Considering a 9 mil Ruger....don't hate!

Yes, I am hearing good things about modern 9 mils with +P ammo.
Ballistically they have as much punch as a .357, which is adequate for close range self defense. Two guys at work are very satisfied with their accuracy + minimal recoil. One guy bought a Ruger compact modeled after a German Mauser pistol. Ruger took the design + improved it. It has safety features like not firing unless the clip is in (don't have to worry about one in the chamber) and ambidextrous thumb safety.

He paid 350 at Academy Sports and it retails for 500. :santa_grin:
I think this would be a perfect compromise between man-stopping power and recoil/accuracy. I think it has a 17 shot clip, but that could be the 9 mil the other guy bought. Also my 110 pound daughter will be firing it, so her small hands + build are a consideration.

I'm also thinking you can get the weapon back on target faster with light recoil, which is a plus. Like the M-16...not a powerful round, but you can get that second/third shot right where you want it since there's no recoil.

Like they say, the best gun is the one you can shoot the best. I would think two extremely fast + accurate shots direct center mass of the chest
with a 9 mil +P are better than one direct center one not so direct and a second too late with a more powerful round. What say you Gunforge?

Light 9 mild still have plenty of recoil. Good technique is the most important thing to consider with your daught IMO. My fiancé can handle a mean gun because she has good technique.

I've never owned a Ruger handgun, though a friend of mine does. And it seems to be reliable and accurate. They're also very reasonably priced, as you've noted.

While I've definitely come around to the virtues of the .45 ACP (and even the .40 S&W), I still rely on a 9mm (Beretta 92FS) for my own defense. No, it's not a .357 Magnum, but the load I have in it (115 gr Winchester STHP, not even a +P round) stops violent encounters with one shot around 91% of the time. And if the first one doesn't work, I can quickly send 14 more just like it before I have to reload.

With the advent of high-capacity .45s, I will eventually go to the larger caliber. I can handle the bigger round with no problems, and 13-14 rounds is sufficient for any reasonable situation I might find myself in. But for younger people, females, people with smaller hands, the 9mm is a fine choice.

The first pistol I ever bought was a Ruger P85 (bought it at cost from a friend's dad who had an FFL), their first non-rimfire auto pistol and, AFAIK, everything that they've made since then is based on it.

I liked it, but didn't care much for the trigger. Far too much creep for me. I ended up selling it a dozen years ago.

I bought my wife a P95 for her birthday last year and she likes it a lot. It's slightly smaller than my old P85 and the trigger seems a little better (both double and single action).

That's perhaps my only gripe with it. But it's been very reliable.

Unfortunately, I live in a state where magazine capacities are restricted. If I didn't, I'd consider an M&P .40 just about ideal. With 15 rounds of very credible ammunition, it seems the optimal balance between the higher capacity/lower power 9mm and the lower capacity/higher power .45.

I have an 8 round magazine in my 1911, and I honestly don't feel at all short on firepower.

I heard the following discussion between "friends" at a shooting range. They were apparently exchanging guns to shoot. One of them handed the other guy a Ruger and said, "Now this has a little bit of creep in it."

His friend took it, loaded it, and fired it once. He unloaded and cleared it, then locked the slide and handed it to his friend. He then yelled "Creep? Creep is what the floor does when it moves a few mm as you walk over it. That thing doesn't have creep, it has frequent flier miles!"

I had always thought the Rugers i shot were just worn out range guns until that point. That gun was not a worn out range gun - it actually looked brand new.

I have absolutely no problem with 9mm. I carried this in a Sig P226 every day for more than ten years.

I carry a 9mm.

I carry my swinging cock.

In truth, neither would I.

However, since technology offers bigger capacities, my preference would be to have more even if it is very unlikely to be needed. The SW M&P45 is a 10 shot design, and it's pretty close to ideal. It's just that, for an extra 5 shots, I'd sacrifice the small amount of stopping power difference between the .45 and the .40.

I use an M&P 9 with 147 gr Gold Dots. Follow up shots are ridiculously easy. I prefer the heavier bullet at standard pressures.

Luckily here in Georgia there is no magazine capacity limit. Also concealed carry is allowed too, if I should choose to do that. If so, I;ll get something in a compact model.

You know, I have a 1911. I love my 1911. It even has a 4" barrel, making it easy to carry.

But more and more and more, I find myself wearing my .357 snubbie.

Someone explain creep......

Oh and Oldfella......

Glock 19 or Glock 26 (If you want the full size then Glock 17)

Reliable. Easy to maintain.

Is there any real advantage if you do happen to live someplace without magazine capacity limits? Assuming you're not a wispy little thing who can't hump a few more pounds around, of course.

I'd say no and yes.

If you're a bad shot then not even having a million rounds will help you.

If you're in a real bad situation though you may need more then 10 rounds.

