Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/21/2005 4:38:35 PM EDT
I'm considering the purchase of an auto-loader for home defense. However, I'm certain that it'll get some action for close range varmints too. I've not shot a 40 S&W, but I've shot/owned the other 2 , as well as .357Mag., .44Mag. and .44 cal. B/P revolvers.

A Marine Corps friend and a Navy Seal Friend, recommend the 9mm. Their reasoning is better control and increased fire power/magazine capacity. Experienced men with sound reasoning.have
Your opinions and experience is appreciated.
Thank you, Bowhunter57
Link Posted: 6/21/2005 5:25:04 PM EDT
All three rounds will perform as well in wounding ability.



Get whatever you like. I have both 9's and .45's. I shoot 9mm a lot more: Ammo is cheaper, magazine capacity is higher, recoil is softer. The only reason I shoot .45 at all is because I love my 1911s, and it would be blasphemous to shoot any other caliber in that weapon design (well, maybe .38 super is okay).
Link Posted: 6/21/2005 6:32:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2005 7:48:42 PM EDT by Cavu]
If it is your only handgun, I would recommend the 9mm. As already evidenced above, the performance of quality ammo is about the same in all 3 calibers. There will certainly be those that will say "get the .45, better stopping power, yada, yada, yada...".

I say the 9mm because it lends itself to more range time (cheaper ammo+less recoil=more shooting). Shot placement is the key to handgun effectiveness. I also am a fan of DAO guns for carry purposes. I think the less steps you have to accomplish in a crisis situation the better. I carry a SIG 229 DAK. Just draw, aim, squeeze trigger.

Someone else will be along shortly to point out the errors in my logic.

Stay safe,

Cavu
Link Posted: 6/21/2005 6:41:40 PM EDT
+1 on the 9mm, it has a flatter trajectory and is easier to hit with. If it were me, I'd choose a Glock 17L or perhaps a regular 17, preferably with adjustable sights.
Link Posted: 6/22/2005 3:13:30 AM EDT
Thank you for the replies, thus far. he

I don't care for the 1911 style handguns as they don't fit my hand and I can't shoot them worth a hoot. had
As for brands, I like the Springfield Amory XD series, Ruger, Smith & Wesson model 99, Beretta, H&K and Taurus.....in that order.

Good hunting, Bowhunter57
Link Posted: 6/22/2005 3:32:04 AM EDT
Personally, I would select the .45acp or a .357 revolver for home defense.

I've been a gunowner for 34 years. Many of those year were spent working at gun stores. I've heard many a story about people who were shot with a 9mm or a .40 some of them were first hand with scars to prove it.

I've never met anyone who was shot with a .45 or a .357 and lived to tell me about it.

Just my .02
Link Posted: 6/22/2005 10:34:21 AM EDT

I've never met anyone who was shot with a .45 or a .357 and lived to tell me about it.

Lot's of them out there, probably an equal percentage in comparison to the 9 and 40 survivors. As was said above, there isn't enough real difference in performance between the calibers to matter. Personally, I switched to a 9mm in 1993 and haven't regretted it.
Link Posted: 6/22/2005 10:47:12 AM EDT
It's all about what you shoot best. I can't hit the broad side of a barn with a compact/subcompact 9mm, but I'm alright with a full-size 9mm. .40 S&W has a substantial amount of muzzle flip depending on the load, but it doesn't bother me. .45 ACP is my favorite because it has a straight recoil and very little muzzle flip. I can get my follow up shots off faster than any other caliber. No experience with the .357, but it's probably going to be my next handgun. MJD
Link Posted: 6/22/2005 12:44:09 PM EDT
I personally like the .40 caliber. Generally it has more punch than 9mm, and you can carry more rounds than a .45. Muzzle flip isn't as bad as you might think. Plus, thousands of police officers rely on the .40 caliber to save their lives. That should tell you something.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 1:23:45 PM EDT
get what ever fits you best. there may be an aguement w/ ball rounds, but there are plenty of good performing hollow points in all those calibers. 9mm is cheapest for practice w/ an auto.

