# .40 or .45???



## allenjp (Oct 20, 2008)

Ok guys,

I know this is probably an old debate, but I wanna know your opinions. I think I'm gonna upgrade the ol' 9mm. And I don't know what caliber is better: .40, or .45.

Let her Rip!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 20, 2008)

I like the .45 but have settled on the .40 as it works well for me.  I shoot a Glock .40 and absolutely love it.  I also moved up from a 9mm to the .40 and do not regret it at all.


----------



## allenjp (Oct 20, 2008)

I guess what I'm really asking is, as far as ballistic performance, I've heard that the .40 may not be much better than the 9mm. Is the .45 the best man stopper, or is the .40 on par with it???

BTW, what makes the .40 work well for you?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 20, 2008)

Allen,

Here is the delima.

The cost of ammo is high. Much higher for .40 and even more for .45 than 9mm.

Now I carry a .40 Glock 27. But I have a 9mm Glock 26 as the practice gun that I shoot in local IDPA matches. This gives me more trigger time. Plus a AACK .22 unit that fits my Glock 17 9mm.

Skill is number one. Strait shooting is far more important than 9mm .vs. .40 .vs .45.

Now Winchester makes the 127gr+p+ 'LEO only' load that anyone can get. It chronos at an honest 1240 from my Glock 26! Not bad at all.

Now the .40 hits a bit harder. And the .45 hits even harder. But none of them hit as hard as a Bushie 5.56 carbine!

If you wish to go to .40 or .45, price the ammo and see how much practice time you can afford with those two rounds.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 20, 2008)

AFAIC, the difference between the common defensive/service calibers is negligible.  

I went from carrying a 1911 GM to a Glock 19/17 and have no regrets.  I can shoot more due to the cheaper ammunition, I get a higher (in my case over twice as much) capacity, and I have no doubt that the 9mm will stop someone _if I poke the holes in the right place_.  A [barely] larger bullet is not a substitute for good shot placement.

Stick with the 9mm and shoot more...take the money you were going to spend on a new pistol and get some professional training (or more training if you've already had some).


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 20, 2008)

Allen,

Like Ken said, you can use the money for more ammo and/or training.

If you get a Glock, say 26 or 19 or 17, you can get a AACK .22 conversion unit. It's a .22 lr. slide and mag that just swaps the slide and mag of the 9mm (or .40 or .357 sig if you have those glocks.)

You can then do all kinds of speed practice, hip shooting, shooting on the move, weak hand shooting, strong hand shooting, all at a fraction of the cost of 9mm ammo!

And I say this cause I shoot an awful lot. The .22 is very handy as is reloading ones own ammo!

You know the 9mm .vs. other debate is kind of like which is more 'deadly' a kick or a punch. Well it all depends on the skill of the person, right? Same goes for firearms.

If you want the .45 or .40, great. Price it out and do the math to see if you can shoot enough to gain enough skill to. But it's the skill that's the most important part.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 21, 2008)

.45 all the way for me, but this is less due to a belief in its "ultimateness" and more to the fact I'm so used to the handling characteristics of a 1911 that why mess with it.

Intellectually I know that modern JHP bullet designs and correct shot placement has made the differences between them no longer such a big deal, but part of me is comforted by the bigger round as well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 21, 2008)

The .40 works well for me as my shot placement is equal to when I used the 9 mm Glock.  It also clearly and evidently packs a little more punch.

I will though reiterate what everyone else is saying here in that it does come down more to the person and their skills in self defense more than the size of the caliber.  I think you can easily use a 9 mm, .40 or .45 for personal protection and you should be just fine provided you can hit your opponent.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 21, 2008)

Today's premium bullet designs have neutralized most of the advantage that the bigger bores would normally have had over the 9 mm.  

Today's 9 mm rounds expand reliably, while not being dependent on high velocities to do so.  You can actually get a really nice blend of penetration and expansion using one of the 147 grain Remington Golden Saber or 147 grain Federal HST rounds, both of which are standard pressure, subsonic 9 mm loads.  

