what advantage does an 8-shot .45 have over a 16shot 9mm??


PDA






piece of meat
April 24, 2011, 12:46 AM
everywhere i look i see 8-shot .45's touted as great 'combat' pistols, 'serious defensive' pistols, 'battle proven' etc etc...but my rational mind still cannot see how in any real world shooting encounter a gun with 8 lethal rounds would hold ANY advantage over a gun with 16 lethal rounds, which would provide enough comparative firepower to allow for suppressive fire as well as misses; despite the worldwide praise i dont get how a 1911, no matter how stylish they are and how cool they look and feel, would be better than a 16-shot cz75 9mm in any real world deadly encounter application

If you enjoyed reading about "what advantage does an 8-shot .45 have over a 16shot 9mm??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FoMoGo
April 24, 2011, 12:48 AM
In a public area... are you REALLY going to be laying down suppressive fire?


Jim

piece of meat
April 24, 2011, 12:51 AM
prob not but the point is you have the option...not just talking about 'public areas' but all aspects of handgun practicality including actual combat

buttrap
April 24, 2011, 12:53 AM
Well I guess it could be possable in a public area in some where like Iraq or Afganistan. The local mall I would think no.

Hypnogator
April 24, 2011, 01:02 AM
OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!:rolleyes::banghead::banghead::banghead:

wow6599
April 24, 2011, 01:06 AM
despite the worldwide praise i dont get how a 1911, no matter how stylish they are and how cool they look and feel, would be better than a 16-shot cz75 9mm in any real world deadly encounter application

Then buy a 16 shot .45...............

gofastman
April 24, 2011, 01:15 AM
Spare mags are lighter :D


Id feel just fine with 8 rounds of good .45 ammo (heck, I'd feel fine with 5rds of 38spl)

Id feel a lot better with 16 rounds of good 9mm+P though, especially if were talking about guns in the same size class.

Handguns are weak and how shooters/shootee's react is unpredictable, give me the gun with more bullets I say (as long as we're talking about "service" calibers of course)

GRIZ22
April 24, 2011, 01:30 AM
What about those who carry a 7 or 8 shot 9mm vs 13 shot Glock 21? Different strokes are fine as long as they are not stupid. Surpressive fire in a SD situation is generally not a responsible action.

As long as I can carry spare magazines I would be just a s comfortable with a Glock 17 as I would a 1911.

TomKat
April 24, 2011, 01:40 AM
I would imagine in a real world situation, you would not need more than 7 or 8 shots. It would most certainly be close quarters, and if you practice even half as much as you should... I'd think you'd still be able to hit center mass fairly easily with 7 or 8 shots.

Now if your in the army, more rounds the better... you'll most likely be going up against multiple targets from various angles. But in civilian life, it'll prob be just one, maybe two. I carry 8 rounds of 9mm and feel just fine about it.

Skylerbone
April 24, 2011, 02:05 AM
So long as you are satisfied with your own conclusion and can conceive of others arriving at an alternative there should be no arguement. Are you hoping to convince others or yourself?

Fact is the .45 ACP has indeed proven itself effective in combat through many battles. By extension that makes it a serious defensive weapon (what firearm isn't?) If your rational mind can accept that information AND you believe 9mm is every bit as effective/lethal then you can still declare yourself correct in postulating that twice the ammo should always hold the advantage in any given scenario.

Should there be any doubt about the lethality of a given round, be it 9mm or .25 ACP, you may understand how others opinions differ. Is 9mm enough? Quite likely. Three rounds enough? Same answer. Heck a .22LR can bring down any man when properly placed but I wouldn't go hunting elephants with a 10/22 and a banana mag. for the life of me.

TMann
April 24, 2011, 02:18 AM
If you believe all of the following:

1. A .45 bullet is more effective than a 9 mm bullet.
2. Eight rounds (plus a mag) is adequate capacity.
3. The precise trigger and natural pointability of the 1911 make for more precise shot placement than other pistols.

Then you'll believe that the 1911 is a better gun than the 75B.

If you believe all of the following:

1. A 9 mm bullet is essentially equal to a .45 bullet.
2. Eight rounds (plus a mag) is likely to be inadequate.
3. The lighter recoil and the cheaper ammo (more practice) of the 9 mm round will make for more precise shot placement than pistols that shoot .45 or .40 caliber rounds.

Then you'll believe that the 75B is a better gun than the 1911.

Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

TMann

cyclopsshooter
April 24, 2011, 02:23 AM
If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway..

millertyme
April 24, 2011, 02:40 AM
Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.


Amen, brother. Keep preaching that gospel.

9mmepiphany
April 24, 2011, 02:50 AM
The most objective advantage that the 1911 platform has over a 16 shot 9mm is the ability to fit a smaller hand and it's excellent ergonomics. The 1911 has been around so long that there are any number of aftermarket parts for it. It can outfitted better for a smaller hand than any other service pistol.

The ergos of the 1911 are what most service pistols are compared to. Wide body double stacks just have a hard time meeting those standards. The achilles heel of the 1911 compared to a modern platform is that it does not stand up as well to neglect.

To answer your question, it isn't about caliber at all, it is about the platform

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 24, 2011, 02:56 AM
If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway..


So I guess you save yourself the trouble and only load your gun with 3 rounds. After all you don't want that excess weight because it gets uncomfortable.

RevolvingGarbage
April 24, 2011, 02:57 AM
I personally would feel comfortable with either, or a 6 or 5 shot .38 revolver, from an effectiveness/firepower standpoint.

In practice, I generally find the 1911's single action trigger and the slimness/ergonomics of the gun lend it to be the best shooting gun for me, and the most easily carried (for a full size service pistol).

I think the most important thing is to find a gun that feels the most natural and fluid to use, and practice practice practice until manipulating and shooting it comes as easy as breathing.

Girodin
April 24, 2011, 05:32 AM
Well I guess it could be possable (sic) in a public area in some where like Iraq or Afganistan(sic). The local mall I would think no.

We had a heavily armed guy go on a shooting rampage in the mall here, so why unlikely you never know.


If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway

I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.


To answer your question, it isn't about caliber at all, it is about the platform

Exactly.

cyclopsshooter
April 24, 2011, 05:35 AM
I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.

If you are speaking from a LEO duty perspective I see your point but if you are talking about a self defense situation you're just being paranoid.

JohnBiltz
April 24, 2011, 06:45 AM
Quote:
I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.
If you are speaking from a LEO duty perspective I see your point but if you are talking about a self defense situation you're just being paranoid.
__________________

That is just nonsense. It may well take more than 3 shots just to get a stop on one man. It may take 3 shots to get a hit. I've read numerous accounts of people in gunfights that fired more than 3 shots and lived and one guy that did it 4 times. Three shots is the often spoken of average number of shots fired in a gun fight, considering that number includes suicides its actually higher.

Personally I want 10 rounds in a gun I'm carrying. I don't care if I have more than 12 in a magazine but I want at least 10. I'm not a 1911 fan. It doesn't feel good in my hand. I also don't think it sets any kind of standard for ergonomics. The rest of the world moved past it in ergonomics and manufacturers are not exactly lining up new models of single action cocked and locked pistols for release. Saying that, a 1911 in the hands of someone who knows how to use it have settled a lot of gunfights and 16 shots don't mean a lot if someone puts a few .45 bullets in you before you get to use them.

12131
April 24, 2011, 06:57 AM
OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!:rolleyes::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Seriously!

Jed Carter
April 24, 2011, 07:55 AM
While the CZ 75B is a fine service pistol I am more confident with my abilities shooting a 1911 platform. For sometime now I have been using a CZ 75D PCR as my CCW. I recently replaced it in the rotation with a SIG RCS 1911, caliber had very little to do with the choice. The PCR was a double stack 14+1 and the SIG is a 7+1 single stack. Height and length were similar but the width of the grip was too thick to carry under normally fitting clothes IMO. The SIG has real Tritium night sights, the CZ had glow in the dark about 50% brightness after 1 hour. Shootability up to 30 yards and under most conditions, concealability under appropriate clothing, and reliability = a good CCW, caliber has little to do with my choice, capacity even less. Actually wish SIG made the RCS in 9mm, if you think you shoot a CZ 9mm well, then try it out of a good 1911.

CZ223
April 24, 2011, 08:07 AM
or several of each, and carry what you are comfortable with. I used to carry a Glock 23 in 40 S&W, possibly the perfect combination of size, capacity and firepower going. I'll gladly give up two rounds of capcity to have the power of the 40 S&W over the 9mm G19 which is the same size. With the G23 I carried one spare mag for a total of 27 rounds. By the way, I feel the 40 gives up nothing compared to the 45 when it comes to "power". I now carry a 1911, most often my Kimber Tac Pro II, with 2 spare mags, for a total of 25 rounds.

Snowdog
April 24, 2011, 08:17 AM
It boils down to what you're comfortable with. No one is going to be as accurate gauging your comfort level as you are.

If someone were to tell me 13 years ago when I first started to carry that I would eventually find myself comfortable with a 6+1 auto in 9x18, I'm sure I wouldn't have believed it.

I prefer my Bersa UC9 or K9 over my P64, but during hotter months I really don't feel uncomfortable with just the P64 and a spare magazine in Thunderwear... unless I sit down wrong.

