Spinoff- which preferred caliber for ____ gun?

[bassjam]

I like the classics in what they were originally designed for.

1911 - .45
Any other full sized handgun - 9mm - cz75, Beretta 92, High Power, I guess you could throw polymer guns in there as well
Subcompact - 9mm. Controllability is more important to me with tiny guns than making a bigger hole
Microcompact - .380. For what it is, it's a great caliber for those tiny guns
Full sized revolver - .357mag
Snub revolver - .38sp

And .22's in both full size autoloader (Mark series or Buckmark) and full size revolver form (S&W 616). I guess you could throw a .22 in 1911 as well, I wouldn't mind owning one some day.

Rifles are really too much to tackle, but I will say I like having a .22 in semi-auto (both detach mag and tube), bolt action, and single shot form. And a "modern sporting rifle" in 5.56, as well as a bolt action in something like .270/.308/30-06

 

[CraigC]

The paradigm in this thread actually makes me a bit sad. It's never really made sense to me to pigeon hole a specific design into a specific cartridge. There are plenty of purist who disagree, and obviously plenty of chest thumpers who will exalt "a 1911 should be a 45," so I'm sure I'll continue to be labeled as the blasphemer by those closed minded folks.

I have to agree, for the most part, with only a handful of exceptions. I am sometimes biased towards historical configurations and chamberings. I like my .416's to be Rigby's. I like my 1860 conversions and 1871-1872 Open Tops to be .44Colt, rather than the ubiquitous and historically incorrect .45Colt.

I also see a lot of pigeonholing with regards to what whatever purpose a firearm/cartridge was "designed for". Who cares what was originally intended? I care about capability and don't believe in pigeonholes or imaginary limitations. The .45Colt was "designed for" the Colt SAA and a 255gr bullet at 900fps. Some would leave it at that, completely disregarding the fact that it's capable of sending a 360gr at 1500fps in the right gun. A lot of the same sentiment seems to surround the .44Spl, .44Mag and .45-70.

On a similar note, folks pigeonhole the Colt SAA as a .45Colt when it was chambered in myriad other cartridges and the .44Spl is more capable.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I also see a lot of pigeonholing with regards to what whatever purpose a firearm/cartridge was "designed for". Who cares what was originally intended? I care about capability and don't believe in pigeonholes or imaginary limitations. The .45Colt was "designed for" the Colt SAA and a 255gr bullet at 900fps. Some would leave it at that, completely disregarding the fact that it's capable of sending a 360gr at 1500fps in the right gun. A lot of the same sentiment seems to surround the .44Spl, .44Mag and .45-70.

I often wonder if Harold Croft had had Sedgley make up his famous .45s in Colt New Service, rather than Single Action, would Elmer Keith ever have bothered with the .44 Special?

 

[CraigC]

Metallurgy/heat treat in the New Service is questionable. It's not as strong as it looks. Keith was also of rather small stature with small hands and the New Service/Shooting Master/1917 is a big sixgun.

 

[huntsman]

The only revolver i own eats .45C, .45acp.

CC guns are plastic, compact (.40) and pocket(.380)

Sidearm is all steel in .45acp

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Metallurgy/heat treat in the New Service is questionable. It's not as strong as it looks. Keith was also of rather small stature with small hands and the New Service/Shooting Master/1917 is a big sixgun.

It's true that the New Service is a big gun, but I think he could handle it. As for metallurgy,. the New Service was heat treated, beginning in 1903 -- if it has the smokeless powder proof mark, it's heat treated. It was Smith and Wesson, not Colt, that didn't heat treat cylinders. The first S&W with a heat-treated cylinder was the M1917, and that was because the Army specified heat treating.

In any case, the New Service has more metal in the cylinder wall than the SA, even when the latter is in .44 Special. The reason is that the .45 cartridge version designed for the New Service has a much wider rim -- so wide that if you load it in a SAA, you can only load every other chamber. This results in a wider cylinder, with thicker walls. In addition, of course, the New Service bolt stop is offset to the right, so the bolt notch doesn't compromise wall thickness.

The New Service will easily and gracefully handle loads of 21.000 to 23,000 PSI, and will drive a 250 grain bullet about 1150 fps, which makes it quite competitive with Keith's hot .44 Special loads.

 

[BigBore44]

As a handloader, I'm into 9mm Para and 45ACP for semi autos. Can load as hot or as mild as I want (safely). For revolvers, 38, 357, 44Mag. Can load 38spl to to give a rat with a BB up its butt a run on power and velocity. And 44Mag to take anything in NA (not that I ever will).

