Considering Switching from .45 Auto to 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
3

30-06 Rifleman

Inactive
I've been an avid .45 advocate and carrier since I was old enough to buy pistols. Up until recently, I never considered any smaller pistol caliber worth my time. This past weekend, I went to the range with a friend's shot timer and compared my shooting between my Glock 21 Gen 4 and my friend's Glock 17 Gen 5. I've carried my Glock 21 every day for several years now, and a 1911 before that.

I'm very quick and accurate with the .45, but there's no getting around that my shot strings were faster with the 9mm while retaining accuracy. The 9mm also held 4 more rounds.

I started looking into 9mms more. It seems like it's becoming quite popular again as a self defense and duty cartridge, and is widely considered to be on par with the .45 in effectiveness. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper.

I swear I'm not trying to start another .45 vs 9mm thread, but I just want to see the opinions of those around me right now. Back in the late 80s and 90s, it seemed like the 9mm was considered decidedly inferior to the .45, 10mm, etc.

Have things really changed? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the difference in effectiveness between a .35 caliber bullet and .45 caliber bullet being negligible, but if that's true, it seems like 9mm is a no-brainer for self defense since it has higher capacity, lighter recoil (thus smaller split times), cheaper ammunition, and a more easily concealable handgun.
 
I just traded my last 45 pistol. Only have 9mm now.

Common ammo. Less expensive to boot.

And according to all the latest reports on police shootings, no difference in results on bad guys.

EDC is M&P 9c. House gun, Beretta M9A1.
Browning hi power, among a couple others.
 
I don't switch. I just buy more. Have three 45s presently, and recently added another 9mm and two .380s. Plan to keep them, until I can't move anymore.
 
I guess by "switch" I mean going to carrying a 9mm every day. I don't really like to switch up what I carry every day, once I switch it's for the long term. I want to stick with one pistol type and master it. I'd probably keep my .45s, but they'd be relegated to range/recreational use.

I'm still not completely convinced that that's the way to go, though.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the process of making the switch to 9mm now but not for the typical reasons. Arthritis in my wrists and thumb joint has advanced to the point that the recoil of .40 and .45 rounds induce pain that affects my marksmanship.

I remain unconvinced that the 9mm is as effective as the .40 or .45. We hear the claims repeated over and over but I've yet to see convincing proof. With that being said I do believe that the 9mm can be effective and in the end, the ability to deliver accurate shots is the most important element.

I purchased a full size SIG P320 last week and after test firing some single stack 9mm's I've decided on the S&W Shield 2.0 9mm as my day to day carry gun.
 
"Switched" edc from 40 S&W Sub Compact to 9MM Sig P320 Carry. Not so much for easier follow-up, or easier carry. But for considerably more capacity. Seems where a possible threat used to be most often a single culprit they travel in packs nowadays!
 
I remain unconvinced that the 9mm is as effective as the .40 or .45. We hear the claims repeated over and over but I've yet to see convincing proof.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen most aren't claiming that the 9mm is as effective shot for shot, but that the difference is so negligible that the 9mm's advantages outweigh the incremental increase in effectiveness of the larger calibers. I'm still hesitant to switch though. I still remember the aftermath of the 1986 shootout, where the 9mm was deemed ineffective altogether.
 
For me there’s only 2 calibers: 9mm and .45.
I carry 9mm and hold a good old .45 in my nightstand. I don’t carry.45 because of the capacity issue (prefer more rounds)
 
I mostly carried a .45 1911 for years. Recently, it has been more 9mm. Terminal ballistic performance has increased dramatically for premium 9mm self-defense rounds since I started carrying. They also tend to be lighter to carry, less recoil/muzzle flip, and generally have a greater capacity. I haven't given up .45 1911s by any means. I'm just not wed to them like I used to be.
 
30-06 Rifleman said:
From what I've seen most aren't claiming that the 9mm is as effective shot for shot, but that the difference is so negligible that the 9mm's advantages outweigh the incremental increase in effectiveness of the larger calibers. I'm still hesitant to switch though. I still remember the aftermath of the 1986 shootout, where the 9mm was deemed ineffective altogether.
Click to expand...
When you read the details of that situation the notion that the handgun caliber was the primary failing party becomes pretty obviously false, IMO. The lesson there should have been that when you are stopping armed and dangerous bank robbers that have shown a willingness to shoot others you need superior firepower. Platt was an Army Ranger who saw combat in Vietnam and used his Ruger Mini 14 to great effect in that shooting. The sheer grit he had to keep fighting despite all his wounds and internal bleeding is incredible. To me the takeaway from that event should have been a hard look at the tactics and marksmanship on the side of the FBI. I have no desire to speak ill of the dead and I think the FBI found themselves in the same situation. I'm not convinced had a 10mm been there that day that the results would have been much different.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I have alway carried a 1911 not because it was a 45 caliber or because I was assigned one in the Army but simply because I have always loved the way it felt in my hands. Just seems natural. Recently I switch to a .357 revolver because I have always loved the way the 686 with 3" barrel looks and have always enjoyed shooting the revolver. You switching to a 9mm is really no hype simply because I do not buy into the stopping power between calibers hype. As long as you shoot whatever you carry good that is all that matters.
 
