Glock 19 or 23: 9mm vs 40


February 21, 2010, 11:37 AM
I was originally set on getting a Glock 19, but now am considering a Glock 23. Even though the 9mm loads are lighter and have a smaller diameter, they're penetration tends to be slighly better than their .40 equivilents.

I know the differences between the two are miniscule, but which would you recommend?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 19 or 23: 9mm vs 40" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 21, 2010, 11:39 AM
Pick one. You're good to go either way with good hollowpoints.

February 21, 2010, 11:43 AM
I like the 9mm. I have a Glock 23 and while it is an awesome gun, it is not very much fun to shoot. The recoil is extremely snappy and after about 30 rounds, I dont feel like shooting it anymore. The gun feels like it wants o leap out of your hand on every shot. I got a storm lake 9mm conversion barrel from the G23 and that works 100%.It's 9mm is tame.. just goes "pop" as opposed to the .40cal's "BANG!"

February 21, 2010, 11:46 AM
It's just your basic caliber war question. Do a search for THR threads with comparisons of 9mm and 40.
They're not that far off from one another.

Honestly, the best thing you can do is shoot them both. See which one works best for you.

February 21, 2010, 11:49 AM
I made a mistake the other day by selling my Glock 23 insted of selling my glock 19.

If you get a Glock 23 in .40 you can spend 100 bucks, get a 9mm barrel and you now have a Glock 19.

You can not go the other way. That Glock 19 can not shoot .40 and basically be a glock 23.

do the 23. Its more adjustable


February 21, 2010, 11:54 AM
The 23 can become a .357 with no modifications other than a drop-in .357 barrel, and a 9mm for range time with a drop-in conversion barrel and 9mm magazines, and it can become a full-time 9mm if you like that best with a bare minimum of fuss and a few quick minutes of swapping out the easily replaced ejector block with a 9mm version, if you want you can switch the extractor as well and the transformation will be complete.

I've had good luck with just the barrel and mag change-outs though.

I'd say if you aren't planning on playing with .357 or a 9mm conversion barrel, get whichever one you find the better deal on, and they both have plenty of very good options for defense loads out there, so don't overthink it.

February 21, 2010, 12:03 PM
Okay, I'm leaning towards the 19 again. How many inches of penetration in ballistic gel do you think the round you use for carry should get? For my home defense weapon and ammo (SNT with 00 buck), the more penetration the better because I don't have to worry about the pellets going through the BG and hitting an innocent person. However in a self defense situation out in public (say in a parking lot), you do have to worry about your round going through the BG and hitting an innocent person. At the same time, I want whatever round I carry to be able to reach the BG's vitals so 12 inches minimum in bare gel is essential.

What round do you guys keep in your 9mm carry pistol?

Steve C
February 21, 2010, 12:25 PM
What round do you guys keep in your 9mm carry pistol?

I buy police surplus ammo. Currently my Glock 19 is loaded with Winchester Ranger 124gr Partition Gold but would be happy with any of the Winchester Ranger SXT , PDX , Federal HST, Hydra Shock, Speer Gold Dots, or Remington Golden Sabers.

February 21, 2010, 12:28 PM
Personally, I'm cool with 11-14 as optimum, 12 is a little better, I think reliable 13 is perfect.

I like the 147+P HST, it's great, and 180 HST or 165 HST for my .40 pistols.

But, any of these will be fine, and all meet that arbitrary but reasonable 12 inch number-
Hornady XTP (less expansion than most, but known for superb accuracy potential and deep penetration), Remington Golden Saber, Winchester Ranger-T, probably that new Winchester load that looks identical to a Gold Dot, PDX I think, Speer Gold Dot, Cor-Bon DPX (expensive though). I'm sure theres a couple other great ones out there that I forgot, but those are the major ones that you can't go wrong with.

For what it's worth, I have carried generic Remington, Winchester, Georgia Arms, and Fiocchi JHP before and didn't feel that I was any less well-armed, however in a life or death struggle any last drop of performance you can squeeze out of a load is worth it to me.

Plus the HST is so reasonably priced it wasn't difficult for me to get plenty to test my guns for reliability and have a bunch left over.

And I've carried the 124+P HST as well, again, didn't feel any more or less well-armed.

February 21, 2010, 12:51 PM
I too consider most premium hollow points in 9mm/40S&W to be effective for SD (as to which might be better, that's another thread :D).

