July 27th, 2007 09:03 AM
.40 or .45 next?
Just picking brains here folks, looking for some guidance.
My daily carry is mainly a 92FS.
Weather being what it is in South Florida though, I often opt for either my P232 or Colt Det. Spcl. just to lighten things up a bit.
I had pretty well made up my mind that my next purchase was going to be a SIG 220.
That was before several home improvements "broke the bank" if you will!
The SIG is pricey, but well worth it.
But now I'm considering alternatives in both price and caliber.
First, what are your thoughts on .40 cal in general and do you have any recommendations?
Second, is .40 so close in defensive characteristics, would you just hold off and go with the .45?
I'll probably just wait and get the 220 at some point.
Again, just looking for opinions here.
July 27th, 2007 09:08 AM
July 27th, 2007 09:11 AM
If the caliber isn't a big deal to you, try handling a .45 ACP and then a .40. See what fits your hand better.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
July 27th, 2007 09:21 AM
I have a couple of 220s as well as a 96G. I've noticed that the price of ammo for .40 & .45 is the same (Dick's). In some cases the .40 is cheaper (Natchezss). I like shooting the 220 and next to my 1911s is my favorite. The recoil may be a bit more with the .40 because of higher PSI's, but then I have a couple .45 revolvers too, so I would buy the 220. I think that the .40 & .45 are close enough in stopping power, especially if your using 185 or 165 grain .45, that it really ought to come down to the recoil, number of rounds you want to carry, say 8 vs 12, and $$$ for practice ammo.
July 27th, 2007 10:01 AM
I will always say to save your pennies and buy want you really want, because if you settle, your going to lose money on the compromise gun, and have to buy what you really wanted.
.40 vs. .45 isnt really worth argument, both are good and have equal high and low points.
July 27th, 2007 10:12 AM
I really like my .40. Loaded with the proper defensive ammo I think it will perform more than adequately for the task of SD. For a great gun at a good price I recommend the XD40 or, if you decide to go .45, the XD45 Compact. My dad has the XD45 and it's an excellent pistol, but I am far more accurate and comfortable with the .40.
July 27th, 2007 11:05 AM
Thoughts on .40 vs. .45
I have both .40s and .45s, and have read whatever I could find over the years on the ballistic and stopping power characteristics of each one. I have concluded that both calibers are about equally effective in stopping power, using the best ammo choices in each. So either one is quite acceptable to me for defensive use from that standpoint.
Originally Posted by DasBoot
As for accuracy, I can personally see no big difference when shooting my guns in these two calibers. My accuracy seems to depend more on the particular gun and how it fits me, and I have favorites in each caliber for accuracy. My favorite .40 for accuracy is my Sig P229, and my favorite .45 for accuracy is either a Colt Gold Cup or H&K USP 45f.
Both calibers can be quite reliable - but that depends more on the particular gun than the caliber. And both can have healthy recoil in a smaller, lightweight gun - or be fairly mild in a large, heavy gun.
The one big difference I see is magazine capacity, if that is a factor in your thinking. The .40 ammo is noticeably smaller than .45, and you can fit more of the .40 in a magazine and grip of given size.
I think your Sig P220 choice for your next gun is good. If you want to conceal it, you might consider the newer "carry" version with a shorter barrel and slide. But it won't be any bigger than the Beretta 92 that you now use. If you want a smaller, more concealable .40 or .45 for carry, you might consider a 3 inch 1911 by Colt or Kimber, or a Sig P239 or H&K USP compact.
July 27th, 2007 11:16 AM
The info helps.
At this writting I'm probably going to hold off for the 220, but you've given me a few others to consider.
July 27th, 2007 11:56 AM
.40 is kind of the LE cartridge and I have a feeling "Just MY personal feeling" that the military may follow suit one of these days, and switch to a .40, maybe not in time of war, but one of these days maybe. One of my classmates went down to South America with one of the SF Groups I don't remember which number, but he got issued a 226 .40. I remember thinking thats kind of odd. I remember reading in one of the gun rags that the coast guard was thinking about it, or maybe they even have switched. That being said you may see .40 come down in price. Plus you always have the option of dropping a .357 Sig Barrel in it and getting a 9mm on Steroids. However, its al individual choice.
“Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll
Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!
July 27th, 2007 12:04 PM
I hadn't paid any attention to .40s until the other day when I got a Bass Pro advert with a S&W .40 on sale for under $500 if I remember.
That price range really got me thinking maybe I should re-evaluate my thoughts on a SIG .45.
However, I know the SIG is a great gun AND it's just so darn good goodlookin'!
July 27th, 2007 07:45 PM
I have a Sig 229 in 40 thats the perfect fit for me.
I pick up a 239 9mm next week.
The one I really want is the new 220 Compact (not the Carry) which is a 45. I'd take a serious look at this one. I like the regular DA/SA
July 27th, 2007 08:44 PM
Assuming you are dealing with budget limits and really want a .45, I would buy a Ruger P345 and a KelTeck P3AT. The total cost is about what you would pay for most .40 or .45 pistols.
The Ruger is a Commander size and weight .45 with good sights, 100% reliabiltiy, great accuracy, and, with the polymer frame and recoil buffer, soft recoil, even with +P ammo.
The price for all this is low enough that you can still afford a P3AT. This, inspite of it's wimpy cartridge and DOA-only actiion, is the one you will have with you if and when you need a firearm.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
July 27th, 2007 08:56 PM
I have a .40 (Glock-23) and .45 (Glock-30). They are about the same size and weight. I carry the .40 for the 3 extra rounds and it feels better in my hand. Those three rounds could make the difference one day. I do plan to get a 1911 type pistol one day...maybe a Sig!
July 28th, 2007 02:59 AM
I don't get any "inner voice" telling me that I must run out and buy a new firearm chambered in .40
I'm happy with the .45 for self defense shooting but, I won't yell at anybody for choosing the .40 for self~defense.
It's a worthwhile caliber.
I'm an old~fashioned guy when it comes to self~defense calibers and I'm sticking with what I know best and that would be .45.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
July 28th, 2007 04:59 AM
Both calibers will do the job just fine, if you do your job right. It's really a matter of which one you're more comfortable with & enjoy. Personally, I don't care for the recoil on .40s, but have no problems on .45s.
Depending on my needs, I carry a 9mm or .45. Try them both out, but I'll admit a Sig 220 is one nice shooting .45.
Years ago, when I switched Depts, I wanted a .45 & took out a Glock 21, H&K USP45, & a Sig 220. I shot the Sig the best, with Glock 2nd, then the H&K. I ended up getting the Glock because of capacity. But I loved shooting the 220 & wouldn't mind getting one now.
"Use human means as though divine ones didn't exist, and divine means as though there were no human ones." Baltasar Gracian
Integrated Close Combat
Glock 19 & 26, Kahr CM9 & P45, Para P12, Kel-Tec P-32, S&W 442, & Dan Wesson 14-2.
Search tags for this page
dan wesson 29770
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors