Not enough rounds, double standard?

I may be obsolete but feel pretty good carrying 8+1 rounds of .45 ACP with a spare magazine.

I carry a full size 1911 in the Fall/Winter at 63 years old and severe facet joint disease in my spine.
 
Well its the old 9mm vs. 45 acp argument. You have one group that has a lot of capacity, and you have another group that thinks if you throw a 45 bullet at a car that it will blow the engine block right out of the vehicle and hit a nearby building. ;)

I've carried both and liked both. I guess I am just a fence sitter. :D
 
A few weeks ago I did a half day Long Range Pistol class where we walked back to the 100 yd line over the duration of the class (the course was in part inspired by the Peach House RV Park shooting). With a Glock 19 with a stock trigger and KKM Precision barrel I was surprised at how easy it was to get hits on a half sized IPSC plate even out to 100 yds. And I am admittedly not as good of a pistol shooter as I would like.

If you want a 1911 I see no issue with that. I've actually owned that exact pistol too, though in my case I had some unfortunate luck on the QC end of things. I'm just not sure I'd agree a Glock or any duty/service weapon is really lacking in the accuracy/precision area from a practical standpoint.
Click to expand...

Nice, same here with my bone stock Glock 19 as well. Accuracy isn't the issue whatsoever. Oh, and the Trijicon HD XRs? Amazing.... The standard HDs at that distance tended to cover the target. I am on point with the 19 at 30, 40, 50, 60 yards with the same ease. A little more work needs to be done on my part at 70 - 100.

The 19 is extremely well rounded.
So, again, the main issue with the 1911 I'm having is the whole, safety not being ingrained in my muscle memory on the draw. I'm sure I can get used to it, but eh.... More ammo cost with a more expensive ammo. I think it's worth it. I know some guys who sweep safeties off of guns that don't even have safeties if you get what I mean! lol, I would like to get to that point.

3. Size makes a difference when capacity is concerned. I'm willing to carry a very small and light 6+1 capacity pistol when I'm very limited in what I can conceal for one reason or another. But I'm not picking that pistol for capacity, I'm picking it because it's very small, very light and therefore very concealable. So while I might be willing to carry a very low capacity gun (that's also very small and light) in some circumstances because weight and concealability are critical, I wouldn't be at all interested in carrying a full-sized, full-weight pistol that had similar capacity.

If I'm going to carry a full-sized, full-weight gun then I'm going to make the most of the size and weight by insuring that those penalties are repaid in capacity and shootability.
Click to expand...


Ooooooh... Okay, that makes more sense. So the thought process of that is "If I'm able to carry something that big, it might as well be (insert gun here)"

That makes sense... I think they were having trouble relaying that to me correctly.


Another HUGE thing I was thinking about is, aside from capacity, the maneuverability of, let's say a 1911 vs an LCP or Glock 43, is better for most. Is it not? I have always found smaller guns being more difficult to shoot adequately enough. They usually sit as backup guns for me. Like my Smith and Wesson 360PD for example.


John, I totally agree with you. I just bought a Glock 43 & this holds 6 +1. It's summer & I'm in Florida so I have to carry concealed. I might carry an extra mag
but I fully understand your reasoning. When the circumstances change then I can carry my G 19.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I'm in Miami Florida, but I carry a full-framed pistol all year round. I wish we had more than 1 season around here. lol, you must be in Northern Florida... Even then, cold days are a week out of the year!


I may be obsolete but feel pretty good carrying 8+1 rounds of .45 ACP with a spare magazine.

I carry a full size 1911 in the Fall/Winter at 63 years old and severe facet joint disease in my spine.
Click to expand...

Wow! God bless, I used to carry a 1911 before taking a few classes.

So what do you carry in the Summer/Spring?


Well its the old 9mm vs. 45 acp argument. You have one group that has a lot of capacity, and you have another group that thinks if you throw a 45 bullet at a car that it will blow the engine block right out of the vehicle and hit a nearby building.

I've carried both and liked both. I guess I am just a fence sitter.
Click to expand...


LOL. Nice.. I know a few of those people. Gun shop gurus.

As for that, I'm on the fence as well. A lot fo the reviews of modern-day jacketed hollow-points actually show the 9mm mainly out performing the .45ACP. Which I have to say, is absolutely incredible.
 
Who cares what other people do. If your carry system works for you, that should be all that matters.
 
