9mm vs 45 ACP in a Shield single stack EDC pistol

[PSC617]

Go to the range, fire multiple shots at multiple targets, differing distances, using multiple positions. Then choose which one consistently had you center mass to terminate the threat. Buy it. Carry it...and always be training.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BAM-BAM]

This debate always makes me think.......belt fed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GUNs and JEEPS]

I will be the first to say I probably don't know as much as a lot of the members of this Forum.....I do know that the best tool is only as good as the person using it. IF you are comfortable with the .45 fine. If you are comfortable with the 9 or a wheel gun fine. But whatever you choose, NOTHING will go "the way you planned" when it happens.
IMO practice and lots of it are the most important......for me, for this reason, I went with a nine. It is just "cheaper" to buy more ammo and practice more...also easier to carry...IMO.

 

[MP1SG]

I carried the 19 and the 26....both to heavy and IMO hard to conceal at appendix position...Shield 45 fits appendix in size and weight just fine....2 extra mags on opposite side is comfortable...3 would not be...one would be ok also but I have 2 and a double mag pouch so there you go......carry 100 if you so desire...still don't see the need for a SD handgun with a mag count over 10 and I am trying to address this from a comfort position not a firepower position....enough said....

Belt and Holster combo are the key, with the right combo you can effectively conceal a S&W Md 29. My EDC for years was a Gen4 G23 with a spare mag. concealed very easily in a blade tech IWB holster summer or winter. Forgive me but your Logic is somewhat flawed, I read on the forum some dudes in Texas who carry G22 with 2 spare bags and a G27 as a Bug.
to be honest it dosent matter to me what people carry as long as they carry

 

[Arik]

Glock 26 loaded (26.xx oz) is an ounce lighter than the Shield 45 (27.xx oz).

Most people can't tell the weight difference in 1 oz. But heavier it is not.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[berudd]

While everyone might be focusing on the perfect number of rounds to carry with you that's not the OP's question. He more or less stated that he wants a single stack gun, specifically the Shield, and asked for opinions concerning either 45 or 9. The question wasn't about is 6,7 or 8 enough but which gun is preferred.

That said, someone else asked a good question. Can you get back on target with the 45 as well as the 9? If not, the 9 is probably the better choice. If you do have to defend yourself with it, getting quick shot on target is what you will need. I won't matter how big the holes you punch in the air are if you miss. Also, after reviewing the ammo testing on Luck Gunner, I gained quite a bit more confidence in the 9mm over the .45 in short barreled guns. In that narrow use case, there seemed to better more reliable penetration and expansion without over penetration and failure to expand. JMHO

 

[JJEH]

Nothing wrong with a 9mm...

 

[Mister X]

I would go with the 9mm. The 9x19 version has been out awhile now and is proven with the bugs worked out The .45 ACP shield is bigger. There is negligible differences in practical effectiveness in the context of defensive use between the two rounds. 9mm is generally more controllable on smaller guns than larger calibers. 9mm ammo is cheaper and more readily available.

 

[mooney7882v]

Seems to me there is another question as well. The .45 is a lot of mass to accelerate out of a short barrel in the shield. I wonder if the 9 is more effective out of a shield? If one is set on .45 would the compact not be a better choice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LAA]

After getting the 45, I might as well throw the 9 away. I could care less about it (the 9mm). My opinion of course. Feel free to disagree. As to control & follow ups, I do believe that those making comments should actually shoot the 45 Shield. It's much different than we'd expect. Sure surprised me! Seems that many others feel the same as I do.

 

[berudd]

Seems to me there is another question as well. The .45 is a lot of mass to accelerate out of a short barrel in the shield. I wonder if the 9 is more effective out of a shield? If one is set on .45 would the compact not be a better choice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is what I was thinking when I saw the testing info on Lucky Gunner. Seems an advantage from a larger slug with .45 is diminished when fired from a shorter barrel.

 

[MP1SG]

i read those lucky gunner results different. It seems as though several 230 grain JHP (Federal HST's and Winchester SXT) performed very well out of short barrels. Velocity, penetration and expansion was right up there, IMO and IMO ONLY, the 45 is a more effective round than the 9mm again IMO ONLY.
I wanna make that clear before the 9mm fan boys turn this into a caliber war thread.

