One Caliber?

I don't like putting all my eggs in one basket, so I have one or more of each in 9mm, .40, and .45.

What if I went with .45 ACP and all of a sudden I couldn't get anything but .40? I've seen that happen. Luckily I have a .40, so I could still shoot when I wanted to.

If you FORCED me to get rid of one, I could get rid of .40, because it's literally an "extra" gun, but there's no way I'd get rid of two.

That makes no sense at all."- "The bullet is part of the cartridge"

You miss my point. A .45acp cartridge is still a .45acp, and it's chambering has not changed through the years, and its still called a .45acp. Yes, the projectiles used can be different, by choice, but the .45acp is still a .45acp.
The OP is talking abought the caliber and the .45acp. He is not talking about, nor does he specify, the design of the projectile that is loaded into that chambering. The title indicates caliber, and he specifies particular cartridges in the calibers. No mention I see of projectile design. Sorry if my posting confused you.

I'm simply not going to argue the point to death. If you want to read into the OP's inquiry the design of the projectile into the cartridges he mentioned, your welcome to do so. In my way of thought the same style of projectile that today applies, and enhances, the 9mm , also applies to the .45acp. I still choose then the .45acp. I mentioned the .45acp as proving itself in two (I should have said "World") wars. The standard projectile during those times and wars I believe was the FMJ . Using that projectile in both the 9mm and the .45acp, my impression is that the .45acp was the more effective of the two. If using the same style projectile of modern design has changed that, I am unaware of it. With that said, I will move on from this subject, and declare you the winner on this subject.

For me it is 9x19 Underwood Extreme Defender fluid transfer ammo.

I've already pared my carry caliber down to one. The caliber is .380, and unfortunately, it wasn't by choice. But such is life, as many others have and will discover.

I would have to go with 9mm simply because as my wife and I get older it makes more sense. Add the AR9 with compatible magazines and the decision gets easier for us.

M

ApacheCoTodd said:

Staying strictly within your parameters. I go with 9mm.

If it ever happens again - it'll be the only one significantly available surplus.

I've killed LOTS of coyote clean and efficiently with it and know two fellas who carefully deer hunt with it.

Can be taken down to just-cycling mild loads and in many platforms rebarrelled up to my favorite 9x23.

What it *might* give up to the other two can more than be made up for in conveniences in the sourcing of; magazines, projectiles, barrels, capacity, etc...

Making the decision between those three wouldn't even be a bump in the road for me. 9mm every time that weird particulars are not inserted into the equation.

Todd.

Click to expand...

My uncle has a bolt action Mauser shortened and converted to 9x19!
Interesting choice. I wish he'd chrono it and share the results.

He lives alone in a cabin in the woods of Vermont. Recently he told me it has literally become his bedside firearm. Funny, coming from a guy who says the M1-carbine is his favorite gun and has about 4 of them.

Flexability of a single cartridge.

Offhand McFlan said:

My uncle has a bolt action Mauser shortened and converted to 9x19!
Interesting choice. I wish he'd chrono it and share the results.

He lives alone in a cabin in the woods of Vermont. Recently he told me it has literally become his bedside firearm. Funny, coming from a guy who says the M1-carbine is his favorite gun and has about 4 of them.

Click to expand...

9mm carbines?






https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...cial-interest-arms-9mm-bolt-action-rifle/amp/

.40, 45 ACP or 9 mm 134 grs

Like the OP I would probably lean in favor of the 9mm in the Glock 19, although as a handloader I enjoy the luxury of having the option of either 38 Spl. or 357 Magnum in a 4" S&W Model 686.

I have pretty much equal amounts of 9mm. and .45 ACP ammo (and for some unexplained reason I must have really stocked up on .380 ammo at some point in time because I have more of it than any other handgun ammo)!

Anyways I have probably twice as many pistols in 9mm. than I have in .45 ACP, mostly because I have small size hands and for the most part 9mm. pistols just feel more comfortable in my hands (with the exception of 1911 single stacks which fit me perfectly as well), and are a bit easier to handle by way of design and felt recoil. Given all that I would go with a 9mm. as my one caliber choice if it ever came down to it as it works fine for me in a number of different pistols that I thoroughly enjoy shooting!

Some of my favorites:

RetiredUSNChief said:

I love the disparaging between calibers people insist on!

I love me my .45. But to be totally honest, it has it's pros and cons as well.

Anecdotal story here:

Once upon a time, I was plinking around with a couple of my pistols at an outdoor range by myself...a .45 and a 9mm. Off in the weeds to the side was a beer keg. "Oh, cool! Something different to shoot!"

So I set it up...and proceeded to dent the bejeebers out of it with my .45. To be fair, a few did penetrate, and more than a few did split the keg at the point of impact without penetration. But I was surprised at how many did not penetrate the aluminum keg.

My 9mm? Punched holes every time.

That was a lesson in terminal ballistics. That even though the two rounds have approximately the same KE, the difference in mass, diameter, and velocity make a big difference in terminal ballistics.

Both are excellent round, especially with modern bullet designs these days. Don't disparage one over the other.

Click to expand...

