Spinoff- which preferred caliber for ____ gun?

I tend to prefer the original, or classic, chamberings of the gun.

CZ75, Beretta 92, Hi Power, Glock (standard sized frame), Sig, etc.... 9mm
1911, Glock (large frame)... 45. Those are the only two 45s I have owned.

As far as handguns...
Autoloader- 9mm, Browning High Power
Revolver- .38/.357, Dan Wesson 15-2vh

I'm a simple man.

1911's in .45
Full frame semi's in 9mm
Revolvers .38/.357
Shotguns in 12ga
Carbine 5.56
Bolt gun .308

Full size service pistols: All three are quite suitable. I would pick a .40 or 9mm over .45 though for capacity (for carry). For outside the home carry (CCW or police duty pistols) I think .40S&W has some advantages (a bit more power, in the winter if heavy winter clothing clogs up your JHP you have a bigger hole, if your JHP does expand you still usually have a bigger hole, less dependency on picking just the right load, and for police it has better barrier penetration), but the advantages aren't great enough to give it a clear advantage. For home defense I prefer .45ACP (less likely to over penetrate).

Revolvers: If it will be your only, .357mag (great versatility). If you'll have others, .41mag is probably my favorite. For woods use, .45LC. For a snub, I prefer not to use a snub (but I have a few that are .38's or .357mags I load with .38+P).

CCW Pistols: I prefer a double stack compact (the old definition of "compact", think Glock 19 in size) and subcompact (again, the old definition, like the G26) in either 9mm or .40. If it has "enough" rounds for the size, I prefer .40. Though, I don't see enough difference in the calibers for the caliber to be the deciding factor. If it has "enough" and is offered in .40 I'll go .40, otherwise, I'll go with the 9mm (I just bought a S&W M&P40c, but if I went Glock it would have been the G26 since I want that size double stack to have at least 10 rounds).

Micro/Pocketable Pistols: 9mm all the way. I don't really trust .380 (though I have an LCP), and .40 is too punishing for a gun this small and light. Also, at this size/capacity, losing a round (.40) or two (.45, when even available in this size) is too much for me to consider.

1911s: Until recently the only caliber I've considered 1911s in is .45ACP. If I didn't have one in .45 I would still only consider them in .45. However, lately I've been eyeing them in 10mm and I'm not sure how long I'll hold out.

Hanzo581 already covered my response.. except for lever gun, which I'd take in .30-30.

I'm pretty easy to please...

1911 - .45 is a must.

Full size semi - doesn't matter (nothing less than 9mm though).

Compact/sub compact semi - 9mm

Full size revolver - doesn't matter (nothing less than .38 though).

Compact/sub compact revolver - .38/.357

Semi Autos = 380, 9mm
Revolver = 9mm, 45acp, 45LC
Shotgun = 12ga 3.5" or 10ga
Bolt hunting = 308, 300 Win mag, or 30.06
Small game = 22LR or 22Mag
SHTF = 7.62x39 or 9mm.

Personally I HATE 223 caliber in rifles because of the lack of shock when hunting, but it does make for a very fun range caliber - IMO.

From a .300 caliber fanboy..

I like them all.

For SD 380 and 32 magnum are as small as I will go, though I would prefer 45acp or 44 special. The latter two are also my favorite pistol and revolver rounds to shoot. All that being said, I shoot more 22lr than anything.

As for which handguns to fit them into... my favorite semiautomatics are CZ75's, and by coincidence I have two different versions in 45acp. My favorite revolvers are Ruger single actions, and my Super Blackhawk is my favorite to shoot with 44 special.

Got to go with .45 ACP with a 1911 though I do like my Commander size guns in .38 Super. Full size 9mm. has got to be my Browning Hi-Power. Compact and subcompact 9mm.s would be a CZ P01 and a Kahr CM9. Perfectly sized for the 9mm. When I think concealed carry I think .380 and that would be a SIG P238. Target .22 would be a Ruger Model 512 while a Beretta Model 70S makes for a fun all-around plinker.

Single action revolver has got to be a .45 Colt and for a .357 I would go with a S&W Model 686.

1911 - .45
Revolver - .357
Full size Auto - 5.7x28
CCW - .380

lsudave said:

The smaller centerfire calibers: I will choose 2, because of interesting designs, and overlap: 9x18 (Makarov), and .32 acp. I think there are a lot of neat little pistols that are in these calibers, a bunch of older guns that hold some historical significance, and are well-made.
I leave .380 acp out... simple enough reasoning, to me. If I find a gun in this caliber I like, there's usually one available in .32 acp if it's an old US or European gun, and these tend to be more pleasant shooters.

