.40 or .45 cal? Narrowing it down

[dandamien]

I recently posted a thread about whether I should go with a 9mm, 10mm, or 40 cal and got some really good feedback from you guys. I'm new to shooting and was looking for a good weapon for self defense and also one in which I wouldn't outgrow right away. I've rented a good share of guns at the range and have decided that I would go with one of those in a Glock. My initial concern was getting a gun that wasn't the best fit for me. I was comfortable with the 9mm and inconsistent with the .40 cal.
Anyway, since then I feel a lot more comfortable with the .40 cal. So now I feel that the 9mm is out of the running. I have also eliminated the 10mm as an option as well. I followed SLVR SURFR's advice about trying the Glock .45 ACP and found that I shoot that gun probably better than the .40 cal. It does seem to have more of a pushing rather than flipping recoil which seems to be working out. I only tried it out on one visit to the range so I still need some more practice on it before I decide either way. But I do now have it narrowed down to the Glock .40 and .45 ACP.
I did want to get your guys' take on whether to go with the .40 or .45 ACP in a Glock. I respect all of your advice and info in the past discussions I have read and was curious to get your thoughts on the issue. Basically what are the pro's an con's of the .40 or .45 ACP Glock? Ammo price and availability? Self defense man stopping power? Reliability? Just general thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of the .40 and .45 ACP.
Thanks again to SLVR SURFR for your advice about the .45 ACP, I really appreciate it. Thanks as well to everyone else that wrote in. Your comments have been real helpful in my first gun purchase. If anyone has any thoughts about the .40 or .45 I would appreciate it.
Dan

 

[Autolycus]

I would get a .40

but since your getting a Glock I would then go with 9mm. The 9mm is fine for a gun and the Glock was developed specifically for a 9mm.

 

[roscoe]

Just go shoot a bunch more of each - .40 and .45 (and 9mm) perform well enough if you do your part. The difference is going to be more important on your end. Which feels better in your hand? Which can you control better? Is the grip of a Glock .45 too big for your hands? How is the follow-up shot?

 

[salvador31c]

Shoot a good amount of ammo in the specific gun and caliber you would like to buy i started with a GLOCK .45 and thought i would move down to a .40 but ended up not liking the .40 it is all up to what you like better and what you shoot best good luck

Both are good Self Defence Rounds
and theres not really a question as to reliability in GLOCKS IMO

 

[Liberty4Ever]

I like my Glock 20 a lot, but 10mm ammo is expensive, so this is only a good option if you want to reload your own ammo. The 10mm was what started me reloading 12 years ago.

Between the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP, I'd choose the .40. I like faster bullets because I do think kinetic energy matters. That's why I have the 10mm, because it's hard to beat 15 rounds at 746 ft lb of energy each. The main reason I like kinetic energy is because I believe the FBI Wound Ballistics tests of the late 1980s are still the most accurate of all terminal ballistic testing, and their conclusion was essentially, "12 inches of penetration is the first criteria, and only after that should you be concerned with the diameter". In the case of JHP, the diameter is increased by expansion. I think many smaller caliber ammo overexpands, because it does not penetrate far enough to be effective. At a given power level, penetration and expansion are a tradeoff, and I think too many people look at the expansion and disregard penetration, and that results in a false assumption that the bullet that expands the most has the greatest stopping power.

Anyway, that's the long road to saying that both the .40 S&W and the .45 ACP are good defense rounds, and as others have stated, you should shoot each a lot and see which one you like. This really is a matter of personal preference more than anything. There are certainly enough .45 ACP advocates. I think they could probably get the IRS to give them a tax exemption because they qualify as a religion.

 

[Rail]

9mm, 40's and 45's

I started on .45's years ago and have taken a somewhat cicuituous route to where I am now with the .40 cal. I have and still do found the .45 to be a great round for control and energy but with small hands have never considered the LDA or any other double-stack. Not for reasons of aesthetics - just because I don't like an uncomfortable fit. The basic 1911 is to me a great fitting, great handling workhorse of a gun.

