vmfrantz
Member
You need both. I could never get rid of either of mine.
mike
mike
Sell My 9mm and Go All Out with .45. What do People Think?
- Thread starter 4Freedom
- Start date
- Status
weisse52
Member
Well,
I just like the .45 better. I have watched this "crap" for several decades now. Own what you want, shoot what you trust. I do not have confidence in 9mm, but that is based upon "my" opinion. You can find piles of information that supports both sides.
Still find the .45 easier to deal with when reloading, your opinion may vary.
These threads are fun to read.....
I just like the .45 better. I have watched this "crap" for several decades now. Own what you want, shoot what you trust. I do not have confidence in 9mm, but that is based upon "my" opinion. You can find piles of information that supports both sides.
Still find the .45 easier to deal with when reloading, your opinion may vary.
These threads are fun to read.....
You might also keep in mind that our friends in the military are shooting 9mm ball. Modern expanding bullets lend the 9mm a little more credibility.
That said, I'm a .45 man. In my gun of choice (Springfield XD), the .45 holds fewer rounds than the 9mm, but more than the .40. And, the .45 is more enjoyable to me than the .40. There was no reason for me not to go for the .45.
That said, I'm a .45 man. In my gun of choice (Springfield XD), the .45 holds fewer rounds than the 9mm, but more than the .40. And, the .45 is more enjoyable to me than the .40. There was no reason for me not to go for the .45.
HammerheadSSN663
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 317
BHP FAN
Member
I have both.9mm is cheaper,.45 is more fun.
jpwilly
Member
45 cal and 1911's are my favorites. My only wondernine is a close second and it's a CZ 75! Get what you want they'll make more.
I think if someone feels more confident with a .45, by all means, that's what you should carry. If anyone doesn't have faith in what you can do with a 9mm though, then why not consider the S&W 500. You shouldn't go through life under stress...it's not healthy.
loop
Member
In my previous post I cited other reasons for going with .45, but the fact is I did it consolidate. I reload and it cost a bundle to have bullets, primers and powder for .357, 9 mm, 40 S&W and .45 on hand.
Fundamentally, these were my true SD calibers. But, by eliminating everything but .45 I only have to buy one kind of bullet and one kind of primer. Since I load for accuracy and reliability I have to have two kinds of powder on hand and load several different rounds with the same bullet, but different powder charges.
I have to say cost is relatively neutral. I am currently paying a little under $14 per 100 for .45 ACP. I do not find that price a factor that limits my range time. I've decided to break out my lead pot and go back to casting again and that will cut my cost to $7 per 100 for .45.
To me the cost argument is bogus. If you want to shoot you pay the price. It is an expensive hobby.
I've spent thousands of dollars on training (and will drop at least another $700 on training in June). Ammo is the least expensive part of my shooting.
I have a 1911 that cost me close to $3,000. The holster cost another $130 and the mag pouch was another $65. I just picked up 10, 10-round 1911 mags for a couple hundred. I rarely buy grips for under $100.
Even if ammo was $50 a box it would still be the cheapest part of shooting.
As for being harder to conceal, if you can't conceal one of those teeny Glocks, a Colt Officer's model, a Para Slim Hawg or a Kahr, you ain't trying.
The caliber comparisons aren't really valid. Every time I see one it is a 115 9mm or a 125 38 compared to a .45 hardball. The comparison should be to a 185 gr. HP in 45. Or, a 148 gr. 9 or 158 gr. 38 to a .45. It doesn't really matter because what everyone chooses to compare it to is the .45 ACP. Why? Because it is the standard.
I don't care what anybody else shoots. It ain't my gun. But, the OP asked how people felt about consolidating. I consolidated my shooters years ago and have never regretted it.
I have a lot of other calibers. I just don't shoot any of them enough to even bother loading for them. Why would I? I have a lot of really nice .45 ACPs.
Besides, none of them have the feel of a .45. Be it a 1911, a CZ97 or a Glock. The .45 feels better.
And, it makes a big hole that I can see from the firing line.
Fundamentally, these were my true SD calibers. But, by eliminating everything but .45 I only have to buy one kind of bullet and one kind of primer. Since I load for accuracy and reliability I have to have two kinds of powder on hand and load several different rounds with the same bullet, but different powder charges.
I have to say cost is relatively neutral. I am currently paying a little under $14 per 100 for .45 ACP. I do not find that price a factor that limits my range time. I've decided to break out my lead pot and go back to casting again and that will cut my cost to $7 per 100 for .45.
