Didn’t the OP specifically ask between 45 ACP and 40SW?
Best caliber for self defense
- Thread starter Tool
- Start date
Didn’t the OP specifically ask between 45 ACP and 40SW?
The Verminator
Moderator
The usual translation of Parabellum" is "for war".
I'm not going to war.
No, the 9mm is not pertinent to the OP's question, which was choosing what was best between the .40 and the .45.
These things may be obvious to you, but are irrelevant to the question asked in the OP.
Taking a general response to the title, based on your self imposed criteria does not answer the actual question posed.
I'm not going to war.
No, the 9mm is not pertinent to the OP's question, which was choosing what was best between the .40 and the .45.
These things may be obvious to you, but are irrelevant to the question asked in the OP.
Taking a general response to the title, based on your self imposed criteria does not answer the actual question posed.
The Verminator
Moderator
LOL!
What percentage of this thread has been dedicated to the question of .40 vs. .45???
Midnight Express
New member
I once spoke with a retired corrections officer and he said he had seen many inmates who survived being shot with 9mm. He said he never really saw any inmates that survive being shot with .45ACP.
The Verminator
Moderator
With a peer approved scientific study like that we should just conclude all discussion.
MoArk Willy
New member
The caliber argument is a waste of time.
It's like asking which pot cooks chicken the best.
The answer is always the same.....for both the gun and the pot.
It's the one you are most comfortable using, the one you will use consistently and will use it until you master it.
It doesn't matter what caliber or what pot you use if your are more worried about opinions than your ability to use it.
It's like asking which pot cooks chicken the best.
The answer is always the same.....for both the gun and the pot.
It's the one you are most comfortable using, the one you will use consistently and will use it until you master it.
It doesn't matter what caliber or what pot you use if your are more worried about opinions than your ability to use it.
They are both 400 ft-lb subsonic cartridges.
What one will do, the other will do, except for maybe barriers.
I like the single-stack Glock G36 slimline .45 ACP for EDC, and the Dbl-stack Glock G23.4 .40 for the field or for the wrong part of town.
Both are a good choice.
Red
"The Best" is, in and of itself, a subjective term. Depending on who you ask, "best" may very well translate to "most deadly," "most cost effective," "most accurate," or "most shootable" and your definition of "works best for a wide variety of people and is cost-effective, reasonably accurate, has sufficient power and is widely available off the shelf and in a good variety of handguns that make it convenient to carry (either concealed or on duty)" might not be the same as someone else's definition.
I really don't care what works best for a wide variety of people as I'm not a wide variety of people, so I'm more concerned with what works best for me. Also, because I handload nearly every caliber I own, I'm not all that concerned with cost effectiveness or off-the-shelf availability because I am less dependent on such factors than someone who is reliant on factory ammo. I really don't care whether a given caliber is available in a good variety of handguns either, only if it's available in a handgun that works well for me.
You might be able to make a case that 9mm is the "best" for military and law enforcement, but for those of us who aren't soldiers or cops, that really doesn't apply. To be clear, I'm not saying that 9mm is a "bad" cartridge or even that it isn't "best" for a great number of people, but there are some people out there for whom 9mm isn't the optimum choice for a myriad of reasons and for those people, it certainly isn't "best".
The names of cartridges often have very little to do with how they work in the real world. .357 Magnum was named after large bottles of champagne, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best cartridge to carry in a vineyard. Nobody actually hunts dinosaurs with a .577 Tyrannosaur nor is .221 Fireball uniquely useful for starting bonfires. If we take the names of cartridges literally, then .30 Luger is equally "best" with 9x19 as it's other name is 7.65mm Parabellum. The reason that one of 9x19's names is 9mm Parabellum is because that's what the German Military (it's first adopters) called it to differentiate it from the myriad of other 9mm handgun cartridges in use at the time like 9mm Kurz (.380 Auto), 9mm Steyr, 9mm Mauser, 9mm Glisenti, and 9mm Bergmann-Bayard/Largo.
Actually it's very pertinent to the question posed by this thread as the OP stated that he already has a 9mm pistol and was considering adding one in either .40 S&W or .45 ACP under the assumption that one or both of those cartridges is in some way "better" than 9mm and thus wanted to know which of those two is "best". The OP is not looking to arm an army or police department, only himself. Unfortunately, because the answer to the question of "best" handgun cartridge is so individualized and subjective, it's extremely difficult to give a satisfactory answer to the question based the information that can be effectively conveyed in this format. We do not know the OP's hand size, budget, shooting experience, ammunition availability in his area, preferred carry method, or which theory of terminal ballistics he subscribes to among many, many other factors.
My son is an emergency physician and worked in Northern Ohio during his residency and has seen single .22 l.r rounds being lethal while multiple hits with 9mm and .40 SW were survived. Even head shots.
It should be noted that the 9mm and .40 were FMJ and that lethality and incapacitation are not exactly the same.
Being able to perform the Bil Drill successfully with a 9mm is probably better than slow fire ( one shot per second ) and misses from a .45 ACP or .44 Rem Mag.
The Verminator
Moderator
I asked that question of a guy who said he had seen all these gun battles with various calibers.
He never did answer.
I was just wondering.
It had to be somebody like Jim Cirillo or Bill Allard, I thought.........but they're both dead.
Point is, precious few of us have actually SEEN a lot of gunfights.
Which is why, I guess, we get so many reports of some guy who heard from another guy who said he had seen this or that.......proving........something.
So........isn't it about time for another post saying that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum?
It's been at least two pages since somebody gifted us with that old cliche.
All that long and the cliche is still true.So........isn't it about time for another post saying that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum?