 

[Arik]

The LG test showed how various ammo performed in the same media. This is where you can see which ammo (I know it wasn't a large selection out of what is available to us) performed better out of a specific size gun. Kinda shows that despite having a hole in the center not all hollow points are the same

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Nowlin]

In my 45 Shield I carry 160 grain Barnes TAC-XP handloads loaded to +P specs from Barnes. This is an all copper bullet which is almost identical in length to a conventional 230 grain hollow point but much faster. I know it is a more expensive bullet but then what is your life worth. The recoil is very low with this load in fact almost comparable to a 124 grain +P+ out of a 9mm.

 

[jdgiii]

I would say try and shoot both pistols, pick the one you shoot better, practice often, and carry every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S&W Fan]

Can't remember anyone ever saying they wish they had less ammo when things went bad.

Ok with that out of the way the best advice you've been given is to pick the one you'll shoot best. Now that's not always possible to determine prior to purchase but generally which ever fits or feels best in your hand will be the one to get.

During cooler months I frequently carry a full size M&P in 9 loaded with Federal HST ammo. With the small backstrap and Talon wrap around grip it fits my hand perfectly.

I've had a 9mm Shield in the past, worked great for me, didn't carry it more than other options so off it went in a trade. I'll probably get another one, probably in 9 as when I tried a friend's .45 last weekend I didn't shoot it was well as the 9. I should also state that most of the time I carry a 5" 1911 in an iwb holster so what do I know?

 

[berudd]

i read those lucky gunner results different. It seems as though several 230 grain JHP (Federal HST's and Winchester SXT) performed very well out of short barrels. Velocity, penetration and expansion was right up there, IMO and IMO ONLY, the 45 is a more effective round than the 9mm again IMO ONLY.
I wanna make that clear before the 9mm fan boys turn this into a caliber war thread.

Well, it is all up to interpretation. I looking at those Federals I only see one bullet that penetrated close to 18" and that was the one that failed to expand. One round just barely made the 12" minimum. The Winchester T-Series looked better IMO, but still a little light on penetration but they all expanded and nothing over penetrated. I betting that out of a 5" barrel the extra velocity would have helped in that regard. Those are probably what I'd be looking at to carry in a compact .45. The PDX-1 and Ranger bonded both had some pretty significant over penetration due to failure to expand so I'd steer clear of them.

I'm not going to tell anyone to NOT carry a .45 but after reading this I certainly do not feel that a 9mm is under gunned at all in a short barreled handgun. And while I know the OP question was based on the assumption of both guns having the same number of rounds I don't think that's the best way to consider it. The ability to carry more rounds is one of the advantages of the 9mm it should be a consideration with trying to decide between the two.

 

[Bill Bates]

I have both and I prefer the .45 over the 9mm.

First I like handguns in calibers that begin with point four. I prefer the more aggressive grip texture on the 45. The slightly longer grip frame fits my paw much better. I shoot the 45 a bit better.

Now if S&W comes out with a 9mm with the more aggressive grip texture and grip length of the 45 with the increased 9mm capacity that might come with that I would be really torn.

 

[Dave Nowlin]

I don't really know how old the OP of this thread is but I will be 74 tomorrow. I am about 5 ft. 9 in. tall and weigh 175#. So I'm not huge by any means. At present I am wearing denim cargo shorts and carrying a 45 Shield in a Jel Tec Holster AIWB and a M&P 9C in my right front pocket. That's not something I plan on doing all the time but it is not uncomfortable. Not sitting at my desk as I type or up walking around or moving around. So I suppose I don't really understand the problem. Carry what you like and shoot well and don't worry about it. After all you may well be a part of the majority who carry every day and never have to draw your pistol in self-defense. I pray that you are.

 

[CoMF]

Speaking strictly from a caliber perspective, there are loadings in both 9mm and .45 ACP that can be reasonably expected to expand and penetrate a minimum of 12" when fired from short barrels. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Take your pick.

I chose the .45 Shield over the 9mm version for one reason and one reason only: Ergonomics. The former just fits my hand better. Had the latter been made in the dimensions of the .45 version, I would've chosen that instead.

My view is that in any plausible self-defense scenario, we're more likely to run out of time before we run out of ammo. That being said, I think we should carry what works "best" for our perceived threat level. If a J-frame fits the bill, great. Feel undergunned with anything less than a G19? So be it. There are no "one size fits all" solutions to personal defense.