To me the cost argument is bogus. If you want to shoot you pay the price. It is an expensive hobby.
I've spent thousands of dollars on training (and will drop at least another $700 on training in June). Ammo is the least expensive part of my shooting.
I have a 1911 that cost me close to $3,000. The holster cost another $130 and the mag pouch was another $65. I just picked up 10, 10-round 1911 mags for a couple hundred. I rarely buy grips for under $100.
Even if ammo was $50 a box it would still be the cheapest part of shooting.
As for being harder to conceal, if you can't conceal one of those teeny Glocks, a Colt Officer's model, a Para Slim Hawg or a Kahr, you ain't trying.
The caliber comparisons aren't really valid. Every time I see one it is a 115 9mm or a 125 38 compared to a .45 hardball. The comparison should be to a 185 gr. HP in 45. Or, a 148 gr. 9 or 158 gr. 38 to a .45. It doesn't really matter because what everyone chooses to compare it to is the .45 ACP. Why? Because it is the standard.
I don't care what anybody else shoots. It ain't my gun. But, the OP asked how people felt about consolidating. I consolidated my shooters years ago and have never regretted it.
I have a lot of other calibers. I just don't shoot any of them enough to even bother loading for them. Why would I? I have a lot of really nice .45 ACPs.
Besides, none of them have the feel of a .45. Be it a 1911, a CZ97 or a Glock. The .45 feels better.
And, it makes a big hole that I can see from the firing line.
spyderdude
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 315
The thing with military guys complaining that the 9mm just isn't enough to stop the enemy, they use ball ammo, which in 9mm isn't the greatest in stopping power, but with proper shot placement it can be done. Fortunately in the civilian world and law enforcement, we have the luxury of having expanding hollow point ammo which creates more internal damage than regular ball ammo.
You should always carry the biggest and most powerful caliber you can shoot accurately, and for me its 9mm. I do not feel under gunned with 9mm given I use JHP ammo, and not ball ammo. If I had to use ball ammo you bet I would opt for a .45.
You should always carry the biggest and most powerful caliber you can shoot accurately, and for me its 9mm. I do not feel under gunned with 9mm given I use JHP ammo, and not ball ammo. If I had to use ball ammo you bet I would opt for a .45.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
4Freedom,
One other consideration: rather than getting a different handgun (the HK), why not get another S&W M&P 45? All your gear will work and operation is identical. Magazine cost is something to consider and HK sure is proud of their magazines.
For me, if I were to consolidate to 45 ACP...it would be due to ease in reloading. It's just so versatile.
I am considering 44 Magnum, but would download most of my rounds to 44 Special performance. Of course...I'll still have the option to make a box of real zingers....
OK...back to caliber wars!
One other consideration: rather than getting a different handgun (the HK), why not get another S&W M&P 45? All your gear will work and operation is identical. Magazine cost is something to consider and HK sure is proud of their magazines.
For me, if I were to consolidate to 45 ACP...it would be due to ease in reloading. It's just so versatile.
I am considering 44 Magnum, but would download most of my rounds to 44 Special performance. Of course...I'll still have the option to make a box of real zingers....
OK...back to caliber wars!
ojibweindian
Member
Keep the Sig. But if you absolutely have convinced yourself to sell it so as to finance a new 45, then follow crebralfix's advice and buy another M&P 45 as a spare to your current one.
calaverasslim
Member
Darn good idea. I now have 2 different 1911's in 45acp. Still have my 9 tho.
Any question concerning the validity to the ststements from returning GIs vis-a-vis the 45 and 9, just ask the FBI agents involved in that famous shootout in Miami a number of years ago.
I read about that and bought my 1st 1911
Any question concerning the validity to the ststements from returning GIs vis-a-vis the 45 and 9, just ask the FBI agents involved in that famous shootout in Miami a number of years ago.
I read about that and bought my 1st 1911
ambergerftriley
Member
45 is the only way to go. im going overseas for my third time and wish i could carry my 1911 with me. its the best gun ive ever had. i also tried a new springfield xd in 45 and am highly impressed with the way it handled, considering i usually hate a gun without a hammer.
What Are You After
4Freedom,
If what you want is an increase in power, go with the .40 S&W. Use the 155 grain jacketed hollow point. You will have a significant increase in power over either the 9m.m. or .45ACP ball loads.
You will also get an noticable increase in recoil and reduction in magazine capacity. For me, the choice is usually a 9m.m. loaded with +P or +P+ JHP. I prefer the lower recoil level and greater speed and control that goes with it.
