Todd, If you are 45acp man you also must be consistent and be packing a 7.62 Nato rifle.
Todd, If you are 45acp man you also must be consistent and be packing a 7.62 Nato rifle.
This is a drastic absolute statement that you use there. I believe that is a highly a matter of opinion, and a situationally dictated choice. Not a matter of what one person chooses to carry. I know that there are weapons that are more concealable. Some may not be for you or for me, but they are certainly more concealable. I think people have different needs of concealment, a 1911 may not work out for them. I happen to agree it is an excellent choice, I carry a 1911 myself. I also carry a Glock, and notice little difference.
Clearly I have one of those as well.
However, it is way too much for CQB IMHO. The 5.56 75-77 gn. expansion capabilities are proven for CQB without over penetration. A 7.62 would end up in the next county at 50 yds. or less.
I believe that there are 3 platforms needed. A CQB, a Stand Off Weapon like the 7.62 and the tried and true .45ACP for a sidearm.
What else can I say? YMMV
[QUOTE=toddackerman;111479]Clearly I have one of those as well.
A 7.62 would end up in the next county at 50 yds. or less.
The closer the target, the faster the projectile is traveling. Equaling less penetration due too increased fragmentation and expansion, in relation to shooting people.
I like the .40 and the 9mm. I have a Beretta PX-4 Storm, glock 23 and an M&P9c. The .40 cal ammo is reasonably priced and the 9mm is even cheaper. Both, with high quality ammo and training, are proven fighting calibers. I have been surprised at how smooth the PX-4 shoots. I have thought long and hard about getting a high end 1911 for years, and recently, a XD45 or M&P, but the cost of the ammo in keeping proficient with it, my 9mm, two .40's and my two M-4geries (being an ammo whore with the.223), prohibits me from enjoying such a fine weapon. You can go wrong with a .40 though.
Bookmarks