You should carry whichever caliber/bullet you feel the most comfortable and can accurately shoot with. Caliber/bullet selection won't mean much if you can't hit your target in real BG situation.

February 21, 2010, 01:10 PM
It's the G23 for me!

February 21, 2010, 01:30 PM
How many inches of penetration in ballistic gel do you think the round you use for carry should get?A much over-hyped statistic. Any of the Big 3 (9mm, .40, and .45) will suit your needs. If you're really concerned though, perhaps consider .357 SIG or 10mm.

I personally carry a .45, but have realized that it doesn't really matter what you carry to the object on the receiving end. Whatever you decide to go with, PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE.

February 21, 2010, 02:24 PM
2TransAms has it right I think.

February 21, 2010, 02:35 PM

+1, absolutely!

February 21, 2010, 02:37 PM
Get which ever one that allows you too shoot more accurately in a faster time frame.

February 21, 2010, 02:40 PM
I've heard lots of people complain about shooting the 23, and seen at least a couple of guys who couldn't qualify with one.

I don't remember ever hearing anything but positives about the 19. It is a great balance of weight, concealability, power, capacity, reliability and controllable shootability. I don't have any real affection for Glocks and carry a 1911 on duty. But when I carry a belt gun off duty, which is often, it's a 19.

February 21, 2010, 04:02 PM
Two years ago, I bought a Glock 23 after a long time love affair with my Glock 19 that I purchased back in 1994. Thinking I'd have the same feelings for the Glock 23, I got one but didn't keep it long. I never could fall in love with the recoil of the 23 and honestly found it unpleasant to shoot, so I sold it five months after buying it brand new.

In my 19, I carry 124 +p Federal HST in the pistol and feel more than adequately protected. It shoots reliably, is low maintenance, lends itself to being carry friendly with its light weight and fairly compact size, and has extremely minimal recoil. The Glock 19 is the best all around pistol I own, and any of today's quality ammunition make it a great pistol choice. It's just one of those pistols I'll never part with.

February 21, 2010, 04:06 PM
i've found that the Glock 19 is owned by more dedicated fans of other makes than any other Glock...for many the G19 is just the definitive Glock.

the fact that it is chambered in the original "design chambering" only helps it's reliability and durability.

i've owned both...i'm a Sig and 1911 shooter... and i don't think you gain anything from going with a G23 other than a more "snappy" recoil and less accuracy (but that's more an issue with the calibre than the gun)

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2010, 04:10 PM
I can somewhat related to the OP, since I have a 19 and a buddy has a 23. My reasons for the 19 are basically lower recoil and high mag capacity. They way I figure, the whole "one shot stop" idea is nonsense. Any target worth shooting at all is gonna get a controlled pair and probably a followup. So that's 3 rounds per target. You can simply engage more targets with the 19 than with the 23. And when using modern JHP rounds, and variance in expansion due to diameter is really negligible. I understand that when talking about FMJ or old HPs, the .40 had better ballistics due to it's greater diameter. But with modern rounds, it's pretty much even except for minuscule differences. And to me, the few extra rounds and greater control of recoil more than makes up for a few millimeters of expansion. And then there is the fact I see a lot more stories about .40 kabooms than 9mm....

February 21, 2010, 04:13 PM
I essentially traded my G23 for a G19 and have been happy with my decision. My G19 is now my most carried handgun. I like how you can swap calibers with the G23, but for me, I am fine with the 9 mm and wanted a 9 mm from the factory.

February 21, 2010, 04:32 PM
If you want Glock, I'd stay away from the .40. Lots of people have already complained about the recoil because it's a lighter gun and the .40 has a pretty significant snap. Also, I've read somewhere that the Glock .40s do not have a fully supported chamber (not sure what that actually means, but I've heard it more than a few times) and thus the "kaboom" phenomenon can happen. Like someone else also mentioned, the original chambering for the Glock design was the 9mm. Given the lighter weight of a Glock and that fact, 9mm would be my personal choice if buying one over the other. You can buy the conversion barrel for 9mm, but why pay extra when you could have gotten the 19 to begin with?

If you like the ballistics of the .40 S&W, choose a different make.

February 21, 2010, 05:19 PM
If you like the ballistics of the .40 S&W, choose a different make.

