TexasCHLforum.com

I carried both the 9mm and .45 in the Military. My little hands were happier with the .45 grip on the M1911. 3 out of 4 of my handguns are .40 caliber because they are even more ergonomic for my hands. My .380 is horrible in every respect except it is the "go-to" gun to have when I have reason not to carry my .40's.

Chocolate and vanilla. Others have alluded to the factors which are probably more important than caliber, when it comes to putting rounds on target, like grip, size, weight, etc. I have 2 40 cal autos, a Sig 226 and Sig 239. I haven't noticed an excessive impulse with those firearms over my .380 (or my 38 S&W for that matter). I am accurate with all of my firearms.

Steve

NavAir wrote:Chocolate and vanilla. Others have alluded to the factors which are probably more important than caliber, when it comes to putting rounds on target, like grip, size, weight, etc. I have 2 40 cal autos, a Sig 226 and Sig 239. I haven't noticed an excessive impulse with those firearms over my .380 (or my 38 S&W for that matter). I am accuarte with all of my firearms.

Steve

I cannot make that claim with handguns (different story with a long gun). That is why ergonomics is such an issue with me.

My handguns, aside from pocket j-frames, are 9mm metal hammer-to-firing pin-fired firearms.
However, the wife and I fired a Glock (don't know the model #'s) in .40 and I must say...it was nice. We (and she too!) we are very accurate with it at respectable distances for a handgun. The recoil is different. Perhaps more a push; certainly not as snappy at the 9mm.

Not sure that's worth much. But I'd look into a .40.

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.

I can't agree with that line of thinking. I own several .40 caliber semi automatics, including a Glock 23C. It's my first choice as a carry weapon. But sometimes it isn't practical to carry something that size. So, my Ruger LCP gets some carry hours. It's a much better choice than Silly String.

Mastodon wrote:However, the wife and I fired a Glock (don't know the model #'s) in .40 and I must say...it was nice.

It was probably a Glock 22 (at least they didn't name the their .45 model the "Glock 9").

Caliber debates never really end I suppose.... it's a bit different than other hobby forums, after all it's hard to go test things yourself in a real situation (every test medium is simulated, not that I want to volunteer myself as a real test medium...). At the end of the day, people carry what they like, or some people just don't carry (can't find anything they like? :))

A .380 in your hand at bad-breath range is an effective weapon against an unarmored attacker. I wouldn't dream of trying to shoot it at any distances past that. Too few rounds in the magazine and too high a chance of missing.
I would prefer my .40, but I can't always carry one.

If there's a .380 vs. Silly String duel at 10 paces, I'll take the .380. At any distance really.

Of course, if it's a Jennings/Bryco .380 that might be a fair fight because both the Saturday Night Special and the can of silly string probably weigh about the same and can he thrown equally well.

But if it's a quality .380, I'll take it over no gun at all.

austinrealtor wrote:If there's a .380 vs. Silly String duel at 10 paces, I'll take the .380. At any distance really.

Of course, if it's a Jennings/Bryco .380 that might be a fair fight because both the Saturday Night Special and the can of silly string probably weigh about the same and can he thrown equally well.

But if it's a quality .380, I'll take it over no gun at all.

I agree.
My .380 is a high-quality Micro Desert Eagle. And when it runs out of ammo it is actually quite heavy for its size, and might make a crude but effective blunt-missile.

Dave2 wrote:

Mastodon wrote:However, the wife and I fired a Glock (don't know the model #'s) in .40 and I must say...it was nice.

It was probably a Glock 22 (at least they didn't name the their .45 model the "Glock 9").

What's your point? That Gaston knows how to count or his detractors don't. XD

Bart wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Mastodon wrote:However, the wife and I fired a Glock (don't know the model #'s) in .40 and I must say...it was nice.

It was probably a Glock 22 (at least they didn't name the their .45 model the "Glock 9").

What's your point? That Gaston knows how to count or his detractors don't. XD

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.

Dave2 wrote:there is no Glock model 40

Then what did this guy shoot himself with?

this is a Glock 40

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0[/youtube]

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."

Now here's the funny thing, the Soviet Union did have a nearly all ceramic gun designed to get past metal detectors. The actual metal components were contained inside of an everyday pen. Now if I remember correctly the gun was a single shot piece that was more dangerous to the user than it was to the target.