# why is 9mm better than 40 for beginner?



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

I hear alot of expierenced guys say that 9mm is better than40 for a newb. But why is tgat? I understand that 40 is harder to control but if you shoot it enough you will get use to it eventually. I plan ob using my gun for HD and CC so i want a big hole lol. Just curious thanks in advance


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

40 cal. Is ok, 
why not 45 cal.?


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

PPQ doesnt come in 45 lol


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Buy the 40, if that's what you want.
Then buy a 9 mm after 
9mm is the same as a 38 cal


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

I just wanted to know why so many guys say "if your a beginner get a 9 mm..." didnt really understand the reasoning


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that statement. 

Caliber really doesn't matter all that much, as it really boils down to the shooter, his / her mindset and capability. 

The first revolver I ever shot was a .357 mag. I was 9 yrs. old at the time. :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The .40 is a high-velocity, high-intensity round. It is more difficult for a beginner to control.
The 9mm is also a (relatively) high-velocity round, but it is easier to control than the .40 is.
The .45 is the easiest to learn to control because its recoil is more of a "soft, slow push," while the .40 (and also the 9mm) tend to deliver fast jabs.

If you insist on beginning with the .40 round, I suggest finding a large, relatively heavy pistol from which to shoot it. Pistol weight softens recoil—the more the better.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

The .40S&W is an excellent caliber for SD purposes. Granted, it has more recoil, some are fond of calling it "snappy", but as you mentioned, most any gun can be master with time, patience, and diligence.

There is nothing wrong with a good 9mm pistol loaded with the best SD offerings. And training ammo is less expensive so that is a plus. For what it's worth, my primary carry gun is a .40S&W (gen3 Glock 23). I also have 9mm's and a .45ACP in my carry stable to keep my .40's company. The best guide to use is this.

Pick the gun that fits you the best, your wants, needs, and requirements, and with which you can deliver rounds to target accurately, consistently, and confidently. That is the one that will serve you best. This is not to say you can't have others from which to chose. But do keep in mind what I wrote here. Multiple guns can satisfy that criteria so you can have more than one that meets those specifics. In fact, having more than one is a good idea.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I had a beretta 92 in the 80's. colt govt model 70
.I shot the 45, better then the 9mm due to the trigger system, the true paper cutters were the colt 45 's
I think the better accuracy came down to the trigger system with the 1911.IMO
There were groups of shooters who came out everyweekend to socialize and cut paper, they all had 45's of different variations. adjustable sights, the gold cup was the top of the line.


----------



## Ksgunner (Aug 17, 2013)

My first EDC was a Ruger SR40C and I still carry it. I have never understood the "snappy" comments. I shoot with both hands or each hand, moving, standing or whatever. I have nothing against the 9mm, just don't want one. I also carry a Kimber Pro Carry II 4" sometimes. I like it a lot but it is a little large to fit my fat body and be comfortable.


----------



## Overkill0084 (Nov 28, 2010)

youngvet24 said:


> I hear a lot of experienced guys say that 9mm is better than40 for a newb. But why is tgat? I understand that 40 is harder to control but if you shoot it enough you will get use to it eventually. I plan ob using my gun for HD and CC so i want a big hole lol. Just curious thanks in advance


+1 on what everyone else has said. 9 mm is, IMHO, the "better" choice, but it's not as though the .40 is a bad choice. 
As for the "Big Hole," don't get your hopes up. Decent 9 mm SD ammo doesn't really give up much in effectiveness in comparison to the .40S&W. Noise and BS aside, it's pretty much a wash between the two.



> f you insist on beginning with the .40 round, I suggest finding a large, relatively heavy pistol from which to shoot it. Pistol weight softens recoil-the more the better.


This^^ bears repeating. Small handguns require more effort to become (and stay) proficient with. Small handguns with extra recoil, even more so.


----------



## kaboooom (Jul 6, 2013)

I bought the Beretta PX4 Storm Type F in full size. I like the way (some of) the energy is absorbed and transferred by the twisting barrel as well as how it manages the recoil bounce. I added a Hogue HandAll grip and the perceived recoil bounce was less. It then felt less snappy than my full sized SR9 (9mm). The bounce on the Berretta is easy to control. It may not be the same for you, but it works for me.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I definitely think 9mm is the way to go for a beginner. I've been on many gun forums for years... I cannot begin to tell ya the sheer # of posts I have seen over the years.. A newbie buys a "40" because that's the "hot" caliber... "All the police carry it" and "everyone told them that a 40 is a quick manstopper."

Then, they come post that the recoil is too much.

I've been shooting since 1993, and I don't care to shoot 40 caliber guns, personally. 9mm is my preference, and then 45ACP is second.

Despite what some claim here - I'm gonna say that 9mm is the way to go for a first gun. I don't necessarily subscribe to the "start with a 22lr pistol first" crowd. 9mm recoil is mild... You can learn to shoot AND also have a self defense gun at the same time (which you can't really do if you start with a 22lr)


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

If you learn to hit where you aim, 9mm is entirely adequate for self defense, when compared to most other handgun rounds. It is very pleasant to practice with in a full size pistol with target ammo, and in 'normal' times, is cheaper.

The .40 is a little sharper in the recoil department, all other things being equal, but not bad, with a proper grip. It just depends on the individual, really. A determined person will overcome any quirks that are common to any chambering. Just pick something, and become its master.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

youngvet24 said:


> I just wanted to know why so many guys say "if your a beginner get a 9 mm..." didnt really understand the reasoning


Less recoil is the reason. All things being equal a firearm that recoils less is easier to shoot more accurately due to a number of factors including: Anticipating recoil, flinching, pulling, pushing, less muzzle rise, etc.....

Many suggest starting with a .22 to practice the basics of sight alignment, trigger press, follow through, then once you've mastered that move to a higher caliber. As a beginner you don't want to create bad habits and then later have to correct them. .40 can be very snappy, especially in a light pistol, if your thinking about the snap rather than the fundamentals you could easily create bad habits from the start.

That's why it's recommended for beginners not to start w/ the .40. Proper pistol shooting is perhaps the most challenging of any firearm to master. I have a 300 Weatherby Magnum. I got scope eye once when I mounted the scope too far back. Believe me every time I fire that rifle I'm thinking about the sharp recoil rather than fully focusing on the shot. Higher recoiling firearms are more challenging to shoot accurately is the rule of thumb.


----------



## Tuefelhunden (Nov 20, 2006)

Ammo prices, flexibility of round selection regarding power options and recoil would be the main reasons. I can shoot any of the main 3 calibers without issue (and own all 3) but without question I am faster with 9mm on follow up shots and have more rounds on tap with a 9mm than the others given a similar launching platform. Fast accurate shots making many precise holes versus one big hole are more my thing. Ultimately, I side with the 9 is fine crowd given that all handgun cartridges are poor stoppers when compared to rifle cartridges and the performance differences between them are negligible. That said if one feels warm and fuzzy choosing 40, 45, etc. instead go for it. The only caution I would offer is that no caliber is the hammer of Thor thus trumping shot placement.

