-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I cant decide between a .45 or a .40.</div></div>The .40 is only a solution to the problems it has itself created. There was never, ever, anything wrong with a 4" or 5" 1911 in .45 ACP.
Unlike many here, I remember the development of the Bren 10. It was a good idea at the time. But then the CZ75 came along and made the same concept cheap and available. End of the Bren 10.
That left us with the 10mm cartridge, an unworkable fad. So the manufacturers poured money into research, development and support for an accurate and controllable .40 caliber round.
When the bugs were finally worked out of the .40 S&W, and with its velocity reduced, the 'new' round became a vehicle for the manufacturers to sell even more new hanguns to a law enforcement market already saturated with enough duty handguns.
The industry made money, and the rank-and-file were happy, especially if they thought they needed something new and liked the color black.
But if I'm not forced by policy to carry a .40 I'll still take a .45ACP. For everything I do, or might have to do, with a pistol. Every time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I cant decide between a .45 or a .40.</div></div>The .40 is only a solution to the problems it has itself created. There was never, ever, anything wrong with a 4" or 5" 1911 in .45 ACP.
Unlike many here, I remember the development of the Bren 10. It was a good idea at the time. But then the CZ75 came along and made the same concept cheap and available. End of the Bren 10.
That left us with the 10mm cartridge, an unworkable fad. So the manufacturers poured money into research, development and support for an accurate and controllable .40 caliber round.
When the bugs were finally worked out of the .40 S&W, and with its velocity reduced, the 'new' round became a vehicle for the manufacturers to sell even more new hanguns to a law enforcement market already saturated with enough duty handguns.
The industry made money, and the rank-and-file were happy, especially if they thought they needed something new and liked the color black.
But if I'm not forced by policy to carry a .40 I'll still take a .45ACP. For everything I do, or might have to do, with a pistol. Every time.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
This is a great post, a nice history of the 10mm/.40 and a great conclusion with which I could not agree with more about the .45...I love the 10mm and think that its the ultimate subgun round but it is definitely my favorite wild boar hunting round and it has never failed me...it has the penetration of an AK through vehicles...
This is a great post, a nice history of the 10mm/.40 and a great conclusion with which I could not agree with more about the .45...I love the 10mm and think that its the ultimate subgun round but it is definitely my favorite wild boar hunting round and it has never failed me...it has the penetration of an AK through vehicles...
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">haha still trying to decide but after playing around with the g27 some more I decided its going to be too hard for me to conceal well since Im so small framed. 5'6" and 140. So now I may take heed to what every one has said and try to find a 1911 for a reasonable price on a college budget.... there was nice hammerless para subcomact 1911 at the store that may come home with me next month if its still there. </div></div>
there is a para LDA in the for sale section right now actually
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">haha still trying to decide but after playing around with the g27 some more I decided its going to be too hard for me to conceal well since Im so small framed. 5'6" and 140. So now I may take heed to what every one has said and try to find a 1911 for a reasonable price on a college budget.... there was nice hammerless para subcomact 1911 at the store that may come home with me next month if its still there. </div></div>
there is a para LDA in the for sale section right now actually
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
If it's for CCW I prefer the glock 27 for it's size the 30 is too fat. I'd also happily carry a 4" commander size frame .45 if I had a reliable one for carry. I do love the .45 round, no replacement for 230 grains, I don't care how fast it goes or what the stupid chart says it's ft/lbs is. If they could get a .45 glock the size of the 27 I'd carry the 45. For a home gun where size is not an issue I don't think it matters much.
That said can someone point out a single self defense incident be it in or out of the home where the person fired MORE than 6 rounds of ANY caliber that resulted in the person then after firing 6+ rounds being shot/killed by the intruder or after running out of ammo? I've never heard of such an incident.
I understand wanting to carry as much caliber as you can control, and I understand wanting to have extra ammo just in case, better off prepared. However, realistically, in all my years I don't remember a single incident I've read or heard about where a person needed to fire more than 5-6 shots of any caliber or ended up being killed after running their weapon dry in the civilian world.
