However, the bangers don't care much about pennies per round. For them 40 and 9mm are in a dead heat. The 45 is left out in the cold. For them and their manual of arms it probably doesn't mean that much.
Back in the day we played with .45 acp and 185 grain hollowpoints and were getting almost 10 mm performance without exceeding Max.
I like the 185 HP's and keep a stock of the Remington Golden Sabers +P 185's. They're great for shorter barrel 45's. IMHO the 230's work best with the 5 inch barrels.
The 40 could be an ideal cartridge for the 1911. Dimensionally it improves the horrid feed pathway of the 45 ACP. I think it may, however over pressure the system a bit. Still the 10mm seems to work.
USPSA limited division shooters have been running 40s for 20 years now. I think I was the only guy in the top ten in the area shoot in 95 who was running a 45 ACP and I was using a 155 grain bullet [
I just don't see a lot of them, in fact I don't see any of them in the 1911 platform made for carry. It just might revive the 1911 IF the pistol can be modernized, say with a polymer frame and better extractor system. The 1935/Hi-Power in 40 never caught on, but I suspect it was a dimensional problem.
There is a lot of myth and legend regarding combat. For every individual who appeared to be blown off his feet with an impact from a .45 there is an individual who took a solid center hit from a 7.62 NATO who didn't even flinch. A friend of mine who served with Marine Force Recon went through a door in Fallujah and got hit from two different directions with AK fire, and to his memory was blown off his feet by the impact (his armor stopped the rounds, but he suffered several broken ribs), but one of his teammates said it looked more like he literally JUMPED backwards. In LE there are guys who soak up .45s and guys who are smashed to the ground by .25s. There are a lot of factors regarding why a person reacts one way to being shot and someone else reacts another way. When it comes to handgun calibers ANY handgun caliber is intrinsically lacking in ballistic energy compared to a rifle. With modern defensive ammo, the actual street percentages of what calibers effectively lead to a cessation in assaultive behavior is very different than it was 5 or even 10 years ago. Today, the most effective 9mm JHP will drop an assailant just as effectively as best .45 load. Part of what made the .40 popular was it did indeed bridge the effectiveness gap between the 9mm and the .45 that was very dramatic a couple of decades ago. It filled a necessary niche. However, today the projectile and powder technology have brought most serious handgun calibers into parity with each other in the antipersonnel role, and the advantages of the .40 have been erased. A 9mm today will give you more capacity, faster shot-to-shot recoveries, and equivalent terminal performance for urban combat situations. I carried a .45 for years, a .40 while I was in LE, and now I carry a 9mm for my urban defensive needs. When I go hiking in the mountains I upgrade to a 10mm for the penetration against dangerous game. Of course, if I was in the military field, stuck with nonexpanding ammo, I'd take a .45 any day of the week over the 9mm.
I carry a Beretta 92 9mm. I heard the 40 barrel from a 96 can fit too so when a friend got a 96 we traded barrels. They fit. Mags were the same too. I'm cool with the idea of a 40 but I'm not interested in going out of my way to convert. If someone made a 357 sig barrel I would be interested in trying.
I would discourage you from trying to convert a 92 to .40 or .357 Sig. The 92 is a great platform, but it is not robust enough to handle the power levels of the .40, much less the .357 Sig. When I was in the Border Patrol they issued us 96Ds in .40, and we broke guns regularly from the battering the .40 gave them. Simply switching out the barrel isn't a good idea either; as the breech face, ejector, and extractor would not be correctly positioned to function correctly.
Good point. Wilson makes a plastic buffer and heavier recoil spring that can help reduce wear from the hotter loads. Still doesn't help with your other problems but it does stretch a little more life out of a 96.
Or simply get a Glock 22 or 23 in .40 S&W, Designed for that caliber and can easily be converted to 9mm
I like the 1911 and have many versions from the standard military Colt to Remington (which I believe is superior) to cheapies such as old Spanish Llama to a baby Israeli 45 - very compact. Never cared for 9mm but the benefits of a 9mm are obvious. Most notable is double stacking, meaning more ammo without reloading. Less barrel rise. Candidly, I'm not fond of the first shot of the 1911 being single action either for the delay factor. Still, 1911 is my choice for impact force. My pocket pistol(s) is Ruger LPC .380 with crimson trace grip. The .380 is not as much a slouch as people think and the little .380s are incredibly compact and lightweight. Just drop it in a pocket.
Or one could simply purchase a Glock model Twenty pistol, which is chambered for the ten millimeter automatic cartridge.
