40S&W and 9MM Carry Ammo Recomendations

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by Rob P.

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.

I've heard estimates of up to 18 to care for a wounded (6 generally right there on the BF), while it only takes 2 to carry a corpse, and two to bury it...and it can be the same two guys.

BUT...I seriously doubt that ANY of the combat arms people on this site will ever tell you that they were taught to shoot to maim for this reason...thats something some REMF dreamed up, and is simply ludicrous. It would not surprise me if the theory were entertained at some point, but the grunt on the ground would have given a resounding "FU" and done what he does best, and that would be killin', not maimin'.

The switch to 9mm was simple logisitics...cheaper, lighter, more can be shipped in the same amount of space, and you can share with all your friends. Plain and simple.

It is the exact reason the Canadian military switched from the FN C1 (FN FAL) to the M-16. Certainly had NOTHING to do with the M-16 being a better rifle. It had everything to do with the fact that the loaded rifle being roughly 1/3 the weight and considerably smaller meant the soldier could carry more rounds.

Ditto for switching to the M-60 and FN Minimi.

But lets also be realistic...the sidearm is NEVER intended to be a primary weapon. It's purpose is as a last resort or for very specific situations. I like to say that my .45 is with me so I can fight my way to my shotgun or battle rifle...

[1buba]

Sens,

You reminded me of a statistic... well, can't remember the numbers exactly, but in Viet Nam for the grunts on the ground it took like 2000 rounds (may have been more) for each kill. However, snipers were a WHOLE lot more cheap on the ammo. I could see a bean counter saying "well, most of these are just going into the country side anyway, they don't need to be THAT potent of a round." However, this is NOT the bean counter i want making the decisions for my weapon if i indeed need one.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by 1buba

Sens,

You reminded me of a statistic... well, can't remember the numbers exactly, but in Viet Nam for the grunts on the ground it took like 2000 rounds (may have been more) for each kill. However, snipers were a WHOLE lot more cheap on the ammo. I could see a bean counter saying "well, most of these are just going into the country side anyway, they don't need to be THAT potent of a round." However, this is NOT the bean counter i want making the decisions for my weapon if i indeed need one.

Yeah, great example...and if they thought they could have fought the war using nothing but highly trained snipers, i'm sure they would have made the switch.

I know nothing of ballistics...I really don't care much about them...like I said, what changed my mind was seeing that one round couldn't be counted on to knock over a steel plate, while at the same distance another did so consistantly.

Rob is 100% correct on the idea of shot placement, though...doesn't matter what you are shooting, it aint gonna kill something if you can't hit what you are aiming at. And if you are counting on a wound to fester and kill him, then you're probably dead at this point. Shoot to stop the threat, and don't stop till the threat's stopped.

[X-ffdo]

One of the guys at the range up here, gets very angry about ballistics, you see, he just came back from Iraq, He is an avid shooter, ex marine sargeant, sniper type, does our CMP program for the range. He was making peanuts here for pay, so he decided to go and take a civilian job in Iraq for a year.
He's statement " We are shooting those bastards with .22s, and they are shooting back with .308s, we are using 9mm cal. for our sidearms now, so what used to take one round to do the job, now it takes 3 "

[cksh8me]

Everybody here went to school I'm sure, doesn't anybody remember multiplication tables? 5 9's are 45. Or fat's where it's at when it comes to bullets and .45's are pretty portly.

That being said the 9mm does have some advantages over a .45. You can carry more ammo per pound when you are loaded up with a 70lb. pack more ammo for less weight is a good thing. Is a 45 going to have better results when you hit somebody all things being equal it should.

A good friend of mine will return god willing in the middle of September after 4 years working in Bagdad and one year working in Afghanistan.

His hand gun of choice is a G19. I asked him if he wanted me to send him some hollow points since I knew he was issued ball. His reply was "ball kills and I don't shoot anybody once". He also said 9 is better for shooting through cars. A friend recently retired from LAPD said the 124 grain +P 9mm did a good job penetrating through cars. (I won't go into his credentials but he does have legend status at LAPD).

