agencies on US soil. Both of them were interviewed regarding pistol selection for military, police, and civilian use. Both of them agreed on two things.......if you have the option to use modern JHP bullets, use 9mm..........if you are forced to use FMJ, use .45acp. They based this decision on the current crop of available handguns and ammunition. Basically, they were so impressed with the effects of modern day 9mm JHP ammunition, and the lack of observable differences in the effects of .40 or .45 over the 9mm, that there didn't seem to be any advantage in going larger. The exception was in the use of FMJ which the .45acp seemed to have an observable terminal effects advantage over the 9mm in FMJ.
I've used all three calibers on duty for years. I'm pretty much done with .45acp as I don't like the limitations of the platform. Putting holes in the right spot tend to be harder to do under high stress shoots and reloads for time. I've seen a number of .45 hits to abdomens, shoulders, and appentages that had very little effect on the badguy. Either you hit the coke can(heart, brain) or you don't. Yeah, yeah, CNS and vasclular region of the chest are important too. :-) I'd go back to .40 as long as I have the option to use 180gr loads and a platform of my choosing. Right now though, the 9mm still offers me the greatest level of versatility, ease of handling, and I seem to be a better overall shooter with it......particularly weak handed. When I hand out service weapons to new hires, they often go for the .40s or .45s. It takes time and many thousands of rounds of training before they start to see the advantages in using 9mm.
Very true, but if you are proficient with what you are carrying, then controllability should be a moot issue. True proficiency manifests itself in subconscious ability. That's what comes alive in real life shootings, when your actions revert to how you were trained.
It would seem the largest caliber you can handle, coupled with decent capacity, is preferable. But, in the end, the 9mm is obviously the best choice for those can't or won't take the time to become truly proficient.
Some people have much lower standards or standards vary wildly in what it means to be "truly proficient". Most who train or shoot enough on a regular basis can handle and shoot all the major defensive calibers. 9mm, .40, .357, and .45. You shoot them enough on a regular basis they can all start to feel pretty similar. But the shot to shot time difference and the ability to shoot well with one hand for example or handheld light is more a matter of pure physics. 9mm is gonna be easier and faster to shoot well. Choosing which caliber each of us is more effective overall with the same level or amount of training is more of an art. A fine balance of shootability and the slight perceived edge we think we gain by going to a slightly larger or faster handgun bullet. It requires the abillity to be brutally honest with ourselves. And that's the hard part.
Generally a very good read:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
That is interesting info., even if the article is 22 years old. Constant ammo/bullet development has made the difference in calibers less and less. What used to be a good load can change almost overnight, and no one can conduct meaningful non-biased tests, involving the latest/greatest, without the info. being outdated in a relatively short amount of time. It makes the choices harder and harder, if one is a perfectionist. The best bullet in one caliber does not always transfer to being the best in another caliber either.
One factor that can't be disputed is the 9mm is cheaper to shoot.
That is interesting info., even if the article is 22 years old.
22 years is a very long time when you compare rapidly evolving things such as computers for example. However, ammunition technology(that actually works) has changed very little since the invention of the metallic cartridge. The 9mm was developed in 1908, and the .45acp in 1909. Then you have the other factor in the equation which is the human body..........which hasn't changed well......who knows. The same methods, analysis, and proceedures for treating trauma to the body are essentially the same as they were 20 years ago. This seems to be a much harder concept for the younger crowd who are surrounding by technology that rapidly evolves........so all things must rapidly evolve....right?.....wrong.
22 years is a blink of the eye in ballistics science. Handgun cartridges do little more than punch holes unless you can crank up the velocity and momentum to rifle level ballistics where you get actual tearing of tissue through temporary cavity stretch. This has always remained true. Scientifically, there is no model or method that is superior to the FBI protocol tests and the forensic sciences that have led to the development of modern day ammunition. There will always be the snake oil peddlers that try to lead you away from the proven methods such as ballistic pressure wave, energy dump, and hydrostatic shock.......but they have gained no credible acceptance nor serious consideration from agencies and units that take life and death seriously. Michael Courtney for example has made it his life's work to surf the internet and insert his BPW theory at every opportunity. If you change anything on Wikipedia, he'll change it right back within a couple of hours. Too much computer time on that man's hands to do any serious research.
There's a lot of knowledge to be learned from the Terminal Effects Forum on M4carbine.net from people who have been doing this for decades. There comes a point where we all have to ask ourselves how much do we really know, and perhaps somebody who has more experience and first hand knowledge might know more.
So you are saying that recent technology has had no impact on the way bullets are put together, what they are made of, and their being better able to more reliablly expand, at a wider range of velocities?
So you are saying that recent technology has had no impact on the way bullets are put together, what they are made of, and their being better able to more reliablly expand, at a wider range of velocities?
Did you even read Dr. Roberts' articles on terminal effects? Or even "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" by Urey Patrick?
There is only one valid reason for me to post links to these works, and that is because I believe that the principles of 22 years ago are still just as valid as they are today. Handguns punch holes, and as long as penetration is adequate, the differences between the major service calibers is very minor to the point of being an "inconsequencial increment" as Colonel Jeff Cooper would say.
Yes, bullet technology has "improved" to make adequate penetration and expansion more reliable. My arguement here is that you said that the concepts of ballistic science are somehow "outdated" from 22 years ago and this is not the case.
PA PATRIOT
06-17-11, 22:49
I carried a Glock Model-17 very early 2nd gen version for duty over 19.5yrs and in all those years that pistol never gave me a lick of problem. I always felt well armed and confident that if I did my part my Glock would hold up her end of the deal and get me through any tough situation.
I always shot the crap out of that pistol over the years as my department issues 100rds a day for practice and I took advantage of that offer as much as I could.
I recently retired the Model-17 as she started to show her age and round count but even though I still have total confidence in that pistol I was able to be issued a brand new Model-21SF .45acp loaded with Federal 230gr HST H/P's. I still get the issued 100rds a day to break in and proof the .45 which I did in short order with over a few thousands perfect function rounds fired but I can in closing honestly say I shot either pistol exactly the same time and accuracy wise.
If I had to switch back to my trusted Model-17 9mm at any point in my remaining career I would not hesitate.
Very true, but if you are proficient with what you are carrying, then controllability should be a moot issue. True proficiency manifests itself in subconscious ability. That's what comes alive in real life shootings, when your actions revert to how you were trained.
It would seem the largest caliber you can handle, coupled with decent capacity, is preferable. But, in the end, the 9mm is obviously the best choice for those can't or won't take the time to become truly proficient.
Good hits are what count, not caliber. And you will always have more 9mm than 40/45. Thats a good thing, if your facing 3 or 4 bad guys.
Yes, bullet technology has "improved" to make adequate penetration and expansion more reliable. My arguement here is that you said that the concepts of ballistic science are somehow "outdated" from 22 years ago and this is not the case.
I never said that the article was outdated, just that there have been improvements made, especially in bullet construction, for better terminal performance. I'm not going to get worked up, since I'm not any type of ballistic expert. Keep on truckin. :D
I never said that the article was outdated, just that there have been improvements made, especially in bullet construction, for better terminal performance. I'm not going to get worked up, since I'm not any type of ballistic expert. Keep on truckin. :D
Well then there's no disagreement here. :meeting:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.