If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Yes. That being the case though, I don't buy the "modern bullet design" BS as justification or carrying a lesser caliber than can otherwise reasonably be carried.
The 10mm thing is interesting, I'd never looked into it much as it seems to not be very common. Whoever suggested a glock though, ewww
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]
Penetration, recovered diameter, permanent wound cavity. When you know what those terms are, suddenly, you notice that there isn't a huge difference between the "big 3." (there is a big difference in intermediate barrier penetration, but that's a whole subject by itself. ) 10mm does "interesting" things to some balgel
test rigs, but the numbers it puts up in terms of the above aren't that much different, although one can definitely argue it has way more energy than the big 3 do.
Carry whatever you want, by all means, but when I carried a .45, or even a 10mm, I refused to delude myself into believing it was that much better than a 9mm for the intended purpose. I carried the guns in those
calibers simply because I shot them well.
If you want a 10mm in a modern platform it is the only choice, really. Glock is the only company who hasn't abandoned the caliber. I think they even made 29SF and 20SF models in the recent past.
If you're one of those "wah wah wah gotta have steel or its not real" guys, then get a Dan Wesson 10mm.... beautiful guns... but you will pay for them. Availability is tough, too.
-Mike
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]. Leave all the guns that are extremely reliable, bulletproof, and proven for me then, I'll take them all.
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]. Leave all the guns that are extremely reliable, bulletproof, and proven for me then, I'll take them all.
Bullet Resistant?Bulletproof?
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too.
So I'm still not sold. Either way, I'm not saying I believe the difference is huge but it does exist. I just don't see saving a couple cents a round as reason enough to go with the best option available. If you are going through the cost effort to carry anyway, why start compromising then?
Ugh, I don't think I can do a Glock.. they're just so awful to shoot.
I don't hate them for what they are, I can't deny their value per dollar especially given their dual utility as a hand grenade. I just personally hate shooting them for a number of reasons.
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too. So I'm still not sold. Either way, I'm not saying I believe the difference is huge but it does exist. I just don't see saving a couple cents a round as reason enough to go with the best option available. If you are going through the cost effort to carry anyway, why start compromising then?
Well, another thread has just put the debate to rest, and the consensus is that the best defensive load is in fact birdshot.
I noticed, but decided not to say anything. I must be mellowing.
The caliber that most people don't shoot well is actually the .40.
The .40 is an idiotic gun for a new shooter. Even in full sized plastic framed guns, the sharp recoil is intimidating to them. I've been instructing since 04 and at one point used a G22 for my class. I don't use it anymore. Don't get me wrong. .40 reloads can be made to make major with less recoil than a .38 super or 9mm, but the factory stuff is very sharp and flippy.
I also think it has a lot to do with gun makers pushing mini sized guns in .40.
This video is me shooting my new gun, a Kahr P9 for the first time. I'm running very slow because in a previous run I was short stroking the trigger. So this time I was very deliberate. Again, I'm no Jerry Miculek.
But notice in the beginning how flat the gun stays.
[video=youtube_share;oVn9UmWxzmE]http://youtu.be/oVn9UmWxzmE[/video]
That same gun, in .40 is much more difficult to control. Notice how he has to regrip between shots.
[video=youtube_share;OoHHaurJij8]http://youtu.be/OoHHaurJij8[/video]
....the guy shooting the 40 has crappy technique so it's not surprising he has to constantly re-grip.
The .40 is an idiotic gun for a new shooter. Even in full sized plastic framed guns, the sharp recoil is intimidating to them. I've been instructing since 04 and at one point used a G22 for my class. I don't use it anymore. Don't get me wrong. .40 reloads can be made to make major with less recoil than a .38 super or 9mm, but the factory stuff is very sharp and flippy.
That same gun, in .40 is much more difficult to control. Notice how he has to regrip between shots.
[video=youtube_share;OoHHaurJij8]http://youtu.be/OoHHaurJij8[/video]
While I agree with you in principle regarding the "snappy" nature of many guns in 40, these videos are not helping your case. You clearly have a good, solid grip & stance; the guy shooting the 40 has crappy technique so it's not surprising he has to constantly re-grip.
find me something more powerful that's CCW'able, smartass.
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too. So I'm still not sold.
Duhh 9mm is for pansiesnice
There is no such thing as a "perfect cartridge".
The 9mm Luger has been around for 100 years, and has been used in a hell of a lot of handguns, carbines, and SMGs.
If it's available, it's useful. This makes it popular. what is your specific beef with the 9?
Guns Magazine said:That Un-Earthly din you hear, sounding like a thousand radios turned to full volume, is the yakety-yak from
shooters arguing over the most controversial pistol cartridge since the invention of gunpowder- The 9mm Parabellum
caliber.
Our Army wanted it once, and equally true, they didn't want it. They tested it, rejected it, then
ran the tests all over again. While we played with it in good clean fun for half a century, most other
nations snatched it for their military use. At least 80 different weapons and 24 different types
of ammunition were made in this world's most popular caliber. In the 9n1n1 caliber can be found
low-pressure loadings hardly stronger than a belch, on up to high speeds and energies which crowd
the laurels of the .357 Magnum, hottest of the hotshots.
Meanwhile, we toddle along with a pistol in an essentially outmoded caliber, the .45. There is no question that the
.45 Colt Automatic is a fine pistol, but many ballistic and design factors enter into the requirements for a modern
handgun. Our affection for the old .45 has retarded American pistol development for half a century.
The 9 mm would have replaced our .45 ACP long ago for both pistols and sub-machine guns, except for one
little detail. You don't have to be a mental giant to figure out why. It's money, the green stuff people work for and
sometimes lie for and die for. And so it seems rather disturbing that in a popular vote by
NATO powers, the 9mm would win by about 14 to 1. Such popularitv must be deserved. The 9 mm is more A .
efficient, with longer accurate range, lighter weight and greater penetration. Less noise and recoil gives better
shootability, and it's tops for machine weapons. Ammunition is available around the world. The nistol is lig"h ter
weigh t and easier to carry, by. the always overburdened soldier. The average service man finds it far easier to
shoot than our big .45 ACP.