From my head only....but based upon everything that I have experienced and read (or heard) about in my 41 years.
It's not exactly unheard of among police/military/civilian shooter circles that the .45 and the .40 have a better reputation for quickly stopping an aggressor than the 9mm does.
??? Reputation? Well I didn't start shooting until 1956, so I don't doubt your 41 years of combat experience vastly out weight mine. I didn't start shooting pistols, specifically the 1911, until 1966 in Parris Island, up until then my only handgun shooting had been with revolvers mostly in 38spl and 22LR. did a little post graduate work in Southeast Asia for a couple of years with the 3rdMarDiv, where I learned a little about gun fighting. Mostly with rifles, crew served, weapons and a lot of stuff that went boom. (most of my/our handgun work was when we would get over run. I don't recommend it) Stayed in the Corps for a few years, was a DI at San Diego, which included helping to teach some folks how to shoot, mostly rifles, just a little pistol work. When I got out of the Corps I continued to shoot competitively. Mostly bullseye/2700 events. I did shoot some PPC and such while working for the Sheriff in my home county in Florida, and later with Florida DOC. Since the advancement of my arthritis I stopped shooting bullseye/2700 and I have been shooting USPSA, IDPA, Steel Challenge (NOW owned by USPSA too). Still take an occasional class, and shoot an occasional 'big' match when my health allows.
Last interesting gun 'event' I was involved in was an endurance shoot in Texas, with a bunch of guys from this board, back in April. learned even more about what weapons and calibers tend to be more reliable. Hope my health allows me to shoot a few more of these 1000 round events.
True....but some are definitely more effective than others.
Not according to the leading terminal ballistics’ researcher in the United States. This guy is the one supplying the data for almost everyone in the United States. FBI, ARMY, Federal agencies, and most police agencies.
No doubt your data is superior.
Usually true, but not for the reasons stated.
Usually it has to do more with concealability rather than which make and model shoots which caliber better.
HUH? Just where did YOU get that? It is about getting the platform/gun in the caliber it was originally designed for. As most things in life, things tend to work better when they are used in the manner they were originally designed. That is what he is saying.
Once again, where is your data from?
This is nonsense.
An XD9, HK9, or a M&P9 will run 9mm just as well as a Glock or a Sig.
What makes anything Doctor Roberts stated say the XD9, HK9, will not run the 9mm as well as a Glock or SIG?
What Doc Roberts did say, is that the Glock, and the SIG’s tend to run better in 9mm, because that is the caliber they were designed for or in. He is using them as examples, not exclusive to any other gun here. Take a chill pill. Read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote.
More nonsense.
It's definitely a matter of personal preference, but M&P40 is no more "ergonomic" or "shooter friendly" than say a CZ 75B .40S&W, or a Sig in .40S&W.
What does ergonomic or shooter friendly have to do with Doc Roberts statement??? What he said is the M&P40 is one of the first models originally designed around the 40S&W. Where is this other stuff coming from. This is about reliability, not ergo’s or some imagined ‘shoot ability’.
Both the SIG and the CZ would be inherently more reliable in 9mm than 40 in most cases. Just like the Glocks, CZ 75, High Power etc. because they were originally designed for the 9mm.
Do you understand that the 9mm is inherently more reliable than most other 'fighting' handgun calibers? Because it was designed with and is manufactured with a tapered case. 45, and 40 are not, they are straight cased.
This is a huge steaming pile of nonsense.
This is just more of the same old 1911 cheerleading that the gun magazines crank out time and time again.
"Facts" indeed.
What part is the pile of nonsense? Besides the fact you don’t like the 1911, no problem, a lot of folks don’t care for it. Just as Doc states, if you can’t or will not commit to the 1911, it probably isn’t the weapon for you. Apparently you will or can not. Today there are a lot of good platforms/guns to choose from.
And as to facts, I understand well, that many folks are unprejudiced by facts, indeed.
And good shot placement with a .40 or a .45 is much better than good shot placement with a 9mm.
Sheesh, indeed! Once more opinion and feelings out weight science and facts. We accept the 'fact' you don't like the 9mm. Okay, but stick to the facts, you don't have to invent reasons.
I will take either the 45acp, which I carry most of the time these days in a 1911, or 9mm in either a HighPower, or on rare occasion, my old carry SIG 228, or a Glock. Any one will do what I need to get done, in a REAL GUNFIGHT. Would I feel the 40 is inferior for fighting, NO! I just don't feel a need to use a 'tweener', obviously many folks and agencies do like them.
Go figure.
Fred
