Getting a carry gun

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

sevenplusone wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Back to the subject at hand...

My carry weapon is a .40 caliber. I chose it as a middle-of-the-road compromise. Not as much power as a .45, but stronger than a 9mm. Less accurate than a 9mm, but more accurate than a .45. By playing around with higher or lower grain bullets, I can pretty much match the effectiveness of a 9mm or a .45; depending on what I feel I need (accuracy or power). Plus, I can swap the barrel and take .357 SIG... something I can't do with a 9mm or a .45. Bullet pricing played a very small role in my decision... since training with my weapon is important to me, I didn't want to spend a mint financing bullets. Again, this is another category that the .40 compromised well in.

Click to expand...

.45acp is no more or less accurate than 9mm. The actual size of the bullet does not affect accuracy...accuracy is all on the shooter and the platform. It's the Indian more than the arrow.

Click to expand...

You are correct but there is a difference in stopping power.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about stopping power (which I don't entirely believe in). The 9mm and the .45acp are both legitimate and effective combat handgun rounds. I wouldn't question anybody who chooses either of them. Just a personal choice, but I don't care for .40 Short n Weak due to it's unusually snappy recoil for the ballistics it provides. To each their own. We all make our choice. Practice is ultimately more important.

I merely pointed out that the statement "a 9mm is more accurate than a .45" is not true. I don't understand what justification the OP of this statement has...though I'm interested in hearing it.

imported post

sevenplusone wrote:

.45acp is no more or less accurate than 9mm. The actual size of the bullet does not affect accuracy...accuracy is all on the shooter and the platform. It's the Indian more than the arrow.

Click to expand...

It's not so much the bullet itself, but the recoil it creates. In a smaller frame pistol, the recoil is greater on larger calibers; making grouping less accurate. In other words, if you're just firing off one round... then yeah, there's not much difference between the calibers. But if you're double or triple tapping... it takes longer to reacquire your target when firing larger calibers... especially from compact pistols.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

sevenplusone wrote:

.45acp is no more or less accurate than 9mm. The actual size of the bullet does not affect accuracy...accuracy is all on the shooter and the platform. It's the Indian more than the arrow.

Click to expand...

It's not so much the bullet itself, but the recoil it creates. In a smaller frame pistol, the recoil is greater on larger calibers; making grouping less accurate. In other words, if you're just firing off one round... then yeah, there's not much difference between the calibers. But if you're double or triple tapping... it takes longer to reacquire your target when firing larger calibers... especially from compact pistols.

Click to expand...

That is my feeling as well!

imported post

Veritas wrote:

It's not so much the bullet itself, but the recoil it creates. In a smaller frame pistol, the recoil is greater on larger calibers; making grouping less accurate. In other words, if you're just firing off one round... then yeah, there's not much difference between the calibers. But if you're double or triple tapping... it takes longer to reacquire your target when firing larger calibers... especially from compact pistols.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to be much of a concern for those of us who open carry, because we have no problems carrying larger guns.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

It doesn't seem to be much of a concern for those of us who open carry, because we have no problems carrying larger guns.

Click to expand...

Large gun or compact... either way, a larger caliber bullet is going to kick more than a smaller one.

I don't have an issue carrying a larger gun, but I choose to carry a compact for a variety of reasons; one of which being that it is easier to conceal (should I need to) but another reason being that it's just a heck of a lot more comfortable when going about daily duties. When driving, for instance, the barrel on my compact doesn't dig into my seat when worn on my hip. And while it may be arguable, I believe that a compact pistol can be drawn faster than a full size... there's about 2 inches less steel that must clear the sheath before leveling it at a target. Fraction of a second? Maybe... but a fraction of a second is still a fraction of a second.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Michigander wrote:

It doesn't seem to be much of a concern for those of us who open carry, because we have no problems carrying larger guns.

Click to expand...

Large gun or compact... either way, a larger caliber bullet is going to kick more than a smaller one.

I don't have an issue carrying a larger gun, but I choose to carry a compact for a variety of reasons; one of which being that it is easier to conceal (should I need to) but another reason being that it's just a heck of a lot more comfortable when going about daily duties. When driving, for instance, the barrel on my compact doesn't dig into my seat when worn on my hip. And while it may be arguable, I believe that a compact pistol can be drawn faster than a full size... there's about 2 inches less steel that must clear the sheath before leveling it at a target. Fraction of a second? Maybe... but a fraction of a second is still a fraction of a second.

Click to expand...

