Power vs capacity?

[t4terrific]

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and while I do NOT want to turn this into a "caliber war" debate, I also want to ask a question of the group, so bear with me - 
Given all things equal (meaning your ability to shoot either of the two between two different calibers just as accurately as the other under stress) which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? (stating that also understanding that ALL handgun caliber are poor stoppers compared to larger caliber weapons like rifles and what not, and that there are truly NO "one shot stoppers").
 
Now I also fully understand that the given and popular theory is "whichever one you shoot best" but let's take that out of the equation for the sake of this discussion - let's say you pick two different size caliber weapons with the weapons being the same relative size themselves (full size vs full size, medium size vs medium size, etc.) and can shoot one with the ability to place rounds on target in the same place with either one repeatedly, then what? Do you/would you rather have the more powerful or the two (again given the weapons themselves are the same relative size to each other), or rather have more rounds available (I'm speaking speaking from the size of the rounds themselves, NOT the size of the gun with compact vs full size in the same size caliber gun).
I also realize there are those too that will say "go with a happy medium - something that is a go between round between the two different size rounds that also holds a middle of the road capacity for an all around happy medium between the two?" I am NOT talking about that either, and would prefer to leave that out of the discussion (if possible?).
 
I know this is going to be hard to NOT turn it into a "caliber war" discussion, but I am approaching this from two fronts - 1. The popular opinion that with "current bullet technology" that there are those that claim that "all things can now be almost equal between different given calibers", and 2. Given the two options with all things being equal and your ability with either round, what would you prefer or do you feel is better? More power or more rounds? I can't say as I personally buy into the "all bullets are equal now with the way they are made" theory, part of why I am asking all of this?
Again, I realize I may be trying to have an impossible discussion also, and there very well may be no real answer there, but I've also been thinking about it long enough, again with trying to remove caliber from the discussion to see which is better/most people prefer? I also thought and hoped it might be a good constructive discussion for the group too.
 
Thanks -
Eric
 

That’s a lot of qualifications and required assumptions which may be unproven.

That said, I’d pick 9mm over .45 Auto, because I prefer the 5 extra rounds from a similarly sized pistol.

I carry a Glock 23 everyday because I prefer the blend of power and capacity, and I shoot it real well.

[Eric2340]

 

1 hour ago, Borg warner said:

And the advantage to ammo capacity is not that you can inject more bullets into the threat but that it gives you more chances to hit a vital area.

 

30 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

I want the most power and capacity that I can comfortably carry in the smallest package possible.

I agree with both of these ideas and the idea of more bullets gives you more chances and options definitely appeals to me also. That said I even MORE agree to the idea of the most powerful of THOSE bullets I can have is the way I'd want it too. Again, I'm sounding like a .40 guy, I want my cake and to eat it too I guess.................

(PS - NOTHING wrong with the .40, I carried one for YEARS and had to give it up when it's kick in smaller guns started effecting my arthritis in my hands  )

 

Time for me come clean I guess in some of this - I've spent about the past 6 months or so keeping a 10mm G20 in my car (I am NOT allowed to carry at work  ) and carrying for the most part my G26 which I have for years as my CCW. Carrying more ammo for the G26 in extra mags is easy enough, but the reason for the G20 in the car was I decided I wanted something with a LOT more punch when it came to possibly shooting around or near the outside of the car (notice I did NOT say "from INSIDE the car". Being able to easily penetrate auto sheet metal and glass became enough of a concern for me (along with having a full size gun available if I was seated and could not get to my CCW as it was already anyway) got me to picking the big 10mm. My thoughts then started flying around, "well what if all you had was one or the other, which would you rather it be? Three mags or so of 10mm that is big and powerful, or just living with the 9mm as a carry gun and keeping a spare 15 round mag on me, and three or four spare ones in the car where they could be easily gotten to also? Again, as Fastbolt always tells me, I'm overthinking this TOO much while I'm driving to and from work with nothing else to do in traffic................................