I'm sure it's probalby happened somewhere under some circumstance, but it has to be the huge exception, on top of the already tiny tiny chance you'll ever be faced with having to use a gun to defend yourself or your home anyway.
Even then I would make the case that if guys spent half as much time training with their weapon as they did discussing what caliber they needed and how many rounds they needed it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Frankly, gun rights arguments aside, I've always been amazed at what passes in most states CCW classes for proficient with a weapon. I've probably seen a few hundred people come through CCW courses over the years and their shooting in the practical section and frankly it's frighting they are allowed to carry a weapon on the street. They can barely hit a body target at 10' when calm in a class, with instruction. I wouldn't want to be in a 180 degree arc of them in a panic situation firing on someone attacking them. A good % of them are more likely to shoot themselves than the person attacking them.
If it's for CCW I prefer the glock 27 for it's size the 30 is too fat. I'd also happily carry a 4" commander size frame .45 if I had a reliable one for carry. I do love the .45 round, no replacement for 230 grains, I don't care how fast it goes or what the stupid chart says it's ft/lbs is. If they could get a .45 glock the size of the 27 I'd carry the 45. For a home gun where size is not an issue I don't think it matters much.
That said can someone point out a single self defense incident be it in or out of the home where the person fired MORE than 6 rounds of ANY caliber that resulted in the person then after firing 6+ rounds being shot/killed by the intruder or after running out of ammo? I've never heard of such an incident.
I understand wanting to carry as much caliber as you can control, and I understand wanting to have extra ammo just in case, better off prepared. However, realistically, in all my years I don't remember a single incident I've read or heard about where a person needed to fire more than 5-6 shots of any caliber or ended up being killed after running their weapon dry in the civilian world.
I'm sure it's probalby happened somewhere under some circumstance, but it has to be the huge exception, on top of the already tiny tiny chance you'll ever be faced with having to use a gun to defend yourself or your home anyway.
Even then I would make the case that if guys spent half as much time training with their weapon as they did discussing what caliber they needed and how many rounds they needed it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Frankly, gun rights arguments aside, I've always been amazed at what passes in most states CCW classes for proficient with a weapon. I've probably seen a few hundred people come through CCW courses over the years and their shooting in the practical section and frankly it's frighting they are allowed to carry a weapon on the street. They can barely hit a body target at 10' when calm in a class, with instruction. I wouldn't want to be in a 180 degree arc of them in a panic situation firing on someone attacking them. A good % of them are more likely to shoot themselves than the person attacking them.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That said can someone point out a single self defense incident be it in or out of the home where the person fired MORE than 6 rounds of ANY caliber that resulted in the person then after firing 6+ rounds being shot/killed by the intruder or after running out of ammo? I've never heard of such an incident.
I understand wanting to carry as much caliber as you can control, and I understand wanting to have extra ammo just in case, better off prepared. However, realistically, in all my years I don't remember a single incident I've read or heard about where a person needed to fire more than 5-6 shots of any caliber or ended up being killed after running their weapon dry in the civilian world.</div></div>
There are several incidents where more than 6 rounds were fired in self defense. One took place in southern ohio a few years back. Home owner emptied a revolver at an intruder and only hit him once. Intruder fleed. Another incident I know of took place in PA where 12 shots where fired by a home owner. I can not find the links but will keep looking.
The thing is the media rarely posts the details of these shootings. You have to obtain the press release from the LE agency if you want the details.
Just because it is not common to hear of people shooting more than 6 rounds is no reason to leave yourself short. I conduct a lot of force on force training for LE, Mil and Civis. In a large majority of scenarios the shooter tend to fire well more than 6 rounds. LE is a great example since they are involved in hundreds of lethal force encounters a year. In those incidents officers fire 5 or more rounds.
My cousin (Marine) just came back from Iraq and never fired his weapon. He is going back and I doubt he will carry less ammo just because he didn't fire his weapon during his first tour.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That said can someone point out a single self defense incident be it in or out of the home where the person fired MORE than 6 rounds of ANY caliber that resulted in the person then after firing 6+ rounds being shot/killed by the intruder or after running out of ammo? I've never heard of such an incident.
