Which would you rather carry?

Time was when I was a die hard advocate of the .45ACP, and fully subscribed to the notion of "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46." But the more I have researched the matter, and the more I have learned about wound ballistics, the more I have come to favor the 9mm. With the best modern defensive ammo, there is essentially no discernible between the popular service pistol calibers. Whatever differences in performance there are, are so negligible that they can't be separated from the variables that accompany each real-world shooting. This being the case, it makes sense to carry the pistol that gives you more ammo and lower recoil, faster shot-to-shot recovery time and increased ability to fire quickly while shooting accurately. And the truth is, I'm no longer convinced there's all that much difference in performance, even with ball ammo, never mind the best modern hollow points.

My favorite carry gun used to be a full-size 1911. Nowadays, I carry a Glock 19, or a Walther PPS when I need a more compact pistol.

Billy Shears said:

Time was when I was a die hard advocate of the .45ACP, and fully subscribed to the notion of "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46." But the more I have researched the matter, and the more I have learned about wound ballistics, the more I have come to favor the 9mm. With the best modern defensive ammo, there is essentially no discernible between the popular service pistol calibers. Whatever differences in performance there are, are so negligible that they can't be separated from the variables that accompany each real-world shooting. This being the case, it makes sense to carry the pistol that gives you more ammo and lower recoil, faster shot-to-shot recovery time and increased ability to fire quickly while shooting accurately. And the truth is, I'm no longer convinced there's all that much difference in performance, even with ball ammo, never mind the best modern hollow points.

My favorite carry gun used to be a full-size 1911. Nowadays, I carry a Glock 19, or a Walther PPS when I need a more compact pistol.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

The same comparisons of effectiveness made between modern 9's and 45's is made with 380's and 9's.

I am particularly inclined to use ball ammo just from a legal standpoint.

Warp said:

I never brought up anything from decades ago, or anything about changing trends over periods of decades. Please stop the straw man.

Click to expand...

It's not a strawman.... it's you making unsubstantiated claims, that you don't even think is a good comparison, in order to fluff your argument and when you get called on it you, per usual, start moving the goal post and adding all kinds of qualifiers afterwards.

You said this

I'll look as in depth as you could possibly want regarding the current hit rates of LEO's...as they stand now...compared to the current hit rates of private citizens/carriers. That's the topic, that's what I brought up.

Click to expand...

But you also claimed (paraphrasing) that LEOs would/could have a lower hit % as compared to regular citizens due to things like the difference od scenarios each would have.

I happen to agree with that statement but that's besides the point.

Why would you even bring it up when you dont even think it's a good comparison?

It ultimately undermines any point you may have had.


The OP question was

6+1 of .45 ACP or 7+1 of 9mm?

Basically, would you rather CC a single stack 9mm or .45 ACP that's not a 1911

Click to expand...

Your 1st post in this thread was quite dismissive of the question. You said:

Neither. No reason to go smaller than a 10+1 G26 (or 9+1 G27 or whatever)

Click to expand...

Then you go on to bring up 15 or 18 shot pistols and 6 shot revolvers and hit ratios of LEOs and citizens and hypothetical's of how many rounds will it take.


I guess when you want to cherry pick, you want a big crop to pick from even it means planting avocados yourself.

I carry a Kahr CM9 primarily during warmer weather. I would NOT have much interest in a .45acp of similar size and weight.

With all the bravado put aside, there is very little difference in terminal performance between a .45acp and 9mm using modern JHPs. However, there's a significant difference in perceived recoil.

Give me a small 7+1 9mm to carry anyday. I'll leave the .45acp for the bigger pistols.

danez71 said:

Why would you even bring it up when you dont even think it's a good comparison?

Click to expand...

...because no matter what stat you look at, for what group, when, or where, nobody is getting 100%, and it is unreasonable to expect 100% accuracy when defending your life.

Additionally, recognizing this when evaluating pistol capacity does not mean one is [training to miss] or [planning to miss a bunch]

Do you disagree?

Bringing up tangently related convolutions, that you even say aren't a good comparison, in effort to bolster your opinion that there is no reason to go smaller than a g26/27, isnt a very effective way to get your point across.

Neither is misquoting people or cherry picking as its been noted by others.

Do you disagree?

danez71 said:

Bringing up tangently related convolutions, that you even say aren't a good comparison, in effort to bolster your opinion that there is no reason to go smaller than a g26/27, isnt a very effective way to get your point across.

Neither is misquoting people or cherry picking as its been noted by others.

Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what you are referring to any more, it's been too many posts and too many days...that's probably a sign that we should let the thread be now, or at the least, use actual quotes as reference.

And no, I have no reason to go smaller than a sub compact Glock. The title of the thread asks what I would rather carry, and that is my answer, I would rather carry a G26.

Didn't know the G26/27 was an option for the original question.