I still prefer Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+, or 124 grain +P, but would also feel equally confident about using the above subsonic loads, or just about any name brand, premium hollowpoint loads out there, including Speer's Gold Dot, etc.  

I would also dare say, that I would feel equally confident using a 165 grain Remington Golden Saber, 180 grain Speer Gold Dot, 155 grain Winchester Ranger, etc., in the .40, or a 230 grain Golden Saber, 185 grain Golden Saber (standard or +P), etc., in the .45 ACP.  

For that matter, I own several firearms that are chambered for all three of the above calibers, and I would feel equally confident grabbing any one of them for defensive purposes.


----------



## Journeyman (Oct 21, 2008)

9mm, .40, .45--any of them will work just fine with good ammo.   They do have different recoil characteristics, so I'd encourage anyone attempting to decide to give all three a try.  None of them kick badly though.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 21, 2008)

While I don't agree entirely with the premise that .40 or .45 are superior ballistically to the 9mm, I do agree that the skill of the operator is of much more importance, and the WILL of the operator even more than that.  And 9mm is at least a major caliber, though I really don't support the notion of relying on a .32 or .25 as a primary defensive weapon if at all possible.

Will
Skill
Reliability
Accuracy
Ballistic performance
Capacity

In that order of importance.

So pick a reliable gun (that you'll feel comfortable carrying and shooting and that fits your hand) chambered in a major caliber and practice a lot, preferably with some professional advice and training!  Commit yourself to it's aggressive use under appropriate circumstances!


----------



## allenjp (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks guys, maybe I'll just stick with my Ruger P95 in 9mm. I have A LOT of hours of practice with it, I've always felt comfortable carrying it, and I'm quite used to its characteristics. I know that Rugers are frowned upon as cheap guns a lot, but mine has gone BANG! every time I've pulled the trigger. I am certainly not unhappy with it, just thought I should have a bigger bullet coming out of it...maybe I'll spend the extra money on a decent light, or upgrade the sights instead.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks chaps for all the informative replies here.  

My gun knowledge is twenty years out of date it would seem and I would have happily advised the man-stopper 45 ACP as better than the 'over penetrative' 9mm.

That shows you what restrictive gun laws do to the one time 'shooters' in a country .


----------



## trainable (Oct 21, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Will
> Skill
> Reliability
> Accuracy
> ...



I concur, and would only add, time on target.  

If you are handy and do your homework with your 9mm, you are fine with what you have.  Time on target is key.  Can you get your effect (stop the attack) with the skills you have acquired, or do you take too much time getting back on target after each shot.  9mm has gotten the job done thousands of times.  But, .40, .45, or 9mm alike, if you dont park em where they count, the bad guy can still get you first.  They dont drop and die like in the movies all the time.  Its a rip off on artillery fire missions, but "fire for effect" should mean just that.  Keep shooting till you get the effect you desire. (stop the attack)  That means you have to keep hitting with accuracy till you get what you want.  Watch for the tell tale signs on impact. 

An old firearms instructor was teaching a recurrent class for us once and passed on some wisdom from one of his gunfights.  "Son, Im alive not because of the make and model of my sidearm, the calibur, or the manufacturer of my ammo.  Im alive because I kept pulling the trigger and hitting until the son of a #$%#@ went down."  "Keep engaging till you get the results you are looking for".

Caliber is irrelevant. I like .40, because thats what they tell me to carry.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 21, 2008)

trainable said:


> I concur, and would only add, time on target.
> 
> If you are handy and do your homework with your 9mm, you are fine with what you have.  Time on target is key.  Can you get your effect (stop the attack) with the skills you have acquired, or do you take too much time getting back on target after each shot.  9mm has gotten the job done thousands of times.  But, .40, .45, or 9mm alike, if you dont park em where they count, the bad guy can still get you first.  They dont drop and die like in the movies all the time.  Its a rip off on artillery fire missions, but "fire for effect" should mean just that.  Keep shooting till you get the effect you desire. (stop the attack)  That means you have to keep hitting with accuracy till you get what you want.  Watch for the tell tale signs on impact.
> 
> ...