T


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

Thank you for all the input guys . Yall gave me alot of things to think about


----------



## mike402 (Jun 20, 2013)

You can take this for whatever its worth, but an experience at frontsight reinforced my beliefs with respect to the 9mm. In the four day handgun class, they have a man on man competition, where you are shooting at steel plates against somebody else in the class to see who knocks them down faster. I saw plenty of examples where the 9mm would sometimes take two or three rounds to knock the plates down, whereas the larger calibers knocked em down on the first shot every time. I'm not declaring that this will give you any type of advantage in the real world or against human targets, but I saw what I saw, and it was enough for me.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

With all due respect, your observation is based upon flawed evidence.

A steel plate that a .40 bullet, or a .45 bullet, will drop with one shot, will also drop from a solid 9mm hit.
However, a faster .40 bullet, or a more massive .45 bullet, will drop a plate that was hit peripherally, while a 9mm bullet might not.

But steel plates are not equivalent to the human body.
High-quality hits from any reasonably fast, reasonably heavy bullet will cause fight-stopping damage, while they will not always drop a steel plate.

Compare the size of the steel plate with the size of one of the important parts of the human body.
It should be obvious that what is merely a peripheral hit on a steel plate, is still a damaging, fight-stopping hit on a human body.

And finally: Accurate hits trump ballistics, every time.


----------



## all357mag (May 20, 2013)

It isn't! More poor advice! Shooting isn't rocket science, as some would have you believe. Get a gun that's comfortable, practice with it. ANY caliber will do. Unless you're shooting a 375 H&H out of a handgun, don't worry about control and recoil.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> With all due respect, your observation is based upon flawed evidence.
> 
> A steel plate that a .40 bullet, or a .45 bullet, will drop with one shot, will also drop from a solid 9mm hit.
> However, a faster .40 bullet, or a more massive .45 bullet, will drop a plate that was hit peripherally, while a 9mm bullet might not.
> ...


I totally agree with Steve, and if you want to get the steel down a little quicker w/ 9mm find or load up some hot 147 grain ammo.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

all357mag said:


> It isn't! More poor advice! Shooting isn't rocket science, as some would have you believe. Get a gun that's comfortable, practice with it. ANY caliber will do. Unless you're shooting a 375 H&H out of a handgun, don't worry about control and recoil.


And, what's your qualifications to make that statement? I would assume you professionally train a lot of brand new shooters?


----------



## mike402 (Jun 20, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> With all due respect, your observation is based upon flawed evidence.
> 
> A steel plate that a .40 bullet, or a .45 bullet, will drop with one shot, will also drop from a solid 9mm hit.
> However, a faster .40 bullet, or a more massive .45 bullet, will drop a plate that was hit peripherally, while a 9mm bullet might not.
> ...


I'm not even sure what this means: "your observation is based upon flawed evidence" My observations were based on...my real world observations. Not some Internet explanation about peripheral hits. Clearly the 9mm hits w/ less force. Yes of course accuracy trumps all. Unfortunately in the real world people aren't willing to stay still like the targets at the range to ensure high quality hits. This means you may likely end up with peripheral hits, and if my life is on the line, damn sure I want the round that will inflict the most amount of damage, while still providing a reasonable amount of control for the shooter. In my mind the .40/.45 trumps the 9 given that criteria. Even if the advantage is small given modern loads, I still prefer to stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

mike402 said:


> I'm not even sure what this means: "your observation is based upon flawed evidence" My observations were based on...my real world observations. Not some Internet explanation about peripheral hits. Clearly the 9mm hits w/ less force. Yes of course accuracy trumps all. Unfortunately in the real world people aren't willing to stay still like the targets at the range to ensure high quality hits. This means you may likely end up with peripheral hits, and if my life is on the line, damn sure I want the round that will inflict the most amount of damage, while still providing a reasonable amount of control for the shooter. In my mind the .40/.45 trumps the 9 given that criteria. Even if the advantage is small given modern loads, I still prefer to stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.


Mike, have you read the link below? I would assume you base your empirical observation on 115 grain 9mm range/ball ammo and it's effect on steel plates to determine the lethality of the caliber in question. Ballistics on 9mm/.40cal/.45 in their best loads are closer than you may believe w/ 9mm having less recoil, faster controlled follow up shots, and generally having a higher round capacity. All things being equal two or three 9mm hits with the best loading trumps one hit w/ a .40 or .45. The secret to handgun stopping power is where you hit them and with how many.

http://www.handgunforum.net/home-de...84-alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power.html


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

all357mag said:


> It isn't! More poor advice!...


To what, exactly, do you refer?
Your statement is without antecedent, so we have no idea whom you are addressing.

To put it into Noo Yawk terms, "Are you talkin' to _me_?"


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

mike402 said:


> I'm not even sure what this means: "your observation is based upon flawed evidence"...


It means that you are basing your self-protection-ammunition decision upon its performance in a non-self-defense situation and environment.
Performance against steel plates does not translate directly into performance against a human attacker.
(In simpler terms, you're comparing apples to oranges.)


----------



## mike402 (Jun 20, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> It means that you are basing your self-protection-ammunition decision upon its performance in a non-self-defense situation and environment.
> Performance against steel plates does not translate directly into performance against a human attacker.
> (In simpler terms, you're comparing apples to oranges.)


Oh boy I didn't really want to get dragged into a caliber debate, which is why I qualified my initial post w/ a disclaimer at the end. But now that you've called me out, here goes.

First of all I am not basing any ammunition decision on what I saw at Frontsight. I had already chosen my gun/load combination well before that. I was just relating a real world experience that I happened to witness. I understand you can duplicate the performance of the larger calibers with hot rodded loads, but you can do the same with the other calibers as well to increase performance.

Actually I based my decision on carrying a Beretta M9 for six years as a Marine. I was in Desert Storm as well as Somalia, and saw first hand three different individuals shot w/ a 9mm. All three required multiple shots and none were fatal. Yes, I know this was with military issue ball ammo and the difference that makes in terminal performance. Now that raises all sorts of questions about whether other calibers would have been any more effective, etc. But for me, I swore off 9mm then and never looked back. Call me stubborn but it left quite an impression. I'll take those experiences over anything I read on the Internet.

This was a picture of young boy that ran up to one of our vehicles and tried to hook a grenade on the chicken wire. Our Gunnery Sgt leaned out of his humvee and shot him three times center mass w/ a beretta. The reaction was horrifyingly benevolent. Now it was mostly like due to being high on Khat, but I was shocked at the ineffectiveness of three well aimed shots.



I went .45 for a long time after that, but ultimately I've settled on the .40 as the best compromise between capacity, stopping power, controllability, etc. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but please don't say I'm basing my decisions on non self defense environments.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Varying calibers and their collective effectiveness, has been, and will continue to be debated, for years to come. 

