I was having a real long convseration with a person today at gun store. Also, I have been researching and pondering the subject of 9mm vs 45. This guy is ex-military person and he was telling me stories about how his friends in Iraq have been having lot of problems since they switched from .45 to 9mm Beretta as their sidearm. He is saying, even though the 9mm will usually have the means to kill the enemy in combat, many have report it has not had enough stopping power to disable the attacker in a quick enough time to immobilze them or subdue the threat without risk of retaliatory attack.
I guess I have just had the feeling from many such discussions and from reading endless articles, debates, chats about 9mm vs .40 vs .45, that 9mm and even .40 really was a concept about increasing capacity by sacrificing quality. I know that I have the advantage of carrying 15 rounds in my Sig versus 10 rounds, and bullets cost .03 or so cheaper. However, the extra bullets will most likely be required, since the amount of energy transferred from the 9mm or .40 will be considerably less than from a .45.
Well, I know many 9mm and .40 owners will be criticizing me, perhaps calling me real ignorant or a traitor, but I am thinking I would be happy to get rid of my 9mm stuff and just go all out with .45. I find it kind of a pain to maintain two different caliber ammo stores and relying on a gun that would be less adequate for home defense, as well as
I am contemplating on selling my Sig P229 Elite as well as all my 9mm ammo and either getting a 1911 or an HK45 with it. I have a good store of 45 ammo, so I could perhaps score a bit extra and would have all I need.
I am thinking in time critical, high risk situations, where a BG needs to be disabled as quick as possible. These would be the more realistic scenarios I think I would ever have to use my handgun in an urban situation. I just think if I am having to use more than 10 rounds to subdue a threat with my 9mm , I am in deep crap anyway. The chances of me having to clear a room of guys with my 9mm are real slim. If I don't have enough time to reload my mags, I shouldn't be in the situation anyway.
Would a .44 perhaps be an even better option for such defense? I hear .44 suffers from overpentration, so I already feel the answer is no. Not sure if any lowered powered hollowpoints exist for urban defense. Also, not sure of the legality of using .44 for urban defense; i.e. how it would stand up in court of law when the BG family is suing me, etc.
What are people's thoughts about this? Please avoid any insults because I want to ditch the 9mm. I would appreciate to hear some constructive and intelligent comments about their opinions of the 9mm and its use as a defensive handgun. If you had to quickly take out an attacker who had a gun within 20 yards and three guns were sitting at a table, lets say you could only choose one; would you choose the 9mm, .45 or .44 to disable this guy before he hurts you? Lets pretend their are people around you, like little kids , and overpenetration will also be an issue.
TO disable a threat in home defense situation or in urban scenario, which order would you choose between the three calibers:
9mm, .44 and .45
P.S. Already have a S&W M&P 45, which I enjoy shooting.
I guess I have just had the feeling from many such discussions and from reading endless articles, debates, chats about 9mm vs .40 vs .45, that 9mm and even .40 really was a concept about increasing capacity by sacrificing quality. I know that I have the advantage of carrying 15 rounds in my Sig versus 10 rounds, and bullets cost .03 or so cheaper. However, the extra bullets will most likely be required, since the amount of energy transferred from the 9mm or .40 will be considerably less than from a .45.
Well, I know many 9mm and .40 owners will be criticizing me, perhaps calling me real ignorant or a traitor, but I am thinking I would be happy to get rid of my 9mm stuff and just go all out with .45. I find it kind of a pain to maintain two different caliber ammo stores and relying on a gun that would be less adequate for home defense, as well as
I am contemplating on selling my Sig P229 Elite as well as all my 9mm ammo and either getting a 1911 or an HK45 with it. I have a good store of 45 ammo, so I could perhaps score a bit extra and would have all I need.
I am thinking in time critical, high risk situations, where a BG needs to be disabled as quick as possible. These would be the more realistic scenarios I think I would ever have to use my handgun in an urban situation. I just think if I am having to use more than 10 rounds to subdue a threat with my 9mm , I am in deep crap anyway. The chances of me having to clear a room of guys with my 9mm are real slim. If I don't have enough time to reload my mags, I shouldn't be in the situation anyway.
Would a .44 perhaps be an even better option for such defense? I hear .44 suffers from overpentration, so I already feel the answer is no. Not sure if any lowered powered hollowpoints exist for urban defense. Also, not sure of the legality of using .44 for urban defense; i.e. how it would stand up in court of law when the BG family is suing me, etc.
What are people's thoughts about this? Please avoid any insults because I want to ditch the 9mm. I would appreciate to hear some constructive and intelligent comments about their opinions of the 9mm and its use as a defensive handgun. If you had to quickly take out an attacker who had a gun within 20 yards and three guns were sitting at a table, lets say you could only choose one; would you choose the 9mm, .45 or .44 to disable this guy before he hurts you? Lets pretend their are people around you, like little kids , and overpenetration will also be an issue.
TO disable a threat in home defense situation or in urban scenario, which order would you choose between the three calibers:
9mm, .44 and .45
P.S. Already have a S&W M&P 45, which I enjoy shooting.