Posted on 11/02/2015 4:39:36 AM PST by marktwain
The 9mm hollowpoints can easily match most 45 ammo but 45 has 1 terrific benefit.
In a SHTF scenario, lead cast 45acp will beat the snot off of lead cast 9mm.
So carry a subcompact 9mm for defense but keep a 45acp still.
The gun sellers already seem to be well stocked with .40 LEO trade ins.
So the Clintons kept Smith & Wesson in business and making money.
Obama is doing an even better job.
“The .40 is over-pressured, inaccurate, and a solution to a problem that never really existed.”
The .40 is as accurate as the 9, any differences may be due to the gun, not the cartridge.
“9mm and 45 auto have always been more than capable of doing their job, if the shooter does theirs (hit the vitals)”.
Under ideal conditions that may be true but the 9mm had a very poor reputation as a “stopper”. This was essentially solved with improved bullet designs such as gold dots, and other “bonded” jacket types. These days I doubt there is much difference in wound effectiveness or barrier penetration between the 9mm, .40 or .45 with any of the top bullet designs.
The specification ‘luger’ is for the 9mm Parabellum round.
It’s “Kurtz”
I went to the new Bass Pro Shops in Tampa this weekend. Purchased several boxes of .40 and .45 acp. About the only thing I couldn’t find was .22.
As in all things government - Follow the money.
It is likely that somewhere you will find someone with connections who stands to make a fortune off the taxpayers.
Or maybe Obama just wants them to have weapon commonality with UN forces.
The latest FBI studies say that with the newest ammo there isn’t much difference between .40 and 9mm in terms of effectiveness.
I’d wager a .45 FMJ performs better than a 9mm FMJ.
Likewise a .45 JHP is going to outperform a 9mm JHP.
First and foremost, *why* are they giving up on Glocks in favor of 9mm?
Several possibilities:
1) Reliability/serviceability problems.
2) Too heavy or bulky for many female agents.
3) The US Army was made to give up its .45 ACP because the NATO standard was 9mm. But with the Gulf Wars, 9mm was found to be insufficient. But this leads to the question, is this some effort to achieve *international* standardization?
4) Other reasons, whatever they are.
Yes but 17 round of 9mm JHP outperforms 13 rounds of .45 JHP.
It's Kurz.
Ha Ha, yes you are correct. Sorry. :)
Yup. Used to have one before the boat sank at our lake house....loved it.
Is the Glock .40 the weak sister of the Glock line? I mean, Glocks are supposed to be so indestructible. Or is there some other reason that there are so many in that shop?
I don’t know. I have 4 (17, 19, 26 and 21) but no 40 caliber. I only know from inspecting the ones in the case I mentioned. Definitely used - very much and I wouldn’t buy one to get $50 or $100 knocked off.
A highly accurate Colt .38 super is hard to beat. Even so I grant you a 40 caliber has a little more oomph.
“Apparently, today’s FBI has completely forgotten the April 1986 shootout in Pinecrest Florida.”
That fight was stopped with a 38 special. The death of one of the bad guys came with one of the very first shots...it just took a while. The 9mm has ample penetration, as do most rounds with modern ammo. The ammo is better now than it was 30 years ago.
Bullet placement. And no handgun has significant “stopping power”. For that, you need a rifle.
.40 Short&Wimpy is a high pressure round that quickly wears out the 9mm size guns it is run through.
That, and it’s fun to spend OPM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.