The Best Caliber for a Tactical Situation

N

njtrigger

Moderator
Nowadays you have 4 choices for the self defense caliber in a semi-auto. The 9, .357, .45 and the .40.

Now I have read many discussions on the stopping power which is arguable, but I believe the most important aspect is how managable the caliber will be in a tactical situation.

I have not fired rounds in anger, but only on ranges so I do not actually know what it would be like in a tactical situation. I do know that the .40 has a lot of kick which makes firing it unpleasant for me. The .357 has a lot of flash and more bang which could possibly blind and deafen you in a close combat night situation. The .45 is better for me then either the .357 or the .40. However, the most managable round is the 9 which is fun to shoot in my opinion and can be done one-handed if needed.

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation? Personally, I like the .45.
 
So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?
Click to expand...

I'm not a big 9mm fan but with the right ammunition it's probably the best choice in my opinion. Easier to control and more ammo :D for a SHTF situation.

How many people practice with your weak hand? I do and my XD40 has a little snap to it. The 9mm would be much easier in that type of situation.

I carry an XD40
 
Have no experience with the .40,....

but have the others.
It basically comes down to what you are comfortable.
I do not feel under-armed with my 9's, I use the Hornady 124gr XTP & FMJ-FP commercial loads and reload the same for practice.
For the revolvers, use the Hornady 140gr XTP for .38Spl & .357

Get comfortable and practice, find a bowling pin shoot the combination of time and need to have clean hits will help.
 
Handguns are poor stoppers so you'll probably have to give em a few anyway. Whats the difference if you have to shoot them 6 times vs 5? Go with 9mm if you feel it gives you a practical advantage. Good luck
 
To me, the .45 seems like the perfect round.

Big heavy bullet, very easy recoil (surprisingly easy for new .45 shooters), and a proven round. Even if your hollow point doesn't expand properly, or at all, you still have an effective bullet. If high capacity is your thing, there's high capacity .45's outthere to choose from.

Speaking of high capacity stuff, that doesn't matter here in California. 10 round mags are the limit, so you can choose to have 10 rounds of 9mm or 10 rounds of .45. I'll take the .45, thank you.

I think a lot of people don't get a .45 because they think it'll be a heavy recoil, or perhaps uncomfortable/unwieldy, but in fact that is very far from the truth. It's not even an issue at all. I've never shot a .40 or .357Sig, but just from what most people say, both of those rounds have a more uncomfortable recoil than the .45.
 
.38 Special is a good choice. With modern bullets, and a good weapon, its easily up to the task of self defence. Moderate recoil, good accuracy, exellent performance.
 
I look at 9mm and 45ACP this way: would a BG rather be hit with a 100mph baseball or a 75mph bowling ball? The fast ball would definitely leave a mark...but a 75mph bowling ball, well...owww.

The slower but heavier 45ACP is my choice. However, the accuracy and controllability of 9mm is hard to argue.

All that aside, the 38Spl is actually what I usually carry because the package that shoots it is so easy to carry (my snubby). And I don't feel under armed with my snubby loaded up with 110gr Hydra-shoks.
 
If you follow logic then the 9mm is the round to go with.

Since we know that handgun rounds are poor stoppers and multiple hits are not only better but often necessary, then logically shooting the handgun caliber that offers the most manegable recoil is going to be best. It gives you the fastest followups.

That said I'm carrying the 40 LOL. My three fighting calibers are 9,40,45. With the 40 getting most of the work.
 
Yesterday I heard the old story about the fighting of our forces against the Phillipino natives. You know, the one about the 38 not bringing down the charging hordes and our forces having to switch to the 45. Someone brings that one up at least once a year.

In todays world we have an entire new line of bullets for our pistols that have a lot more stopping power. I will always go for shot placement and what I can shoot most accurately. Cal. is not a big factor with me.

Look at the numerous callibers available for deer hunting. Most of them will do the job if we do ours.
 
The development of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.