There's still a lot of opinion here (which is fine, one of the things we love about guns is that we don't have to agree on every little detail). I for one find both .45 and 9mm to have a much easier recoil to deal with than .40 short n weak. .40 has an unpleasant snap compared to the light 9mm and the gentle push of a .45. I've always felt .40 was an answer to a question nobody asked. If I'm going to carry a compact give me a 9mm. I usually carry a 1911 in .45. The 1911 is a full steel, 34oz commander length handgun. .45 is more than manageable. My next gun is going to be a custom 1911 in .40 cal, but in the 10mm variety. 10mm is a reloader's dream. So many options. I'll still carry the .45 as my daily carry gun.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Michigander wrote:

It doesn't seem to be much of a concern for those of us who open carry, because we have no problems carrying larger guns.

Click to expand...

Large gun or compact... either way, a larger caliber bullet is going to kick more than a smaller one.

Click to expand...

All depends. A PF9 is going to snap a lot harder than a 10 MM 1911 race gun with a big compensator, an EOtech sight, and a 30 round magazine.

imported post

My gun is a compact, and it used to dig into my side when I sat down in my car. I adjusted my holster into an "FBI Cant" and that fixed that problem.

imported post

There is always a wealth of opinion concerning caliber choice for self defense pistols because of stopping power and I'll not go there. I will however point out the simple reality that faces us as civilians because we are not uber trained SWAT nor special ops... we are simply civilians, some trained to some degree but most just self trained at the range, and will react as such.

A realistic self defense scenario where shots are fired that civilians can be expected to face will come down to the point where the shooting starts. And when that happens civilians will not be worried about "shooting stances" or "double taps" or "tripple taps" or any fancy "tactical" stuff of any kind. The civilian will only be concerned with stopping the threat right now.

A civilian who must shoot in self defense will shoot as fast as they can as often as necessary from a very close distance until the threat stops.

There will be many factors working against the civilian... attacker is moving around... civilian is moving around... tunnel vision... auditory exclusion... and just plain trying to catch up with everything that is going on.

With all that working against the civilian it doesn't make any sense to have a gun/caliber combination that has too much recoil to allow defensive accuracy (center of mass hits) with every round fired when repeatedly firing as fast as the trigger can be pulled.... because that is how the average civilian will react by shooting a lot as fast as they can.

Hence it makes sense to choose a carry gun in a caliber that allows center of mass hits with all rounds fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled... because when fighting for your life it doesn't help to have to also fight poor accuracy due to too much recoil.

Those folks who can accurately rapid fire a .45 will do well with that caliber/gun... and the same holds true for each person for each gun/caliber all the way on down the caliber size chart. I'm good with a 9mm but I start missing with anything larger. Judy is good with a .22 but misses with anything larger. And all the rounds from a .22 that hit are still better than any number of misses from any other caliber.

So my 2 cents on this caliber thing is simple. Choose the carry gun that you personally are center of mass accurate with when you fire the gun as fast as you can pull the trigger. Only hits count regardless of the bullet size.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Choose the carry gun that you personally are center of mass accurate with when you fire the gun as fast as you can pull the trigger. Only hits count regardless of the bullet size.

Click to expand...

That's exactly it. After settling on the pistol I was most comfortable with, I fired the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP variations; then determined which one I was most accurate with.

I fired them each in several different scenarios. The first, by taking careful aim and squeezing the trigger (dumping two magazines downrage from each pistol). The second, by drawing rapidly and firing two and three round bursts (another two mags each). Next, I fired them one handed (both left and right). I did this over a period of a few weeks... a different pistol each visit to the range.

For me, the .40 S&W was more accurate. Going from memory, I believe I was marginally more accurate with the 9mm in the first scenario... I don't recall the difference in .40 S&W versus .45 ACP. When rapidly drawing and firing several rounds burts, the .45 ACP groups were the sloppiest of the bunch... the difference between 9mm and .40 S&W weren't great. One handed, again, .45 ACP was the least accurate. After determing that I was least accurate with .45 ACP, I ruled it out. Plus I knew that training with it was the most expensive of the bunch. Since 9mm and .40 S&W weren't terribly different in the accuracy department, and even though .40 was more expensive than 9mm, I opted for the larger caliber due to it's larger size and ability to mix and match different grains to achieve different results (closer to 9mm or .45 ACP). And the ability to convert to .357 SIG was a plus.

Other people's results may vary, I'm sure. But this was how I went about choosing my caliber.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Choose the carry gun that you personally are center of mass accurate with when you fire the gun as fast as you can pull the trigger. Only hits count regardless of the bullet size.

Click to expand...

That's exactly it. After settling on the pistol I was most comfortable with, I fired the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP variations; then determined which one I was most accurate with.

I fired them each in several different scenarios. The first, by taking careful aim and squeezing the trigger (dumping two magazines downrage from each pistol). The second, by drawing rapidly and firing two and three round bursts (another two mags each). Next, I fired them one handed (both left and right). I did this over a period of a few weeks... a different pistol each visit to the range.

