![Jester :biggrinjester:](./images/smilies/biggrinjester.gif)
![Image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l5afg6RE5HE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Moderator: carlson1
.45 acp? Well at least you got the "45" part right. I carry 45-70 pistol! You say but it's only a single shot? It doesnt matter i just have to line up right and i can take out 4 or 5! Besides when i light one of these things off everyone just scatters!ml1209 wrote:I like the fact that it is lower pressure than 9mm, and also moves slower. With a hollow point, it should not be as likely to overpenetrate in dense urban areas. Don't get me wrong, I like the 9mm a lot, and is my choice for carry. But home defense goes to .45ACP.
If I had the spare change, I would get one.Pawpaw wrote:What, no love for the Arsenal Firearms AF-2011?
That's a bit of a misrepresentation.flechero wrote: I do particularly love the argument that 9mm has undergone these technological advancements that make it more adequate... but apparently no other caliber has benefited from the same modern projectile technology.
You're no fun!74novaman wrote:That's a bit of a misrepresentation.flechero wrote: I do particularly love the argument that 9mm has undergone these technological advancements that make it more adequate... but apparently no other caliber has benefited from the same modern projectile technology.
The argument isn't that only 9mm has improved with technology, but that given the advances in hollow point design, you're now seeing similar results from modern 9mm defensive ammo that you're seeing from modern .45 ammo in testing, whereas before that wasn't always the case.
So if both rounds are preforming similarly, it makes less sense to choose the one with higher recoil, lower capacity, and higher cost over something that has similar performance that you can carry more of and shoot more accurately/quicker in the same size gun.
But TAM had it really right: in the end a rifle>all handgun calibers, and we only carry pistols because they're easier to drag around all day.
I think it has been posted here before, but there were statistical studies of calibers used in actual shootings. I believe the findings were there was no statistical difference in performance of anything 9mm and up. Of course, a lot of details don't show up in statistics, but I would say that means shoot the gun you are comfortable with, practice with it, and hit your target if you have to use it.74novaman wrote:That's a bit of a misrepresentation.flechero wrote: I do particularly love the argument that 9mm has undergone these technological advancements that make it more adequate... but apparently no other caliber has benefited from the same modern projectile technology.
The argument isn't that only 9mm has improved with technology, but that given the advances in hollow point design, you're now seeing similar results from modern 9mm defensive ammo that you're seeing from modern .45 ammo in testing, whereas before that wasn't always the case.
So if both rounds are preforming similarly, it makes less sense to choose the one with higher recoil, lower capacity, and higher cost over something that has similar performance that you can carry more of and shoot more accurately/quicker in the same size gun.
But TAM had it really right: in the end a rifle>all handgun calibers, and we only carry pistols because they're easier to drag around all day.
I think it has been posted here before, but there were statistical studies of calibers used in actual shootings. I believe the findings were there was no statistical difference in performance of anything 9mm and up. Of course, a lot of details don't show up in statistics, but I would say that means shoot the gun you are comfortable with, practice with it, and hit your target if you have to use it.
Cover? Yes. Concealment? Not so much.oljames3 wrote:I don't carry my 155mm. It carries me AND provides ballistic cover.![]()