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

[thewillweeks]

So say a fella wanted to own 2 of the big three, but not all three (at least for now), what would you suggest? The big three obviously being 9mm, 40s&w, and 45acp.

 

[Hanzo581]

9mm and .45acp for me. I've just never really been interested in .40s&w.

 

[huntsman]

I want something that starts with a 4

 

[badkarmamib]

Go big or go home. The two largest choices are the only pistol calibers that I own and/or load for.

 

[Hanzo581]

Go big or go home. The two largest choices are the only pistol calibers that I own and/or load for.

Why stop with the puny .45acp?

 

[sean m]

I would pick 9mm and 22lr, if that had been on the list. I can't see a real need for the other two.

 

[bullseye308]

9mm & 45 are my choices of the three listed. Personally I find the 40 too snappy.

 

[Mauser lover]

9mm and .45 for me!

Small is cheap, and big is fun! I've never really had much interest in the .40, at least in its "S&W" configuration... 10mm however, I'd like to find someday.

 

[Zendude]

9mm for cheap ammo. 45acp is just apple pie classic American.

 

[Ramone]

there's been a few times I've been convinced that I wanted a .40 S&W. I was raised to believe that .45ACP was the only caliber worth carrying, had a brief affair with 10mm Auto got tired of sore wrists the day after range days and hard to find ammo & mags, went back to .45, bought a 9mm for the capacity, found I shot the .45 better and still carry it more than anything else. So, for me, .40 should be a natural compromise.

but I every time I go shopping for one, I come home with either a 9mm or a .45...

 

[Hanzo581]

Judging by the posts and votes I am starting to see why I get so many advertisements for .40 cal pistols on sale.

 

[Chuck R.]

9mm and .45ACP for me also.

The only use I've found for .40s so far is turning them into 357 SIGs

Chuck

 

[Tallball]

I like all three. I guess I would give up 40 first if I had to... but luckily I don't have to!

 

[Hangingrock]

I have absolutely zero experience with the 40S&W thus the 45ACP and the 9mm-Luger.

 

[CPLofMARINES]

The 40 is overrated, today's 9mm PD loads equal a 40.
The 40 has higher recoil, less capacity, more expensive
to shoot. Most individuals who say the 9mm is puny, weak,
no stopping power, will not penetrate, have never been
shot with one. Why are so many LE agency's and Federal
government agencies going back to the 9mm ?
Oh btw, I like the .45 ACP too

 

[bannockburn]

I will keep this real simple: 9mm. and .45 ACP.

 

[Hanzo581]

The 40 is overrated, today's 9mm PD loads equal a 40.
The 40 has higher recoil, less capacity, more expensive
to shoot. Most individuals who say the 9mm is puny, weak,
no stopping power, will not penetrate, have never been
shot with one. Why are so many LE agency's and Federal
government agencies going back to the 9mm ?
Oh btw, I like the .45 ACP too

While I'm not a .40 fan, the first part of your post doesn't make sense, unless you're saying while advancements were happening in 9mm ammunition technology it remained stagnant in .40 cal.

.40 is absolutely more powerful than 9mm, but from my research not so much more powerful to outweigh the additional recoil and loss of capacity.

 

[bangswitch]

I chose .40 because 10mm wasn't a choice. That and .45.

 

[ray15]

To me 40S&W looks to combine many of the advantages of 9mm and 45acp. It capitalizes on the variety of firearms that host it due to the similarities in its design to 9mm's, while offering more bullet size and weight and much of its economy. You might view it as the best of both worlds. But you might also view it as serving up more muzzle energy and thus recoil than you really need to get the defensive gun job done.

While I enjoy 45acp a great deal and will probably get one soon, I have just 9s at the moment. I believe the original 9mm Luger loads from 1903 drove a 124gr. over 1200fps, so adequate muzzle energy has always been there. Our modern commercial loadings are finally starting to deliver most of that energy level, and with really good JHPs proliferating (and the armed and police forces standardizing on 9mm) its hard to argue you just have to have a 40 or 45 to stop an attacker. So to me the 45acp offers the most interesting alternative, being so common in 1911s, chambered by a few revolvers and being more different to me than 40 is when compared to a 9mm baseline.

I find myself wanting to say that if I was choosing one it might be 40, but in truth the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of 9mm make it when viewing from a purely functional standpoint my first choice under that scenario as well.

 

[entropy]

Haven't owned a 9 in years, but I have owned them, I've never owned a .40, and wasn't duly impressed with the ones I've shot. If, for some odd reason I wanted a .40, I'd get one of the G22&23 turn-in that are all over for cheap.

 

[JTQ]

...a fella wanted to own 2 of the big three, but not all three (at least for now), ...

Sounds like the third caliber may be in your future. Buy the .40 S&W and the .45 Auto. If you want to shoot 9mm later, you could probably just buy a 9mm barrel for your .40 S&W shooter.

 

[JTQ]

Why are so many LE agency's and Federal
government agencies going back to the 9mm ?

Because the ammo costs less and the guns are easier to shoot, hold more rounds, and break less. It is not because the 9mm is the equal performance-wise of the other two. It performs a little worse, but they consider the other features outweigh the loss in performance.

 

[fastbolt]

Well, if we're just falling back on just personal preference, then I picked 9/.45.

Why? To start with, I'm originally a .45 shooter who only reluctantly (grudgingly) adapted to using 9mm once it became the mandated duty caliber. Over the years I came to realize the 9mm was a fine caliber for defensive roles, especially with the better JHP bullet designs being offered. I started adding 9's to my collection of off-duty weapons.

A couple added benefits were that 9's could be made in smaller models than .45's, and the increasingly smaller 9's (think subcompacts) were usually more tolerant of shooter and ammo issues than similarly diminutive .45's.

Don't mistake my choices to imply I dislike the .40 S&W, though. I own 5 of them and carried a couple others as issued weapons, at one time or another. Matter of fact, my last issued weapon was chambered in .40, even though both 9 and .45 were also available.

A final "benefit", if someone is willing to invest the range time using .40, is that investing the time to really train with .40 can make it seem much easier to shoot 9 and .45 ... and over time, shooting my issued and personally-owned .40's have made me a better shooter with my 9's and .45's.

I could give up 3 of my 5 .40's tomorrow, without losing any sleep, but I wouldn't so easily wish to relinquish any of my half dozen 9's, nor most of my 9 pistols chambered in .45.

I think .40 is a fine caliber, but it requires more investment of the shooter to work to master it.

Either - or both - 9 & .45 offer enough advantages to make them good choices for dedicated defensive pistols, and are often easier for the "average" shooter to learn to run well (compared to the more abrupt snap of the typical .40, although this can be rather make/model dependent).

Now, as a LE firearms instructor, it's usually easier to train folks to do well when they're using 9mm.

As a LE armorer, .40 can be a little harder on guns than either 9 or .45.

 

[C0untZer0]

The 3 calibers I am interested in most are 9mm, 380 ACP and .32 ACP

 

[Mn Fats]

Add two more choices to the op then it may be harder for myself since crossing .40 s&w off the list was very easy for me to do.