what advantage does an 8-shot .45 have over a 16shot 9mm??

[Drail]

Caliber and capacity are not as important as where you hit. Practice to hit and don't worry about the other stuff.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Just depends. That question is way too general though.

I own .45 1911's and 9mm Glocks. They both have a purpose and good uses.

 

[CharlesT]

Am I the only one who thinks caliber doesn't matter?

Obviously I am not going to war with a .22 but any decent shooter should be able to put someone down with anything. Even if they just get knocked down it's enough time for you to exit the situation.

IMHO

 

[xiton]

Not to mock you, but that was the reason that my old department used when they wanted us to all carry the same gun and ammo...we could share ammo if a fellow officer ran out.

Like I would give you some of my ammo, because you couldn't hit anything with all of yours

Training will save you...I've seen it proven more than once. Just like a lack of training or poor training will put you at the mercy of luck

I feel like it depends on the circumstance and usage. A LEO is already going to have multiple magazines with them, so the 8 vs 16 round scenario is not important. I don't expect to see many US citizens with 2-4 magazines along with their locked and loaded pistol for CCW. Not unless they plan on going to war every single day out on the streets. Perhaps in another country this might be more common, but I might question the sanity of (non-LEO) certain individuals that may be carrying a box of ammo on their hips for defensive use here in the US.

With that said, for typical CCW purposes, especially if you're not going to be carrying a separate magazine, I think a larger mag loaded in the pistol is going to be your best bet and definitely covers most all situations you'll find yourself in as an average person.

 

[gglass]

Just end the debate with a 15+1 capacity .40 S&W. More energy on target than the 9mm or .45 ACP, and your capacity does not leave you wanting.

 

[gbelleh]

Carrying a 15+1 .40 is great, but might be a little difficult for me in the middle of summer.

 

[Manco]

We sort of went over the same topic in the Revolvers section just recently--mainly how much capacity is needed for defensive purposes. My answer is still the same: I'd rather have more rounds than I would need than less. There are other factors to consider as individuals, to be sure, but that about covers capacity for me. Even if I can make each shot count, as I intend to, multiple shots on target is better than fewer if all I have is a handgun as opposed to a shotgun. If there is only one target, then I won't need many rounds, but if there are multiple targets, then I'd want to have a bunch on hand--within reason, although 7 per magazine is kind of on the low side, especially since I'd prefer to avoid reloading if possible.

Am I the only one who thinks caliber doesn't matter?

It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it may make a difference in some cases. A good rule of thumb is to shoot the biggest caliber that you're comfortable, accurate, and fast with, and then bump it down if capacity is an issue for you.

Obviously I am not going to war with a .22

Well, I guess caliber does matter, then.

but any decent shooter should be able to put someone down with anything

That's right, even with a .22, although they won't have as good a chance against bones that may get in the way, for example, and will have a somewhat reduced chance of hitting something vital. Then again, if such a light caliber makes some folks better shooters, then it may well be worth the trade-offs.

The general question here is whether a larger caliber is worth the trade-off of a smaller capacity, and it's a difficult one to answer because the former only helps a little while the latter is rarely an issue for civilians. Maybe that's one reason .40 S&W has become fairly popular even outside of law enforcement--those who can't decide might as well split the difference and be done with it.

 

[withdrawn34]

Hey everyone,

What advantage does a 16shot 9mm have over a 30 rd AR in .308? Why doesn't everyone carry on instead of their dinky little pistol? I mean, how can I engage and destroy targets 500 yards? Sure, it may be unlikely, but just in case, you know? I may have to lay down suppressive fire while my elite response team moves into position to corner and neutralize the threat with the kind of precision for which I train them and myself.

 

[mr_goodbomb]

Jesus, has anyone here that isn't a police officer ever laid down "suppressive fire?"

 

[klash545]

none

 

[Hunt480]

Just end the debate with a 15+1 capacity .40 S&W. More energy on target than the 9mm or .45 ACP, and your capacity does not leave you wanting.

Thats why I like the 40... good graph gglass

 

[jojo200517]

Since we are having yet another 45 vs 9mm thread i'll play along.

Original question, my answer...
BIGGER HOLES IN THE TARGET. I like poking bigger holes in my targets. Easier to see hits on the paper, and the blood runs out better. The last one could be argued that it runs out MORE holes just as fast. Guess its just a personal preference. Oh and probably a thinner grip profile in the .45 than the 9mm here if that matters to anyone.

Now to answer paul34's question...
1. I could hide the 9mm in my pants
2. I'd get harassed a hell of a lot less for carrying a 9mm than a .308 AR
3. Everyone knows that .30-06 offers way more than .308 and wayyy wayyyyy more than .223 and you only needed 8 rounds of those in your M1 Garand (aww poo we went full circle back to the real argument of is 8 rounds of massiveness better than many more rounds of tinyness)

 

[9mmepiphany]

Jesus, has anyone here that isn't a police officer ever laid down "suppressive fire?"

