Twelve rounds of .40S&W or sixteen rounds of 9mm?
- Thread starter FUD
- Start date
- Status
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by branrot: There is no question in my mind that you are thinking about buying (or justifying the purchase of) a Walther P99 (or S&W SW99) ... [/quote]Actually, I own a S&W 659 (16 rounds of 9mm -- 15+1) and a S&W 4006 (12 rounds of .40S&W -- 11+1) and I'm trying to decide which one I should grab when I hear a noise in the middle of the night. I've been relying on the .40S&W but been wondering if I would be better off with the 9mm. 
FUD, why not both? Nothing faster than a NY Reload!
Besides, you can shoot with both hands simultaneously, while leaping through the air in a side flip. Right? If not, you'd better start training (preferably with a John Woo festival followed by the Matrix [for advanced students]).
Besides, you can shoot with both hands simultaneously, while leaping through the air in a side flip. Right? If not, you'd better start training (preferably with a John Woo festival followed by the Matrix [for advanced students]).
Glock Raider
New member
Branrot, EAA Witness 9mm 16rds in mag 40s&W 12rds in mag. G.R.
Mike Irwin
Staff
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CoastieN70:
Shooters almost always will take a .40, 357 Sig, or .45 over a HiCap 9mm.
Those less proficient will opt for the "Spray and Pray" capibility of the HiCap 9mm.
[/quote]
Good lord. Another one...
I just LOVE the assumption that the person who picks up the 9mm can't shoot and has to rely on "spray and pray."
No wonder so many people find .45 afficionados to be obnoxious.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited July 11, 2000).]
Shooters almost always will take a .40, 357 Sig, or .45 over a HiCap 9mm.
Those less proficient will opt for the "Spray and Pray" capibility of the HiCap 9mm.
[/quote]
Good lord. Another one...
I just LOVE the assumption that the person who picks up the 9mm can't shoot and has to rely on "spray and pray."
No wonder so many people find .45 afficionados to be obnoxious.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited July 11, 2000).]
Mike Irwin
Staff
I pick the one that I lay my hands on first. NEITHER one would be my top choice, however.
Top choice? My Model 1300 S&W 12-gauge.
Nightstand gun? My S&W Model 19.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
Top choice? My Model 1300 S&W 12-gauge.
Nightstand gun? My S&W Model 19.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
Buzz_Knox has the only *true and correct* answer. Asbestos undies best protect me...whoosh--crisp--flame-o!!
IMNSHO, if you start flinching after 5 or six shots of .40 when firing faster under pressure, but hold onto your composure for 10+ shots of 9mm, you'd better go for the 9mm. With any decent HP load giving 8+ inches of penetration after clothing, you'll most likely be just fine.
A HIT with a nine beats a MISS with a .40 Stinky & Wimpysellout.
My standard--the flinch/miss factor becomes unacceptable when I miss a bowling pin at 10 yards for two consecutive shots, or the C-zone at 25 yards. I prefer to keep the capability to do head shots at 25 yards, but that's an argument for another thread.
If your hit capabilities are equal with either gun, I'd go with the .40 anyway.
IMNSHO, if you start flinching after 5 or six shots of .40 when firing faster under pressure, but hold onto your composure for 10+ shots of 9mm, you'd better go for the 9mm. With any decent HP load giving 8+ inches of penetration after clothing, you'll most likely be just fine.
A HIT with a nine beats a MISS with a .40 Stinky & Wimpysellout.
My standard--the flinch/miss factor becomes unacceptable when I miss a bowling pin at 10 yards for two consecutive shots, or the C-zone at 25 yards. I prefer to keep the capability to do head shots at 25 yards, but that's an argument for another thread.
If your hit capabilities are equal with either gun, I'd go with the .40 anyway.
In a home defense situation I would grab NEITHER.
Get yourself a reliable 12 gauge pump shotgun (m870, m500, m590 m1300 etc)
And keep that by your bedside. Make sure weapon is clear, dry fire so hammer drops, and keep a few up the magazine.
Bad Guy enters house just rack the slide and you are ready to go. Most prudent burglars will immediately find a kinder safer liberal gun free home to invade rather than yours.
my .02
Orso
Get yourself a reliable 12 gauge pump shotgun (m870, m500, m590 m1300 etc)
And keep that by your bedside. Make sure weapon is clear, dry fire so hammer drops, and keep a few up the magazine.
Bad Guy enters house just rack the slide and you are ready to go. Most prudent burglars will immediately find a kinder safer liberal gun free home to invade rather than yours.
my .02
Orso
Orso, the one problem that I have with a shotgun is that when you have kids on the other side of the house that you need to get to and protect, you can stay put in your safe room making noise with your shotgun hoping to scare the bad guy off. You have to venture out of your safe room and moving around with a shotgun down hallways and around corners is more difficult that with a handgun -- you could be focusing you attention in one direction when suddently surprised by someone off to your side. Under those conditions, a handgun can be brought into play faster than a rifle or shotgun.