While I don't agree that caliber is entirely irrelevant, as there are lots of guys carrying around .25 wounds that can attest to it's ineffectiveness remotely as a man stopper, it's certainly not the issue that man people make it between 9mm, .40, .45.....handgun rounds are anemic, even with those major calibers.

I heard it best described that bullets don't work.......so you just have to keep firing until you find the one in the magazine that DOES WORK!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 21, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Thanks guys, maybe I'll just stick with my Ruger P95 in 9mm. I have A LOT of hours of practice with it, I've always felt comfortable carrying it, and I'm quite used to its characteristics. I know that Rugers are frowned upon as cheap guns a lot, but mine has gone BANG! every time I've pulled the trigger. I am certainly not unhappy with it, just thought I should have a bigger bullet coming out of it...maybe I'll spend the extra money on a decent light, or upgrade the sights instead.


 
The Ruger isn't cheep Allen. I teach concealed handgun classes here in Texas, and I never see Rugers Jam! See a Glock jam a few times by those limp wristing them, but the Rugers are really overbuilt!

It's a fine gun and not a cheepie for sure.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 21, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> The Ruger isn't cheep Allen. I teach concealed handgun classes here in Texas, and I never see Rugers Jam! See a Glock jam a few times by those limp wristing them, but the Rugers are really overbuilt!
> 
> It's a fine gun and not a cheepie for sure.
> 
> Deaf


 Well....monetarily their pretty cheap.  

In fact, the Ruger is the cheapest priced gun i'd recommend for serious carry consideration.....good quality at a pretty affordable price.

Not my first choice, but i'd never consider myself poorly armed with one.


----------



## HM2PAC (Oct 22, 2008)

Shoot each if you can and decide what you like best.

Years ago in the Navy, I spent years carrying a 9mm that I didn't like. It's recoil is sharp to me. The Beretta M9 didn't point well for me.

A few years later I went to the range with the security detail at a new base, and lo and behold they were shooting 1911's in 45ACP. They asked me if I would like to qualify since I had spent the entire day as EMT stand-by. The old war-horse fit my hand perfectly and it seemed like everything dropped into the 10 ring.

20 years later the 1911 is still my choice, chambered in 45ACP.

Long story short, shoot'em all and see what fits you the best.

You may want to look at 10mm and 357SIG....and a reloading press.

Presently I can load 45ACP for $0.07/rd.

Practicing &/or warming up with a good 22 can help the wallet also.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 25, 2008)

hm2pac said:


> shoot each if you can and decide what you like best.
> 
> Years ago in the navy, i spent years carrying a 9mm that i didn't like. It's recoil is sharp to me. The beretta m9 didn't point well for me.
> 
> ...


 good point!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 25, 2008)

sgtmac,

I grew up on Colt 'O' and Smith 'K' framed guns. Owned a Colt LW Commander in college. First 'largebore' I shot was a Smith M10 .38 (if you can call a .38 a large bore.) Still own several of each!!!

I use Glocks cause they do fit my hand well, very reliable, and shoot pretty well. It sure isn't for their looks though, I tell you! The Smith M-66 2 1/2, to me, is the sexiest six shooter ever, and the P-35 is the coolist auto.

Deaf


----------



## chinto (Oct 25, 2008)

ok, if this is a defense gun, then .45 cal  only! I am an ex EMT and I will state here and now THAT ALL THAT COUNTS IN A PISTOL IS BORE DIAMETER!  pistols are not fast enough to do the damage a rifle is, so the larger the hole it makes going in and along its path the more effective it is.  ( and yes people this is scientific fact, do not believe me go ask your local ER doctor about Guns Shot Wounds!)  so I would suggest the .45 over the .40 cal for self defense use every time.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 26, 2008)

since that extra 1/10" makes that much of a difference...

