Why I use a 9mm for carry instead of 45acp

[beatledog7]

Kleanbore:

There's no reliable rimfire ammo out there? A couple of 40gr bullets through the brain won't stop an attacker, but a couple of 115gr bullets will?

As I read it, you're saying that a person who knows the pluses and minuses of various rounds and can put several rounds from his or her .25 or .22 caliber gun into an attacker's eye sockets every time, who given all that knowledge and pin-point proficiency sticks with that .25ACP or .22LR as his or her SD carry firearm, is a boob.

I have stated that such a person will probably not make such a choice. I would not. But if the person I've described did choose such a theoretically ineffective round, on what basis would you challenge that choice? When that person downs an attacker with a clean CNS shot, was the caliber choice still wrong?

 

[Skribs]

I think he was referring to the higher propensity of rimfire ammunition to misfire, rather than the reliability of stopping an attacker.

 

[beatledog7]

I think he was referring to the higher propensity of rimfire ammunition to misfire, rather than the reliability of stopping an attacker.

No doubt. I knew that when I posted #51.

 

[Skribs]

No doubt. I knew that when I posted #51.

The point is, it doesn't matter how accurate you are - if the round misfires, you get nothing. In a revolver this just means pull the trigger again, but in an auto it means you have to manually cycle the slide. That right there is a bigger issue to me than the size of the hole.

 

[beatledog7]

Again, no doubt. That's why I wouldn't carry a .22LR for SD. I've experienced a few .22LR misfires, but only with cheap bulk ammo.

I've had centerfire misfires as well. There is no way to know whether any given round of any given type or caliber will fire until the primer is struck.

 

[djml66]

A goodly portion of the posters on this thread apparently didn't understand the original premise. It certainly was NOT "9mm vs 45acp". A number of posters posted interesting and on-point responses, and I appreciate those. Many veterans of this forums must see 9mm and 45 in the same sentence and conclude that it's another in the same old series, ad nauseum.

My point, as a few posters made it clear that they understood, was precisely that larger calibers lose more velocity as the length of the bbl is shortened, generally to 3 inches, reducing their advantage over smaller calibers.

Again, my favorite caliber is 45acp, and I have more 45s than all other pistols combined. And I have an Hk45 or an M&P45 full-size in the car with me when I travel. I just like 45s. But I carry a 9mm for the following reasons: 1) I can control it and get off subsequent aimed shots more quickly and accurately. 2) The data I have seen seem to suggest that the advantages of larger calibers are reduced with 3 inch barrels. 3) given (2), then I prefer the increased round capacity and contollabity of the short 9mm. 4) While I realize that 185gr 45 bullets are effective and increase the reliability of the bullet expanding via its higher velocity, especially in the shorter bbl, vv the 230gr, I, irrationally, prefer the 230gr.

Would the LCMDR please explain the relationship the Navy uses in deciding on the length of a big gun bbl? I know that longer bbls are used for bigger rounds (or whatever they are called in the Navy--Sorry guys, I did my bit in the Army). I have heard reference to "38 caliber" when referring to rather large guns, with the "38 or whatever, caliber" following the size of the bore. I don't what it means in this context. I would very much like to know.

To whomever mentioned that the NYPD didn't use Glock 36's, the NY-1 trigger is a standard option available to any PD, and I suppose to other group purchasers. The kit to convert to NY-1 is also available from Brownell's, and possibly others. There is also a NY-2 which is so damn hard to pull that I have to use 2 fingers!

best regards to all,

 

[Skribs]

I think people are going into this with the 9 vs. 45 mentality by saying "that's what you're looking at, but I'm looking at this." I don't think the velocity matters so much as the performance - how does it penetrate and expand?

I also don't think either loses that much velocity in a shorter barrel, it's relatively close. The .45 loses more, but not a whole lot. I do agree that the recoil aspect gets greater as the gun gets lighter, and like I said, I went with 9 as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by beatledog7: There's no reliable rimfire ammo out there?

Some types are more reliable than others, but rimfire ammunition is intrinsically less reliable than centerfire.

As I read it, you're saying that a person who knows the pluses and minuses of various rounds and can put several rounds from his or her .25 or .22 caliber gun into an attacker's eye sockets every time, who given all that knowledge and pin-point proficiency sticks with that .25ACP or .22LR as his or her SD carry firearm, is a boob.

No, but I will say that he or she does not exist.

Why do you think that all trainers advocate shooting multiple rounds at center mass?

Forget target practice. Think rapidly moving attacker, with the head moving around and no time to predict where one eye socket or the other may be when each projectile lands.

But if the person I've described did choose such a theoretically ineffective round, on what basis would you challenge that choice?

Penetration, wound channel, basic human physiology, and reliability.

When that person downs an attacker with a clean CNS shot, was the caliber choice still wrong?

Interesting philosophical question. Such a stop would be a matter of luck. I think the answer to your question is yes.

There is no way to know whether any given round of any given type or caliber will fire until the primer is struck.

True, but with a centerfire, one knows that the primer will be struck. With a rimfire, one knows that the case will be struck somewhere along the circumference of the rim; whether there will be any priming compound in that location is another question.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by djml66: My point, as a few posters made it clear that they understood, was precisely that larger calibers lose more velocity as the length of the bbl is shortened, generally to 3 inches, reducing their advantage over smaller calibers.

To what advantage are you referring? Bullet diameter? Are there not defensive rounds that give adequate penetration and expansion in a three inch .45?

What about the question of how many rounds one can put on target in, say, three quarters of a second?

If you were to carry a .45, why would you choose one with a three inch barrel in the first place?

 

[Skribs]

No, but I will say that he or she does not exist.

Hey, there's a character in my book who...oh, wait...

 

[JellyJar]

Sheesh! It is no yet 6:00 pm Central and already there are 60 posts on this subject.

Well here is my two bits worth.

I have not read all the previous posts and am not going to. What is perhaps one of the most important characteristics of a good SD firearm is the ability to hit what you are aiming at. If you can't hit it nothing else matters!.

Super compact weapons tend to be more difficult to shoot accurately because of increased recoil. Sub-compact 9mms recoil a whole lot less than sub-compact .40s or .45s. Primarily for that reason I have decided to start carrying one of the new sub-compact 9mms on the market as soon as I can test it to make sure it functions properly.

I don't really care if the 9mm is or is not as good/better/worse/as good as/than any sub-compact .40 or .45.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Kleanbore, are you just being purposely dense? The o/p is simply expressing an observation about velocity loss in short barrel guns and the corresponding loss of expansion in hollowpoints.
Why would anyone pick a 3 inch 45? Gee, I don't know as I don't have one but I would guess concealability.
Obviously you think you are all seeing and all knowing as you know what every highly capable shooter in the entire world carries at all times of every day. You are obviously highly impressed with your self. Me, uh, not so much.

 

[Art Eatman]

I have difficulty in envisioning a scenario that is probable in my lifestyle where I'd be forced to engage a Bad Guy at such a distance that velocity fall-off would be important. To me, a concealable handgun is for up-close-and-personal--and that's where control of adrenalin and possession of skill are far more important than the particular tool.

 

[bikerdoc]

Given my druthers 357 for me.

 

[beatledog7]

Well, that was fun.

Back to basics. The back-and-forth and round-and-round about what round is best for SD always comes back to the same thing: Get training. Practice regularly. Carry whatever you can shoot well, whenever and wherever it's legal to carry.

And if you have to pull the trigger, keep pulling it until the attack ends.

 

[Robert]

Oh enough... The internetz, serious business.