I understand wanting to carry as much caliber as you can control, and I understand wanting to have extra ammo just in case, better off prepared. However, realistically, in all my years I don't remember a single incident I've read or heard about where a person needed to fire more than 5-6 shots of any caliber or ended up being killed after running their weapon dry in the civilian world.</div></div>
There are several incidents where more than 6 rounds were fired in self defense. One took place in southern ohio a few years back. Home owner emptied a revolver at an intruder and only hit him once. Intruder fleed. Another incident I know of took place in PA where 12 shots where fired by a home owner. I can not find the links but will keep looking.
The thing is the media rarely posts the details of these shootings. You have to obtain the press release from the LE agency if you want the details.
Just because it is not common to hear of people shooting more than 6 rounds is no reason to leave yourself short. I conduct a lot of force on force training for LE, Mil and Civis. In a large majority of scenarios the shooter tend to fire well more than 6 rounds. LE is a great example since they are involved in hundreds of lethal force encounters a year. In those incidents officers fire 5 or more rounds.
My cousin (Marine) just came back from Iraq and never fired his weapon. He is going back and I doubt he will carry less ammo just because he didn't fire his weapon during his first tour.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
Thanks,
I agree completely with better prepared than screwed argument. It's more of a devil's advocate on my part from reading way too many posts on needed a bigger caliber and more ammo for CCW/Home defense. Better to have it and not need it. It's way more complicated than that though.
First how many people are shooting big calibers that can't control them and don't train enough to even be proficient with them at the range, much less under duress. I see this in courses all the time. People walk in with .357/44, or new shooters with .40/45's and they can't handle them. Yet they pass the course, and stick one in their pants and figure they are good to go. All you have to do is insert a little stress (say by shooting a falling tree with other course members) and they can't hit a house door much less a 8" target.
To me though again I think 99.99% of the time once you start shooting at an intruder or an attacker they are going to break off the attack. I just don't remember hearing of many homeowners or civilians being killed after running out of ammo or firing excess of say 6 rounds. I'm sure there are incidents where people have emptied their guns at intruders/attackers but have any of those incidents still resulted in the home owner then being further attacked/killed? I know of several where the person only got off a couple rounds before they were shot/wounded or the attacker wrestled the gun away etc. but there again no amount of ammo is going to fix that situation either. One could make the case that a harder hitting round might have helped, but that's hugely subjective.
I also think this simply goes more toward training, I understand completely that in a stress situation hits -vs- shots fired % tanks but still if you unload six rounds at someone and only hit them once and only enough to wound them the problem isn't the small caliber you're shooting or that you only had six rounds. I'm sure their neighbors were damn glad they only had 6 rounds pending on where those other 5 ended up.
LE encounters are completely different animal. They are dealing with frequently the worst of the worst on a daily basis, along with frequently engaging multiple targets in less than the best tactical way because they are trying to protect the public. IE storming a criminals house, hostage situations, armed robberies. These are not situations a homeowner or civilian finds themselves in. If the LE trainers around here are to be believed most current officers don't even like guns, much less strive to be proficient with them at least to the level they should be for their job.
Thanks,
I agree completely with better prepared than screwed argument. It's more of a devil's advocate on my part from reading way too many posts on needed a bigger caliber and more ammo for CCW/Home defense. Better to have it and not need it. It's way more complicated than that though.
First how many people are shooting big calibers that can't control them and don't train enough to even be proficient with them at the range, much less under duress. I see this in courses all the time. People walk in with .357/44, or new shooters with .40/45's and they can't handle them. Yet they pass the course, and stick one in their pants and figure they are good to go. All you have to do is insert a little stress (say by shooting a falling tree with other course members) and they can't hit a house door much less a 8" target.
To me though again I think 99.99% of the time once you start shooting at an intruder or an attacker they are going to break off the attack. I just don't remember hearing of many homeowners or civilians being killed after running out of ammo or firing excess of say 6 rounds. I'm sure there are incidents where people have emptied their guns at intruders/attackers but have any of those incidents still resulted in the home owner then being further attacked/killed? I know of several where the person only got off a couple rounds before they were shot/wounded or the attacker wrestled the gun away etc. but there again no amount of ammo is going to fix that situation either. One could make the case that a harder hitting round might have helped, but that's hugely subjective.
