Thread: Help me pick my 9mm

The .45ACP was never designed or meant to "penetrate", it was designed to knock you down and out. It was developed by Browning at the Armys request after two campaings in Asia, where the "bad guys" were known to wrap themselves in opium soaked bandages and lesser rounds like the .38 would hamper the target but not stop it. The .45 is big, 230 grains as compared to 130 grains on average fo 9mm. It is also slow, probably like getting hit with a high speed brick. A guy I actually know was hit in the forearm with one and was spun around and thrown down. I will not bad mouth somebody else's favorite round, but I readily admit I would prefer the .45ACP as it was designed for todays drugged out thug. There are also plenty of new concealable designs, as far as you being of smaller frame, dont let that bother you, give it a try and it wont take much to master it.

All I'm saying is I've actually killed things, and know from that experience it doesn't matter what caliber or how much energy it's throwing about.

There is so many variables in the situation it's hard to apply any rules.

And by the way, if you can take a magazine of 9mms without going down, you can take a magazine of .45s. The energy difference is negligible. We're talking about a hundred or so pounds of force in coherence with massive wound channels. It makes not much difference. The .45, the 10mm, the .40 and the 9mm will all kill. Other then that, it's all preference.

Zib, find me a bear, and I'll take it down with 1 shot from a 9mm.

I can and have killed bears with the same amount of energy as a .22 magnum. It's all about how you use that energy.

After a couple of years of research I have decided on a 9mm. A 9mm HydroShock will stop an individual as well as a 40 or 45 but without the kick and gaping wound cavity. I guess I should say that my objective is to incapacitate rather than kill. Its just easier on the karma. If I need to kill I have the option but incapacitate first.

Singlewedge


Ol' Buddy, you are fixing to mess up and mess up BADLY! If you aren't justified in killing a man, you aren't justified in shooting him at all. That's what the Judge will tell you as the 'Goblin' is awarded all your worldly possessions and you are locked up in the slammer, for a significant portion of your life.
There is NO substitute for horsepower. Period. I don't care whether it's in a power mower, a weed eater, a Dragster, or a handgun. I'd be careful of putting too much stock in a 9 mm "outperforming a .45." A 9 mm is in the class of a pretty good .38 (if there IS such a thing.) The FBI Hostage Rescue Team and about ALL the Elite Forces in the American Military have gone back to the .45 ACP. There's a reason for that! I'm talking about the Delta Force, Green Berets and folks like that. So have a lot of big city SWAT Teams.
I suppose that technically, you could kill a Grizzly Bear with a hypodermic needle. Just fill it with air and inject said air into a vein. Personally, going back to the horsepower thing, I'd MUCH rather have a rifle chambered in .375 Holland and Holland Magnum.
When I carry a gun, it's a .45 ACP Colt 1911.

Originally Posted by ionthejester

A good revolver is always a nice choice too. I don't know why people don't like them so much. A Ruger SP101 or something like it in .357 Magnum (can always use .38s in it when you don't want to use the magnums) is another way to go.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. In the days before we werent allowed hand guns I used to enjoy shooting them. I always found something like a .38 or a .357 magnum to be a very consistent round and a good balance between power and usability. Plus revolvers dont jam! Always a plus..!

I was reading an article on ballistics a while back and what they found was that a 125 grain .357 magnum hollow point has the best all round stopping power. I'll try and find it again and post a link.

Plus its actually a usable round. Once you start getting over .40 you're into hand cannon territory and I always found the muzzle flip really pronounced, and I`m a big guy! .357 magnum was always my favourite hand gun round.

Originally Posted by zib

I have a Springfield XD 45, great weapon. In 9mm I have a Baretta 92FS which I highly recommend. I also have a Kel Tec for concealed carry. I friend of mine had the opportunity to use his 9mm. Four armed individuals attempted to break into his house. He had a 9mm, He shot two, and the other two ran off. He chased them, One of the guys he shot, got back up and shot him 2x. He was in the Hospital for months. He's lucky to be alive. One Bullett hit him in the abdomen, the other round in the face. He figures if he had a larger caliber, the one he hit, would not have got back up...
...

Not to be a smart ass, but if he hadn't chased them, he wouldn't have been shot either. Depending on the applicable laws, once the assailants turn and run, the scenario is no longer self defense from a legal pov.

Everyone always talks about 9mms and their reduced recoil. I think it's largely overstated. I have had government model 1911s in both .45 and 9mm, and between them, the 9mms do have less recoil, but I've never shot a Glock or an XD that was actually as comfortable to shoot as a 1911. Add in the fact that you have to use +P or +P+ loads in a 9mm (vs good old 230g in a .45) and the difference really begins to disappear. For me, the relative amount of recoil from the synthetics ends up being worse on my hands than the recoil from my .45 1911.

My experience is readd small, so I could be wrong here. But doesn't the kick depend on the load, and less on the caliber?
I fired .45 ACP that had a comfortable 'whump', while the 9 mm really kicked like a mule. The reason was that the 45 was a standard round, while the 9 was manually loaded.

I carried a Glock for two years. It is a nice, reliable gun. Also placement is way more important than caliber.

Originally Posted by Otto

I carried a Glock for two years. It is a nice, reliable gun. Also placement is way more important than caliber.

Yup.

That and luck. I've seen things with shattered hearts live long enough to run 400 yards.

It just depends who or what you're killing and how its body responds to it.
I think there's times when the body is more vulnerable to a bullet, such as when the body is restoring oxygen to the brain or other key organs, or the heart is beating a little too fast or slow, etc.

What people don't tell you about those freak accidents where someone lives through a 9mm bullet or two is the hundreds or thousands of cases where that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

After a couple of years of research I have decided on a 9mm. A 9mm HydroShock will stop an individual as well as a 40 or 45 but without the kick and gaping wound cavity. I guess I should say that my objective is to incapacitate rather than kill. Its just easier on the karma. If I need to kill I have the option but incapacitate first.

Anyway here are the choices.

Glock 19

Springfield XD9

If you have pros and cons let me know.

Considering the attitude you display in the first paragraph you shouldn't get any gun.

If you are unwilling to kill, and kill instantly the only thing you are going to do is get shot or have your gun taken away. That is assuming you even have it with you when there comes a time you feel you need it.

Guns kill things. If you are not prepared to deal with that every moment you have one on your person you and those around you would be better off if you didn't own one at all.

I carry whenever I leave my house, and if I am ever in a situation where there is a need to kill to defend my self or others my decision is already made and I have been trained not to hesitate or to give the bad guy any chance. If you are going to carry a gun that is the way you must be, anything else is asking to be shot.