[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I pose a question? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 11/11/2005 6:56:22 PM EDT
|
For the advocates of the 9mm. If you were restricted to a capacity of 9 rounds would you still choose the 9 x 19mm and claim it the equal of the .45acp? |
Did I ask about the 10mm rounds? And a reading comrehension  retard award to you too.
|
|
Look at the market for pistols during the AWB. Since no pistols were shipping from the factory with a magzine with more than 10 rounds, the "wonder nine" lost it's appeal to many people. I know a quite a few friends who bought Kimber .45s because of the "if I can only have X rounds, I'm going with a .45" Personally, I feel the AWB was a large factor in Kimber's success in the 1911 market. And to answer the question, yes I would take a .45 over a 9mm for those reasons. However, if you were going to take a .45 over a 9mm, would it be a 1911 or a Glock/Sig/HK? I would go with 1911...what about the rest of you? |
I own a Springfield 1911 "Fully Loaded" and it is one fine .45. My next choice is a Sig 220, which is my next purchase. I already have a Sig 226 9mm and if the 220 is as fine a shooter, I would have to pick a Sig 220 as my favorite. Sig makes some of the finest pistols on the market. |
|
Looking at the graph now, there are 6 votes for the yes. If these are real votes and not people just messing around, I would truely be interested in what the reasoning behind this is. I dont intend on flaming anyone for their decision, but this is a discussion forum and I would like to see some reasoning. 9mm=smaller package for smaller hands? .45 too much for some shooters? Come now you yes voters, tell us your side of the story. |
  I don't own a 9mm. End of story. I think comparing pistol to pistol, say a Sig 220 to a 226, the 9mm gives double the capacity so I could live with that, but an 8 round .45 to an 8 round 9mm with no size difference, I don't think so. |
I don't think they're identical. I think 9mm is superior! (hey what the heck, I haven't been ganged up on in a while )Seriously, I have carried single stack 9mm in the past and have never felt undergunned with my P7M8, or the P239 or 3914 I used to own. They were lighter and easier to conceal than a similar gun in .45. And before you start, NO I don't think a .32ACP is the best because it's light and small. I feel that 9mm is sufficient for my needs, and easier to live with. I think the theory that the AWB kept the .45 alive is pretty valid, but might not be the whole picture. Before the AWB wide-body .45's were gaining traction as well. They were less popular because of size, but their existance is similar in purpose to the hi-cap 9mm. If all you need is 7 rds of .45, why do people buy Glocks, HK's and Para-ords that carried more? Logically speaking, if half the number of .45ACPs were all that's required, then the single stack Glock they marketed a while back should have been a boombing success. Yet, even in .45 people want more rounds in their gun. Maybe it's marketing, maybe it's psychology, but if you can carry more rounds in your gun, most people will do it. That's why the popularity of the hi-cap 9mm. It was easier to carry more rounds in the gun, and it was easier to do so in 9mm than .45. How much the actual capacity really matters would be a good topic of discussion. The 9mm was originally a single stack round in military guns, and I've never heard of stories from GIs from WWI or WWII that said a Luger, or P38 weren't something that brought them less fear than a 1911 being shot at them, nor have I ever heard of a GI saying the Krauts needed twice as many rounds from their pistols as we did. I've never heard of one shooting with a 9mm or .45 where you could say the same exact hit in the same conditions, same type of round, etc, would have mattered which round you hit them with. If someone can find some I would be interested, seriously. I'm a civillian nowdays. I don't need to use suppressive fire and I don't miss any more with a 9mm than a .45, so I really don't need a hi-cap 9mm and the capacity doesn't really enter as an issue for me in selection of a CCW. What does enter into the process of selection is size, weight, and overall effectiveness of the gun/ammo combination within my requirements as an armed civillian. In fact just today I was looking at the polymer Khar in 9mm (I don't know Khar models, so I don't know which one) and it fit me quite well. It would definately be easier to carry than a Beretta 92. It would even be easier to carry than a 1911. Yet I feel it would still be effective enough with it's 8 or 9 rounds of 9mm to do what I need, which is stop a threat. Yeah, I'm asking for it, so fire away! |
What an interesting and well thought out post in support of your position. Completly WRONG, but at leaast well written. The gun I carry most of the time is a P7 PSP because as you stated it dissapears like it isn't there. I'm also big enough to wear a shoulder holster under a loose but buttoned shirt and still leave nothing printing. That being said .45 is still a superrior round. The fact that the gun has to be bigger to house the cartridge is just something you have to live with. The fact that the high capacity wonder nine has become so popular is due to any number of factors. When most people think of a .45, the think 1911. Single action makes alot of people nervious for no good reason. Pretty much every high cap nine is a da\sa design, which many people mistake for 'safer'. Less recoil also makes it easier to train the average PO or civilian. Remember that the 1911 and the BHP stayed in military service for decades after the succesful introduction of the wonder nine. 9mm is also way way cheaper to shoot, which is something you need to do with your guns if you want to be good at it.
|
|
You actually asked two different questions... 1.
 2.
BTW - Whether you want to hear it or not, If I was going to pick a common defensive pistol round based solely on ultimate performance, I would choose either a 357mag or a 10mm. 
|
hey guess what: 9mm is older than .45acp. i have read more than once that the hp was browning's ultimate pistol design. that makes me think that the 1911 was not the ideal. and the hp was originally designed for and chambered in 9x19. so to me it seems that the man who created .45acp believed that 9mm was better. i pose this to everybody: the current loads of these two calibers are little more than improved 100 year old technology. i can offhand only think of two other examples of technology that old that are still in everyday use--diesel and gasoline engines. and alternatives are being worked on for those. so why can't we actually use the alternatives to 9mm and .45acp? |
Your interested then; www.thegunzone.com/platt-shot.html Someone died because that 9mm round didn't go far enough into the bad guy. Sad situation. Lets ditch the 9mm and hope it doesn't happen again. (This was the famed Miami shootout which led to the widespread adoptation of the popular law enforcement .40 S&W round). |
While the 9mm cartridge is older the the .45 ACP, the model 1935 (Hi Power) wasn't designed until after the 1911 was well on it's way, and Browning died before the design was complete. Browning felt the US market wouldn't accept the 9mm but, the european market would accept a high cap single action 9mm and he was right. He eliminated the grip safety because he didn't think it was necessary, and the trigger mechanism and spring setup is completly different from the 1911. The result was the second greatest semi auto handgun design of all time.
|
......why not most of these scholars can't even stay on the subject of the question anyway.
|
 ..............and another retard award goes to the man that thinks the Nazi's developed the 9 x 19.
|
And winner of the Dropped-on-His-Head-as-a-Child award to the dipstick who can't tell a photochop joke from a serious debating point. Points all around! |
