Calibers, pick 2 of 3 (9mm, 40s&w, 45acp)

With the decrease in popularity or .40S&W firearms, they can be had for really good prices. .40S&W ammunition is also less expensive than .45ACP.

I'd say 9 and 45 if I had to pick 2 of 3. I want another 1911. Just got my first 9 and I like it.

Personally I would probably prefer 9mm (for cost of ammo and for deep carry) and probably .40 again due to cost of ammo and current availability of good pistols. I'm not really sure there's really such a huge difference between 40 and 45 performance wise.

9mm and .45 acp. I have had three .40's and sold them off. Not that I didn't like the round or anything they just kind of didn't get shot a lot except for the USP compact. Fast forward to getting married and having kids and we all shoot together I needed to consolidate the calibers I keep stocked. Since me and the oldest son prefer .45 and wife and daughter prefer 9mm the .40 had to go.

I voted 40 S&W. Not for any particular reason, except I felt like writing something on the subject.

Back in the day (1990's), the 9mm was considered by many to be lacking for self defense. The reasons usually started with the U.S. Army's experience in the Philippines with the 38, the Miami shootout, the perception that the U.S. military made a mistake in switching from 45 to 9, Col. Jeff Cooper's quest for the perfect self defense handgun cartridge, and finally LE acceptance of the 40 S&W cartridge. Back then, I don't remember anybody complaining about the 40's recoil. If anything, some people were calling it Short & Weak in reference to the 10mm Auto.

Compared to what you read on the internet today, it's almost the polar opposite.

Is it the evolution of ammunition or firearms, or is it a psychological phenomenon? I don't know, but it's very interesting.

I own and shoot all 3 and don't plan on getting rid of any. .45's are what I have the least of though, only 1.

Main Advantages/Disadvantages

9mm Advantages
* Loads between 115 and 135 grains have adequate expansion and penetration. This is the bulk of the carry loads.
* Recoil is fairly light, good for reflexive, defensive shootings.

9mm Disadvantages
* 9mm Spitzer ball ammo is nearly worthless.
* Best loads are +P+ and/or heavier-than-normal recoil, best suited for big steel frame guns like SIG 226, CZ 75, 1911, etc.

.40 S&W Advantages
* Lighter weight 135 and 155 gr bullets have more reliable expansion than heavy weight 9mm loads, 180 gr bullets have better sectional density than 185 .45 ACP bullets.
* All or nearly all .40 S&W ball ammo is Truncated Cone or TC profile, basically semi-wadcutters, and they penetrate straight.

.40 S&W Disadvantages
* Designed, unfortunately, to be retrofitted to light 9mm pistol frames, recoil is abnormally high. Recoil of 180gr @ 1000 fps (.40) = 185gr @ 1000 fps and 230gr @ 820 fps (.45 ACP). This affects shooters and gun parts breakage.
* The 1911 already had the 10mm. Easier to load down the 10mm than to reconfigure for .40, a comparatively uncommon chambering from the factory.
* Good carry loads in this caliber are very hit-and-miss. Some give dangerously shallow penetration. Hard to give a blanket recommendation for .40 S&W against less troublesome 9mm.

.45 ACP Advantages
* Bullet size vs the target. Even loads that should be bad, like cup-and-core 185s, give good performance.

.45 ACP Disadvantages
* Recoil of the 230gr carry loads is artificially high for what the guns were designed for, 875-900 fps vs 800-850 for ball ammo. Those 230gr carry loads are what the caliber is judged by, and also a lot of peer pressure is applied to inexperienced young shooters to carry them.
* Loads that both expand and penetrate produce heavy recoil, arguably unsuitable for reflexive shooting. Very few "shock" producing .45 ACP loads penetrate deep.

Conclusion
Each caliber has drawbacks. Each caliber can be made to work, with the right loads. Ergonomics and connecting with the target are paramount.

45acp, 9mm in order of preference

dropkick said:

*I know they now make semi-autos that shoot .357, but I'm ignoring their existence as I believe using a round designed for use in revolvers in a semi-auto is a bad idea, and also somewhat dangerous, as the bullets aren't crimped into the brass and are apt to move in the magazine due to the force of recoil, and you end up with more space in the case, which changes the pressure, changes in head space which can cause feeding problems, and messes with accuracy, or you might even have a bullet fall out.

Click to expand...

I don't intend to be rude or contrary, but all of this is incorrect. The bullets are crimped, if one sees fit to do so. The cartridge head spaces on the rim just as in a revolver. In an auto-loader, the recoil pushes the frame and magazine against the bullets, causing them to enter the case further, reducing interior volume and increasing pressure. There is a chance one could spontaneously disassemble a pistol, but the bullet will not fall out. The only bad thing, that I can personally think of, is that a Coonan three fifty seven is nearly twenty three hundred dollars.
Oh, but I want one. I want one very badly. (sigh).... Someday.
I do suppose that a misloaded magazine could cause feeding problems, if one rim was loaded behind instead of in front of the preceding one.

I chose nine millimeter and fourty-five auto. I have one nine. It is a fine firearm. Good for the house, with a light on it.

I love nineteen elevens. I have a few. I love the fourty-five auto. Easy shooting or Thor's hammer in one cartridge. With over a hundred years of customizing and improving what's not to like? Springfield Xd are fine firearms too.
Though I don't have any experience with a Fourty Smith and Wesson, yet, I think I will try thirty eight Super next.