most importantly, a hand gun is a hand gun. good hits are the only consideration.

i do prefer a .45 though- i feel that .45 is less likely to slide around a bone as lighter rounds will, more likely to break bone.

i have heard say that Clint Smith said it best. a hand gun is the perfect weapon to use to fight your way back to the long gun that you should have had in the first place. my apologies to mr. smith if i misquoted him badly.

hand guns are convenient. that is all.

pick what hand gun you can make good, MULTIPLE hits with.
Link Posted: 6/24/2005 7:48:52 PM EDT
Personaly i dont think you can argue the point that a .45 has more stopping power than a 9mm. Thats why most spec. forces guys i know are carrying a .45 a 9mm is easier to shoot however. shoot what you like and carry what you like a miss with a .44 mag is still a miss
Link Posted: 7/6/2005 10:09:26 AM EDT
You mentioned varmints and I have shot woodchucks with both .45ACP as well as 9mm. Trigger pull, inherent accuracy, and the quality of the sight picture really matters when you are hunting small game with a handgun.

I read that a 1911 isn't your favorite choice in .45s, so with the 1911 off the table I would go with a 9mm that does fit your hand well. I have had good luck with Sig products as well as Glocks. Sigs are pretty much good to go out of the box while the Glocks need some fiddling with the trigger pull to get them to really shoot well in my hands.

The longslide 9mm Glocks (their IDPA version and the 17 longslide version) are lots of fun to shoot. They are about as soft recoiling of a handgun as you can find in a "serious" caliber.

Enjoy,
Cheese

Link Posted: 7/6/2005 2:58:03 PM EDT
9mm for your purposes would be fine

i like the /45acp better than the .40sw--less flipping, more of a push in my hand for .45acp

i would rather have a 10mm or .45acp over most auto calibers

9mm is good for hi-cap and cheap, plinking fun
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 5:54:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2005 6:44:31 PM EDT by BIKECOP29]
A caliber is as good as the ammo you carry and on the shooter. Spend the few extra $$$ on some quality ammo. Fire a box or two to see if it will cycle through with no hiccups and to get a feel for the recoil, shot placement, etc. Then get some "cheap" rounds for killing paper targets.

I believe earlier this year, Detroit P.D. had several incidents when their 40cal ammo failed to work as intended. In one incident, a police officer shot a BG in the head from no more than 15 yards out, and saw the bullet bounce off the BG's skull!!

A former agency I used to work for used some crappy ammo that failed miserably on several incidents. In one, a fellow undercover officer shot a BG twice in the chest and one in the head. The BG is alive today with no loss of motor function and took three 40cal rounds at pretty much point blank range.

The moral of the story is....whatever caliber you decide on, get good ammo for it. I'm not a big fan of the 40cal, even though I have carried it for over 9 years in law enforcement now. Figure out of 46 rounds I carry, most of them should work. When I'm off duty, I carry either a 9mm or 45acp.
Link Posted: 7/11/2005 10:38:31 PM EDT
Consider also the Beretta Vertec. It is a high capacity 9mm with beveled mag well, adjustable sights AND a bottom rail for mounting you fave light system. If using for home defense you 'll likely appreciate a light system as most BGs will visit after dark. The military's use of the Beretta for the past decade also guarntees the availability of reasonably priced parts, accessories, mags, etc. Never shot rodents with my 9, but she's accurate enough to bring em' down with proper shot placement... [;)

Good luck and advise when you decide -
Link Posted: 7/21/2005 6:39:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By highwayman:
It's all about what you shoot best. I can't hit the broad side of a barn with a compact/subcompact 9mm, but I'm alright with a full-size 9mm. .40 S&W has a substantial amount of muzzle flip depending on the load, but it doesn't bother me. .45 ACP is my favorite because it has a straight recoil and very little muzzle flip. I can get my follow up shots off faster than any other caliber. No experience with the .357, but it's probably going to be my next handgun. MJD



This is the way I feel as well. I've had the opportunity to use a Glock 23 and Glock 21 side by side. I much prefered the Glock 21. However, I own a HK USP in .40. Due to the softer recoil, much less muzzle flip than the Glock 23.

