TexasCHLforum.com

RGVshooter wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:57 am Here we go again with the caliber debate....


Let me ask you guys a question.... For those who are licensed to carry, what is your main goal when it comes to self defense?

I watched some of it... No doubt he has experience and no doubt his credentials are good... but none of that matters when your argument doesn't add up. I gave up watching when Mr. Werner presented as fact, pocket guns being more effective than service pistols in the hands of civilians. Just because a pocket pistol COULD stop an attack doesn't mean it will or that we should not carry anything larger than a .25acp. After that he says "may", "might" or "could" and "probably".

He further stated he could document far more failures in service pistols than in pocket guns. I would submit that the civilian world doesn't report failures to a statistic gathering body as leo and mil after shootings.

Further, I find it fascinating that the world is full of people with small guns and actual stories of limp wristing, fails to eject, feed etc. (both people I know and know of online) They are in much greater proportion to the experience & stories of service pistols failing... besides, the service pistols he speaks of are glock, m&P, XD and Beretta 92's... which are said to be the MOST reliable under any set of circumstances or operating conditions.





Apparently I was right 25 years ago!!!! my first kel-tec P3AT was the right choice! Much better than the STI gaurdian that I shoot better, faster and way more accurately... and the KT would have only jammed on the range, never in a gunfight - whereas the STI will probably fail in a fight since it runs like a champ on the range, in classes, and with factory and reloads to the tune of over 15K rounds. -sarcasm off- And God forbid one of them does fail in a fight, the larger gun is MUCH easier to do a failure drill or mag change with.

I won't change his mind and he won't change mine... and that's fine.

OK, a derringer 45 isn't a great comparison to a dbl stack 9, except in concealability!


It's been said already, if you shoot a 9 better, carry that. If you shoot a 45 better, carry that. I shoot the 45's I own better than the 9's I own. So when possible, I carry a 45.

If you really want to compare apples to apples:

small gun- shield 9 vs shield 45... difference is only 1 round and dimensions are extremely close.
mid size- G19 capacity 15+1 width 1.26" vs. XD45 Capacity 13+1 Width 1.22"

I don't doubt stress and do see value in more rounds (which is why I always have a spare mag or even 2) but don't dismiss a 45 just because it may hold a round or 2 less in a similar package.


My goal isn't to change anyone's mind, I appreciate an honest discussion in either direction.

howdy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:44 am Time for a physics review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

"Although both mass and velocity contribute to the muzzle energy, the muzzle energy is proportional to the mass while proportional to the square of the velocity. The velocity of the bullet is a more important determinant of muzzle energy. For a constant velocity, if the mass is doubled, the energy is doubled; however, for a constant mass, if the velocity is doubled, the muzzle energy increases four times. In the SI system the above Ek will be in unit joule if the mass, m, is in kilogram, and the speed, v, is in metre per second."

This is why an AR-15 shooting a 55 grain bullet produces twice the energy as a 230 grain .45 bullet. (3000 fps vs. 800 fps)

I can't do the math so let me ask this... the AR only doubles the .45acp???? I would have thought it was more. The bullet is about 1/4 the mass but velocity is almost 4 times that of the 45acp and uses roughly 5 times the charge of powder.

What about instead of 230's @ 800- if I carry 185 gr JHP's moving at 1155fps, does that change in any meaningful way? (that's what mine chrono'd at)

Everyone wants to poo on anything other than a 45.

I'd take the .45acp over the 9mm every time if I could. But I still carry a 9mm when I have to be more discreet. That's not pooing it, just being more comfortable with a bigger caliber.

Saying that 9mm is the min acceptable caliber, as many more do, is poo-pooing the .380 and smaller. Ironically, most people [not saying you] who tout the developments in 9mm, and dis the .45acp- turn around and carry a 115gr fmj... for the lower price & recoil, which nullifies every single advancement in bullet technology and dilutes their choice in gun.


To the OP:
Clearly I'm a fan of the 45acp. I have little real world experience to compare the 9mm/.45acp- only hunting [or dispatching animals] with a handguns. I have talked at length with a number of Vets who have had to use .45acp handguns in actual battle every one touted the swiftness of the stop. (and they only had FMJ ammo)

Couple all of that with the fact I shoot the guns I have in 45 better than the guns I have in 9mm and the choice is obvious. If someone wants to give me an STI Gaurdian 9 to try out to see if my splits come down, I'll gladly make an apples to apples comparison!

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:18 pm A 1911 with 8 rounds that misses 8 times is not as effective as a fully loaded Glock 17 that hits 1/2 of the time.

So regardless of the caliber debate, how do you figure the above? The guy with a 1911 misses all his shots but the guy w/ a glock hits at a 50% rate???????