TexasCHLforum.com

seniorshooteress wrote: Also I don't understand the "having to have a high caliber like 9mm etc for self defense". A .22 or .32 if you can shoot them accurately and hit what you aim for can do more damage than the 9mm or higher caliber that you can't hit the side of a barn with. Carry what you can comfortably shoot and are accurate with and that is self defense. This is just my opinion mind you. (most don't agree on this.)

I certainly do not dispute the spirit of this line of thought. That being said, when I was heavily researching which gun to buy, and during the phase of researching and selecting which calibers/chamberings I wanted, I did come across tales of incidents where a "sub-caliber" (.380 and lower) may not penetrate a leather jacket, or a heavy denim coat. I do not have any first-hand experience with this phenomenon, and I don't believe everything I read, but this sort of concern cropped up over and over when considering a handgun sporting less than 9mm Luger in power. There must be something to it.

I feel that since I can get a handgun in a comfortable size that also has enough capacity to make me confident and chambers rounds that I have no reason to doubt, then that's what I want to have if I ever need it, and nothing less.

Certainly, a .22 through the bad guy's eye would stop the threat, but I do not want to limit myself like that (having to make such a precise shot). I can practice with a higher caliber/chambering so that I can make my shots hit where I aim them, so that I have the best of both worlds.

A service caliber that you can shoot well is always better than a sub-caliber that you can shoot well.

I am not arguing with you, don't get that idea! I'm simply stating that the typical line of reasoning is that a .22 trumps a .45, provided that a shooter cannot hit what is being aimed at with the .45, but can achieve the shot with the .22. No disagreement there, but what about the shooter who can make the shot with either? I would say that a higher caliber, properly placed, will be much more effective, and will not suffer the potential to be rendered harmless by the bad guy's clothing.

{Edit: I mean ".380", not "3.80", and have corrected the above error}

Mastodon wrote:Having 8(?) 40S&W cartridges by your side will be plenty comfy.

The Glock 23 comes with two 13-round magazines, so that'd be 13+1 at minimum!

Mike from Texas wrote:... I am an admitted non fan of the 40 S&W caliber.

I am interested in why people say that. I've seen that sentiment expressed on may forums all over the Internet.

Before the threat of turning this into a 9mm versus .40 S&W versus .45 ACP debate, I like all three calibers, as I noted in my original post. I would have been happy with any of the three. For me PERSONALLY, I wanted a bit more "punch" than the standard 9mm (even though I am fully aware that a modern JHP 9mm cartridge will deliver effectively), but more capacity at the same weight as a .45 ACP. The .40 S&W is a "compromise cartridge", but that's precisely what I was looking for. That is what led me to choose the .40 S&W. The recoil does not bother me. I have most of my handgun experience with the FEG PA-63, a Dan Wesson .44 Magnum, and my father's off-duty gun which is a J-frame S&W Airweight with .38+P. Needless to say, I am more used to recoil than not. I think the Glock 23's recoil will feel like a gentle tap to me, given what I am used to!

I'd still be interested in all opinions on why others are not a fan of the .40 S&W cartridge.

Well, I'll have to wait a bit longer.

My NICS check came back with a "Delay". Hopefully by Friday I can pick it up...

I bought a rifle last month and there was no delay. 10 minutes from entering store to leaving with rifle. This time, the "Delay" buzzkill.

I don't hate the FEGs, but I'd like more than 7+1 and I'd strongly prefer at least a full 9mm Luger over the 9x18 Mak.

One of them will definitely stay in my collection because it belonged to my father (passed away 5 years ago tomorrow).

The other one will probably get traded in when I find a "pocket gun" that I like a lot. The KelTec P-11 is close, but that trigger needs work. I can afford nice guns, but not two in the same month!

I own two FEG PA-63 handguns (Hungarian manufacture, 9x18mm Makarov chambered) but I don't trust them to defend my life with, so I did exhaustive research into what I should get for carry.

I started with the cliched "what is the best handgun" search on Google. While there is obviously no one-size-fits-all answer to that question, the hits it pulls up, if you are willing to read through hundreds of pages, are enlightening. I learned about guns that I did not know existed, if nothing else, by doing that type of research.

The second step was to pare down the dizzying list of options to a few choices that seemed to be what I am looking for. Well, actually, I suppose the second step is decide what I'm looking for in a handgun for concealed carry purposes. I want it to be small enough, but not too small to fit my hand, lightweight enough not to noticeably droop my pants when I'm carrying it, have adequate firepower (this is the most controversial decision, and many arguments arise from it), and adequate capacity of ammunition (depending on if you carry reloads or not).

I wanted something in a "service caliber" ( a new term I learned in my Google searches during Step 1), so 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP were all a good choice for me. My personal tastes dictated that it be any of these three, but not lower.

Luckily for me, about 10 days after I first started looking into the topic of which gun I should get for everyday concealed carry, a gun show came to a nearby town. Guns shows aren't always the best place to get a good price, but my intention was to use it sort of like a "gun catalog come to life". I can walk around, look at many different types of firearms that may fit my needs, handle them so see if they fit well and balance well in my hand, inspect their quality, and get a sense of what price these guns sell for.

After my Internet research, my debates with myself about what I would or would not feel comfortable with if the situation ever arose that I needed to defend my life with a handgun, and my time spend handling the firearms that were on my short list (with the goal of making my short list into one singe choice), I mulled it over for another two days, then made my choice.

I went to my local gun store (I researched the gun stores in my area to get a sense of which one would likely be the best in terms of location, price, service, and knowledge) and placed my order. $541 later, including taxes, shipping, and such, my Glock 23 in .40 S&W will be here tomorrow.

My short list, in case you are interested, consisted of the Glock 23, the Glock 19 (9mm), the Smith and Wesson M&P 40c, and a Kel-Tec P-11 (9mm subcompact). I really liked the M&P, but found it to be heavier that the Glocks. I still like the KelTec P-11, and I may even buy it for a backup gun for those occasions that in-the-waistband carry would be impossible (I'd carry the KelTec in my front pocket, in a pocket holster). I may pocket carry one of my PA-63s on those occasions until I get a KelTec. If Ruger made an LCP in 9mm, I'd get that instead of the KelTec. I can't see myself paying for a Kahr, even though I know they are quality firearms.

The Glock 23 will be my main carry, once my permit arrives. I've got some practicing to do!