As I've said before (including in is thread) SHOT PLACEMENT is the only thing that counts. 
A good hit is a good hit regardless of caliber.  Conversely, a bad hit is a bad hit regardless of caliber.  The [slightly] larger diameter of the .45 will *not* make up for a lousy hit.


----------



## Doc (Oct 26, 2008)

You know this is an old discussion among military and LEO's and actually all perspectives have validity for the individual. But I've always been taught that the calibre of the round is only one factor. The weapon does play a part, and sometimes this also determines when or if you will carry it for private citizens. Big firearms aren't always carried, but smaller cals give you more rounds of firepower, etc. I carry everywhere, (including a Ziploc bag when I take a shower) so its different for me, because I have to.

Now, we all know that ballistically speaking, a 9 mm and 38 cal are essentially the same, and a 380 is just a 9 mm short. We also know that a 40 cal is really just a 10 mm short. All of them have their more powerful variances in loading. But when I went to FBI Rangemaster School they hammered one thing home. 

"You can assassinate someone with a 22 cal if you have the advantage, but when it comes to handguns, I've never heard of a spec op or SWAT unit that carry's anything other than a 45 sidearm." Than they issued us 40 cal as the best compromise between the 9 and 45. The 45 is definitely the man stopper, but is usually a big gun for plain clothes carry all the time, (although there are some smaller 1911's styles on the market), but are not double action, and most have limited capacity. (Once again there are exceptions). 

The 9 gives you lots of rounds to play with, and I've heard the shot placement argument that tends to negate it, until you find yourself in a fire-fight with multiple tangos, which today is real possible. Than you'll be looking for all the rounds you can find and those extra mags, we're mandated to carry. The 40 is a good compromise. More rounds, 9 mm size frame for the most part, and near 45 ballistics.

Some have mentioned the cost angle and that makes sense. Never thought about it because they give us all the ammo we ask for just to get us to shoot often. You wouldn't think so, but sometimes you have to threaten guys to make them go qualify.


----------



## sjansen (Oct 26, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Thanks guys, maybe I'll just stick with my Ruger P95 in 9mm. I have A LOT of hours of practice with it, I've always felt comfortable carrying it, and I'm quite used to its characteristics. I know that Rugers are frowned upon as cheap guns a lot, but mine has gone BANG! every time I've pulled the trigger. I am certainly not unhappy with it, just thought I should have a bigger bullet coming out of it...maybe I'll spend the extra money on a decent light, or upgrade the sights instead.


 
That's all that matters. Ruger is one of the best .22 on the market and you will find few detractors. There handguns are well made as well. Whatever you have the most practice with is the best gun for you to carry and use. If you do get a new gun, you shouldn't carry it until you have plenty of practice. Even with the best bullets, the gun won't work if you don't hit the target when needed.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 26, 2008)

My wife used to work in the ER and OR room at a major hospital that was in, uh, a not so nice place.

She as been in CVICU, CVOR, OR, Truma I, and even director of CV nursing.

Well she told me long time ago that people shot with low powered rounds like .22, .25, .32 most of the time walked in talking! As the round's power increased, more were carried in (like 9mm, .38, .357, .45s) BUT NOT ALL!

The *ONLY* ones that just about always were carried in were shotgun wounds. Those hit solidy in the chest with a shotgun, even with bird shot, tended to clean up and not look bad until they cracked their chest, then it was evedent many of their organs were hit and bleeding. Very hard to stop.

And then there is David Spaulding. For those who don't know who he is his bio is at the end of this article

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-...l;jsessionid=8CD7B6D6383EF557FEA175D40C684C69

Well he wrote that from the many shooting videos he had seen over the years that the larger the round TENDED to give more of a reaction on the person it hit. But he said the difference was not great. 

Not saying the .45 is junk, just that such as the 9mm is not all that bad. LIke Ken said, shot placement is the most critical part.