Click to expand...

The only area where I disagree with you. I owned a Bulgarian Makarov in 9x18 once; to this day it is the hardest recoiling handgun I have ever owned, worse than my Ruger .357 Magnum.. It was like my hand got hit with a rubber mallet whenever I fired it. (It also ejected brass about 10 feet up and 30 feet away!) As far as I could tell, with 9x18 you get a marginal improvement on .380 in power with dated-design guns that are larger, heavier, older, and harder to fix/replace than anything in .380.
Of course, right after saying that, my favorite small caliber is .32 S&W Long. I just have a thing for it. Not much more powerful than a .22 rifle, not chambered in any currently made gun that I know of in the U.S. (though .327 Mag guns will fire the ammo) with ammo that is kind of rare and expensive for what it is, but I like it all the same.

My preferences are very much like those of chaim.

For a full-sized pistol that is going to primarily serve as a home defense weapon, I tend to favor .45 ACP (but I also have a Beretta 92FS that I keep loaded with 21 rounds of JHP).

For what I will call a mid-sized pistol (e.g, SIG P229) I tend to favor .40 S&W. In a pistol of that size, magazine capacity is decent. Providing you can shoot it decently, I do believe that cartridge offers greater defensive capability than 9mm Luger. It seems I shoot .40 S&W as well or better than 9 mm, even from a pistol of comparable size and weight.

For true compact or subcompact pistols, 9mm Luger. I don't go smaller than 9mm for SD.

The only revolver I have is chambered in 357 Magnum.

I am simple as to what I like. Not too overly picky about caliber. My current firearm goal is to have a full size, double stack 4" Walther in the big 3 calibers. That is either a P99 or PPQ M1 in 9mm, 40, and 45. For small size guns I am not going any smaller than 9mm. I have had .380s and other mouse calibers, all of which have been traded or sold off for various reasons.

lsudave said:

What are your preferred calibers, for various guns?

Click to expand...

Well; the 9x19 is also know as the 9 mm Luger so why not a Luger? Except this old Lugers had many rounds through it already before I got it so I rarely shoot it..... The modern day 9 mm handgun to me would be a Glock so that accounts for baically all of my 9mm usage using a G-19. As to revolvers it would have to be a 357 Magnum for the versatility of either hot 357 rounds or 38 Specials..

9mm semi-auto for most everything. The size of the gun and the ammo carried changes depending on the application. Occasionally, I also will bring a .22 rimfire along for plinking or small game. KISS. (I don't hunt big game with handguns.)

Glocks. 9mm for HD (19), CCW (19) 3 gun (34) work (17). 40 S&W (23) or 45 (21SF) for hunting sidearms (bear/hog country). Another 45 (Springfield mil spec, with Novaks) lives in the truck, and as an occasional range toy. I CCW a S&W shield 9 in summer.

The paradigm in this thread actually makes me a bit sad. It's never really made sense to me to pigeon hole a specific design into a specific cartridge. There are plenty of purist who disagree, and obviously plenty of chest thumpers who will exalt "a 1911 should be a 45," so I'm sure I'll continue to be labeled as the blasphemer by those closed minded folks.

lsudave said:

What are your preferred calibers, for various guns?

Click to expand...

I'd extend this question with a question back: "For what application?" And even within the confines of a particular application, there are quite often more than one "right answer."

For a 1911, I've been just as happy with 22LR, 9mm, 38 Super, and 40 S&W as I ever have been with a 45acp. But of course, my primary application for 1911's has been Bullseye, which dictates 45acp. For general plinking with a 1911, a 22LR or 9mm is a lot cheaper, and every bit as satisfying.

I can't touch a choice for a bolt gun with a 10ft pole. I have over 30 of them currently and have had a few times as many in the past. Some are better suited for different applications than others, and even in my current inventory, I have more than one right answer for many of those applications which I might pick any given day.

My "ideal" deer hunting revolver is a 357/44 in a 7.5" Redhawk, but I derive extreme pleasure, often as much or more, from a 44mag SBH 7.5" or a 5.5" SRH 454C.

