TexasCHLforum.com

TX Rancher wrote: In my mind, by its very nature, a pistol represents a trade off. As I stated in an earlier post, I rather have a rifle and relegate the pistol to backup. Some people draw the line at 38, some pick 9mil, others go 40, and a lot of folks opt for 45. But there are harder hitting pistol rounds then all of those, so why stop at 45? It just comes down to where the individual draws the line between size, recoil, and perceived situations.

I'd drink to that. I'd take a .357 Magnum over a .45 acp, but the reason I'd prefer to carry a .45 acp is because, to me, the .357 Magnum is too loud and produces too much muzzle flash as a concealed carry weapon.

txinvestigator wrote:
A .45 is not a magic man stopper.

No, but I'd say overall it's a more successful man stopper than the 9mm.

I really don't have anything against the 9mm. In fact, I'd love to own a Kel-Tec P11 and a pocket holster. That said, I'd like to carry the most powerful calibre that I can within my own comfort tolerances. If I can carry a gun that shoots something more powerful than a 9mm, then I will.

XDgal wrote:Personally, I don't worry about the difference, I carry ( and pratice with) both 9mm and 45acp! IMHO, as long as you can hit your target, a bleeding hole is a bleeding hole, doesn't really mater if its 1/16th ( 0.0625) of an inch (which is the difference between the two) bigger or smaller. It's what you will carry and shoot well with that really matters.

Yeah, but if I shoot an attacker, I want him to stop in his tracks, not just bleed.

TxFire wrote:I do not believe anyone is talking about a "spray and pray" stategy. They are just relating that they feel it is better to have more rather than less in terms of capacity during a confrontation.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm putting heads here on purpose. That's really not my intention. I understand your mentality on having more rounds for a confrontation perfectly, especially in an urban setting. But I just don't feel comfortable with the effectiveness of the 9mm to justify the extra number of rounds versus a .45.

I really like the .40 but I haven't found a platform for it yet that I like. I picked the .45 because I really like the design of the 1911.

kauboy wrote:

Geister wrote: I think your kinda missing the point. The higher capacity is an advantage because you have more chances to get a hit with 17rds of 9mm as opposed to 10rds of .45. In a bad situation(where your gun is needed), having more rounds than your possibly armed opponent is always a good thing.

I don't agree with the spray and pray mentality. If someone can't hit a threat with one or two shots, he doesn't need to be carrying a gun, much less a high capacity gun.

Its just that with higher mag capacities, your odds of a hit increase.

Your odds will increase with practice, not by having a larger magazine.

I reload so I can shoot .45 at the cost of shooting 9mm. I can see how others would appreciate the lower cost of 9mm box ammo, though.

The higher capacity of the 9mm doesn't do much for me since it's a weaker round than the .45.

That said, I can see how people with a smaller statue can appreciate the 9mm. I'm also sure that one can buy a 9mm pistol for cheaper. But I personally would rather have a .45.

But if I ever need a cheaper gun that's smaller to carry, I'd go for a 9mm.

I've never seen any benefit of using a 9mm when one can go for a .45. More ammo with the 9mm? Sure, but the .45 is more powerful anyway.

I believe the only strong argument for the 9mm is the fact that 9mm pistols can be built smaller.