TexasCHLforum.com

The thing is if you have 1911s you need the spare parts.

My carry choices and philosophy are exactly the same as those Charles described in his original post and for exactly the same reasons. Standard EDC is a 1911 and 2 spare mags. When I carried that gun on duty, the only change was more spare mags. Great minds think alike.

I don't care much about autopsy wound tracks which I know from personal observation are indistinguishable between mid and large calibers. I do care about how quickly a gunfight adversary goes down and stops fighting. While I know that there are no magic bullets and no handgun bullet can be relied on for the mythical "reliable one shot stop", historical gunfights do tell us which ones are at least marginally better, and I favor marginally better over marginally worse because marginals add up when one's life is on the line.

My only variances are my high cap 9 for areas at higher risk of multiple threats is a VP9, and for those situations where I choose to carry a pocket pistol, it's an XDS .45 - smaller gun, same bullet because the threat doesn't diminish in proportion to the size of my carry gun.

Liberty wrote:The thing is if you have 1911s you need the spare parts.

Mine have historically run for very long times without needing a change for anything other than recoil springs.

Well, they might have also sorta needed a change to VZ grips, Trijicon HD night sights, stainless grip screws, and a few other doo dads, but they would have continued to function just fine in original form without them.

So my latest acquisition is a CZ-97BD in .45ACP. Love the way it shoots overall, except not so much in love with the trigger at the moment, so will probably do the Cajun Gun Works trigger kit. 10+1 capacity.

I carried my S&W 9mm for a decade. I was always an advocate of shot placement over caliber. Which this got me to thinking. If I can place an accurate shot in 9mm or .45 (which I have done through some very realistic training), do I truly need 16 rounds per magazine?

I have quit carrying the S&W 9mm and opted for my Kimber ultra carry in .45ACP. I still carry two spare magazines. That gives me a total of 22 rounds. I feel that I can neutralize multiple threats and the extra thump of the .45 can only help.

Just my 2 cents

Excaliber wrote:My carry choices and philosophy are exactly the same as those Charles described in his original post and for exactly the same reasons. Standard EDC is a 1911 and 2 spare mags. When I carried that gun on duty, the only change was more spare mags. Great minds think alike.

I'm with you guys. My EDC has, for many years, been a 1911 or variant thereof in .45 ACP. But I've made an ammo change fairly recently that I'm not entirely thrilled with, but decided was for the best.

For a decade or more, my carry ammo has been Winchester Ranger T-Series +P 230 grain (RA45TP)...used Talons for a while before they were no longer called "Talon." I'm glad that LuckyGunner has, in the past few months, added the round to its ballistic test data at http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-de ... tic-tests/. I was feelin' left out previously. I like the 230 grain round; I like the typical expansion (born out by the LuckyGunner tests); and I prefer the +P load...although I was surprised the aforementioned ballistic tests showed a muzzle velocity as low as it did.

Kinda sorta related to the "duck and run" subject, it's been drilled into me for a lotta years that the first thing you do is get off the "X" if at all possible, and that it takes only milliseconds longer to deliver a controlled pair than a single aimed shot; ergo, even with multiple bad guys, to plan on delivering two rounds before transitioning to threat number two.

Some of the time I carry a full-size all-steel 1911, but much of the time, because of its concealability and comfort, I carry an officer's-size with an aluminum frame. It may be that I'm getting older and weaker, but recoil management for a rapid controlled pair with +P 230 grain ammo out of the small, lightweight gun has not been gettin' any better. Concerned about that, I've switched back to 230-grain Golden Sabers--which have very noticeably less recoil--for the officer's model, staying with the +P Rangers for the full-sized models.

Mind you, I'm not recoil averse. But the shot timer and the target tell the tale. In testing two shots on target one, transition, and two shots on target two, the lower-velocity Remington's make a substantial difference--for me--using the smaller and lighter gun. And I've decided that--again, for me personally, not necessarily for anyone else--efficient delivery of a controlled pair with a big, fat bullet that penetrates reasonably well is my priority for a handgun.

With the short barrel, I'd prefer to have a higher muzzle velocity, but I've decided speed in delivering a controlled pair is more important to me. Out of curiosity, Excaliber, what do you shoot in your XD-S?

For the 1911s, I settled on Wilson mags years ago, and carry two spares. Rarely, but sometimes, I carry an XD(m) in .40 with 16+1 on board plus a spare mag. I use Ranger T-Series in it, as well.

Skiprr wrote:Out of curiosity, Excaliber, what do you shoot in your XD-S?

Right now I'm carrying Federal 230 GRHP+P in the XDS.

I am happy with any of several of the better brands of 230 GR HP's and switch among Federal, Winchester, Speer Gold Dots and Remington Golden Saber depending more on price than anything else. I don't restrict myself to +P either because I find recoil recovery is noticeably faster with standard velocity loads and I think the extra velocity at the terminal end has less practical effect at close range than the longer recoil recovery cycle does.

Excaliber wrote:I am happy with any of several of the better brands of 230 GR HP's and switch among Federal, Winchester, Speer Gold Dots and Remington Golden Saber depending more on price than anything else. I don't restrict myself to +P either because I find recoil recovery is noticeably faster with standard velocity loads and I think the extra velocity at the terminal end has less practical effect at close range than the longer recoil recovery cycle does.

