Caliber Wars: then and now

[C0untZer0]

I think 9mm is more versatile than the 45. I think it is impossible to make a functioning semi-automatic pistol as small as the Rohrbaugh R9 chambered for .45 ACP.

 

[TRX]

> When I was young you had two choices 357 or 45.

And then Coonan came along, and you could have a 1911 in .357...

The caliber wars were fun back in the day, but it was easy when bullets were round-nosed-lead or hardball, and ammo was military or SAAMI spec. Now that manufacturers are loading beyond previously-accepted pressure and using fancier bullets you're back to apples and oranges; "exactly what kind of 9mm / .38 / .40 are you talking about?"

 

[Bo]

I was a die hard 45 type of guy, got 6 of them, and then Arthur (arthritis) came into my life. Recoil and Arthur don't get along very well.

I still have all of my 45's, can't seem to give them up but, I rarely shoot them anymore.
Although I find the 45 uncomfortable to shoot, I still love the 1911 platform.

I have since bought a 9mm Range Officer. I like it so much, I'm looking into to buying a SA Custom Carry or a Dan Wesson in 9mm.

I also have a Sig 938 in 9mm which is a sweet little gun that you can't even tell you're carrying it.

I may have gravitated to the 9mm but, I'll always love the 45.

 

[vba]

dr0;
I started shooting in 1981 so remember everything in your original post. My favorite caliber is still the .45 ACP (1911) and also own a USPc .45.

In around the mid 90's I begrudgingly gave into Glocks in 9mm. Presently, I carry a 1911 in the winter but the rest of the year it's either the G19 or G26.

Yet I see evidence that the .45 hits harder (momentum is greater) as seen with steel plates at the range. Therefore, 9mm and .38 Special are the minimum calibers I will carry.

 

[entropy]

I started with revolvers in .357. Then shot a friend's 1911. My experiences with both .45 and 9mm in the Army cemented my preference for .45 ....It's been either .45or .38/357 ever since. When I come to that fork in the road where .45 gets to be too hard to shoot regularly, I'll buy a G19. I've shot many of them, and do it well. I don't reload 9mm, so not in a hurry to change. Only problem I have with Glocks is the G21 I owned a while back didn't function well with reloads the 1911 gulped without a hiccup.That and I keep trying to thumb that phantom safety off...

 

[cowboy77845]

In the past, I have had 9mm, 380,32, 357, 40,10mm,44, 45, 454 and others. Never having engaged in serious social work, I can not attest to the best defensive round. I like the 45ACP in the SIG Ultra. I like the 1911A1 platform because I like it. I shoot it well. If I were going to shoot cars,I want a 454. A rifle is better. 27 yrs in the Army may have influenced my opinion. Just wish I had bought 357 armor piercing in the 50s when they were on sale across the counter.

 

[BSA1]

I was first introduced to handguns as a rookie police officer with the S&W K-Frame revolver. There were very few semi-auto to choose from back then…the Hi-Power, 1911, S&W Model 39 and 59’s. Cocked and locked created to much hysteria for citizens so that left the Model 39 and 59. The 59 was high-capacity but had a grip like a 2”x 4”.

My department adopted various models of the Ruger P-Series 9mm’s in the 1990’s. I spent a lot of trigger time with them on the range. I still have a P-89 “crunchenticker.”

Reliable expansion of hollowpoints remained a problem.

Then we had the infamous FBI shootout in Miami in the 1980’s. The FBI choose to blame the death of it’s agents on the failure of one 9mm Silvertip bullet to penetration 1” deeper in Platt’s body stopping just short of hitting his heart. Those of us that were active leo’s at the time knew the incident was a result of a massive screw-up by the agents but the FBI didn’t want to tarnish the image of the wounded and killed agents so they blamed the bullet.

The 10mm was adopted as a result. I found it to be too hot of a round to enjoy shooting. A lot of shooters and leo’s agreed so the 10mm lite was adopted. The 40 S&W enjoyed much of it’s popularity due to reliable expansion issues of hollowpoints and, of course, the adoption of it by the FBI.

