Thinking of changing my main defensive caliber - From .40 to 9mm!!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Thinking of changing my main defensive caliber - From .40 to 9mm!! (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:03:16 PM EDT

This will probably earn me the ire of some of our ARFCOM bretheren, but after a 10-year love affair with .40, I'm thinking of shit-canning the whole idea of big-bore .40 handgun to Ol' Tried and True 9mm.

Why "trade down?"

Magazine Capacity

Ammo Cost

Reduced ammo price makes it easy to train

Worked for armies all over the globe, including ours

Less recoil

Commonality with CCW piece I will buy

Input? Ideas? Suggestions?

Poll to follow!

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:07:39 PM EDT

[#1]

I think it's best to stick to 9's and .45's.

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:08:03 PM EDT

[#2]

[Jedi Mind Trick] You want a .45 [/Jedi Mind Trick]

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:09:45 PM EDT

[#3]

Doesn't conventional wisdom say: Bullet placement and construction are more important than "caliber".

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:13:15 PM EDT

[#4]

I keep a 1911 by the bed.

However...

I just picked up a GLOCK 19, soooo...

Now I keep a 1911 and a 9 by the bed..

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:13:28 PM EDT

[#5]

Wow. You're going to give up a whole .044" in bullet diameter?

How are you going to sleep at night knowing that?

A well constructed and appropriately loaded 9mm round is just as effective as .40 or .45. At least that's what *they* tell me.

When it's back up, try here for good info on handgun loads for the 9mm:

Tac Forums Terminal Effects forum

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:50:14 PM EDT

[#6]

I believe the 9mm is a fine carry gun. Beats the hell out of no gun.

That said, personal preference for me is toward heavier bullets, with 230 grains being one of my favorites. That's why I carry it.

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:55:15 PM EDT

[#7]

I made that switch.

I used to carry a Sig P229 in .40. I now carry a Glock 19. I did it for all of the reasons that you mentioned plus lighter weight and the same trigger pull on every shot.

Being that no pistol round is a great fight stopper, I don't feel like I am giving up much "stopping power" with my 9mm 124 grain +p Gold Dots.

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:58:44 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I made that switch.

I used to carry a Sig P229 in .40. I now carry a Glock 19. I did it for all of the reasons that you mentioned plus lighter weight and the same trigger pull on every shot.

Being that no pistol round is a great fight stopper, I don't feel like I am giving up much "stopping power" with my 9mm 124 grain +p Gold Dots.

You know, I should have added a choice in the poll to reflect, "It doesn't matter - you should use your handgun to get to your RIFLE!"

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:02:38 AM EDT

[#9]

I hate .40 with a passion.

Ive seen more battered guns with parts breaking WAY too early, blown case heads and kabooms (not just Glock) with that round.

Stick to 9mm or .45ACP.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:06:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I hate .40 with a passion.

Ive seen more battered guns with parts breaking WAY too early, blown case heads and kabooms (not just Glock) with that round.

Stick to 9mm or .45ACP.

I saw a very qualified shooter run a .40 through a .45 caliber 1911. He got lucky, nothing broke and no one got hurt.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:09:30 AM EDT

[#11]

I switched from .45 to 9mm.

As a college student, the ammo was just cheaper. And if I couldn't afford to practice with it, I had no business carrying it.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:10:24 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I switched from .45 to 9mm.

As a college student, the ammo was just cheaper. And if I couldn't afford to practice with it, I had no business carrying it.

THAT, people, is called sound logic.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:14:03 AM EDT

[#13]

I concur. 9mm is fine. Cheap ammo for the range, with plenty of "power" for anti-personnel purposes with the right round. If ya want a big bore, go with the 45 which is easier to shoot, anyhow.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:16:34 AM EDT

[#14]

9mm is a seriously awesome caliber. You have to remember, its not the bore size, the the amount that you can practice with it. I say go for it, and make sure that you can hit the x ring with the 9, and you'll be fine.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:21:11 AM EDT

[#15]

Magazine Capacity

Ammo Cost

Reduced ammo price makes it easy to train

Worked for armies all over the globe, including ours

Less recoil

Commonality with CCW piece I will buy

^
There are a few good reasons.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:23:11 AM EDT

[#16]

Best reason to shoot a .45 is because that is what 1911's come in.

Big question is what platform to use. The Glock is good, the SIG is OK. There are some CZ's and the like that don't get much magazine space but do OK.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:33:30 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I'm thinking of shit-canning the whole idea of big-bore .40 handgun

I'd go with that. .40 is not a big bore. Big bore starts at .45.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:44:56 AM EDT

[#18]

Cost of ammo difference is only like $25/thousand, not that significant. I like the capacity quantity also, running out of ammo because I did not use good shot placement would suck.

I have a 40 short ans weak in a EAA witness and 12rnd magazines seem inadequate.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:52:45 AM EDT

[#19]

We're not as smart, nore as frugal, nor as good of shots as you Davie.