The same can be said for the .223 the little monkeys aren't afraid when you point an M4 at them because so many are shot and taken away before and if they die. If you want respect, people to comply to your commands, and move out of the way 12 gauge is the gun around town or in your car.

A line from Ronin pretty much sums it up when it comes to firearms. "It's a tool box pick the right tool for the job".

Better a hit from a .22 than a miss from a .45.

[repins]

All true........shot placement above all else. But military use & situations we ( the CCW carrying citizens) are likely to run into, are markedly different. That's why the .40 S&W is such a good choice for us. Hits harder than a 9mm, and you can carry more rounds per magazine than a .45 (w/ almost no exceptions). Out there, on the street, not in Iraq or the Stan, you want something lethal for "up close & personal". A .40 is perfect, w/ all the hi-quality ammo we have to choose from.

[rickr96]

Great discussion on this thread and great points made all around.

I made my caliber choice during a similar exercise as described above. Shooting at steel targets I noticed shots from the 9's had to be nearly perfect shots for the steel to fall. The .40's knocked them down every time, and the .45 knocked them down hard.

I originally picked the .40 because I could better control the round, which allowed me to knock down targets faster. I controlled the recoil better, could get back on target quicker and knock down three steel targets in the same time it took me to punch down 2 with the .45.

I picked the biggest caliber I could effectively control in quick or rapid-fire practice. For me, that's the .40.

That being said, I am practicing more with the .45, and I’ve noticed my speed picking up... So, either I'm getting better/faster, or, the Kimber is making me a better shooter... Prolly a little of both.

My thinking is this: Pick the biggest caliber you can handle in multiple shot defensive situations and stick with it...

[hygyliac]

Originally Posted by rickr96

That being said, I am practicing more with the .45, and I’ve noticed my speed picking up... So, either I'm getting better/faster, or, the Kimber is making me a better shooter

Last week Alita and I were practicing with my Kimber and her Sig 239. We were alternating pistols. I have shot .45 caliber for so long that I trully enjoyed her Sig 239 9mm and told her so. She then pointed out that her Sig was a .40 cal.

I agree with Rickr96, if you can lift 100 lbs, I guarantee you can definately lift 80 lbs. When I started shooting my favorite caliber was .38 because at that time, that was what I shot best as a beginner.

[repins]

Lethality is not "optional" or of secondary importaance to the military.30+ years ago, I spent some time w/ the 2nd Ranger Bn and the Air Cav...we were taught to shoot to kill. Leave no enemy combatant alive to come back later and hurt you or your team//buddies.

With that in mind........ a.40 cal beats a 9mm every time, and has sufficient "plusses" to match the .45 in a "plus//minus" comparison. It's generally smaller, lighter to carry, faster (more fps), of similar size (up to 180 grains)and you get to carry more rounds, as compared to a .45. Where's the downside??

My 3 "registered guns":

1) HK USP-Compact .40 cal
2) SigPro 2340 .40 cal (w/ CrimsonTrace laser grips)
3) Sig P232 in .380 cal

I own a Sig .45, and shoot it fairly well, but it won't likely ever be listed on my CCW permit. My $0.02 worth...........

[IAmASensFan]

Dont take this personally, but 30 years ago would be around the end of the Vietnam war...that would be about the time that US Soldiers were shooting about 20,000 rounds for each confirmed kill. Althought I agree with the concept you put forth, it's execution back then left a lot to be desired. Not my numbers...the US Governments.

That being said, I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't carry that much ammo...in fact, with no hips, 24 rounds starts to make my pants sag to the point where I could be arrested.

If it takes one shot from my .45 to knock down a target, where it takes 2 from my 9mm, then it's VERY clear the .45 is the obvious answer. My 9 rounds in a Kimber Pro Carry should beat 11 in a 9mm EVERY time.

Don't forget...It is very easy to find people with 9mm slugs in their skulls still walking around, but not so easy to find someone with a .45 in their cranium.