Here is an interesting, recent, true story that addresses this a little.
Dr. Fang was a well known, serious competitive shooter in the San Francisco area. He was as good, or better, of a shot than any of us, and he could do it all against a clock against multiple targets.
Two RBG's (really bad guys) with guns busted down his front door and started pistol whipping his wife as well as the nanny. Dr. Fang answered immediatly by bursting out of the bedroom with his .38 Revolver. Dr. Fang ran into battle to defend his family furiously.
Dr. Fang emptied his revolver into both targets, killing one on the spot and critically wounding the other. While he was firing, and hitting his targets, Dr. Fang was prevailing and overwhelming his enemies....but he ran out of ammo.
The problem being that really-bad-guys don't die instantly on the spot; they live and can wreak havok for at least a few seconds, even after being shot numerous times.
So, as Dr. Fang ran away to reload, and the bad guys saw that he was no longer a threat, they fired on him. He was shot in the back and killed.
Then, the bad guys fell down.
There are many morals to the story, but one of them is that it takes more than several rounds and good shooting to handle two really-bad-guys.
(I personally believe that gun control killed Dr. Fang: He should have had a hi-capacity semi-auto, but they are effectively illegal in California.)
So, no matter what anyone says while posturing in machismo, I do NOT feel that 7 rounds is enough for today's circumstances and the saying is not true that "if you can't do it in 6 or 7 rounds then blah blah blah (fill in macho statement here)".
Dr. Fang was an excellent competitive shooter. He hit is targets when it mattered most, killing one on the spot and critically wounding the other. He did his part. But, sometimes you DO need more than several rounds, no matter how good you are.
(Sarcasm follows)
But, I am sure that the bad guys would have fallen down instantly at one good hit with a .45 and he only would have needed two bullets (one for each, instant kills). Or better yet, they would have seen the muzzle and ran out of the house screaming in fear of that big bullet. Dr. Fang would be alive today if he had had his 1911 .45. (sarcasm off)
Lastly, we can pontificate all we want about how Dr Fang should have used a shotgun yadda yadda yadda. But, reality is that he used what he had on him in an instant's notice, to defend his loved ones.
I do feel that the 12 rounds of .40 would be preferable for me, as long as it was in a platform that I could shoot extremely well.
But, it is highly arguable, and been discussed many times, whether the .40 is really anything more than a +P+ 9mm. So, make your own choice. There might be a slight chance of more hitting power with the .40, but it is really a toss up.
I can't really decide what I would want, now that I think more about it. I can engage targets damn fast with a 9mm, and now that I think about it, I would rather plug 5 rounds into someone's chest with a 9mm in one second, than to have a slightly more powerful gun and only hit with half of that in the same amount of time.
No matter how good I get, and how much I practice, I still shoot faster, more accuratly, (under stress and severe circumstances), with the lighter recoiling 9mm. I suspect that most other people out there are the same, even if they won't admit it.
Ps- there are very many accomplished serious shooters out there that weigh all the factors and decide that the 9mm is the best choice. We really need to put away this stupid idea that anyone who uses a 9mm is an ignorant beginner. There are benefits to each cartridge, and some very hardcore shooters weigh them out and decide the 9mm is the better choice.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited July 12, 2000).]
Dr. Fang was a well known, serious competitive shooter in the San Francisco area. He was as good, or better, of a shot than any of us, and he could do it all against a clock against multiple targets.
Two RBG's (really bad guys) with guns busted down his front door and started pistol whipping his wife as well as the nanny. Dr. Fang answered immediatly by bursting out of the bedroom with his .38 Revolver. Dr. Fang ran into battle to defend his family furiously.
Dr. Fang emptied his revolver into both targets, killing one on the spot and critically wounding the other. While he was firing, and hitting his targets, Dr. Fang was prevailing and overwhelming his enemies....but he ran out of ammo.
The problem being that really-bad-guys don't die instantly on the spot; they live and can wreak havok for at least a few seconds, even after being shot numerous times.
So, as Dr. Fang ran away to reload, and the bad guys saw that he was no longer a threat, they fired on him. He was shot in the back and killed.
Then, the bad guys fell down.
There are many morals to the story, but one of them is that it takes more than several rounds and good shooting to handle two really-bad-guys.
(I personally believe that gun control killed Dr. Fang: He should have had a hi-capacity semi-auto, but they are effectively illegal in California.)
So, no matter what anyone says while posturing in machismo, I do NOT feel that 7 rounds is enough for today's circumstances and the saying is not true that "if you can't do it in 6 or 7 rounds then blah blah blah (fill in macho statement here)".