EddieNFL
April 24, 2011, 08:54 AM
...but my rational mind still cannot see how in any real world shooting encounter a gun with 8 lethal rounds would hold ANY advantage over a gun with 16 lethal rounds,

As long as we're arguing semantics...why not select a .22 Magnum with 30 lethal rounds?

Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

A seldom seen logical (or rational) response.

We had a heavily armed guy go on a shooting rampage in the mall here, so why unlikely you never know.

Did an armed citizen lay down suppressive fire until the cops arrived, or just shoot him two or three times?

AK103K
April 24, 2011, 09:44 AM
It may well take more than 3 shots just to get a stop on one man. It may take 3 shots to get a hit.
Thats just it. It takes what it takes, regardless the caliber. You "shoot them to the ground" and until they are down and out, and that simply takes what it takes to do it.

So, how many rounds do you need to solve a single problem? What about multiple problems? What about "difficult" problems, like a threat or threats behind cover that absorbs or hinders your "well aimed" rounds that were fired under a "little" stress? What are you basing your skill levels on to feel comfortable with whats in your gun?

Since ammo advancements have brought performance a lot closer in line between the calibers, and gun sizes are about the same (the grip on my Glock 17 is actually smaller than my 1911's), why limit yourself to less rounds in a gun thats basically the same size? I dont see how having "extra" on board ammo is a bad thing.

SwampWolf
April 24, 2011, 09:48 AM
I think the op's question is a legitimate one; a question that should provoke some relevant concerns about what constitutes adequate magazine/cylinder capacity, sufficient bullet size and appropriate platform size and configuration. The best example that addresses this dilemma that I can think of has to do with two SIG pistols I own, a Model 220 Carry (.45 ACP with an eight round capacity) and a Model 226 E2 (9mm with a sixteen round capacity). I like having more rounds on board but 9mm bullets are smaller than .45s are and a double stack magazine makes the 226 (despite its fine ergos) a more ponderous carry proposition. The 220, on the other hand, with its single stack magazine makes for a slimmer profile that fits my hand even better than the 226 does. The question is, of course, will the bigger bullet (which many, if not most, agree offers better "stopping" power than smaller bullets do, everything else being equal) offset the advantage of higher capacity if a ninth round is ever needed in an atypical gunfight?

Other considerations include the higher cost of .45 ammunition as compared to the 9mm (which conceivably could translate into less practice/training shots) and the greater recoil of the .45 as compared to the 9mm (which could make for more ammunition expenditure and practice time necessary to control repeat shots, etc.). The problem is that there is never going to be a consensus, even among thoughtful and experienced people, as to which side of the argument is better-and that's probably a good thing.

All of which leads me to agree with the posters who found TMann's parting comment most germane to the question at hand:
Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

Darebear
April 24, 2011, 09:55 AM
45v9...YES! Lol.
I used to buy into the online Rambo's until gas prices doubled since I brought my 5.4 V8 truck. Lol... So now the HK45c sits in the safe while the P2000 comes out to play... 12-14$/box of 9mm target ammo vs 24-28$/box of .45 acp target ammo.

1). Shot placement. Mark Todd stopped the Fort Hood Massacre with a few rounds discharged from a Beretta M9.

2). Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice and Practice... with a box of .45 target ammo costing double of what .45 costs you can see why I practice with my 9mm more.

3). The Marines (best fighting force in the world... I was Air force and I still give Kudo's to Marines) use beretta M9s... Now would they love to use .45's... sure... maybe but they get the job done and done pretty damn well with 15+1 rounds of 9mm.

This excerpt is from a Article in Tactical weapons March 2011 issue celeberating the M9 for it's 25 year service mark.
“Let me recount one last quick story about the period when the M9 was coming in and M1911 was going out. During the Great Flood of 1993 here in St. Louis, Army MP Reserves and USAF Security Police form Scott AFB were deployed to supplement the St. Louis City Police. Initially, the MP’s had their .45 autos but were issued no ammunition until the City Police explained they were manning dangerous road-blocks and outposts and needed loaded weapons! With great reluctance, the Army Reserves issued them FIVE rounds of ammo. The Air Force Security Police had their M9s with a round chambered and ready for double action engagement, a full magazine of 15 rounds, and 2 spare magazines with 15 rounds. Who was better prepared to deal with looters?”

Darebear
April 24, 2011, 10:03 AM
Also to those that think I'm putting down the .45 then I apologize... I'm not. I like the .45 round. I'm just trying to say whether it's 8 rounds of .45 or 16 rounds of 9mm it kinda doesn't matter... what matters is what works for you. What get's the job done for you when it TRULY matters...

In the words of Chris Costa "If you can't run your sh** under stress then you better not be running a gun that's for damn sure"

By the way, not criticzing, I'd drop the idea that you might have to lay down suppresive fire (if you're a civi). That is a lawsuit and jailtime waiting to happen brother...

Caliper_RWVA
April 24, 2011, 10:10 AM
Sure, 16 rounds is more than 8 and a good 9mm JHP is plenty lethal.

OTOH, 45ACP carries more momentum and a good JHP will give a larger expanded diameter for superior stopping power.

Plenty of 45ACP platforms offer more than 8 round capacity. The 1911 trades greater capacity for a slimmer single stack and gains carryability and concealability.

Finally, I often carry 7 rounds of 9mm and feel fine about it. Come to think about it, I haven't CC'd a handgun with more than a 10 round magazine in a while.

Hunt480
April 24, 2011, 10:17 AM
Since I have no use for a 9mm...Probably because it could take all 16 9mm's to to do the stop work of 1 45 ACP. If not the 45 get the 40. The 9 can't shoot the heavy stoppers... I'm not really a professional instigator it just seems that way. Let it fly...

Darebear
April 24, 2011, 10:29 AM
Since I have no use for a 9mm...Probably because it could take all 16 9mm's to to do the stop work of 1 45 ACP. If not the 45 get the 40. The 9 can't shoot the heavy stoppers... I'm not really a professional instigator it just seems that way. Let it fly...
I'm a little dense... Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke so I can start laughing.

tazbigdog
April 24, 2011, 10:36 AM
No need to fire 16 rounds when it can be done with 8!

mljdeckard
April 24, 2011, 10:41 AM
It's because this is a handgun, not a defensive rifle. It is an emergency tool, not something you deliberately carry into a fight. We do not live in MelGibsonLand where you will often (or ever) need to fire fifteen straight shots without reloading. We carry a spare magazine to be able to clear a malfunction, not really to have more rounds. If you can't change magazines fast enough to continue fighting, you need to practice more.

A 1911 (or other single-stack auto) you can hold and shoot well and conceal effectively and comfortably is better than something that holds more bullets. The first eight are by far the most important. If you have an armed encounter that eight rounds won't solve, it is highly unlikely that fifteen will save you either. That is when you need a rifle.

You need to reconsider your concept of 'real world'. Most armed encounters end with no shots fired at all, and most of the rest are two or three shots.

LeonCarr
April 24, 2011, 10:47 AM
Carry a 14 or 15 shot .45 to get the best of both worlds and not worry :).

Hunt480
April 24, 2011, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunt480
Since I have no use for a 9mm...Probably because it could take all 16 9mm's to to do the stop work of 1 45 ACP. If not the 45 get the 40. The 9 can't shoot the heavy stoppers... I'm not really a professional instigator it just seems that way. Let it fly...

I'm a little dense... Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke so I can start laughing.

You can laugh now, but I really don't have any luv for the 9mm..Got to stir a good debate...Time for church, Happy Easter Sunday everyone...

blarby
April 24, 2011, 11:01 AM
This.

mljdeckard
April 24, 2011, 11:06 AM
Do you really think that the advantage of .45 over 9mm is 14-1?

2wheels
April 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
If 8 ain't enough... Is 16 enough? 20? How 'bout a Glock with a 33 round mag?

I only own one handgun that has a double digit capacity, I don't carry it.

hardluk1
April 24, 2011, 11:56 AM
Watched a real trama show a while back and some kid was shot 7 times with the 45acp. Nothing important was hit. Kid went home 4 days later.

Shoot what you feel good and just learn to hit your target guickly and practice double taps.

I shoot one of 2 different 9mm's with a capacity of 8 rounds or less. Carried a 38 revolver for around 20 years.

The 45acp is pale compaired to a 357 sig, or 10mm or 357mag or , or , or,

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 24, 2011, 11:57 AM
If you are speaking from a LEO duty perspective I see your point but if you are talking about a self defense situation you're just being paranoid.

So once again, do you load all your defensive firearms with just three rounds since you already know you'll never need more? There are plenty of times where more than three rounds were required. One was a 70 year old ex marine who fired 5 rounds, 3 in the first attacker and 2 into the second and the second was able to run 300 yards away before finally dying. By the way hes still with us today and DIDN'T DIE when he fired that fourth round.

PPS43
April 24, 2011, 12:27 PM
In some jurisdictions there are 10 round magazine capacity limits. Pre-ban magazines do not exist for many newer guns.

The comparison then is 8 rounds of .45 ACP, or 10 rounds of 9 mm in a double-stack magazine (with the rest of the space in the thick handle wasted).

Shopping A Round
April 24, 2011, 01:02 PM
In some jurisdictions there are 10 round magazine capacity limits. Pre-ban magazines do not exist for many newer guns.