Deaf


----------



## 7starmarc (Oct 27, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Ok guys,
> 
> I know this is probably an old debate, but I wanna know your opinions. I think I'm gonna upgrade the ol' 9mm. And I don't know what caliber is better: .40, or .45.
> 
> Let her Rip!


 
I noitced that you're in San Diego on your profile, is that right?

Don't forget the the magazine capacity argument does not hold as much water here in California, since we're limited to 10 no matter what the caliber (unless you're a LEO).

Assuming the same attention to training, accuracy, etc. You're looking at a pretty close wash between the .40 and .45, IMO. I have chosen the .45 due to feeling of the recoil and slightly better availability of ammo.

I also believe that the .45 does have slightly better "stopping power" and slightly lesser (over)penetration, two things that I like in a self defense round. If you're looking for other characteristics, then your choice might be different. Also, you can adjust this with other calibers by changing the charactersists of your ammo, to some degree.

As one of my instructors has said, accuracy, reliability, confidence. Those are what you need in your firearm. If the number helps your confidence, or if there are other characteristics which push you in one direction, then go with it. Of course, at the end of the day, you really just need to go out and shoot a bunch of pistols and see what you want to take home.


----------



## allenjp (Oct 27, 2008)

I see what some of you are saying about the magazine capacity being an advantage for the 9mm or .40 over the .45. Unfortunately for me it aint so. See, I live in the great state of Cali(gun control)fornia, and here we have a high capacity magazine ban, that limits pistol magazines to ten rounds for everyone except LEO's. So for me, if I have a 9mm with a ten round mag, or a .45 with 8 rounds, it's not a huge difference.


----------



## allenjp (Oct 27, 2008)

Sorry 7starmac, I hadn't seen your post before I posted mine. As you can see I have not forgotten that law. It SUCKS!!! Just like most other gun laws in good ol' Cali.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 27, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Sorry 7starmac, I hadn't seen your post before I posted mine. As you can see I have not forgotten that law. It SUCKS!!! Just like most other gun laws in good ol' Cali.


 

Same deal with me in Massachusettstan.

If All I get are 10 rounds, they're damnsure gonna be 10 BIG ones.


----------



## HM2PAC (Oct 27, 2008)

One last thing about 9 vs 40 vs 45......

If you have any aspiration to putting a suppressor on your pistol, the only  of the 3 that can be squelched to any degree is the 45.


----------



## allenjp (Oct 28, 2008)

Another thing that doesn't apply in CA.


----------



## chinto (Oct 28, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> My wife used to work in the ER and OR room at a major hospital that was in, uh, a not so nice place.
> 
> She as been in CVICU, CVOR, OR, Truma I, and even director of CV nursing.
> 
> ...



oh no question that shot placement counts, but that the .45 gives you more damage then the .40, and yes nothing beats a 12 gage except perhaps a 10 or 8 gage shot gun at any thing under about 70 yds!  buckshot is for keeps as is even small bird shot at close range!! i agree with your wife.. nasty  all .. but the big bore pistols and shotguns for close range are very very much the worst end to be on..... and nothing touches a rifle after about 70yds.. and there bore diameter does make a difference as long as the muzzle volocity is even semi close.  ( and yes again shot placement does count! )  head shot with a 25 acp will kill instantly some times.. bounce off some times too lol.. but head hit with a .32 acp is most likely to be instantly lethal..but, with a .45 most of the head is missing! )


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 28, 2008)

chinto said:


> oh no question that shot placement counts, but that the .45 gives you more damage then the .40, and yes nothing beats a 12 gage except perhaps a 10 or 8 gage shot gun at any thing under about 70 yds! buckshot is for keeps as is even small bird shot at close range!! i agree with your wife.. nasty all .. but the big bore pistols and shotguns for close range are very very much the worst end to be on..... and nothing touches a rifle after about 70yds.. and there bore diameter does make a difference as long as the muzzle volocity is even semi close. ( and yes again shot placement does count! ) head shot with a 25 acp will kill instantly some times.. bounce off some times too lol.. but head hit with a .32 acp is most likely to be instantly lethal..but, with a .45 most of the head is missing! )


 
But skill is far more important than any 9mm .vs. .40 .vs. .45. And skill comes through much practice. .45 ammo ain't cheep. .40 is somewhat less expensive, and 9mm somewhat less than either .45 or .40. And with light weight carry guns many people have a hard time with the .45 or .40.