I next moved to 9mm just because of the cost of shooting at the time. I was shooting more 9mm and therefore was keeping myself accurate with it almost to the exclusion of the .45 ACP. My one issue with the 9mm was its energy downrange. Great velocity provides a lot of shock value, but that can be overcome or negated by all sorts of things, so a vital hit becomes that much more important.

That led me to the .40, and as of right now I am just settling in with a Sigma .40 which has proven to be both more comfortable than the Glock - for me - and gives me the desired combination of reliability, energy, and accuracy.

It should be said that there is a wide variance of commentary on this gun as to its reliability, its fit and finish, the 'you get what you pay for' and accuracy; but I have nothing but good things to say about it. I bought the VE version for law enforcement with Trijicon sights and have not looked back yet.

The whole revolution has taken me about 23 years, and I have no doubt it will continue.

 

[DogBonz]

45 all the way

For a number of reasons:

1. “I followed SLVR SURFR's advice about trying the Glock .45 ACP and found that I shoot that gun probably better than the .40 cal.”
2. “It does seem to have more of a pushing rather than flipping recoil which seems to be working out.”
3. The 45 will do everything that the 40 will do at a lower pressure. This means that your gun will last longer, and if you reload, your brass will last longer too.
4. The 45 has almost 100 years history as a proven man stopper in both the street and combat.

Then there are the intangibles. The way that felt recoil is transferred to the shooter, weather you feel that you really need that extra round or two in the mag, etc…
I like the 45. Not because of that extra .05” of bullet diameter, but because it is a proven stopper that operates at a low pressure, is comfortable to shoot, and is inherently accurate and is capable of excellent accuracy. Also, if you really want those few extra foot pounds of muzzle energy, toss some +p’s in the mag and there you go.

 

[MCgunner]

Which ever you buy into, get. Personally, I don't know how you'd "grow out of" a handgun caliber. I love .22s, started with them (and air guns). Actually, I still shoot air guns! The 9mm is one of the better service calibers regardless of detractors. It is also cheap to buy for the non-handloader, which doesn't apply to me, but I own two of 'em anyway and carry one of 'em all the time.

I've never owned a .40, but have shot 'em. Been there and done that with 1911s, no thanks. I own a P90 Ruger in .45ACP and LOVE that gun, though not because of the caliber, but the gun. It's awesome. I quit shooting it in IDPA, though, 'cause I'm quicker back on target with the 9mm P85 and the tapered double stack mags find the mag well quicker when reloading. Of course, IDPA is a game, but .40s also have double stack mags. Of course, some .45s do, too.

Generally, you'll be able to get more compact (G27) firearms in .40 than .45 and with more capacity. That might be important to you, I don't know. I wouldn't chose between them on the merits of the caliber, though. I'd make the choice on the merits of the gun you decide you like and fits your requirements. The gun is much more important than the caliber choice IMHO between any of the service calibers. Either one of these caliber I NEVER would buy factory ammo for, too expensive. I have only fired five boxes of Speer lawman 230 ball in my Ruger and that's only because I won those at a shoot once, they were free. I've never actually BOUGHT factory ammo and I've got many thousands of rounds through that P90. My reloader stays well exercised and I'm always casting bullets for it. I can load a box of fifty for under $2, so price of factory ammo is irrelevant to me. But, for many, it plays a roll in these decisions.

It's a personal choice, but I'll reiterate, chose the GUN you like regardless of the caliber. The delivery system is far more important than the caliber. If you like a medium sized Glock, heck, then I guess you'll have to make a caliber choice because you can get either caliber in the gun. If I was a Glock guy, I'd look into the G30 and G36 and I think I'd go with the single stack for IWB carry. That's a handy size gun in a major caliber! But, then, see, I have a bias. I already have dies, molds, and components and loads worked up in .45ACP and I don't have any reloading equipment in .40 so naturally, I'd tend to chose the .45. It's totally your choice, though. You know better than I do what you want.