The comparison then is 8 rounds of .45 ACP, or 10 rounds of 9 mm in a double-stack magazine (with the rest of the space in the thick handle wasted).This is a very relevant point.

Either a small 9mm that holds fewer than 10 naturally or a normal sized gun in .45 with 6 to 8 rounds. Very frustrating when I want a USP in 9mm but would feel silly with its neutered capacity.

daorhgih
April 24, 2011, 01:17 PM
... in the same place on the body (which is why we use man-shaped targets, is it not?) ONE shot in a vital area has more OOoomph-factor per .45 than 9mm round does. (rant on all weenie-caliber lovers, rant on.) mljdeckard, 7794 posts: hey!, maybe he really DOES know everything about everything; but don't use "we" when you obviously mean "I". I carry, concealed, because "deliberately carrying into a fight" might be just around the aisle in HandyShak. "The first EIGHT"!! How about the first ONE! And we need LOTS of citations for your other posits, also. It's different in Chi-town (real-wordly) than in Utah Territory (calm-zone?), IMHO. Dao.

DammitBoy
April 24, 2011, 01:29 PM
As a teenager living in Washington DC, my buddy and I were attacked by 12 gang members and nearly beaten to death, except for a police car that just happened to pass by and stopped the attack.

I carry a Para-Ordnance P14 in .45 with a spare magazine.

PabloJ
April 24, 2011, 01:30 PM
Given availability of 12+ shot .45Autos out there is only advantage poor weak 9x19 has which is availability of cheaper pinkling ammo. When one realizes that .45ACP user does not need JHPs for personal defense ammo one could easily argue that the bigger gun is "cheaper to carry". Due to availability of +p ammo the .45ACP is also superior to .40S&W and longer version called 10mm.

gbelleh
April 24, 2011, 01:35 PM
I've made it standard practice to back-pocket carry a 7-shot 9mm as a back-up gun. This way, I don't have to worry about fumbling with a magazine change under stress, just pull gun #2. Also, I worry less about the capacity of my primary gun when I know I have 7 more 9mms easily and immediately accessible.

I carry anything from a 7-shot 9mm, to 8-shot .45, to 14-shot .40, to 16-shot 9mm as a primary, and I'm comfortable with them all (especially knowing 7 more 9mms are there and ready to go).

Powderman
April 24, 2011, 01:36 PM
Folks, this is a non-starter.

The most effective caliber is the one that YOU are comfortable with, and that YOU can effectively hit the target with.

Period.

The thing to do is to skew the numbers in your favor by choosing the most effective ammunition available. Federal Hydra-Shok, Remington Golden Saber and Speer Gold Dot are all proven high performance ammunition. Find which one feeds and chambers best in your chosen handgun and use it. For practice, either buy or load ammunition which closely duplicates the ballistics of your defensive carry round.

The most important aspect is NOT what caliber you have. It is practice, practice, practice!

stevek
April 24, 2011, 01:55 PM
and manufacturers are not exactly lining up new models of single action cocked and locked pistols for release.

That's true...they are all lining up to put out their version of a 1911 :)

DAP90
April 24, 2011, 02:03 PM
I had a 16-shot CZ75 9mm for awhile. It was a great gun but rather large, heavy and difficult to conceal. I'd have to give the edge to the thinner 1911 platform for concealability.

Since your going to spend more time just carrying it around than shooting it, that would be an advantage with a real world application.

As others have said though, if you like the CZ75 better that makes it the superior gun for you. I can't remember having a single problem with the CZ relating to performance; and I often wish I still had it.

PabloJ
April 24, 2011, 02:05 PM
Strum & Ruger just released nice looking stainless version. Regrettably magazine holds fewer then 10 cartridges. Even Canadians with their tiny population made double action version with large cap magazine. I realize their food might be healthier with fewer preservatives but their handguns should be better then ours?:scrutiny: As an American I'm truly embarrassed.:uhoh:

Darebear
April 24, 2011, 02:07 PM
Given availability of 12+ shot .45Autos out there is only advantage poor weak 9x19 has which is availability of cheaper pinkling ammo. When one realizes that .45ACP user does not need JHPs for personal defense ammo one could easily argue that the bigger gun is "cheaper to carry". Due to availability of +p ammo the .45ACP is also superior to .40S&W and longer version called 10mm.
OK this has turned into a 9vs45 thread...

To those that are posting un-intelligent comments about how the .45 is a magic round and dissing the 9mm please stop. That is just silly. Normally I would tell those folks to stand in front of a 9mm JHP, but how about I just join the silly-ness and say that the .45 is weak. Why don't you carry a real mans handgun... Like a Desert Eagle or a Taurus Judge or a .44? Come on guys.

The .45 is superior to the .40? There are .40 loads coming out of the pipe at 1100 fps with 500+ ft/lbs. There is much overlap between calibers. By the way, as Autoloaders go, the 357 sig is already renown as a one stop shot cartridge (read up on it)... does that mean everyone should carry it? NO!!! The ammo is harder to find and the recoil is harsh. Every load... EVERY LOAD has it's purpose. Pro's and Con's and drawbacks.

Darebear
April 24, 2011, 02:20 PM
... in the same place on the body (which is why we use man-shaped targets, is it not?) ONE shot in a vital area has more OOoomph-factor per .45 than 9mm round does. (rant on all weenie-caliber lovers, rant on.) mljdeckard, 7794 posts: hey!, maybe he really DOES know everything about everything; but don't use "we" when you obviously mean "I". I carry, concealed, because "deliberately carrying into a fight" might be just around the aisle in HandyShak. "The first EIGHT"!! How about the first ONE! And we need LOTS of citations for your other posits, also. It's different in Chi-town (real-wordly) than in Utah Territory (calm-zone?), IMHO. Dao.
"Ooomph" is not a scientific term I'm familiar with but yes I will agree that bullet for bullet the .45 is better (by how much I don't know). When measuring the crush factor, tissue tearing and overall cavitiy damage the cartridge with more mass and size will do better (assuming it does what it's suppose to)... and Yes I also agree if you can get put a .45 and 9mm in the same exact spot the .45 will most likely do better.

With that being said; How many of you have been in firefights and the one's that have how many of you got perfect shot placement? I don't know how awesome everyone else is at shooting but I know my limits. I know I can perform double taps and even triple taps with the 9mm better than any other cartridge. Is that important to me? Damn right espicially when I can't get that first round in the chest... maybe I shot the perp in the arm or the shoulder and need to fire more rounds.

SwampWolf
April 24, 2011, 02:25 PM
If you have an armed encounter that eight rounds won't solve, it is highly unlikely that fifteen will save you either. That is when you need a rifle.

In terms of "need", if you've expended your eight rounds and need a ninth, you really need another bullet. And in any armed encounter that requires a first round, let alone seven more, to use your argument, you needed a rifle in the first place.

Nushif
April 24, 2011, 02:25 PM
I realize their food might be healthier with fewer preservatives but their handguns should be better then ours? As an American I'm truly embarrassed.

I laugh.

SwampWolf
April 24, 2011, 02:36 PM
To answer your question, it isn't about caliber at all, it is about the platform

The more I think about the question, the more I think 9mmepiphany had the right answer from the git-go. A lot of people have ended their opinions with "get what's right for you; get what feels best for you; get the gun you're most comfortable with", etc , and what they're really referencing is the platform, not the caliber.

fastbolt
April 24, 2011, 02:49 PM
Usually when this perennial comment is made around me it's by someone who has shown up for qualification. It's often by one of the younger shooters, too.

We can find out real quick whether or not having all those rounds makes that person a better shot than someone who's familiar and skilled with their 8-shot .45 pistol.

Sheer capacity is pretty far down on my list of critical considerations when I'm carrying a handgun as a dedicated defensive weapon. It's somewhere after caliber ... (which isn't at the top of my list, either, FWIW)

I'm more interested in the shooter's knowledge, familiarity with their handgun, their mindset, how well they've developed their skillset and how well they maintain their handgun. I like to see how well they can apply their knowledge of tactics while demonstrating good decision making skill, while also employing good shooting skills. I want to see them exhibit safe, smooth, fast and fumble-free good technique in drawing & presentation and then reholstering.

Sheer capacity generally doesn't help offset a lack of knowledge, skill and ability in any of these things.

I've met any number of folks who seemed to possess what essentially amounted to a false sense of confidence in their ability to safely, accurately and effectively use a handgun just because it had a hi-cap magazine.

I've said it before and I suppose I might as well say it again ...

I started as a young cop carrying an issued 6-shot revolver and either a 6-shot revolver or a 7+1 capacity Colt Commander off-duty. I never felt under-equipped.

In later years when we eventually made the transition to semiauto pistols, I carried issued guns with magazine capacities of 14, 15, 12, 9, 8 & then 7 rounds (in that order). I was carrying a compact, lightweight 7+1 capacity issued .45 at the time of my retirement.

On my own time, when it came to my own guns, I carried either a 5-shot revolver or one of my assorted pistols (9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP) with magazine capacities of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 rounds, and that's carried over into my retirement. I've picked up some various higher capacity magazines for a couple of the guns over the years, but I seldom find reason to carry them.

Bottom line? Lots of things I give consideration to before sheer capacity ... or caliber, for that matter (modern designed defensive ammunition has come a long way).

