If cost and availability were equal what would your caliber of choice be? I've opted for the 9mm. If cost and availability were not a factor, I would have chosen the .40 S&W. Another choice that I would consider would be the .357 SIG. It seems that the .357 SIG was all of the rage for a very short while. I don't hear too much about it anymore. What gives there?

Has anyone else made a decision regarding caliber choice based on cost/availability?

__________________
otis

I would still go with 9mm. I prefer small carry guns and in 40 the recoil of a Shield in 40 is a bit much. Plus Glock 43 and Sig 365 size guns are not available in 40. But the low price of 9mm is a big advantage since I quit reloading several years ago and only shoot factory ammo now.

While 40 is more expensive than 9mm it is just as available. Plenty of choices online and during the big ammo shortage 5 years ago it was easier to find 40 than 9.

.40 was my choice and would still be my choice.
No issue with “snappy recoil” of it even with the small shield it just requires one to learn to manage said recoil.

Currently my carry is a 45 shield and again the recoil is a non issue at least for me.

After them would be good ol .357 mag.

No interest al all in a 9mm.

Cost is a minor factor and when you look around on line you can get these calibers usually at a lower cost than same calibers purchased at a local store.

Just ordered 40 for 11.99/50 and 45 for 13.50/50 on line Friday.
Which is about 3-4 bux a box less than local in store cost

Steel and or aluminum cased ammo also saves $$.

No I dont worry about shooting either in my guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're talking self defense? That should be easy. 9mm.

1. Higher capacity means you stay alive when it gets really serious.

2. Lower recoil means faster more accurate shooting. This is simple mechanics, no matter who you are.

3. 9mm, .40, .45 all work the same on bad guys.

I made the switch from .45 recently.

I'd be hard pressed to pick between 9mm and .38/.357. I've settled on 9mm as the "Goldilocks caliber" for its performance, size, and price. Size meaning how many rounds can fit in a mag.

If cost and availability were not an issue, I would most likely choose the .38 Special/.357 S&W Magnum. I have with perfect results used S&W revolvers so chambered for right about 40 years. I've not ever had a need/interest that could not be well filled by these rounds. I do so very much enjoy these revolvers that have been at hand for most of my adult years. If cost/availability were not an issue, I'd look no further than the .38/.357 rounds. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

These threads may inspire many to reload!
Store bought ammo.... 357 or 44 Mag.

If cost and availability were equal what would your caliber of choice be? Easy .45ACP

In the right gun, cartridge is quite accurate, its also considered by many a very good personal defense round.

I have among others .45 in 1911 series 70 Gold Cup with some mods by me also a XDS.45

Those two guns will do anything I want, and as long as ammo cost is equal to other smaller rounds I will be a happy camper!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

If cost and had anything to do with it I would pick .22LR. Since cost doesn't affect my choice I shoot .357M in revolvers and .45ACP in auto loaders. I'm thinking all 3 calibers are readily available every where. Larry

If cost is not involved, the 357 Maximum.
Flat shooting out to 200 yards plus and manageable recoil.


I love this caliber, but they are over $2 each.

Prescut

Para revolver .357 Magnum.
Para pistola .45 ACP

50 BMG, I quit shooting it since Uncle Sam quit supplying the guns and ammo (some BS about being retired).

I also have a preference for 357 Mag.
Have several, one more would be okay!

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

I'm not married to any particular caliber, and the cost is not particularly important. I tend to stay away from niche cartridges, am more interested in the best gun/cartridge combinations, and it's nice to be able to acquire them all locally and/or in bulk.
20151014_163357 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

I used to have this big silly thing...but it was a pain to haul around and would literally rattle your brain after shooting it for a while.

There is no doubt for me!! brucev got it totally correct...the old .38/.357......good way back when, great now

If ammo cost were no issue I would probably have a 10m/m and .45 Long Colt.

Guess I never considered the cost of the cartridge when choosing firearms. 9mm wouldn't be the first choice here though.

The whole 9mm is just as effective as .45 line is simply not true.

The same advancements in bullet technology have also been applies to the .45 ACP, and it too is better than ever. The .45 can and will expand more and penetrate as deeply as any 9mm load. Check this gel test of the new Federal HST 230 grain .45:

YouTube
(I guess we can’t directly show YouTube vids in posts anymore, peaches)

13”+ penetration and expands to almost NINETY caliber. No 9mm test I’ve ever seen even comes close. The .45 ACP produces more wound trauma and blood loss comparing the best loads available to the caliber to the best loads available in .40 and 9mm.