I'm not going to start the 1911 wars here, but I agree to a degree about the 380. The new ammo is really much more effective and the gangbangers have discovered the Bersa pistols. The problem with the 380 is its use in a pistol using blow black operation. The system is really designed to be most effective and is optimized for a specific type of ammunition especially with bullet weight and velocity. Powder type, bullet weight, velocity make a bigger difference then in a recoil operating system. An exception is the 1911. Unless you're willing to shoot 200 to 300 rounds of high priced defensive ammo through a weapon, you'll never really know about the reliability. Dr. Who and I have talked about this and IMHO I think in ideal 380 would have recoil operation and high capacity.
They make a 10 round magazine for the Ruger LCP .380, giving you 11 (10+1), while still compact. While the extra 4 makes the mag stick out the the bottom, it also give you better grip control. Testing shows that at close range the .380 will penetrate a windshield and still possess deadly impact force. I load mine alternating between hard ball (penetration) and man-stoppers ("hollow points"). There are high capacity (double stack) .380s. I had a Beretta .380 double stack (13+1), but didn't like the fat grip plus it was heavy. The polymer .380s are feather weight by comparison. Of course being lightweight costs recovery control, but I'm a person who believes it is the first shot that matters more than followups. In my opinion, a personal defense firearm is for situations of distances of 30 feet or less, for which the real question is do you actually have it with you? People often will leave bulky CCWs behind. I don't want to always have to wear a jacket for concealment nor feel like a gun slinger - meaning the weight and bulk of a firearm. A modern .380 is so lightweight and compact I can just drop it in a cargo pants pocket with no sense of weight nor anyone knowing it is there. Personally, I think 7 (6+1) is enough ammo to realistically be able to deal with 99% of potential situations. Modern ammo makes the smaller (380) caliber shorts viable, when in the past they were not. 380 is the mimimum. I am a BIG advocate of crimson trace grips because in a panic most people couldn't hit a cow at 10 feet with a pocket gun. The 380 polymer pocket guns are not suitable for thousands of rounds fired thru them, but they aren't a target pistol anyway. I've never had one jam. (The Beretta double stack did and I got rid of it. 1 jam or non-fire and I'll get rid of a pistol). While essentially any handgun can be carried as a CCW with a jacket, even a baby 1911 is far too heavy in my opinion. I like the firepower of a 45acp, but don't like the 1911 design due to the first round being single action. Then again stub nose revolvers are still very viable and also offer their own pluses - particularly with a shaved or internal trigger so not to snag up when pulled out of a purse or pocket. Most women prefer an alloy 5 shot 38 special with a crimson trace grip over a polymer compact .380.
I also like the CT grip lasers. The manual of arms is still being written with lasers and you'll have to decide on how to best zero them. There are three methods each with pro's and con's. While there are high capacity 380's out there, there are none in current manufacture. I like snubs and carry them. There is nothing faster on the planet as an anti-ambush weapon, but it has its own manual of arms and is NOT a first weapon for anyone especially a woman. The compact 9mm's offer about the same size with much better reliability are very tough, case in point being the various Kahr's and Walther PPS. I'm not sure what you're taking about regarding the SA operation of the 1911. All the shots are the same and the lock time is very quick.
In recommending a CCW for people who are not firearm enthusiasts, it is important to remember they will have little to no shooting skills or practice - and it also likely the firearm will be loaded and never cleaned for years to decades. This makes such as an alloy 5 shot 38 special with instant-on crimson trace (with internal trigger) ideal for most people. The grip laser battery if not used it good for at least a decade and lack of cleaning shouldn't be a problem as the alloy won't rust. Small enough for a purse or pocket and a nice little glove box revolver too. Other than really old, cheapo steel Saturday night specials, I've never heard of a modern revolver that failed to fire or jammed up. Alloys and polymers avoid the rusting issues. The firearms someone in law enforcement carries is a very different question than a convenient CCW or personal defense firearm for inexperienced shooters. Also, a home defense handgun is a very different creature than a CCW. If opting for home defense via a handgun, in my opinion a heavy steel revolver (.357 to 44 mag) with a 4-6 inch barrel is an excellent choice, but it too heavy for a CCW. Candidly, I like the solid FEEL of heavy steel revolvers. I used to have a Colt Python .357 with 10 inch barrel (VERY heavy). It has been factory worked up to being incredibly smooth, but I sold it a years ago. Wish I hadn't. I bought it for $1000, sold it for $800 - and its now worth about $2500+). If I had to pick only ONE firearm for the rest of my life, it's be a Colt Python .357 - as smooth of action as any handgun I've ever handled. Very rugged.