There are things which seem to make some sense, on the surface, like a Glock in 9mm, 1911 in 45acp, or AR-15 in 223/5.56, pairing designs with their original cartridges, but for many folks, that logic is simply faulty. If a guy is building, in 2017, a longer range coyote hunting AR-15, there are far better choices outside of the purist 223/5.56 available. If a guy is plinking with a 1911, in 2017, then a 9mm or 22LR version most likely makes as much or more sense than a purist 45acp. Painting yourself into a corner just because the design started with a certain cartridge decades on decades ago doesn't make a lot of sense.

Variety is the spice of life. The premise in this thread makes me feel like that sentiment is viewed as a bad thing.

I mean, I like variety....but I don't like buying and storing 120 different types of ammo.

For a lightweight cc snub revolver I like 32 H&R mag.

C-grunt said:

I tend to prefer the original, or classic, chamberings of the gun.

CZ75, Beretta 92, Hi Power, Glock (standard sized frame), Sig, etc.... 9mm
1911, Glock (large frame)... 45. Those are the only two 45s I have owned.

Click to expand...

You understand the original large frame Glock is the Glock 20 10mm Auto, right? At the time it looked like 10mm Auto was going to be next big thing, so Glock developed the large frame Glock around that cartridge first. With its beasty slide and shock absorbing polymer frame, it is among the only of the first generation 10mms not to develop a reputation for rattling itself apart. The Glock 21 came later and was at one time regarded as sort of a black sheep among the Glock line. Portland PD and others had problems with theirs until Glock made a couple modifications to ejectors, IIRC. But I digress. The OG classic full-size Glock is totally the Glock 20 though, without question.

As for the OP, I like 9x19 and 10mm Auto in autos and pretty much exclusively .44 Magnum in revolvers. The 9mm is economical and available, low recoil and easy to shoot well, and available in a lot of good models that provide capacity and conceal-ability. The 10mm is a versatile high performance cartridge. In the Glock 20 it provides enough performance and capacity to make single-stack autos and revolvers chambered for anything much under .44 Mag look pretty bland. On the other hand, anything much over a .44 Mag starts to seem excessive, sometimes ridiculously so. If you need a five pound handgun to keep from permanently maiming yourself during recoil, you're probably better off with a six pound rifle. I am partial to Glocks and SIG P-series SAO models for autos and Rugers for revolvers. Don't really care much for the .40 or the .45, and don't really like the 1911 or Beretta much. The .40 is simple-- it stole the thunder from my pet cartridge and got commercial support that guaranteed it's long term availability while the 10mm survives seemingly only by doing everything the Short and Weak can do, better. The .45 just seems over rated like AC/DC. It is a docile, low pressure cartridge plodding a large bullet along at 18th century ballistics.

MTMilitiaman said:

You understand the original large frame Glock is the Glock 20 10mm Auto, right? At the time it looked like 10mm Auto was going to be next big thing, so Glock developed the large frame Glock around that cartridge first. With its beasty slide and shock absorbing polymer frame, it is among the only of the first generation 10mms not to develop a reputation for rattling itself apart. The Glock 21 came later and was at one time regarded as sort of a black sheep among the Glock line. Portland PD and others had problems with theirs until Glock made a couple modifications to ejectors, IIRC. But I digress. The OG classic full-size Glock is totally the Glock 20 though, without question.

Click to expand...

I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

I am a crusty, opinionated old bastard. To my way of thinking there are only 3 useful pistol cartridges:

.22 LR. Everyone needs a .22 pistol, for plinking, small game, and competition.
.45 ACP in the gun designed for it, the M1911. Flat and easy to carry, ergonometric and powerful.
.45 Colt for everything else, from deer to hogs.

For nightstand - HK P7M8 I've trained with it all my life, there is no safety to disengage, but I d have to grip the gun to get it into action, I think its the best combination of safe but quick to bring into action.
Pocket pistol - Rohrbagh R9 - 9mm, not fun to shoot but it conceals really well and is lightweight to carry

For snub nosed revolver - 9mm
For large revolvers - 9mm again

Backup - .380 ACP If I could have afforded 2 Rohrbaughs I would be carrying one as primary and one as a backup, but I couldn't so I don't. The RM380 is very close to the R9 barring reloads.

C-grunt said:

I tend to prefer the original, or classic, chamberings of the gun.

Click to expand...

I agree, I love the classics
My notable 9mm's
P38, P7PSP, BHP, CZ75, 3rd gen Smith
45s consist of one Sig P220 and a bunch of 1911 derivatives
As for other calibers
38 super=1911
10MM=1911, 1076 smith
32acp=1903 Colt, Walther PP
9X18= real Russian Mak and CZ82
7.62X25= Tokarev, CZ52