So, I feel one balances out clout, control, and cost. How hard it hits, how easy it is to hit with, and how much practice one an afford. Just what one picks depends how how they balance those three.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 29, 2008)

I remain unconvinced that there is a significant advantage with the larger calibers...

Given that there is an 80%+ survival rate among those shot with a handgun, I think it's safe to say that they all make pretty poor manstoppers.  This being the case, I would think that logic would dictate having more chances to poke a hole in something that will have the desired effect.  Or, for those limited to a certain mag-capacity, cheaper ammo so you can practice more and be more capable of putting the holes in the right places.


----------



## Doc (Oct 29, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I remain unconvinced that there is a significant advantage with the larger calibers...


There is a reason law enforcement doesn't carry small caliber weapons. The same reasons exist for tactical units who tend to carry no less than a 45 cal sidearm. Extend that logic to the military, who issue a 9mm but all spec ops, SEALS, Rangers, etc, carry 45. Considering these two entities have more physical life and death encounters and actually shoot more people than any other entities on the planet, I'd pay attention.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 30, 2008)

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree...


----------



## Doc (Oct 30, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree...



Well we do agree on one thing.

"keep the change."

nobama.


----------



## Frostbite (Oct 31, 2008)

Doc said:


> There is a reason law enforcement doesn't carry small caliber weapons. The same reasons exist for tactical units who tend to carry no less than a 45 cal sidearm. Extend that logic to the military, who issue a 9mm but all spec ops, SEALS, Rangers, etc, carry 45. Considering these two entities have more physical life and death encounters and actually shoot more people than any other entities on the planet, I'd pay attention.



It's worth mentioning that SEAL candidates actually train with the Sig P226 (there's actually a Naval Special Warfare commemorative edition) in BUD/S and of course the venerable MP5 is chambered for 9mm.  It's also my understanding that the choice of sidearm for most special operators is at their discretion.  I'm sure though that if you were somehow able to look at the statistics of the calibers used in special operations encounters, you'd find that the 5.56mm round is going to be the clear winner.  The sidearm is a last resort.

The last murder statistics I looked at also point to the 9mm as being the leading caliber used in homicides, followed by .38, .357, and .22.  There are a lot of factors involved there though.  Most gun crimes aren't committed by gun aficionados so they're going to use whatever is cheap and convenient.  Being high capacity may come into play as well.

Most of the ballistic gelatin penetration testing I've seen show the most common self defense rounds being pretty comparable.  The .357 Sig and .45 seemed to come out on top though.  The wound channels for both rounds were pretty comparable as was penetration.  Here's a visual reference:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/frostbite77/handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

Notice though that the 9mm and .40S&W aren't that far off from the others.  Essentially, you're trading energy (penetration) for channeling (expansion).

I'm not disagreeing that the .45 is a great round but as far as it being more lethal than a 9mm or even a .22...  Well, let's just say I'd rather not be the one to test that theory.


----------



## allenjp (Oct 31, 2008)

Interesting that in that picture the heavier, lower velocity loads for both 9mm, and .40 penetrated farther than the lighter, faster ones...


----------



## arnisandyz (Nov 3, 2008)

Better for what?

