Magazine Capacity versus Caliber
- Thread starter Hard Ball
- Start date
GotGlock19
New member
When i first started shooting, and i knew i wasn't a good shot, the more rounds i had the better. I began carrying a glock 19 with 16 rounds. Now that i have alot of practice, and im comfortable with my ability to put holes where i want them, 9 rounds of .45 is all i want/need. I rather have a bigger bullet thats more capable then alot of smaller rounds, im not saying anything bad about a 9mm, i still carry a kahr pm9 on occasion, but there is no denying that a .45 is more effective.
I used to be strictly a .45 boy, but these days, I'd go with volume over caliber. I kind of split the difference and went with a P229 in 357SIG. 12-13 rounds of basically 125 grain 357Mag is better than 8 rounds of .45. 15-16 rounds of 9mm might be even better.
If you need to shoot them all till they are down, 8 rounds of .45 might not be enough.
If you need to shoot them all till they are down, 8 rounds of .45 might not be enough.
tony pasley
New member
I am a 45 fan single stack with 1 spare mag.
Thought you'd toss out one those easy-to-answer, non-debatable questions, did you? 
Okay ...
Yes, No & Maybe.
I own a number of different 'working' pistols in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, and over the years I've been issued a number of different pistols, of different sizes and magazine capacities, chambered in the same calibers.
After a number of years as a LE firearms instructor and armorer I finally decided that caliber and capacity matter less to me than reliability, inherent practical accuracy, ease of maintenance/support and overall ergonomics.
After a number of years of carrying a 15+1 9mm service pistol I opted for the compact 12+1 model after working a plainclothes assignment for a while. If I'd had the opportunity I'd have selected one of the few 3913's available for their slimmer and lighter 8+1 single column features, and I'd have been comfortable carrying one for either uniform or plainclothes, but they were designated for folks who just couldn't use the standard pistols with wider double column magazines.
So, I guess sheer 'capacity' wasn't as important to me as it might be to some other folks. Neither is caliber. Not really.
I was later issued a full-size .40 S&W with 12+1 capacity. I eventually decided the issued 9mm compact with 12+1 capacity was preferable to the full-size .40 S&W of similar capacity, albeit larger caliber, so I chose to carry the 9mm pistol more than the .40 S&W pistol. Equal capacity ... but I chose the 'smaller' caliber for the platform, for reasons of personal preference considered from training and daily carry experiences.
I later turned down an opportunity to carry a standard steel 7+1 capacity Colt pistol, one of our few special purpose pistols, and did so simply because of the weight. After I was later issued a TDA 8+1 capacity all-steel .45 ACP service pistol, and carried it in my plainclothes assignment for a while, I finally turned it in so it could be issued to someone I knew who really wanted one of the new all-steel .45's. He was very pleased with it, and I chose to carry an issued lightweight compact 9+1 capacity .40 S&W.
I suppose you could say I traded a larger, heavier 8+1 capacity .45 ACP for a smaller, lighter weight .40 S&W with an additional round's capacity ... but I chose it not for the capacity, but for the lighter weight and ergonomics, both of which were simply preferable for me.
Now, I'm not exactly consistent in my preferences, and I'll admit to that ...
For example, I'll chose to carry a J-frame with 5-shot capacity over my CS45 with 6+1 capacity ... and do so for reason of the lighter weight and smaller size.
Then, on another day when I do chose to carry a pistol off-duty, I'll chose the CS9 over the CS45 ... because the CS9 is slightly smaller and lighter, and has 7-rd magazines instead of 6-round magazines.
Some days I'll chose for overall size & weight ... other days for specific caliber ... and yet other days 'capacity' might be more of a consideration ... and then some days for overlapping considerations of all of the above.
Never said I was consistent ...
I do tend to like the .40 S&W and .45 ACP for their heavier bullet weights, although I don't lose any sleep when carrying lighter bullet weights in 9mm or .38 Spl.