For some, it boils down to capacity or caliber. There are those that prefer a single-stack .45 acp. And then, there are those like me, that prefer capacity. As of the last several years or so, you can pretty much have both now. 

But, the bottom line is that there's no silver bullet to be had. At least not yet. Depending upon your research or whom you speak with, you can find all sorts of information, testimonials, or statistics, to support your claim or belief. 

I've seen plenty of self-defense situations that involved different calibers. I really can't say that one particular caliber was any more effective than another. What surprised me the most though, was the popularity of the .22LR for self-defense and how effective it could be. I'm in no way promoting the use of the round, but just commenting upon what I've witnessed over the years.


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

Didnt mean to start a battle on here lol. Im just gonna have to make the 2 hour trip to nashville armory and hit up their range and go from there.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

youngvet24 said:


> Didnt mean to start a battle on here lol. Im just gonna have to make the 2 hour trip to nashville armory and hit up their range and go from there.


No battle, just a healthy discussion.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

denner said:


> No battle, just a healthy discussion.


*EXACTLY!!* :smt023

I love a good discussion, even if it tends to get a little heated from time to time. This is a great forum with a bunch of good people, with lots of experience, education and knowledge to share with one another.

Knowledge is power! I want all that I can get. :smt1099


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

paratrooper said:


> Varying calibers and their collective effectiveness, has been, and will continue to be debated, for years to come.
> 
> For some, it boils down to capacity or caliber. There are those that prefer a single-stack .45 acp. And then, there are those like me, that prefer capacity. As of the last several years or so, you can pretty much have both now.
> 
> ...


If capacity were limited , like we are to seven rounds in NY. What would be your personal preference.
Other then moving out of state.
I agree on the 22 cal.


----------



## Kennydale (Jun 10, 2013)

I am 63 and a new shooter. Have my CHL now. The first time shooting was with an experienced friend. We spent two hours on the range. he gave me the basics in safety, handling and basic shooting info. I then shot his .38 snub nose revolver, his Ruger LCP, His Ruger SR9, and his Ruger SR40C. I actually shot the .40 VERY WELL for a first timer. The .40 SNAP after the first initial shock of it (It bent my thumb back a little) was exciting. when asked which platform i liked the best. I told him the SR40C, it took me three weeks but i purchased one at a gun show, and that's what I EDC now. I am thinking that someday I might want to go with 9mm, but right now i like the .40 S&W.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

pic said:


> If capacity were limited , like we are to seven rounds in NY. What would be your personal preference.
> Other then moving out of state.


When capacity is limited, I want the biggest round that I can get. That would be the .45 acp.


----------



## Kennydale (Jun 10, 2013)

Just a side note my Bro-in-Law who is a retired Police Capt. Carried a .357 Magnum (Colt Python). Claimed if against a BG and was behind his police cruiser, he could shoot it under the car and if it hit the BG in the leg, it very well could rip the leg off. he was always a little leery of other calibers.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Kennydale said:


> I am 63 and a new shooter. Have my CHL now. The first time shooting was with an experienced friend. We spent two hours on the range. he gave me the basics in safety, handling and basic shooting info. I then shot his .38 snub nose revolver, his Ruger LCP, His Ruger SR9, and his Ruger SR40C. I actually shot the .40 VERY WELL for a first timer. The .40 SNAP after the first initial shock of it (It bent my thumb back a little) was exciting. when asked which platform i liked the best. I told him the SR40C, it took me three weeks but i purchased one at a gun show, and that's what I EDC now. I am thinking that someday I might want to go with 9mm, but right now i like the .40 S&W.


Good choice and congrats!

I'd really be hard-pressed to have to settle on one handgun and one caliber.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Kennydale said:


> Just a side note my Bro-in-Law who is a retired Police Capt. Carried a .357 Magnum (Colt Python). Claimed if against a BG and was behind his police cruiser, he could shoot it under the car and if it hit the BG in the leg, it very well could rip the leg off. he was always a little leery of other calibers.


I've yet to see or hear of a handgun caliber literally ripping off an adult body limb, short of some off-the-wall specialty round, hand-loaded to max. pressure.

BTW....when it comes to cops embellishing something, it was always the ranking officers that did it the most and with the most zeal.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

mike402 said:


> Oh boy I didn't really want to get dragged into *a caliber debate*, which is why I qualified my initial post w/ a disclaimer at the end. But now that *you've called me out*, here goes...


Let's get a couple of things straight:
First, this isn't a "caliber debate." You may remember that I wrote, very recently, here, "Accurate hits trump ballistics, every time." If you'd like, you might modify that statement by referring to the kind of bullet being fired, for instance RNFMJ versus HP, but the general principle still stands.
Second, nobody is "calling you out," least of all me. Maybe that chip on your shoulder gets in the way of your ability to discuss things politely. Certainly, you have had a lot more "practical experience" than I have, but that does not mean that my opinion is invalid, and it does not pave the way for some sort of fight.
Finally, thank you for your service in our behalf. Now, please remember that you're back home, and not in the fighting any more. Nobody here is out to get you.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Kennydale said:


> Just a side note my Bro-in-Law who is a retired Police Capt. Carried a .357 Magnum (Colt Python). Claimed if against a BG and was behind his police cruiser, he could shoot it under the car *and if it hit the BG in the leg, it very well could rip the leg off*. he was always a little leery of other calibers.


Ain't gonna happen. This is hogwash. Don't believe it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

As for .40S&W vs 9mm, is the .40 more powerful than the 9? Yes it is (specific loads being considered). Does it make a larger hole? Yes it does. Does it tend to travel deeper into the body? Generally, yes it does. Are there exceptions to all of this? Yes there are.

I freely admit that I am partial to the .40S&W. But I will also admit that I do carry 9mm pistols with quality SD loads from time to time. Why? Because I can for one thing but more importantly, because at the time I do this, I have determined that my chosen carry gun will be something different than my usual choice. My preferred loads for my .40S&W gen3 Glock 23 are the Federal HST and the Gold Dot JHP "Hot" load both in 165 grains. As for my 9mm preferences, there are three. The Federal 124 and 147 grain HST +P loads and the Gold Dot 124gr +P.

I find that at certain times, my needs change... they vary. And I don't think I am alone in this. I'm quite sure others vary their carry guns based upon some perceived criteria and are quite comfortable with doing this, as am I. I have no qualms about leaving my home with my M&P 9mm Pro on my hip or taking a trip with my Kahr 9 Elite '03 in my map pocket or holster or strapping on my gen3 G19 as I go about.

