Glock Talk banner

The definitive, be all, end all caliber thread:

5K views 123 replies 37 participants last post by  Will Beararms 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Modern hollow point bullets render the 9mm, .40 and .45 virtually identical.

All of the aforementioned calibers do very will with double taps.

The high pressure, battering the frame argument against the .40 is a Bravo Sierra sales pitch. Most will never shoot a .40 frame enough to seriously damage it.

If 9mm is your passion, choose a make that can handle a steady diet of +p ammo like Glock, Sig and HK.

After 20 years, there will be another caliber the gun manufacturers push to drive sales when it's time for the major agencies to make a platform change.
 
#78 ·
I'm going to have to disagree with this premise, and I imagine any firearms instructor who has been helping and observing shooters for more than a couple of years might also disagree.

Each individual has a certain tolerance for recoil before it starts to affect their shooting. You can "move" that tolerance higher by practicing regularly with higher-recoil firearms while carefully concentrating on the fundamentals, but if you slack-off the practice for very long, the tolerance will drop back down and your shooting skills will suffer. This tolerance issue can manifest itself in many different ways, such as slapping/jerking the trigger, closing the eyes on firing the shot, "pushing into" the pistol as the shot is fired, squeezing the entire grip instead of just the trigger, follow-through problems, and other poor application of the fundamentals. The normal outcome is poor shot placement, and it doesn't matter whether it's on paper targets or attacking bad guys.

If the top end of your tolerance is the X-caliber, and you shoot it well in all its loadings, then moving up the recoil/power scale to a Y- or Z-caliber will require practice to get back to (or nearly get back to), the same level of unconscious competence you developed with the X. If you fail to maintain the level of practice needed to keep your performance high, then performance drops-off under all conditions. This is nothing new, it is seen and applied in virtually all sports at all levels of competition. If you want to perform well, you HAVE to practice regularly.

Anything that causes a reduction in practice will cause a corresponding drop in performance. When it comes to shooting pistols, there are several things that will result in lower levels of practice. Available time for range trips, how often you go to the range, ammo costs, and whether or not the pistol is comfortable to shoot are all things that will change practice levels in marginally-dedicated individuals.

When it comes to 9mm vs .40 vs .45, the cheapest factory loads for the .40 and .45 cost about 50% more than 9mm ($10 for 50 9mms, $14-$15 for 50 .40s or .45s, in my area). This means, based on cost alone, that .40 and .45 shooters will either have to dedicate 50% more money to get the same number of practice shots, or accept a reduction in practice ammo to keep the cost expenditures about the same in their budget. This might not be as bad as it seems, if the shooters still visited the range as often as the 9mm shooters and just fired fewer rounds in each visit; but what I see is people who fire the same number of rounds in each visit, but visit less often, increasing the time gap between training sessions. By reducing how often they practice, they reduce their effectiveness with the larger pistol calibers.

You see the same thing with recoil tolerance. Shooting a subcompact Glock in 9mm is not a problem for most shooters recoil-wise, even if they shoot 150-200 rounds in one session. To see a .45 or .40 shooter launch that many rounds through a subcompact carry gun in a single uncoached/unsupervised training session is almost unheard of; it Just. Doesn't. Happen. The smaller .40s and .45s just aren't as pleasant to shoot for long shooting sessions. Now, you can argue (and I might agree with you in some cases) that long shooting sessions are not as productive in skill-building or skill-retention as several shorter sessions. However, if the person can only get to the range once a week, or twice a month, and the nature of their carry gun prevents longer training sessions, then once again we are back to practicing less, and reducing our effectiveness because of it.

So I regularly see three different (but related) aspects of shooting the larger calibers that negatively affects skill building and retention; less practice due to higher ammo costs, less practice due to fewer range visits (as they are shooting less ammo in total, they reduce the number of trips to the range to keep the rounds-fired-per-trip up), and less practice due to a lower comfort level with harder-kicking larger-caliber carry pistols.