While I occasionally carry one of my .40's or .45's, my commonly chosen retirement CCW weapon tends to be either a 5-shot .38 Spl J-frame loaded with +P or a smallish 9mm pistol.

I do a fair amount of training, practice and quals with all of them, though.

I'm comfortable with my choices.

What are you confident carrying when it comes to considering being involved in an unavoidable defensive shooting situation, one which is an unexpected dynamic, chaotic, rapidly-changing event which will probably occur in low light, in an unfamiliar environment, and may well involve circumstances which tax you physically, mentally & emotionally? How well do you know and understand the applicable laws in your jurisdiction? Have you given thought to the potential difference between when deadly force may be lawful& appropriate versus lawful & inappropriate?

Does higher magazine capacity make you feel better about any of this?

Just my thoughts ...

NG VI
April 24, 2011, 02:55 PM
Well, personally, I love having rounds on deck, the more the better, no one ever died because he had too many potential shots left in his weapon or on his belt, but it gets to a point of diminishing returns after a bit.

Mostly because there are many other considerations for a carry gun than capacity. Size, how it feels with your hand, how well you shoot it, weight, whether or not you have a nice holster for it, what you wear on a daily.

Personally I find the FNP-9M and Glock 19/23, and also the 26/27, and CZ PCR, to be about perfect for a carry weapon. I've never had a .45 carry gun, though I used to bomb around with my CZ 97B once in awhile.

Nushif
April 24, 2011, 03:10 PM
Usually when this perennial comment is made around me it's by someone who has shown up for qualification.

While I'm not one to claim 15+ is the minimum or anything I do have to say something about this "qualification" notion.
In the Army, qualification focuses on slow fire from the prone, kneeling and standing.
What that measures in terms of being winded, hot, adrenaline high and getting shot back at, I don't quite know.
there's arguments to be made for both sides for sure. Slow, deliberate, aimed fire that hits the target is no doubt a very crucial skill to have as a shooter of anything, really. But often a good score in qualifying terms doesn't translate into a good performance under pressure, or while being somewhere other than a range ... and vice versa.

So ideally good training includes both. I just don't see that model a lot. Not that I've been actively looking or anything.

Zerodefect
April 24, 2011, 04:43 PM
Get both. Each has it's merits and it's place. Weather and garment have more to do with which I choose, not usually ammo quantity. Chances are I'm in good shape with either weapon type.

When I carry a 1911 I carry 1 or 2 extra mags (10 rounders). When I carry a Glock 23 I carry 0 or 1 extra mag (15 round g22 mag). Usually no extra mags with the Glock. Maybe I have carried a 1911 without a few times with no extra mags at all. It's a decision that varies day to day.

27 rounds is plenty. And that's my max loadout with a 1911. 17 is fine as well. The most I carry with my Glock 23 is 29. So the ammo bit is a complete non issue.

1911 mags are also much slimmer for CCW, and I feel way more confident in the power of .45acp. I dont care what jello says.

Ok, maybe if I get stuck working an area out in the gang ridden Amish neighborhoods, I'll strap on a Glock 23 and 2 G22 mags (44rounds total). Got to watch out for those miscreants in thier horse buggies.

Big_John1961
April 24, 2011, 04:46 PM
OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!

Lol

SwampWolf
April 24, 2011, 05:20 PM
Sheer capacity generally doesn't help offset a lack of knowledge, skill and ability in any of these things.

Nor does "sheer capacity" negate having "knowledge, skill and ability" in any of the things you talk about. Good training will teach a shooter to make every shot count, whether you're shooting a Chief's Special or a Glock. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because you are armed with a high-capacity pistol means that you have to employ "spray and pray" tactics. Proper training puts everything into proper perspective.

fastbolt
April 24, 2011, 05:37 PM
Nor does "sheer capacity" negate having "knowledge, skill and ability" in any of the things you talk about. Good training will teach a shooter to make every shot count, whether you're shooting a Chief's Special or a Glock. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because you are armed with a high-capacity pistol means that you have to employ "spray and pray" tactics. Proper training puts everything into proper perspective.

I agree.

Capacity ... (or caliber) ... doesn't "negate" the ability of someone to acquire the knowledge, skill and experience base needed to become well skilled & trained.

On the other hand, I've had more than my fair share of occasion to meet (and listen to) more lawfully armed folks who were seemingly more inclined to rely upon capacity, or some special ammunition, than were seemingly willing to invest extra time and effort involved in improving their skillset & mindset.

When you're dealing with knowledgeable, well-trained and experienced folks who are lawfully armed, the "capacity", "caliber" or "special ammunition" issue doesn't often seem to become as important of a topic. ;)

9mmepiphany
April 24, 2011, 05:56 PM
I appreciate that we have stayed, pretty much, away from a caliber war...please just let it go or start another thread to discuss that...because that isn't what this thread should be about. While the OP did mention caliber in the beginning, this is really a discussion about capacity...or at least it should be.

When I started in LE, we were issued a 6 shot revolver and authorized to carry two reloads for a total of 18 rounds, The normal off-duty carry was either a 5-shot (S&W J-frame) or 5-shot (Colt D-frame). I've gone through weapons platforms which have had capacities of 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 16 rounds, with off-duty platforms with capacities of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 16 rounds. You make your selections based on perceived need and usuage.

I went from a Sig 220 (8+1) in a courthouse to a Sig 226 (15+1) in the field, because 4 extra mags of .45 (44 rounds) was too bulky/heavy, compared to 2 extra mags of 9mm (46 rounds)...plus reload times would double (6sec vs. 3 sec)...and because my cover officers were closer indoors. I shot equally well with either platform

I used to carry a Star PD (the best small .45 at the time) as an off-duty weapon (without a reload :o ) because I thought 6+1 was plenty of rounds...until there was a local store takeover by 4 armed suspects. 7 shots divided between 4 suspects doesn't leave much room for error.

My minimum CCW now days is a Springfield EMP or Kahr CW9 which hold 8+1 and usually a spare magazine, or a Glock 19 without a spare.

It really is about evaluating your need, getting training and being proficient with your chosen platform

xiton
April 24, 2011, 06:07 PM
I'm going to go with the capacity argument. In 9, 40, or 45. The more bullets the better. You might be a hell of a shot at the range where there's no stress, no wind, no obstacles, but if SHTF, all of the above are going to be affecting your shots. There's a high miss rate in real world shootings due to this.

We'd all like to think that our training and nerves of steel will save us in a bad scenario, but if all else fails, more ammo just might save your life.

rich642z
April 24, 2011, 06:21 PM
PRACTICE,PRACTICE,and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PRACTICE. I myself in my own opinion have been in a gunfight with only an older Colt in .45 acp that was made back in 1925 and I used 230 grain ball ammo and the suspect died when I put a triangle shot between his eyes. He [suspect] was shooting at me with a .25 and hit my right arm once and I returned fire 3 times. 2 of the ball ammo went thru the back of his head and mushroomed nicely and the third round was just barely starting to come out.

rellascout
April 24, 2011, 06:21 PM
It really is about evaluating your need, getting training and being proficient with your chosen platform

Like so many of these types of questions it is really about your needs, your training and your ability to perform with the gun you have chosen. There is no universal answer. There is no 1 perfect gun for everyone there is no one prefect caliber.

Choose what works best for you. Train with it and hope you never have to use it in a life or death situation. I am always puzzled by why someone would be swayed one way or another based on these internet discussions. What could I possibly state here via my laptop that would change your mind?

rellascout
April 24, 2011, 06:23 PM
I'm going to go with the capacity argument. In 9, 40, or 45. The more bullets the better. You might be a hell of a shot at the range where there's no stress, no wind, no obstacles, but if SHTF, all of the above are going to be affecting your shots. There's a high miss rate in real world shootings due to this.

We'd all like to think that our training and nerves of steel will save us in a bad scenario, but if all else fails, more ammo just might save your life.

Spray and pray.... :what: LOL just kidding.

9mmepiphany
April 24, 2011, 06:30 PM
We'd all like to think that our training and nerves of steel will save us in a bad scenario, but if all else fails, more ammo just might save your life.

Not to mock you, but that was the reason that my old department used when they wanted us to all carry the same gun and ammo...we could share ammo if a fellow officer ran out.

Like I would give you some of my ammo, because you couldn't hit anything with all of yours :neener:

Training will save you...I've seen it proven more than once. Just like a lack of training or poor training will put you at the mercy of luck

KimberUltra
April 24, 2011, 06:54 PM
I have both a 9 and a .45 I alternate for CC. I've been told to carry the largest caliber you can adequately shoot. If I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with my .45 than i wouldn't feel comfortable carrying it.

Capacity isn't high on my list of importance. Comfort for me is big, and size. Nothing I've shot has felt better in my hands than my Kimber Ultra Carry.

This next part is only my opinion but if someone tried to mug me and I pull out my .45, the first thing they are going to look at is the tip of a hollow point staring at them. That's more intimidating I think than a little pocket shooter therefore intimidation may lower your chances of having to use any rounds, let alone 15.

I also have no way of knowing how well I will shoot under a high stress situation, so having more rounds may be a good thing as well, but I prefer to believe that even a couple not so great .45 shots will do as much as a handful of well placed smaller caliber shots.