Much has been written on these forums about accurate and effective hits trumping larger caliber bullets and there is a lot of truth there. However, one must understand that even though the shooter does his job and delivers well placed shots to his assailant's chest, that is no assurance that those rounds are going to enter the BG's chest and travel far enough to do what they must to end the BG's aggression. Breast bones have been known to thwart bullet entries as have heavy clothing and things in breast pockets. In other words, nothing is absolute and Murphy is going to be sticking his nose in every shot you make.

Stack the cards as you will. And practice in the light of being able and willing to adjust to changing dynamics. Improvise, adapt, and overcome if you are to come out in one piece. Recognize that if your hits are not doing what you expect, you had better do something else quickly.

These caliber debates will go on forever it appears and maybe that is good in the long run. If nothing else, it does get people to thinking about situations and playing "what if" scenarios. I see that as nothing less than a good thing.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Um, could we all please remember that the question had to do with _which round is better *for the beginner*_?

It's not "Which round is better?"


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

The question was "why do more expierenced guys tend to recomend 9mm for a beginner"


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I thought it was inter-national internet law, that if any topic exceeded a single page, you were free to wander (topically) as much as you wanted. 

So.....what's better? Coke or Pepsi? :watching:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> I thought it was inter-national internet law, that if any topic exceeded a single page, you were free to wander (topically) as much as you wanted.
> 
> So.....what's better? Coke or Pepsi? :watching:


The way I see it is this. The OP asked a perfectly good question and as such, deserves good and proper answers from us in the form of facts, ideas, opinions, and suggestions. One can and should expect the topic to veer a little as it grows and as long as the veering contains some measure of relevance, that is a good thing because the OP will gain from knowledge he may not have thought to seek. If he is concerned about the direction of the thread then it is his responsibility, not someone else's, to request the thread get back on topic.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I'll take a Coke, please...
And, while you're up, please add some lime juice and an ounce of dark rum.


(If you're out of Coke, Pepsi will do. The important parts are the lime juice and the rum.)


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I'll take a Coke, please...
> And, while you're up, please add some lime juice and an ounce of dark rum.
> 
> (If you're out of Coke, Pepsi will do. The important parts are the lime juice and the rum.)


Would you like to super-size that? :mrgreen:


----------



## soldierofchrist (Jul 11, 2010)

My advice for beginner's is to learn with whatever they have got at the time. The more you use it the more accustomed you become to what you are doing. Now it is possible to reinforce bad habits by training the wrong way. This can be shown by those who develop a flinch. In my experience I think the 45 is the gentlest of the bunch due to the lower pressure of the round(as long as your shooting factory non-+P loadings,) followed by 9mm and then the 40 S&W. They feel more similar than different to me as they all generate close to the same amount of energy which is approximately 100 ft lbs or less of each other. It's not like shooting a 44 Special then shooting a full powerhouse 44 Magnum by any means in terms of difference. I can see starting with 9mm because it is cheaper if you don't reload and in all reality between the big three, the bad guys won't notice to much of a difference. The power range that all three fall into seems to be enough to get the job done yet be manageable at the same time, while being in a package that is easier to carry. It's not like we can't get more power, we do have 10mm's, 45 +P, 357 Magnum's, 44 Magnum, etc. You can make the bigger calibers more manageable but it's not like everyone wants to walk around with a 4-5 lb handgun on their hip with a 8 3/8" barrel either or deal with the muzzle blast they create.


----------



## youngvet24 (Aug 21, 2013)

I guess all i can do is either 
A) go to the range shoot each caliber then pick whic one im most comfortabke with or 
B) pick one and learn to get use to it 

Condidering my impulsive/ impatient nature ill prolly go with B lol


----------



## Donn (Jul 26, 2013)

mike402 said:


> Oh boy I didn't really want to get dragged into a caliber debate, which is why I qualified my initial post w/ a disclaimer at the end. But now that you've called me out, here goes.
> 
> First of all I am not basing any ammunition decision on what I saw at Frontsight. I had already chosen my gun/load combination well before that. I was just relating a real world experience that I happened to witness. I understand you can duplicate the performance of the larger calibers with hot rodded loads, but you can do the same with the other calibers as well to increase performance.
> 
> ...


Was the threat neutralized? Sure looks like it to me.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Shipwreck said:


> I definitely think 9mm is the way to go for a beginner. I've been on many gun forums for years... I cannot begin to tell ya the sheer # of posts I have seen over the years.. A newbie buys a "40" because that's the "hot" caliber... "All the police carry it" and "everyone told them that a 40 is a quick manstopper."
> 
> Then, they come post that the recoil is too much.
> 
> ...


I have been shooting handguns for around 25 years now, and I have to give a thumbs up for this post. I owned two .40 S&W chambered pistols in the past, a SW40VE and a SIG 2022, and although I could shoot them well, I could not shoot them as accurately at the same speed as the 9mm.

You need to try and shoot both of these guns/calibers and also what Steve said above, try a .45 ACP as well. When you are putting your hard cash down on a new pistol, one that you might have to defend yourself with, you really want to be sure of what your getting. JMHO.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I'd go with Hornady Critical Duty 175 grain Flexlock .40 cal. I carry six in my Kahr MK40. Other than that I'd seriously consider moving from that broken down state, it ain't gonna get any better.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

youngvet24 said:


> I guess all i can do is either
> A) go to the range shoot each caliber then pick whic one im most comfortabke with or
> B) pick one and learn to get use to it
> 
> Condidering my impulsive/ impatient nature ill prolly go with B lol


Since this is still going I'll bite.Please don't do B,it could be a waste of money on tading off.A is the best if it's possible.

If you can't shoot a gun/caliber but it feels like part of you,there's a good probability it will work for you.Not definite,probably.

Newbs are recommended to low recoiling guns for the fact "heavy"recoil can induce a flinch.Shooting a gun,especially a handgun, isn't an instinct to most,it's an acquired skill that takes the practice and mastering of multiple tasks at the same time.It also requires maintenance by practice.I've shot little in the last few years and if I hit a match today I would probably be at least a whole class lower because of it.If the recoil does induce a flinch,you now have to restart the trigger control and sight alignment phase.

I'm not a fan of the 40,but it is a good round and you can start with it,I started handgunning with a finely tuned and scoped Super Blackhawk for hunting.To me a short 357mag hits harder due to the design differences.What I would say about the 40 is it would be nice to try out potential models in that caliber because I find recoil impulse varies greatly between gun designs.Small and light is going to recoil more due to physics,but 2 guns of comparable size can also due to where it's bore axis is,how it fits you ,it's operating design,and of course the ammo you use.An early Glock I tried was downright nasty,and the kid that was shooting it in competition plateaued at a certain level because of it.My son picked up a plastic EEA something of comparable size and this thing shoots like a wimp with SD loads,it had a little hit to the hand but the muzzle wasn't climbing to the sky and was back on target fast enough to impress me.Try option A if you can,you might pick something that suits you better than your first choice.Then practice a lot and you'll be OK.