My 45 Autos are the 1911. I got into using the 45 for ISPC and IDPA and the gun of choice is the 1911. 1911’s are heavy for conceal carry and I have never really warmed up to it despite owning several. So the 45 Auto stays in the dark corner of the gun vault.

My preferred carry gun over all of these years has remained a revolver. Six for sure beat finding hollowpoint ammunition that would reliably expanded and feed 100% without jamming.

Then a couple of years ago I got introduced to the SIG P239 in 9mm. Ah it was a match made in heaven for me. 9 rounds with one in pipe and improvements in bullet design meant reliable expansion from it’s short barrel. It became my edc.

Then came 2/24/16. Like 9/11 for most of the country 2/24/16 had a huge impact of me. This incident along with the later mass shooting in the gay nightclub changed my viewpoint on carrying hi-capacity handgun. Now suppressive firepower by a citizen makes sense to me. As the gay nightclub shooting showed it takes the Police a long time to organize before going in after a shooter. While I may not be able to neutralize a shooter by hitting him with a round I can at least cause him to stay behind cover unable to shoot while giving potential victims precious extra time to escape.

My SIG is most likely going to be replaced by a Beretta 92FS. I brought a couple pair of jeans 2” wider and am carrying a 92 in a iwb holster. I am in the final test phase by seeing how comfortably it feels over a long time. As Kansas allows open carry printing is not a issue and I usually open carry in the summer anyway. (Long 90+ and 100 degree heatwaves just makes it too hot for conceal carry).

As I match the gun to the task I have acquired more 9mm’s. I have 9mm semi-autos with barrel lengths from 3 – 5”.

I like the 45 ACP but just have not find a gun I like it in. However the full-size S&W Shield with a APEX trigger and Truglo fiber optic sights has really caught my interest recently.

All in all the 9mm is just right.

 

[JR24]

After much experimentation, I just shoot my 9mms best. At least in rwpid fire, controlled pairs, transitioning targets... self defense type things.

I shoot my .45s more accurate slow fire, and 10mm better at long range, but should I need possibly multuple shots, quickly and accurately inside of 15 yards I like my Glock 17 or 26.

So I carry 9.

Specifically to .40, I like the cartridge well enough but I don't shoot it quite as well and looking at all the ballistic data available (for what it is worth) I don't feel it has ENOUGH advantage in penetration and expansion to justify the increased recoil and decreased capacity. If I was worried the 9mm wasn't gun enough (I'm not) I'd go all the way and carry 10mm.

 

[GRIZ22]

Back in the 70s I was drawn to the 45 ACP as a better alternative to the 38 SPL. The 45 and 357 were the alternatives then. Not much ammo selection then and although 9mm offered more capacity fmj performed pretty much like 38 158 RNL. 45 was easier to shoot than 357.

As time went on and there were more improvements in ammunition I don't think a 45 is really better. 357 is good but most over penetrate and not a good idea in an urban environment I find myself in often.

I don't feel undergunned with a 38, 9, or 45 now.

 

[dr0]

dr0;
I started shooting in 1981 so remember everything in your original post. My favorite caliber is still the .45 ACP (1911) and also own a USPc .45.

In around the mid 90's I begrudgingly gave into Glocks in 9mm. Presently, I carry a 1911 in the winter but the rest of the year it's either the G19 or G26.

/QUOTE]

I'm pretty intrigued by the USPc .45. It's the gun that inspired me to start this thread, because I find myself wondering if I should go for the 9mm version instead.

Of course, once you decide on the 9mm it's tempting to go for an even smaller gun like one of the micro-9s. LIke the Beretta Nano.

BSA1 also mentions the SIG 239, another gun I have lusted after from time to time. It fits my hand nicely.

Here, for comparison sake are some Specs:

Colt LW Cmd 7.75 X 5.5 in 29.4 oz, 8rds
USPc .45: 7.09 X 5.04 in, 27.2 oz. 8 rds.
USPc 9mm 6.81 X 5.00 in, 28.2 oz. 10 rds
SIG 239 9mm 6.60 X 5.10 in, 29.5 oz. 8 rds
Nano 9mm: 5.63 X 4.17 in, 19.8 oz 6 rds
Walther PPK: 6.10 X 3.80 in, 22.1oz 6 rds (alloy, non /S version)

To me this chart explains why 9's are more popular now than ever.