Sure, there are bigger and badder out there. But they aren't really needed. Not that I begrudge anyone for having them.

 

[CraigC]

It's true that the New Service is a big gun, but I think he could handle it. As for metallurgy,. the New Service was heat treated, beginning in 1903 -- if it has the smokeless powder proof mark, it's heat treated. It was Smith and Wesson, not Colt, that didn't heat treat cylinders. The first S&W with a heat-treated cylinder was the M1917, and that was because the Army specified heat treating.

In any case, the New Service has more metal in the cylinder wall than the SA, even when the latter is in .44 Special. The reason is that the .45 cartridge version designed for the New Service has a much wider rim -- so wide that if you load it in a SAA, you can only load every other chamber. This results in a wider cylinder, with thicker walls. In addition, of course, the New Service bolt stop is offset to the right, so the bolt notch doesn't compromise wall thickness.

The New Service will easily and gracefully handle loads of 21.000 to 23,000 PSI, and will drive a 250 grain bullet about 1150 fps, which makes it quite competitive with Keith's hot .44 Special loads.

Elmer was a tough old sort but if the trigger reach is too long for your fingers, there's very little you can do about it.

Well, I have never heard an authority of any kind condone the use of anything but standard loads in a New Service. Not saying it's not up to the task, just that I don't know.

The reason is that the .45 cartridge version designed for the New Service has a much wider rim -- so wide that if you load it in a SAA, you can only load every other chamber.

Not quite sure what you're referencing there. The only .45 cartridge that's problematic for the SAA due to rim diameter is the .45S&W.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Elmer was a tough old sort but if the trigger reach is too long for your fingers, there's very little you can do about it.

Well, I have never heard an authority of any kind condone the use of anything but standard loads in a New Service. Not saying it's not up to the task, just that I don't know.

Look at it this way -- in the 1920s, Colt used the same metal for both the SAA and the New Service. No difference in metallurgy there.

The SAA in .44 Special -- with the same metallurgy as the New Service -- had about .01" of more metal over the bolt notch, and withstood the pressures of Keith's ferocious handloads nicely. The New Service, because of it's larger cylinder, had MORE than .01" in the cylinder wall AND the bolt stop was offset, and didn't compromise the cylinder wall. So the New Service in .45 Colt was MUCH stronger than the SAA in .44 Special.

The Colt M1917 is simply the New Service in .45 ACP, with identical chamber diameters, identical wall thickness, and no one has ever said you can't shoot all the .45 ACP +P you want in an M1917.

Not quite sure what you're referencing there. The only .45 cartridge that's problematic for the SAA due to rim diameter is the .45S&W.

Nope. The .45 S&W became the standard Army cartridge, and was issued to units armed with the SAA. It worked beautifully.

The .45 developed for the New Service had the wide rim. Current .45 Colts are a compromise -- not so wide as the New Service cartridge, but wider than the original Colt .45.

 

[CraigC]

Look at it this way -- in the 1920s, Colt used the same metal for both the SAA and the New Service. No difference in metallurgy there.

The SAA in .44 Special -- with the same metallurgy as the New Service -- had about .01" of more metal over the bolt notch, and withstood the pressures of Keith's ferocious handloads nicely. The New Service, because of it's larger cylinder, had MORE than .01" in the cylinder wall AND the bolt stop was offset, and didn't compromise the cylinder wall. So the New Service in .45 Colt was MUCH stronger than the SAA in .44 Special.

The Colt M1917 is simply the New Service in .45 ACP, with identical chamber diameters, identical wall thickness, and no one has ever said you can't shoot all the .45 ACP +P you want in an M1917.



Nope. The .45 S&W became the standard Army cartridge, and was issued to units armed with the SAA. It worked beautifully.

The .45 developed for the New Service had the wide rim. Current .45 Colts are a compromise -- not so wide as the New Service cartridge, but wider than the original Colt .45.

I agree that the New Service 'should' be stronger but having studied this subject for 30yrs, I have NEVER heard it condoned to use heavy loads in the New Service. I have, however, heard from folks who advocate heavy loads in the SAA suggesting NOT doing the same with the big Colt DA.

No, it was not. The .45S&W was problematic in the Colt. They came up with the .45Gov't cartridge which was .45S&W length with the .45Colt's rim. The military used very few .45S&W or .45Colt cartridges, the overwhelming majority were .45Gov't. Which is the cartridge that .45 "Long" Colt was originally distinguished from. Not the .45S&W.