----------



## BillytheKidder (Jun 2, 2012)

I have decided after some range time, that I do not like shooting the .40 enough for me to shoot enough, to become proficient with it. At least in the guns I have tried. I agree with the idea of 9mm for starters. You can always buy more guns.


----------



## Glock Doctor (Mar 14, 2011)

youngvet24 said:


> I hear alot of experienced guys say that 9mm is better than 40 for a newbie; but, why is that?
> 
> I understand that 40 is harder to control; but if you shoot it enough you will get use to it eventually. I plan on using my gun for HD and CC; so I want a big hole. :smt042 Just curious. Thanks in advance


Yeah, that's true! Except I'm old, tired, lazy, and I don't like working hard in order to skillfully manage 40 caliber recoil when I could be taking life easy by shooting a 9mm, instead.

PS: You do NOT want a, 'big hole'. What you really want is adequate shot placement and sufficient penetration. :smt002


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Glock Doctor said:


> Yeah, that's true! Except I'm old, tired, lazy, and I don't like working hard in order to skillfully manage 40 caliber recoil when I could be taking life easy by shooting a 9mm, instead.
> 
> PS: You do NOT want a, 'big hole'. What you really want is adequate shot placement and sufficient penetration. :smt002


 I'm even lazier then you, I only want to pull the trigger once!.
With my 1911 and it's superior trigger, I can place a 45 cal. Very tightly on target.. :smt165 
Just messing with ya, I like all rounds.


----------



## KampfJaeger (Sep 25, 2013)

If accuracy trumps everything, why do modern gun fighter schools teach students to panic fire COM, and don't start by training them to be marksmen before training them to be gunfighters? Perhaps because becoming a marksman takes time and dedication, and pretending to be a gunfighter takes an afternoon. You really think it's a good idea to add movement, and advanced skills before the basics are learned, much less mastered? 

If muzzle flip and follow up shots are the key to survival, then why is the training built around a Glock 9mm, when a PMR30 .22WSM has equal penetration (12"), less than half the muzzle flip, and double the ammo capacity? Because Glocks Rock, and Kel-Tec Stinks? Conventional wisdom is either right or its wrong. Really, if you are going to say that 9mm and 15 rnd magazines totally change 100 years of pistol craft (draw, point, shoot), and we are going to train people with the assumption that they're panicked (instead of training them not to panic), then those same principals ought to hold across calibers, rather than ending and beginning at 9mm Parabellum in a striker fired pistol.

Then again, I'm not trying to make my living turning people into gunfighters in an afternoon, and if I did choose to teach someone what I've learned from 30+ years of soldiering, carrying, and being around guns they would have to QUALIFY before I started teaching them advanced skills. 

If you accept that most of this is BS, many of the anomalies in the FBIs gun shot statistics start to make sense. Why so many DRTs in the past with .32s? Untrained people shot attackers in the face, not the COM. I think many of these modern training methods and pop wisdom will get people killed. Actually becoming proficient with a firearm is like golf, only it isn't a game. It takes an enormous amount of practice and dedication, and must be taken step by step after mastering the basic skills of marksmanship, which has all but died if favor of the instant gunfighter advertisements.

The average non-gun person would learn way more from reading "Six Guns" or "The Art of Shotgunning" than by going to gunfighter school. Learning not to panic in an emergency situation is what allows you to think, and thinking clearly allows you to make decisions much faster, and making fast decisions is what will save you. Shooting straight and drawing fast are a close #2 and #3. I have yet to find a firearms instructor who even teaches basic combat techniques for reducing stress and controlling panic. If you don't have time to panic, then you're not panicked. If you do, then you have time to control it.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*KampfJaeger*, I am in complete agreement with your post. Kudos to you!


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

*Steel Plates* Let's have a little fun with the laws of physics.

I'd hazard a guess that steel plates "respond well" to kinetic energy. As in K.E. = 1/2 times Mass times Velocity squared. 
Notice Velocity is SQUARED. So for plates, more Weight (Mass) is better.
But, increasing Velocity is MUCH more effective.

Obviously plain 'ol 9mm 115 grain practice ammo isn't an optimum "plate killer" for 9mm.
The dude above with the idea to "use hot 147 grain" loads is on the right track.
But, not sure you can get factory 147 grain loads with "hot velocity".

Now my Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan super-snubby with full power .454 Casull loads
should make plates "fall down quickly". Provided, of course, you are able to hit the plate.

Why is that. Let's look at three common target practice loads.

Federal American Eagle Ammunition 9mm Luger 115 Grain Full Metal Jacket 
•Muzzle Velocity: 1160 fps
•Muzzle Energy: 344 ft. lbs.

Federal American Eagle Ammunition 40 S&W 165 Grain Full Metal Jacket 
•Muzzle Velocity: 1130 fps 
•Muzzle Energy: 468 ft. lbs

Well shoot, once again the laws of physics work. Near same velocity, more weight, .40 S&W has more energy.

Let's get a little extreme on this weight and velocity deal. Almost all .454 Casull loads are for hunting. Except
Magtech Sport Ammunition 454 Casull 260 Grain Full Metal Jacket
•Muzzle Velocity: 1800 fps
•Muzzle Energy: 1871ft. lbs.
You need a THICK steel plate to handle this bad boy. And a THICK wallet to shoot it often. :mrgreen:

None of this is really applicable to "knocking down" mean animals or mean humans.
But, it might show a trend with real self-defense (or hunting) bullets. As always, YMMV. :smt1099


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

KampfJaeger said:


> If accuracy trumps everything, why do modern gun fighter schools teach students to panic fire COM, and don't start by training them to be marksmen before training them to be gunfighters? Perhaps because becoming a marksman takes time and dedication, and pretending to be a gunfighter takes an afternoon. You really think it's a good idea to add movement, and advanced skills before the basics are learned, much less mastered?
> 
> If muzzle flip and follow up shots are the key to survival, then why is the training built around a Glock 9mm, when a PMR30 .22WSM has equal penetration (12"), less than half the muzzle flip, and double the ammo capacity? Because Glocks Rock, and Kel-Tec Stinks? Conventional wisdom is either right or its wrong. Really, if you are going to say that 9mm and 15 rnd magazines totally change 100 years of pistol craft (draw, point, shoot), and we are going to train people with the assumption that they're panicked (instead of training them not to panic), then those same principals ought to hold across calibers, rather than ending and beginning at 9mm Parabellum in a striker fired pistol.
> 
> ...


