scattershot
Member
Always nice to find a supply of ammo in the lean times, but have you considered reloading? During the last late great ammo famine, I was still shooting when a lot of folks weren't. Just food for thought.
Always nice to find a supply of ammo in the lean times, but have you considered reloading? During the last late great ammo famine, I was still shooting when a lot of folks weren't. Just food for thought.
There are advantages to both calibers; it's not an either/or situation...
To me, .40 is a little more versatile. Google "heavy .40 S&W glocktalk"; there's a thread on glocktalk about hit and heavy .40 handloads (not saying you should duplicate what the author of the thread does). Some of his loading a are 200 gr bullets at close to 1200 fps. That's 10mm territory. So a .40 might makes sense for someone that spends time in the woods and isn't in grizzly country.
If you ever wanted to get in comp shooting, like uspsa, it makes sense to go with a 40.
McE
If you think the .40 recoils too hard, costs too much and is no more effective than a 9mm, then don't own one. I don't share you opinion. I enjoy shooting my sig 229 just as much as I do my 228. Using your logic, I don't see why .45 is so popular. I personally, couldn't care less what cartridge the FBI adopts.