Time to buy a gun ... again

[jeffsg4mac]

Mike, What is the price on that HS and did you also look at the Tauras Auto's? My Dad has a 40 in a Tauras and I think it was only 350 new. It is pretty nice. Not a GLOCK, but not 550 bucks either.

 

[m-fine]

I don't know what country mike is in, but it seems he will be paying a lot more than the U.S. prices we enjoy. I think he said $1500 for a Glock and $1000 for the HS.

 

[mike c]

Mike, What is the price on that HS and did you also look at the Tauras Auto's? My Dad has a 40 in a Tauras and I think it was only 350 new. It is pretty nice. Not a GLOCK, but not 550 bucks either.

gun only (no paperworks)
taurus 627 is 550usd
hs2000 two tone is 1021usd
sig sauer/walther is 1700usd
taurus SA is 600-700usd depending on model
glocks are ALL out of stock (they're snapped up as soon as they arrive, it might be because they're about 1000-1100 in price)

paperworks per gun 152usd
i have to buy ammo, pair of eye and ear protection, holsters, a new safe = 450-500usd

 

[mike c]

9mm would be universal ammo with my dad and uncle

.40 almost no price difference maybe fewer capacity but better stopping power

hmmm

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I am not familiar with HS and have never read anything about them. I would have to research that brand some more before I could recommend it. Not that it is not a good gun, but I just have never heard of it. I also have not bought a gun magazine in quite a while either.

 

[mike c]

hs is the original springfield armory xd
hs2000 = everywhere else in the world
springfield armory xd = USA

 

[m-fine]

9mm would be universal ammo with my dad and uncle

.40 almost no price difference maybe fewer capacity but better stopping power

hmmm

Get the .40 and then shame your dad and uncle into upgrading to .40 as well. Telling them how well your wife shoots .40'while they still are shooting little girly 9mm should do the trick.

 

[mike c]

looks like it's 12 rounds vs. 16

we're already going to get shamed since my wife is getting the heavier .357 while i get the girly gun.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

hs is the original springfield armory xd
hs2000 = everywhere else in the world
springfield armory xd = USA

ahh, yes well then I have heard of it and shot it. They are decent guns.

 

[m-fine]

looks like it's 12 rounds vs. 16

we're already going to get shamed since my wife is getting the heavier .357 while i get the girly gun.

That is something I have never understood.

In a compact like the P229 you get 13 9's or 12 .40's. In the full size guns like the P226 you get 15-16 9's and 12 .40's. Makes no difference to me, I figure 10+1 is plenty so I bought a bunch od the post Brady bill 10 rounders cheap since everyone else wanted nothing but 12's.

 

[James NM]

Some additional misc. input:

Handgun caliber debate, e.g. 9 vs 40 is like chicken/egg, conservative/liberal, Israel/Palestine, Christian/Atheist. Good luck finding The answer.

Neither the 9 nor the 40 is the end all/be all, and like all handguns/calibers, they are a compromise. Both are based upon 4" barreled guns, so choosing a caliber based upon barrel length (3" to 5") is a non issue. Both are poor man stoppers, so shot placement is far more important than caliber. All things being equal, the 40 has more energy, more felt recoil, and less ammo capacity.

While the cost of the guns (9 vs 40) is almost always the same or similar, the cost of the ammo is not. Practice ammo for the 40 usually runs 25% to 35% higher than 9. And that's here in the US where 40 is popular with shooters and LE. In other countries, I would expect the cost differential to be even greater. And then there is the issue of ammo availability. While both are usually available here in the US, I'm not sure how true that is outside the US. I'm quite certain that 9mm is easier to procure outside the US than 40 is.

sig sauer 229 9mm (7 bullet capacity)

The gun you looked at must have been the Sig 239. The 239 has a shorter barrel (3.6 vs 3.9) and lower mag capacity (because it is a single stack mag) than the 229.

