Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Caliber Corner (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   If you can't kill it with a 9mm, you need a rifle (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1452866)

Andy W 11-12-2012 18:49

If you can't kill it with a 9mm, you need a rifle
 
That about sums up what I've come to think about the debate between various service calibers in pistols. I mean, maybe .40 and .45 are marginally better than 9mm but really, it's not gonna make that big of a differene. If you ever encounter a situation where several center mass hits with quality 9mm ammo can't take care of it, you need to either 1) consider retreating or 2.) get to a long gun if that isn't an option. If you really think about it, if it's not dying after beiing hit with a 9mm, that little bit of extra power a .40 or .45 offers probably won't make a difference.

What do you guys think?

flw 11-12-2012 18:56

As the saying goes,

"Never take a handgun to a rifle fight"

I don't care what the pistol caliber is.

TK-421 11-12-2012 18:58

I think I like .40 because it has a bigger boom than 9mm, what do you say to that? :tongueout:

Marine123 11-12-2012 19:01

I like all guns and rifles in general. They all do what they are supposed to do when SHTF. Unless........


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

purrrfect 10 11-12-2012 19:05

If the 9mm is all you can handle I can see why you would think it is the best. DON"T discredit others for shooting much more superior rounds. That said there is no better pistol the a Glock 20 10mm if you can handle it? if not stick to what you can, hell ya might want to try a 22 if the 9 is a little snappy for ya. I say it is what you are comfortable with. 9 mm is like shooting a bb gun to me never would want one see no need for one for me it is a useless round
FOR ME :perfect10: doesn't get any better

Andy W 11-12-2012 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-421 (Post 19624845)
I think I like .40 because it has a bigger boom than 9mm, what do you say to that? :tongueout:

Bigger boom and kick but not much more effective than 9mm IMO

flw 11-12-2012 19:09

On pistols only, you choose that largest caliber you can accurately shoot. If it a 22 then that's it, Doesn't matter what caliber you almost hit the target with.

TK-421 11-12-2012 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624877)
Bigger boom and kick but not much more effective than 9mm IMO

More effective? Eh, maybe, maybe not, I haven't formed an opinion because I haven't shot enough different calibers. I was just trying to give you some s*** from an angle I don't see too often. :tongueout:

uz2bUSMC 11-12-2012 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624807)
That about sums up what I've come to think about the debate between various service calibers in pistols. I mean, maybe .40 and .45 are marginally better than 9mm but really, it's not gonna make that big of a differene. If you ever encounter a situation where several center mass hits with quality 9mm ammo can't take care of it, you need to either 1) consider retreating or 2.) get to a long gun if that isn't an option. If you really think about it, if it's not dying after beiing hit with a 9mm, that little bit of extra power a .40 or .45 offers probably won't make a difference.

What do you guys think?

Maybe you should start thinking about stopping a threat instead of killing it.

Andy W 11-12-2012 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC (Post 19624894)
Maybe you should start thinking about stopping a threat instead of killing it.

You know what I meant smartass :tongueout:

cowboy1964 11-12-2012 19:33

What do I think? I think I'm tired of these debates. The .38 Special was king in law enforcement for a freaking long time. It did the job too.

Andy W 11-12-2012 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-421 (Post 19624888)
More effective? Eh, maybe, maybe not, I haven't formed an opinion because I haven't shot enough different calibers. I was just trying to give you some s*** from an angle I don't see too often. :tongueout:

Not sure where this came from but I remember somebody joking about how people that carry .40s are trying to compensate for something. :tongueout:

TK-421 11-12-2012 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624959)
Not sure where this came from but I remember somebody joking about how people that carry .40s are trying to compensate for something. :tongueout:

Oh most definitely, I'm trying to compensate for being new to firearms and being an awful shot. :rofl: I have issues hitting the broad side of a barn. Need to get more money so I can get more range time, and hopefully I can learn how to shoot accurately.

uz2bUSMC 11-12-2012 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-421 (Post 19624971)
Oh most definitely, I'm trying to compensate for being new to firearms and being an awful shot. :rofl: I have issues hitting the broad side of a barn. Need to get more money so I can get more range time, and hopefully I can learn how to shoot accurately.