EddieNFL
April 24, 2011, 07:12 PM
Like I would give you some of my ammo, because you couldn't hit anything with all of yours

Priceless!

dprice3844444
April 24, 2011, 07:15 PM
well,on the 45 the basic is 7,1 round might be the decisive factor

daorhgih
April 24, 2011, 07:17 PM
... "than" and ''then". Dao.

JohnBiltz
April 24, 2011, 07:36 PM
You don't have to have a 16 shot 9mm to do spray and pray, it can be done with a 8 shot .45 as well. You just run out of bullets faster.

Axel Larson
April 24, 2011, 07:44 PM
For the record I do carry a Para GI Expert 1911, but the thing I like is that it is single stack is easy to carry feels nicer in my hand and the 1911 platform for me does point naturally. But there is nothing wrong with higher capacity handguns if that is what works for you. If do prefer 9mm there are 1911s that are chambered in it and are double stacked.

gbelleh
April 24, 2011, 07:46 PM
if someone tried to mug me and I pull out my .45, the first thing they are going to look at is the tip of a hollow point staring at them. That's more intimidating I think than a little pocket shooter therefore intimidation may lower your chances of having to use any rounds, let alone 15.

Even a .22 looks like a cannon when it's pointed at you by an adversary. I don't believe anyone's going to laugh off a small 9mm or .380 pistol that's pointed at them by someone who means business.

Drail
April 24, 2011, 07:49 PM
Caliber and capacity are not as important as where you hit. Practice to hit and don't worry about the other stuff.

RockyMtnTactical
April 24, 2011, 07:50 PM
Just depends. That question is way too general though.

I own .45 1911's and 9mm Glocks. They both have a purpose and good uses.

CharlesT
April 24, 2011, 08:59 PM
Am I the only one who thinks caliber doesn't matter?

Obviously I am not going to war with a .22 but any decent shooter should be able to put someone down with anything. Even if they just get knocked down it's enough time for you to exit the situation.

IMHO

xiton
April 24, 2011, 09:05 PM
Not to mock you, but that was the reason that my old department used when they wanted us to all carry the same gun and ammo...we could share ammo if a fellow officer ran out.

Like I would give you some of my ammo, because you couldn't hit anything with all of yours :neener:

Training will save you...I've seen it proven more than once. Just like a lack of training or poor training will put you at the mercy of luck

I feel like it depends on the circumstance and usage. A LEO is already going to have multiple magazines with them, so the 8 vs 16 round scenario is not important. I don't expect to see many US citizens with 2-4 magazines along with their locked and loaded pistol for CCW. Not unless they plan on going to war every single day out on the streets. Perhaps in another country this might be more common, but I might question the sanity of (non-LEO) certain individuals that may be carrying a box of ammo on their hips for defensive use here in the US.

With that said, for typical CCW purposes, especially if you're not going to be carrying a separate magazine, I think a larger mag loaded in the pistol is going to be your best bet and definitely covers most all situations you'll find yourself in as an average person.

gglass
April 24, 2011, 09:27 PM
Just end the debate with a 15+1 capacity .40 S&W. More energy on target than the 9mm or .45 ACP, and your capacity does not leave you wanting.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/346/9mm40sw45acp.jpg

gbelleh
April 24, 2011, 09:30 PM
Carrying a 15+1 .40 is great, but might be a little difficult for me in the middle of summer.

Manco
April 24, 2011, 10:26 PM
We sort of went over the same topic in the Revolvers section just recently--mainly how much capacity is needed for defensive purposes. My answer is still the same: I'd rather have more rounds than I would need than less. There are other factors to consider as individuals, to be sure, but that about covers capacity for me. Even if I can make each shot count, as I intend to, multiple shots on target is better than fewer if all I have is a handgun as opposed to a shotgun. If there is only one target, then I won't need many rounds, but if there are multiple targets, then I'd want to have a bunch on hand--within reason, although 7 per magazine is kind of on the low side, especially since I'd prefer to avoid reloading if possible.

Am I the only one who thinks caliber doesn't matter?

It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it may make a difference in some cases. A good rule of thumb is to shoot the biggest caliber that you're comfortable, accurate, and fast with, and then bump it down if capacity is an issue for you.

Obviously I am not going to war with a .22

Well, I guess caliber does matter, then. ;)

but any decent shooter should be able to put someone down with anything

That's right, even with a .22, although they won't have as good a chance against bones that may get in the way, for example, and will have a somewhat reduced chance of hitting something vital. Then again, if such a light caliber makes some folks better shooters, then it may well be worth the trade-offs.

The general question here is whether a larger caliber is worth the trade-off of a smaller capacity, and it's a difficult one to answer because the former only helps a little while the latter is rarely an issue for civilians. Maybe that's one reason .40 S&W has become fairly popular even outside of law enforcement--those who can't decide might as well split the difference and be done with it. :)

withdrawn34
April 24, 2011, 10:36 PM
Hey everyone,

What advantage does a 16shot 9mm have over a 30 rd AR in .308? Why doesn't everyone carry on instead of their dinky little pistol? I mean, how can I engage and destroy targets 500 yards? Sure, it may be unlikely, but just in case, you know? I may have to lay down suppressive fire while my elite response team moves into position to corner and neutralize the threat with the kind of precision for which I train them and myself.

mr_goodbomb
April 24, 2011, 10:44 PM
Jesus, has anyone here that isn't a police officer ever laid down "suppressive fire?"

klash545
April 24, 2011, 10:47 PM
none

Hunt480
April 24, 2011, 10:48 PM
Just end the debate with a 15+1 capacity .40 S&W. More energy on target than the 9mm or .45 ACP, and your capacity does not leave you wanting.

Thats why I like the 40... good graph gglass

jojo200517
April 24, 2011, 11:09 PM
Since we are having yet another 45 vs 9mm thread i'll play along.

Original question, my answer...
BIGGER HOLES IN THE TARGET. I like poking bigger holes in my targets. Easier to see hits on the paper, and the blood runs out better. The last one could be argued that it runs out MORE holes just as fast. Guess its just a personal preference. Oh and probably a thinner grip profile in the .45 than the 9mm here if that matters to anyone.

Now to answer paul34's question...
1. I could hide the 9mm in my pants
2. I'd get harassed a hell of a lot less for carrying a 9mm than a .308 AR
3. Everyone knows that .30-06 offers way more than .308 and wayyy wayyyyy more than .223 and you only needed 8 rounds of those in your M1 Garand (aww poo we went full circle back to the real argument of is 8 rounds of massiveness better than many more rounds of tinyness)

9mmepiphany
April 25, 2011, 01:20 AM
Jesus, has anyone here that isn't a police officer ever laid down "suppressive fire?"
YouTube is full of videos of suppressive fire in robberies and bars...I don't think they meant it to be, but that is what it ended up looking like.

I've actually seen the results of two instances. A husband and wife got mad at each other over who was going to get the last beer in the house...did I mention they were drunk...and each pulled their own handgun to settle the arguement. they got behind the furniture to trade shots at each other.

The husband later said, "I kept shooting to keep her head down, so I could get out of the room"

cipher
April 25, 2011, 01:21 AM
From my perspective, I know that unless I go into some kinda crazed mode and start spraying everywhere I'm going to pull out and lay 3 to 5 rounds in my aggressors face in a gunfight. Probably land me in jail afterward, but that's that.

What I'm most worried about is incapacitating the enemy as fast as possible. People tend to get leery when they see me drill the head in IDPA matches, but at least I don't miss. My biggest concern is having the rounds not penetrate, so a 9mm is out of the question. I know people can point to evidence that a 9mm, or even a 22lr can penetrate a human skull, but I've heard enough about glancing blows to make me want a larger caliber. To address the magazine issue, I plan on upgrading to a 10mm from my 1911 in the near future.

I think what matters the most is having the training to act correctly and accurately in a situation. to that end I think 1911's, while not being technically more effective in a combat situation compared to DA pistols, encourage proficiency. It's quality vs. quantity. There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols. The same thing that makes people choose 1911s is the same thing that will make people lethal in a real situation. At least that's what I think.

Nushif
April 25, 2011, 01:48 AM
There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols.

I'd say the reason people use large caliber guns in the competitions the US has is because the dice are loaded for them.
When you, for instance get full points for touching a ring why not lob a bullet that potentially can touch three of them?

Whenever we talk about "people use x in y" while talking about the merits of a universal tool we have to keep more than our local surroundings in mind. and I can assure you ... worldwide there are much, much more small calibers used than ye sacred 1911 in .45.

So yes. There is a reason *you* don't see smaller calibers used for self defense purposes.

JohnBiltz
April 25, 2011, 01:53 AM
I can not think what the virtue is in having less capacity in relation to a gun fight.

More rounds already in the pistol is better than more rounds on your waist or in a pocket.
Any gunfight you are in will never be described later as average.

nathan
April 25, 2011, 01:54 AM
It s cool to carry a second magazine in a pouch. Cool to reload too.

nathan
April 25, 2011, 02:01 AM
Since ive shot the 40 SW and carried the G 23 since 2007 , no more 9mms for me.

9mmepiphany
April 25, 2011, 02:07 AM
There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols.

