.40 v .45

[JBHorne]

Originally Posted by bigwilly11189

These stupid 40 vs 45, 9 vs 40, etc arguments have been going on for so long and are so annoying. Shoot what you want, shoot what you shoot best and don't worry what anyone else says. I think there should be a permanent ban on these silly arguments, only kidding, but really how many times can you argue the same points. There are 3 things my mother taught me not to talk about with friends and family: 1)Religion, 2)Politics, 3) Calibers.

4) Glocks

[jtaliani]

I enjoy shooting both but I get a much quicker transition with .45. So, if I were to pick one, definitely .45.

[digitalexplr]

Originally Posted by makarov9b

.40 with 16+1
why? because the .45 is a very problematic round and prone to more malfunctions due to it's extreme nose heavy, stubby shape. Every thing has to be just "perfect" for it to all go bang- recoil spring, extractor tuning, ejector shape, and slide stop, etc...
I've had terrible experiences with several mfrs. in .45- Springfields, Ruger, and Taurus.

????