OR get the Glock 23c (compensated). It REALLY does reduce muzzle flip and it honestly shoots very similar to the Glock 19 9mm

The whole idea of not getting a Glock 23 because of "Kaboom's" is just silly. Do you know just how many there are out there RIGHT now? a TON... and the occasional story you hear about Kaboom's is usually the same story being repeated with different words or phrases that the person posting makes to make the story their own or a friend of theirs blah blah blah.

Glock .40's are also more willing to blow up if you attach a light to the rail... (see how stupid that sounds, but people do say that).

Call me nuts but go out and shoot both and let your hands decide. You TRULY can't go wrong either way and make the decision for yourself.

just my free advice.

you really can't go wrong

February 21, 2010, 05:30 PM
My two .40 caliber Glocks have never exploded.

February 21, 2010, 06:03 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but what is +P?

February 21, 2010, 06:10 PM
A slightly higher pressured round available in some calibers, including 9mm, .38 Special, and .45 ACP. There is no +P in .40 or .357 Sig, and .357 Magnum just has different levels of 'heat'.

It brings the 9mm into its own in some ways, though I personally don't find the recoil to be noticeably different in a service pistol. Adds usually between 50 feet per second up to a maximum of about 100 feet per second, generally seen combined with 124 grain or 115 grain bullets, though there are a few 147+P loads too, like the HST.

February 21, 2010, 06:17 PM
I carry a Glock 17 often. It really is a great tool. Very easy to shoot well. I think follow up shots with the .40 are much harder but of course someone will be along to say he can do double taps all day long with it.
Ammo is cheaper for the 9 generally. And if you want .357sig there's always 9mm +P+ which is practically the same thing without the expense.

Again, "shot placement is king; penetration is queen; everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin." Not original with me but a great summation of the issue.

February 21, 2010, 06:20 PM
I prefer 9mm over the .40S&W.

My vote is for the G19.

February 21, 2010, 06:22 PM
My suggestion as a former GLOCK carrier is to start with a 19, shoot the load you want to use and then try a 23. If you shoot the 23 just as well, then you may want to go with it. If not, hits count more than caliber and stick with the GLOCK 19.

I carried the 19 and later on a 17 for 5 years in MIAMI and found it to be completely reliable and light enough not to notice after a 12 hour shift.

In the 19, I recommend you try at least one or two +P loads with either the 115 or 124 grain bullets. They equaled the performance of our .357 magnum loads and were easier to control than the 155 grain .40 caliber ammo we went to later on.


February 21, 2010, 06:26 PM
In the 19, I recommend you try at least one or two +P loads with either the 115 or 124 grain bullets. They equaled the performance of our .357 magnum loads and were easier to control than the 155 grain .40 caliber ammo we went to later on.//

almost equaled the 357 sig, not mag im sure he ment

February 21, 2010, 06:32 PM
I think he means shooting results, going from the .357 Mag to the 9mm 115/124+P

Taurus 617 CCW
February 21, 2010, 07:21 PM
I have shot most every glock in the 9mm and .40 caliber and ended up buying the Glock 19. Shot placement takes precedence over caliber. The best weapon for a defensive shooter is mindset.

February 21, 2010, 08:44 PM
glock 23 my everyday carry , no difference in recoil to me 9mm vs. 40...heres mine......

February 22, 2010, 12:01 AM
I know the differences between the two are miniscule

If you are convinced of this statement, then your choice is easy.

9mm ammo is cheaper and more available.
G19 has less recoil.
G19 has more ammo capacity.

February 22, 2010, 12:14 AM

My agency used the 110 grain semi-jhp .357 magnum round. It fired a 110 grain bullet at @ 1,300 fps. Our +P+ 9m.m. loads fired a 115 grain jhp at @1,300 fps.

Not the SIG, we never used it.


February 22, 2010, 09:12 AM
oh; well if you use a light 357 load, and a really hot 9mm load i guess they could even out. but i would post a disclaimer stating that your dep. issued light 357 loads and HEAVY 9mm and in that case they are almost even (357 still can have a better bullet profile). but for most people they would be comparing your 1300fps 115gr 9mm vs a 1500+ fps 125gr 357...

February 22, 2010, 09:35 AM
Depends totally on preference, the .40 is too snappy for me in the glock, and I can shoot the 9mm very quickly and accurately. I would say to go with whichever you shoot best.

February 22, 2010, 09:38 AM
My agency used the 110 grain semi-jhp .357 magnum round. It fired a 110 grain bullet at @ 1,300 fps. Our +P+ 9m.m. loads fired a 115 grain jhp at @1,300 fps.

