40S&W and 9MM Carry Ammo Recomendations

[CCWInstructor]

9mm = 380 magnum

[akulahawk]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

9mm = 380 magnum = BIG mousefart

[repins]

.380= mousefart?? too funny........... and I can't really disagree. But I still take the Sig P232 w/ me at times, when the "threat level" is low. Loaded w/ HydraShok or Golden Saber, and at 5 meters or less, it'll do the job. Let's face it, it's all about shot placement anyways.

Primary weapon is an HK in .40 cal. I use the same 2 types of ammo. More than adequate....and if not, I'm in deep sh&t!!!

The 9mm question intrigues me the most. F=MA, all day long. Some "experts" feel very strongly that the 147 gr sub-sonic load is a real loser. They say "stick to the high speed and lighter loads, 115 or 124 gr." Opinions on that issue seem to go strongly in both directions........

[CCWInstructor]

If light and fast were true, why is the military going back to the 45 ACP? That is big and slow.

Try the "T" series in your 380.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

9mm = 380 magnum

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by repins

.380= mousefart?? too funny........... and I can't really disagree. But I still take the Sig P232 w/ me at times, when the "threat level" is low. Loaded w/ HydraShok or Golden Saber, and at 5 meters or less, it'll do the job. Let's face it, it's all about shot placement anyways.

Primary weapon is an HK in .40 cal. I use the same 2 types of ammo. More than adequate....and if not, I'm in deep sh&t!!!

The 9mm question intrigues me the most. F=MA, all day long. Some "experts" feel very strongly that the 147 gr sub-sonic load is a real loser. They say "stick to the high speed and lighter loads, 115 or 124 gr." Opinions on that issue seem to go strongly in both directions........

Hmmm...ballistics reports are interesting...but it came down to me asking myself this:

If I asked this criminal which one he would rather face...9mm or .45...The obvious conclusion is that he would choose the 9.

The Denver Post - Suspect wants bullet to stay in his forehead

Therefore, I'm coming at him with a .45

Hey, my gun-porn of choice is the Browning .380 bda. The pistols I could fire all day long were the Browning Hi Power (Inglis manufactured version) and my Ruger P89TH. But I just feel better trusting my life to the .45.

Ah, it's the Chevy v. Ford arguement of the gun world...I guess they are all better than nothing, right?

[K-dog.v3]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

If light and fast were true, why is the military going back to the 45 ACP? That is big and slow.

Try the "T" series in your 380.

Why did they change in to the 9mm in the first place ?

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by K-dog.v3

Why did they change in to the 9mm in the first place ?

[coughing fit]*politics*[/coughing fit]

Part of it was Nato Standardization

Bad Idea

But I shouldn't answer for others...thats just my .02 worth.

[Rob P.]

Originally Posted by K-dog.v3

Why did they change in to the 9mm in the first place ?

Because the 9X19 9mm is the std for side arms just about everywhere in the world. On the battlefield, if you need ammo and it's an "exotic" caliber then you have to wait until you get resupplied from your own command. If they're late, you lose when you run short of bullets.

If your weapons shoot the same ammo as does your enemy, then everytime you capture the enemy and seize his weapons you get resupplied with ammo. Ditto when capturing the enemy ammo dumps.

Typical stratagy - make the enemy pay for your war effort.

As to why they're returning to the .45. I'd guess "tradition" more than anything. The 9mm vs .45 debate is largely driven by statistics which are questionable at best. Unless you can reperform the same experiment under identical conditions all you have are statistics which can be manipulated to give whatever end result is desired. No one I know of has shot the same guy dead twice using different caliber weapons. The lethality of the hit depends somewhat on the strength of will of the target and not solely on the caliber of the bullet. So unless you can "rekill" the target under the same conditions as the first kill with a different caliber bullet all you have is a complation of statistics which is just manipulated data.

.45's fail to kill even with multiple COM hits on occasion. So do 9mm's. Yes the .45 is more likely to be lethal in larger targets but that doesn't make it 'always' lethal in every target.

The windshield riccochet scenario is useless as a determinative of stopping power.

People have been killed by stones thrown at them by children. Shot placement is more important than having a howitzer on your hip.

[X-ffdo]

Ref . Making the enemy your main supplier......That's why I like Mikhail's product........."Turn the greater force against itself".

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by X-ffdo

Ref . Making the enemy your main supplier......That's why I like Mikhail's product........."Turn the greater force against itself".

Very good point...and darned if it doesn't mean I have to buy another gun...I don't have anything that fires soviet ammunition...

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by K-dog.v3

Why did they change in to the 9mm in the first place ?

Sens was right. For NATO

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by Rob P.

As to why they're returning to the .45. I'd guess "tradition" more than anything.

Yes the .45 is more likely to be lethal in larger targets but that doesn't make it 'always' lethal in every target.

Is this what a lawyer calls "Double Talk" ? You really need to make up your mind. Statement one, or statement two.

[Rob P.]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Is this what a lawyer calls "Double Talk" ? You really need to make up your mind. Statement one, or statement two.

Military needs do not require lethality. In fact, non lethal injuries are generally preferred since they require mega personnel to extract & care for the wounded. Since these soldiers are occupied with the wounded they aren't shooting back at our guys which they would be if there were no wounded for them to take care of.


It is also demoralizing to the support system (ne public) to see hundreds/thousands of your troops returning from the battlefield with major injuries and missing limbs instead of being superbly victorious just because they showed up dressed to the nines.

Since there is no military "need" for huge caliber sidearms, the return to equipping our military with .45 caliber sidearms has to have it's roots in something else. John Browning was an American. The 9mm was a cartridge used by the Nazi's (9mm Luger). It would be "un-American" in this day and age of superpatriotism to continue to equip our soldiers with a foreign devised caliber in their sidearm. Instead, it would be more "proper" and "traditional" to use an American designed/invented weapon and cartridge. Thus, we see a return to the use and issue of the .45 govt for the military.

I do not know that this is true and it may be wild speculation. However, the logic chain is feasible and the premise supports the reasoning. Only the Pentagon knows for sure why the change.

As for "one shot - one kill" I know of no sidearm in general issue which has that reputation and is supportable with proof that EVERY shot is a lethal shot. Humans are pretty resilient and every situation is different enough that one cannot depend on one shot being lethal no matter what caliber is used.

The conclusion: There is no double talk on this side of the conversation. Just my point of view.

[WKC]

There is not doubt that the US military went with the 9 for political reasons. The resurgence of the grunts on the ground and in the fight wanting a 45 is based on experience. There may be no "military need" for a huge caliber sidearm but what do the brass know? Talk to the guys on the ground and in the fight. And it's not about being patriotic. It's about being practical. Is there another caliber more effective and readily available than the 45? NO.

I have the pleasure of training along side an active duty Marine and his pistol of choice and the one he carries with him into the fight is a Kimber in 45 ACP.

Consider this, the rifle is the primary weapon. The pistol is a secondary weapon. If you have to deploy your pistol, what does that say about your immediate situation? Would you want to punch small holes or large holes into the guys charging at you? When you are in that kind of situation, you really don't care about commonality with NATO or any other BS. You just want something big to knock that guy down and make him bleed. You really don't care if he dies. You just want him to stay down so you can focus on the next guy coming at you.

The other way to look at it is simple physics: 9mm =>>> small hole (9mm=0.354") , lower kinetics energy.
45 ACP =>>> big hole (0.450"), higher kinetic energy.

If you ask the bullet catcher what he wants to deal with, he'll most likely want the 9. For me, I rather he deal with the 45ACP.