You must have overlooked Dave Sevigny who has taken numerous titles with his Glock 34/35 in both Production and Limited (against 1911s) and Tori Nonaka who does it with her G34 :p

mljdeckard
April 25, 2011, 09:40 AM
I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.

DeepSouth
April 25, 2011, 10:48 AM
For me I only carry 5+1, I came to the conclusion that needing more than 6 rounds is highly unlikely. Then I decided that given the unlikelihood of needing of needing more rounds I was willing to risk running out after 6 rounds in order to be more comfortable/convenient. All of us have made the exact same decision, just with different numbers.

You never know beforehand how many rounds you might need. If you carry a 2 shot derringer or a Five-Seven with 20 rounds and two spare mags, you could possibly need one more shot to save your life. It's a gamble and yes the more you carry the better your odds, but after the first few rounds the difference is minimal, like I said I trust my life to 6 shots, someday I may need 7 and some day you may need 17 or 34 or 87 or....I think you get it.

I also decided to carry a 45. Why? Glad you asked. Mainly I just like the caliber, a lot, I own more 45's than every other pistol caliber I have combined, so that also had a bearing. There is also the fact that if placed in the exact same spot of a smaller caliber it will more effectively stop the treat.

TonyT
April 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
p;iece of meat,
I agree with your view. Personally with the current models available I would not carry any pistol with an extenal hammer, external or grip safeties. For defensive purposes I want a pistol which is ready to fire when removed from concealment and has the least number of places to hang up on clothing etc. I carried a Glock-36 more recently switched to a Kahr PM-9 in a pocket holster.

X-Rap
April 25, 2011, 11:37 AM
I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.
__________________

Such assumptions, what do you say about the young punk??? who has put 10,000 rds through his G17 vs. the cheap old thug??? who bought his 5 shot and still has most of the first box of ammo.
Tell us how you came up with this logic?

Manco
April 25, 2011, 12:39 PM
I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.

I know what you're saying about skill being more important than capacity, but what's wrong with having both? Having more rounds doesn't necessarily mean that skilled shooters will waste ammo, although it may allow them to expend a few more rounds to help ensure a quick stop (without worrying as much about running dry).

Carl N. Brown
April 25, 2011, 12:43 PM
Single stack .45 magazines don't require a seperate loader or Superman thumbs.

amd6547
April 25, 2011, 02:43 PM
neither do glock mags

JTQ
April 25, 2011, 02:52 PM
gglass,

Those are great bar graphs. Thanks posting them. It is great to be able to visualize the differences.

However, if you throw a .22 LR and .30-30 Win. on the same graphs, the scale will change enough to make the 9MM, .40S&W, and .45ACP appear practically the same.

millertyme
April 25, 2011, 03:55 PM
The likeliness that you'll ever need the gun you're carrying is slim enough as it is. The likeliness that you'll need every round in your weapon if you ever need it is probably pretty substantial. Since we can all reasonably agree that the differences in stopping power and effectiveness in modern 9mm, 40SW, and 45ACP are negligible, how great of hindrance would it be to have twice as much of the ability to stop than not. If your odds of needing your weapon to confront a threat is 1,000,000:1 and you still carry, then if the odds of you needing more than 8 rounds in the minuscule chance that you need to produce your weapon is 10:1, 5:1, 2:1, whatever, then shouldn't you exercise the same level of caution? I would rather not have to worry about reloading than have to reload.

Yes, we all know accuracy is what's going to make the difference here, but you have more chances to be accurate with a higher capacity firearm, if you get my drift.

Drail
April 25, 2011, 06:05 PM
Carl N Brown - very good point sir. I have to laugh when I see people that can't load their high cap magazines without a "device" at the range that allows them to crush their mag spring into submission to get those extra rounds jammed in. Anyone who thinks you "need" a high cap magazine needs to watch Rob Leatham do a mag change with a single stack.

mljdeckard
April 25, 2011, 06:32 PM
The fact that he survived long enough to become old is compelling in and of itself.

DeepSouth
April 25, 2011, 06:58 PM
If your odds of needing your weapon to confront a threat is 1,000,000:1 and you still carry, then if the odds of you needing more than 8 rounds in the minuscule chance that you need to produce your weapon is 10:1, 5:1, 2:1, whatever, then shouldn't you exercise the same level of caution? I would rather not have to worry about reloading than have to reload.

This argument is lacking. I am willing to carry a gun even though the odds of needing it are 1mil to 1. I am not willing to carry a larger, heavier gun because I am willing to try the odds (say 10mil to 1) that I may need more than six shots.

Also for the record I do not worry about having to reload, while with this line of thinking you should, regardless of round count, because you never know how many shots you will need. I believe my 6 shots will effectively stop a threat most of the time, but certainly not all of the time and that is a gamble I am willing to take. The same would be true if I carried 100 rounds, that would take care of most, but not all situations.


There is no magic number of rounds we need, it is always a compromise. More rounds would always be better but we have to put a limit somewhere. And (IMO) once you get over about five rounds the odds of needing more goes down fast enough to justify the compromise. Obviously other people are thinking different.

It boils down to personal opinion/preference. We all come to the same point. "once you get over ________ rounds the odds of needing more goes down fast enough to justify the compromise"

GRAPE-DRANK
April 25, 2011, 07:02 PM
Some 9mm bullets may expand upon impact, but a .45 never shrinks.

I have seen more gunshot victims and shell casings than I can recall. The 9mm rounds (I have seen) left clean, almost precision wounds. The .45's (I have seen) left sloppy and nasty wounds, often times did not exit. I have seen one .45 Colt (cowboy load) that left a fist sized wound, but did not knock an assailant down although his insides were twisted beyond repair and he succumbed to his injuries.


Here's some food for thought, internet is filled with people that have ideas about the 9mm vs. .45 acp. Every gunshot victim I have ever seen was in severe agony or dead.

Only one time did I ever see the end result of a gunfight where I was certain there was a reload. That was .45 Long Colt vs. .38 (I think it was a .38). The bad guy decided he needed to reload and the good guy decided to use his gigantic SAA revolver as a club delivering the final blow to the bad guy which finished the gun fight.

I think you guys put way too much thought in this. I don't think gun fights take as many rounds as you all may think they do.

cipher
April 25, 2011, 07:25 PM
Did you just say you saw a handgun wound that left a hole the size of a fist? And it didn't incapacitate?

I'm gonna give you benefit of the doubt and assume you're some kind of narcotics officer or something, since you said that you've watched gunfight after gunfight and even know the calibers involved. I'll admit I get all my terminal ballistics information from reading at a desk, but grapefruit sized holes form handgun loads sounds like an old wives' tale to me.

Although I suppose a .223 is really only a 44 magnum out a longer barrel...I once saw a .223 gunshot wound that hit the femur and blew a grapefruit-sized hole out the top of the kneecap. Maybe that "cowboy" load fragmented a rib and the energy was absorbed instead of overpenetrating.

GRAPE-DRANK
April 25, 2011, 08:29 PM
I edited my post. I added "end result" before "gunfight." I have never seen a gunfight, just the end result.


I'm not going to post my credentials, it is up to you to decide if I'm full of it or not.

Yes, I put my eyes directly on a wound the size of a fist, did not see an exit wound (did not examine the bad guy's back, but I didn't see anything consistent with an exit wound) and I know for a fact that the wound did not stop the bad guy in his tracks. I can't tell you how big the hole from the bullet was, but the entire wound (surrounding tissues) was the size of a fist.

millertyme
April 25, 2011, 08:47 PM
I carry 115gr JHP's in my pistol. 16 of them is about the same weight as 8 230gr rounds of .45ACP. If I carried a polymer pistol your pistol would probably outweigh mine even though you have half as many rounds as I do. Although I don't carry a polymer pistol there's a good chance my pistol weighs nearly the same as an 8 round .45ACP pistol like a 1911. Again, your effectiveness with your pistol is your problem. If you think you're going to be fine with only 8 rounds of whatever that's your hope and your opinion. You're not going to invalidate my opinion with your belief that 8 is all you figure you'll need. Bullet for bullet you will have to reload more often than someone shooting equally as well with a larger magazine. I never said I wouldn't worry about having to reload, only that I prefer to not have to worry about it. If all I need is 8, no worries, I have sixteen in the mag. But if I get to 7 and someone is still on their feet I would start to worry about it if I only had one left.

I'm sure we all shoot paper just fine. I imagine it gets a little more difficult to hit what we're shooting at when it's shooting back.

bbuddtec
April 25, 2011, 08:56 PM
Wait, I know this one.... the 8 round .45 is legal in NY< ... the 16 round 9mm is not.

But if I lived in free America, 16 rounds can take care of more BG's in a gang...

rounds=firepower.

GRAPE-DRANK
April 25, 2011, 09:17 PM
Let's not forget that a 1911 is very accurate. Has lightening fast double taps. Unless you're an expert marksman it has a more controllable first shot than a DA/SA.

I carry a 9mm compact 12+1 DAO with subsonic 147 grain on my person for self-defense. If I needed a combat handgun, I'm using a 1911.

The best 9mm +p bullet may expand, but the slowest hardball .45 will never shrink.

cipher
April 25, 2011, 10:09 PM
Bah, I wasn't trying to say you made it up, it just didn't sound right. Since you said there was no exit wound I guess you're saying it was a bulge where the exit wound would have been if the bullet penetrated. First time I ever heard of a medium powered handgun cartridge doing that kind of damage, but it's not like I have real world experience; you learn something new everyday.