 

[amprecon]

I am a biased Glock person. I have tried the rest and have come back to the best . Caliber is a consideration, I just sold 2 Glock 19's and bought a Glock 23 in .40. I figured why have to spend more to buy special +P ammo to get to the standard load power level in .40. It does kick more than standard 9mm, but it is definitely controllable. To have the same size gun with a larger and more powerful caliber with only 2 less rounds, why not?

I also have a Glock 21. I feel that either caliber would be quite effective in it's standard loadings, moreso than a 9mm in it's standard loadings. So I believe it comes down to the size of gun your looking for. If you don't mind a large handgun, go .45, if you want a smaller handgun that you could conceal, then go .40. There is the Glock 30 which I don't have any experience with and the Glock 36, which I have owned before. I found that the extra-slim grip was not agreeable with me and could not shoot it well, it also seemed to recoiler harder.

I am currently looking for a deep-concealment pistol and have been awaiting the new PF-9 from Kel-Tec, it is in 9mm and have no problem relying on that caliber for such purposes. These will probably be my current handgun collection after this one and feel they will cover most situations.

 

[cookekdjr]

I have found .40 and .45 are roughly equal in stopping power. I'd go with the round you shoot best. They sell for similar prices, although .40 is generally cheaper. Really, its a matter of which gun you shoot the best.
-David

 

[NORTEXED]

I shot .45 since I was 16 (a long time ago), and still prefer my Combat Commander when I carry in ernest, loaded with 230 gr Federal H.S. They just have too good a track record to ignore, and as Dogbonz said, it will do everything a 40 will do at lower pressures. That said, I routniely carry a KelTec P11 in 9mm for bumming around and even the Keltec P32 with shorts and T shirt weather. It's kinda my "carry gun when I ordinarily wouldn't carry" gun. Not a "man-stopper" but enough to distract them while I get the heck out of there gun. The 40 has just always seemed to me to be kinda the gun worlds version of a "Fish-and-ski" boat, it will do both, but neither real well. Your giving up dia. and weight for a little more speed and maybe 1 or 2 more rnds in the mag. If you're going that route, might as well drop to 9mm and pick up several rnds (my P11 with S&W 59 mag and 1" grip extender packs 16 rnds, and goes a lot faster than the 40). It just kinda gets to what is the stopping point, how about a .42 or .43, you can make them a little heavier than the 40 with the same B.C., or maybe a true .38 going faster than the .40. It's endless. The only new mid calibre of importance in my mind, is the .357 sig. It gives LE "almost" .357 mag. performance in an auto, and they seem to like that. (I do however know a few Texas DPS officers that went back to the Sigs in .45 after carying the .357s for a while, said they just didn't feel as well protected. ) It's all a state of mind, but that's a lot of what counts if a self defence situation.

 

[Liberty4Ever]

Where Are The Other Glock Single Stack Pitols?

After Glock offered a single stack .45, I was excited, expecting a single stack 9mm and .40 S&W, but sadly it hasn't happened. I have no idea why, because it seems like a natural extension to their product line with the rapid expansion of civilian concealed carry in the US.

In order of preference (and inverse order of likelihood IMO) I'd like to see Glock selling single stack deep concealment pistols in :

10mm
.40 S&W
9mm
.357 Sig

 

[ugaarguy]

trying the Glock .45 ACP and found that I shoot that gun probably better than the .40 cal. It does seem to have more of a pushing rather than flipping recoil which seems to be working out.

If the 45 ACP Glocks fit your hand (they're a bit big for my stubby fingers) then go that way. With minimal practice you shoot the 45 ACP better than the 40 S&W. The reduced muzzle flip and push rather than snp/flip recoil are also working better for you according to your post; no doubt that helps you shoot the 45 better. The best gun to get is the one you shoot best. You've found what you shoot well, and that's what you should get.