Matter of fact, I'd still choose to carry an issued 9mm if that were an option. I've fired many ten's of thousands of rounds of 9mm downrange over the years since we originally transitioned from .357 Magnum revolvers to 9mm pistols, and I feel confident in using it for defensive purpose. It's not an option, however, since the decision was made that our new issued weapons will only be offered chambered in .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Oh well. No big deal. I still choose a 9mm more often than a .40 S&W or .45 ACP when it comes to choosing from among my personally owned off-duty weapons.
Now, if I were offered a choice between an issued P220 or a P226, I'd consider most of the same factors. Does one 'fit' my hand better than the other? Do I prefer the way one handles, balances and shoots more than the other? I'd carry either as an issued weapon and not worry about it, but if I had a choice and an opportunity to try both, I'd try them and then make my decision for whatever reasons suited me and my perceived needs.
It's just a handgun, chambered in one of the major defensive LE calibers ...
Not much help, huh?
Okay ...
Yes, No & Maybe.
I own a number of different 'working' pistols in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, and over the years I've been issued a number of different pistols, of different sizes and magazine capacities, chambered in the same calibers.
After a number of years as a LE firearms instructor and armorer I finally decided that caliber and capacity matter less to me than reliability, inherent practical accuracy, ease of maintenance/support and overall ergonomics.
After a number of years of carrying a 15+1 9mm service pistol I opted for the compact 12+1 model after working a plainclothes assignment for a while. If I'd had the opportunity I'd have selected one of the few 3913's available for their slimmer and lighter 8+1 single column features, and I'd have been comfortable carrying one for either uniform or plainclothes, but they were designated for folks who just couldn't use the standard pistols with wider double column magazines.
So, I guess sheer 'capacity' wasn't as important to me as it might be to some other folks. Neither is caliber. Not really.
I was later issued a full-size .40 S&W with 12+1 capacity. I eventually decided the issued 9mm compact with 12+1 capacity was preferable to the full-size .40 S&W of similar capacity, albeit larger caliber, so I chose to carry the 9mm pistol more than the .40 S&W pistol. Equal capacity ... but I chose the 'smaller' caliber for the platform, for reasons of personal preference considered from training and daily carry experiences.
I later turned down an opportunity to carry a standard steel 7+1 capacity Colt pistol, one of our few special purpose pistols, and did so simply because of the weight. After I was later issued a TDA 8+1 capacity all-steel .45 ACP service pistol, and carried it in my plainclothes assignment for a while, I finally turned it in so it could be issued to someone I knew who really wanted one of the new all-steel .45's. He was very pleased with it, and I chose to carry an issued lightweight compact 9+1 capacity .40 S&W.
I suppose you could say I traded a larger, heavier 8+1 capacity .45 ACP for a smaller, lighter weight .40 S&W with an additional round's capacity ... but I chose it not for the capacity, but for the lighter weight and ergonomics, both of which were simply preferable for me.
Now, I'm not exactly consistent in my preferences, and I'll admit to that ...
For example, I'll chose to carry a J-frame with 5-shot capacity over my CS45 with 6+1 capacity ... and do so for reason of the lighter weight and smaller size.
Then, on another day when I do chose to carry a pistol off-duty, I'll chose the CS9 over the CS45 ... because the CS9 is slightly smaller and lighter, and has 7-rd magazines instead of 6-round magazines.
Some days I'll chose for overall size & weight ... other days for specific caliber ... and yet other days 'capacity' might be more of a consideration ... and then some days for overlapping considerations of all of the above.
Never said I was consistent ...
I do tend to like the .40 S&W and .45 ACP for their heavier bullet weights, although I don't lose any sleep when carrying lighter bullet weights in 9mm or .38 Spl.