I also think this simply goes more toward training, I understand completely that in a stress situation hits -vs- shots fired % tanks but still if you unload six rounds at someone and only hit them once and only enough to wound them the problem isn't the small caliber you're shooting or that you only had six rounds. I'm sure their neighbors were damn glad they only had 6 rounds pending on where those other 5 ended up.
LE encounters are completely different animal. They are dealing with frequently the worst of the worst on a daily basis, along with frequently engaging multiple targets in less than the best tactical way because they are trying to protect the public. IE storming a criminals house, hostage situations, armed robberies. These are not situations a homeowner or civilian finds themselves in. If the LE trainers around here are to be believed most current officers don't even like guns, much less strive to be proficient with them at least to the level they should be for their job.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
Todd, I think we agree but I'm not sure I follow your argument concerning the 6 rounds for the CCW/HD?
I am having problems citing specific incidents because most of the news articles are no longer online. Either way, I know personally of two incidents, one concerning a 38 revolver and one with a Kahr 9mm. Both instances the shooters emptied their weapons and hit the suspects but did not kill them. Just because we don't hear about people not shooting 6 or more rounds doesn't make a valid argument.
Take LE Sniper shootings. ASA has the average around 50 yards. Does that mean we should only train LE Snipers for 50 yard shots? No because averages don't tell us anything. We train beyond both ends of the spectrum.
LE shootings are a great source concerning how CCW Permit holders should train specifically because LE documents hard facts regarding shootings. I also disagree with your statement that LE is dealing with a "completely different animal". Not at all. Who is going to attempt to car jack you or break into your home or go on a shooting rampage at the store you are in? It is the worst of the worst. That is who CCW Permit holders are going to deal with. LE has it easy compared to CCW Permit holders. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I work in LE.... So LE typically has more training than the typical CCW Permit holder, they have a better source of back up, they tend to have more ammo and access to long guns in many instances. So CCW and LE have a lot in common and we can learn a lot from both in regards to employing lethal force.
One incident to look at is Trolly Square. The first guy to confront the active shooter was an off duty officer in street clothes and 1911 with only the mag in his pocket. Listen to his statement during the after action report and he talks about not having enough ammo and it began to worry him after he fired only a few shots.
One more thing before I end this specific rant.... Pistols are not death rays. I think 45 speer gold dot 230 gr is a great round for lethal force, though the last shooting we had the bad guy took 4 hits and was still able to run away before giving up. But during that time he was still able to hit one LE in the neck with his 22 revolver.
Todd, I think we agree but I'm not sure I follow your argument concerning the 6 rounds for the CCW/HD?
I am having problems citing specific incidents because most of the news articles are no longer online. Either way, I know personally of two incidents, one concerning a 38 revolver and one with a Kahr 9mm. Both instances the shooters emptied their weapons and hit the suspects but did not kill them. Just because we don't hear about people not shooting 6 or more rounds doesn't make a valid argument.
Take LE Sniper shootings. ASA has the average around 50 yards. Does that mean we should only train LE Snipers for 50 yard shots? No because averages don't tell us anything. We train beyond both ends of the spectrum.
LE shootings are a great source concerning how CCW Permit holders should train specifically because LE documents hard facts regarding shootings. I also disagree with your statement that LE is dealing with a "completely different animal". Not at all. Who is going to attempt to car jack you or break into your home or go on a shooting rampage at the store you are in? It is the worst of the worst. That is who CCW Permit holders are going to deal with. LE has it easy compared to CCW Permit holders. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I work in LE.... So LE typically has more training than the typical CCW Permit holder, they have a better source of back up, they tend to have more ammo and access to long guns in many instances. So CCW and LE have a lot in common and we can learn a lot from both in regards to employing lethal force.