Even though this was nearly 100 years ago, the results speak for themselves. They used .38s and didnt feel that they worked. Then they developed the .45 through experimentation on animals. The new caliber was then given to the soldiers to test out on the battlefield which they did and they were very satisfied with the results.

Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.

There was a video of where a motorist in Kansas City was shooting at a police officer. He got out of the car, quickly banged off a bunch of rounds and escaped into the distance. Now thats how the 9 should be used. Lay down cover fire to get everyone's head down and then quickly retreat.

The FBI director who had testified in front of Congress stated in an interview that he would have went with the .45 except that months before the Army had argued that they wanted the 9 mm. Therefore, he couldnt just say he wanted the .45 so they developed the .40.

The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang. Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. Im not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.
 
There was a video of where a motorist in Kansas City was shooting at a police officer. He got out of the car, quickly banged off a bunch of rounds and escaped into the distance. Now thats how the 9 should be used. Lay down cover fire to get everyone's head down and then quickly retreat.
Click to expand...

The 40 and 45 are quite capable of doing the same thing.


They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.
Click to expand...

The handguns job regardless of caliber is as a backup to a better weapons system or if a larger system cannot be deployed like in a vietnam tunnel etc. Caliber is irrelivant as long as it has sufficient penetration to reach the vitals and sufficient mass to bust any bones in the way.


The 9mm is capable of ending a threat at close quarters just like the others and the 45 is capable of ending a threat at distance just like the others.
 
In my opinion, the 9mm pistol is the best compromise between on-the-scene lethality, portability, concealability, and round capacity.

So for me, a 17 round 9mm pistol (like the Glock 17) is nearly perfect for most tactical encounters:

It has high magazine capacity.
It offers good accuracy with very low recoil (even if fired with one hand).
It is lethal with proper shot placement.
It is light weight and easily concealed.
And very reliable.
 
IMO

If you have to throw a piece of lead, why not throw the biggest?

Our troops in the middle east are finding the 9mm to not be effective, they are too fast and too small, like the 5.56. Zipping a small, clean hole through a body doesn't do much damage. 10-20 rounds of poorly placed .223 or 9mm does little to stop a bg.

Shot placement is everything, even a 22lr will do better than a 45, with better placement; but, damage is the name of the game, and the bigger bullet always wins.

This is why the military is moving away from the 5.56, and away from the 9mm.
 
The issues with the 5.56MM are recent and have a reason. The move to heavier projectiles coupled with using them in shorter M-4 barrels combine to reduce the velocity below what is required for fragmentation. This turns a seriously effective bullet......the 223/5.56mm into an icepick. Not the rounds fault. 55 grain bullets work in both barrel lenghts.

As for 9mm vs 45 in military applications of course the 45 will win. Geneva requirements stack the advantage to slow and big bullets. Hollowpoint for either one would increase effectivness. The faster the bullet the higher the increase in effectivness from ball to hollow points.
 
A .45 bullet basically a 1/2 inch of lead punching through someone, and while I like my 9mm and am good with it, after seeing the holes in the paper caused by a .45, well it's obvious why the round has been with us for 100 years.
 
If you have to throw a piece of lead, why not throw the biggest?
Click to expand...
All handguns are a compromise.
You have to balance many different factors...

A bigger slug generally means more recoil, more weight, less rounds, and a larger and bulkier pistol.

Not to mention the fact that the size of the slug does not always dictate it's effectiveness...

The .357 magnum has a fantastic reputation as a man-stopper (arguably better than the .45ACP), but it certainly is not the biggest slug around.
I guess velocity counts for something.
But, IMO, it also sucks to shoot in a light-weight, snub-nose, .357 mag revolver.

This is why the military is moving away from the 5.56, and away from the 9mm.
Click to expand...
Don't believe the gun magazines...the military is not moving away from the 9mm any time soon.
 
Last edited:
The .357 Magnum is good at what it does no doubt, but there is a reason for the "FBI loads" and the "Chicago loads". Its because the full power 357 Magnum was a beast. Too loud, too much kick, too much blast. Its a nice manstopper but not a real great tactical weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top