TexasCHLforum.com

i think everyone should carry what they like and what theyre comfortable with. I don't think one is "better" than the other. I personally carry a 40 S&W because i inherited an M&P S&W 40 and i really like it. im sure if i bought a 9mm or a 10mm or a 45 acp or a 380 id like those as well lol

flechero wrote:
I'll echo what my Pastor used to say- not wrong, just different.

Your pastor is Willie Nelson? Sweet!

Liberty wrote:I like things simple. I own 3 own only three handguns. A Beretta PX4 SC for EDC, a Ruger P95 for Home defense, and a Beretta 92FS my go to war handgun. They are 9mm double stack and with hammers. I stock range ammo and Defense ammo. Although they have handled any ammo that I have fed them, I stock and shoot only 124gr ammo. The controls and triggers are similar. Training and shooting one is almost the same as shooting the others.

Nothing against .45 ACP, It's just that I haven't had reason enough to introduce a new platform. I'm a simple man and keeping things simple seems to work well for me. I've thought about picking up a 1911 but as a range toy.

Same philosophy here except with three Ruger revolvers in .357 Magnum.

MaduroBU wrote:

flechero wrote:Rob Leatham said something to the effect of- while 9mm may be adequate, it was not equivalent, so don't kid yourselves.

He didn't harbor any ill will towards those that carry 9mm, just as none the people in this thread that prefer 45acp have. Most of us have said we carry 9mm at times but choose 45 when attire and activity allow...

I'm good for another few months now. Any other horses we can swing a bat at???

Poor hits with a pistol caliber won't incapacitate someone. Terminal performance is almost exclusively a function of shot placement once a very low threshold of energy and momentum are reached. I carry a P232 .380 ACP +P with 90 grain XTPs because they are sufficient if I do my part. A weak .380 load from a 2.5" barrel is not sufficient.

The part in red came from the video of Rob Leatham, not me.

While I have ALWAYS advocated shot placement first and I prefer 45, I have never said that 9mm wasn't adequate. I also never mentioned 380...

I prefer my .45, and I'm able to shoot it with more accuracy than my other guns; however, I usually end up carrying a .380 because that's what I can best conceal.

Excaliber wrote:My EDC's are usually .45's.

I sometimes carry 9mm when capacity may be important, but I favor the big heavy bullet for nearly everything else.

Yes, I know the wound channels look the same and recoil recovery is quicker with the 9, but in my experience the .45 takes the fight out of BG's with fewer shots than the 9. That may not always be true, but that's what I'm going with.

Just curious, is this life experience or book experience? It does make a difference.

montgomery wrote:
If shot placement was the over-riding factor as you suggest, then why not carry 22LR? You get the bonus of maximum capacity too.

Well, technically 22 LR penetrates good enough and can easily kill with good shot placement. It just doesn't do as much damage in general so if your shot placement is off a bit, you may not see the best results as quickly as you would like. However, a lot of people do carry 22 LR in smaller guns or revolvers for various reasons.

Since it is a rimmed cartridge, 22 LR doesn't offer better capacity in most guns. If you want to compare, look at 5.7X28. Some people do like guns in that caliber. I also saw an article that said 25 Auto was originally developed to mimic 22 LR capability in a center fire cartridge.

All the time run back for your rifle.
All what you need to know is here:
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o- ... iia-armor/

twomillenium wrote:

Excaliber wrote:My EDC's are usually .45's.

I sometimes carry 9mm when capacity may be important, but I favor the big heavy bullet for nearly everything else.

Yes, I know the wound channels look the same and recoil recovery is quicker with the 9, but in my experience the .45 takes the fight out of BG's with fewer shots than the 9. That may not always be true, but that's what I'm going with.

Just curious, is this life experience or book experience? It does make a difference.

Life experience from 21 years as a LEO in a large city.

montgomery wrote:

MaduroBU wrote:

flechero wrote:Rob Leatham said something to the effect of- while 9mm may be adequate, it was not equivalent, so don't kid yourselves.

He didn't harbor any ill will towards those that carry 9mm, just as none the people in this thread that prefer 45acp have. Most of us have said we carry 9mm at times but choose 45 when attire and activity allow...

I'm good for another few months now. Any other horses we can swing a bat at???

Poor hits with a pistol caliber won't incapacitate someone. Terminal performance is almost exclusively a function of shot placement once a very low threshold of energy and momentum are reached. I carry a P232 .380 ACP +P with 90 grain XTPs because they are sufficient if I do my part. A weak .380 load from a 2.5" barrel is not sufficient.

If shot placement was the over-riding factor as you suggest, then why not carry 22LR? You get the bonus of maximum capacity too.

Good question.

The penetration may be insufficient for calibers smaller than a .380 +P from a 3.5" barrel. Standard pressure 90 grain .380 ACP from a 2.5" barrel may fail to incapacitate with a head hit due to insufficient penetration. A 90 grain JHP at 1150 FPS is my floor, and that's what I carry.

I want to point out that my experience in treating gunshot wounds isn't a formal study and isn't exhaustive. I don't see the people who die in the field or only go to the ICU and die there. My experience is therefore chiefly with injuries which would have failed to stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Because I don't collect data and could not legally share that data even if I did, I can only offer insights based upon experience. That's a long way from scientific inquiry, so it doesn't hurt my feelings when people choose to utilize other opinions.

1911 Raptor wrote:For arguments sake let’s say a magazine ban passed limiting pistol rounds to 10. Would 10 round capacity change anyone’s preferred caliber?

No, I would still carry a .40 cal PPS with 6 round mags.


Or, PPQ or P99 with 12 rounds of .40cal. Maybe you should word your question, would a mag limit ban change your caliber choice if you chose to follow it.

1911 Raptor wrote:For arguments sake let’s say a magazine ban passed limiting pistol rounds to 10. Would 10 round capacity change anyone’s preferred caliber?

It would for me, I would also get an M1A instead of the AR 15. For public use.

1911 Raptor wrote:For arguments sake let’s say a magazine ban passed limiting pistol rounds to 10. Would 10 round capacity change anyone’s preferred caliber?

It shouldn't.

The argument is that we should be carrying a capable caliber that we are most proficient with... if you do, the mag change to 10 rds should be the only difference in that scenario. If you are more comfortable with something different, when limited to 10 rounds than you are not being honest with yourself now. The reality is that very few people and gunfights ever get to 10 or more rounds... take LEO out of the stats and it's fewer still.

So if you need 15 rounds to be comfortable with your caliber, I'd suggest you need to rethink caliber.