No discussion of Gary's thought -- if you are going to carry fewer bb's, maybe they should be bigger ones?
No discussion of Gary's thought -- if you are going to carry fewer bb's, maybe they should be bigger ones?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I did hint that I shoot the 9mm much better than .40 or .45 in realistic courses of fire(not slow bullseye). Since the precision of the shot in a dynamic situation is far more important than the incremental hole size....that is the direction I lean. Not to mention that if you want to go with a smaller gun, the larger the caliber the harder it is to control and the more unpredictable the service life. I feel a more confident in a pistol that is less likely to break a critical part when firing.Originally Posted by GJM
I think it's not so much maybe they affirmatively should be bigger bb's. But rather why not?
For some reason I've always shot 45's well - better than 40. With a 10 round limit making 40 less size efficient. 10 rounds of .45 185 grain JHP can make sense, especially if intermediate barriers aren't a big consideration. I can run 185 grain 45 about as fast as 180 grain .40 in practical exercises.
Last edited by HCM; 08-31-2015 at 08:55 PM.
I'd probably opt for a G30S or an HK45 if I were restricted to 10 rounds. Fits the hand well, spare mags are bigger and easier to grab than the tiny G26 mags, and the magazines aredesigned to carry 10 rounds, not modified to carry 10 rounds. Anywhere else, my 92G with 19 in the gun.
All of the above are good choices but I think the S&W M&P 45 compact is a real sweet spot in a ban state carry gun. It's bigger than the 9/40 version and is a true Glock 19 sized gun holding 8+1 of 45. Mine shoots better than both full sized M&P 45's I've had.
I have nothing against 45 acp, I just can't afford to train with it. If it offered a significant advantage I would justify the cost, but it doesn't.
I guess why would be my main question. If I thought a larger caliber offered a significant advantage over 9mm I would already be carrying it. I would probably still train with 9mm since it is so much cheaper, but carry something like a G30s.
You'd have to reload to reduce the cost. I think the .45 does have a slight advantage if you're not shooting people through intermediate barriers like cars. In most instances the juce isn't worth the squeeze but 10 round limit makes it less of a slam dunk for the 9mm.
I liked the .45acp until I got the opportunity to shoot up cars with 9mm, .40, and .45 JHPs. After that i ranked the .40 as #1 against vehicle materials, 9mm as #2,.....and .45 at a distant #3. Several different vehicles, with different decades of manufacture.
I find the 9mm to maximize shooter performance, but if I had to go bigger.....especially in my line of work I would go .40. It is amazing how well those .40 JHPs stay together under extreme punishment and penetrate so deep.
Last edited by Symmetry; 08-31-2015 at 09:38 PM.
Hopefully he will clarify, but my understanding of Gary's recommendation for 9mm involves a number of considerations, including shoot ability, platform reliability, durability, and capacity. As a general rule, you get nearly twice as many 9mm cartridges as .45 in a similar sized handgun, and given the modest differences between the common service cartridges, the potential of twice as many cartridges tips in favor of 9mm. However, on a one cartridge vs one cartridge basis, I though the recommendation was still for bigger/heavier.
In the ban state scenario, you no longer get the capacity advantage of 9mm, and depending what you shoot, you may get reduced reliability with those fewer cartridges.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Reply With Quote