Dry fire, it's free. If you know how and can apply the fundamentals when you are dry firing it's nothing more than discipline when you're at the range and you know it's gonna go boom instead of click. (target shooting that is)

uz2bUSMC 11-12-2012 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624952)
You know what I meant smartass :tongueout:

Well, specifics help in CC. You and others may think there is no difference within the service calibers and that's fine. I often see the 9mm crowd defending their choice but there is really no need. If it's fine for you then that's all that really matters. 9mm is fine types should just spend more time in the "what works best in 9mm these days" type threads. After all, if it all works the same there is no need for a 9mm guy to be in CC besides ammo selection.

Funny thing is many 9mm guys defend it with a ton of tenacity and others question wether it's enough. I never really here anyone doubt that the .357 mag is an astounding man stopper. Sure, people choose 9mm over the .357 but it's usually because of platform not reputation.

countrygun 11-12-2012 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624807)
That about sums up what I've come to think about the debate between various service calibers in pistols. I mean, maybe .40 and .45 are marginally better than 9mm but really, it's not gonna make that big of a differene. If you ever encounter a situation where several center mass hits with quality 9mm ammo can't take care of it, you need to either 1) consider retreating or 2.) get to a long gun if that isn't an option. If you really think about it, if it's not dying after beiing hit with a 9mm, that little bit of extra power a .40 or .45 offers probably won't make a difference.

What do you guys think?

I can eventually kill most anything with most any gun, or it will eventually die from the wounds.

I think my handloads especially in a .41, .44, or 10mm may cause me a bit less concern by hurrying the project along.

I do hunt with a handgun and, no I don't consider the 9mm as effective at killing a large animal as a heavier pistol, but I don't "need" a rifle at less than 100yds.

RWBlue 11-12-2012 20:19

For people, 9 is fine. If you make the shot, there isn't enough difference between it and 460S&W to live on.

For animals, as a hunter I can tell you there are things in between the 9mm and a rifle like thee 44mag. There is a difference.

unit1069 11-12-2012 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC (Post 19625047)
Funny thing is many 9mm guys defend it with a ton of tenacity and others question wether it's enough. I never really here anyone doubt that the .357 mag is an astounding man stopper. Sure, people choose 9mm over the .357 but it's usually because of platform not reputation.

Believe it or not I recall at least one GT thread where one or two Facklerites did devalue the legendary .357 Magnum's reputation. I remember it very well because I located a graphic of the "perfect wound profile" created by Fackler himself that still failed to sway the GT members who refused to give the Magnum its proper credit.

9mm +p+ 11-12-2012 22:13

I carry 9 and 45, but from a pistol the bigger hole seems to me to make more sense.

NEOH212 11-13-2012 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9mm +p+ (Post 19625561)
I carry 9 and 45, but from a pistol the bigger hole seems to me to make more sense.

The 9mm fits into the, "It might be small but it fit's them all" category. Kind of like the jack of all trades but the master of none.

While we are on the subject of comparing sizes I'll say the following:

Size does matter and the bigger the hole the more it bleeds!


With that said, I'll gladly take the .45 any day!

:supergrin:

NEOH212 11-13-2012 02:23

The 10mm may have more penetration but it's just long and skinny.

The .45 is short and fat. Just the way it ought to be!

The 10mm may go in deeper but you'll really feel that short fat .45 they day after!

:cool:

Andy W 11-13-2012 02:25

People should carry whatever they feel most comfortable with. I don't deny that.

What i was saying was, in the case of service caliber handguns and dealing with hostile bipedal primates, if you hit them with a 9mm and they are not ceasing hostility, a .40 or .45 isn't gonna magically stop them. It's possible that maybe a .45 would shatter a femur or pelvis a little more than a 9mm or an artery could be barely missed with a 9mm where an identically placed shot with a .45 would have nicked it. However I just don't see it making a huge difference most of the time.

I do like the .45 ACP cartridge. A Glock 21SF is just as easy to shoot as a 17 in my experience. And a Glock 22 loaded with 180 grain bullets is only a little snappier than the 9mm or .45. I never have particularly enjoyed shooting .40 but guess what, I have a G22. I shoot it well enough but I would have rather had a 21. I was going to buy a 21 SF or Gen 4 but I ended up with the 22 because at the time I thought I needed a pistol bigger than 9mm but didn't like the cost of .45ACP ammo. So I ended up just getting the 22 Gen 4 because the ammo was a little less expensive. I figured I could just learn to deal with the snappy recoil of the lighter, faster loads or just stick with 180 grain ammo. I can control any .40 load but it just isn't as pleasant to shoot as 9mm and .45 Auto. 180 grain bullets aren't snappy per se but still, what's the point when I could be launching 230 grain .45 slugs with follow up shots coming just as fast or maybe even faster. Or I could be shooting a 9mm which would do the same thing as either of these two most of the time and get undeniably faster followup shots.