Didn't know gun fighter schools existed. 
I learned marksmanship with a box of navy pea beans and a plastic straw, rubber bands with paper clips. Graduated to a slingshot and eventually a BB gun , pellet gun, little paintball . 
22 rifle shoot all day. Then moved up to shotgun shooting clays, hunting game.
Gave up the hunting, to many wannabe's, newbie, rookies out in the hunting world.
My train of thought growing up around firearms , recreationally was safety, safety first.
This younger generation are already shooting hi tech weapons with these computer games


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

There are some bad "gun fighter" schools out there... but others, taught by qualified professionals, help take shooters to the next level of proficiency.... I refer to these as Tactical Firearm Schools, because they teach tactics. Shooting at a static targets with no outside stress in a controlled enviorment is MUCH different than the conditions you'll find yourself in the real world. Bad guys don't stand still or give you a sec to aquire your sight alignment/picture. A lot of these schools teach skills that need to be practiced and worked on in the students own time after the class has ended... and not meant to certify someone as a "gun fighter" in a few hours... and to label all tactical type schools like this does the good ones a disservice. 

Most students need to have certain skills already before being able to sign up for a tactical handgun I class or a Handgun II class... at least with most professional schools... not the armchair comando/amateur hour schools. I know there are plenty of these types out there and assume these are the schools your referring to.

To discount this type of training over slow fire marksmanship shooting dosen't increase your chances of surviving a deadly force encounter imo. A lot of things you are able to learn and try are things that are usually not allowed on a traditional range... like movement/malfunctions, urban prone, shooting from cover, shooting at moving targets and even drawing from the holster. Nothing different than the skills most use in IDPA matches.

The training company I work for attempts to share techniques that work in the field (real life) from a varied background of Rangers, Marines, LEO's and SWAT... giving the student a good, basic understanding of staying tactical & composed under stress. Not sure if there's a way to teach students not to panic in the moment... especially in a one or two day class, but getting them gaining confidence in their abilities and dealing with stressors is one of our class objectives. We get heart rates up and show how much accuracy suffers while in a stress enviorment so students don't get a false sense of security from their marksmanship training.

I consider myself a marksman first, but point shooting, target focus shooting and being able to shoot on the move and adapt to a dynamic enviorment are great skills that I would think any marksman would want to learn.


----------



## Glock Doctor (Mar 14, 2011)

KampfJaeger said:


> If accuracy trumps everything, why do modern gun fighter schools teach students to panic fire COM, and don't start by training them to be marksmen before training them to be gunfighters? Perhaps because becoming a marksman takes time and dedication, and pretending to be a gunfighter takes an afternoon. You really think it's a good idea to add movement, and advanced skills before the basics are learned, much less mastered?


:smt023 Nice, thoughtfull, and thought-provoking reply! Thanks.

I didn't know there was any such thing as a, 'modern gun fighter school'. Neither do I believe that any of the various firearm training, or survival academies would be comfortable describing themselves or the services they offer in such a, 'wild west' fashion. (NOT criticizing, just commenting.)

There is, however, genuine merit to what you are saying. I will never forget reading the 2007 FBI report on the criminal use of guns; it was an, 'eye opener' for me. I had always assumed that advanced skill with a handgun was necessary to survive an CQB pistol gunfight; but, according to the criminals interviewed for this report, pretty much, the opposite is true.

As you have (correctly) stated: All these street thugs want to do is, 'get some lead' into you as quickly and expediently as possible. While many of them DID practice their pistol shooting skills, they did so sporadically, and relied instead upon: (1) getting in close, (2) drawing and firing first, (The more surprise they were able to create, the better!) and (3) putting out as much lead as possible in their victim's direction (usually a police officer). For anyone to flatly state that this surprise CQB pistol fighting technique doesn't work, or isn't even reasonably reliable is - in my opinion - flat out wrong.

At the same time, however, neither does any of the above foster self-confidence with a handgun. Now, I need to define my terms and state that I define, 'self-confidence' with a handgun as that: proprioceptive physical, emotional, and psychological state where (1) no conscious thought on your part is required, and (2) your reflexes, acting more or less independently of your mind, do all the shooting for you.

Still, 'accuracy' DOES trump everything! The question is, 'Why'? I am rigorously trained to use a pistol accurately at, and about, 12 to 15 yards. The reason I have done this? Because I want to do everything I can in order TO PREVENT an opponent from entering into what I will call his, 'personal combat comfort zone'. (In other words I intend to get him BEFORE he's quite ready to get me; and THIS takes, both, self-confidence, the sudden ability to focus and, 'go cold', AND accuracy.)



> If muzzle flip and follow up shots are the key to survival, then why is the training built around a Glock 9mm, when a PMR30 .22WSM has equal penetration (12"), less than half the muzzle flip, and double the ammo capacity? Because Glocks Rock, and Kel-Tec Stinks? Conventional wisdom is either right or its wrong. Really, if you are going to say that 9mm and 15 rnd magazines totally change 100 years of pistol craft (draw, point, shoot), and we are going to train people with the assumption that they're panicked (instead of training them not to panic), then those same principals ought to hold across calibers, rather than ending and beginning at 9mm Parabellum in a striker fired pistol.


Did you actually mean, 'WSM'? Let's be entirely fair! First, the premise is incorrectly stated. The, 'key to survival' is NOT about any increased personal skill with either muzzle control, or the rapidity of continued fire. Neither is, 'training' built around only a (Glock) 9 x 19mm pistol. I've trained complete newbies in the skillful use of: 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 38 Special/357 Magnum caliber handguns. (I've even done a few with 22 LR pistols!) Personally, I wouldn't carry any 9mm handgun AS A PRIMARY if it didn't hold, at least, 12 rounds.

One of the goals I seek to achieve as a firearms instructor is to do as much as I possibly can (to use everything I've ever learned) in order to BRING A STUDENT, 'ON' AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, as well as IN THE SHORTEST AMOUNT OF TIME. With either a rifle, or a pistol: Savvy recoil management is one of those skill sets I seek to inculcate into everyone who trains with me. (I've got some very good techniques for doing this, too; but that's a subject for another thread.)

For me it's not all about hitting the target. Lots and lots of people can hit the target. Instead I consider self-defense shooting to entirely involve, STOPPING THE TARGET. Is this difficult? Not for me! When I'm shooting, 'pepper poppers' I'll regularly put every second or third shot into the top of the target. This means that I've got to exercise very good muzzle and trigger control; but, again, this is, 'Why' self-confidence AND the ability to shoot straight while under pressure are important. If I want to stop a target quickly then I need to possess and be able to demonstrate an acquired ability to hit a target that's no more than 6 or 7 inches across at 12 to 15 yards - Period. (I've got lots and lots of target pictures for anyone who wants to see them.)

When I was a younger gunman I used to keep a long barreled 22 LR semi-auto pistol and 3 magazines in our bedside nightstand. Why? Because at, 'in house distances' I was more than confident that anyone I went up against wouldn't have a face left - THAT is, 'Why'! So, to succinctly answer your question: It's not about caliber, muzzle control, or rapid follow-up shots. It's about STOPPING your opponent, 'dead in his tracks' and being able to do this as quickly as possible.



> Then again, I'm not trying to make my living turning people into gunfighters in an afternoon, and if I did choose to teach someone what I've learned from 30+ years of soldiering, carrying, and being around guns they would have to QUALIFY before I started teaching them advanced skills.


