9mm vs .380

Originally posted by SideWynder
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Sorry, I did not make that post clear.. I was not calling the .380 or the 9mm "girly guns" What I meant was in general terms that the "physical" size/weight.. etc. of the gun..

IE. if you are more comfortable with a small frame gun, or even a smaller caliber. (.25, etc..) you are better off using that than getting a .38 snubnose, or a .44mag, etc... just to impress...

Not picking on you, actually just trying to help, any handgun that you can use comfortably and accurately, is better than the one that just looks "impressive"..

I hope I clarified what I was trying to say..
Also the sig, .40 p230, was a nice "smaller" framed gun, comparable to the 380s and smaller than most 9mm, with lighter recoil for a small framed gun..

No worries, I just had to point it out because, since I have started researching, basically one out of every 5 opinions i get is 'you should go with a .45, 9mm and ,380 are weak and made for girls". It makes me laugh.

I actually do get what you are saying. As I said to someone else, my goal is to practice enough that I could put someone down with a .22lr if needed....frankly, I just dont buy the idea that a .380 or a 9mm wont put someone down-i have to believe, if you know what you are doing, it really wouldnt matter on size.

No worries, no offense taken though.

The other thing steering me away from .45 cal(i am not sure if I said this in this thread or another one, sorry if I am repeating myself) is that I have had a recent hand surgery, and am a few months away from being able to really start to build the strength back in my hand.

Now, I know that it isnt a great idea to buy when I am not in good shooting shape, but frankly, I see a day coming soon when we wont be able to buy them at all, and I want one before that happens. After I heal a bit, I am giong to delve into the .40's and .45's. But for now, I want a good, high quality, smaller cal.

I do think, though, after hearing all the great input from everyone on here, I will go with the 9mm instead of the .380.

You seem to be high on Sigs. One that I have been looking at heavily are the p225/p6's, in 9mm. Any experience with them?

reply to post by SideWynder


The SIG P230 was made in .32ACP and .380 and looks like SIG's version of the PPK; the P239 in .40 and 9mm is what you are thinking of. The Walther PPS is more readily concealed and has a better trigger out of the box.

In this case, a small, lightweight easily concealed handgun...Walther PPK or another popular one would be the Ruger LCP in .380, any of the taurus millenium pro models, or the new Sig in .380 (cant remember the model number on it. A Ruger LCP will fit in your front pants pocket and be unnoticed, fits in the palm of your hand but is still comfortable to handle.

reply to post by pteridine


Thank you for catching my mistake, I had both models, one in .40 and the 230 in .32... even when I had both I used to get the nomenclature mixed up when talking about them... too similar in the model designation..

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Sorry, the only sigs, I am familiar with were the two that I had years ago, a p230, and a p239,, But I was impressed with both.. never had a missfeed or jam, once they got used a bit they were pretty easy to break down and clean..(everything was stiff, till after about 150 rounds, and 3 cleanings)..

I personally, usually just stick with my old colt 1911a1 nowadays, It is just something that I have several decades of experiance with, so I am very comfortable with it.. I have several other handguns just sitting in the safe, haven't even seen the light of day in about 5 years..(except for "spring cleaning")

[edit on 13-3-2010 by SideWynder]

Originally posted by SM2
... or the new Sig in .380 (cant remember the model number on it...

I think you're talking about the new P238. It is basicaly a mini 1911 that fires .380 rounds. I think the price is out of the OPs range. The only one I've actually seen in stock was an "equinox" variation for $575.

I think some of the Makarov's were either made in .380 or rebarrelled in .380 and are inexpensive. The Bersa's had a .380 that was a simple blowback design, quite accurate and very reliable. I don't know about the FEG's reliability, but I think some of them were available in .32ACP and .380, also.

reply to post by pteridine


Bersa still makes the Thunder 380 and has even added the Thunder 380 Concealed Carry to their line up. Both are reliable and cost effective.

I have a Bersa Thunder Plus in Matte finish. It is .380 caliber and holds 15 rounds in a dual stack magazine. The gun came with 2 clips. It shoots very accurately and the wider grip due to the stacked magazine allows for great control. I only shoot Corbon DPX in it. For about $300 bucks, you cannot go wrong. This is in my BOB with 200 rounds of ammo and a cleaning kit.

Since the OP stated he was probably going to chose a 9mm I wanted to throw this in for his consideration.

Bersa makes a "Thunder 9mm" that sales for between $300 and $400 brand new.

Genitron.Com Handgun Database Page For Bersa Thunder 9mm

Taurus has started making the "Slim" 9mm. From the review in American Rifleman it seems to be a good gun. It is built simple and comes with a thumb safety to make locked and loaded carrying safer. I saw one new in the box for $415 over the weekend.

Genitron Page For Taurus Slim

I haven't seen an a brand new SIG, H&K, Beretta, Springfield Armory or Glock 9mm retailing for less than $500 in a while.

I just want to add this, for no reason really, other than to say.
The rounds used in war times and in the early times of the 1911's and such "types" of guns.

There was not the newer technically modified bullets...NATO..thing rules of war and such...

So in that defence, I present this...
www.gunshopfinder.com...

I know, flame me for liking my small calibers, but even a .17 cal. ballistic tip gonig 2800-3000 FPS coming apart upon impact, that IMO changes the idea for needing brute knock down power, which in turn, also limits its range very fast and dramatically.

Myself I'm working on a 22 hornet version of a 1911 if all goes well...that would be a really hard round to compare with 9mm's 45 acp's...beings that @150+ yards I can put a tiny entry wound in you witth a mega, trauma inducing exit or just plain old, make your inards look like grape jelly preserves.

reply to post by Doc Holiday


Hey Doc...
Ya know what they say about the tides of war???

This time the Marines going to Afghanistan will be taking a new round for their M-4's

5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier -MK 318 MOD 0
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc9e2abf7125.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Thats better than FMJ IMO... and gives great advantages to our troops.
Just wish I could, let them use 3-500 test rounds of my .223 re-loads, I'm using ATM.
I'm using Sierra 69 gr HPBT #1380 part #, although not as extreme as the ballisti tip 75grain BTHP Hornady's #H2279 "part #" I use.....I find the nosslers are more accurate , but only by 3/8" groups @ 200 yards, vs. the just under 1/4 " groups with the sierra's...

I have not chrono graphed them yet, but by math figures they should be going 2800-3000 FPS in standard loads, and I have pushed them a few times as much as getting 3300 FPS....great rnd!



[edit on 22-3-2010 by Doc Holiday]

reply to post by Doc Holiday


Well the not so well kept secret about the mk 318 Mod 0
is in civilian life it's better known as Federals trophy bonded bear claw... a well tested and proven hunting bullet...
Not a true hollowpoint it skirts the Hague by a technically...

still much better than the ole ball round


[edit on 22-3-2010 by DaddyBare]