9 vs .45

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

We've already discussed this at length so I don't know why we brought it up again, but I feel that 9mm overall is the better cartridge from a civilian's economic point of view. You can argue velocity and ballistics and whatever all day, but overall the 9mm is cheaper, more common, and it's easier to find high capacity firearms chambered for it. I like .45 ACP and my 1911 but I like shooting my 9mms more because I can get more rounds for my money (and my magazines). In the military or a few years ago, ballistics might come into play, but then there's modern bullet designs so on and so forth. Overall, 9mm is better for what I do.

Amen. I think that's a perfectly reasonable argument, too. As a "plinking" caliber for pistols, 9mm is unbeatable, as far as I'm concerned. For home defense, it may not have the performance characteristics of .40 or .45, but it still performs perfectly fine. I'm not the least bit worried that if I shot an intruder with my SIG 226 (9mm), he wouldn't go down. A lot of the rumors about 9mm being insufficient to stop drugged-up BGs are mostly just that...rumors.

Also, one other thing about .45 ACP...I don't know how many people here keep and reload their brass, but .45 ACP is a real pain in the ass to get right. Most .45 ACP pistols are pretty finicky about powder content, including my S&W 4506. So doing reloads is pretty hard. My Dad and I have had almost no problems with 9mm reloads in either my Taurus PT92 (when I still owned it) or my SIG 226. Whereas the .45 ACP reloads we did caused stovepipes in my Smithy almost every time we tried them. We used to joke that you had to be accurate to within a few grains of powder.