I own a pair of G26's and a G27, and they've received a fair amount of use and range time. I'm coming up on 17K rounds fired through my first G26, maybe 5K through my second G26, and the G27 is also pushing 17K. Nice smallish pistols (albeit thick and a bit chunky).

Their 9 & 10-rd mag capacities have that extra little "cushion" of 2-4 rounds (compared to my 6, 7 & 8-rd smallish guns), and their plebeian triggers, thick & chunky grip profiles and low slide serrations (which can risk slide bite if grasped high, at times) aren't really deal breakers.

I've always felt the G26 was Glock's best foot forward for a daily 9mm on the small end of the range. Granted, I like my S&W 3rd gen's and SW999c (think P99 9c AS) a bit better for many of their respective features, handling and ammunition tolerances (including ejection consistency), but the G26 is my favorite of the entire Glock line, followed by the G27.

Going back to the OP's original question, though, even owning the G26's & G27 ... I'm still equally likely to grab the 6+1 CS45 or 7+1 CS9 out of my safe ... unless I'm grabbing my 9+1 4013TSW (.40), nowadays. It's a little thicker "compact" than the subcompact Glocks, yet still with a 3.5" barrel, but it's a pretty comfortable .40 for me to run at speed.

All of those choices have a slight capacity "advantage" over my 5-shot snubs.

7+1 9mm. It's exactly what I carry most of the time. Nothing wrong with .45 but in a carry platform 9mm does it for me.

Creature said:

I thought that way too...until I participated in multiple-threat training scenarios. They were very enlightening.

Click to expand...

I agree, in a multiple attacker scenario more is better. I also don't think there is anything wrong with being prepared for multiple attackers.

I do have great difficulty envisioning a real life scenario of multiple, determined to fight to the death, attackers coming after me. They will in the event of war, extreme civil unrest and/or starvation (get food or water or die anyway), but I won't be carrying concealed in any of those events unless completely caught by surprise. I carry concealed out of concern for everyday criminals. They commit crimes of the hit and run variety unless cornered by law enforcement. If the news reports are true, even when rival gangs confront each other they don't typically fight to the last man standing.

All anecdotal, just like my friends that work in hospital emergency rooms telling me that the .45ACP does much more internal damage in their opinion than 9mm or .38 Special. They are just reporting what they've seen without respect to specific bullet profiles that were involved, so it may be meaningless input, but they are people I trust enough to be confident.

I did neglect to consider terrorism, which is indeed a realistic multiple attacker scenario. Fortunately still rare in the U.S. and not always multiple, but one that would indeed be a surprise attack where the attackers will persist without running in the face of return fire.

In subcompact single stack I would take .45ACP advantage being JHPs aren't needed. We have HDs soon to be joined by .45 S&W Shield.

Originally posted by 420Stainless:

I did neglect to consider terrorism, which is indeed a realistic multiple attacker scenario. Fortunately still rare in the U.S. and not always multiple, but one that would indeed be a surprise attack where the attackers will persist without running in the face of return fire.

Click to expand...

That's why I carry live ammunition -- so if I run into an active shooter "who will persist without running in the face of return fire" I'll have a chance to kill him.

If 1 round is the difference then give me a 45 acp every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why? Because 45 makes bigger holes. I don't care what people say about modern technology in bullets. The same bullet design in 9 and 45 and the 45 makes bigger holes. Any single stack is a compromise, 45 single stacks are a little less of a compromise but still are non the less. If you can carry a midsize gun then I'd go that route as I think small single stacks are optimal for backup guns and not primary.

How many here have actually participated in a force on force scenario facing more than one attacker? Of those who respond in the affirmative, who are still willing to accept the compromise of reduced capacity in order to satisfy their desire to punch a slightly "bigger hole"?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I would choose the 45acp

.45ACP because your 9 might not expand but my .45 will never shrink.
Also after 45 years of pistol shooting I have never found a 9 that could match the accuracy of a .45.
Big & slow is the way to go ask anyone who has lived in bear country.
My personnel defense weapon is a Sig P220. I chose it over a 1911 because of the DA/SA feature which I feel is safer in a high stress situation.

Big & slow is the way to go ask anyone who has lived in bear country.

Click to expand...

Makes me remember I still have some Garrett Hammerhead 310 grain superhardcast .44 mags from when I lived up in bear country. Probably should shoot them up.

I like heavy-for caliber rounds myself, so its 147 grains in 9mm and 230 grains in .45 ACP.

brutus51 said:

Also after 45 years of pistol shooting I have never found a 9 that could match the accuracy of a .45.
Big & slow is the way to go ask anyone who has lived in bear country.
My personnel defense weapon is a Sig P220. I chose it over a 1911 because of the DA/SA feature which I feel is safer in a high stress situation.

Click to expand...

Targets with round/distance info to share?

brutus51 said:

Also after 45 years of pistol shooting I have never found a 9 that could match the accuracy of a .45.

Click to expand...

Oh geez...really?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I'm sure glad that so many have switched to the 9mm... as it means there's more .45 on the shelf for me...