I admire your sense of civic morality! Then again, and as I have often agonized with myself, all of us who participate in on-line gun forums must, of necessity and to one degree or another, break this rule. I salve my own conscious by telling myself that: (1) Most street punks don't read, and don't study. (2) It takes a lot of personal time, effort, and expense in order to become, 'accurate' with a handgun; and (3) If people didn't (or don't) learn these things from me, then, there are plenty of other internet gun forum contributors who will, 'wise them up' accordingly.



> If you accept that most of this is BS, many of the anomalies in the FBIs gun shot statistics start to make sense. Why so many DRTs in the past with .32s? Untrained people shot attackers in the face, not the COM. I think many of these modern training methods and pop wisdom will get people killed. Actually becoming proficient with a firearm is like golf, only it isn't a game. It takes an enormous amount of practice and dedication, and must be taken step by step after mastering the basic skills of marksmanship, which has all but died if favor of the instant gunfighter advertisements.


Yes, as Dave Spaulding has repeatedly pointed out: There are, indeed, a great many, 'anomalies' in FBI gunfighting reports - The most culpable of which is that a large majority of these (skewered) reports are closely written around, 'gunfights that the good guys lost'. All we are doing by repeatedly practicing our gunfighting skill sets over and over again is INCREASING THE ODDS OF OUR OWN SURVIVAL. That's it! Studying a bunch of statistics about a, 'group of gunfight losers' isn't, necessarily, going to do anything to help YOU to survive your next gunfight.



> The average non-gun person would learn way more from reading "Six Guns" or "The Art of Shotgunning" than by going to gunfighter school. Learning not to panic in an emergency situation is what allows you to think, and thinking clearly allows you to make decisions much faster, and making fast decisions is what will save you. Shooting straight and drawing fast are a close #2 and #3. I have yet to find a firearms instructor who even teaches basic combat techniques for reducing stress and controlling panic. If you don't have time to panic, then you're not panicked. If you do, then you have time to control it.


You're right! There are only 3 alternatives when facing an impending CQB pistol gunfight: Fight, or flight is most often mentioned; BUT, this is not entirely correct. I much prefer to use the psychological terms: Fear, or anger. Of these two choices, however, ANGER is much more likely to guarantee your survival. (Yes, I AM SAYING that the, 'old saws' about: loss of fine motor control, auditory exclusion, time compression, and tunnel vision are ALL FEAR REACTIONS that will, more than likely, get you shot or killed. Anger is, by far, the more appropriate psychological response! Another way to say, 'anger' is focus - FOCUS! This is what I, personally, strive for anytime I find myself in a, 'push comes to shove' situation; AND it has nothing to do with: caliber, muzzle control, or rapid fire.



Donn said:


> Was the threat neutralized? Sure looks like it to me.


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing too. The picture, also, reminds me that I am living in a very morally confused, entirely, 'socialist' world. Can you imagine any of the, 'God-driven' ancient Israelites first cutting down an enemy and, then, administering first-aid?

There's just no more personal acceptance of genuine responsibility for the things that people do - only immoral socialism and buggered rehabilitation. Like these moral degenerates who use high speed automobiles to run from the cops. Whenever someone does this, everybody in the vicinity is placed in life-threatening jeopardy. So, you tell me, in a moral world, 'How' should the current social phenomenon of using a heavy high speed automobile to run from the cops be stopped? (Hmmm, ....... Hint: Increase AND enforce the civic punishment for such selfish and morally indifferent antisocial behaviors. Same thing for the kid in the picture, too.)

On an intellectual plain of moral responsibility no real progress can be made UNTIL each and everyone of us is willing to accept full responsibility, AS WELL AS the well defined (certain) consequences of his personal behaviors. That's NOT socialism; it's not humanism, either. It's clear-cut spiritual and intellectual maturity, instead. In order to do this society needs to agree on some sort of a, 'moral canon'. The Judeo-Christian Bible is no longer publicly acceptable; and the modern religion of humanistic socialism has only served to increase society's difficulties and expenses.

(Thus, endeth the sermon!) ;-)


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

All this gun fighting talk is making me thirsty. Popcornsmilie

BTW.....If you don't take* CONTROL *of the situation, the situation will take *CONTROL* of you. :smt1099


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

paratrooper said:


> All this gun fighting talk is making me thirsty. Popcornsmilie
> 
> BTW.....If you don't take* CONTROL *of the situation, the situation will take *CONTROL* of you. :smt1099


HAVE A GUINNESS :drinkers: I'm buying


----------



## KampfJaeger (Sep 25, 2013)

If you can't shoot static targets at distance consistently, what business do you have playing Tactical Tommy? You want to learn the PhD level without graduating from high school, and THAT is what's a disservice. Goo-Roos like James Yeager freely admit that their students can't shoot a pistol, but he honestly believes that if they carry a Glock they don't have to...sort of like people who think if you point a shotgun in the general direction of an attacker you'll hit them. "Accuracy" is not merely a word, it is a hard win skill that not everyone is going to be able to develop over time. Actually teaching someone to shoot accurately cannot be done in an afternoon, and therefore is a looser economically. You are telling me that no one going into those tactical gun fighter schools, paying more than $400 for a one day or two day course don't think that they emerge gunfighters? Yea, they tell them to practice, but they haven't even taught them how to shoot! Nor do the pay ANY attention to the basic combat infantry skills of controlling panic and fear, which is WAY more important than telling them to move and fire to cover. If this wasn't the case, and these schools were at all real, and not solely for profit they would require people be able to shoot and qualify for them first, exactly as the do in the military and to a lesser extent in LE. 

What a crock of regurgitated BS. As if there were only two kinds of shooting! One where everyone is wearing tweed, shooting from a perfect isometric Weaver stance with a single shot target pistol (while puffing on Meerschaum pipes), and the other in padded, Nomex suits wearing Kejos and spraying rounds out of plastic pistols while ninja rolling into cover! Real world! Real world like what? If you can't shoot all the tactics in the world won't help you, and believing it will may cost you dearly. Hating on people that CAN shoot is part and parcel of what I loath about taciticool gunfighter schools. I'm not a champion target shooter. I shoot from the modified isosolese/athletic stance they teach (they did not invent this, it's as older than your grandad, and demonstrating why a classic target stance is worthless for SD is theatre).

If you're already a marksman, great. Learn to shot like a high speed, low drag, Teflon coated operator. No one I know would teach you any of that unless you demonstrated you were a marksman first. They wouldn't take your $400 for signing a release. 
------
No one who has shot or been shot at would disagree with you GlockDoc. In advanced combat training the ambushers beat the ambushees 19 out of 20 times. Just like any fight, the guy who hits first and with the most ferocity usually wins. The great gunfighters of American Law Enforcement history were able to negate the advantage of surprise by lightning fast draw speed, and deadly marksmanship. They were few in number, and even fewer who lived long enough to pass their knowledge on, but like Tiger Woods, when they finished the round they went straight to the driving range instead of the bar.