I then found myself as I was tooling around carrying with my G26 for CCW and one spare 15 round mag that, damn I really missed having that big G20 with me as it is my "car gun" and wondered/hoped that those little 9mm HPs really were the end all to be all that everyone claimed they were now with these newer designed bullets I had in it now too?  I tried for a while to go back to just carrying a G30 and being happy with it, but it's too uncomfortable to carry as the G26 is, and then I ran into the capacity issue even harder.  Ten rounds and the gun and thirteen in ONE spare mag if I only carried one fifteen round hi-cap on me? Probably more than enough, but I still liked that idea of all those little powerful rounds everyone and the FBI was now claiming were the end all to beat all now, plus having LOTS of them in a couple of spare mags too!!!

After I found I shot the little G26 just too well compared to it's larger G30 brother and not to mention the capacity thing again, I decided being able to get good, REPEDATIVE hits in the same place with the G26 was more import to me for carry. The G30 in the car alone and also for carry just made no sense compared to what I had been doing between the little G26 and not to mention the power available of that big G20, not to mention it also already held fifteen rounds in one mag as it was - what was not to love about that in my dilemma?!

 

I'm now faced with the other issue of, sure having all that great 10mm on tap is a good thing, but is it as easy to shoot as I'd like it to me? Sure it's accurate, but the recover time to the next shot can be a bitch if you're not really ready for it. My next plan now is to shoot my G20 vs my G21 and go from there? Whichever one I can shoot better, the faster, and in the same place is going to be the winner for becoming the permanent car gun for now! Not to mention if I can find a comfortable way to carry that chunky G30, they can both share the same mags too, and MOST of the problem is solved then!

Thanks for listening to my ramble...........................

 

[Eric2340]

24 minutes ago, t4terrific said:

That said, I’d pick 9mm over .45 Auto, because I prefer the 5 extra rounds from a similarly sized pistol.

I carry a Glock 23 everyday because I prefer the blend of power and capacity, and I shoot it real well.

 

I did too for years myself also until I could not any longer (onset of arthritis in my hands). I first switched over to a G30 but did NOT like the idea of giving up three rounds, and then switched to a G19 as I then gained FIVE rounds from it (the G30). I decided I just liked having 15+1 rounds of ammo in the gun without a mag change that I could put in one place very well, very quickly was all.

 

That said, I sure loved and do miss my two good old G23s.

[Will Beararms]

4 hours ago, Boogieman said:

You do know that it's 2018?  Things have changed a lot since then.

I have spoken. Dilly Dilly!

 

 

 

 

i

[fortyofforty]

You fire flares into dry brush, then claim you didn't want to start a forest fire.  You say you didn't want to start a "caliber war" but started a caliber war.  This is the fundamental issue, but has yet to be settled.  It probably never will.  That said, I love a good, old fashioned caliber war.  Part of the fun is that they are never settled.  Play on!

We used the .45 ACP in WWII.  The Germans used the 9mm Luger.  We won.  Germany lost.  But the Russians used a 7.62.  What does that tell us?

[Boogieman]

1 hour ago, Will Beararms said:

I have spoken. Dilly Dilly!

I have farted.  What's your point? ???

[crockett]

Let me end this thread real quick.

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by crockett

[Boogieman]

[crockett]

27 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

 

 

I have to consider a .45 ACP! And this needs to be enlarged... lol at .40 Short&Weak!

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by crockett

[Cougar_ml]

I switch back and forth between my G20 with 15+1, with 2 15 round mags extra, or my Canik TP9-SFx with 18+1 and 2 20 round magazines.  Mostly having to do with where I'm at.  If I worry about things I carry both, I have a chest holster for the 20 that conceals under a vest (mostly because I have a big enough belly to hide it)

 

If I had to pick just one, I'd stay with the 10mm, because with FBI light type loads, it's softer shooting than my 9mm guns, but still been 100% reliable.  If I really feel the need for some devastation, the hot loads from Underwood fit the bill.

The other side of things is I should have a pistol suppressor within a year or so, and larger calibers fire bigger bullets with greater mass for greater energy when you have a velocity limit (sticking with subsonic)

[Boogieman]

36 minutes ago, Cougar_ml said:

If I had to pick just one, I'd stay with the 10mm, because with FBI light type loads, it's softer shooting than my 9mm guns, but still been 100% reliable.  If I really feel the need for some devastation, the hot loads from Underwood fit the bill.