Back on topic, I agree that the 1911 is more accurate for that first shot. maybe it doesn't matter in most practical situations, but I see this all as part of a duel between quality vs. quantity. That "8 shot .45" (read 1911) that the guys is talking down on is a fully customizable piece of craftsmanship, which can help inspire an attitude towards shooting that builds character. I'm not saying these modern guns are inferior, but they're made (for the most part) in a different spirit.

Carry gun keeps rusting? Well, do I trade it in and buy 2 plastic guns, or save my money and coat the damn thing with a lifetime Melonite finish? Only got 8 rounds to finish a gunfught? I suppose we can either load smaller bullets or we could practice Mozambique drills till it's instinct.

Obviously there's shooters out there that do everything 1911 competition shooters do with less equipment, as epiphany pointed out, but when somebody brings up this type of question I assume that people who take their advice are more liable to draw up "cheap" attitudes towards guns and other things in life. You can call me a snob if you like, I'll live.

9mmepiphany
April 25, 2011, 10:18 PM
Let's not forget that a 1911 is very accurate. Has lightening fast double taps. Unless you're an expert marksman it has a more controllable first shot than a DA/SA.

While I am indeed a fan of the 1911, this might be overstating it's abilities a bit...especially when speaking of production guns.
1. there are many guns as accurate as the 1911
2. it isn't any faster in controlled pairs than other pistols...the speed that followup shots can be fired is dependent on one's ability to see the sights on target
3. you don't need to be an expert marksman to control a DA first shot...there is no speed advantage to any trigger action to an accurate first shot. I worked with students and had them shooting more accurately with a DA first shot, than a SA first shot, in just a couple of hours

stinger 327
April 26, 2011, 01:26 PM
OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!:rolleyes::banghead::banghead::banghead:
I remember this was a very BIG thing in the 80's. 9MM vs. .45 ACP just like revolver vs. auto.

stinger 327
April 26, 2011, 01:27 PM
While I am indeed a fan of the 1911, this might be overstating it's abilities a bit...especially when speaking of production guns.
1. there are many guns as accurate as the 1911
2. it isn't any faster in controlled pairs than other pistols...the speed that followup shots can be fired is dependent on one's ability to see the sights on target
3. you don't need to be an expert marksman to control a DA first shot...there is no speed advantage to any trigger action to an accurate first shot. I worked with students and had them shooting more accurately with a DA first shot, than a SA first shot, in just a couple of hours
Why are 1911's so expensive for such an old gun? Do they still make these brand new?

stinger 327
April 26, 2011, 01:28 PM
Let's not forget that a 1911 is very accurate. Has lightening fast double taps. Unless you're an expert marksman it has a more controllable first shot than a DA/SA.

I carry a 9mm compact 12+1 DAO with subsonic 147 grain on my person for self-defense. If I needed a combat handgun, I'm using a 1911.

The best 9mm +p bullet may expand, but the slowest hardball .45 will never shrink.
.45 doesn't need to expand as it still makes a big hole.

stinger 327
April 26, 2011, 01:31 PM
Some 9mm bullets may expand upon impact, but a .45 never shrinks.

I have seen more gunshot victims and shell casings than I can recall. The 9mm rounds (I have seen) left clean, almost precision wounds. The .45's (I have seen) left sloppy and nasty wounds, often times did not exit. I have seen one .45 Colt (cowboy load) that left a fist sized wound, but did not knock an assailant down although his insides were twisted beyond repair and he succumbed to his injuries.


Here's some food for thought, internet is filled with people that have ideas about the 9mm vs. .45 acp. Every gunshot victim I have ever seen was in severe agony or dead.

Only one time did I ever see the end result of a gunfight where I was certain there was a reload. That was .45 Long Colt vs. .38 (I think it was a .38). The bad guy decided he needed to reload and the good guy decided to use his gigantic SAA revolver as a club delivering the final blow to the bad guy which finished the gun fight.

I think you guys put way too much thought in this. I don't think gun fights take as many rounds as you all may think they do.
In shootings don't more people survive 9mm hits vs. .45 or .357?

X-Rap
April 26, 2011, 01:59 PM
The truth and most important part of this discussion is still to have a gun in the first place and be able to use it.
At times due to dress I carry a 380 or J frame 38 but I am at the most ease with my G19 with spare G17 mag, more so than with a G22,23,32,20 or 21, 1911s, K&N frames.
I can always put more rounds into a smaller group faster with the G19 than the others I have available to me, good HP ammo only enhances what I already like in the gun.

45Fever
April 26, 2011, 02:07 PM
9mm and 45acp both with good quality jhp ammo produce the same results with PROPER SHOT PLACEMENT. I know you will say I'm a idiot and don't know what I'm talking about but have any of you ever shot anyone before with anything? Yes I have doing 2 tours in Iraq. I once shot a man 2x to the chest with 9mm fmj and yes he dropped to his knees, his AK fell from his hands and then he slumped forward dead. My POS AR jammed from sand for the 3rd time so I had to engage with my M9.

I carry a G17 now back home and don't worry about big bullets, I concern myself more with capacity and accuracy.

SIGLBER
April 26, 2011, 04:22 PM
The whole problem with all these type of threads is that it doesn't and can't take into account one of the variables that we can't control. The person being shot. Each shooting is a unique event. The things a bullet should do are well documented by the F.B.I.. A bullet must penetrate deep enough to disrupt vital organs (brain, heart, major arteries and blood vessels...) no matter what the angle it is fired at, it should expand to give the highest possible wound volume, and so on. The shooter must of course do his/her part and place the bullets well and repeat as necessary.
But is the person highly motivated, drugged/drunk, thin/heavy, muscled/fat, and so on? In the book "Thank God I had a Gun" one of the chapters deals with a man who shoots two bad guys that break into his hote room to rob him. He fires on them until his (Colt Commander .45) gun is empty. Once empty he ends up having to fight with one of the men who is very large. He uses his gun as a club. He figures he must have missed. Eventually the bad guy falls out. Turns out one of the .45 fmj rounds had severed his Aorta. The guy was dead just didn't know it. You coulddn't hope for much better shot placement.
Handguns kill by shutting down the CNS (brain or spine) or dropping the blood pressure too low to sustain life. It can take awhile for a man to bleed out. Each person has to make up their own mind which they would have more confidence in. Less big bullets or more slightly smaller ones. No matter how you cut it .451 vs. .355 or so is not that big of a difference. And frontal area is what does the damage in a handgun sized round. I just can't help but think if he would of had a 16 round 9mm he would of still been shooting and not wrestling. But as I said each must pick their own poison.
I've decided I want lots of bullets in my handgun. Their is no negative to lots of rounds if you shoot well. As far as choice goes the rest of the world and in 1985 the U.S. Military decided that more rounds was a better choice. If I'm a downed pilot with only a pistol do I want 15-16 rounds with the mag in my pistol? Or do I want 30-31 in my pistol? I know what I would choose.

NMGonzo
April 26, 2011, 04:29 PM
Today I felt carrying the 9mm.

It has 16 rounds and one in the chamber.

I don't even carry a spare magazine for either of them.

Water-Man
April 26, 2011, 04:35 PM
All conjecture and speculation. Throw in some BS too. Carry what you're comfortable with and be done with it.

Pietro Beretta
April 26, 2011, 04:38 PM
The .45 is younger than the 9mm... I don't know man. This is going to get out of control quick, just close this thread ;)

Remo223
April 26, 2011, 04:42 PM
The fact that he survived long enough to become old is compelling in and of itself.
Old guys tend to not give a ****. Therefore they don't get rattled nerves like a youngster does. The old guy just won't get shaky or get second thoughts. That's got nothing to do with skill or training. It's just life.

stinger 327
April 26, 2011, 05:31 PM
The whole problem with all these type of threads is that it doesn't and can't take into account one of the variables that we can't control. The person being shot. Each shooting is a unique event. The things a bullet should do are well documented by the F.B.I.. A bullet must penetrate deep enough to disrupt vital organs (brain, heart, major arteries and blood vessels...) no matter what the angle it is fired at, it should expand to give the highest possible wound volume, and so on. The shooter must of course do his/her part and place the bullets well and repeat as necessary.
But is the person highly motivated, drugged/drunk, thin/heavy, muscled/fat, and so on? In the book "Thank God I had a Gun" one of the chapters deals with a man who shoots two bad guys that break into his hote room to rob him. He fires on them until his (Colt Commander .45) gun is empty. Once empty he ends up having to fight with one of the men who is very large. He uses his gun as a club. He figures he must have missed. Eventually the bad guy falls out. Turns out one of the .45 fmj rounds had severed his Aorta. The guy was dead just didn't know it. You coulddn't hope for much better shot placement.
Handguns kill by shutting down the CNS (brain or spine) or dropping the blood pressure too low to sustain life. It can take awhile for a man to bleed out. Each person has to make up their own mind which they would have more confidence in. Less big bullets or more slightly smaller ones. No matter how you cut it .451 vs. .355 or so is not that big of a difference. And frontal area is what does the damage in a handgun sized round. I just can't help but think if he would of had a 16 round 9mm he would of still been shooting and not wrestling. But as I said each must pick their own poison.
I've decided I want lots of bullets in my handgun. Their is no negative to lots of rounds if you shoot well. As far as choice goes the rest of the world and in 1985 the U.S. Military decided that more rounds was a better choice. If I'm a downed pilot with only a pistol do I want 15-16 rounds with the mag in my pistol? Or do I want 30-31 in my pistol? I know what I would choose.
Winchester's PDX-1 bullet.

harmon rabb
April 26, 2011, 06:08 PM
Why are 1911's so expensive for such an old gun? Do they still make these brand new?

practically every gun company makes an entire line of 1911's. springfield armory, taurus, smith and wesson, remington (single model), ruger (single model), kimber, colt. if you get into smaller manufacturers, STI, RIA, Wilson, Nighthawk, Baer, Ed Brown, to name a few.

the 1911 is one of the most popular "brand new" models of pistol sold in the us.

draxxusx
April 26, 2011, 06:35 PM
Check these out, it may make it easier to compare accurately :D

http://img841.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110426at530.png

http://img5.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110426at531.png

Darebear
April 26, 2011, 07:53 PM
Hey I don't know if anyone has thrown this out there yet. Isn't it a good idea to always carry a spare mag whether its 8 rounds of 45 or 15 rounds or 9mm? Reason being for double feed malfunctions.