 

[Zerodefect]

Fullsize: .45
Compact: .40 and .357sig
Subcompact: 9mm

I pick the type and size of the pistol the job requires. Then I pick the caliber that shoots best for me, and is the most powerful.

A Glock 19.3 (9mm), is disappointing to me, for example. I expect it to feel like a .22 compared to a G23.4 or G32.4, but it still has plenty of recoil and isn't much easier to shoot. So my compacts are .40's. In subcompacts, .40 is a bit much, so I prefer the 9mm.

Dan Wesson Valor .45, Glock 41, G23.3 (Warren comp day sights), G23.4 (Warren comp rear, Warren .125 night sight front only, for night use w/Surefire XC1), G43 (stock).

 

[Hanshi]

The .45 acp in a 1911.
.38spl in a double action revolver.
.22LR in an auto - Colt, Ruger, HS.
.45 Colt in a single action revolver.
.380 acp in a small auto (Walther)
.250/3000 in any rifle.
.45/70 in a lever.
.45 prb in a flintlock.

 

[Rexster]

I like the classics in what they were originally designed for.

1911 - .45
Any other full sized handgun - 9mm - cz75, Beretta 92, High Power, I guess you could throw polymer guns in there as well
Subcompact - 9mm. Controllability is more important to me with tiny guns than making a bigger hole
Microcompact - .380. For what it is, it's a great caliber for those tiny guns
Full sized revolver - .357mag
Snub revolver - .38sp

And .22's in both full size autoloader (Mark series or Buckmark) and full size revolver form (S&W 616). I guess you could throw a .22 in 1911 as well, I wouldn't mind owning one some day.

Rifles are really too much to tackle, but I will say I like having a .22 in semi-auto (both detach mag and tube), bolt action, and single shot form. And a "modern sporting rifle" in 5.56, as well as a bolt action in something like .270/.308/30-06

1911 - .45 ACP for now, perhaps .38 Super if recoil become a bit much for my aging hands. I am qual'ed to carry two 1911 pistols on duty.

Full-sized handgun - Well, mostly 9mm, except perhaps 10mm for a woods pistol. I have G17 and G19 Glocks, useful on and off the clock.

Subcompact - Assuming this means something like a G26, yes, 9mm is reasonable. I have a G26. Perhaps a G26 is actually "Compact?"

Micro compact? - Well, my .380 is a PPK/s, and I am considering a G42. These may be more like Compact in size. I have a Seecamp LWS-32, but it is only for very special occasions, when very deep concealament is vital. Really, this whole category is not something I use right now, and may not in the future. A snub-gun seems better, IMHO. Time will tell. For reference, I actually HATE the .32 and .380 Kel-tecs; very annoying to handle. The larger G42 seems much more reasonable.

Full-sized revolver - .357 Magnum, and .45 Colt. Magnum recoil is becoming less fun as I age.

Snub-gun - mid/mild .357 Magnum, perhaps mostly .38 Special in the future.

.22 LR - I have a 4" S&W Model 17 K-Frame revolver, and a .22 LR conversion unit for 1911 pistols.

Rifle - Yes, of course, a .223/5.56 AR15, because I think every able-bodied, responsible adult should have a working knowledge of the nation's military rifle. When Africa was a possibility, I acquired the one universal hunting rifle, a lefty Winchester Model 70, chambered for .375 H&H Magnum, a true classic. We have a small assortment of lever-action and single-shot centerfire rifles, but we do not hunt large game, so they are largely range toys.

Shotgun - 12 Gauge. For years, this meant pump guns. I have a Remington 870P, with several barrels, for different situations, and my duty qual is current, but I recently acquired a Benelli M2, with multiple barrels, and now prefer it, for police duty, home defense, pest control and personal defense on rural property, and all-around general utility. With retirement imminent, the M2 will likely become the RV/campsite defense gun, legal in more jurisdictions than autoloading rifles. To be clear, I do not disagree with those who prefer autoloading carbines for home defense, police patrol, and such.