I'm still hesitant to switch though. I still remember the aftermath of the 1986 shootout, where the 9mm was deemed ineffective altogether.
Click to expand...
Bullet technology hasn't changed one bit in 32 years, has it?:eek:
Here's a hint. It ain't yo grampa's 9MM.
 
I had been a 45 guy since the 80's up until about 8-10 years ago.

I had acquired several guns in different calibers and after trying them all out I decided that 9mm was what I would go with. I even switched from all steel auto pistols to the plastic striker fired guns.
 
I have a HK Compact 45, a Taurus PT709 Slim, and a FMK 9c1 G2. I shoot the FMK more than the Taurus and the Taurus more than the HK. 9mm ammo costs less so I get more range time.

Depends on what you want the gun for. I like target shooting so I chose the 9mm. The FMK feels good in my hands, the Taurus is on the small side and the HK is on the large side, even for a compact. I've attached inages in this thread:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=597202
 
tlm225 said:
I'm in the process of making the switch to 9mm now but not for the typical reasons. Arthritis in my wrists and thumb joint has advanced to the point that the recoil of .40 and .45 rounds induce pain that affects my marksmanship.

I remain unconvinced that the 9mm is as effective as the .40 or .45. We hear the claims repeated over and over but I've yet to see convincing proof. With that being said I do believe that the 9mm can be effective and in the end, the ability to deliver accurate shots is the most important element.

I purchased a full size SIG P320 last week and after test firing some single stack 9mm's I've decided on the S&W Shield 2.0 9mm as my day to day carry gun.
Click to expand...
Why my 'mix' is what it is. Granted, 'in the moment', most won't be concerned with any 'recoil' issues but to be good, ya gotta shoot the gun you want to carry..To know it works and to just be more accurate with it. If it hurts to shoot(like .45, .40 and smaller 9mm DO, for me), you aren't going to practice with it.
 
"I still remember the aftermath of the 1986 shootout, where the 9mm was deemed ineffective altogether."

The 9mm Winchester Silvertip gets the rap for failing to stop the Miami fiasco.

What most people don't know is that the Silvertip that hit Platt was a fatal wound.

It just wasn't fatal quickly enough.


If the 9mm Silvertip actually caused a fatal wound, then what really went wrong in Miami?

It was a systemic failing of planning, tactics, operational doctrine, and engagement on the part of the FBI.

They had no comprehensive plan for dealing with Platt and Mattix and their level of violence, and when they encountered them by chance, what little plans they had fell apart almost instantly.

They also took handguns to a rifle fight, despite knowing that Platt and Mattix were armed with long guns (at least a shotgun).

The agents fought bravely, but they really didn't have the training or planning needed to engage and respond to someone like Platt. Mattix was neutralized early in the fight by a chance shot. That's a good thing, or the agent death toll might have been a lot worse.

The best things to come out of the Miami shootout was a comprehensive review of engagement protocols and tactic and new ways of looking at the design and testing of small arms ammunition.

Post Miami is when we started to see high powered computing being put to use in designing the first generation of truly effective hollow point projectiles that would both expand AND penetrate.
 
I've never carried a .45 ACP.

Over the last 30 years my primary carry handguns have been chambered in .38 Special, a Charter Arms and a variety of Smith & Wessons.

I've occasionally carried a .357 revolver, but often loaded with the same .38 Special ammo.

On and off I've also carried 9mms, primarily P7s but also a now gone Kahh K9.

Finally, I also have carried a Taurus PT-22 for over 20 years. I'm in the process of retiring that one, but I still carry it occasionally when I take my dog out for her last (short) evening walk.


And, at the moment, I'm in the process of transitioning to something entirely new for me... a Smith & Wesson Model 410 in .40 S&W.
 
I made a roundabout transition about 20 years ago. I grew up with the 45acp being king, was a die hard Cooper fan and 45 lover, and had about 40 1911's over the years. Got tired of fiddling with the 1911's, still wanted to stay with the .45, and went to SIG P220's, then found the 357SIG, and after a short stint there, and realizing its really nothing more than +P+ 9mm, went back to the 9mm.

I still like the .45's, still have a couple and shoot them regularly, and in doing so, they just reinforce that going back to 9mm was the right choice.

I dont have a problem shooting .45 well, I just find that I shoot 9mm that much better, easier, and faster. I also get to practice a lot more, simply because the ammo and components are cheaper.

I also get twice plus the onboard ammo capacity in the same size and even smaller gun as my old Commanders.

I think once you realize that all handgun rounds pretty much suck as people stoppers, and there are no magic bullets or calibers, and you have to actually hit, and maybe repeatably hit, specific critical targets on the body, not just COM body shots (that many if not most practice targets incorrectly identify I might add) to get good results, you start to understand and see the value in a gun thats easier to quickly and repeatably shoot well with, and have the capacity to sustain you through things that may very well take more than youre often told.
 
I've only ever had 3 .45s... A Springfield 1911 A1 Milspec, my S&W 4506, and my S&W Model of 1917 revolver.

Depending on the situation I'd consider carrying the 4506 or the 1917, but they're both mighty big for CCW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top