As a range RSO or Instructor/Assistant Instructor, I have spent a lot of time on ranges just watching other people shoot. The above is what I have seen, and how it impacts most shooters is obvious when you look at their targets. There are exceptions, of course, but in my experience, the general observation applies accurately far more often than not.
All that is in perfect agreement with what the FBI concluded.

The Ballistic Research Facility has conducted a test which compares similar sized Glock pistols in both .40 S&W and 9mm calibers, to determine if more accurate and faster hits are achievable with one versus the other. To date, the majority of the study participants have shot more quickly and more accurately with 9mm caliber Glock pistols. The 9mm provides struggling shooters the best chance of success while improving the speed and accuracy of the most skilled shooters.
 
#79 ·
Definitely, IF someone is substantially more accurate in shooting 9mm than .40 cal (in the same time frame), 9mm is a better choice for that individual. Same then holds for .380 vs. 9mm... However, for those that shoot 9mm and .40 cal well, there is no good reason to choose 9mm over .40 cal -- for civilian self-defense.
 
#91 ·
I'm going to have to disagree with this premise, and I imagine any firearms instructor who has been helping and observing shooters for more than a couple of years might also disagree.

Each individual has a certain tolerance for recoil before it starts to affect their shooting. You can "move" that tolerance higher by practicing regularly with higher-recoil firearms while carefully concentrating on the fundamentals, but if you slack-off the practice for very long, the tolerance will drop back down and your shooting skills will suffer. This tolerance issue can manifest itself in many different ways, such as slapping/jerking the trigger, closing the eyes on firing the shot, "pushing into" the pistol as the shot is fired, squeezing the entire grip instead of just the trigger, follow-through problems, and other poor application of the fundamentals. The normal outcome is poor shot placement, and it doesn't matter whether it's on paper targets or attacking bad guys.

If the top end of your tolerance is the X-caliber, and you shoot it well in all its loadings, then moving up the recoil/power scale to a Y- or Z-caliber will require practice to get back to (or nearly get back to), the same level of unconscious competence you developed with the X. If you fail to maintain the level of practice needed to keep your performance high, then performance drops-off under all conditions. This is nothing new, it is seen and applied in virtually all sports at all levels of competition. If you want to perform well, you HAVE to practice regularly.

Anything that causes a reduction in practice will cause a corresponding drop in performance. When it comes to shooting pistols, there are several things that will result in lower levels of practice. Available time for range trips, how often you go to the range, ammo costs, and whether or not the pistol is comfortable to shoot are all things that will change practice levels in marginally-dedicated individuals.

When it comes to 9mm vs .40 vs .45, the cheapest factory loads for the .40 and .45 cost about 50% more than 9mm ($10 for 50 9mms, $14-$15 for 50 .40s or .45s, in my area). This means, based on cost alone, that .40 and .45 shooters will either have to dedicate 50% more money to get the same number of practice shots, or accept a reduction in practice ammo to keep the cost expenditures about the same in their budget. This might not be as bad as it seems, if the shooters still visited the range as often as the 9mm shooters and just fired fewer rounds in each visit; but what I see is people who fire the same number of rounds in each visit, but visit less often, increasing the time gap between training sessions. By reducing how often they practice, they reduce their effectiveness with the larger pistol calibers.

You see the same thing with recoil tolerance. Shooting a subcompact Glock in 9mm is not a problem for most shooters recoil-wise, even if they shoot 150-200 rounds in one session. To see a .45 or .40 shooter launch that many rounds through a subcompact carry gun in a single uncoached/unsupervised training session is almost unheard of; it Just. Doesn't. Happen. The smaller .40s and .45s just aren't as pleasant to shoot for long shooting sessions. Now, you can argue (and I might agree with you in some cases) that long shooting sessions are not as productive in skill-building or skill-retention as several shorter sessions. However, if the person can only get to the range once a week, or twice a month, and the nature of their carry gun prevents longer training sessions, then once again we are back to practicing less, and reducing our effectiveness because of it.

So I regularly see three different (but related) aspects of shooting the larger calibers that negatively affects skill building and retention; less practice due to higher ammo costs, less practice due to fewer range visits (as they are shooting less ammo in total, they reduce the number of trips to the range to keep the rounds-fired-per-trip up), and less practice due to a lower comfort level with harder-kicking larger-caliber carry pistols.