I'd seriously consider buying a USP in .45, but the extra cost, plus the fact that I like rifles much better than pistols....
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 2:08:15 PM EDT
I personally own a .40 cal Springfield Armory XD and I like it. I like the 40 because, at least from the stats that I have seen from many ammo manufacturers, the .40 has more power than both the .45 and the 9mm. I think if you really want good stopping power, than go with the .40. If you want something cheap to shoot with but not save your life, go with the 9mm. The bottom line is, if you want to do more with it than just plink, than you should at least look into getting the .40 or maybe the .45, the 9mm will take down a small varmint, but might not drop an intruder. If you are worried about the muzzle flip, I personally do not find that the .40 is any worse than the .45. Good luck with you selection and let us know what you choose.
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 10:33:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2005 1:54:56 PM EDT by BB]
9mm is the way to go. Cheap at the range, does just as good a job using good +P HP ammo. SEAL teams and SAS has been using it for years, so it must work. The stories you hear about it not being effective is due to gangbangers with poor aim using the cheapest ammo on the shelf, FMJ at standard pressures.

I would suggest a CZ75B. Best quality for the money IMO.
If you want something special, maybe a Browning High Power with triggerjob and nice sights.
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 2:17:48 PM EDT
Someone once said something to the effect that comparing handgun calibers was like comparing rank among privates...after all, they're still handgun calibers and, as such, no one caliber is going to be head and shoulders above any other (unless, of course, you're a Jeff Cooper anti-everything-but-.45ACP zealot).

I vote for the 9mm.

Easy follow-up shots, larger capacity, universally available, inexpensive so you can afford to shoot alot, not hard on guns even in +P configuration, and with modern bullet designs you are in no way inferior to any other caliber. My two cents, FWIW...
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 12:58:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 1:01:24 PM EDT by ExGrunt]

Originally Posted By dullh:
Someone once said something to the effect that comparing handgun calibers was like comparing rank among privates...



That's a great saying! h - my personal preference is the .45 ACP (Glock 21). I want to send downrange the biggest bullet I can from a pistol.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:27:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 10:41:53 AM EDT by spcwes]
I will say this and will be prepared for the shit storm. Do not base performance of all handgun ammo on a ballistic gel test. That is not an accurate display of anything other than penetration on a soft medium target. Just because it looks the same on gel does not mean that it impacts a living target the same nor does it mean that it is more or less effective.

The bigger the bullet and the faster you can get it moving does play a part and just because the gel does not reflect everything a bullet does to the human body does not mean that it is less effective. That is why people don’t use fast light bullets for large game animals. They use slower, larger, and heavier bullets. The only reason they are slower is there is too much recoil and weapon abuse to up the speed on these large projectile but at greater speeds with the right bullet they will do more damage.

It does not matter if a slightly faster or heavier harder hitting bullet only gives you a slight edge, it is still an edge. And speed does play a part so don’t let anyone tell you different. People will also claim that there is not enough speed with handguns to do anything and that is nonsense as well. An edge is and edge and that is that.

If speed alone did nothing with the same bullet then there would be no need for company’s to make loads like the .44mag over the .44spl or the .357mag over the .38spl. If people claim that there is not difference between these loads and their impact on living creatures then you make up your own mind on what you want to believe and run with it.

Weight and size does not matter huh? Blow up to a bigger picture, would you rather get hit by a golf ball sized projectile going 95mph or a baseball sized projectile traveling the same speed? Both made of the same material and of the same design. One will do more damage and that is based on fact.

People will also say "well with the elasticity of the skin most medical examiners can't tell the difference in damage between calibers." Yea, I have seen the difference of damage between 9mm and 45 and there is a big damn difference. So has our ME and Coroner. I talked with both of them on the topic and they agree that they would much rather be hit by a 9mm than a 45ACP.