Previous generations of "compact" pistols didn't offer huge advantages in size/weight over the tried and true Colt 1911 Lightweight Commander. Current generation pistols like Beretta Nano, Ruger LC9, etc. do,

 

[ritepath]

I love shooting the 45, but it eats up one more grain of powder and and extra 106 grains of lead for every round loaded. I just don't see where it's that much fun over the 9mm (and I just loaded 1k of 230's) I'd like to have 2 maybe 3 more 45's but after that just 9mm's.

 

[FL-NC]

I spent a career in the army from 1987-2010. I was always issued a handgun in addition to a rifle/carbine due to my MOS. I was issued the following handguns, in the following order: M1911A1, M9, M11 (Sig 228), M9 again, MK 23 at different times, and Glock 19. I became a solid supporter of Glock due to my best experiences were with it. It just performed better then anything else. I also came to like the 9mm the best. I had the opportunity to work with some impressive units from all over the world. They ALL used some type of 9mm- whether they were BHPs, Glocks, Sigs, HK, etc. None of those professionals felt their pistols were inadequate. Why do Americans worry so much about this? MOST people will never need to use a pistol on someone else (not a bad thing). In my experience and observations, if you place 2 or more bullets (there's a reason they all hold more than 1- they aren't pirate flintlocks) in the vital areas as marked on the FBI qual target, predictable results occur with calibers 9mm or bigger when using quality ammunition.

 

[Ramone]

Sometime in the summer of either 1970 or '71, after some learning with a bolt action .22, I fired my first centerfire round from my Dad's old Remington Rand 1911A1. All my Uncles preferred the 1911, even the cops, who carried .38s.

It remained my favorite, from the rattly ones I qualified with as a Marine, to my Dad's nickel plated, pinned grip safety Remington Rand, to my first AMT Hardballer.

I flirted with the 10mm Auto when it first came out, buying a Bren Ten. Finding ammo was difficult, and second magazine impossible. Add to that the fact that my wrist would still be sore the day after a range trip, and I was soon trading it back for another 1911, this one a StreetMaster from Detonics.

A few years later, the .40 S&W piqued my interest. I really never found the Wonder Nines appealing, thinking 9mm being a lesser cousin of the .38 Super, which had a near mythical mystique all it's own. None the less, I ended up buying a 9mm CZ, which, though I thought it capable and comfortable, never really spoke to me. I continued to carry a 1911 in .45.

I've had a few 9mm over the years, but never carried one on a regular basis. I really liked the CM9, but usually ended up carrying a compact 1911, which I found to be just as concealable, being only slightly larger than the Kahr.

I like the idea of the .40S&W. More power than the 9, more rounds than the .45, less punishing than the 10. But every time I go shopping for one, I seem to come home with a .45, or occasionally a 9mm.

I do shoot the .45 better, which I always chalked up to knowing it best, until about 3 years ago when the local PD switched over to it from 9mm after testing showed that their officer qualified an average of 8 points higher with the .45. So maybe I have been on to something all along.

 

[Winkman822]

In the time that I've owned handguns (about 10 years now), I've gone through a good number. I started with a Glock 23 in .40 S&W and have had a couple more specimens of that after having parted company with my original 23. I've had a number of 9mm pistols and a number of .45 ACP pistols. When I started carrying, I was carrying a full size .45 ACP. I still love the .45 round and shoot it on occasion, though not as often as when I carried it. I have since switched to carrying 9mm as ammo is readily available and inexpensive. .45 ACP on the other hand, while being readily available, it ain't cheap. I can shoot 100 rounds of 9mm for every 50 rounds of .45. I'm giving some serious thought to adding a .357 Sig pistol (probably a P229) to my collection as I've never had one, but ammo for .357 Sig isn't exactly cheap in my neck of the woods. In fact it comes in a couple dollars a box higher than .45. And no, I don't reload as I don't have the space in my house to add a reloading setup.

