Handgun preferences changed or changing or is it my imagination

[summer44]

If they both do roughly the same damage, probably doesn’t matter all that much. That said, I do have 5 shot revolvers that I carry... 38, 357 and 44 special... I like that the .44 ales a bigger hole, but holds the same number of rounds, weights roughly the same, etc...

I think that when you are comparing a like number of rounds then sure, go with the bigger caliber... but when it is 7 rounds versus 13, plus a weight and recoil penalty, then I think it favors the 9mm

I have not looked, but I can not recall a sd shooting that required more than 7 shots. Do u really think u will be in a shooting that required 13 shots. If you are carrying a smaller caliber handgun bc it holds more rounds you are extremely likely to never use, I don't see that as an advantage.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I have not looked, but I can not recall a sd shooting that required more than 7 shots. Do u really think u will be in a shooting that required 13 shots. If you are carrying a smaller caliber handgun bc it holds more rounds you are extremely likely to never use, I don't see that as an advantage.

I don't disagree on that point, and as a result, most of the time I am carrying a 5 shot revolver.

But there are times when maybe I am going to a rougher part of town where I feel the danger might be higher(although still statistically remote) and I will pack a higher capacity gun... or if I am going to be away from the house for a longer period of time.

But for the most part, I carry a 5 shot stubby about 75% of the time and I don't feel like I am unprepared for the average SD situation...

 

[Bear44]

I don't understand the mindset that because the likelihood of needing the weapon is very low, it's unimportant how effective the weapon is. It makes no sense to me. If you ever do need it, aren't you gong to want the best performance you can get. After all, you'll be fighting for your life and possibly that of your loved ones.

If you don't believe that, why carry at all?

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I don't understand the mindset that because the likelihood of needing the weapon is very low, it's unimportant how effective the weapon is. It makes no sense to me. If you ever do need it, aren't you gong to want the best performance you can get. After all, you'll be fighting for your life and possibly that of your loved ones.

If you don't believe that, why carry at all?

Define "best performance".

As has been stated, in the real world, the performance differences between 9mm, 40 and 45 are minimal. Anyone that thinks that in a SD situation that they could put 2 or 3 well placed shots from a 9mm and not take the person down, but that the same shots from a 45 would magically do it, are fooling themselves.

Any of the calibers will do their job if you do yours.

 

[Bear44]

Define "best performance".

As has been stated, in the real world, the performance differences between 9mm, 40 and 45 are minimal. Anyone that thinks that in a SD situation that they could put 2 or 3 well placed shots from a 9mm and not take the person down, but that the same shots from a 45 would magically do it, are fooling themselves.

Any of the calibers will do their job if you do yours.

Every person needs to decide what is best for them. It's not just the cartridge being shot. It's how well they shoot a particular weapon and if they will actually carry it.

My comment was about the idea that's been expressed that the small likelihood of needing it should have anything to do with the decision about what's best for that person. It should be irrelevant to the decision.

 

[letusbuyyourcar]

Most people are keeping their 40's now days because it's the best caliber

As Sheldon would say " Sarcasm...?"

 

[letusbuyyourcar]

The difference in stopping power between 9mm, 40 and 45 today is neglible. So going to 9mm allows less weight, smaller package, less recoil, more rounds you can carry and cheaper to shoot.

What’s not to like?

Its that "Cheaper to shoot" part that has most LE agencies trading in their old G22 pistols for new G17s.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Every person needs to decide what is best for them. It's not just the cartridge being shot. It's how well they shoot a particular weapon and if they will actually carry it.

My comment was about the idea that's been expressed that the small likelihood of needing it should have anything to do with the decision about what's best for that person. It should be irrelevant to the decision.

I don't disagree, but I think that your argument is why people are going back to 9mm.

9mm tends to have less recoil, so it's easier to shoot, faster follow up shots, etc. It also allows the gun to be smaller, making it easier to carry around all day. The best most powerful badass gun in the world is useless if it is so heavy that you leave it at home half the time...

With concealed carry gaining so much traction, people are looking for that balance between adequate firepower, decent ammo capacity, cost of ammo, easy concealability and good shooting characteristics...

Set aside our personal caliber biases, and if you were to make an objective list based on the above criteria, the 9mm would check more of those boxes than the others...

And I think that is why there is a major shift back to the 9...

 

[fastfish66]

40s&w has all the knock down power of the 45fat&slow and all the capacity of the 9small&weak. It's the best of both worlds, the answer to the question everyone was asking. It's popularity will never die!

Good point.
Saw something earlier about 50yd shooting in competition with a hand gun.

You also should be shooting that speed of light ammo. You need that 2300fps when shooting 10 ft.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

You also should be shooting that speed of light ammo. You need that 2300fps when shooting 10 ft.

Haha.

The irony in all this, is that statistically, the ones that are so adamant about "max knock down power" will go their entire lives without ever having to fire a shot from that gun at anything other than paper...