Dr. Fang was an excellent competitive shooter. He hit is targets when it mattered most, killing one on the spot and critically wounding the other. He did his part. But, sometimes you DO need more than several rounds, no matter how good you are.
(Sarcasm follows)
But, I am sure that the bad guys would have fallen down instantly at one good hit with a .45 and he only would have needed two bullets (one for each, instant kills). Or better yet, they would have seen the muzzle and ran out of the house screaming in fear of that big bullet. Dr. Fang would be alive today if he had had his 1911 .45. (sarcasm off)
Lastly, we can pontificate all we want about how Dr Fang should have used a shotgun yadda yadda yadda. But, reality is that he used what he had on him in an instant's notice, to defend his loved ones.
I do feel that the 12 rounds of .40 would be preferable for me, as long as it was in a platform that I could shoot extremely well.
But, it is highly arguable, and been discussed many times, whether the .40 is really anything more than a +P+ 9mm. So, make your own choice. There might be a slight chance of more hitting power with the .40, but it is really a toss up.
I can't really decide what I would want, now that I think more about it. I can engage targets damn fast with a 9mm, and now that I think about it, I would rather plug 5 rounds into someone's chest with a 9mm in one second, than to have a slightly more powerful gun and only hit with half of that in the same amount of time.
No matter how good I get, and how much I practice, I still shoot faster, more accuratly, (under stress and severe circumstances), with the lighter recoiling 9mm. I suspect that most other people out there are the same, even if they won't admit it.
Ps- there are very many accomplished serious shooters out there that weigh all the factors and decide that the 9mm is the best choice. We really need to put away this stupid idea that anyone who uses a 9mm is an ignorant beginner. There are benefits to each cartridge, and some very hardcore shooters weigh them out and decide the 9mm is the better choice.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited July 12, 2000).]
CoastieN70
New member
Mike,
Why the flame on the 1911'ers? None of them tried to make converts of anyone in this thread as far as I can see/read.
I meerly stated that serious shooters would choose something other than 9mm as their defence choice and it appears FUD (the author of this thread) bears me out with his initial inclination to grab the .40 over the 9mm.
I could care less if someone chooses the 9mm as their defence weapon, eventually or under the control of a calm marksman/woman it can get the job done.
Although I am confident of my pistol skills I still want serious stopping power. No not .45 acp, but 357 Sig or .357 Mag. The 357 Sig from an HK Compact and the .357 Mag from a Taurus 605. When I hit my target with either( as I know I will)I am confident that the target will be STOPPED before the second round arrives.
Serious threats demand serious fire power.
Why the flame on the 1911'ers? None of them tried to make converts of anyone in this thread as far as I can see/read.
I meerly stated that serious shooters would choose something other than 9mm as their defence choice and it appears FUD (the author of this thread) bears me out with his initial inclination to grab the .40 over the 9mm.
I could care less if someone chooses the 9mm as their defence weapon, eventually or under the control of a calm marksman/woman it can get the job done.
Although I am confident of my pistol skills I still want serious stopping power. No not .45 acp, but 357 Sig or .357 Mag. The 357 Sig from an HK Compact and the .357 Mag from a Taurus 605. When I hit my target with either( as I know I will)I am confident that the target will be STOPPED before the second round arrives.
Serious threats demand serious fire power.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Coastie,
I could ask, why YOUR sneering flame on people who choose other calibers?
My "flame" wasn't on .45 shooters, but on the attitude that so many .45 shooters have, apparently yourself included, that someone SERIOUS about personal protection carries ONLY a .45.
That's:
A) Insulting.
B) Obnoxious.
C) Perpetuates the idea that ONLY hardball is available. IF hardball were the only ammo available today, then I would agree with you, but it's not.
D) Dismisses the evidence from both Marshall and Sanow (which I only partially buy) and Dr. Martin Fackler that indicates that caliber alone is NOT an indicator of wounding ability or effectiveness.
E) Assumes that someone who chooses a smaller caliber somehow can't shoot a gun, and must instead rely on firing blindly and wildly in the vain hope of hitting the intended target, all the while putting bystanders at grave risk.
F) Assumes that someone armed with a .45 has been annointed by Odin and travels with his own Valkyries to pick up the dead who fall to his "HAMMER OF THOR" .45.
It would appear that you prescribe only to the "size matters" criteria of selecting a handgun. If that is truly the case, why don't you carry a .50 AE instead of a puny .45?
Next time I go out armed with my pathetic and womanly 6-shot .38 (which I've been carrying for nearly 20 years), I'll have to remember to spray and pray simply because I haven't been blessed by the Gods to have a .45 in my hand. No matter that I can put all 6 shots into a fist sized ball at 7 yards in under 2 seconds. That obviously has no bearing on the matter...