Even though I been to two NRA classes I tend to watch alot of secondary training material to supplement the classes I take... and most of the material teaches that it's a good idea to carry atleast one extra mag for various reasons... funny thing is Magpul teaches the theory of one extra mag for double feed malfunctions and "tactical" reloads. Reloading even though you have rounds in the current mag... just getting a fresh mag in. They never simulated threats and dumped a whole clip then reloaded. I don't know if they are saying that you'll never have to empty a whole clip into a threat but that seemed to be the reason for them to carry the extra mag.

michiganfan
April 26, 2011, 08:05 PM
Well said Tmann

Strykervet
April 26, 2011, 08:19 PM
COMPROMISE!!!

A 10mm auto, Glock G20, will carry 15 rounds and similar to greater ballistic performance than either 9mm or .45. The G29 carries 10 rounds...

Not to mention, the G29 will use G20 mags! So now you have a conceable (I conceal one everday until summer when I switch out with a G27) pistol that can have various velocity/weight hollowpoints, and a 15rd. backup mag of 200gr. FMJs, because hey, if the fight goes on past the ten hollowpoints, the FMJs may be welcome...

My opinion is the 10mm is the round that killed the radio star. It is having a big comeback. Capacity of the 9mm, while hitting like a .45... Not to mention the ability to load to .40S&W pressures... What more could you want?

harmon rabb
April 26, 2011, 10:05 PM
COMPROMISE!!!

A 10mm auto, Glock G20, will carry 15 rounds and similar to greater ballistic performance than either 9mm or .45. The G29 carries 10 rounds...

Not to mention, the G29 will use G20 mags! So now you have a conceable (I conceal one everday until summer when I switch out with a G27) pistol that can have various velocity/weight hollowpoints, and a 15rd. backup mag of 200gr. FMJs, because hey, if the fight goes on past the ten hollowpoints, the FMJs may be welcome...

My opinion is the 10mm is the round that killed the radio star. It is having a big comeback. Capacity of the 9mm, while hitting like a .45... Not to mention the ability to load to .40S&W pressures... What more could you want?

uh, 10mm has the capacity of 40, not 9mm. otherwise, i can't argue with you too much. only problem with the 10mm is that so few guns are chambered in it. i don't like glocks. i can haz xd in 10mm? or fnx? or sig 226? plz?

Leaky Waders
April 27, 2011, 12:23 AM
Google Sgt Alvin York to see how many attackers can be defeated with a 1911...

Skylerbone
April 27, 2011, 12:55 AM
Again, accuracy is final. Lethal shots will still be lethal whether from 9mm, 10mm or .45 ACP. None of them is a sledge hammer and none will blast an assailant backward and off his feet.

Choose a platform you are comfortable and familiar with and others will do the same.

The 1911 IS an antiquated design by virtue of it's age but that does not deter it's effectiveness nor detract from it's virtue as a proven combat platform. Which modern designs are superior or inferior may be debated ad nauseam. If you cannot operate it and keep it running it ceases to hold any advantage regardless of design.

As to the OP's original question, assuming lethality is equal (given shot placement) there is no advantage to 8 rounds of .45 over 16 in 9mm. If you are a poor shot and slow, there is always the potential of having your pistol's final rounds used against you. That brings us full circle to accuracy is final.

thefamcnaj
April 27, 2011, 01:00 AM
If you could figure out how to conceal it, you could carry a G26,19, or 17 with a 32 round mag. They even make a 24 or 25 round mag (45acp) for the g30 and 21

GLOOB
April 27, 2011, 04:15 AM
A 45 will probably make bigger holes and might break some bones that a 9mm will not. If this makes a difference in incapacitation speed, then it could save your life. A 45 will shoot through certain barriers with less deflection. A 45 HP that doesn't open up will still do what it's supposed to.

And if the confrontation ends with less than 9 rounds fired, there's not much downside.

The next question is why 6 shots of .357....

Nevmavrick
April 27, 2011, 10:43 AM
Either way, it looks like 8 dead zombies to me! LOL
Have fun,
Gene

stinger 327
April 27, 2011, 12:49 PM
A 45 will probably make bigger holes and might break some bones that a 9mm will not. If this makes a difference in incapacitation speed, then it could save your life. A 45 will shoot through certain barriers with less deflection. A 45 HP that doesn't open up will still do what it's supposed to.

And if the confrontation ends with less than 9 rounds fired, there's not much downside.

The next question is why 6 shots of .357....
I agree this is very true. If .45 HP fails it will still make a large hole.

PabloJ
April 27, 2011, 02:03 PM
Low recoil per slug weight, low Po, excellent accuracy potential,...... make the .45ACP about the best anit-personnel side-arm caliber one can possibly get.

SwampWolf
May 2, 2011, 06:17 PM
Old guys tend to not give a ****. Therefore they don't get rattled nerves like a youngster does. The old guy just won't get shaky or get second thoughts. That's got nothing to do with skill or training. It's just life.

What a gross, overly-stereotypical misstatement! Getting "rattled" easily or "shaky" when stressed has little to do with age (or gender for that matter) and everything to do with a person's state of mind, skill and degree of training. And that's just life.

Zerodefect
May 2, 2011, 09:21 PM
Hey I don't know if anyone has thrown this out there yet. Isn't it a good idea to always carry a spare mag whether its 8 rounds of 45 or 15 rounds or 9mm? Reason being for double feed malfunctions.

Even though I been to two NRA classes I tend to watch alot of secondary training material to supplement the classes I take... and most of the material teaches that it's a good idea to carry atleast one extra mag for various reasons... funny thing is Magpul teaches the theory of one extra mag for double feed malfunctions and "tactical" reloads. Reloading even though you have rounds in the current mag... just getting a fresh mag in. They never simulated threats and dumped a whole clip then reloaded. I don't know if they are saying that you'll never have to empty a whole clip into a threat but that seemed to be the reason for them to carry the extra mag.

You can hang on to the mag you remove in a doublefeed. I don't think Magpul would argue against retaining the old mag if you have time to drop it in a pocket.

But thier training assumes you don't have time. They're trianing for the worst case senerio. So tossing the mag, and reloading with a fresh mag would normally be better. The fight will be over by the time you get to the bottom of the next mag anyways.

Theyre trying to teach speed when your guns down or you run dry. But when your not in a hurry and get a break, allways top off. If you aren't fighting, your reloading etc.

It's allways a good idea to have a second mag no matter what gun. But I do often carry without an extra mag with my Glock 23. I'm not the least concerned about malfs with that gun. Even if I do get one, I just clear it at 200mph and move on.

It's a decsion you have to make. My CCW kit changes every single day. Sometimes I carry more, sometimes less.

cipher
May 3, 2011, 07:32 PM
Get a 10mm and call it a day. same capacity as a .40.

mljdeckard
May 3, 2011, 07:46 PM
But then the question would become, can you hit as many times and as accurately with a 10mm as you can with something smaller?

cipher
May 3, 2011, 08:21 PM
Good question. I started shooting with a .45, so it doesn't seem heavy to me. Maybe someone that shoots 9mm would hate it. They could always download it to .45 ACP levels and get the extra magazine capacity with the same power.

Sheepdog1968
May 3, 2011, 09:18 PM
Hmmm, this feels like a flash back to 1991 when I had these discussions with others. No firm conclusions reached then showing a definite advanatge one way or the other. 20 years later, nothing has changed in terms of the arguments or data to sway anyone either way. I take that back, there are some 13+1 45 options and some 20+1 (whatever the XDM 9 mm is now) I think that didn't exist before,

millertyme
May 3, 2011, 11:36 PM
Funny how long pissing matches can go on. The internet certainly has helped in that regard. Now we can have international pissing matches instead of gunshop and bar pissing matches.

9mmepiphany
May 3, 2011, 11:53 PM
Well...when you figure that the OP hasn't been inclined to comment since the first day of this thread, I'm going to consider the subject covered

If you enjoyed reading about "what advantage does an 8-shot .45 have over a 16shot 9mm??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!