I am completely uncertain whether a aluminum beer keg vs a human body has a comparison usable for terminal ballistics. Penetration factors are also not a good measure as long as a bullet will reach vital locations, and what energy the bullet has after exit is only a factor when there is a barrier involved between you and the target ,or when the bullet reaches something you do not want to destroy after it leaves your target. The difference is in the details. I once read about a pre-WWII law enforcement officer who preferred his .38 S&W chambering over the .38 Special. His reasoning was that the .38 S&W expended all its energy into the intended target, while the .38 Special spent less energy into the target with the balance exiting with no usable effect. Was he wrong ? In todays world with bullet design likely yes, but with the typical lead round nose bullet of the time, perhaps not. With that, I hope you understand what I mean.
A .45 caliber slug moving at a slower rate than .356 caliber slug, having more surface area and less speed sort of explains the lack of penetration into the beer keg vs mammal , not a good comparison.

mnrivrat said:

I am completely uncertain whether a aluminum beer keg vs a human body has a comparison usable for terminal ballistics. Penetration factors are also not a good measure as long as a bullet will reach vital locations, and what energy the bullet has after exit is only a factor when there is a barrier involved between you and the target ,or when the bullet reaches something you do not want to destroy after it leaves your target. The difference is in the details. I once read about a pre-WWII law enforcement officer who preferred his .38 S&W chambering over the .38 Special. His reasoning was that the .38 S&W expended all its energy into the intended target, while the .38 Special spent less energy into the target with the balance exiting with no usable effect. Was he wrong ? In todays world with bullet design likely yes, but with the typical lead round nose bullet of the time, perhaps not. With that, I hope you understand what I mean.
A .45 caliber slug moving at a slower rate than .356 caliber slug, having more surface area and less speed sort of explains the lack of penetration into the beer keg vs mammal , not a good comparison.

Click to expand...

Meh.

It's important only in consideration with its ability to actually punch a hole in something. Flesh is typically a non-issue this way, but flesh isn't the only thing encountered when we shoot.

Wierd.
Shooting holes in stuff?
I remember I had some outdated 20# propane cylinders, so was asked to dispose of them, I brought one to gravel pit to shoot a hole in it.
Thinking I could vent out remaining gas.
I had a .22 rifle (ruger 10/22) i shot the bottle 3 times at 12 feet, the bullet's wouldnt penetrate, I returned with a .22 Magnum rifle, they did penetrate, one side of the bottle.
City dump wouldnt accept closed containers that held flammable liquids.

The part about beer kegs reminded me of that.

All of my 9's, .40's and .45's are reliable ... or else I wouldn't continue to own them.

The 9's are usually easier to run hard and fast than the similarly sized .40's ... but working to run the .40's hard and fast makes me do even better using my 9's. Chicken or the Egg. Pick for yourself.

My .45's (full-size, medium, compact and subcompact models) are all fine, but they're typically larger and heavier than 9's and .40's that are close to being similar in size/weight.

I was a .45 guy for many years before I grudgingly came to accept 9mm, and it took me about 10 years after the introduction of the .40 before I seriously considered spending my own money on one. Now I own 5 of them, 5x9's ... but 9x.45's. Guess I still have an affinity for .45's.

I've tried to condense calibers before, and it never lasted very long.

If I were to consider trying it again ...

My compact and subcompact 9's are easier to shoot, and convenient to carry.

My full-size, compact and subcompact .40's are convenient to carry, but continue to take more range time to remain skilled in running them hard and fast.

My .45's cover all the range of size/weight ... and I've been shooting .45's for more than 50 years. (For comparison, I've only been using 9's since the end of the 80's, and .40's since about 2000.)

Now, another consideration is the effect of recoil and wear & tear on both the guns and the shooter. It's not unusual to hear longtime Magnum revolver shooters, and longtime .45ACP shooters, discover there may come a point when shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands may require going to the lesser recoiling 9mm. You at that point yet? I'm not, yet, and I'm closer to 70 than 65. Tired & repetitively worn ligaments and connective tissues, and arthritis, may cause a re-evaluation of things like "calibers" in our later years of shooting.

fastbolt said:

Tired & repetitively worn ligaments and connective tissues, and arthritis, may cause a re-evaluation of things like "calibers" in our later years of shooting.

Click to expand...

I was able to work around declining hand strength and arthritis in the pinky finger of my shooting hand for a few years, but late last spring I was diagnosed with CMC arthritis in the carpometacarpal joint at the base of the thumb of my shooting hand. That was a real game changer. I just sold my last 9mm, and all of my carry guns are now .380s. I hope I'll be able to stay there.

RetiredUSNChief said:

Meh.

It's important only in consideration with its ability to actually punch a hole in something. Flesh is typically a non-issue this way, but flesh isn't the only thing encountered when we shoot.

Click to expand...

You are correct . I was however speaking in regards to "terminal ballistics". The implication being making something that is alive , no longer so, or terminated. Excluding barriers.

USMC1775 said:

I want to pare down my carry pistols to a single caliber, between 9mm, .40S&W, and .45acp. Which do you think is the best single caliber and why?

I'm leaning toward 9mm because of variety, price, and reliability.

Click to expand...

I like your thinking. 9mm is good. But, think it out a little more - why not pick up a rifle in the same pistol caliber. Then your ammo can really be consolidated and when you are in a hurry you will never grab the "wrong stuff".

I like variety, but in respect to your original question. If paring down to one caliber it’d be 9mm for me.

As much as I like my 1911 in 45 and revolvers in 357, I feel my G26/19 and Berettas in 9mm would do everything needed for me.

md7 said:

I like variety, but in respect to your original question. If paring down to one caliber it’d be 9mm for me.

As much as I like my 1911 in 45 and revolvers in 357, I feel my G26/19 and Berettas in 9mm would do everything needed for me.

Click to expand...

Not a bad choice. The 9mm is the 38 Special of the semi-auto world.
Jack of all trades. Master of a few, but not all.