I know most of you guys fall into the "defensive" category being here on MartialTalk, but I've been doing a lot of Practical shooting gun games lately (IDPA, USPSA, 3 gun).  Most EVERYBODY shooting in Limited class are using the 40.  Why?  It makes major power factor easily and gives more capacity than 45. Many experienced shooters prefer the timing of the snappier recoil. If it recoils faster than the 45ACP and you can control it, the sights return faster as well. In addition the 40 is very versatile. It can also be downloaded and be used in Production division or IDPA that have a minimum power floor and have less recoil than a 9mm, provided the gun fits the rules of the class.  Even in Open division where the 38 super is king, more people are moving to the 40 for economics (more used brass available for reloading).

While I personally prefer 9mm or 45ACP for CCW, the 40 does have its place. I'm considering picking one up for Limited Division competition and wouldn't hesitate to use it for self-defense!


----------



## chinto (Nov 9, 2008)

Frostbite said:


> It's worth mentioning that SEAL candidates actually train with the Sig P226 (there's actually a Naval Special Warfare commemorative edition) in BUD/S and of course the venerable MP5 is chambered for 9mm.  It's also my understanding that the choice of sidearm for most special operators is at their discretion.  I'm sure though that if you were somehow able to look at the statistics of the calibers used in special operations encounters, you'd find that the 5.56mm round is going to be the clear winner.  The sidearm is a last resort.
> 
> The last murder statistics I looked at also point to the 9mm as being the leading caliber used in homicides, followed by .38, .357, and .22.  There are a lot of factors involved there though.  Most gun crimes aren't committed by gun aficionados so they're going to use whatever is cheap and convenient.  Being high capacity may come into play as well.
> 
> ...




go ask a good ER doctor who has dealt with a lot of Gun Shot Wound situations,and they will tell you that when its for real, and people get shot bore diameter makes the largest difference in a pistol type weapon in regards to lethality! ... A RIFLE IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION OF COURSE.


----------



## HM2PAC (Nov 15, 2008)

> go ask a good ER doctor who has dealt with a lot of Gun Shot Wound situations,and they will tell you that when its for real, and people get shot bore diameter makes the largest difference in a pistol type weapon in regards to lethality!



When someone comes into our trauma bay with a GSW, caliber is a second thought. Rifle vs pistol does matter. Most of the physicians that I work with don't know the difference btwn a .22LR and a 10mm.

When the patient gets to us we are only worried about what is damaged  and how to change what is happening.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 17, 2008)

I saw an quote from an ER doctor (and IIRC, former SF medic) that said that even after seeing hundreds of GSWs, he couldn't tell the difference between the common calibers just by looking at the wound.

Don't remember exactly where I saw it...


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 18, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I saw an quote from an ER doctor (and IIRC, former SF medic) that said that even after seeing hundreds of GSWs, he couldn't tell the difference between the common calibers just by looking at the wound.
> 
> Don't remember exactly where I saw it...


 
In this day and age of premium ammunition, that would hold even more weight.  

Today's premium designs have progressed to the point, where I would have equal confidence in the ability of a 9 mm, .40, 357 Sig, 10 mm, .45 ACP, etc., to stop the bad guy.  

No longer are today's hollowpoints reliant on high velocities, and you can get really good performance (for a handgun round) using combinations that were previously thought of as being forbidden.  For example, subsonic 9 mm loads, etc.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 18, 2008)

I think a key question is missed in the assumption that the potential target is a _person_:

_To shoot at what?_

For years, my normal carries have been 9mm and .45's.

Both are inadequate or somewhat inadequate for bears, though-and the wife and I ride and hike in bear country quite a bit. While I love bears, and hope to never have to shoot one, I want the bear to *lie down* if I do. 

.45 ACP is okay for black bears, .40 is good.

10mm is best, since carrying one of those big revolvers (.454, etc.) is kind of difficult on a bike. And since we carry the Glocks so much when we go afield, and  are taking them to the range so much, I find myself carrying it the rest of the time as well.....though we're considering the switch to .40 (ballistitcally not too different, but easier to carry.....)

For a man, though? I reckon any of them will do, if you shoot straight. (I'm likely to empty a whole magazine into a bear, anyway......)