But does it matter that much?

According to the FBI, no. The 9mm is statistically essentially identical in effectiveness to the .40 and .45 in actual gunfights, shot for shot. The 9mm also has the benefit of a reduced recoil implulse signature, and I don’t care who you are, you’ll always be able to shoot the 9mm faster and with more accuracitude than the .45 given the same platform (G21 vs G17, P226 vs P220 etc.). The 9mm also holds more “bullets in da clip” (read: cartridges in the magazine) over the .45 and .40.

With all that being said, there is something inherently comforting to me about seeing those big-mouthed, fat little nasty .45s tucked neatly into the magazines of my SIG P220. I know deep inside I’m probably better off with my Beretta 92A1 but psychologically I am just drawn to the .45. I also am drawn to 12 gauge shotguns for the same reason, even if I know in my heart of hearts an AR loaded with proper fragmenting lightweight JHPs is the more effective fighting weapon.

So, with that rambling out of the way, if money were no object, I’d take the .45 and for no other real reason than I like it and also that .45 is a lot more ‘spensive than 9mm!!

I seldom shoot anything but handloads, so I'm not up on prices and availability, but the question that begins with "If cost and availability were equal..." Is that even possible? I would think it would be unlikely to impossible, but again, I don't know for sure.

A thread like this can (and will for some) turn into the tired and trite 9mm vs. .40 vs. .45 dispute.

Cost of the ammo has never been a factor for me. For one thing I don't shoot the expensive rounds (50 S&W etc...) and I cast my own bullets and load my own ammo which makes the cost difference insignificant. I shoot 9mm, .38, Special, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP in about equal amounts and .357 to a lesser degree.

I'd have to say .40 S&W would be my choice.

The same as I use now, 44 special.

Part of the reason I switched to 9mm from .38 Special was cost, but if cost/availability was no longer a factor, I'd likely stick with 9mm for the reasons mentioned by Univibe, though capacity is much lower on my list of priorities.

I'd stick with my current, 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, 45 ACP. The only caveat is 10mm, I think it has a lot of potential and one reason I've shied away is because of availability. I cast bullets for handgun so the cost thing is already a minor consideration, but it does play a role if I have to buy ammunition. Its the only cartridge I might add or even use to replace my current lineup.

As far as rifles go, I woudln't mind a SA FAL or M1a In 6.5 Creedmore. Otherwise 308, 30-06, 8mm Mauser, 375 H&H are already good, would not replace them even if other choices had the same advantages in cost and availability otherwise.

Here's the reason it's pointless to be concerned over caliber cost here. Was corresponding with a fellow a while back and listed all calibers on hand.

.22 Short
.22 Long Rifle
.22 Hornet
.223 Remington
.220 Swift
.25 ACP
.257 Roberts
.270 Winchester
7X57
.30 Carbine
.30-30 WCF
.30 Remington
.300 Savage
.30-40 Krag
.308 Win.
.30-06
7.62 Nagant revolver
7.62X39
7.62X54R Russian
.303 British
.303 ICL Improved (a wildcat cartridge)
.32 Long Colt
.32 S&W Long
.32-20 WCF
.32 Winchester Special
.351 Winchester Self-Loading
.380 ACP
9mm
.38 S&W
.38 Long Colt
.38 Special
.357 Magnum
.375 H&H Magnum
.38-40 WCF
.40 S&W
10mm
.41 Long Colt
.41 Magnum
.405 WCF
.44 Special
.44 Magnum
.45 ACP
.45 Colt
.455 Webley
.45-70 Gov't
.45-90 WCF

.410
20 gauge 3-inch
16 gauge
12 gauge 2 3/4-inch
10 gauge 3 1/2-inch

Daisy BB gun
Benjamin Model 347 .177 pellet gun

All the center fires are handloaded except for the 7.62 Nagant, .410, 20 gauge, and 16 gauge.

In a semi-auto the 45 ACP.

I'm a revolver guy and carry the 38/357.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

x2........If you cast/reload/make your own shot. They can ALL be equally efficient.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I can reload and cast bullets. Usually just buy cast bullets though. Have lead stowed away for a "rainy day."

