TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote: Just poking the bear a bit (it's what I do ). In practice it's not too confusing because there is no Glock model 40, nor is there a Glock that comes from the factory chambered in .22 caliber.

True, but let's not forget the Glock 7, which lawmakers talk about even to this day and STILL try to ban it.

Who'd have thought that these two sentences from that movie (with four VERY wrong "facts" in it) would feed the hysteria of the gun grabbers for over 20 years?

"That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me, you know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport metal detectors and probably costs more than what you make in a month."

austinrealtor wrote:
Incidentally, if you get a moment, go re-watch "Dr. No" ... when M (this is before the Q character) hands Bond his new Walther PPK in "7.65mm" that "hits like a brick through a plate-glass window" - and that's only a .32-caliber.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Dr._No#Beretta_M1934" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every time I see Bond whip out that .32ACP PP (not PPK), I just wanna cry.

The Bond, Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon movies have increased gun ignorance and set back gun rights far better than George Soros and the Brady Campaign ever could. Oh, and let's not forget Miami Vice.

Ameer wrote:

lkd wrote:If you want to say the 10mm is great, that's fine, but you don't get to just drop _opinions_ on a caliber, disguised as fact, and get away with it.

lkd wrote:I know what it can do, but I personally remain unconvinced that .380ACP is a good defensive round.

Well, it's not a contradiction -- I'm saying that I _personally_ don't like the .380. The other poster washed off the .40S&W as something that was merely "popular" because the FBI liked it. There's a difference.

SpringerFan wrote: A .380 FMJ will penetrate 12+ inches in gelatin, your silly string will not. I know it's not the Hammer of Thor, but the .380 in the pocket is better than the G23 left at home.

I know what it can do, but I personally remain unconvinced that .380ACP is a good defensive round. Gelatin != bad guys. I know some studies have shown it's a good round and is great for its compactness and low recoil. Doesn't mean I will ever carry it, even if I have to leave the Glock23 at home

Tamie wrote:I blame the FBI. They changed to 10mm because they thought they needed a more powerful round. But a lot of agents couldn't handle the 10mm round, so they got manufacturers to load it weaker. They eventually wimped out so much that someone realized they could make the 10mm brass shorter and still fit all the powder used for the 10mm lite. That allowed them to accomodate shooters with smaller hands and retrofit 9mm pistols to fire the new shorter and weaker 10mm round. So that's what they did. Over time, local police agencies copied the FBI because they think the FBI is cool. Some of the public copied the local police and/or the FBI because they think they're cool. The fad spread.

Really? You might want to review the facts of that study and the history of how and why the .40S&W came into being, they seem to elude you. You pretty much lose all credibility when you say that the cops wanted to emulate the FBI and that the .40S&W is a fad. Don't rush it though, I have plenty of time for you to retract your errors. If you want to say the 10mm is great, that's fine, but you don't get to just drop _opinions_ on a caliber, disguised as fact, and get away with it.

austinrealtor wrote:

SpringerFan wrote:I have owned more pistols in .40 than any other caliber. While I like the 9mm and love the .45, the .40 just fits my needs better than the other two. I do have smallish hands which is part of it, but also enjoy the higher round count over the 45 and power upgrade over the 9mm. That said, I carry a .380 more than anything else.

The old joke used to be that guys talked about their .45s or large-frame .357s, but actually carried snub-nose .38s

I guess the new version is guys talk about their .40s but actually carry pocket .380s

Takes one to know one

I'd carry a can of silly string before I'd carry a .380. It would be my hope that the BG would be distracted laughing, rather than furiously angry because you tried to punch tiny holes in his body but they were stopped by his thick hoodie jacket.

Just sayin.

