You know, I've heard this discussion over and over. I've been at this gun stuff on the internet long enough to, for certain. Every jot and tittle, ad infinitum. So when it comes up I usually just skip right past.
No need to waste my time going over the same tired ground. Whipping the same zombie horse.
But how will I ever know, now, if something fresh, new, and novel enters the argumentative fray? I'll miss out!
For instance, I am sure this is well presented, but I didn't watch any of it:
Can someone tell me if there is something new to add to this whole thing?
3 comments:
I watched it to the 7:10 mark, and basically, Mr. Hackathorn says he's always been a .45 guy, but now he has hand problems and likes the lighter recoil of the 9. Then he says he still has that psychological hang-up that .45 is better than 9mm, even though empirical evidence says it isn't. (I think that last part is true for a lot of people.) That's pretty much it.
Of course the correct answer is 10MM Auto, with a spare .357 Sig barrel for certain holidays.
For me, the only real attraction for the 9mm is being able to fit more ammo in the same size gun. What with the anti/blm crap these days, being able to drop more attackers would be a positive.
I prefer the .45 over the 9, however. Yeah, the 9 looks comparable in tests, but when the hollowpoint doesn't open due to cover or clothing, I'd rather make bigger holes. Historically, the 9 doesn't have a good rep for stopping power, but it does have a rep for excessive penetration, and that's with the low power of the ammo that has been traditional here in the US. Apparently the correct loading for the original 9mm is what is now termed subgun ammo, but that only works well in subguns and Lugers. Bit rough on other handguns.
Post a Comment