The other side of things is I should have a pistol suppressor within a year or so, and larger calibers fire bigger bullets with greater mass for greater energy when you have a velocity limit (sticking with subsonic)

Have you tried the new redesigned Speer Gold Dot in 10mm?

https://www.speer-ammo.com/ammunition/gold-dot-handgun-personal-protection/10mm-auto/10mm-200gr-gold-dot-hp

I haven't been able to find it locally yet but is seems perfect for a suppressor or personal defense when a thermonuclear loading isn't required but you still want to punch through stuff.

[Cougar_ml]

3 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

Have you tried the new redesigned Speer Gold Dot in 10mm?

https://www.speer-ammo.com/ammunition/gold-dot-handgun-personal-protection/10mm-auto/10mm-200gr-gold-dot-hp

I haven't been able to find it locally yet but is seems perfect for a suppressor or personal defense when a thermonuclear loading isn't required but you still want to punch through stuff.

That looks like it would be great with a suppressor as a home defense loading.  I haven't seen it yet either, but if I do I'll probably pick up a few boxes.  Right now I stick with the XTP in 180 or 200 (from Underwood) as I'd prefer to punch a deeper hole when necessary, but 200gr at 1100fps should still be more than enough.

[Boogieman]

22 minutes ago, Cougar_ml said:

That looks like it would be great with a suppressor as a home defense loading.  I haven't seen it yet either, but if I do I'll probably pick up a few boxes.  Right now I stick with the XTP in 180 or 200 (from Underwood) as I'd prefer to punch a deeper hole when necessary, but 200gr at 1100fps should still be more than enough.

Be sure you get the new and improved version.  They changed a few months ago so look at the born on date.  All I've found is the older stuff.

[Will Beararms]

SHTF? The 9mm is not equivalent if you take away modern JHP rounds  

 

Power and Capciity = .40 S&W, .45 and 10mm

In a pinch, you would get by if all you had were 180 FMJ. In some testing, this round even in FMJ configuration, will mushroom to a degree.

The same is true of the .45 and 10mm and capacity with modern platforns is not an issue. 

The only thing going for the 9mm is the modern JHP round. 

I’ve been at this for 30 years. Hearing grown men even acknowledge recoil is an issue these days makes me laugh and it further confirms the vaginization lf the American male. We are definitely no where near as rugged as our Fathers and Grandfathers.  

[Boogieman]

34 minutes ago, Will Beararms said:

I’ve been at this for 30 years. Hearing grown men even acknowledge recoil is an issue these days makes me laugh and it further confirms the vaginization lf the American male. We are definitely no where near as rugged as our Fathers and Grandfathers.  

Speak for yourself.  I even skipped my mani pedi this week.

[Sharp Stick]

I thought about this for a long time years ago when I selected my first concealed carry weapon. I first looked at caliber and did some research on performance of the likely candidates. Back then (2004) the big CCW caliber was .40. I looked at it and compared it to .45 and 9mm in the FBI shooting reports. There really did not seem to be much difference among them. For each case where one shined, there were cases where it failed. Overall, they seemed to me to be essentially equal. Then I looked at shoot-ability and capacity. The .40 seemed to be a bit snappy, particularly in the smaller versions; the gun felt like it wanted to torque out of my hand. The .45 was manageable, but I liked the 9mm best. I could shoot it in the smaller pistols easily and accurately, ammo for it was widely available and relatively inexpensive. Lastly...single-stack or double-stack. The clear winner for me was the double-stack to get the capacity I wanted. I went with the Glock 19 (Gen 3) and have never looked back. Admittedly there have been times where I thought it was printing and I've added a single-stack 9mm for those situations.

[fortyofforty]

If size didn't matter, they wouldn't bother making a 9mm hollowpoint.

If magazine capacity didn't' matter, they would just make single shot .45 ACPs.

As with everything in life, it's about tradeoffs and compromises.

The .45 ACP gives you a slight margin of error for less-than-ideal shot placement.  The 9mm gives you additional rounds, each of which is a potential fight-stopper.  The .40 S&W was supposed to be the best of both worlds.

[Jack Ryan]

Leftist suck it

Edited January 11, 2021 by Jack Ryan

[TeaDub]

22 hours ago, Bucky said:

This is the exact reason the "happy medium" cartridge was so popular for a good period of time, for those that wanted a balance of both.