It's been at least two pages since somebody gifted us with that old cliche.
I had the misfortune of living in dangerous Third World country where shootings, robberies, and kidnappings are part of what is to be expected every day.
I had learnt quickly that my S&W 64 did not have the capacity that was needed against multiple opponents and carried a Glock religiously wherever I went but had an AK with 7.62 HP ammo around the house.
I have seen people soak up half a dozen rounds without being incapacitated and I have seen a man that was dropped with one shot of birdshot at around 20 feet and trust me, he will not give anybody dirty looks again.
So when I read that some dude who hasn't been there is writing about old cliches, I can only smile mildly. Some of those "cliches" from men like the colonel are about mindset, skill and assessment of one's abilities and have become the basis of defensive shooting.
Confidence into one's skills is very comforting when bad situations start developing.
Everybody who signs up to a gun forum is, or course, a naturally born gun fighter and the skill level increases with post count, no range time necessary.
I had learnt quickly that my S&W 64 did not have the capacity that was needed against multiple opponents and carried a Glock religiously wherever I went but had an AK with 7.62 HP ammo around the house.
I have seen people soak up half a dozen rounds without being incapacitated and I have seen a man that was dropped with one shot of birdshot at around 20 feet and trust me, he will not give anybody dirty looks again.
So when I read that some dude who hasn't been there is writing about old cliches, I can only smile mildly. Some of those "cliches" from men like the colonel are about mindset, skill and assessment of one's abilities and have become the basis of defensive shooting.
Confidence into one's skills is very comforting when bad situations start developing.
Everybody who signs up to a gun forum is, or course, a naturally born gun fighter and the skill level increases with post count, no range time necessary.
The Verminator
Moderator
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum.
And a hit with a .44 Magnum is better than a miss with a .22.
A broad axe to the forehead is better than a teaspoon to the knee.
A hit with a bicycle is better than a miss with a loaded cement truck.
Being decapitated by a broadsword is a far more serious injury than being poked with a pencil.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
And a hit with a .44 Magnum is better than a miss with a .22.
A broad axe to the forehead is better than a teaspoon to the knee.
A hit with a bicycle is better than a miss with a loaded cement truck.
Being decapitated by a broadsword is a far more serious injury than being poked with a pencil.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
Gunfu_blaster
New member
The biggest one you can use effectively.
ChuteTheMall
New member
Cliches don't endure unless they are usually true.
Everyone's needs are different: some might value availability, others might prefer boutique ammo. Cost might even be a factor, if it limits practice. Recoil might limit practice, and the need for smaller and lighter guns might increase recoil. Old age, arthritis, or hand injuries might make recoil a factor limiting practice, even if premium ammo gets carried often but shot rarely.
Certainly, bigger is better when it comes to terminal ballistics. No argument there.
But there are so many other considerations affecting speed and accuracy.
I shoot 9mm best, thru a G17 or G26, but here in FL we don't wear cover garments.
I carry G42 and/or P32 more often (.380 or .32) so every range session I try to practice with the pocket guns too.
They are not as fast or as accurate in my hands, have less capacity, and less terminal effectiveness. So they are less fun.
But they are far more likely to be carried on my person, and RULE ONE is have a gun even if it's a tired cliche.
If I have time to go back to get my bigger gun, I'll just keep going.
Everyone's needs are different: some might value availability, others might prefer boutique ammo. Cost might even be a factor, if it limits practice. Recoil might limit practice, and the need for smaller and lighter guns might increase recoil. Old age, arthritis, or hand injuries might make recoil a factor limiting practice, even if premium ammo gets carried often but shot rarely.
Certainly, bigger is better when it comes to terminal ballistics. No argument there.
But there are so many other considerations affecting speed and accuracy.
I shoot 9mm best, thru a G17 or G26, but here in FL we don't wear cover garments.
I carry G42 and/or P32 more often (.380 or .32) so every range session I try to practice with the pocket guns too.
They are not as fast or as accurate in my hands, have less capacity, and less terminal effectiveness. So they are less fun.
But they are far more likely to be carried on my person, and RULE ONE is have a gun even if it's a tired cliche.
If I have time to go back to get my bigger gun, I'll just keep going.
Disagree.
For this problem, Everyone's need is the same - to stop the threat ahead of violence.
And, while there is more that one way to skin this cat, the quickest way is generally the best.
Only hits count.
- Better hits count more.
- Bigger hits count more.
- More hits count more.
Red
But which hits count most? Do more hits count more than better hits? Do better hits count more than bigger hits? Do bigger hits count more than more hits?
For example, is six hits of .44 Magnum better than 15 hits of 9mm? Is one really good hit of .22 LR better than an ok hit with 9mm? Is ten mediocre hits with any caliber better than one really good hit of the same?
It sounds simple, but it really isn't. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything is a trade off. By and large, smaller calibers are easier to shoot quickly and accurately and hold more ammunition than larger calibers do. Also, those aren't the only three factors that play into the choice of a defensive handgun as size, price, ease of use, practicality, and in some jurisdictions legality all can be potential factors. A duty-sized 9mm like a Glock 17 or Beretta 92 is very easy to shoot well for many people and holds a good supply of ammunition, but it's also too big, bulky, and heavy for many people to regularly carry. A full-sized government model 1911 in .45 ACP can be shot very well by a great many people and shoots a bigger, more powerful bullet than the 9mm does, but it may not be quite as easy to shoot and certainly doesn't hold as many rounds. The crux of the question is whether or not a larger more powerful cartridge is advantageous enough to offset the greater ease in shooting and increased capacity of a smaller, weaker one and that is a debate that we've never achieved a consensus on and it's doubtful that we will anytime soon.