One incident to look at is Trolly Square. The first guy to confront the active shooter was an off duty officer in street clothes and 1911 with only the mag in his pocket. Listen to his statement during the after action report and he talks about not having enough ammo and it began to worry him after he fired only a few shots.
One more thing before I end this specific rant.... Pistols are not death rays. I think 45 speer gold dot 230 gr is a great round for lethal force, though the last shooting we had the bad guy took 4 hits and was still able to run away before giving up. But during that time he was still able to hit one LE in the neck with his 22 revolver.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
We agree on most stuff.
My reason for citing 5-6 rounds is just about anything will hold that many rounds of any caliber. I agree there are incidents where people have ran out of ammo. However, usually those people are:
A: not hitting their target - this is of course the nature of a conflict and stress in life and death, and IMO lack of most people taking training seriously. Bigger doesn't help here and neither does more ammo if you can't hit what you are shooting at.
B: I don't know of any incidents involving civilians where they ran out of ammo, and THEN were killed by their attacker. I'm sure they exist. I've read/heard of a few where they ran out of ammo and their attacker wounded or otherwise fled but the victim still survived. While we don't hear about the exact number of shots fired in cases where the suspect flees and the victim survives. You can bet if they ran out of ammo and were killed after the fact it would be all over the news. For example the two incidents you spoke of, were those shooters killed after they ran out of ammo defending themselves?
My point is I guess I don't think having a big caliber and lots of bullets are the most important things in a confrontation. I think the typical macho gun owner is too easily swayed into thinking they are going to end up in a matrix lobby like scene. I do see the possible advantage in what I believe is very very rare incidents (but as we said better prepared than sorry) It's a nice option, IF you can control it. Most people should be much much more concerned with being able to hit what they shoot at, and training to perform under duress at least as much as possible in training. That would help people out 1000x more than having a .45 -vs- 9mm or 20 rounds -vs- 5 rounds.
I do agree that even we as civi's have to deal with the worst of the worst. However, for the most part the guy breaking into your house or attempting to steal your wallet, is not expecting or prepared to be fired upon. A armed robber or hostage taker, is much more likely to stand his ground and settle for a fire fight. I agree though it's not something to count on, better to be prepared.
We agree on most stuff.
My reason for citing 5-6 rounds is just about anything will hold that many rounds of any caliber. I agree there are incidents where people have ran out of ammo. However, usually those people are:
A: not hitting their target - this is of course the nature of a conflict and stress in life and death, and IMO lack of most people taking training seriously. Bigger doesn't help here and neither does more ammo if you can't hit what you are shooting at.
B: I don't know of any incidents involving civilians where they ran out of ammo, and THEN were killed by their attacker. I'm sure they exist. I've read/heard of a few where they ran out of ammo and their attacker wounded or otherwise fled but the victim still survived. While we don't hear about the exact number of shots fired in cases where the suspect flees and the victim survives. You can bet if they ran out of ammo and were killed after the fact it would be all over the news. For example the two incidents you spoke of, were those shooters killed after they ran out of ammo defending themselves?
My point is I guess I don't think having a big caliber and lots of bullets are the most important things in a confrontation. I think the typical macho gun owner is too easily swayed into thinking they are going to end up in a matrix lobby like scene. I do see the possible advantage in what I believe is very very rare incidents (but as we said better prepared than sorry) It's a nice option, IF you can control it. Most people should be much much more concerned with being able to hit what they shoot at, and training to perform under duress at least as much as possible in training. That would help people out 1000x more than having a .45 -vs- 9mm or 20 rounds -vs- 5 rounds.