I'll stick with my Glock 23.

austinrealtor wrote:
I tested Winchester Bonded PDX1 (the newest in the line of "talon" JHPs) in both 9mm and .40 out of short (3-inch) barrels last year and both performed very well, but .40 obviously had the edge.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=32400&hilit=+milk+jug" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I never get bored of reading that post either. So much fun data to stare at

Don't forget to read http://www.theboxotruth.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; either. I'm SO jealous of those guys. I want to retire to some remote property so that I can just shoot guns at stuff, write about it, and make other people jealous about the cool things I play with

By the way, if you guys want to read caliber discussions until your eyes bleed, check out the discussions over on the "Caliber Corner" in GlockTalk. Those folks get downright religious about their favorite caliber ( http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

HarleyDave wrote:I'm interested as well in why the 9mm is ineffective? Please splain for me...

I would _never_ say it's ineffective. A .22lr is effective if placed right. Same can be said of any projectile with sufficient mass and velocity to penetrate layers of clothing and (ultimately) a human in a way that incapacitates.

If you want to kill an hour or so, here's a fun website to browse - http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1293.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Some awesome pics in there (safe for work -- all I saw was pretty ballistic gelatin photos).

You can have a LOT of discussions about what caliber works best and has the most effective results, but there are soooo many factors that come into play in real world situations. Bullet weight, shape, and velocity are a beginning, but then placement and wound cavity effects take over, and let's not go into all the odd things that happen when bullets encounter things like bone -- all bets are off at that point. There really, really, really is not single "right" answer. I mean, if you're REALLY wanting max "ballistic effects" with least recoil, your best bet is probably the 5.7x28 in an FN Five-seveN pistol. 20 rounds of low-recoil, hypersonic, anti-bad-guy. And besides, if it's enough to make the Brady Campaign write to Barack Obama to ask him to ban it, it's got to be good, eh?

As I said in my first post, and I'll reiterate: Shoot what you're comfortable with. Want to shoot the 9mm? Perfect. Don't let ANYBODY convince you that it's a mistake (cuz it ain't).

BAD17 wrote:I agree with TAM. I don't like the 40 either. I own a Springfield XD 40 and it is a fine weapon but well it's just snappy.

I see "snappy" as an advantage -- my sights are back on target faster (I don't fight recoil because my shots are "surprise breaks").

Besides, if I REALLY wanted "snappy", I'd shoot 357SIG

austinrealtor wrote: lkd, is .40-cal flexibility more useful under USPSA rules than IDPA? Does meeting the upper power floor with a .40-cal require special hand loads to achieve, or is there a way to shoot USPSA with factory .40 loads against .45-cal competition?

I can't speak for IDPA, but USPSA shooters (in Limited Major) will opt for .40 often with low PF ratings (.40 is min caliber). Shooters in Open will opt for .40 unless they're really avante garde and show off shooting .38Super on their tuned 2011 STI rigs (.38/9mm is min caliber). Since there's no Major designation for production, you can go to 9mm/38 if you want. My point is that I can shoot .40 in all 3 with no disadvantage, and can tweak my loads/bullet weights to suit the power floor (and there's lots of combinations you can use for .40 - I like using titegroup powder because I can run some amazingly light poweder quantities and still get good velocity, but hte downside is that you could also wind up with a double-charge in your casing and take risk of a nasty KB)

P.S. -- I suffered a very major injury to my right wrist in the military and fractured my joint in about 13 pieces (one of the contributions to my military disability pay, but I have other broken up parts too), so _every_ time I shoot, I suffer pain. I've long since learned to work through that pain, but the key point for me is that I would _never_ carry 9mm as a defensive round. I just can't do it. I know people say it will work, but I want that extra 50gr of weight and 200fps of velocity that I can get from my defensive .40 rounds. Just for my own piece of mind. Some people insist on the 2x more than 9mm weight of .45 for their own piece of mind. You gotta stick with what you have faith in

A few thoughts from my perspective:
1) Defensive ballistics are very good
2) Smaller round (than 45) means I can carry more rounds in same space
3) Flexible bullet weights/loads are great for competitive shooting (i.e., hitting "Major" power floor)

That being said: Carry what makes you comfortable!