Thanks.

And I failed to mention that I've never met Charles face-to-face when he wasn't carrying a 1911 in .45 ACP. So there was a hole in the fabric of the universe I wasn't even aware of. Now that Old Ironsides is coming back, the ripples in space-time seem to be calming.

Marine Raiders going the other way:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articl ... paign=1016

Soap wrote:You also do want to DUCK. This SWAT says don't duck?

I deleted my response to this most arrogant of responses, but I must comment on the above statement. No, you don't want to duck and if that's your philosophy, then leave your gun at home and carry a sword. It's obvious I (and Mark) was talking about the natural but dangerous tendency to duck one's head while firing blindly. Neither Mark nor I are saying not to use cover/concealment when it's available. Ducking while you are in the open and leaving your body open doesn't make you safer, but firing while doing so endangers others.

Carry what you will, I said I wasn't trying to get anyone to change their mind.

Chas.

I carried a .45 1911 for a long enough time, then switched to a polymer double-stack .45 (M&P and a XDM), and then eventually to a polymer double-stack 9mm (G17/G19). I have pondered the idea of going back to carrying a .45, and decided not to. I like my .45s, and I shoot them well, but for me it ultimately comes down to my wife's preferences. I can shoot 9mm or .45 about equally well, but my wife can't. I made a decision a little over a year ago to carry platforms that she was familiar with and could shoot well, in the event that she might end up having to shoot one of my guns. We both own G43s. Her's is her EDC. We both own G19s. Mine is my EDC. She is also able to shoot my G17 fairly well. So a 9mm Glock it is, and that is what we've "standardized" on.

I will say this..... there have been a few times when shooting at falling steel plates that one of my 9mm bullets has hit the plate square on, dead center, and failed to knock it over; but a hit from a .45 puts the plate down with authority. I have ended up trying to place my 9mm shots on the plate so as to maximize the amount of leverage the impact has against the hinge. You never have to do that with a .45. I am fairly certain that a couple of 230 grain HST JHPs at a muzzle velocity/energy of 890 fps/404 ft-lb will hit someone harder than a couple of 135 grain Critical Duty JHPs at 1010 fps/306 ft-lb.

But, that said, 9mm bullets have disabled and/or killed a LOT of people since George Luger first introduced the cartridge in 1902. Either cartridge is just fine for self-defense. I do understand why someone would feel more comfortable with one caliber over another, but the issue doesn't particularly bother me.

G26ster wrote:Marine Raiders going the other way:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articl ... paign=1016

Handguns for the military are backup weapons, but us they are not only primary weapons, but likely the only weapons we will have if attacked.

Chas.

Article wrote:One of the reasons the Marine Corps gave for abandoning the M45A1 was there are times when Marine operators require a concealable handgun. And while the M45A1 CQB is an excellent fighting pistol in what used to be America's favorite caliber, it is not a gun designed for concealment. Another reason given for the Raider shift away from .45 was logistics—meaning that having two sidearm chamberings with in the same unit was not a good idea. That makes sense for regular military units, but has not hampered elite operators in the past.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
I will say this..... there have been a few times when shooting at falling steel plates that one of my 9mm bullets has hit the plate square on, dead center, and failed to knock it over; but a hit from a .45 puts the plate down with authority. I have ended up trying to place my 9mm shots on the plate so as to maximize the amount of leverage the impact has against the hinge. You never have to do that with a .45. I am fairly certain that a couple of 230 grain HST JHPs at a muzzle velocity/energy of 890 fps/404 ft-lb will hit someone harder than a couple of 135 grain Critical Duty JHPs at 1010 fps/306 ft-lb.

I don't know what you're using for range ammo, but you might consider Winchester WB NATO. It packs a little more punch than typical range ammo. I use it because it has similar recoil characteristics to my defensive loads. and it cost maybe a buck more than the standard WWB stuff

I have G21 sf that I do carry occasionally to switch things out. It is very accurate and reliable shooter. I tend to shoot it quite well actually.

For me though, my g26 or g19 loaded with 147gr federal hydrashok or doubletap equalizer +p 9mm ammo is good enough. Hot 9mm rounds hit hard. Not as much weight as .45 obviously, but they will go deeper in most cases and are more favorable to cause hydrostatic shock.

Having said that, I have been carrying my g23 the last week or so with a 357 Sig storm lake barrel, loaded with 125gr federal ammo. Now that one definitely sizzles and packs a nice punch.

Neither will beat my 375 H&H though

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Soap wrote:You also do want to DUCK. This SWAT says don't duck?

I deleted my response to this most arrogant of responses, but I must comment on the above statement. No, you don't want to duck and if that's your philosophy, then leave your gun at home and carry a sword. It's obvious I (and Mark) was talking about the natural but dangerous tendency to duck one's head while firing blindly. Neither Mark nor I are saying not to use cover/concealment when it's available. Ducking while you are in the open and leaving your body open doesn't make you safer, but firing while doing so endangers others.

Carry what you will, I said I wasn't trying to get anyone to change their mind.

Chas.

When I said "Duck" I meant move. You don't want to stand still unless you're wearing armor.