For me, a lot comes down to the platform itself. When I chose Beretta, it was 17 vs 12 (+1 of course), so the additional power of the .40 wasn't worth a deficit of 5 rounds. On the other hand, when I carried a USP Compact, the decision was 13 v 12 v 8 (9mm v .40 v .45).  Giving up 1 round to go from 9mm to .40 was worth it (not to mention this platform handles .40 pretty darn good), but going down an additional 4 rounds wasn't that appealing.

Everything is a balance, so more needs to be taken into consideration. What is the capacity versus power balance? How does a particular platform handle the more powerful cartridge (both in recoil and wear and tear)?

I agree. For me, platform plays a pretty big part of what caliber I choose. For CC, I have become a big fan of the slim, single stack guns. Primarily the G43 and an XDS, both of mine are in 9mm. When I shift to a sub-compact (G26/G27), I invariably pick the 27 over the 26. The loss of one round to go up to a medium bore is worth the tradeoff to me. In the medium sized guns either is acceptable. I have a G19 and don't really need a 23 when I have a 35. Either the 19 or 35 fills my HD role. I'm happy with either, although the 19 is a better size to occasionally carry in cooler months.

[Eric2340]

30 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:

Smartassery and sarcasm aside for a moment, I've NEVER wished I had LESS ammunition but I HAVE wished I had a bigger, more gun more than a few times. Times I've wished I had more bullets would be when I'm KILLING a LOT of stuff and when I'm MISSING a lot of something or missing something a LOT.  If I don't plan on missing a lot of stuff, missing the same stuff a lot because it will kill ME, or killing a LOT of them, then I want the gun shooting the biggest bullet going the fastest/deepest I can make it go to make sure the one good shot I may get a chance to make, will get the job done.

 

I too have found myself where it was not more so I wished I had more ammo (I normally keep at least one full size spare mag with me if not two of them most of the time) but wished I had a bigger weapon of a LAGE caliper. I give the example before of carrying my little G26 and one spare mag vs the big G20 I have in the car and one or two spare 15 round mags for it! :O

 

I think this whole thing kind of got off track from where I initially was trying to head it when I was trying to focus away from specific handguns and calibers to try and have just have an "in general" discussion by not doing so. Then general idea was when faced with a situation of let's say a G30 and two spare mags vs. a G19 and two spare mags, WHICH of the two (if you shot both all things equal and the ammo was of newer technology so they were somewhat equivalent also) would you rather have? More powerful rounds or smaller rounds but MORE of them?

Again that was the basic idea of it while trying to NOT get into specifics so they did not cloud the discussion.

I feel now the best answer is the largest caliber you can still shoot the best that gives you the most rounds so you have the most options available in case it all goes to hell in a hand basket. In this example the G19 is the easy answer as much as personally I'd rather it be the .45.

 

...........or better yet a G20. Hahahahaha

 

Thanks -

[Cougar_ml]

2 minutes ago, Eric2340 said:

 

I too have found myself where it was not more so I wished I had more ammo (I normally keep at least one full size spare mag with me if not two of them most of the time) but wished I had a bigger weapon of a LAGE caliper. I give the example before of carrying my little G26 and one spare mag vs the big G20 I have in the car and one or two spare 15 round mags for it! :O

 

I think this whole thing kind of got off track from where I initially was trying to head it when I was trying to focus away from specific handguns and calibers to try and have just have an "in general" discussion by not doing so. Then general idea was when faced with a situation of let's say a G30 and two spare mags vs. a G19 and two spare mags, WHICH of the two (if you shot both all things equal and the ammo was of newer technology so they were somewhat equivalent also) would you rather have? More powerful rounds or smaller rounds but MORE of them?

Again that was the basic idea of it while trying to NOT get into specifics so they did not cloud the discussion.

I feel now the best answer is the largest caliber you can still shoot the best that gives you the most rounds so you have the most options available in case it all goes to hell in a hand basket. In this example the G19 is the easy answer as much as personally I'd rather it be the .45.

 

...........or better yet a G20. Hahahahaha

 

Thanks -

I love my G20 and carry it the most, but if I was forced to go a little smaller I'd probably go G29 instead of the 19 or 30.  

10mm can be anywhere mild to wild, and the dual spring setup and extra mass (in the G20 gen 4) makes it feel much easier to shoot than the regular frames with either 357sig or .40s&w, at least for me.