I don't really care what caliber you get, as long as it works for you. Read posts from folks, like sm, who've worked ER/Trauma. They'll tell you that pistol wounds all look the same and you don't know what caused the wound until you pull the bullet out. There's a 9mm defensive round/ammo thread going on right now, and sm's post there tells it like it is.

Good job doin your research both online and hands on Dandamien. Let us know if we can be of any further help.

 

[runninmike]

Since you're asking .40 or .45, and not 9mm, .38 or any other caliber in your original query, I'll say .45. Not because it's any better than .40.
I doubt either 1 kills or stops better than the other no matter what anyone here has read or done or seen performed in jello or wood. Both calibers are proven extremly deadly and they both shoot 'minute of bad guy'.
If I am to have just 1 or the other I chose .45 because I prefer the grip contour and action of the Sig P220. I own a .40 also, and like it and also carry it in the woods alot because I worry less about it's finish and cost to replace compared to my 220. JMO.
Best-MC

 

[Pistol Toter]

I did not read all the responses / suggestions that were given, just be advised that the GLOCK 21 .45 ACP is a much larger grip than the G22 .40. That may make all the difference to you. I have and frequently carry the G21and have no trouble, but it might be too big for your hands. If you're sold on the .45 ACP you may consider the Springfield XD45; same capacity, same calibre, the barrel is .600" shorter but the grips are much smaller. I've never been a fan of the .40 but there is nothing wrong with it and again the grip is smaller. Just something to think about. Regards P.T.

 

[mljdeckard]

Since you are sold on the Glock, I would go with the .40, if for no more significant reason than, the G-22/23 is probably the most standardized weapon system in the country, due to the number of police that carry them. You will find the best selection and options for magazines, holsters, and other accessories.

I carried a G-22 for several years, and I never had a problem with it. I bought an Advantage Arms .22lr conversion kit for it, and I shot it a LOT. But, over time, I shot a few of my friends' 1911s, and I remembered how good the 1911 trigger is. I sold my Glock to a friend and bought a Kimber, and I think I will be buried with it.

 

[gandog56]

Here's an idea. Get a 1911 in .45, then buy a drop in .400 Cor-Bon barrel. That way you get both calibers in one platform!

 

[SoCalShooter]

Ewww good question...I have fired a number of handguns chambered in both and several glocks chambered in both...I still go with the .45 I would suggest a glock 21C, personal opinion of course but the .45 acp is better in my opinion.

 

[machine]

Its all about the glock 30 .45 acp

Hey everyone, whats up, i have to put in on this the .40 cal is a good enough to put someone down, my self i prefer the .45 acp. and its is a proven fact that if someone did get shot by a 45 85% of the chance they will not get back up. me personally. I wouldnt go with the 9 mm maybe the .40 cal but no not the nine i no to many people. who have been shot with a 9mm and walk away free. from what im saying is that to me 9mm are not very strong, or concidered as stopping power, thats just me. But like everyone says, its up to you on what u think is right for you, and what feels better to you, and what you can handle. The .40 cal to me is a good weapon for alot of people, the 40.cal does have stopping power, its pretty strong. But me thats why i purchased the glock 30. because its powerful and will get the job done

 

[robertbank]

Heck I would buy an EAA Witness in .40cal and two conversion kits, a .22LR and a 9MM and have the best of three worlds. The 1911 is THE .45acp gun IMHO. Well OK a Sig 220 is there as is the CZ 97.

None of these cartridges are death rays but are more than adequate as defensive arms. If you most go Glock then go 9MM.

Take Care

Bob

 

[Liberty4Ever]

Kahr

I've been a Glock fan for over 12 years. I kept waiting for them to make a concealable handgun. The G26 is small, but not small enough for pocket carry. Then I waited for the Kel-Tec PF-9 and decided I didn't want to wait anymore and I bought a Kahr PM9. It's a tiny 9mm.



