Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Looking for opinions pros and cons for .40 cal. Thanks!
I love all my guns Brick and between you and me, I'll always be partial to the .45ACP.Brickboy240 said:Go with the Service Model...this is what I have (in 40SW) and I love it.
Don't be surprised if you stop shooting your Glock or sell it off. I sold mine off after owning it ten years...I love the XD...improved combat tupperware! Don't miss the Glock and its rake-ish grip angle one bit.
-brickboy240
I have a Series 70 1911 Government that is flawless - upgrades include a Bar-Sto barrel, Wolf hi power recoil spring, trigger that breaks like glass at 4#, Wilson combat sights, two-tone and on an on. It would be extrmely jealous if I even considered adding another .1911 style 45 ACP to the family. The Glock 36 is kinda like its kid brother - different personality altogether. Big age difference and noting in common other than both are .45s and function perfectly - I love 'em both. And yes, given the choice, I'll go .45 any time. It's an inherently more accurate caliber than the .40 (sorry .40 fans but true) and a handloader's dream - a less pressurized round than the .40 so more forgiving.hobocircus said:Sounds like it's the Service model for you.
Did you condsider the Tactical? :twisted:
Let's talk about higher magazine capacity for the average armed citizen....if you need more than 6 or 7 rounds to protect your behind, you don't need a larger magazine, you need air support. It is highly unlikey that Joe Citizen will EVER find himself in a war zone scenario requiring upteen rounds. Other may disagree but the fact is, the 1911 7-rounder has served us very well over the years.IMPALAon20s said:one obvious thing not mentioned yet, is magazine capacity. 3" .40 gives you 9 round mag, where 3" .40 gives you 12 round mag.
myself, i didnt like my pinky hanging off grip of 3". went with xd-9 4", and very happy with my choice.
i never said or implied that higher cap magazine was better for personal protection, thats something you may have inturpeted. just makes for fewer magazine changes at range. but since you did bring it up, i dont see the harm in having a higher cap magazine, consider the alternative, having fewer rounds when it is called for, and your right its not likely you'll need that many rounds in an emergency situations,but i wouldnt want to come up on the short side. just my opinion.kraigster414 said:Let's talk about higher magazine capacity for the average armed citizen....if you need more than 6 or 7 rounds to protect your behind, you don't need a larger magazine, you need air support. It is highly unlikey that Joe Citizen will EVER find himself in a war zone scenario requiring upteen rounds. Other may disagree but the fact is, the 1911 7-rounder has served us very well over the years.IMPALAon20s said:one obvious thing not mentioned yet, is magazine capacity. 3" .40 gives you 9 round mag, where 3" .40 gives you 12 round mag.
myself, i didnt like my pinky hanging off grip of 3". went with xd-9 4", and very happy with my choice.
Sorry, I have never bought off on this argument. For me, weight and concealability is more important. I intend to use the SA XD service for primarily target/plinking. The larger capacity mag (compared to my G36 and Kahr PM9 and the SA subcompact) would just make it more fun.