So I recently went to a local range and finally had the chance to shoot a Glock 26 after handling them in different shops. What I discovered was that the 26 is simply too small for me, and I couldn't get a comfortable grip on it. A grip extender might have helped, but then how is that any different from a 19? So I tried a 19 next and that was the ticket. Felt great in the hand, and I was doing much better on accuracy. So I pretty much had it settled, I want a Glock 19. Or so I thought. So I was doing some more pre-purchase research since I found the 19 that I wanted to buy online and was going to order a box of defensive ammunition with it as well since I have no handguns (What good is a Glock with no ammo?) and started wondering about the differences between the grain loads. It was here that I found in different places people reporting second-hand stories of people who have been shot with 9mm rounds and not being stopped. One person I recall was talking about how the guy shot the bad guy 10 times with a 9mm, only 2 rounds expanded inside him even though he was using JHP and one of the rounds actually went through and hit his friend but didn't penetrate much. This guy was not trying to speak of the downsides of the 9mm caliber itself, as he was commenting on which grain to select. But I made this connection and it has made me concerned about the effectiveness of the 9mm caliber. I don't even want to start any sort of 9mm vs. whatever caliber thread here, I know it's been hashed to death. What I would like to know however, is if a .40 Glock would perform any better. The range I was at had a decent deal on a new Gen 3 23 for around $485. At the time I was only interested in the 9mm variant, but now I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't consider the 23. I know the 23 can also be converted to 9mm, which gives it some versatility as well - but I probably wouldn't run out and buy the barrel right away. I know Glock is a polarizing brand, but personally I like the looks and feel. For whatever reason, I think they look good - something about the spartan square shape, over some other polymer pistols which have lots of ridges and angles that just don't look as good. I love a great looking 1911 too, so don't get me wrong - but I like the Glocks for more than just their reliability. But looks aside (a frivolous concern), I'm also wondering about a .45. If Glock made a compact .45, I'd probably be looking at it. The only options are the 21 (too big) or the 30 (too small). The 36 looks like it might work since it's only a tad smaller than the compact frame, but I don't know anything about it - or how Glock .45's perform since 9mm is their bread and butter. So I'm at an impasse here. Does anyone have any first, second, or third hand experience with the effectiveness of .40 over the 9mm? I'd strongly prefer to stay with a Glock, but I'm open to considering something else if it has a similar reliability record. I just like how Glocks can be serviced anywhere, simple field strip, and so on. I'd love to have a 1911 eventually, but I figured I would buy one of the nicer ones which means probably around $850-$1000 or more - and I really don't want to spend that much right now. This gun is going to eventually be a conceal carry, but for now it will just serve as home defense and range practice. I've set a standard for myself that I absolutely will not consider carrying until I am so familiar and comfortable with the gun that using it is second nature and I consistently have no misses at realistic ranges/sizes. I feel comfortable with the size of the 19/23, 1911's seem to be a bit bulkier to carry as I haven't had my hands on any of the commanders to see how they feel. The current price point I'd like to set is no higher than $550 new or used, if I need to consider other choices. Would anyone care to help me out with their opinions and thoughts? Would greatly appreciate the guidance!