 

[strambo]

The advancements in the study of terminal ballistics along with premium HPs designed to reliably expand and penetrate after passing through different mediums rendered the "caliber wars" moot IMHO.

So, while there is a small terminal ballistics edge to the .40/.45 with greater expansion, it is countered by increased recoil and lower capacity...so I call 'em equal. Even the .380 now has loads that will make it 12" through 4 layers denim into gel and expand!

 

[DeadEye9]

Back in the stone age of the 1980s we had the caliber wars. The 9mm then (as now) was the go to cartridge for a lot of police organizations moving away from revolvers. There were problems and criticisms of it being somewhat ineffective in some scenarios.

There was much love for the 9mm too, especially in double-stack pistols with large capacity. Even the era's compacts could chamber 10+1, Full size pistols with 13, 14, 15 and 16 round magazines were a big step up from 'six for sure'.

There were strong .45 caliber partisans, countering all this And we had a lot of innovation in calibers to bridge the 9mm and 45 divide.

We had the 10mm invented to "fix" the shortcomings of the 9mm and then the .40 S&W designed to "fix" the problems of the 10mm. Somewhere along the way the .357 Sig was invented to improve the .40 S&W. The military changed from .45 to 9mm, Beretta in, 1911 out.

I ended up being on the .45 side of the divide, as much because of my love of the 1911 platform as for any concern for the 9mm's ineffectiveness. Jeff Cooper's writing probably helped sway me to the .45 / 1911 (and later 10mm / 1911) team. (Anybody remember "crunch-n-ticker" as a derogatory phrase? Another sort of obsolete concern in this days of DAO, striker fired, LEO triggers and an almost impossible to keep-track of number of variations.)

Amazingly that was more than 30 years ago! Has much changed?

Of course I've seen the trend towards ever-smaller pistols for concealed carry has created a whole category of micro-9mms that are sized like older .380s. That's pushed the 9mm back to the front.

And even in full size and compact pistols, the 9mm seems to have overcome a lot of doubters, and has much improved PR since the height of the original caliber wars.

SIG chambers many of their guns in the buyer's choice of 9mm, 40mm and .357 SIG. The 9mm seems to be most people's choice. The .357 SIG seems still the odd-man-out, appreciated theoretically by many, but used by few.

The .40 seems to have peaked and is again receding behind the resurgent popularity of the 9mm. The 10mm, the cartridge too strong to die, has quietly grown a cult following, and is sort of firmly established as a the most powerful alternative chambering for full size semi-autos.

The .45 still has it's fans, but they seem to be fewer and quieter than in the past.

In looking at buying a new gun I find myself thinking: maybe I should get the 9mm? Or the 40? In particular I've been looking at the HK USP Compact series (itself already 25 years old, amazing!).

The .45 version is only marginally larger, but I still wonder if I should go with one of the smaller calibers, gaining capacity and controllablity. (I've never really struggled with the .45 or the 10mm, but I am sure I can shoot 9's faster with accuracy - which is why a lot of the competitive shooters use .38 Super as I understand it).

I feel like I might be among the last of the old school ".45 guys" giving in.

Let's hear from other 'caliber warriors' old school or new. Have you preferences changed? if you have many or all of the calibers mentioned in this post do you find yourself gravitating towards one? Is a different one than you favored 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

When looking for a full sized or mildly compact sized pistol do you still favor the tried and true .45, or are you a 9mm guy? Or, do you still like the split-the-difference strengths of the .40.

Game on!

With modern ammo all the service calibers are going to perform the same as long as the shooter does their job. With that in mind I gravitate towards the 9mm for capacity and because I can shoot it very fast very accurate. A .45 having more "stopping power" than a 9mm and so on is a myth long disproved. If you put the rounds where they count a 9mm is just as effective as any other pistol caliber, and if you don't hit a good target even a .50 AE isn't going to save your bacon based on "stopping power". With all that in mind and years and years of ballistic research and testing I feel the 9mm is my best carry option, giving me the ability to carry the most rounds in a given platform, put the most rounds on target in the least amount of time and keep those rounds ALL on target. I can shoot a 45 or a .357 or a 40 all very well too. But, if I take a 6" paper plate and empty the full mag of a 9, 40, & 45 as fast as I can pull the trigger, the 9mm is always an entire mag on plate whereas the larger calibers spread a bit more. I'll take more rounds in a tighter pattern in less time for a defensive weapon any day.