Texas police want bullet lodged in teenager's head Independent, The (London) - Find Articles

I could be completely wrong...but if I am, I will probably die not realizing that I am...nor will I hear the sanctimonious laughter of my detractors

I think this can be wrapped up as a "Chicken/Egg" discussion...ultimately, it will only be answered by the last man standing.

Originally Posted by repins

Lethality is not "optional" or of secondary importaance to the military.30+ years ago, I spent some time w/ the 2nd Ranger Bn and the Air Cav...we were taught to shoot to kill. Leave no enemy combatant alive to come back later and hurt you or your team//buddies.

With that in mind........ a.40 cal beats a 9mm every time, and has sufficient "plusses" to match the .45 in a "plus//minus" comparison. It's generally smaller, lighter to carry, faster (more fps), of similar size (up to 180 grains)and you get to carry more rounds, as compared to a .45. Where's the downside??

My 3 "registered guns":

1) HK USP-Compact .40 cal
2) SigPro 2340 .40 cal (w/ CrimsonTrace laser grips)
3) Sig P232 in .380 cal

I own a Sig .45, and shoot it fairly well, but it won't likely ever be listed on my CCW permit. My $0.02 worth...........

[El Gato]

I have a "friend" who shot two miscreants with a glock 19 and good hollowpoints. One miscreant was permanently rehabillitated and the other is in the california dept. of corrections and rehab for a long time... in a wheelchair and a ventilator last I heard.... He is in his 70's and he can handle the 9 where the bigger stuff is too much for his hands. Would a 4 something have done any better? I don't know and I wasn't there.

I love the debate though and can push both sides. For me, if it is a nine, it is corbon 115 grainers or nothing. My brother anchored a 350 lb boar hog with two shots in the ribs with his model 19 glock, both corbon rounds were found under the skin on the far side, fully expanded.

I think Clint Smith might have it right when he says all handgun choices are a compromise, but a handgun is a fine thing to have while fighting my way to a long gun.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by El Gato

I think Clint Smith might have it right when he says all handgun choices are a compromise, but a handgun is a fine thing to have while fighting my way to a long gun.

LOL! there you go!

I love the Comment that your handgun is a tool to fight your way to your shotgun/tactical rifle. That is my thought process...and I have a .45!

That beings said...if a .32 is all you have, it's better than nothing...

[repins]

Your math is correct. I was an FNG in my Ranger unit when Saigon fell. But we, as a unit, spent a heckuva lot more time on the range than did the average soldier. We were also, as a result, probably much better shots. But you didn't mention, or respond to, my remarks about the .40 cal. You spoke only of the venerable and "weak-assed" 9mm, and the .45.

I like my .45, but still think the .440 cal has some obvious advantages.

[repins]

Not the .440 cal, but the .40 cal............you probbly knew that though, dint ya?? Must be time for me to get some shut-eye. Still liking my .40 cals.......... Rangers Lead The Way!!

[hygyliac]

Originally Posted by repins

we were taught to shoot to kill. Leave no enemy combatant alive to come back later and hurt you or your team//buddies.

It's generally smaller, lighter to carry, faster (more fps), of similar size (up to 180 grains)and you get to carry more rounds, as compared to a .45.

My 3 "registered guns":

1) HK USP-Compact .40 cal
2) SigPro 2340 .40 cal (w/ CrimsonTrace laser grips)
3) Sig P232 in .380 cal

I own a Sig .45, and shoot it fairly well, but it won't likely ever be listed on my CCW permit. My $0.02 worth...........

In the Army did you carry an M-16 or an M-14? I'm pretty sure that you remember the stories of the smaller, faster, can carry more 5.56 when they were first handed out to our troops. And the "wound one enemy and you effectively remove three enemy soldiers from the battlefield" theory that some REMF thought was the way that the grunts should fight.

I would guess that the Sig is not on your CCW for the reason that you wrote. I also follow the "use the largest caliber that you shoot well" theory.
I agree with you, if I shot the .45 fairly well then I would stick to something that I shoot very well.