Only real downside of the 10mm is ammo is less common and usually more expensive, but as the glock will handle .40 in the 10mm chamber (clean it well afterwards, use at your own risk) or just buying an aftermarket conversion barrel.

You lose a couple of rounds going 10mm over 9mm, the guns are a little larger and heavier, but you get bigger bullets with a whole lot more energy (potentially, depends on specific load).  

 

Every caliber is some type of compromise.  I just happen to prefer the middle ground in the compromise, with more capacity than the .45, but more energy and diameter than the 9mm.  I don't like the .40 so much because most of the guns I've shot it in were originally designed to handle the 9mm (I might feel different about it if I shot it through one originally designed around the .40 instead of the 9mm), and I personally do not like the feel of the recoil, I do not shoot them as well or as fast as I do either the 9mm with it's lower energy, or the 10mm in it's heavier slide.

 

[Cougar_ml]

4 hours ago, Will Beararms said:

SHTF? The 9mm is not equivalent if you take away modern JHP rounds  

 

Power and Capciity = .40 S&W, .45 and 10mm

In a pinch, you would get by if all you had were 180 FMJ. In some testing, this round even in FMJ configuration, will mushroom to a degree.

The same is true of the .45 and 10mm and capacity with modern platforns is not an issue. 

The only thing going for the 9mm is the modern JHP round. 

I’ve been at this for 30 years. Hearing grown men even acknowledge recoil is an issue these days makes me laugh and it further confirms the vaginization lf the American male. We are definitely no where near as rugged as our Fathers and Grandfathers.  

if SHTF we're pretty much all screwed anyway, so I don't worry about it too terribly much.  Around here SHTF means either massive earthquake, or maybe an EMP attack of some type.  TEOTWAWKI  I really don't expect to be able to go to the store and buy more ammunition of any type, either JHP or FMJ, so I'm going to have on hand what I've purchased in the past, or able to cast from lead at home.  If the situation goes on long enough that I am out scrounging for ammunition, then I'll take anything I can find, be it FMJ 9mm or ashtray hollowpointed .45.

9mm hollowpoints are not equivalent to 10mm hollowpoints, and those still won't open as far as equivalent .45 hollowpoints. 

 

You're right, we're no where near as rugged, because we don't live lives under constant threat, having to walk or ride everywhere, growing or harvesting almost every bite we will ever eat during our entire life.  We have jobs involving lots of paperwork, not trying to survive another day, as did the founders of our nation hundreds of years ago.  As life gets easier to survive we all get a little weaker as a species.  This trend is going to continue until something drastic happens to change it.  

If there are options out there that are easier to handle than others, then I'm going to take the one I can operate better/best rather than the one that hurts my hand the most.  30 years ago recoil was an issue as well, or the .40s&w would never have been born from the 10mm.  Black powder firearms were large, heavy things, many with a lot less power than even the modern 9mm today.  As technology gets better, so does the quality of materials.  30+ years ago there were very few firearms that would be considered "lightweight" compared to today's plethora of polymer options.  9mm or .45 in an all steel gun is a heck of a lot less felt recoil than in a mostly polymer gun weighing half as much. 

 

You also didn't have the internet back then, so where many people today acknowledge that recoil can be an issue to random strangers they will never meet in real life, telling your buddies to their faces that you don't like the big gun as much is a different story.  There were still lots of people back in the day that carried 38 special, 32 automatic, and all sorts of other small calibers that we laugh at as woefully inadequate these days.  Those guns were used many times, to great effect. 

 

I have never heard of anyone buying a larger caliber gun specifically to get increased recoil when they were looking for a carry firearm.  Having a hard recoiling gun can be fun to take out and shoot at the range, or when hunting and you only have a single target to shoot, but it makes no sense whatsoever when you take multiple targets who are actively trying to attack you and refuse to stand still while you recover from your last shot.

 

Modern medicine is often what ends up being the deciding factor if someone lives or dies when shot, not the caliber that they were shot with.  As firearms and bullet technology improve, so does medicine and the ability to treat the wounds they cause.

 

[fastbolt]

Many times when we're standing on a training range, and someone has wanted to discuss whether duty or off-duty handgun caliber is a critical element to consider, I suggest we look at their threat target results for a moment.