So, if I must choose...I would pick 9mm for mag capacity with Ranger HPs or Glock 21/30 with Gold Dots.

M

Kinda funny, after reading the question I thought about it and..... I don't own any 40's. I've been issued a bunch, owned one, for years, sold it. Now, 9mm and 45acp are the only two on the list I have and the 45 sees no use.

I'm not a big "ballistics" guy. I'm convinced a pistols effectiveness depends on shot placement and your "target's" tenacity. Well, at least until you get into the wilder stuff like 10mm, 41Mag, etc.

My pistol calibers are mainly .40 S&W and .45 ACP and .44 Spec and Magnum.

I recently bought a G23 so I could use a G19 barrel and have that option for my Bug Out Gun.

In that scenario 9mm would probably be the easiest ammo to find laying around. and have a gun combo gun would be a good thing to have.. The G23 only requires the G19 barrel to function with 9mm ammo as the G23 mags work just fine.

Not a big deal to have an Extra barrel with you in case you run out of your primary ammo.

Randy

45 and 9mm.
Give me a 3rd and 4th choice and I'm going 38 special and .22 Lr . 40 would be somewhere around 6 or 7th.
The only reason I still own and shoot (a few) 40's is because I reload them so their firing behavior is like a 45 ACP. ( ie. Push vs Snap)

I voted 9 and 45 but ironically I don't own a 45 currently, however, I do own 9 and 40 lol

Performance with good self defense rounds theres not a whole lot of difference to the target in a real world shooting.

Energy between them are very close with the .40s&w having a tad more than the other two.

The 45acp has momentum on its side but theres no free lunch so your hand pays for that.

9x19 with all things being equal, recoils less. Has cheaper ammo, more flavors of ammo to choose from and has a higher capacity.

I own all 3 and enjoy all 3. I shoot the 9mm more. The 9x19, 10mm, 45acp, and 357mag are my fav handgun cartridges but i keep an FNH FNX .40s&w ready to go and carry it at times and feel confident when i have it.

Im glad i dont have to choose

I despise the .40 S&W for the simple reason that it stole the limelight and commercial support for the 10mm Auto, of which I am very much a fan. I don't consider the .40 to be nearly as versatile or useful as the 10mm Auto. Likewise, the .45 takes the same grip size as the 10mm but also fails to offer its performance or utility. The .45 is such a lumbering, low pressure round and always offers compromised capacity compared to lower caliber rounds. And my experience with the cartridge leads me to believe that the effectiveness of the round has been greatly exaggerated. I'll take fifteen 10mm Auto rounds over thirteen .45 ACPs for anything I need a handgun for.
The 10mm Auto can be difficult and expensive to feed and requires a full-size handgun for best results. If I am going compact, or want economical, easy to find ammo without compromising capacity, I choose the 9x19. Its got enough pressure to get decent performance from its diminutive case, yet still maintains low recoil. I go metric for my autos, 9mm and 10mm across the board. I though I was set on replacing a Gen III Glock 19 that was stole last year with a Gen IV Glock 19 until I held a Walther PPQ 9mm this afternoon. That is one sweet handling little pistol. If for the purposes of this discussion I can pick two, fine, I'll take one of each.

Depends on the firearm and one's location. Where there is a high cap ammo ban, a High Power in .40 might be an attractive option.
My personal choice would be the Parabellum and the ACP (in most cases.)

I've thought about it more since I posted 6 weeks ago, and I need to partially revamp my answer...

I still find it "interesting" that narrowing to 2 calibers is so hard for me, but I can pick pretty quickly if I can only have one. Any would be fine, but to me, a 9mm is the most versatile and thus the one I'd pick if I could have only one.

Where I've done most of my "rethinking" is between .45 and .40. The main reason I picked .45 is because I am a 1911 fan and .45 is the 1911 chambering. If I was not going to consider the platform, I'd probably pick the .40 over the .45. Similar power, recoil characteristics are a wash (.45 is heavier, .40 is "snappier), and more rounds in the .40S&W if they are the same size (and sometimes in a smaller .40 v. a larger .45). The only place the .45 is clearly better IMO is for home defense, but then the .40 IMO is better for carry. Heck, plenty of people own and love 1911s in .40 or 9mm so even considering the platform, when ignoring my emotion based response towards the .45, I think a 9mm and a .40S&W based only on the performance and characteristics of the rounds would be the way to go if you limited yourself to two calibers.

9 is back big time, as if it ever went away. I have 2 .40's and like them very much, not sure why people think it's too much pop, I find it pleasant to shoot. As mentioned above I think of the .45 as a 1911 round and I don't have one so no .45 for me. Cheers.

9mm and.45ACP. It's not that .40 stinks, but that it offers no substantial gain over two other, more commonly available, cartridges. I know, .40 isn't rare. I even see it at Wal-Mart sometimes. But compare number of boxes on the shelf and variety of those boxes. .40 loses by a nose.

I've changed my mind since my earlier post. I still have no interest in the .45, but now give the edge to the 9mm over the .40. I've actually been gravitating toward wheel guns for the last several years, and prefer .357s and .44s to either 9mm or .40. When I eventually shoot out my .40 ammo, I'll probably only keep 9mm in semi-auto.