Haven't attempted shot making.

While ammo cost is a consideration, I wouldn't let it interfere with my selection of a self defense caliber. While I mostly conceal carry .38 special or 9mm nowadays, I carried a .40 cal. Sig P229 on my duty belt for 20 years. Personally, I find a J-frame or single stack 9mm Sig P239 easier to conceal, and I no longer have a duty to chase down bad guys. Regardless, in my experience, shooter grip and individual firearm ergonomics have as much relevence as caliber choice when it comes to maintaining accuracy and speed in firing. Some models of handguns simply fit an individual's hands better than others, and for me, a thumbs forward grip has proven its worth in controlling muzzle rise and recoil, regardless of what caliber I'm shooting.

I would like to have a 6906 sized pistol in 38 super. Oh, and a levergun to match. But using what's gonna be provided to me for free in a current configuration? 45 colt. Good self defense, will take a deer, and accept shotshells. Yeah, I need a lever gun to go with my 4" model 25.

I've stuck strictly with +P .38 Special for twenty-one years, since I sold my last automatic. I know, I know, it's "semi-automatic". I'm old and grew up calling them automatics. Like using .38 Special, I'm unlikely to change.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I agree, I do not let cost influence my decision of which cartridge to use for self defense.

When I was Younger and saving money was high on my list, it still did not influence my choice. It only influenced how much I could shoot.

My vote is for the 10MM Auto cartridge under either circumstance. Here are a couple of my favorites
I also happen to be a hand loader and caster, so ongoing shooting of even the so called "Expensive" cartridges is not to big of a deal cost wise.

However, the primary reason that I hand load and cast is that I enjoy both, the secondary reason is that I can do things not commercial offered.

How about a 240 grain JHP subsonic 10MM Auto cartridge for suppressed firearms? Or a 90 grain JHP 357SIG that shoots so flat it is amazing? Or a 45 Long Colt loaded with two 147 grain lead balls that is Cat Sneeze quiet out of a lever gun and hit less than an inch apart at 20 yards?

I get free ammo, and I still opt for 9mm.

In a revolver? Cost not an issue? .460 magnum. They're just plain FUN. (with the added benefit that they'll drop just about anything)

In a SA? Hmm. 9mm I guess.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

What brucey said!

__________________
Kevin in Oregon

My cartridge of choice for handguns is the .41 magnum, in both revolvers and autos. I do prefer revolvers though due to increased flexibility. I too have a wide variety of handguns in different calibers and while there really isn't a big difference in most of them, I just like the .41 family.

I'd guess the waning popularity in the .357 Sig is because like many other cartridges once you cut through the hype the reality isn't as appealing as it seemed on paper. For over a century gun writers and ammo/gun makers have spent a lot of time and money pushing one caliber or another and people will buy anything if advertised by the right person, but there really isn't that much difference in a lot of them and most of what they are saying is pure BS. The current fad is velocity and expansion, but neither of these really are a deciding factor in self defense ammunition and it's really getting old. It's also been a long standing desire for ammo and gun makers to have proprietary cartridges with their name on them, even if they are duplicates of others, because it's a form of advertising their products and brand.

I'm partial to a .38 super if I'm being honest, the couple I've shot I've been very enamored with.

I carry and stock many calibers in 9 mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP. I also stock and shoot Magnums in 357, 44, 454, and 500. I have dedicated progressive reloading presses in 357 Magnum, 44 Magnum, 45 ACP, and 9 mm.

I have many pistols in each caliber.

I recall when ammunition was scarce, and everything was picked clean, except for 40 S&W. Nowadays ammunition is plentiful and cheap. Only a couple of years back, reloading powder was also scarce.

Having recently acquired my suppressors, I find that the 9 mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP suppress well, even though the 45 ACP is the natural choice for sound suppression, even from longer barrels or Plus P loads. I was surprised at 40 S&W to suppress as well as 45 ACP in 180 gr bullets. I may strongly consider a reloading press for 40 S&W .

I do prefer 9 mm because of capacity, ballistics and size. 9 mm has become versatile for PCC carbines, as well as many sizes of handguns (revolvers, Micro, compact, subcompact, duty and competition). 45 ACP is great but the variety is not as versatile, and it gives up capacity. At closer distances 45 ACP shines, but 9 mm and 40 S&W have a longer reach, particularly with a red dot in play.