Yeah but that's not really a fair comparison. That's a really light .357mag load, and you're comparing it to a heavy 9mm.

If you want an apples to apples comparison, look at a heavy .357mag like DoubleTap's 158gr gold dot hollow point at 1300fps.
(that's actually my woods carry load.)

February 22, 2010, 09:42 AM
I carry a 23, and practice with a 34. recently i had to use my carry weapon and discharge 5 shots of 180gr hydra-shok. I noticed absolutely no recoil difference between that and my 124gr 9mm loads. That's me though, everybody perceives things differently.

February 22, 2010, 11:10 AM
It's a fair comparison because he isn't comparing the effectiveness of all .357 Magnum revolver loads to all 9mm loads, he is comparing the performance of the load that his department was using to the load they switched to.

February 22, 2010, 01:35 PM

Fair enough request, I should have been more specific.
I never considered the 110 grain loads to be light in the way the 125 grain MID LOADS made by REMINGTON were considered light. They are effective and easier to control than the 125 grain loads and I like them for that reason.


Ben, I do not know of any LEO agency that uses 158 grain bullets in the .357 magnum load. They work well in the woods, but the woods that LEO'S work in are crowded with people and overpenetration is a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
The 125 grain load used by the BORDER PATROL worked very, very well in gunfights and do not overpenetrate, but is hard to control and has a very load roar and sometimes a tremendous flash. It also was very hard on lightweight guns like the S&W K frame.

We actually had a gun barrel burst (S&W model 13) when it was used to qualify with the 125 grain load.

We were issued model 13 S&W'S with 3 inch barrels. I put on a pair of PACHMAYR bound butt rubber grips and never had any complaints.

The 110 grain load was MUCH, MUCH easier to control. It has a kick like a +P .38 Special load, but is more effective. We had no failures to stop with it, but then we had only a few inciddents compared to the BORDER PATROL.


February 22, 2010, 03:48 PM
The .40 is just a tad snappier than the 9mm, but it's certainly nothing that one can't control.

Heck, tiny female cops and agents qualify every year shooting Glocks in .40S&W.

February 22, 2010, 04:10 PM

I had a GLOCK 22 and found it unpleasant to shoot, while my 17 & 19 were fine.

I now carry the .40 S&W, but in an H&K 2000 which is heavier and has a recoil absorbing feature that seems to really work.

I go rid of the GLOCK 22 because I just did not enjoy shooting it, but shoot .40 S&W all the time in my BERETTA and in the H&K.


February 22, 2010, 04:14 PM
For a carry round, what do you guys think of the 147 gr Remington Golden Saber?

February 22, 2010, 04:15 PM
I have found the Glock 19 easier to shoot quickly and accurately that the 23. The .40 has more snap in a Glock in my hands than does the 9mm. Plus 9mm is cheaper to shoot. So I vote Glock 19.

February 22, 2010, 04:36 PM
147 Golden Saber is a good load, one you can't go wrong with.

Golden Sabers lost out to HST when I was looking for my carry load because of the 25 round boxes, and the HST gets a little more expansion, generally the most in a given caliber.

Golden Saber is a great design though, if that's what you can find then go for it, it's an accurate and well-made load.

February 22, 2010, 05:05 PM
Golden Sabers lost out to HST when I was looking for my carry load because of the 25 round boxes, and the HST gets a little more expansion, generally the most in a given caliber.

Really? Wow. Do you have a link to HST gel tests?

February 22, 2010, 07:21 PM
I've owned 38 super, 38 special, 380, 9mm, 40 cal and 45. These days I keep it simple. If I want high capacity, I go 9mm. If I want large caliber, I go 45. I saw no really huge difference between 40 and 9mm ballistics and I don't shoot lots of people for a living. I wouldn't stand in front of a 9mm, it'll get the job done with the right ammo.

My 40 just seemed like a compromise between a high cap 9 and a big honkin 45. I know my shot placement with my 1911 45's should be good enough I won't need more than one or two shots so I don't feel short on ammo. 9mm with proper ammo will kill a bad guy any day, so I in no way feel outgunned...and the extra capacity is comforting. The 40 just left ME wanting more or less.

Either way, you can't go wrong. Both rounds will get it done. We're all gun nuts here, so I wouldn't consider any choice inferior. Shoot em all, decide your purpose and make an informed decision based on your needs and wants.