Better hits are generally going to be more of an immediate priority than most everything else. iIf their target(s) have hits all over the place, and even some misses, I ask how they think they could improve the quantity and accuracy of their hits. If their answer involves something having to do with experiencing better recoil management and controllability to let them get more accurate hits, then maybe  caliber change might be in order.

Sure, they could always decide to invest a lot more time in devoting themselves to becoming better skilled shooters using a heavier recoiling caliber, but most folks aren't willing to devote that much of their time, money and effort to improving their skillset beyond whatever may be required to demonstrate "required minimal competency", especially if they aren't a shooting enthusiast. That may be almost like expecting someone is only willing to acquire "adequate" Defensive Tactics skills (and demonstrate their adequate competency annually) to suddenly being willing to devote the time needed to become a shodan (1st black) in some martial art. If they aren't interested in it, they're probably not going to do it on their own.

If using a 9mm or .38Spl lets them demonstrate better results in everyday shooting skills than they can demonstrate with .40, 357SIG or .357MAG, or they can't confidently handle the larger grip girth of a .45ACP, then the "smaller" and "less powerful" calibers might mean the difference between them effectively using it for real, upon unexpected demand, in sudden stress & duress ... or failing to get that critical first hit, or three, accurately on-threat because of sudden exposure to increased felt recoil/muzzle whip. for which they simply aren't prepared.

I like my .45's. Always have. I like the way I can get faster, tighter and numerically greater hits with my 9's. I like the way that working to master my .40's makes me shoot both my 9's and .45's better.

In the itty bitty gun category, I like the way I can run my .38 snubs, and I like their heavier bullet weights compared to my .380's ... but I like the way I can pocket holster my LCP's in some shorter and tighter pockets which won't fit my .38 snubs.

If I were going to worry about handgun caliber "power", I'd get my .44MAG revolvers back out of the safe and reacquaint myself with the uncomfortable carry methods I used to use to carry them off-duty. (In my younger days I used to think of my .357MAG 4" revolvers, loaded with 125gr-140gr-145gr JHP's as being a "medium-bore compromise" for off-duty weapons, compared to my .44's.)

I typically make my own choice for "caliber" & "capacity" of retirement CCW handguns predicated upon my planned activities, clothing choices for activities and weather and taking into consideration some risk assessment issues. I don't have crystal ball, of course, but I had a badge of one sort or another for a little over 34 years, and had my fair share of experience and training. I still look at "caliber" & "capacity" considerations as things that fall under the general heading of "working with the equipment you have at the time", but not something that will make me stand my life on its head each and every day when it comes to lugging around maximum equipment load out.

It's still about the mindset, skillset, ability and experiential knowledge I can draw upon to make the optimal use out of the equipment at hand.

[AerynSun2]

On 7/31/2018 at 8:20 AM, Eric2340 said:

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and while I do NOT want to turn this into a "caliber war" debate, I also want to ask a question of the group, so bear with me - 

Given all things equal (meaning your ability to shoot either of the two between two different calibers just as accurately as the other under stress) which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? (stating that also understanding that ALL handgun caliber are poor stoppers compared to larger caliber weapons like rifles and what not, and that there are truly NO "one shot stoppers").

 

Now I also fully understand that the given and popular theory is "whichever one you shoot best" but let's take that out of the equation for the sake of this discussion - let's say you pick two different size caliber weapons with the weapons being the same relative size themselves (full size vs full size, medium size vs medium size, etc.) and can shoot one with the ability to place rounds on target in the same place with either one repeatedly, then what? Do you/would you rather have the more powerful or the two (again given the weapons themselves are the same relative size to each other), or rather have more rounds available (I'm speaking speaking from the size of the rounds themselves, NOT the size of the gun with compact vs full size in the same size caliber gun).

I also realize there are those too that will say "go with a happy medium - something that is a go between round between the two different size rounds that also holds a middle of the road capacity for an all around happy medium between the two?" I am NOT talking about that either, and would prefer to leave that out of the discussion (if possible?).

 

I know this is going to be hard to NOT turn it into a "caliber war" discussion, but I am approaching this from two fronts - 1. The popular opinion that with "current bullet technology" that there are those that claim that "all things can now be almost equal between different given calibers", and 2. Given the two options with all things being equal and your ability with either round, what would you prefer or do you feel is better? More power or more rounds? I can't say as I personally buy into the "all bullets are equal now with the way they are made" theory, part of why I am asking all of this?