Matter of fact, I'd still choose to carry an issued 9mm if that were an option. I've fired many ten's of thousands of rounds of 9mm downrange over the years since we originally transitioned from .357 Magnum revolvers to 9mm pistols, and I feel confident in using it for defensive purpose. It's not an option, however, since the decision was made that our new issued weapons will only be offered chambered in .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Oh well. No big deal. I still choose a 9mm more often than a .40 S&W or .45 ACP when it comes to choosing from among my personally owned off-duty weapons.
Now, if I were offered a choice between an issued P220 or a P226, I'd consider most of the same factors. Does one 'fit' my hand better than the other? Do I prefer the way one handles, balances and shoots more than the other? I'd carry either as an issued weapon and not worry about it, but if I had a choice and an opportunity to try both, I'd try them and then make my decision for whatever reasons suited me and my perceived needs.
It's just a handgun, chambered in one of the major defensive LE calibers ...
Not much help, huh?
Hallucinator
New member
I love the Glock 23: big bore power and high capacity. 14 rounds of .40 +p and pretty decent recoil management.
sacp81170a
Inactive
THR refugee here. I want what they shoot in Hollywood, IOW, a magazine that never runs dry with enough power to knock the bad guys flying. Anyone know what make and model that one is? It's the one that shoots through body armor and has to have the slide racked for dramatic effect just before you burst in on the room full of bad guys.
rantingredneck
New member
I want an effective caliber in a gun that I can shoot well and rely on.
I've shot 9mm, .40, .45 and .357/38 in defensive pistols. My preferences run to 9mm and .45
My first pistol was a Ruger P89. I still have it. I still love to shoot it. It was my carry weapon for awhile and still is on occasion.
I had a Smith and Wesson Sigma .40 for awhile. I never got comfortable with the strange trigger or snappy recoil to come to trust my life to it.
I got a Ruger P90 about six months ago and quickly came to appreciate the .45. I must also say that the P90 has a much better trigger than the P89.
Last week I traded for a P345. It is a dream to shoot. Great accuracy and it absorbs recoil like a sponge.
Now to your question it would depend on the usage which of the above pistols I'd reach for. My daily carry is now my P345. It's slim and light and hides easily, but still has a 4 inch barrel to make full use of the .45's potential. It also has a full length grip that is comfortable in my large hands. I've held a lot of CCW subcompact pistols that just don't work for me. This one does.
For carry in the field when hunting the P90 will be going with me. It's barrel and therefore sight radius is about a half inch longer than the P345.
If the SHTF 15 rounds of 9mm would be a handy thing to have. When you get right down to it modern defensive ammo has pretty well leveled the playing field between 9mm, 40, and 45. With only slight differences in effectiveness, whether your measure is penetration or muzzle energy, having more rounds before a mag change would be a big selling point.
I'd not feel undergunned with either.
I've shot 9mm, .40, .45 and .357/38 in defensive pistols. My preferences run to 9mm and .45
My first pistol was a Ruger P89. I still have it. I still love to shoot it. It was my carry weapon for awhile and still is on occasion.
I had a Smith and Wesson Sigma .40 for awhile. I never got comfortable with the strange trigger or snappy recoil to come to trust my life to it.
I got a Ruger P90 about six months ago and quickly came to appreciate the .45. I must also say that the P90 has a much better trigger than the P89.
Last week I traded for a P345. It is a dream to shoot. Great accuracy and it absorbs recoil like a sponge.
Now to your question it would depend on the usage which of the above pistols I'd reach for. My daily carry is now my P345. It's slim and light and hides easily, but still has a 4 inch barrel to make full use of the .45's potential. It also has a full length grip that is comfortable in my large hands. I've held a lot of CCW subcompact pistols that just don't work for me. This one does.
For carry in the field when hunting the P90 will be going with me. It's barrel and therefore sight radius is about a half inch longer than the P345.
If the SHTF 15 rounds of 9mm would be a handy thing to have. When you get right down to it modern defensive ammo has pretty well leveled the playing field between 9mm, 40, and 45. With only slight differences in effectiveness, whether your measure is penetration or muzzle energy, having more rounds before a mag change would be a big selling point.