Just my 2 cents.


February 22, 2010, 07:26 PM
I have had both and favor the 9mm 19

February 22, 2010, 07:32 PM
Ballistically the 40 has a slight edge, but it has been my experience that 9mm pistols just seem to be more reliable than any other cartridge. Not a knock on Glock. I've observed the same with almost every brand of pistol. I vote to go with the Glock 19.

February 22, 2010, 07:58 PM
I decided to go with 9mm myself and now own the G17, 19 and 26. I previously had the .40s but got tired of the extra recoil and higher ammo price.

February 22, 2010, 11:47 PM
Snake, look up the ATK HST tests, they ran it in front of lots of LE agencies, and the HST came out ahead in every test against every competitor, including their own Speer Gold Dot.

February 23, 2010, 02:23 AM
I bought the Glock 19 9mm about ten years ago because 9mm ammo is about a third less what 40 ammo will run you for practice. Practice makes perfect. If money is no object to you when buying ammo, then go for the Glock 23. The 23 is also a great gun.

I use Speer Gold Dot 124 Grain +P loads in my Glock 19 for self defense. This is the NYPD load. They have good results with it. For practice, I use whatever FMJ round is cheapest at Wal Mart, Bass Pro, or the range. I have never had problems as long as I use factory magazines and your normal quality ammo...ONE bad primer did cause a problem on extremely cheap CCI Blazer 9mm (to avoid that stick to Winchester, Remington, other brass cased stuff). This was not the gun's fault...again tried cheap aftermarket mags...failure to feed...stick to Glock mags. The cool thing about the 19 is you can use the Glock 18 machine pistol 33rd mags.

February 23, 2010, 09:22 PM
Snake, look up the ATK HST tests, they ran it in front of lots of LE agencies, and the HST came out ahead in every test against every competitor, including their own Speer Gold Dot.

According to that neither the 124 gr nor 147 gr HST got 12 inches in bare gelatin. That's not enough for me.

February 23, 2010, 09:31 PM
What? Lemme see that link, I've never seen them be that shallow.

February 23, 2010, 09:40 PM
weird, that's the first one of those test sessions I've seen where they didn't break 12 inches, although they were only short by a half inch and a quarter inch, and only through bare gelatin did they penetrate that shallowly.

Both 9mm loads and the .40 load expanded more than they used to, I wonder if the design has changed at all?

February 23, 2010, 11:06 PM
Either way you win.

I like .40 because I don't have to stock ammo for it; it is everywhere.

February 24, 2010, 02:25 PM
The .45's all passed 12". And the HST expanded to over an inch! Just sayin'....

But seriously, I wouldn't base my choice solely on one ballistic gelatin test. But do what makes you happy. I think you need a 23, so you can shoot with .40 and carry .357 SIG if you're that worried about penetration.

Wow, and it's usually overpenetration that people are trying to avoid...:D

Deaf Smith
February 24, 2010, 06:38 PM
May I suggest a Glock 23 with a AACK .22 unit slide AND Lone Wolf 9mm barrel (it's made for the 23!) Throw in a Glock OEM 32 barrel in .357 Sig and you have FOUR GUNS IN ONE!

And the nice thing is, if there is another ammo shortage, you have for rounds you can look for ammo and get buy on.

For me... well I have the 32, 23, 19, and a AACK unit for my Glock 26.

February 24, 2010, 08:43 PM
The Marshall and Sanow study found that 9 mm loaded with Cor Bon +P was the most effective on the "one-shot-stop" criterion. That study has been widely attacked but to my mind not totally discredited. Ease of hitting the target must surely influence effectiveness. Could it be that 9 mm combined with the punchy Cor Bon +P round strikes just the right balance between ballistic performance and accurate shooting?

I have opted for 9 mm with the Cor Bon +P for defensive purposes. I'm not sure it's optimum but I doubt anyone knows exactly what is optimum and I think this combination will not be far short.

You implied that 9mm penetrates more and I have heard it said that 9mm over-penetrates but I haven't found anything to confirm this. My impression is that the three major calibers with premium ammo all penetrate about the same.

February 24, 2010, 09:29 PM
9mm = tried and tested and .40 = new school.

Both would hurt like hell.

February 24, 2010, 10:05 PM
Twenty years old may be new school but it's still a proven caliber many times over.

February 24, 2010, 10:15 PM
9mm = tried and tested and .40 = new school.