You can usually get the same gun in either caliber, so it is a matter of which gun works best for you.
The size of the .45ACP round frequently dictates a bigger, heavier gun. That is a negative to me. You also have a lower magazine capacity.
I like 16 9m.m. +P a lot more than 8 .45ACP. Also, the gun itself may have a smaller grip which may aid in your shooting.
If you are in a situation where you are restricted to full metal jacket ammo, then a .45ACP is the way to go. The stopping power failures in IRAQ are related to the use of FMJ ammo. When using ball ammo, the larger bullett really does have an advantage.
Good luck,
Jim
4Freedom,
If what you want is an increase in power, go with the .40 S&W. Use the 155 grain jacketed hollow point. You will have a significant increase in power over either the 9m.m. or .45ACP ball loads.
You will also get an noticable increase in recoil and reduction in magazine capacity. For me, the choice is usually a 9m.m. loaded with +P or +P+ JHP. I prefer the lower recoil level and greater speed and control that goes with it.
You can usually get the same gun in either caliber, so it is a matter of which gun works best for you.
The size of the .45ACP round frequently dictates a bigger, heavier gun. That is a negative to me. You also have a lower magazine capacity.
I like 16 9m.m. +P a lot more than 8 .45ACP. Also, the gun itself may have a smaller grip which may aid in your shooting.
If you are in a situation where you are restricted to full metal jacket ammo, then a .45ACP is the way to go. The stopping power failures in IRAQ are related to the use of FMJ ammo. When using ball ammo, the larger bullett really does have an advantage.
Good luck,
Jim
"How many rank & file military do you think have served long-enough to have been issued both 1911s and M9s? Very few and they'd be pretty old by now since the M9 was adopted in the 1980s."
Hey! I'm not that old, I'm only 44!
I was issued an arsenal reworked .45 for the first Gulf War. In 1991 most of the active Army had the 9mm, but some of us lowly reservists still carried 1911's. I was issued the 9mm for Iraq. I liked the .45 better, but thankfully never had any occasion to fire either of them in anger.
Hey! I'm not that old, I'm only 44!
I was issued an arsenal reworked .45 for the first Gulf War. In 1991 most of the active Army had the 9mm, but some of us lowly reservists still carried 1911's. I was issued the 9mm for Iraq. I liked the .45 better, but thankfully never had any occasion to fire either of them in anger.
Kansan
Member
There's obviously enough similarity between the 2 rounds to generate 60+ posts (and probably many dozen more). The military & LE, etc have tested both rounds and have found them both acceptable for killing people, so just go with whatever will give you peace of mind... but more importantly, go with a platform that you know how to shoot and can hit something with. Shot placement, by far, is more of a determining factor in the outcome of a gunfight than the size and speed of two chunks of lead that have relatively similar killing capacity (vs. say, an arrow, a baseball bat, or a kitchen skillet).
ambergerftriley
Member
a little harsh arnt we.
MudPuppy
Member
WTH, man? Pretty old??
The 45s we had in the mid 80s were well used and less than accurate. I thought I'd read that all in the inventory (at the time) had been mfg'ed during WWII.
I remember reading an article in the late 80s on "one shot stops" that reviewed many LEO shootings. The 357 was listed as the leader with something like 75% one shot effectiveness and the 45 was a close second. (I know, why a single shot--who does that??). Anyhow that was before 10s and 40s etc.
But, I remember the FBI Miami shootout and reports of the 9mm not penetrating the seats of that Monte Carlo (or does that speak to the effectiveness of GM?).
I have a Taurus 9 that I love, the wife has a Ruger 45. I've had a couple of 45s that I've gotten rid of (S&W couldn't get through a whole mag without a jam of any and every type and I couldn't hit squat with the 8045 Cougar), but I'm going to either get a 1911 or a EAA/Baby Eagle--and hopefully both. I just like the 45 round better. I sure don't think anyone choosing a 9 or 40 is wrong, and I'd ask that you not be an enabler of folks that would state empirically 9s or 40s are "bad" or wrong choices.
You'll not be unarmed with either, do what you feel best about and you'll be fine. And both is always the right answer-lol.
HuntAndFish
Member
9mm VS 45.
I would be more likely to choose a gun that I knew I could shoot well, rather than a particular caliber. Shot placement is King. If you shoot a car in the fenders, you aren't stopping the motor.
Personally, I think you are going the wrong way. Until you can shoot little tiny groups and shoot multiple magazines full of cartridges on a small target at 20 yds then you are fixated too much on caliber and you need to practice your shooting. Once you can hit where you are shooting without fail, it won't matter so much what caliber you are using.