IMO ported barrel guns are a poor choice for a home/self defense gun, especially for inexperienced shooters. Ever wonder why so few gun manufacturers port carry guns? Whether or not you train to fire a gun in the retention position is not a reason to purchase a ported gun for self defense. And whether or not you practice shooting one handed with the gun close to the body, there is a real likelihood that is exactly what will happen in a self defense shooting. So my advice would be to skip the ported barrel and practice shooting with the gun close to your body.

Finally Mike, with the prices you list (and assuming you're on a budget), I'd go with either the Glock or HS in 9mm.

 

[m-fine]

The .40 exist specifically because the 9 mm failed in in real life law enforcement shootings leading to the death of officers at the hands of suspects with multiple bullet wounds. The FBI developed the modified 10mm round that became the .40 for a reason, and police departments that had recently switched from revolvers to 9's switched again in short order for a reason.

Most of us are less likely to need to rely on a firearm like a law enforcement officer does, and a 9mm is likely to be plenty in most cases when you do need a gun, but the debate is hardly like the others you compared it to. One is adequate and the other is clearly better. If I told you someone was going to come after you with a machete and you will only have time to get off one maybe two shots, no one in their right mind would prefer to have a 9 mm over a .40.

 

[Stereodude]

...no one in their right mind would prefer to have a 9 mm over a .40.

If you're looking for people in their right mind you're clearly in the wrong sub-forum.

 

[m-fine]

If you're looking for people in their right mind you're clearly in the wrong sub-forum.

Well, at least the people here are a step up from the forum that shall not be named!

 

[GlocksRock]

I'd take a 9 over a .40 for several reasons, more capacity, less recoil for faster and more accurate follow up shots, cheaper ammo which means I can afford to practice more often, and with modern ammo 9mm is plenty good. And the difference in bullet size between 9mm and .40 isn't all that great, and hollowpoints don't always expand to their full size as they get clogged with clothing fibers or whatever, so as was said earlier, shot placement is most important.

I've owned several .40 pistols in the past, and now I only own 3 pistol calibers, 9mm, .45, and .357 magnum. The .40 wasn't bad, but the extra recoil, more expensive ammo, and lower magazine capacity caused me to switch back to 9mm for my primary carry guns.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I'd take a 9 over a .40 for several reasons, more capacity, less recoil for faster and more accurate follow up shots, cheaper ammo which means I can afford to practice more often, and with modern ammo 9mm is plenty good. And the difference in bullet size between 9mm and .40 isn't all that great, and hollowpoints don't always expand to their full size as they get clogged with clothing fibers or whatever, so as was said earlier, shot placement is most important.

I've owned several .40 pistols in the past, and now I only own 3 pistol calibers, 9mm, .45, and .357 magnum. The .40 wasn't bad, but the extra recoil, more expensive ammo, and lower magazine capacity caused me to switch back to 9mm for my primary carry guns.

I tend to agree with you. The .40 seems like an un-needed caliber, either go 9mm or go with a .45! For defense the .45 and .357 are my favorites.

 

[majorloser]

Like I said in my first post:

I'm not sure how easy it is for you to get ammo over there. But 9x19mm Parabellum is pretty much a world wide standard.

Stick with 9mm

Oh, and there is one other high quality gun manufacturer not mentioned, Heckler & Koch (H&K). I rreally like their USP series handguns.

 

[m-fine]

I tend to agree with you. The .40 seems like an un-needed caliber, either go 9mm or go with a .45! For defense the .45 and .357 are my favorites.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the experts disagree. The overwhelming choice among US law enforcement is .40 despite the extra expense. Next is 357 sig followed by .45. 9mm is becoming rare. It is still popular in Europe where it is rare for people to shoot at cops, but not in the US. The choice is backed up by empiracle evidence from the field, increasingly sophisticated "lab" testing, and medical/physics research.

Statistically the difference is small for someone who is not put into a dangerous situation daily as part of their job, so you certainly don't need anything more than a .380 or .38 special to be much safer. Stats say 98-99% of the time no shots will be fired. But, if it comes to shooting, a standard 9mm to the chest has a 1/5 chance of failing. A premium bullet improves that to 1/10 failures. Going to a premium in .40 .357 (sig or mag) or a .45 will reduce failures further to 1/20. That is still high hence the general advice to practice double taps, but the entire idea is to tilt the odds in your favor as much as practical.