I went through a phase of carrying 1911's for a few months last year, reverted back to Glocks.
A full size 1911 is about the same height as a Glock 20SF or 31, same concealment effort.
15 + 1 of 10mm or 357 Sig versus maybe 8 + 1 in the 1911.
125 gr. HST averaged a respectable 1,385 fps from the 31
One could debate the need of more than 8 rounds, but "better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them"

If one desires a more easily concealed pistol the Glock 23/32 offer 13 + 1 either 40 S&W or 357 Sig.
If one prefers 45 acp, the Glock 30SF is very concealable with 10 + 1 of 45.

I do have a use for single stack compact pistols, Kahr PM9 / PM40 ...
As a 2nd option* in pocket to the Glock that is IWB.
*Option to put my hand on it without revealing I'm carrying, situationally handy (ex: IF approached by someone "shady" in parking lot).
 
Method of thinking....

First, a Glock ## vs a 1911 is about thickness, capacity, weight and production quality. A 1911 loses to the smallest CCW guns in most of those areas, but a 1911 is a 45 auto gun. A Glock 19 is a 9mm base.

Thickness:
1911 wins. Safety lever and SS lever don't count bacause they get absorbed by the holster molding.

Capacity:
Glock wins. If you put a 10rd mag in a 1911, then it is close to a Glock, but too big.

Weight:
Glock wins, but ammo is heavy too.

Production Quality:
High end 1911 wins, but low end Glock is close....tie

Tie breakers-
Round:
Regardless of what fanboys argue, 45 just makes a bigger hole and does more work that a 9mm.

Safety: 1911's have a proven manual safety while Glocks have a proven ND record.

Make mine a CCO 1911! ....and don't call me old!
 
Nathan, I wish there was a "like this comment" thing on here! :D

That was funny. I agree with most of it. But, man, I've seen so many ballistic tests that show 9mm outperforming the .45ACP. But then I've seen autopsies and COD reports that show .45ACP to shine a little more than 9mm.

When I'd hog hunt, non-vital hits on a charging hog with a 9mm weren't as effective as non-vital hits on a charging hog with .45ACP.

(We kind of have one of those instances on video, I was glad I had a .45ACP on me that day.)


But without going into a caliber war, this kind of does bleed into one.


What about the same argument for a 1911 in 9mm?
 
I like guns that have a certain proportion to their size/power/capacity balance.

I'm not a fan of 9mm 1911s because the Hi-Power gives you twice as many rounds in a gun of about the same size.

Same goes for a really big 9mm like the Beretta 92; I can get as many rounds in a smaller package.

The Lightweight Commander is a bit smaller than a Government Model, but considerably lighter, while the Combat Commander isn't much smaller or much lighter, so the CC isn't of interest.

I carried a small, all-steel .45 for years, but changed to an even smaller, alloy-framed 9mm; if I'm going to have only seven shots, I don't need to carry a relatively big, heavy gun to do so.

I might be accused of not being absolutely consistent in how I apply my logic, but it works for me! :)
 
Part of the "Caliber Wars". A 9MM holds more rounds, a 45 is a better manstopper, etc. Double stack handguns are too big for people with small hands, etc.
 
RickB, I like that explanation. Thank you!


I forgot to add (I think) that my 1911s are Scandium framed. They're about as light as my Glock 19! :eek:


SIGhr, that makes sense, too. I usually choose 9mm 9 times out of 10 (haha)
 
Capacity is why I have a nice new holster for a single stack pistol that I am probably never going to "pull the trigger on". Can't get past that capacity.
 
Ooooooh... Okay, that makes more sense. So the thought process of that is "If I'm able to carry something that big, it might as well be (insert gun here)"
Click to expand...

Exactly. The other point for me is that, at least for a CC situation, while I am comfortable with an officer 1911, 1) I can still get a higher capacity pistol at the same size; 2) the 45's recoil aggravates something such that my hand starts shaking after about 15 rounds. over time it increasingly became worse and became a major driver for switching over. Frankly I shoot a good 1911 better than a good not 1911 by a pretty hefty margin, but the capacity and the hand shaking is a deal breaker at this point for me.

Whats interesting is the popularity of the CZ. For some reason that strikes me in similar fashion as a 1911 for high capacity guys (outside of STIs etc of course).
 