However, when things become scarce, it’s best to consider a backup when that cycle occurs, again.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

A range officer at my range is a former big-city homicide detective who was in charge of investigating officer-involved shootings. Based on many interviews with the involved officers, he found that three rounds were consistently the most effective at disrupting the intentions of the bad guys. These were the .45 acp, the .357 mag, and the .357 SIG. The 9mm round had a much weaker effect. Based on this real-world info, I only carry and practice with .357 Sig and .45acp, cost be darned.

__________________
What, me worry?

9MM
for recreational / enjoyment
for SD
for SHTF , why?

9MM
most common caliber
relatively inexpensive
if you needs parts & ect (mags) , for your gun , this will be the most readily available
I think the last point contributes to high level of acceptance and popularity to Glock. Many mags are interchangeable. You can find parts anywhere.

41 Magnum / 41 Special...
you said cost and availability were not an issue...
The 41 Magnum / 41 Special loads fired in the model 58 (my avatar) and in a lever action rifle would do about anything and everything I need or want done .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

.45Colt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The mighty .32 ACP, of course. According to Greg Ellifritz (whoever he is) it leaves all those other calibers in the dust.

Attached Images

504B25F3-00DD-4ED2-8F98-156A91AD5F9D.jpeg (32.0 KB, 47 views)

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I go with availability in all weapons. When TSHTF, new, fancy calibers will be much harder to find.

__________________
No baby we aint

OK, this thread got me to thinking, and if I were DW Wesson the Thirteenth or whoever, I'd go down to to the Custom Shop and have them drag a late pre-lock stainless, adjustable sighted J sized frame out of mothballs. They would then take a 3" full underlug barrel blank and bore and rifle it for for 32 caliber and a cylinder chambered in 327 Fed Mag.

Since my ammo in the scenario described would all be the same cost, I'd get both 32 S&W Long ammo (probably European 32 wadcutters) for range and plinking and 327 FM JHP for "serious work." This would take care of about 80% + of the handgun shooting I am likely to do for the rest of my life.

The Daydreaming Frog

This thread is an interesting read. I live in a state where a magazine with more than 10 gets you 5 years in prison and loss of 2A. Being disabled, I don't plan on being anyone's boy in prison. So I am limited to ten. All semi-autos are now on a level playing field.

I am a traditionalist: 45s are 7+1, 9mm is 9+1, as is the 38Super. Revolvers are limited to the number of holes drilled in the cylinder. I reload and I cast my own bullets, so projectiles will rarely be a problem. I try to avoid exotic cartridges. Polycoating can make casting easier for the neophyte to get into.

That said, I will lean as follows:
Revolvers: 7 shot 357, followed by a 41 Magnum.
Semi-autos: 45, 38 Super, then the 9mm. (Commanders have an advantage!)

Unlike Tom T Hall who likes beer, I like semiwadcutters! I don't need fast and expansion, give me slow that punches a well defined hole that bleeds freely!

I will buy the botique self defense ammo as necessary, but handloading keeps me in the game for the long-term.

Bottom line, cost of ammo doesn't influence my sidearm choice!

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

If all calibers were the same price, I'd choose 10mm.

Cost of ammo has never been a deciding factor of which caliber/cartridge the firearm I've chosen for self-defense is chambered in.
Honestly, I can't even wrap my head around the concept of selecting what cartridge to trust my life to based on price, namely because my life (and by extension the lives of my loved ones) is the most important aspect of my Earthly existence, and therefore it makes no sense to essentially put a price on my life by questioning whether the expense of the ammo is worth the price it costs to protect/preserve my life.

Furthermore, I accept that realistically speaking, there is only so much skill to be gaining by shooting at stationary targets at a range which will prove beneficial towards an actual armed confrontation with a living being intent on doing me physical harm, ergo the cost of "training" at the range is going to be minimal since it doesn't take very long to learn actual relevant information such as the PoA/PoI of my self-defense ammo.

For fun at the range, I'll mostly stick with firearms chambered in .22LR or buy a more modular firearm which can be easily modified to fire cheaper ammo rather than double down on fun/training or otherwise attempt to write off my recreational shooting trips as a form of training.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Whaaaa, whaaa, what?!?!?!?!