The necessity to put back the hammer for the first round. For some reason that throws me off in terms of delay. Because it becomes so sensitive with it cocked, I'm hesitant to do it unless to then immediately fire. It's a personal thing I suppose. I'm a (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor shot with a handgun, less than average with a rifle and better than average with a shotgun, why a crimson trace grip on any handgun is a MUST for me. I've trained myself to the laser dot and have become very quick and accurate with it. I can't hit s..t using the sights on a pistol/revolver.
I'll never go below 24 of 25 on trap shooting, even with eith a non-competition shotgun. Skeet is a bit too fast for me. Not sure why I'm good with a shotgun but so poor with a handgun, though it seem psychological. I will shoot better (faster and more accurate) with an 1800s cap and ball single shot pistol and more accurate with a cap and ball Remington BP 44 than a full sized 1911. How well I shoot seems to be based upon how the firearm feels and whether I like it. For example, I am a significantly better rifle shot with an M1 than an M1A and better with both than an AR15 - but I really don't like ARs. I have better control and am more accurate with a full sized 1911 than a full size 9mm, but I don't like 9mm. Weird, huh? I think it's a confidence thing. As example, I think I could probably hit a fly in flight with a very fine 1800s rifled barrel 45 caliber German cap and ball single shot target pistol I have, but I can take all the time I want and the odds I'll bulls eye with a 1911 at 10 yards is next to zero. Yet I know the 1911 is likely as least as accurate if not more. Of all the MANY firearms I have, in a true danger-sense situation I will usually grab my ordinary twin hammer 12 gauge coach shotgun because I have 100% confidence I can hit anything with it. I like how it looks, how it feels, cocking the hammers seems to create confidence and I like the potential to fire both barrels. I have nothing against 9mm, just don't like them for some reason. On one occasion, hearing a noise outside at night and deciding to check it out, the coach shotgun not at-hand, it wasn't until outside I realized I had just grabbed my 1865 trapdoor Springfield with bayonet (5 shells in a stock holder) - all 6 feet of it - with this the worst choice I could have grabbed by any practical consideration. I've also grabbed a cap and ball 44 on occasion rather than a modern handgun. Even a 67 caliber 1700s flintlock pistol one time - 100% confident it had me covered. That is why debating which is the best firearm for a person is so problematical. For most people, in part it is about how the firearm feels to the person. A person should handle prospective firearms before buying it, regardless of what the gun shop tells a person is the firearm best for the person. I do know 90% of the time a woman will pick a revolver and a guy will pick a semi-auto pistol for a CCW. There's a woman I know who qualifies as a marksmen with handguns. Her CCW is an Airweight 38sp OR a solid 1960s stainless tiny 25 caliber semi auto with pearl grips. Why the 25? "I like it." For home defense handgun? An old chrome Rossi stub .357 - a heavy, solid revolver with a "nice feel."
Most folks who carry an M1911 style pistol carry in condition 1: Loaded, chambered, cocked, safety on.
The only time I've accidentally fired a firearm was a cocked 1911. So probably I'm spooked by it. I fumble with the side safety so don't use it. I know that's not standard practice. There are certain hand movements that seem to come natural to me and others than just don't for some reason. Cocking comes natural, while a side lever isn't. Then again I shoot a lot of single action pistols and revolvers so cocking is just part of shooting to me. Another example is a trigger safety button versus top of shotgun safety. The latter is a natural to me, while a trigger guard blocking button safety isn't. This causes a delay and lack of confidence factor. I don't want my brain having to deal with a safety that doesn't come natural to me. I realized some time ago that I have confidence issues with modern handguns for some reason that seriously affects my accuracy. Not sure why. I need them to be no more complex than just pull the trigger or I fumble with it. Though generally not advised, the only thing that helped was training to a laser dot - which then evolved to having higher impulse point and shoot accuracy overall including without the laser. Hard sights on a handgun are like invisible to me, I really struggle with them and simply can not sight in quickly. I see handguns solely for VERY close quarter self defense for which ease of access and speed of a good first-shot is what matters.
Why would you keep the hammer down on loaded chamber with a 1911? That's what's called condition 2. The pistol is at its best in condition one, which is cocked and locked. An alternative is condition 3 with the hammer down on an empty chamber and a loaded magazine. This was the carry method with the US military when the weapon was standard and is also called among other things Israeli carry. You just rack the slide and the weapon is ready to go. Virtually no one recommends condition 2 as a carry option.