For me, the .40 S&W was more accurate. Going from memory, I believe I was marginally more accurate with the 9mm in the first scenario... I don't recall the difference in .40 S&W versus .45 ACP. When rapidly drawing and firing several rounds burts, the .45 ACP groups were the sloppiest of the bunch... the difference between 9mm and .40 S&W weren't great. One handed, again, .45 ACP was the least accurate. After determing that I was least accurate with .45 ACP, I ruled it out. Plus I knew that training with it was the most expensive of the bunch. Since 9mm and .40 S&W weren't terribly different in the accuracy department, and even though .40 was more expensive than 9mm, I opted for the larger caliber due to it's larger size and ability to mix and match different grains to achieve different results (closer to 9mm or .45 ACP). And the ability to convert to .357 SIG was a plus.

Other people's results may vary, I'm sure. But this was how I went about choosing my caliber.

Click to expand...

Were all of these tests performed with the same platform of handgun? Just curious.

imported post

Veritas, if you and I ever end up and a range together, I'm going to have to have you run a mag or two through my P220.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

Veritas, if you and I ever end up and a range together, I'm going to have to have you run a mag or two through my P220.

Click to expand...

Add my 1911 Commander length to the list Shooting is more fun when you share!

imported post

sevenplusone wrote:

Were all of these tests performed with the same platform of handgun? Just curious.

Click to expand...

Yes... all with a compact M&P. As I said, I was already settled on the pistol... I just wanted to find the right caliber. So I went to the range a few times, renting a different pistol each time. The .40 just fit me better, I guess.

imported post

sevenplusone wrote:

Michigander wrote:

Veritas, if you and I ever end up and a range together, I'm going to have to have you run a mag or two through my P220.

Click to expand...

Add my 1911 Commander length to the list Shooting is more fun when you share!

Click to expand...

I'm game.

I'm going to try to go next weekend, I think. Not sure how my schedule is going to pan out yet though.

imported post

I've tried several over the last 2 1/2 decades. Purchased and sold several. I always go back to my favorite....1911A1. I have 2 calibers of choice. 45acp & 10mm. I am a big guy with big paws so I can handle the recoil and shot placement on 2nd & third rapid fire rounds are good. I also spent several years in Military and went through countless hours of drills clearing and shooting in dwellings and and on ranges.

I have said it countless times..."A half inch hole is a half inch hole." Both 10mm fmj & 45 fmj gernerally expand to a 1/2 inch hole and deliver huge amounts of kinetic energy. I also have done countless hours reading/research on this and most ME's have written that 45's then 40's tend to do more damage then puny 38/9mm. But as they say a 9mm hitting targeted BG is way better then missing with a 40/45. Just sayin...........

Also....45 acp Speer Gold Dot fired through jugs of water have 0ver 99% weight retention and expand to .71 to .74 caliber. That's huge and devastating!

imported post

discerningshootist wrote:

And YOUR thoughts are?

Click to expand...

Well, since you asked...

My first handgun was a Hi-Point .45. No haters, please, it goes bang every time I pull the trigger, with accuracy enough for close quarters self defense. It fit the bill, at a relatively small price, and I could shoot it.

Next one was a Taurus 850 CIA in .38 special, blued steel. Steel, not airweight, because I wanted the weight to reduce recoil, and same reasoning for the caliber choice. I did not want to have the temptation of being able to load it with .357 magnum. Also, I load it with COR-BON DPX ammunition, non- +P. Again, for controllability. I've shot it quite a bit, and am very comfortable with it.

Next, I went for a 1911. Full size, GI model Springfield. It's heavy, and it's recoil is manageable. Lots of "knockdown power". I can shoot that one, too.

Guess which one I carry? The Taurus, almost every time. When it comes down to it, it simply does not have as much recoil as my .45s, my dads .40, my friends 9mm M&P, or my sisters S&W 9mm. It's far more controllable. The only thing is its capacity is limited. Most often, encounters are over in two or three shots, but even so, I still carry several speed strips in my pockets.

I wanted to "upgrade" to a larger caliber for open carry, but I quickly realized I'm simply a better shot with my .38.

I've swung a 3 pound mallet almost every day for 16 years. My hands and arms are strong enough to comfortably shoot any pistol I've ever picked up, including my dads .44 magnum. Strength and size should have little bearing on your firearm of choice. I believe you should absolutely carry what gives you the best shot placement with repeated shots. Size, weight, comfort, and practice all play into the decision.

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

When it comes down to it, it simply does not have as much recoil as my .45s,

Click to expand...

I think you need a Cutts compensator for your 1911.

imported post

Will it still fit in my Blackhawk Serpa?

imported post

I don't have a Serpa, so I'm not sure.

I believe the comps are usually smaller in width than the frame itself, so they will fit through the holster if it doesn't suck in at the muzzle end of the holster. But even if it does, you could take out a hack saw and solve that problem.

They tend to go for about 10 or 20 dollars at gun shows and on the web, and they're as easy as swapping out your bushing. Definitely a good investment if the recoil bothers you.