Bottom line, will both effectively kill a human target? Yea, quick and in a hurry! Is one more effective? Yea, one pokes a bigger hole and if it is only by a little it is still a bigger hole and that is more damage.




P.S. and in no way am I stating that one is in any way inferior to the other calibers, it is just that regardless of what the Ballistic Gel shows they have diff. attributes and that is fact not opinion.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 10:29:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spcwes:
I will say this and will be prepared for the shit storm. Do not base performance of all handgun ammo on a ballistic gel test. That is not an accurate display of anything other than penetration on a soft medium target. Just because it looks the same on gel does not mean that it impacts a living target the same nor does it mean that it is more or less effective.

The bigger the bullet and the faster you can get it moving does play a part and just because the gel does not reflect everything a bullet does to the human body does not mean that it is less effective. That is why people don’t use fast light bullets for large game animals. They use slower, larger, and heavier bullets. The only reason they are slower is there is too much recoil and weapon abuse to up the speed on these large projectile but at greater speeds with the right bullet they will do more damage.

It does not matter if a slightly faster or heavier harder hitting bullet only gives you a slight edge, it is still an edge. And speed does play a part so don’t let anyone tell you different. People will also claim that there is not enough speed with handguns to do anything and that is nonsense as well. An edge is and edge and that is that.

If speed alone did nothing with the same bullet then there would be no need for company’s to make loads like the .44mag over the .44spl or the .357mag over the .38spl. If people claim that there is not difference between these loads and their impact on living creatures then you make up your own mind on what you want to believe and run with it.

Weight and size does not matter huh? Blow up to a bigger picture, would you rather golf ball sized projectile going 95mph or a baseball sized projectile traveling the same speed? Both made of the same material and of the same design. One will do more damage and that is based on fact.

People will also say "well with the elasticity of the skin most medical examiners can't tell the difference in damage between calibers." Yea, I have seen the difference of damage between 9mm and 45 and there is a big damn difference. So has our ME and Coroner. I talked with both of them on the topic and they agree that they would much rather be hit by a 9mm than a 45ACP.

Bottom line, will both effectively kill a human target? Yea, quick and in a hurry! Is one more effective? Yea, one pokes a bigger hole and if it is only by a little it is still a bigger hole and that is more damage.




P.S. and in no way am I stating that one is in any way inferior to the other calibers, it is just that regardless of what the Ballistic Gel shows they have diff. attributes and that is fact not opinion.



Based upon the above post, the only fact is that you do not have the slightest understanding of ballistic gelatin testing.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 10:38:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 10:44:09 AM EDT by spcwes]
Actually I do and that may be even scarier than before! But since I know nothing and you know everything why don't you give us your opinion or list a fact of what the definition of that product is and what its exact use is. Shed some light on it for all of us to marinate on.

Oh, and just some advice, might want to look at a couple different sites that sell it. Not all list the same reasons.

P.S. Sorry I left out that it was also designed to mimic flesh because the hollow point bullet design does nothing without a filled up hollow point cavity of flesh and fluid. Which in turn causes the bullet to mushroom.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:49:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 5:26:27 PM EDT by 45JHP]
TAG! This may get interesting.

By the way, am I the only one who is looking at those "ballistic gelatin" results up there??? Some keep saying that there is little-to-no difference at all between the wound channels. Um, we must be looking at two different pictures...the .45 looks to be TWICE the size of the 9mm.

Your military friends recommended a 9mm? Well hell, of course they did! If I could call in air support, had an M203 attached to my M16, and had tank/heavy artillery support...I would recommend a 9mm too. Our military is moving to a high speed-low drag format...which is a great thing if you have the above mentioned support. Guess what? I DON'T.

Military reasoning doesn't neccessarily make sense for Joe Citizen.

Is it easier for a new soldier to learn to shoot with a smaller caliber? Of course.

Is it worth the tradeoff? Perhaps.