I'll agree that anger beats panic, but people don't HAVE to panic. I've spent allot of my adult life training people to deal with emergency situations, and there is no emergency more dire than another human who wants to harm you or your family. I have never heard a firearms or gunfighter instructor even touch on this other than like accuracy, to say its important. I get the Massad Ayoob theories, and I don't disagree with them, but they're for people who are going to read a book, not for people who actually will take the time to become proficient at shooting and defending the innocent. People who pay money to learn something they will probably only get one shot at (pun intended). 

I'm on an iPad, and this is tedious. I'll flesh it out tomorrow..


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't think many schools downplay the importance of marksmanship (maybe you've had a bad experience or know some that do)... and most (that i know of) actually have you run through a quick basic marksmanship course first thing... and pull out students who need more attention or work before progressing... at least ours does. I do understand some don't... and that is a shame.

If students are that far behind, sometimes they are sent home with a refund for safety reasons.

I agree a lot of students do sign up for the tacti-cool reasons... they usually show up with body armor and drop leg holsters... and lose em' by the end of the day. It's like a "fantasy camp" for some... but most are still eager to learn. Others already have sound fundamentals and are looking to step up their training. 

I guess my point is I find both marksmanship AND tactics are important... unfortunately a marksmanship class dosn't have the same interest or turnout as a tactical class... but both have their place in the world of shooting.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and my goal was not to start a pissing match or argument with anyone.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

What are my second amendment rights. 
I don't have to know how to shoot the guns. But I have a right to own my firearms, I thought.
You do not have to be proficient , but you are responsible for your actions
So what was the question??, lol


----------



## all357mag (May 20, 2013)

IT AIN'T! No such thing as beginner anything in shooting sports! Get something and practice, yeah it's that easy!


----------



## topgun47 (Sep 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> The .40S&W is an excellent caliber for SD purposes. Granted, it has more recoil, some are fond of calling it "snappy", but as you mentioned, most any gun can be master with time, patience, and diligence.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a good 9mm pistol loaded with the best SD offerings. And training ammo is less expensive so that is a plus. For what it's worth, my primary carry gun is a .40S&W (gen3 Glock 23). I also have 9mm's and a .45ACP in my carry stable to keep my .40's company. The best guide to use is this.
> 
> Pick the gun that fits you the best, your wants, needs, and requirements, and with which you can deliver rounds to target accurately, consistently, and confidently. That is the one that will serve you best. This is not to say you can't have others from which to chose. But do keep in mind what I wrote here. Multiple guns can satisfy that criteria so you can have more than one that meets those specifics. In fact, having more than one is a good idea.


Good advise SouthernBoy. Although I already have the pistol calibers that you mention, I'm off to the local gun shop to find another one (or two).


----------



## Garyshome (Nov 6, 2013)

9 is easier to shoot! From Experience.


----------



## OGCJason (Nov 4, 2013)

Agreed, cc gun will change based on a number of factors. Even with me, in my work clothes, my .40 prints too much, so I go with a .9mm. If I am going out to dinner with my less than thrilled wife, I only take the 380ACP PPK (it's basically a pocket pistol). 

But if I am at an IDPA event (not gone to one yet, but excited to start), i want to test with my heaviest and biggest load. If I can do reasonably well with that, figure the others will fall in just as well, if not better... 

I'd also consider carrying a Ruger competition 22 that a friend let me fire back in Colorado. Great accurate semiautomatic that blew me away from an accuracy perspective. First time on the range with that and I center masted the first 4 shots without batting an eye. Even though it has no stopping power per se, I know I could plink someone at a distance my .9 and .40 couldn't touch.

And I don't know about the rest of y'all, but even if a 22 (and not even talking about 22 HPs here) were to tap me from 75 yards away, I would NOT be advancing! I'd be moving for cover, and calling a medic, thanking my lucky stars they missed my heart or head!


----------



## Glock40man (Nov 5, 2013)

my first gun was a Glock 23 in 40. did my research before I turned 21 and I either wanted 9 40 or 45 after doing research I like the 40s performance better but that's just me the day I turned 21 I bought my G23, Its been almost a year now and I have learned to shoot it great and have added a G27 40 to my mix. im 5'7 140lbs and I can shoot my 40s great. I'm not ripped or any thing either but am in shape. I would go with one but its really what you like


----------



## Sandibeach (Apr 30, 2012)

Steve- you are great!!!! So, you mean most women would feel more comfortable with a 45 than a 9mm?
Sandibeach


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Sandibeach said:


> Steve- you are great!!!! So, you mean most women would feel more comfortable with a 45 than a 9mm?
> Sandibeach


Well...
I dunno 'bout "most women," but Jean, my 100-pounds-fully-dressed-and-sopping-wet, less than five-feet-high wife, found it very easy to transition from gun-fearing hoplophobe to very competent pistol shooter using one of my full-size, full-weight, M1911A1 .45s.
Then we were visited by a lady who has been Jean's friend since they were infants together, who, at age 65 (at the time) had never even held a gun of any kind in her own hands. Her 75-year-old boyfriend, a former Marine, had suggested that she learn to shoot, but told her that he hadn't the patience to teach her, so she asked me to help. Within about an hour, I had her dry-firing in proper technique with one of our 1911s, so we took her to an outdoor range. Her very first seven shots made an open-hand-size group in the center of a target at a measured seven yards.

I suggest that a _full-size_, _full-weight_ .45 ACP semi-auto pistol firing "normal" loads (230gr bullet at 950fps) is just about the easiest centerfire handgun to control. Its recoil is a slow, fairly-gentle "push," compared to even a 9mm's fast "jab." Its single-action trigger, when properly set up, is easy to press smoothly. Its safety lever lets the instructor know whether or not the shooter is behaving safely. Further, its ergonomics fit almost anybody from a 10-year-old on up.
Start with carefully controlled dry-fire practice, and the student just about can't miss.


----------



## sonja (Sep 16, 2011)

As an answer to the original question -- 9mm is recommended for beginners because it's easy to control, not so snappy that you might develop a flinch. Forty, on the other hand could well lead to developing the dreaded flinch. Once you tend to flinch in anticipation of the shot, it's very hard to eliminate. As a result, you might never learn to be a good shooter.

Now, I realize that all the guys here are immune to such things -- I was not, and so I learned to shoot a 38 Special revolver, a 9mm, then a 40, 45, 357 Sig, 44 Mag. etc. I found it useful to concentrate on trigger control, without having to worry about the BOOM!! Acclimation was a big thing for me. Heck, if I can put a +P+ 124 Grain 9mm where I want it to go -- isn't that better than a random bang, bang, bang from a 10mm?


----------



## Bobv (Oct 31, 2013)

What? wow! okay


----------