Thickness:
1911 wins. Safety lever and SS lever don't count bacause they get absorbed by the holster molding.
***M&P shield, Walther PPS are thinner. Most single column 9mm are thinner.
Lets also put a shout out to the Browning .380 (the Little 1911). I love the concept. My mom had a Star .380 with a nearly nonexistent recoil because of the locked breech system.

Capacity:
Glock wins. If you put a 10rd mag in a 1911, then it is close to a Glock, but too big.
A 2011 would be competitive, but again, its bigger.


Production Quality:
High end 1911 wins, but low end Glock is close....tie
***I'd argue they are not close. On the other hand a high end 1911 costs 2-3x the Glock/S&P/XDM.


Tie breakers-
Round:
Regardless of what fanboys argue, 45 just makes a bigger hole and does more work that a 9mm.
***Well there are several plastic gun makers with higher capacity .45 ACPs...Springfield's XD for example.

Safety: 1911's have a proven manual safety while Glocks have a proven ND record.
***The counter to that, they don't have to worry about kicking that safety. I've seen B level competition shooters mess that up or have the safety mess up on them (inversely I am a real fan of the 1911 manual safety).
 
I like guns that have a certain proportion to their size/power/capacity balance.
Click to expand...
I agree with this pretty much. I'm defiantly not one that holds capacity as paramount importance, but I do see the value of balance.
I would add accuracy and really "ease of accuracy" to the balance equation.
For instance my HK P7 is a little on the heavy side and low capacity, but is so easy to shoot fast and accurate.
Another thing I'll point out is it's as easy to carry a 1911 with 4 extra mags as it would be a G21 with 2 extra mags, 3X13<5X8 just saying.
 
I think it has been pretty well explained, and I agree with the size/capacity ratio concept. I don't dislike 1911s, but I will never carry one (likely never own one) because I can get a much higher capacity gun that weighs way less. If I go for a single stack, it better weigh less and be easier to carry than my current double stack EDC.

Curious what sub compact and full size you're going to get that weigh less than 39 oz's combined. And that's for a full size all steel 1911. Start talking commander size and alloy frames and we're down to 30 oz's.
Click to expand...

While I agree that there was certainly some hyperbole going on in the statement you were responding to, it wasn't really that far off the mark. My SD9(16+1 capacity) weighed in at 22.5 oz when I put it on the scale. Pair that with an LC9 (7+1 capacity) that weighs in at 17, according to the spec sheet, and you are only half an ounce off of the 39 mark. If you want to step down to .380, you can pair it with a 9.6 oz LCP instead of an LC9 for a grand total of 32.1 oz, which is barely heavier than the alloy framed commander you mentioned.
 
If I'm ever in a self defense shooting, I'd rather have a cheap polymer gun spend its life in an evidence locker than a nice classic 1911. As far as a man stopping caliber, for me that would be a .357 mag. But I'm perfectly comfortable with my 9mm.
 
Another HUGE thing I was thinking about is, aside from capacity, the maneuverability of, let's say a 1911 vs an LCP or Glock 43, is better for most. Is it not? I have always found smaller guns being more difficult to shoot adequately enough.
Click to expand...
Small guns are harder to shoot accurately, generally slower on follow-up shots and also generally more difficult/slower to manipulate overall.

Some time ago I did a comparison of match scores between GSSF categories. GSSF is useful for this type of comparison because the scores are available online, and it's fairly common for one shooter to shoot in more than one category. Most of the categories have exactly the same course of fire so it's easy to compare scores.

Now this isn't foolproof, because, for example, someone could shoot a subcompact pistol in both the subcompact category and in the main amateur category, but for our purposes that means performance differences will be UNDERestimated since we might be comparing scores for some shooters who are actually using the same gun in both categories.

GSSF scores are basically the shooter's time with increasing penalties added for shots that miss the 8" center of the target.

Anyway, I picked a couple of the largest matches and compared scores between the main amateur category (which most people shoot with a full-sized Glock) and the subcompact category which must be shot with a subcompact Glock. Subcompact, by the way, doesn't include the 42 & 43, they have their own category--we're talking about the 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, & 39. So these aren't really even pocket pistols.

I only compared the scores of shooters who competed in both categories so we get a true apples to apples comparison.

Scores in the subcompact category were, on average, 18% worse.
 
IMHO being scared of carrying 8 rounds is almost as bad as being scared of a pistol with a safety.
Click to expand...

I don't really see it as being scared. The more rounds the more chances to make that critical hit that hopefully ends a fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top