45 ACP is not a talisman that will keep the bogeyman away from your door.
JMO.
Has anyone considered the ability to lay down Suppressive fire with a 9mm because of its large magazine capacity? I mean a wonder 9 gives you the ability to lay down lead keeping the opponent pinned down enabling you to book the hell out of the situation while still having ammo left to shoot to kill.
This is not to be confused with spray & pray.
"Suppressive fire is used with the objective of preventing opposing forces from taking any action, such as returning fire; and forcing them into cover. Spray and pray is used when the location of the enemy is unknown, the attacker is inexperienced, or the target is too far away or moving too fast to effectively be aimed at. Spray and pray may be used as a response to suppressive fire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire
No one ever seems to talk about the peace of mind a 12rd subcompact or 20rd 9mm service pistol gives the user. I can recall several reality cop shows where a officer was shot at during a routine traffic stop and dumped his mag at the suspect while backing <.....> up to some cover. Adrenaline and fear changes everything no matter how experienced you think you are. Just a thought.
This is not to be confused with spray & pray.
"Suppressive fire is used with the objective of preventing opposing forces from taking any action, such as returning fire; and forcing them into cover. Spray and pray is used when the location of the enemy is unknown, the attacker is inexperienced, or the target is too far away or moving too fast to effectively be aimed at. Spray and pray may be used as a response to suppressive fire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire
No one ever seems to talk about the peace of mind a 12rd subcompact or 20rd 9mm service pistol gives the user. I can recall several reality cop shows where a officer was shot at during a routine traffic stop and dumped his mag at the suspect while backing <.....> up to some cover. Adrenaline and fear changes everything no matter how experienced you think you are. Just a thought.
Last edited by a moderator:
flyingdeserteagle
Member
as my eyesight worstens I find myself prefering .45 over my beloved 9mm.
easier to see the holes in the target and easier when reloading
To the OP, follow your heart, if you want to simplify, then have 1 caliber only. As your 9mm is a Sig229, I usge you to keep it if you can.
easier to see the holes in the target and easier when reloading
To the OP, follow your heart, if you want to simplify, then have 1 caliber only. As your 9mm is a Sig229, I usge you to keep it if you can.
This one of things crew-served weapons are good for. While your differentiating it from "spray and pray" is correct, for the purposes of civilian CCW (which will be mostly urban), it can still result in the same outcome: Dead bystanders.
"Some might consider suppressive fire as “Spray and pray”, thinking that all rounds should hit the target and if some don’t then it means that you need more time at the range. Those same people will might tell you that they intend to use bolt action rifles as defensive rifles, making each shot count, without ever missing their target, one shot one kill. I don’t agree with this. One shot one kill is ok for the majority of self defense situations, but people with larger threat levels than others should have other alternatives."
"Suppressive fire is possible if you have a high capacity pistol which most wonder 9's are. I wouldn’t doubt on using such a tactic if it serves my purposes, or if it buys me time to get out of there. Also keep in mind that criminals are cowards and therefore attack in groups. The defender should be able to face more than just one attacker. Getting into a gunfight with two or three armed men while packing a 7rd .45 is rather hard to deal with. A high capacity pistol can load about 15 or 19 rounds, and that can certainly make a difference in a gunfight where you are outnumbered."
This is just one of the often unspoken attributes Wonder 9's "possess"
"Suppressive fire is possible if you have a high capacity pistol which most wonder 9's are. I wouldn’t doubt on using such a tactic if it serves my purposes, or if it buys me time to get out of there. Also keep in mind that criminals are cowards and therefore attack in groups. The defender should be able to face more than just one attacker. Getting into a gunfight with two or three armed men while packing a 7rd .45 is rather hard to deal with. A high capacity pistol can load about 15 or 19 rounds, and that can certainly make a difference in a gunfight where you are outnumbered."
This is just one of the often unspoken attributes Wonder 9's "possess"
Glockman17366
Member
It's your money, so do what you want to do.
I'm a 9mm fan. Had .45 1911's and still own one, but for self defense, I prefer 9 mm for semi-autos. Now, that has as much to do with my chosen platform, Glocks, as it does with the caliber.
I'm a 9mm fan. Had .45 1911's and still own one, but for self defense, I prefer 9 mm for semi-autos. Now, that has as much to do with my chosen platform, Glocks, as it does with the caliber.
- Status
Similar threads
