I have come to the conclusion that is what is going to work for me. Ive have been splitting time between 9mm and .45 since I was old enough to own a handgun.
When it came time to pick a duty weapon to use at the Police Academy, I now had a dilemma, my Glock 17 or my Glock 21. After reading a lot of information on this board and another reputable board posted by people like Dr Roberts and USMC03, I decided to go with the 17. I ran that pistol well and even got top shooter in my Academy class. And then the light bulb went off. Do I really gain anything by going back to .45 over the 9mm? For me, the answer was no. I shoot the 17 better, its cheaper to feed which means more training, and I’m more than comfortable with the ballistics when using good ammo.
I have made the same conculsion in a carry weapon as well. The Glock 19 to me is the perfect carry/off duty for me. Is displays all the characteristics of the 17 that I love in a smaller package.
I didnt make this post to say 9mm is the wonder caliber that everyone should carry. I made it to say thank you to the many people on this sight that provided the info that helped me examine what works for ME and for ME its Glock 9mm’s on duty and off. Thank you for your wealth of knowledge.
I too have come to this conclusion. Unless issued something different, I will continue to carry a 9mm on duty. My current duty gun is a G34 with a 26 on my vest and a G19 for off duty. I still keep a G22 and G21 around just for giggles, but the 9mm is what I use for social business.
I too shifted from my USPc45 (which I sold recently) to my Beretta 92FS 9mm as my carry gun. I shoot the 9mm consistently better - and I can go for longer range sessions before fatigue sets in
You have to figure that 9mm was invented long before hollow points were used in non-hunting calibers. It was used for a long time sans hollow point technology, even while coexisting with larger rounds. Yet still it survived, and thrived.
Even in FMJ, I’d prefer a 9mm (unless I got free ammo). I would still train with it more, and thus I would still shoot better with it. I’d be fine using FMJ, but I have the mindset of putting at least 5 rounds on the target and adding as necessary. Which you’d probably end up doing with a .45 anyway.
Shot a pit that was dragging it’s owner by the leg down the street the other day. One shot, 9mm 124 grain bonded Ranger to the torso. Doggie went down and ceased all activity and bled to death.
Can’t tell you the exact range. But, it is a safe bet that the range in question is BEYOND the range where a CCW holder can usually claim imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Could there be an exception? Maybe a whacko in a shopping mall or a Mumbai situation? Seems far fetched to me. In general, defensive use of a handgun happens at close range. Very close. 9mm will perform as intended at that range.
I have standardized on 9mm as well, though I still have a couple of 1911’s plus an M&P .45.
For me as non-LE, caliber is a pragmatic decision. Given that all the current service calibers give you pretty similar performance when comparing quality ammo of the same type, my decisions about caliber are not really based on terminal ballistics differences anymore. So my caliber decision tends to hinge on issues like:
Cost
Capacity
Availability
How effectively I can shoot it given the available platforms
Current legislative environment that influences ammunition
Currently 9mm wins (IMO) on issues 1-3. For me, the .45 could potentially win on issues 4 and 5 (I can shoot my 1911 more accurately and faster than any other ). However, this could all change in the future. Say that the legislative environment changes: JHP for civilians is banned, hi-cap mags are limited, or something like that.
If I could only have a 10rd mag maximum, or if I could only use FMJ ammo, things like that, I’d definitely go back to .45 without hesitation. I’d probably carry my M&P .45 mid-size, might even go back to carrying my LW Operator 1911.
I find it curious that cost is a seemingly a big deal in these caliber discussions…but let some poor sap mention cost when he talks about his handgun purchase choice and we find endless ways to blast him.
Capacity should be a non-issue. We somehow managed to do quite well with 6-guns for a century or so…
If there were no choice other than a .45ACP, I imagine I’d be well satisfied…
I agree with the previous statement that shot placement is king, everything else is just extra. I learned to shoot a pistol with a .38/.357, but .45 was my first semi-auto sweetheart. I still carry the same Sig P220 off-duty that I purchased some 15 years ago. All that said, I practice with other calibers such as 9mm just in case SNAFU and 9mm is all you have. If you can, why not cross-train.
Well, if you are convinced, as many very smart and very experienced people are, that 9mm is adequate and shot placement is the key, then why bear the extra recoil and expense of 45 ACP? Sure, maybe you can afford it or the ammo is free, but are your splits slower, you pistol wear higher, your practice time compressed, etc.