 

[the Black Spot]

Preference:
Handgun - 44 special
(Semi-auto 45 acp)
Rifle - 444 marlin
Shotgun - 12ga

 

[Girodin]

Fullsize Auto: 9x19 mm
Compact Auto: 9x19 mm
Subcompact Auto: 9x19 mm
Single stack sub compact 9x19 MM
1911: years ago I would have said .45 ACP. These days there are 9x19 1911s that are highly reliable and IMHO one of the most pleasing guns there is to shoot. So once again I'll go with 9x19.
Deep concealment/BUG: .380
Larger frame revolver: .357 or .44 Magnum I'm undecided
Snub nose revolver: Toss up between .357 and 9x19 mm. Truthfully, I rare uses mine as I actually prefer either something like the CM 9, G43, or Shield for most of the roles I might use a snub nose revolver for. Given that I haven't decided which I truly prefer.

The only area where I disagree with you. I owned a Bulgarian Makarov in 9x18 once; to this day it is the hardest recoiling handgun I have ever owned, worse than my Ruger .357 Magnum.. It was like my hand got hit with a rubber mallet whenever I fired it. (It also ejected brass about 10 feet up and 30 feet away!) As far as I could tell, with 9x18 you get a marginal improvement on .380 in power with dated-design guns that are larger, heavier, older, and harder to fix/replace than anything in .380.
.

I have to agree I own and shoot 9x18 guns. They aren't my favorites for just shooting for gun. They certainly wouldn't be my first pick for any serious task though. While makarovs are highly reliable I wouldn't ever choose to carry one over any number of 9x19 guns. A Mak is so close in size to a G26 than any difference between them are negligible. The G26 has higher capacity, shoots a cartridge with better loads available, has easier to use controls, better sights, a better trigger (significantly better in the examples I own), better/more holster options, more easily customized to user's preferences, less felt recoil, and better aftermarket support. I believe that any number of sinlge stack 9x19 guns compare very very favorable to a Mak as a CCW gun. A CZ 82 is basically the size of a G19 and actually larger in some dimensions. Most of the above is true comparing those guns. My CZ, however, has the best DA/SA trigger I've shot. Another difference is the G19 can accommodate a light. I like having those 9x19 guns and the Mak in particular is a classic design that is worth owning if you like service weapons.

Full-sized handgun - Well, mostly 9mm, except perhaps 10mm for a woods pistol. I have G17 and G19 Glocks, useful on and off the clock.

Subcompact - Assuming this means something like a G26, yes, 9mm is reasonable. I have a G26. Perhaps a G26 is actually "Compact?"

Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Glock categorizes them as follows: G17 is fullsize, G19 is a compact, G26 is a subcompact. That said there are makers have guns that are of similar size that are categorized by differently by that manufacturer.

 

[lsudave]

I have to agree I own and shoot 9x18 guns. They aren't my favorites for just shooting for gun. They certainly wouldn't be my first pick for any serious task though. While makarovs are highly reliable I wouldn't ever choose to carry one over any number of 9x19 guns. A Mak is so close in size to a G26 than any difference between them are negligible. The G26 has higher capacity, shoots a cartridge with better loads available, has easier to use controls, better sights, a better trigger (significantly better in the examples I own), better/more holster options, more easily customized to user's preferences, less felt recoil, and better aftermarket support. I believe that any number of sinlge stack 9x19 guns compare very very favorable to a Mak as a CCW gun. A CZ 82 is basically the size of a G19 and actually larger in some dimensions. Most of the above is true comparing those guns. My CZ, however, has the best DA/SA trigger I've shot. Another difference is the G19 can accommodate a light. I like having those 9x19 guns and the Mak in particular is a classic design that is worth owning if you like service weapons.

Yeah, I do have to qualify that not every pistol or chambering I chose is intended for carry purpose. Frankly, I think "for carry" is an overrated concept... I have over a dozen pistols in centerfire alone, let alone the 22's etc. Most were purchased without the intent to carry. In fact, you really don't need more than 3 or so carry guns at the most (regular, compact and itty-bitty), and you should stick to those so that you become proficient in the usage (remember the old adage of fearing the man with just one gun, as he will shoot that very well).

My 9x18 guns are of historical value, to me, as are most of the others I own. I leave out the .380's because most of them are also .32's (and often, were originally chambered for that), thinking of the smaller Colts and Walthers, etc.

But yes, I do remember going to the range with my brother, I had my PA 63 in 9 mak, and he had a Bersa in .380. The recoil difference was night and day; the Bersa was mild and pleasant, and the FEG was a severe jolt into my thumb joint.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Woods carry/hunting: 44mag if it's a hogleg, might as well be able to drop a hog.
1911: 45acp all mine are 45 ACP
Full sized service pistol: BHP in 9mm (which is pretty svelte compared to many, my go to pistol)
Revolver: 357 4 inch 357 is about the perfect revolver
Small gun: 380 good compromise in size/power
Must have: 22 target pistol, have to start somewhere, best training arm there is

 

[Rexster]

Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Glock categorizes them as follows: G17 is fullsize, G19 is a compact, G26 is a subcompact. That said there are makers have guns that are of similar size that are categorized by differently by that manufacturer.