I'd not feel undergunned with either.
I went from a S&W high cap 9mm, to the HK USPF 40, to my current S&W 3913. We are authorized to carry from a list of approved handguns, provided we qualify with our choice.
I chose the 8+1 3913, for its absolute reliability, coupled with it's light weight and ease of concealment. It is also a very accurate handgun. I'm very comfortable with the capacity, and the caliber. I use Winchester Ranger T 124 grain, and am well armed. Regards 18DAI.
I chose the 8+1 3913, for its absolute reliability, coupled with it's light weight and ease of concealment. It is also a very accurate handgun. I'm very comfortable with the capacity, and the caliber. I use Winchester Ranger T 124 grain, and am well armed. Regards 18DAI.
Since I can't carry at work I keep a little KT P3AT 7+1 in my lockbox in the car(not private parking lot). For around the house and out running around I carry either a Taurus PT140 or PT145 IWB. 10+1 in 40 or 45 is enough for me at this stage of the game. If I nee more then I have a Bersa Thunder 9mm with 3 17rd mags. which is to say I carry a box of ammo with the 9. And then sometimes I carry my S&W M66 357 OWB and maybe 1 reload.
I just like .45s, so I carried a 1911 of some sort for a long time. Recently got me a Glock 21, and ben carrying it ever since. Even with 13+1 rounds of .45, it's lighter than my Kimber Compact with 7+1 rounds. Go figure. If I'm feeling really paranoid, I can drop a second mag in a pocket.
In my own opinion.
I would chose what I could effectively control. If you can't control the "Manly" large caliber guns then what good is it!!!! I hear people talk about bigger is better! This is a myth that needs to be set straight.
If you have a 45, 10mm, 357 SIG, ect, and you can't put the projectiles where you need them becuase you can't control the recoil, well, what good is that large caliber? In my firearms classes I see this all the time. Some people buy what others "think" will or should work! What works for one may not work for another.
Chosing caliber over control is not the smartest thing to do! If you can't hit what you intend too, then who or what are you hitting instead?????
I for one will never recommend a caliber to someone. I will advise them to get what they can effectivley control. Just because you have a gun does not make you safer or even a good shot. Knowledge alone will NOT make you a good shot ethier, but rather how to apply that knowledge correctly (can you use the knowledge you have in a practical situation the way it should be, knowing how to use something and actually using something are 2 different things) will make you safer and a better shot.
Just because they are smaller calibers, doesn't make them any less deadly???? I do know of a guy who was shot 8 times with a 45ACP and he is still alive and was able to get away to get to a hospital! I also know of a girl that was shot with a 45 and still was able to run away!!!!
I actually put a little more effort in "Shot Placement" over "Caliber" factors.
I would chose what I could effectively control. If you can't control the "Manly" large caliber guns then what good is it!!!! I hear people talk about bigger is better! This is a myth that needs to be set straight.
If you have a 45, 10mm, 357 SIG, ect, and you can't put the projectiles where you need them becuase you can't control the recoil, well, what good is that large caliber? In my firearms classes I see this all the time. Some people buy what others "think" will or should work! What works for one may not work for another.
Chosing caliber over control is not the smartest thing to do! If you can't hit what you intend too, then who or what are you hitting instead?????
I for one will never recommend a caliber to someone. I will advise them to get what they can effectivley control. Just because you have a gun does not make you safer or even a good shot. Knowledge alone will NOT make you a good shot ethier, but rather how to apply that knowledge correctly (can you use the knowledge you have in a practical situation the way it should be, knowing how to use something and actually using something are 2 different things) will make you safer and a better shot.
Just because they are smaller calibers, doesn't make them any less deadly???? I do know of a guy who was shot 8 times with a 45ACP and he is still alive and was able to get away to get to a hospital! I also know of a girl that was shot with a 45 and still was able to run away!!!!
I actually put a little more effort in "Shot Placement" over "Caliber" factors.