As a range RSO or Instructor/Assistant Instructor, I have spent a lot of time on ranges just watching other people shoot. The above is what I have seen, and how it impacts most shooters is obvious when you look at their targets. There are exceptions, of course, but in my experience, the general observation applies accurately far more often than not.
In your observations, does the type of training play as big a role as frequency and duration? Personally, my greatest improvements have come when I plan my sessions and address my weaknesses as opposed to just blasting away.

So if one is willing to dedicate as much thought, time and ammo expenditure to becoming proficient with a Glock 29 as they do with a 26, they should be generally as proficient with the former than with the latter? I hope I'm following you logic correctly, if so I agree.

All that said, we're sill talking about differences in training designed to allow us to take advantage of better ballistics, however slight.

So all things being equal, shot placement is indeed a red herring. If one is willing to put in the effort, shot placement should essentially be the same with one's chosen handgun caliber as with a less "powerful" one.

Split times though, that is a different story. Splits will always be better with the lesser caliber in a given class of handgun when using the "weaker" caliber.
I believe that's the only aspect where the 9 truly has a definitive advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Niner
#99 ·
So all things being equal, shot placement is indeed a red herring. If one is willing to put in the effort, shot placement should essentially be the same with one's chosen handgun caliber as with a less "powerful" one.
How much effort? 5000 rounds a year? 99% of the people aren't going to do that, even cops don't.
 
#92 ·
For the first shot, that may be true. However, if flinching or anticipation are more pronounced when firing a heavier-recoiling round, then even that first shot will more likely be off target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Niner
#98 ·
Placement + penetration + relatively larger bullet > placement + penetration + relatively smaller bullet.
Size matters!
The issue is that placement + penetration is 99% of the equation. The size is 1%. Give or take. Even coroners can't tell the difference in wound tracks.
 
#102 ·
I also see from the recent threads list that QED is posting in this thread. Best advice I got out any recent thread was to block him. Now I see none of his childishnesss. I'd advise the same to anyone that hasn't done so already.
 
#104 ·
:agree: B:banana:eek:ck the tro:dancingbanana::dancingbanana:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbglock
#114 ·
Of course, the "relatively" thorough Lucky Gunner tests do not follow the FBI's model, since they don't use the same gelatin, and they don't test through all the barriers through which the FBI fires tested bullets. Still, very interesting civilian tests.
 
#116 · (Edited)
Tnoutdoors9 (one of the more knowledgeable GT posters who apparently doesn't post here anymore) tests with "modern" .40 cal and .45 ACP rounds in fairly reliable sim-test media show that .40 cal performance, on average, is at least terminally equal to .45 ACP -- even though .45ACP rounds were typically fired out of a 5" 1911, as opposed to .40 cal rounds which were fired out of a 4" Glock.
 
#118 ·
#119 ·
You keep on repeating this without a factual basis.


That's your own statement you are arguing with not my (otherwise known as straw man argument).
HAW! I now understand why so many others have you on their "ignore" list. You're a monkey, jumping from tree to tree in order to escape the corners you continually paint yourself into.

This is YOUR statement that confirms every post I've made in the past several days:

Fortunately, in over 99% of SD situations a biped threat can be effectively neutralized by most service caliber JHPs -- even though the attacker is not instantly vaporized.
 
#120 ·
Join the club. Elves Trolls are best left unfed.
 
#121 ·
You said:
Can you then provide a link to a report of a civilian self-defense shooting where 10 rounds of .40 cal was not enough and the defender did not have time to drop in another magazine?
Do you really think that kind of info will be contained in a police report?

"Investigation showed 10 rounds of .40 cal was not enough, and the victim didn't have time to drop in another magazine."
 
#122 ·
You said:
Do you really think that kind of info will be contained in a police report?

"Investigation showed 10 rounds of .40 cal was not enough, and the victim didn't have time to drop in another magazine."
I assumed nothing about what kind of "report" it might have been. It could have been, of course, something that was published somewhere and publicized on some gun website or another gun forum.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top