YouTube is full of videos of suppressive fire in robberies and bars...I don't think they meant it to be, but that is what it ended up looking like.

I've actually seen the results of two instances. A husband and wife got mad at each other over who was going to get the last beer in the house...did I mention they were drunk...and each pulled their own handgun to settle the arguement. they got behind the furniture to trade shots at each other.

The husband later said, "I kept shooting to keep her head down, so I could get out of the room"

 

[cipher]

From my perspective, I know that unless I go into some kinda crazed mode and start spraying everywhere I'm going to pull out and lay 3 to 5 rounds in my aggressors face in a gunfight. Probably land me in jail afterward, but that's that.

What I'm most worried about is incapacitating the enemy as fast as possible. People tend to get leery when they see me drill the head in IDPA matches, but at least I don't miss. My biggest concern is having the rounds not penetrate, so a 9mm is out of the question. I know people can point to evidence that a 9mm, or even a 22lr can penetrate a human skull, but I've heard enough about glancing blows to make me want a larger caliber. To address the magazine issue, I plan on upgrading to a 10mm from my 1911 in the near future.

I think what matters the most is having the training to act correctly and accurately in a situation. to that end I think 1911's, while not being technically more effective in a combat situation compared to DA pistols, encourage proficiency. It's quality vs. quantity. There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols. The same thing that makes people choose 1911s is the same thing that will make people lethal in a real situation. At least that's what I think.

 

[Nushif]

There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols.

I'd say the reason people use large caliber guns in the competitions the US has is because the dice are loaded for them.
When you, for instance get full points for touching a ring why not lob a bullet that potentially can touch three of them?

Whenever we talk about "people use x in y" while talking about the merits of a universal tool we have to keep more than our local surroundings in mind. and I can assure you ... worldwide there are much, much more small calibers used than ye sacred 1911 in .45.

So yes. There is a reason *you* don't see smaller calibers used for self defense purposes.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I can not think what the virtue is in having less capacity in relation to a gun fight.

More rounds already in the pistol is better than more rounds on your waist or in a pocket.
Any gunfight you are in will never be described later as average.

 

[nathan]

It s cool to carry a second magazine in a pouch. Cool to reload too.

 

[nathan]

Since ive shot the 40 SW and carried the G 23 since 2007 , no more 9mms for me.

 

[9mmepiphany]

There's a reason that you don't see competitors using these modern pistols.

You must have overlooked Dave Sevigny who has taken numerous titles with his Glock 34/35 in both Production and Limited (against 1911s) and Tori Nonaka who does it with her G34

 

[mljdeckard]

I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.

 

[DeepSouth]

For me I only carry 5+1, I came to the conclusion that needing more than 6 rounds is highly unlikely. Then I decided that given the unlikelihood of needing of needing more rounds I was willing to risk running out after 6 rounds in order to be more comfortable/convenient. All of us have made the exact same decision, just with different numbers.

You never know beforehand how many rounds you might need. If you carry a 2 shot derringer or a Five-Seven with 20 rounds and two spare mags, you could possibly need one more shot to save your life. It's a gamble and yes the more you carry the better your odds, but after the first few rounds the difference is minimal, like I said I trust my life to 6 shots, someday I may need 7 and some day you may need 17 or 34 or 87 or....I think you get it.

I also decided to carry a 45. Why? Glad you asked. Mainly I just like the caliber, a lot, I own more 45's than every other pistol caliber I have combined, so that also had a bearing. There is also the fact that if placed in the exact same spot of a smaller caliber it will more effectively stop the treat.

 

[TonyT]

p;iece of meat,
I agree with your view. Personally with the current models available I would not carry any pistol with an extenal hammer, external or grip safeties. For defensive purposes I want a pistol which is ready to fire when removed from concealment and has the least number of places to hang up on clothing etc. I carried a Glock-36 more recently switched to a Kahr PM-9 in a pocket holster.

 

[X-Rap]

I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.
__________________

Such assumptions, what do you say about the young punk??? who has put 10,000 rds through his G17 vs. the cheap old thug??? who bought his 5 shot and still has most of the first box of ammo.
Tell us how you came up with this logic?

 

[Manco]

I also look at it this way. Who are you more afraid of: The punk with a G-17, or the old thug with the 5-shot 38? The old guy is probably experienced and confident enough to do the job with five or less. The kid with the Glock isn't.

I know what you're saying about skill being more important than capacity, but what's wrong with having both? Having more rounds doesn't necessarily mean that skilled shooters will waste ammo, although it may allow them to expend a few more rounds to help ensure a quick stop (without worrying as much about running dry).

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Single stack .45 magazines don't require a seperate loader or Superman thumbs.