FF/EMT

Hey guys

I am debating on which caliber i should get 40 or 45 for a future service weapon. I just cant decide which one and need any input from you guys on what you prefer. I dont have the ability to get my hands on either to do any test shooting, i've done allot of shooting with the 9mm and 10mm but dont want to use either for a service weapon. I have been doing allot of reading and found that there isnt a whole lot of difference between the 2, basically speed and flatter trajectory vs a slower bullet and bigger hole. So I am interested in what you guys prefer and what the pros and cons are of each.

Thanks for your time
Tom

infmphunter

The one that has the highest capacity magazine.

Backwoods7

My dads been a cop for 27 years and has carried 9mm 40 45acp and 38spcl in that time and he says that the 40 is the best compromise for knock down and round count. But something else he said it's not the size of bullet you use it's where you hit em. So whatever you feel the most comfortable useing cause it didn't matter if you have a 454 if you don't hit em right it won't stop them

Maine Shooter

Dept policy could very well dictate what is used so I'd start there first. Capacity doesn't mean a thing if you cannot place your shots properly. Hopefully as much effort and even more time will be put into practice as researching what to shoot. That said, I know a LOT of departments using .40 now rather than the 9mm or .45

Backwoods7

From what my old man said Than the nine was shooting too fast and not expanding (147gr hydroshok) and the 45 had too much recoil for some of the officers.

newton29

Seems Departments generally issue 9mm because females can qualify with them. Whatever you like and can handle, go with, as long as approved by your department. I've carried 9, 45, and 357 (although duty ammo had to be 38+P so as not to exceed velocity standards) while in uniform. Put multiples of any one of these into center mass and do it quickly and automatically, and you will stand a good chance of surviving. I have seen people (good and bad) shot with all three, as well as 22, 25, 32. Shot placement is the key.
Make sure the gun is reliable. I had the most confidence in my 1911-A1 and my 686, although my S&W 5906 did not let me down when things hit the fan. My P226 is fine as long as the slide is well lubed, so I clean it often (more often in winter). I now carry a S&W 638 in plain clothes, but will be mandated to carry a Glock 17 shortly. I am sure it is a fine weapon, and will practice with it until I am confident. Be confident you can survive any encounter, and draw from your holster 500 times before you hit the street with whatever you choose. God Bless.

homers brother

It does depend on the department at times. Seems most LE officers I know are carrying .40s, and most of those because of their departments' policies.

After starting out with a .45, Uncle Sam's department switched us to the 9mm. A heavier weapon like the Beretta is pretty forgiving in 9mm, I've not often seen someone who has any business carrying one not learn to handle it well in a fairly short period of time. I won't say the same for polymer-framed 9mms. They're lighter, and the muzzle whip of the 9mm is much more pronounced until it's trained out of the shooter.

Having carried one for awhile, the .45's greatest enemy was probably that it's not the most comfortable thing to carry - particularly from a psychological perspective. Really, you're going to carry a ****ed, single-action pistol around and rely only on the safety? (though most won't bat an eye carrying a round in the chamber of their 870, relying on fewer safety mechanisms than John Browning designed into the 1911). I've always hated to admit it though, but the 1911 seems to require far more training to bring a tyro up to speed than I've seen with the M9/M92. The recoil of the .45 is just a convenient excuse, IMO.

Though the 9mm goes through drywall like butter, it's pretty easy to defeat with most kinds of body armor. We shot a couple obsolete PASGT kevlar vests backed by some thin French-made (go figure) Iraqi body armor and the bullets stopped every time. Much ado is made of the Hollywood bandits and how poorly the officers' 9mms worked on them. Well, duh. What standard duty-pistol rounds WOULD have worked? If you need to blast through body armor, you need a rifle anyway.

I've only been acquainted with the .40 once at the range, and in a polymer-framed pistol. I like the .40 in that platform even less than I like the 9mm in it. And, having both 9mms and .45s at home, I consequently never felt the urge to add a .40.

I finally decided that what I really wanted were the heft and features of the Beretta, but in .45. Luckily, that's available in the SIG P220. The version I settled on, the Carry Elite Dark, includes a beavertail that many regard as unnecessary or even "silly", but which I do notice serves well to limit muzzle whip. The SRT trigger is a vast improvement over prior SIG triggers. Ergonomics are as close to ideal for me as I think I'll ever find. And, probably not surprisingly, I shoot it every bit as well or better than I ever did the M9 or M92 - or for that matter - the 1911. Still love my 1911s, but if I'm carrying other than to the range, I'm carrying the P220.