If you have something constructive to say about caliber choices, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you rationally and politely.
If all you intend to do is sneer & jeer and repeat old, and dead, axioms, then I suggest you write to Col. Cooper.
By the way, my Colt 1911 and my S&W 1917 sending their greetings.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited July 12, 2000).]
I could ask, why YOUR sneering flame on people who choose other calibers?
My "flame" wasn't on .45 shooters, but on the attitude that so many .45 shooters have, apparently yourself included, that someone SERIOUS about personal protection carries ONLY a .45.
That's:
A) Insulting.
B) Obnoxious.
C) Perpetuates the idea that ONLY hardball is available. IF hardball were the only ammo available today, then I would agree with you, but it's not.
D) Dismisses the evidence from both Marshall and Sanow (which I only partially buy) and Dr. Martin Fackler that indicates that caliber alone is NOT an indicator of wounding ability or effectiveness.
E) Assumes that someone who chooses a smaller caliber somehow can't shoot a gun, and must instead rely on firing blindly and wildly in the vain hope of hitting the intended target, all the while putting bystanders at grave risk.
F) Assumes that someone armed with a .45 has been annointed by Odin and travels with his own Valkyries to pick up the dead who fall to his "HAMMER OF THOR" .45.
It would appear that you prescribe only to the "size matters" criteria of selecting a handgun. If that is truly the case, why don't you carry a .50 AE instead of a puny .45?
Next time I go out armed with my pathetic and womanly 6-shot .38 (which I've been carrying for nearly 20 years), I'll have to remember to spray and pray simply because I haven't been blessed by the Gods to have a .45 in my hand. No matter that I can put all 6 shots into a fist sized ball at 7 yards in under 2 seconds. That obviously has no bearing on the matter...
If you have something constructive to say about caliber choices, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you rationally and politely.
If all you intend to do is sneer & jeer and repeat old, and dead, axioms, then I suggest you write to Col. Cooper.
By the way, my Colt 1911 and my S&W 1917 sending their greetings.
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited July 12, 2000).]
First of all, I would like to apologize for this long reply. I just want to put in my 2 cents worth.
This argument has been going on forever and will never go away. I will quote Mas Ayoob who I think made a very valid point.. He said that, "Nobody will be able to quantify stopping power. Caliber, bullet placement, etc ... All shooting incidents are different. What will put down one BG may not be good enough for the next one. What is the physical condition of the individual you are shooting? Is he /she high on drugs? Is the individual a "PUSSY'? Does he/she have the will to live, the will to fight?"
There was an incident a few years ago that involved an offduty LAPD policewoman. She was driving home and was shot by carjackers when she got out of her car. Not wearing a vest, a 357 magnum bullet hit got her on the chest,center mass, and part of the bullet actually penetrated her heart. She was able to pull out her service pistol, shoot and kill the perp. The rest of the carjackers escaped. Bottom line: she survived even with a 357 magnum bullet in her chest. Her physical conditioning and will to live/fight obviously saved her.
Ayoob further stated that when choosing a gun for self defense, one must choose most powerful caliber he/she can handle and practice, practice, practice ... When a situation arises and you have to use deadly force, empty the gun on the perps and we'll talk to the jury later.
BETTER THEM THAN ME !!!
[This message has been edited by AUCUP (edited July 12, 2000).]
This argument has been going on forever and will never go away. I will quote Mas Ayoob who I think made a very valid point.. He said that, "Nobody will be able to quantify stopping power. Caliber, bullet placement, etc ... All shooting incidents are different. What will put down one BG may not be good enough for the next one. What is the physical condition of the individual you are shooting? Is he /she high on drugs? Is the individual a "PUSSY'? Does he/she have the will to live, the will to fight?"
There was an incident a few years ago that involved an offduty LAPD policewoman. She was driving home and was shot by carjackers when she got out of her car. Not wearing a vest, a 357 magnum bullet hit got her on the chest,center mass, and part of the bullet actually penetrated her heart. She was able to pull out her service pistol, shoot and kill the perp. The rest of the carjackers escaped. Bottom line: she survived even with a 357 magnum bullet in her chest. Her physical conditioning and will to live/fight obviously saved her.
Ayoob further stated that when choosing a gun for self defense, one must choose most powerful caliber he/she can handle and practice, practice, practice ... When a situation arises and you have to use deadly force, empty the gun on the perps and we'll talk to the jury later.
BETTER THEM THAN ME !!!
[This message has been edited by AUCUP (edited July 12, 2000).]
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
8 rounds of .45 is my choice.
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
Why not compromise? A Glock 22 holds 16 rounds of 40S&W. I carry the best of both worlds.
- Status