Of course it also comes down to not wanting the government to have more control over us and insisting in their usual stupidity that restricting magazines will stop those pesky bad guys from shooting. As if the bad guys will follow that particular law.

Most firearms-related sites are blocked here at work, but I'm only curious anyway. What's the most capacity I could get for, say, a 1911 or a Glock 21 in .45?

A Glock 21 can carry 13 rounds plus one in the chamber for a total of 14.

A 1911, IIRC, can carry 7 rounds plus one in the chamber for a total of 8.

Really to me capacity isn't as important as hitting the target. It doesn't matter if you have 8 or 14 if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

Oh and the Glock handle is fatter since it's a double stack design while the 1911's are single stack magazines. Some people don't like the extra width.

In basic pre-GWII Marine infantry doctrine, when you make contact with bad guys you "get down, take cover, return fire". At that point you aren't engaging specific targets as much as putting up a wall of lead to get the bad guys to get their heads down and stop shooting at you. Once you've got them down so they can't shoot at you, you can start playing "whack-a-mole" and looking for specific targets to shoot.

I would assume that in a lot of situations, where you're not going up against an experienced gunfighter (and collateral damage isn't an issue) it would also be valuable to be able to pop off about 4 shots in quick succession to make the bad guy(s) run away or at least rattle them and get their head down. A "wonder nine" gives you a package with enough bullets that you can waste a few on unaimed loud noises and still have plenty to do the job. Being semiauto and of a relatively mild recoil helps you to get those shots off quickly and relatively accurately as well.

If you're packing a single stack .45, my little Walther, or especially a revolver you really don't have the luxury of suppressing fire.

You can get after market 8 and 10 round 1911 magazines. the 8 rounders hardly stick out of the bottom of the mag well at all, but the 10 rounders do quite a bit.

I've got 8 round mags for my 1911.

I'm looking at getting a Tuarus 1911 in 9mm after the first of the year.

When California gets its thumb out of its ass re: CCW (and, believe it or not, it is happening---about half the state is more-or-less "shall issue"), my carry weapon will be my Glock 20 10mm.

I considered this the ultimate defensive weapon when I bought it almost 20 years ago, and I still do. It's Glock reliable and simple, has a 15-shot capacity, and shoots loads that fall just short of .41 Magnum power-levels.

The only downsides are a big grip (not a problem for me; over-sized hands) and a relative dearth of good defensive ammo choices.

I don't anticipate ever needing more than 1 or 2 shots, but I tend to agree with Volpone: you can keep the bad guys' heads down with a few extra slugs tossed their way.

Here's the science behind more rounds......you can be the most accurate SOB on the planet, at a paper target (that doesn't shoot back) with no adrenalin pumping. Reality can and does differ.

And even if you can still hit your intended target, some people are just tougher than others, period. And I don't care if you put a bullet literally through someone's heart/lung area, they will not die instantly unless you hit them with an incredibly powerful round. They will likely die in about 30 seconds, but until they do, hells-a-poppin and they may get off a few rounds in your direction. Putting several rounds into their upper torso ups the odds they will be stopped sooner versus later.

You as the defensive shooter have nothing to prove by being a "one shot/one kill guy." Your survival is at stake....use every advantage you can if you believe you should live and he should not. :santa_ok:

Yeah thanks Professor.....I would have never figured all that out on my own....

I mean it's not like I carry two spare mags with 15 rounds of .40 sweetness on the job in case I run out of the first 16 rounds. No I thought I carried them for decoration on my belt.

I never said anything about being a one shot/one kill guy because I don't believe in that. I believe in pumping rounds into the target until the target falls to the ground.

However I stand by my statement that it doesn't matter how many rounds you have on you if you can't hit your target. What does that mean? It means getting your ass out to a range and practicing.

I mean I guess I was joking when I told you to get a Glock 19 which holds 15 rounds in a mag and can be expanded to hold 17, 19 and even 33 rounds by using the right length magazines. Yeah I was joking....What I really meant was you should practice being a one shot one kill wonder boy........

Calm down, man. We were just responding to UA's question about the value of a big magazine. At least I was.

And so was I. The more rounds the better.

Nor was I talking to you. Unless OldFella1962 is a dual of yours.

I hear that! Falls to the ground + then keep shooting. But there are some people that actually have the mindset that one well placed shot from a clearly more powerful round is superior to two from a weaker round. Perhaps if pentration is an issue, or large bones are a factor. But assuming unobstructed "center mass" upper torso rounds are your goal (as well they should be) more is better.

And with the average adult American human getting bigger + bigger..... pull the trigger until your gun goes "click." :santa_grin:

Meh. I carried my .40 Sig for years. I lurv that pistol.

But then the lightbulb went off. I shoot my ugly ass 1911 way the fuck better, and it's more reliable.

That's why I carry it. Not because it makes humungus holes....although I'd be lying if that didn't give me warm fuzzies.