I do agree that even we as civi's have to deal with the worst of the worst. However, for the most part the guy breaking into your house or attempting to steal your wallet, is not expecting or prepared to be fired upon. A armed robber or hostage taker, is much more likely to stand his ground and settle for a fire fight. I agree though it's not something to count on, better to be prepared.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">haha still trying to decide but after playing around with the g27 some more I decided its going to be too hard for me to conceal well since Im so small framed. 5'6" and 140. So now I may take heed to what every one has said and try to find a 1911 for a reasonable price on a college budget.... there was nice hammerless para subcomact 1911 at the store that may come home with me next month if its still there. </div></div>
AF, ya might want to look into the THIN ..IWB holsters..allows you to pack a decent size gun rather easily. I'm not a lil guy but can carry my 21 w/ a tshirt in the summer. Just have a little room in the waist and it'll be good ta go. I like the FIST kydex...somethin to think about..FYI...good luck with your endeavor
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">haha still trying to decide but after playing around with the g27 some more I decided its going to be too hard for me to conceal well since Im so small framed. 5'6" and 140. So now I may take heed to what every one has said and try to find a 1911 for a reasonable price on a college budget.... there was nice hammerless para subcomact 1911 at the store that may come home with me next month if its still there. </div></div>
AF, ya might want to look into the THIN ..IWB holsters..allows you to pack a decent size gun rather easily. I'm not a lil guy but can carry my 21 w/ a tshirt in the summer. Just have a little room in the waist and it'll be good ta go. I like the FIST kydex...somethin to think about..FYI...good luck with your endeavor
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
do they make a thin IWB for the glock 27 it seems hard to find one at the local gun shops. I compared the 1911 and glock side by side and they're the same width.
do they make a thin IWB for the glock 27 it seems hard to find one at the local gun shops. I compared the 1911 and glock side by side and they're the same width.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
For home protection, I have a Glock 30 loaded with Ranger SXT .45 ACP+P ammo.. I would not want to be on the receiving end.
For home protection, I have a Glock 30 loaded with Ranger SXT .45 ACP+P ammo.. I would not want to be on the receiving end.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do they make a thin IWB for the glock 27 it seems hard to find one at the local gun shops. I compared the 1911 and glock side by side and they're the same width. </div></div>
I use High Noon IWB holsters but there are many good holster makers that do great work at reasonable prices. You can make that G27 just disappear!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do they make a thin IWB for the glock 27 it seems hard to find one at the local gun shops. I compared the 1911 and glock side by side and they're the same width. </div></div>
I use High Noon IWB holsters but there are many good holster makers that do great work at reasonable prices. You can make that G27 just disappear!
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
Awesome thanks Qeug, thats exactly what I want for it to disappear like a magician making his assistant disappear.
Awesome thanks Qeug, thats exactly what I want for it to disappear like a magician making his assistant disappear.
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lighter and smaller you go the more recoil you're going to perceive so the slower your follow up shots will be, AND you will be giving up sight radius. I cannot for the life of me why you would willingly suffer those deficiencies for a "home defence" weapon. </div></div>
In a home defense situation, or one where you must defend your life with a firearm, you will never feel that recoil... Your other point about sight radius is valid.
I have and still carry both .40 & .45
Some bullets may expand.... the .45 wont shrink though...lol
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lighter and smaller you go the more recoil you're going to perceive so the slower your follow up shots will be, AND you will be giving up sight radius. I cannot for the life of me why you would willingly suffer those deficiencies for a "home defence" weapon. </div></div>
In a home defense situation, or one where you must defend your life with a firearm, you will never feel that recoil... Your other point about sight radius is valid.
I have and still carry both .40 & .45
Some bullets may expand.... the .45 wont shrink though...lol
Re: .40 vs .45 for ccw/ home defense
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">down under or or hideaway from high noon? </div></div>
I have both for several models, one of which allows a shirt to be tucked in and is much lower (1.5" or so) than the other. As I squirrel away one of several different pistols on the belt, as the mood suits, I've come to prefer the higher carry but it requires an untucked shirt. There is good versatility to some of these as they have tensioners, are resistant to sweat, are pretty affordable and in some cases, a particular model will accomodate various pistol types.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AFShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">down under or or hideaway from high noon? </div></div>
I have both for several models, one of which allows a shirt to be tucked in and is much lower (1.5" or so) than the other. As I squirrel away one of several different pistols on the belt, as the mood suits, I've come to prefer the higher carry but it requires an untucked shirt. There is good versatility to some of these as they have tensioners, are resistant to sweat, are pretty affordable and in some cases, a particular model will accomodate various pistol types.
Similar threads
Suppressors
Help Me Choose My Next Can.
