45

[lazs2]

guys..  the object of a handgun (except in hunting and maybe even then) is not to kill but to stop.

You want to stop the bad guy from doing anthing else... It does no good to put 6 9mm ball rounds into the bad guy and have him die 1 hour later if he really doesn't notice them much and is able to function for most of that hour that he is bleeding out.

Ball ammo is the worst thing you can use in a pistol for stopping people.  You have a better chance tho with a large slug.   Velocity is still a good thing tho just... not as important as size.

If I had to carry full metal jacket ammo (war) I would carry a 45 with full jacket 185 grain semi wadcutters or a revolver in 44 mag with 240 grain full jacket semi wadcutters.

Reason being...  the 45 would gain velocity and wounding channel in a wemi wadcutter that was 185 vs 230  We are talking velocity in the 1,000 fps range.  

the revolver?  for modern warfare?   well.... yeah..  It is a last ditch weapon anyway..  or a close quarters one...  The 44 mag in the hands of someone who has trained with it can get an extremely accurate first shot off and you should have plenty of time (and ammo) to shoot the other one or two guys in the room... anything else and... you shouldn't have been carrying a handgun.

Ok... I have read all of Marshalls work..  The 230 grain ball has a stopping potential of about 65% if you get a good torso hit.

The 9 mm ball is dismal with 60% or less one shot stops.

The 44 mag is not a round that was designed to shoot people.  It rarely expands on people (it is meant for game animals to break bones) even in hollowpoint... the latest hollowpoints for defense of course are probly the nastiest handgun round there is but little data exists... on paper they seem to be about 98% effective one shot stoppers tho. but...

the standard jaketed 240 grain semi wadcutter hunting and target round will not expand in a human very often  even so... this round has put down bad guys with one shot to the torso 81% of the time.   This is enough of an improvement over both the 45 and 9mm to make me consider it (plus I am comfortable with the gun and ammo)

If you have to use ball... the 44 is great too because it can penetrate a lot of cover.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

The .40 cal is a nice cross between the 9mm and .45, IMO. Higher velocity than the .45 (but not quite that of 9mm) and more punch than the 9mm (but not quite that of the .45)

[lazs2]

the .40 is not that bad of a round with modern expanding ammo.  it would not work well in fmj

lazs

[lasersailor184]

They all agreed that 9mm lacks accuracy

Really?  I never thought that it was that bad.

[derelict]

Originally posted by Sandman
I work with a few Army vets. They all agreed that 9mm lacks accuracy and preferred the 45 cal for that reason.

Agreed.  With an old beat up .45 (and all the USCG pistols were "shot out") I consistantly scored Sharpshooter.  Once I even got 1 point away from Expert!

With the "new" 9mm we got I never shot better than Marksman, and I barely pulled that off.  Something about that gun just never felt right in my hands.  And it never seemed like the shot went where I placed it

[Nomak]

I was a big Glock guy for a long time.  I packed a G17 regulary.

The more I talked to people though and the more I read got me to try out a 1911.

I now carry a Kimber and would never go back to a 9mm.  The way I look at it why take a chance?  If I am ever forced to shoot someone I would much rather unload one double tap (which a 1911 is far better at than a Glock) than have to fire 5, 6 or even more rounds.  Also I figure I am less likley to be prosicuted after the fact if I fire 2 rds as opposed to 6.

Cant beat a 1911.

Just my opinion of course (shrug)

For the record...... I have a Springfield XD9 at home that my wife can use for defense if I am away from home.  When I have some extra cash I hope to get the same XD model in a .40 for her.

Anyone wana buy an XD9?  

Dave

[Saintaw]

Originally posted by Curval
...From what I know ... blah blah

[Maverick]

Nomak,

FWIW, I went the oposite way. Off duty I carried an Officers Model in stainless. Other thatn the really crappy design flaw with the recoil spring retaining cap it was a nice piece. It shot very well for me but was freaking HEAVY and only held 7 rounds. A second mag was also heavy. After I saw the smaller Glock's and had a chance to compare them side by side with the Colt, it was another easy choice. The Glock was lighter full up with 16 rds than the Colt was empty. It also was vitually the same size length, height and thickness. It shot so well for me that I changed to the same weapon for on and off duty. I also used it and my duty rig for combat competition against the "race guns" and "competition holsters". I held my own just fine on speed of draw using a heavy tight thumb break holster. The enclosed mag pouches weren't any real help though.

After we had a couple protracted shootouts the Dept. decide to allow the semi auto's for duty. When I saw the first Glock I thought it was the ugliest darn thing I had ever seen in a hand gun. Until I shot it. I wasn't an adherant to the 9mm at all but given the departmental mandate on caliber it was an easy choice. I went from a Model 66 4" loaded with .38+p silvertips (Dept ammo ONLY allowed on duty) to a Glock with Black Talons. Yep the EVIL  bullet. Still Dept. issued ammo until the bleeding hearts B****ed about it and got it changed to CCI Gold Dots. I had more rounds in one mag than I had on my person total with the revolver. I had a total of 51 rounds with all mags.

For me the Glock shot very well, accurate and reliable including with my reloads. LIke any other PERSONAL choice, it's not for everyone. The .45 also shot well and I never felt that I was handicapped by either guns accuracy, just the 45's weight and low ammo count.

[Hangtime]

The faster you finsh a gunfight the less shot you will get. Only hits count and the only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss. 'Stopping Power' is an extremely desireable feature in any weapon you expect may actually be used at some point to actually stop[/b] somebody.

So, your personal carry handgun should be fast and utterly dependable, extremely accurate and be able to stop in his tracks whoever it hits.

Therefore, the 1911 .45acp is an outstanding choice if not THE outstanding choice. Remember, the real point to a personal firearm is not to make the person that carries it 'feel real good'. It's to make the person it's pointed at feel real dead in an exceedingly short timeframe.

[GRUNHERZ]

I really like my USP 45 nad i'm looking to pick up a great 1911 too.

The HK USP45 is cool and the new HK45 the Army is looking at is even better:

[Shamus]

.45 is the round that God shoots.

shamus

[wrag]

Laz!

You reload right?

Take a real close look ar Hornady's 200 for the 45 acp.

Can be loaded up pretty fast and has a fairly large expansion range.

[fartwinkle]

AH crap stop beating around the bush:eek:
Just give me desert eagle 50cal pistols and be done with it.
Oh and i like the idea of killing muslims with a gun made in Israel:aok

[Terror]

I keep a Glock G37 next to the bed w/45GAP 230gr SXT in it.  I carry a Glock G26 though.  Nice small gun with 12 rnds 9mm (+2 base mags) 147gr HP and 115gr FMJ mix.  I will probably be picking up a Glock G39(45GAP) for carry eventually.

Terror

PS.  Yes, I am a Glock "enthusiast".  

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by wrag
Laz!

You reload right?

Take a real close look ar Hornady's 200 for the 45 acp.

Can be loaded up pretty fast and has a fairly large expansion range.

Yeah, but just don't EVER reload ammo to carry for personal defense. If you did not buy it in a store, or it was not issued to you by your department, just don't put it in your weapon for anything but practice.