 

[JohnBiltz]

The FBI protocols killed the caliber wars for the most part. If all calibers penetrate 12 to 18 inches then all calibers pretty much perform the same and more bullets with less recoil start making more sense.

 

[Jason_W]

Does the conversation change when misguided state laws limit magazine capacity?

One of the advantages of the 9mm is that you can pack a lot of rounds into a magazine. Here in California, we're limited to 10 rounds no matter what round we're shooting. If you only have 10 shots, should each of those shots poke as big a hole as possible?

 

[strambo]

Does the conversation change when misguided state laws limit magazine capacity?

One of the advantages of the 9mm is that you can pack a lot of rounds into a magazine. Here in California, we're limited to 10 rounds no matter what round we're shooting. If you only have 10 shots, should each of those shots poke as big a hole as possible?

Recoil management and quickness of follow up shots matter...but that does change the equation. My main carry gun is a P226 in 9mm, 15+1 or 18+1 is serious firepower. I wouldn't carry a full size gun with neutered mags though. So, I'd strongly consider a P227 instead. Or, a more compact 9mm designed around the 10rd capacity.

Raw capacity isn't that important though IMO, shootability is, and is primarily why I carry the P226. I suspect a 227 can be run pretty fast as well.

 

[JO JO]

I think it comes down to practice I know several folks who own 9mm and they say their a good enough shot with them but the thing is they only shoot 100 rounds a year at best the guns live in a night stand for this catagory of shooter a easy shooting platform makes sense, I like many of others can shoot a larger caliber just as good practice and muscle memory is key if someone practices enough they are effective with their weapon of choice, I bet 75% of hand gun owners practice 2 times a year or less, even the LE guys don't shoot much unless they are part of a swat type unit, hence a easier platform to pass a yearly qualification is looked at

 

[readyeddy]

I remember when the FBI Miami shootout was often cited as a reason to reject the 9mm. Also, the 10mm/40S&W debates and Col. Jeff Cooper's writings brought the caliber wars to fairly lively levels in the 90's. It made for a lot of gun magazine articles and discussion at the LGS. Nowadays I don't notice much discussion regarding the caliber wars. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

I don't really have a preference, except I've been wanting to shoot more 38 Special.

 

[bersaguy]

It's funny, I have lots of different tools. Within those I have a bunch of different socket wrenches and sockets. Now, I could do 85% of what I need to do with one set of standard sockets and a 3/8" drive ratchet. But I have 6 point, 12 point, deep well, 1/2" drive, 1/4" drive, extensions, stubby handled ratchets, breaker bars and not to mention the impact sockets and drives.
Guns are tools.
I could do 85% of what I need with a compact 9mm. But why? If money is the limiting factor, ok...get a compact 9mm. I certainly started with a standard socket set. But, I found the right tool for the job makes life so much better.
Now, whats better...9mm or 38spl? Kinda like asking whats better 9/16 or 14mm, they're not the same, but very, very close. They can be interchangeable when needed, but they work just a little bit better when they're used where they're supposed to be used.

 

[huntsman]

^ think Crescent wrench

 

[bersaguy]

That would make a hi-point c9 a roll of duct tape and can of WD-40

 

[entropy]

I think it comes down to practice I know several folks who own 9mm and they say their a good enough shot with them but the thing is they only shoot 100 rounds a year at best the guns live in a night stand for this catagory of shooter a easy shooting platform makes sense, I like many of others can shoot a larger caliber just as good practice and muscle memory is key if someone practices enough they are effective with their weapon of choice, I bet 75% of hand gun owners practice 2 times a year or less, even the LE guys don't shoot much unless they are part of a swat type unit, hence a easier platform to pass a yearly quail is looked at

For quail I like 20 or 28 gauge, myself....I did shoot a grouse once with a 38, though.