It was a tough choice between the PM9 and the .40 S&W version. I chose the 9mm over the PM40 because:

Capacity - 6+1 instead of 5+1
A little less recoil gets back on target a little faster
One ounce lighter (6%)
Very slightly shorter and thinner
Terminal ballistics of 9mm+P defensive ammo is almost as good as .40 S&W

I ordered the PM9 based on internet user reports, which is a crazy way to buy a gun, but it worked out OK. I couldn't be happier. It's very high quality. The design and manufacturing are top notch. All polymer and stainless so there's nothing to rust, and the stainless slide has a super hard Rc90 black ceramic coating. I put 333 flawless rounds through it at the range yesterday, and despite trying my best I could not make it malfunction. Pistols this small are prone to misfeed if limp wristed but the little Kahr ran like a Swiss watch.

It's way too early to claim Glock-like reliability, and the tighter fit suggests it wouldn't be as reliable as the Glock in a mud and ice torture test, but the tighter tolerance makes it more accurate and it should be reliable for pocket carry in a holster.

The Kahr has the best DAO trigger I've ever felt. It's six pounds and smooth as silk. It's better than a lot of single actions I've shot.

The PM9 sort of reminds me of a Bosch saber saw I bought. After using it, I marveled at it because it seemed to work better than I thought possible, like it defied some laws of physics. It's a sweet little pistol. Everything about it just felt right.

If you haven't tried a Kahr, you might want to look at one. They have a selection of 9mm, .40 S&W and .45. Hold one and pull the trigger. That should interest you enough to take the next step and shoot one. Or, just do like I did, read some annonymous Kahr fan-boy ranting on the internet and buy one sight unseen.

 

[JLStorm]

I think it depends on the gun and the shooter, I hate to be so vague, but if I told you one caliber is better I would be lying. I have carried a few guns in my life and my last 3 have been 45acp. which I have grown too love. I am 5'10" and weigh 215 - 220 depending on the season, so I have some weight behind me, and train constantly and the 45 just feels natural at this point, so for me the only advantage to .40 would be the cost.

As for the 45's I have carried:
Glock 30, which I hated
1911 which is a wonderful gun, but not quite what I needed for daily carry
HK USP full which I absolutely love and has the least recoil out of any 45 I have used.

 

[jlh26oo]

45 all the way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a number of reasons:

1. “I followed SLVR SURFR's advice about trying the Glock .45 ACP and found that I shoot that gun probably better than the .40 cal.”
2. “It does seem to have more of a pushing rather than flipping recoil which seems to be working out.”
3. The 45 will do everything that the 40 will do at a lower pressure. This means that your gun will last longer, and if you reload, your brass will last longer too.
4. The 45 has almost 100 years history as a proven man stopper in both the street and combat.

Then there are the intangibles. The way that felt recoil is transferred to the shooter, weather you feel that you really need that extra round or two in the mag, etc…
I like the 45. Not because of that extra .05” of bullet diameter, but because it is a proven stopper that operates at a low pressure, is comfortable to shoot, and is inherently accurate and is capable of excellent accuracy. Also, if you really want those few extra foot pounds of muzzle energy, toss some +p’s in the mag and there you go.

+1

I'll take superior handling and performance from a cartridge operating at almost 1/2 pressure than that of the .40sw. Especially considering that (if you like GLOCK as OP noted), aguably their most concealable package (most slim & 2nd lightest, loaded) is chambered in the .45acp.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Just my 2 cents but if you are going with Glock and considering a .45 then I suggest you get a Glock in .45GAP rather than a .45 ACP since the round was developed for the Glock.

Also, I know you said you want a Glock but if you are looking at a .45 you really should look at Springfield's XD. Not only do you get an outstanding handgun for ~ $500, it comes with the XD gear system too. The Compact configuration even comes with 2 different mags to help with CCW. Take a look here: http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-xdpstl-compact.shtml

Good luck with whatever choice you make.

 

[Ala Dan]

.45 ACP

Unless you like more recoil, and muzzle flip~! Cuz thats what the .40 offers.