Again, I realize I may be trying to have an impossible discussion also, and there very well may be no real answer there, but I've also been thinking about it long enough, again with trying to remove caliber from the discussion to see which is better/most people prefer? I also thought and hoped it might be a good constructive discussion for the group too.

 

Thanks -

Eric

 

Eric,

This is the criteria for choosing a handgun for self defense.

1. Reliable - it works when you pull the trigger

2. Weight and size that you will carry it.

3. You can shoot it accurately multiple times under stress

4. Number of rounds

5. Caliber

 

The above will determine the gun you choose.  Forget everything else. 

[Eric2340]

1 hour ago, Cougar_ml said:

I love my G20 and carry it the most, but if I was forced to go a little smaller I'd probably go G29 instead of the 19 or 30.  

10mm can be anywhere mild to wild, and the dual spring setup and extra mass (in the G20 gen 4) makes it feel much easier to shoot than the regular frames with either 357sig or .40s&w, at least for me.

Only real downside of the 10mm is ammo is less common and usually more expensive, but as the glock will handle .40 in the 10mm chamber (clean it well afterwards, use at your own risk) or just buying an aftermarket conversion barrel.

You lose a couple of rounds going 10mm over 9mm, the guns are a little larger and heavier, but you get bigger bullets with a whole lot more energy (potentially, depends on specific load).  

Every caliber is some type of compromise.  I just happen to prefer the middle ground in the compromise, with more capacity than the .45, but more energy and diameter than the 9mm.  I don't like the .40 so much because most of the guns I've shot it in were originally designed to handle the 9mm (I might feel different about it if I shot it through one originally designed around the .40 instead of the 9mm), and I personally do not like the feel of the recoil, I do not shoot them as well or as fast as I do either the 9mm with it's lower energy, or the 10mm in it's heavier slide.

 

As I said before, with the onset of arthritis in my hands I had to step away from all my .40 guns about 10 years or so ago.  I switched back to .45 for the big non-cleaned stuff in a soft shooting G21s, and went to easier to shoot and get consistent hits in 9mm in my G26 and G19s.

 

I decided last year I wanted to give soft shooting loads in 10mm a try in a big G20 rather than either going to a larger .40 gun like a G22 or a G35 (I actual tried both). I had no desire to go with some aftermarket configuration of any type (I just don't like it in a defensive gun - especially Glocks), so trying a .40 aftermarket barrel in a G20 was NOT the way I wanted to try it either.  I found a nice used G20 and loaded it up with softer shooting 180gr Hornday XTPs. More power if needed was easily away in a second spare mag loaded up with the same projectile in an Underwood factory load, and that's what I've been running so far. My next goal is to shoot this setup up against my old G21 loaded with my .45 choice in the non+P 230gr HST round (factory load again) and see which one I can shoot faster and better. That's at least the setup I've come to now without being able to carry work and just use one setup 24/7. If the G21 comes out the winner, then I will just pick up a second and switch it out for the G20.

I was VERY surprised to also find that I now had a harder time shooting a G30 w/ a non+P load and getting good controlled hits as I used to 15 some odd years ago.  I have never really had any reason or desire to try a G29, and now seeing where I am at and what I can and can not do with the G30 alone, I have no doubt in my mind that the G29 could be of any benefit to me.

I guess I'm just at that point in life where I need my more powerful stuff to be in larger, heavier guns for them to be easier for me to get good hits for me, and the smaller guns I have need to just be of an easier to handle caliber for me. I don't like to have to compromise between the two and would rather just have "one to rule them all"  but I guess those days are over for me now due to my hands.

 

PS - The BEST gun I ever shot in .40 was a Sig P229. I've owned and had shot many, many different .40 guns over the years, but none of them seemed to either handle or shoot the .40 better than it did. I sure doe miss that Sig.

Also - I am of the opinion that once I get to the point I start feeling I need to get into the upper 10mm territory and beyond with power, I just divert to a long and am done with it. There is NO way any handgun is going to come close to the power in a longarm anyway, and not to mention the great ease of shooting and more likely higher capacity if mag fed anyway. After the non-nuclear 10mm stuff, I just go to the AR and start moving up from there.  LOL