But your answer was predictable.

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:13:54 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I hate .40 with a passion.

Ive seen more battered guns with parts breaking WAY too early, blown case heads and kabooms (not just Glock) with that round.

Stick to 9mm or .45ACP.

+1

besides, if i want hi-cap .40, then i'll stick to the 10mm

.45acp for me, 9mm for 'coverfire'

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:21:56 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Cost of ammo difference is only like $25/thousand, not that significant.

When you haven't been paid in five weeks, it is. Trust me.

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:59:21 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Cost of ammo difference is only like $25/thousand, not that significant. I like the capacity quantity also, running out of ammo because I did not use good shot placement would suck.

I have a 40 short ans weak in a EAA witness and 12rnd magazines seem inadequate.

Fixed budget here... $25 is a lot. 9mm for me.

- BG

Posted: 9/25/2005 2:15:41 AM EDT

[#23]

I started with a .45, carried that for a couple years, went to a .40 for a couple years, then packed a 9 for a couple, went w/o carrying for a while, sold the 9mm and the .40, the .45, etc, tried a .357 but I am uncomfortable with snubbies for ccw, and I guess revolvers in general, just me, and .357 is no fun to shoot out of a snubby, and practicing with .38 did not feel right as there was a huge diff in POI at 25 between the two rounds.

Bought a 92fs, have not looked back. Might get a glock later on due to price of mags and overall durability. I like 9mm, it works, has for years, and though I got the .45 back, I don't enjoy shooting it as much as the Beretta.

Thinking about a 9mm carbine to keep in the truck.

Posted: 9/25/2005 3:25:56 AM EDT

[#24]

I have been shooting and humping a .40 around for a long while now. I personally like the round and I am comfident in my ability to put rounds in center mass should I need to shoot. Just get something that you like, and can hit with.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:11:14 AM EDT

[#25]

I own a 40; I actually shot it once.

I have a couple 45s; nothing wrong with them; I have shot them several times. I keep them in the safe.

If I need a pistol in a hurry it will be a 9mm.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:19:23 AM EDT

[#26]

the .40 has all the drawbacks of both calibers. go all the way or not at all.
ETA: 10mm if you absolutely want an intermediate.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:19:45 AM EDT

[#27]

Without getting into the "9mm versus" debate , I will just say that the 9mm and the .40 are
not interchangeable.

But, if your only use for a pistol is self defense , it does make sense to practice with the same
round you will carry.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:32:42 AM EDT

[#28]

I've had 9mm and .45 for years, with all the brass and reloading stuff to go with it. The original logic was interoperability and my first handgun was a Beretta 92, which I still have.

But, if I was starting out right now, I'd probably go .40 because of the extra energy (closer to a .45) and the still high mag capacity.

For now, I'll keep my 9s, the potential benefits of going to a whole new system don't outweigh the costs for me.

The improvements in ammuntion (expanding FMJ) probably make it a moot point.

Rick

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:36:57 AM EDT

[#29]

Do what you want...in the end, it probably won't make that much difference in a defensive encounter. Me, I will stick with 40 and 45. I can shoot them well, so I may as well carry them.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:47:28 AM EDT

[#30]

Sounds to me like the key part of your post is "commonality with the CCW piece I WILL buy".

So what is this CCW piece that is so good that it will make you downsize your caliber?

Posted: 9/25/2005 5:15:26 AM EDT

[#31]

9mm works for me because the price is right and I can practice often with it...oh and the minor detail about my Dept. only authorizing 9mm.

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:26:39 AM EDT

[#32]

I will stay with the .40 with my glock. I was thinking of switching and I talked to some police officers in the big city and they like the bigger calibers. One was quoted as saying "the bad guys have thick coats in the winter and sometimes the 9mm would not take down as well as they wanted" Don't forget all of those gold chains that need to be shot through.

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:31:21 AM EDT

[#33]

Get yourself a high-quality .45 and don't look back.

HH

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:42:18 AM EDT

[#34]

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:29:15 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

You have to admit that the picture is at least a little misleading. While most people practice with ball ammo, virtually no one uses it, or should use it, in their CCW. If you are using FMJ ammo, and as long as it is loaded hot enough to penetrate a minimum of 12" of tissue (to adequately reach the larger blood vessels/bronchi/heart), then it makes little difference as far as tissue damage/permanent wound cavity whether you choose 9mm or .45cal. There will be very little deformation or flattening of the bullet unless it hits bone.

If you are using properly expanding bullets in 9mm or .45cal, there will be a greater difference in the final diameter of the bullet between the two calibers than when using 9mm and .45cal FMJ bullets. This translates into a greater volume of tissue damage/permanent wound cavity for the .45cal.

The actual difference in tissue damage is small enough that most people are perfectly comfortable carrying a 9mm pistol.

I've read many posts here over the last couple of years as well as recommended articles, and Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics & the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma", ISBN#: 0-9643577-0-4 (pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/index.html). Supposedly he has a 2nd edition coming out next month.