.40 is hardly new school. At the time it was introduced it was supposed to represent a nice compromise between 9mm and .45 but I've never seen anything to prove that to my satisfaction. If anyone has any references that they think are convincing, I would be greatly obliged if you would post them.

February 24, 2010, 11:54 PM
The Marshall and Sanow study found that 9 mm loaded with Cor Bon +P was the most effective on the "one-shot-stop" criterion. That study has been widely attacked but to my mind not totally discredited.
Closing the Book on Marshall & Sanow's One-shot Stopping Power Fraud

Over the past couple of years we've published several articles presenting evidence that discredits the Marshall & Sanow one-shot stopping power system of rating "bullet effectiveness". Our purpose in beating this dead horse was to present our criticisms from many different angles so that our message could be understood by the widest audience possible. The final chapter is now being written. We're closing the book on Marshall and Sanow by making several reference articles freely available on the Internet, where they'll be available to anyone and everyone who's interested in the details. As we put the Marshall - Sanow fraud to rest, we offer the following final commentary. Immediately following our remarks are links to reference articles that have never before been made available to you on the Internet.

The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results". Valid statistical samplings always report a plus or minus percentage of sampling error, which is based on consideration and evaluation of all factors that affect statistical certainty. This vital statistical process allows researchers to determine how meaningful or meaningless the findings are. Fackler's article, Too Good to be True, discusses, among other things, the significance of determining statistical certainty.

Marshall & Sanow have never performed a statistical certainty analysis of Marshall's one-shot stop data. They present raw "data," which is totally meaningless in context even if it was honestly collected and examined as claimed. Marshall's sampling methodology and the manner in which his data is presented are no more accurate or credible than any other nonscientific (for entertainment only) survey, and this generously assumes that Marshall is being completely honest.

Anyone who still believes the Marshall "findings" to be true should submit one of Marshall's "one-shot stop" books or articles to a professional statistics organization that has absolutely no interest in ballistics or the outcome, like An unbiased organization such this is fully qualified to analyze and critique the validity of Marshall's methodology and "findings".

Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies.

Marshall & Sanow are preparing to publish a third book, Street Stoppers II. Until recently, we had planned to obtain a copy and publish a book review. But unless Street Stoppers II contains startling new information, we're moving on.

But before we close the book on Marshall & Sanow –– hopefully for good –– we'd like to express our appreciation to IWBA and the authors below, who've kindly granted us permission to re-print the following articles.

Maarten van Maanen's article, Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time, was the subject of Calibre Press' Street Survival Newsline (No. 419, dated 11/16/99), a law enforcement newsletter that's distributed to thousands of law enforcement officers worldwide. Calibre Press is a major law enforcement training organization. They produce and present the highly acclaimed Street Survival Seminar as well as publish the award winning books Street Survival, The Tactical Edge and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. The staff of Calibre Press reviewed van Maanen's article and found van Maanen's evidence of fraud and deceit so convincing as to warrant alerting the law enforcement community to his findings. If there's any one organization that has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in the "real world laboratory of the streets," it's the folks at Calibre Press.

(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)

February 25, 2010, 07:52 AM
The .45's all passed 12". And the HST expanded to over an inch! Just sayin'....
I noticed that the .45 test gun was described just as a "Kimber".
I'm guessing it was a 1911 type with a 5" barrel, which would be longer than the Glock 17 and the Glock 22 barrels.

In such testing the .45 appears to perform better than some other calibers but since the barrel lengths are not equal the testing is biased.

Just sayin'....

February 25, 2010, 08:37 AM
Yeah, there's no perfect way to do it. You could shoot every caliber from a 5" barrel to get a good control group, and then you'd have people complaining that it wasn't realistic because nobody has a 5" 9mm or .40.

February 25, 2010, 09:13 AM
The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results"......
For a review of the criticisms of Marshall and Sanow, please consult which concludes in part:

"In light of the demonstrated ad hominem attacks, exaggerations and fallacies in the criticisms of these experimental findings, one wonders whether the critical authors were depending more on their reputation as experts and the quantity of their fallacies (ad nauseum fallacy) rather than quality arguments, sound reasoning, and repeatable experiments. The critical authors left quite a paper trail in the literature, but reason, the scientific method, and repeatable experiments and analysis have shown the original works to be more sound than the published criticisms."

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 19 or 23: 9mm vs 40" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!