Or I could step up to a G20 but I don't want to kill everything within a 5 square mile area behind my target.

NEOH212 11-13-2012 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19625848)
People should carry whatever they feel most comfortable with. I don't deny that.

What i was saying was, in the case of service caliber handguns and dealing with hostile bipedal primates, if you hit them with a 9mm and they are not ceasing hostility, a .40 or .45 isn't gonna magically stop them. It's possible that maybe a .45 would shatter a femur or pelvis a little more than a 9mm or an artery could be barely missed with a 9mm where an identically placed shot with a .45 would have nicked it. However I just don't see it making a huge difference most of the time.

I do like the .45 ACP cartridge. A Glock 21SF is just as easy to shoot as a 17 in my experience. And a Glock 22 loaded with 180 grain bullets is only a little snappier than the 9mm or .45. I never have particularly enjoyed shooting .40 but guess what, I have a G22. I shoot it well enough but I would have rather had a 21. I was going to buy a 21 SF or Gen 4 but I ended up with the 22 because at the time I thought I needed a pistol bigger than 9mm but didn't like the cost of .45ACP ammo. So I ended up just getting the 22 Gen 4 because the ammo was a little less expensive. I figured I could just learn to deal with the snappy recoil of the lighter, faster loads or just stick with 180 grain ammo. I can control any .40 load but it just isn't as pleasant to shoot as 9mm and .45 Auto. 180 grain bullets aren't snappy per se but still, what's the point when I could be launching 230 grain .45 slugs with follow up shots coming just as fast or maybe even faster. Or I could be shooting a 9mm which would do the same thing as either of these two most of the time and get undeniably faster followup shots.

Or I could step up to a G20 but I don't want to kill everything within a 5 square mile area behind my target.


The .40 nicely fills the gap (that does exist by the way despite what some people think) between the 9mm and the .45 ACP.

The .40 is always a solid choice and is personally the smallest caliber that I will choose to carry when I'm not able to carry a .45 which is almost never.

The 9mm is the bare minimum that I would ever consider but I would have to be in a pinch and not have a .40 or .45 available to warrant me carrying one.

samurairabbi 11-13-2012 02:55

For (1) concealed carry (2) in public (3) by a civilian (4) in the US, the rifle is simply inapplicable. The rifle's superiority against an opponent becomes irrelevant if the situation precludes your possessing it at that moment.

The greater the energy/momentum/wound-area the projectile possesses, the greater chance of incapacitation with fewer hits. I think it better to have a higher chance of needing only a single hit to incapacitate than needing multiple hits for the same chance. The 9mm is entirely servicable as a carry round: I think OTHER rounds are MORE serviceable IF THE FIREARM CAN BE CONCEALED IN PUBLIC.

Glockworks 11-13-2012 03:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W (Post 19624807)
That about sums up what I've come to think about the debate between various service calibers in pistols. I mean, maybe .40 and .45 are marginally better than 9mm but really, it's not gonna make that big of a differene. If you ever encounter a situation where several center mass hits with quality 9mm ammo can't take care of it, you need to either 1) consider retreating or 2.) get to a long gun if that isn't an option. If you really think about it, if it's not dying after beiing hit with a 9mm, that little bit of extra power a .40 or .45 offers probably won't make a difference.

What do you guys think?

You guys kill me so to speak. I have chosen after a few years of trial and error on my part to stay with a few selections of calibers mainly due to a logistics viewpoint. I have a supply of 9mm/.38spcl/.357/7.62 bullets for my 3 types of firearms, and that is it. I had a lot more types but it was a mess to keep straight.

If you think 9mm is a whoose round (it did in Trevon didn't it?), then stand still and let me shoot you in a non-lethal area and see what you think then.

I recognize that .40/.45ACP/10mm/.44Mags are more powerful, but so what? If I had to use my 9mm on a person (hopefully never), well I would not want to be them. I train to be accurate and steady, and do not shoot to wound, that is BS. I shoot to hit them in the center mass and if I do so with a 9mm, it is going to be better than nothing, and a lot better than missing.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.