My conclusion is that I still can't decide which pistol is better (for me): my Sig P220 .45cal or my Glock 19 9mm.

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:31:24 AM EDT

[#36]

go 45, one stop shot.

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:33:23 AM EDT

[#37]

You should get guns in as many different calibers as possible. That way, if the SHTF, no matter what ammo you pick up, you will have something that shoots it.

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:41:00 AM EDT

[#38]

I shitcanned my last .40 a few months ago. 9mm and .45 are all I have now.

.40 has two problems in my mind-

1. .40 made all my new brass bulge much more noticeably, regardless of manufacturer, which meant in my mind from an engineering standpoint it was much closer to the threshold of a case failure than 9 or .45 if a round was manufactured out of tolerance.

2. .40 has alot more sharp snap to it than 9 or .45. Though .45 is bigger, the recoil is not as snappy.

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:45:15 AM EDT

[#39]

I have owned 3 XD in 40 and have been happy with all of them. The best thing is that I can buy the 9mm conversion barrel and have both!

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:51:35 AM EDT

[#40]

Winchester Ranger SXTs 127gr +P+ 9mm.

I have carried this round all over the world and have seen its results. A Glock 19 with this round covers everything from duty (as mine is), to CCW, to home defense.

Of course, the most important factor is shot placement. Train, Train, and Train some more.

Semper Fi,
ASO544

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:54:47 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
go 45, one stop shot.

This is bullshit

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:58:10 AM EDT

[#42]

You're in the Wild West, its time for a .357 Magnum

Posted: 9/25/2005 7:58:58 AM EDT

[#43]

I traded my g23 for a g17. I think the snap is the biggest difference. I am far more accurate with g17 and a g21 than I was with the g23.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:00:39 AM EDT

[#44]

I used to think that 357 Sig was THEE caliber to have. The more I reearched and the more I fired my 9mm (both are Sig 226) th emore I liked and preferred the 9mm.

It is all about the shooter and the ammo (and somewhat teh platform). The difference between the combat handgun calibers are so minute that the benefits of accuracy and ammo will far outweigh anything a "better/heavier/newer" caliber will do.

The 9mm is a fine choice.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:06:34 AM EDT

[#45]

I carry a Glock 19 now with Federal 147 gr HydraShoks. I can carry the gun and an extra mag no problem. That gives me a easy to hit with gun and 30 rounds. Not bad. I have seen a lot of folks shot over the years with all common chamberings and my conclusion is if you hit someone three times between the bottom of their ribs and their collarbone, they are down with whatever you are shooting, hollowpoint, ball, whatever.
I like the 9 because it works and I have plenty of ammo on me and in my gun. It is also the govt round if times ever got really tough.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:18:31 AM EDT

[#46]

I do not like shooting the .40 but 9mm is just fine and I enjoy the recoil better compared to the snappy .40.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:21:56 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Sounds to me like the key part of your post is "commonality with the CCW piece I WILL buy".

So what is this CCW piece that is so good that it will make you downsize your caliber?

A very valid question.

Probably a Kahr P or PM9.

Very possibly the Kel-Tec. I have really loved my Kel-Tec P32, so much so that I would consider it as the carry gun AND house gun. I also like the price an awful lot.

Very strong possibility: Glock 26. Not even Koko the Sales Gorilla could screw that one up. Will also look at the P99 Compact version. Have considered the Millenium, although I have heard some poopy reports about it.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:31:21 AM EDT

[#48]

Great comments from everybody. I'm trading in my 422-rounds-fired CZ 75 subcompact for something with a consistent trigger pull. Maybe I'll get an XD 9, they shoot really well! I am fond of high-cap and consitent trigger pull.

Going to the Tanner Show in Denver to see if someone wants a sweet deal on a just-broken-in, perfect CZ75 and my Kel-Tec p32.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:34:06 AM EDT

[#49]

I've come to the same conclusion over the past year,

I am strictly a 9/.45 guy now. .45 cause that's what my 1911 & HK Tactical shoot. 9 for the capacity. I never shot the .40 as well as the 9/45, the recoil just doesn't seem as manageable for me & wifey.

To me, it's more abt using quality firearms that I shoot well. For me that's HK & 1911's. I give it to Glock for reliability & durability, but dang I just can't shoot one worth a darn. I've tried to love Glock, diff models, triger job, everything I could do, and I just can not get good groups with them. My wife can hit solouet's (SP?) at 100yds with her stock G-19, so I know its me. Now, put the HK 2000 in 9mm in my hands & watch out!

Bottom line, do what you are comfortable with. If you like 9, and you shoot Glocks well, then the 17/19/26 are awesome weapons.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:36:14 AM EDT

[#50]

9mm for all the reasons listed above.

for me it was primarily magazine capacity, and since i'm a good shot with either caliber...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Thinking of changing my main defensive caliber - From .40 to 9mm!! (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us