----------



## HM2PAC (Nov 18, 2008)

KenpoTex wrote:


> I saw an quote from an ER doctor (and IIRC, former SF medic) that said that even after seeing hundreds of GSWs, he couldn't tell the difference between the common calibers just by looking at the wound.



That makes sense to me.

I have lost track of the GSW's I've seen over the last 20 years. Was it a 9mm, 357RM, 45ACP, ...etc? They all blend into a big collection of GSW's that had mixed outcomes. Hundreds of victims/patients hit with anything from air rifles to BP rifles.

However, the oddballs stick out and are memorable. 

357SIG made a gaping wound in the thigh.

50 BMG removed an entire scapula and part of a neck and upper lung.

5.56NATO tiny entrance over the left cheek under the eye, nothing left of the back of the head.

BB guns that made little to no obvious entry wound but deposited *2* BB's in the right kidney from a single shot.

As far as I'm concerned, the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs "X" is a moot point when todays premium JHP ammo is figured into the equation.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 23, 2008)

Law enforcement in NYS did carry 9mm but changed to the 40mm because it still handled well but had more stopping power. Recently NYS Troopers switched to a 45mm because of some problems they had with a rash of deadly encounters. I personally feel that the 45mm is a good man stopper but it takes more training to be able to handle it in a life and death situation. At this point in time as a Constable while on duty I carry a Glock 40mm modle 23 of which I am very pleased. It is interchangeable with other departments, has on duty stopping power and an off duty concealment advantage because it is a tad smaller then the standard model 21.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 23, 2008)

seasoned said:


> Law enforcement in NYS did carry 9mm but changed to the 40*mm* because it still handled well but had more stopping power.


 
Yow!!!  They're issuing 40mm anti-aircraft weaponry now?!?  That's certainly going to be a better manstopper than any pistol.  

 

(Just joking here)



In all seriousness, though, it does seem that the .40 cartridge has become the most popular law enforcement choice these days, since it those who wanted a bigger bore, while still retaining more of the 9 mm velocity, can get a blend of both worlds.  If anything, the plurality of law enforcement agencies seemed to have settled on the Glock 22 full sized pistol, as their standard issue.  You get 15+1 rounds of .40 ammo, with ironclad reliability.  

Those using other cartridges, though, need not worry, as long as decent ammunition is being used.  I know that several agencies in Georgia are still issuing the Glock 17 (9mm), and use the tried and true Federal BPLE 115 grain +P+ JHP load, and they've been very pleased with its performance.  

The NYPD seems to be similarly pleased with the 9 mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 grain JHP load as well.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 23, 2008)

Thanks, it would be nice to know what I am carrying, and the proper terminology for it. Anyways I grabbed the ammo box and for range it is Winchester 40S&W 165gr. Full metal jacket target/range. For duty it is 40S&W 180gr. JHP. Also it is a glock 40 model 23, I know because it is written on the barrel. J


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 25, 2008)

seasoned said:


> Thanks, it would be nice to know what I am carrying, and the proper terminology for it. Anyways I grabbed the ammo box and for range it is Winchester 40S&W 165gr. Full metal jacket target/range. For duty it is 40S&W 180gr. JHP. Also it is a glock 40 model 23, I know because it is written on the barrel. J



Glock 23s are great.  That shoots like a dream for me.  I bought a Glock 27 based on my experience with the 23 and have been less than impressed with it though.  Seems like the the 23 is a nice balance between concealability and control/accuracy.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 25, 2008)

Frostbite said:


> Glock 23s are great. That shoots like a dream for me. I bought a Glock 27 based on my experience with the 23 and have been less than impressed with it though. Seems like the the 23 is a nice balance between concealability and control/accuracy.


 

I am a town Constable, and chose this weapon because it is the norm for LE in the area. Because I work directly for the town I was required to purchase my own firearm. I did my 47hour firearm course and numerous qualifications with the 23 and can agree with you on the handling and accuracy of it.


----------