Well, you are correct, in that Glock considers the G19 to be compact, but Glocks that use double-column mags are blocky little beasts, especially at the protruding, squared-off rear of the slide, regardless of overall size, and a G19 does have over 4" of barrel, which used to be a measure of a duty/service gun. Considered alone, I reckon I would consider a G19 semi-compact, but considered together, I think of both the G17 and G19 to be duty-sized pistols.

Plus, the OP skipped the "compact" category, anyway. The G19 is certainly not subcompact, so that left Full-sized as the logical placement.

 

[gotboostvr]

For nightstand - HK P7M8 I've trained with it all my life, there is no safety to disengage, but I d have to grip the gun to get it into action, I think its the best combination of safe but quick to bring into action.

I love the P7 manual of arms, any action that needs done other than pulling the trigger or changing the magazine (which is all normal) is just squeeze it again.

Very intuitive with very little practice and very fast. I've missed safeties, or slide releases before with my thumb, I never "missed" that big squeezer.

I really wish HK would release an updated poly version in about the same size dimensions that won't burn your hand at the range.

 

[John Joseph]

1911---.45ACP
N-frame---.44MAG/SPL, .357MAG, or .45
K-frame---.38 SPL or .22LR
J-frame---.38SPL
P-frame---.45
Colt Pocket Auto---.32ACP
Browning HP---9mmPARA

 

[cfullgraf]

I like particular gun platforms and am likely to have multiple examples chambered in several different cartridges.

As already said, variety is the spice of life.

 

[RPRNY]

There is only one proper caliber for handguns: 45, although 44 is close enough that it is perfectly acceptable.

Pistols come in 45acp. Revolvers in 45 Colt

If a lesser version is required due to infirmity, malnutrition, or general inadequacy, the 40 S&W and the 357 Magnum exist to serve your needs.

This fascination with the teeny-tiny europellets emitted by the girlish 9x19 is, frankly, disturbing and unbecoming of Americans. If you need a small bullet that doesn't hurt your little hands so much to shoot, the 40 S&W, made for frail souls who couldn't handle the 10mm, is an appropriately limp-wristed substitute, from 'Merica, for 'Mericans.

The 9mm is for Nazis, cheese-eating surrender monkeys, those who wear berets and conceal in their European man-purse, and the sort of people who danced in the background of Spandau Ballet music videos. And if you need little bullets in a revolver, at least launch them with some speed.

 

[Single-Shot Super-Fan]

Revolver: .357 Magnum (very versatile, as a good .357 can shoot everything from the lightest .38 target loads to the heaviest .357s)

Autoloader: 9mm (except for the 1911, which should be .45 in most cases) or 10mm

Hand cannon: .44 Magnum (I know there are rounds that blow the socks off of .44 mag, but it's a good blend of power and controllability)

Combat rifle/carbine: 5.56x45 (good capacity and relatively effective)

Hunting rifle (bolt-action): .308 (not a shoulder-killer, but fairly effective and easy to find)

General-purpose semi-auto rifle: 7.62x39 (good blend of power, availability, and manageability)

Lever rifle: 30-30 or a magnum pistol cartridge (30-30 is a classic lever gun chambering, and pistol-caliber lever guns make great companion guns for revolvers in the same caliber)

 

[Gen_Y_Ballistics]

One of the most effective handgun loads ever devised was a .357" 125 grain SJHP at 1400-1500 fps. Stopping and/or killing the assailant should be our goal, so a ballistics-centered list would look something like this:

Wheel gun - 4" or 5" .357 Magnum. Heavier calibers are arguably better, but sacrifice follow-up time.

Autoloader - Full sized gun in .38 Super, 9x23, or .357 SIG

For small statured people:

Wheel gun - 4" or 5" .357 Mag or .38 Special +P+ firing a 110 gr bullet at 1300 fps. Also good, but not as much penetration.

Autoloader - Full sized gun in 9mm, firing 115 gr cup-and-core bullet at 1300 fps

 

[JTHunter]

My primary calibers are .380, .38 Sp./.357, and 7.62x39, although I use a fair amount of .22LR as well.
The thing about the .22 and .38 cal. is I have both handguns and rifles for those calibers.