Do I have any reason to use a small, light, low recoiling caliber? Nope.

I would rather be fat and slow; and carry a 2x4...than be light and fast; and carry a toothpick.


That being said, I recommend the .45 if you can handle it.` 45
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:14:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 12:19:12 PM EDT by spcwes]
Oh, and the Military, well the Spec Ops guys are using every 45 they can get there hands on. The brand new MEU-SOC Det 1 Kimber. That is based off the one issued to that unit. Every unit that is allowed to use them are. I was in the military and I have never met one person while I was in that liked the M9.

And 45JHP, yea that chart shows every one has a bigger wound cavity than the 9mm. I guess just because it is a temporary wound track that they feel it is not a wound all the same.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:56:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
All three rounds will perform as well in wounding ability.

members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

Get whatever you like. I have both 9's and .45's. I shoot 9mm a lot more: Ammo is cheaper, magazine capacity is higher, recoil is softer. The only reason I shoot .45 at all is because I love my 1911s, and it would be blasphemous to shoot any other caliber in that weapon design (well, maybe .38 super is okay).



9mm looks a little small to me. Sounds like the reason you shoot a .45 is because it puts a bigger hole in someone as backed up by the chart. I like the .40 S&W because of its high capacity and it makes a bigger hole than the 9mm and is comparable to the .45's coveted performance. Yes it does kick a little more than the .45, but your get more rounds in your magazine. Give and take a little I suppose.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:03:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:05:26 AM EDT by sWs1]

Originally Posted By spcwes:
Oh, and the Military, well the Spec Ops guys are using every 45 they can get there hands on.



"Spec Ops guys are using every 45 they can get there hands on." Are they really? They seem to love their 226s. You want to talk about the Marine detachment? That's what? 100 guys?

I know of a quite a few soldiers that are pleased with their M9s. It apparently feels nice to have a sidearm in combat.

You can tell us about all the personal conversations you've had with operators, but that's hardly going to impress or convince anyone. Fact is, 9mm is a formidable round. It has come a long way in the last 20-30 years. At this point in time, where technology is, it's all a matter of opinion.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:26:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:28:25 AM EDT by shotgun]

Originally Posted By sWs1:

Originally Posted By spcwes:
Oh, and the Military, well the Spec Ops guys are using every 45 they can get there hands on.



"Spec Ops guys are using every 45 they can get there hands on." Are they really? They seem to love their 226s. You want to talk about the Marine detachment? That's what? 100 guys?

I know of a quite a few soldiers that are pleased with their M9s. It apparently feels nice to have a sidearm in combat.

You can tell us about all the personal conversations you've had with operators, but that's hardly going to impress or convince anyone. Fact is, 9mm is a formidable round. It has come a long way in the last 20-30 years. At this point in time, where technology is, it's all a matter of opinion.



As far as hollow points are concerned, I agree. As far as FMJ's are concerned, the 9 is crap. I would take 8 .45's over 16 9mm's anydamnday in FMJ.

The problem with the M9 according to my medic friend is the cheapo mags the military uses. He counted on one round in that gun and that's it. He had an M4 issued to him as fast as he could. When your best friend's first hand knowledge of a weapon is negative in a serious way, that both IMPRESSES and CONVINCES me. You can believe what you like.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:40:51 AM EDT
Also I was in the light infantry. Not any spec ops but in the good old plain jane INF. You can say what you want about the M9. I like the company and their products and the fact that in the Army I could get one if I asked enough. It was a matter of having one or nothing, not because I loved it or the round. Does that make a 9mm more effective than a 45acp when we are talking about Nato Ball? Hell no, and trust me, they like a M9 just fine if that is all they have or all the commander will allow them to carry. Having a side arm is a hell of allot better than having to transition to a knife or rock or something along those lines when your battle rifle takes a big shit on you and people are still shooting at your ass!

I could give a shit less if it s a pretty Kimber 1911 nor could anyone else, as long as it works, stands up to the abuse and throws a 230gr ball instead of a 124gr or what ever the weight is on the Nato Ball.