Everyone needs to decide what is important to them and why, but for a defense gun, I am certainly not worried about recoil over extended range sessions, or spending a few dollars more on a box of ammo. I have .22's and even a 9mm for that. If you are going to have only 1 gun and it is going to be primarily for plinking and personal defense as a secondary use, I would certainly consider the benefits of 9mm as far as cost and recoil, but owning one gun is like owning one pair of speakers. A good start.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

You are welcome to your opinion, but the experts disagree. The overwhelming choice among US law enforcement is .40 despite the extra expense. Next is 357 sig followed by .45. 9mm is becoming rare. It is still popular in Europe where it is rare for people to shoot at cops, but not in the US. The choice is backed up by empiracle evidence from the field, increasingly sophisticated "lab" testing, and medical/physics research.

Statistically the difference is small for someone who is not put into a dangerous situation daily as part of their job, so you certainly don't need anything more than a .380 or .38 special to be much safer. Stats say 98-99% of the time no shots will be fired. But, if it comes to shooting, a standard 9mm to the chest has a 1/5 chance of failing. A premium bullet improves that to 1/10 failures. Going to a premium in .40 .357 (sig or mag) or a .45 will reduce failures further to 1/20. That is still high hence the general advice to practice double taps, but the entire idea is to tilt the odds in your favor as much as practical.

Everyone needs to decide what is important to them and why, but for a defense gun, I am certainly not worried about recoil over extended range sessions, or spending a few dollars more on a box of ammo. I have .22's and even a 9mm for that. If you are going to have only 1 gun and it is going to be primarily for plinking and personal defense as a secondary use, I would certainly consider the benefits of 9mm as far as cost and recoil, but owning one gun is like owning one pair of speakers. A good start.

I never said the .40 was not an effective or even a good round. Lots of good rounds are not really needed say like a 41 magnum. I never pay attention to law enforcement choices because they are not deciding weapon purchases based on stopping power. They are buying guns from the lowest bidder. If the FBI was so concerned with stopping power then they would have stuck with the 10mm or gone with a 45. The .40 in my opinion was just not needed. With the right load all of them can be very effective man stoppers. If a person is concerned with recoil then I would suggest a 9mm, if not then I would suggest a 45 or 357 sig or mag. I have two .40 in the house and they are fine rounds, but I prefer a 45 over the 40.

Just out of curiosity because I don't know the answer, what do special forces carry( SEALS, Rangers,ect.). 9mm, .40 or .45's?

 

[m-fine]

I never said the .40 was not an effective or even a good round. Lots of good rounds are not really needed say like a 41 magnum. I never pay attention to law enforcement choices because they are not deciding weapon purchases based on stopping power. They are buying guns from the lowest bidder. If the FBI was so concerned with stopping power then they would have stuck with the 10mm or gone with a 45. The .40 in my opinion was just not needed. With the right load all of then can be very effective man stoppers. If a person is concerned with recoil then I would suggest a 9mm, if not then I would suggest a 45 or 357 sig or mag. I have two .40 in the house and they are fine rounds, but I prefer a 45 over the 40.

Just out of curiosity because I don't know the answer, what do special forces carry( SEALS, Rangers,ect.). 9mm, .40 or .45's?

The .40 has advantages over the .45 in capacity and some penetration situations, and it also allows a smaller frame. The FBI did not set out to re-invent the wheel for the heck of it. In fact they initially developed a reduced load 10mm. It was S&W that recognized that they could match the FBI's desired ballistics in a 9mm sized frame. I used to prefer .45 over .40 thinking it would be a better stopper but the more I learn the more I lean .40 or .357 Sig. I think the jury is still out on those two.

In theory at least, special forces are not supposed to use anything but FMJ so they really rely on rifle calibers. As far as I know they use a variety of calibers and weapons for sidearms, rather than a standard like the Berreta. I believe the coast guard uses .40 sig 229's and the marine expedition units still use a 1911 based .45.