9mm guy starting to consider .45 ACP for reasons OTHER than effectiveness or pride

I had not given much thought to obtaining something .45 ACP until I bought a suppressor ! .45 is the perfect handgun caliper for shooting suppressed. So me not being a purist, instead of buying a traditional 1911, I bought an FNX45T .



Got a lot of money tied up into this rig, but thumping steel gongs with a subsonic supressed .45 is total awesomeness !
 
I've never subscribed to the belief that ammo capacity trumps all, I'm more concerned with shot placement and penetration.

Ironically, a large amount of 9mm advocates tend to contradict themselves in that way, by saying that "shot placement is king" as an argument over carrying a larger diameter bullet, only to undermine that statement by bringing up 9mm pistols having greater ammo capacity and faster follow up shots than larger diameter cartridges.

Regardless of what some folks may say, the only person who can adequately make the right choice on what to carry is you, and you really don't need to justify your decision to anyone else either, so if you like .45 ACP and can see it being more useful to you than 9mm Luger, then you should carry it.
 
I agree. All my friends are always talking about how much better the .45 is. When asked what they carry they say .380 or 9mm. Stopped playing the arms race long time ago.
 
The .45 is easy to shoot and it pokes big holes, which is a pretty good combination. I do like the .45 and even played with top end .45 Super and it's fantastic option for sure for when you want/need big power. That said, the advantage of the 9mm is platform size. For me when it comes to the higher capacity semi-autos, in general the .45's seem to feel a bit on the large side to me. Of the two I prefer the power of the .45 but the 9mm sized guns are simply easier to carry and feel better, 1911's aside but I don't carry those.

That's why I shoot .40, which wasn't asked but it gets me the better size with bigger holes and more power. For woods use the .40 can be loaded nearly to full power 10mm numbers, I mean a 200gr WFNGC hardcast at 1250fps from a G35 isn't a 45 Super, but it's not weak sauce either. It also gives me 9mm like capacity with 9mm platform size. This part is largely trivial but in shooting steel plates the .40 hits harder than the 9mm for sure and to me hits just as hard if not harder than .45 ACP does.
 
Self Defense-only the hits count.
My experience with 9MM is it takes some experimenting to get good accuracy with lead bullets, mainly due to the wide variation in lands and grooves and rate of twist among manufacturers.
 
That's why I shoot .40, which wasn't asked but it gets me the better size with bigger holes and more power.
Click to expand...

The .40 is a great compromise round. Some might argue "neither fish nor fowl", but I don't see anything wrong (except for slightly less capacity and slightly more recoil) with a larger and more powerful round (when compared to the 9mm Luger) housed in a 9mm-sized frame. It's almost like having your cake and eating it too.
 
The .40... which is virtually ballisticly identical to the old Cowboy era .38-40 BP cartridge, which in turn, along with the .44-40 BP and .45 ACP, were all slightly inferior to the venerable old .45 Colt (or Long Colt, whichever you prefer). I wouldn't want to get hit with any of them. :D
 
Nine millimeter or .45, be thankful you have something to crank off a few rounds downrange to buy yourself some time to get to your rifle!
 
I carried a "compact" .45 for about fifteen years, believing the terminal ballistics of carryable handguns was marginal enough that only the biggest hole would do.
But, I think that cuts both ways; if handgun ballistics are marginal, why carry a really big, really heavy marginal gun, when a 16oz, half-as-big 9mm is available?
I've been packing a SIG P938 for a few years, have put 3000 rounds through it so I have some confidence in it, and me, and probably won't go back.

All that said, if I really thought I would need a gun, like that time a buddy asked me to drive him down to the hood on a Saturday night to recover his stolen and abandoned car, I'd strap on the 5", all-steel .45, and to hell with light and compact!
 
I'm basically a 9mm guy (Hornady ftx in my carry guns), and recognize most of the real-world data shows basically similar results for most carry calibers. E.g., a first-shot stop rate in the 30% - 35% rate.

Having said that, I sometimes shoot at those "self-repairing" plastic ball targets out on BLM land. With my 9mm, after a box of ammo, I have to go shag the target. With my 1911, I have to shag the target after a single 7 round mag.
 
I have always valued larger holes as being a great deterrence of criminal mischief. Thus I have an appreciation for .45. That said, I have carried a compact 1911 in .45 ACP, a sub-compact in .40 S&W, and currently carry a Sig P365, 9mm. My motive for change is not ammo capacity, but weight and conceal ability. My body has undergone some tough abdominal surgeries and I am now rather thin and dislike the weight and IWB carry of the 1911 or the .40 (XD Mod 2). The P365 9mm is quite effective with good ammo, easily carried OWB with shirt untucked, and I do not feel at all under gunned. In winter I can conceal any of the three pretty easily with OWB carry, but the P365 is great all year long. Like I said at the beginning, I like bigger holes, but the 9mm is quite effective. In regard the 45 Super, I am not really interested as much, being 10mm is quite sufficient with the right loads and is not any less potent than 45 Super if loaded effectively. (And it is just a wee bit smaller hole) I am quite comfortable dealing with most four legged beasts I might encounter using the 10mm with stout 200 grain hard cast loads. When stronger medicine is possibly needed, I will employ an appropriate caliber revolver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top