They did not go with the M9 because it was more effective on the enemy, they went with it because it was easier for them to train on and the caliber was more internationally used.


Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:44:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:45:27 AM EDT by shotgun]
I'm not saying you should go without, just that the .45 is better in FMJ. As for my buddy, he carried an M4, an M9, a K-Bar, and his 30 lbs medic bag. Even though he didn't trust his M9 all that much, it didn't stop him from carrying it.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:25:50 PM EDT
Not to sound like a borken record, but the best course of action in my opinion is to go to a good range that has a wide variety of pistols to choose from. Pick out a half dozen and give them all a try. Any pistol cartrige with a self defense round will do the trick, so base your decision on what you can shoot well, feel comfortable with and can affort to stay in practice on.

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 7:56:04 AM EDT
I recommend all three. I've carried them all on duty at one time or another in the 11yrs as a cop. I currently carry a P220 in 45 due to the fact that it's my favorite pistol to shoot and the 45 gets good penetration and even if it doesn't expand it's still a .45 hole in my target.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:28:48 PM EDT
the choice is up to you I dont see any advantage of the three except in terms of recoil my sig226 is in 9mm and I use 115gr fmj the recoil is alot sharper and noticible than my glock 23 in .40
yeah kinda weird a bigger bullet in a lighter gun recoils less than a smaller in a heavier
I just shot over 300rds last weekend and except the rubbing the glock trigger guard did on my middle finger it was more comfortable than anything else but the good thing about guns is look for a firearm that appeals to you because caliber choice can always be traded
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:50:07 AM EDT
The real and only answer here is...


Go with what you are comfortable with and like. As said before carrying ball, changes things a bit, but everyone except our Government seems to know you don't try and kill people that are trying to kill you with ball ammo.

Sheesh, this is another of those religious arguments. A 9mm filled with Gold Dot, Hornady XTP's, Hydra Shoks, etc... will definitely kill you, dead, dead, dead.

A .45 filled with Gold Dot, XTP, Hydras, etc... Will kill you, dead, dead, dead.

A SW 40? dead, dead, dead...

10mm? dead, dead, dead...

.380? Well, good chance of dead, dead, dead.

In the end, whether you go 9 or 45, you're fine. I have both, I carry both. I PREFER (key word) to carry my .45, however I shoot it at the range just to be sure I remember how it fires, should I have to use it (because I carry it) then spend most of my time shooting the 9 because ammo is so cheap. $3-4 per 50 is a lot less that $9 per 50.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 6:05:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 6:25:24 AM EDT by HardShell]
I own a lot of handguns (don't get me started let's just say "a lot"). I've owned just a bout every common auto caliber and a few uncommon ones, but I always leaned more toward 9mm and .45ACP, especially 9mm (cost, comfort, what my wife carries/shoots, etc.). Over the years, I weaned myself from all of the other calibers and now all of my autos (other than my dedicated pocket-guns and a few keepsakes that collect dust more than they're fired) are either 9mm or .45. The 9mms still dominate, but the last 5 autos I bought/traded for were all .45s, so...

My personal opinion: If you're only going to have one auto, make it 9mm. (As someone has already opined.) If you are going to have 2 or more, make them 9mm and .45ACP.


NO OFFENSE is intended to fans of the .40S&W (heck, my best friend [detective with the local PD] is a .40 devotee), .357SIG, 10mm, etc. I just believe that, outside of handgun hunting (10mm), there is not much you can do with an auto that can't be accomplished with a 9mm and/or a .45 - and they both have the advantage of lower cost, wider variety of loads, universal availability, etc...

(edited for spelling)
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:18:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 45JHP:
SNIP

I would rather be fat and slow; and carry a 2x4...than be light and fast; and carry a toothpick.

SNIP

.

` 45



That's choice. Especially since I'm fat and slow!

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 12:22:29 AM EDT
Get a Glock 17 and never worry again.
Top Top