Which is actually best? I own both but just recently bought the 45. I saw somewhere the 40 was actually a better one shot one kill round.
I wouldn't want to get shot by either, but I think alot depends on the ammo you are using. I think the 40 is a little faster, but the 45 hits a little harder. Seems there is a bigger variation of rounds available for the 40, and it's a little cheaper to shoot. If you were comparing FMJ to FMJ I think the 45 would be more lethal.
That's like asking whether you'd rather be hit by Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali! Both great choices for personal defense. Have no fear with either!
Comes down to this; bigger hole with more penatration = better stopping power. This said, both my .40 and .45's are devistating.
I like the 45 because it is slower and bigger. That assures me of a better chance of not overpenetrating, and with kids in the house this is a big deal.
I've actually sold off my .40s and now just have 9mm and .45 in semi autos. My logic was 9mm is cheaper than .40 and .45 makes bigger holes... Wow, 100th post
.40 vs .45 With all other things being equal-bullet/velocity/energy,the .45 will perform better due to larger frontal area.
I have a bit of a delema on which XD to buy. I love .45's but I have been looking at the XDM 40 for quite some time. I know as soon as I get the .40xdm they are going to come out with a 4" barrel, XDM .45. Both feel good in the hand and there are 13 of those phatty's in the mag. Plus I have a 1911 .45 and a million spend rounds. I just can't make up my mind. The XDM fits better in my hand but I love .45's. What about reloads in XD's? That would make a difference. I have a 33 glock (357 sig). That thing cannot have any reloads at all. I don't believe most or all glocks cannot either. Please aid in my decision.
Looking back I think i should have bought the XD 40 in sub-compact, Mostly because the 4" is almost too big for a cc weapon. Don't get me wrong the full size is a very fine gun, I would have still bought an XD no matter what.
Well Chester, thanks for your input. The only thing is that I have a Glock 33 subcompact (357 sig). All I would have to do to make it a 40 would be to buy a 40 barrel. And truthfully I don't mind the 357 sig. Ammo is expensive but the round is great. I wish I could just make up my mind and get it. I hear what you are saying about the xdm40 and the xd45. They are a bit big. The 45 is 1/2" shorter and yeah it may be difficult to carry. Darn darn darn. Now the milspec 45 with three or three and a half" barrel is running through my head. Low rounds but small and narrow. Thanks.
Why not get a XD in 40 sub-compact. It's a great gun and easily concealed. The price ain't bad either.
Chester, I guess if I already didn't have the 33 glock I probably would be going after a sub-compact. A barrel for the glock is $99 to make the 357 a .40. A sub-compact xd would cost me somewhere around $550. I wish someone would make a sub-compact .45. But anyways, I think if I was going to go with a .40 it would either be the XDM. Just don't know.
Just my opinion, the one shot kill round is a myth. Placement is a huge factor, so more important than the caliber is what round you can fire accurately. Stories abound of people being hit by stray .50 rounds and living to tell the tale. What is more comfortable for you?
NO, it's NOT a myth. How many times have you actually HAD to use deadly force-either in combat OR defense? The trick is to hit em, but to blow the biggest darn hole you can in them. The simple FACT remains, the bigger bullet, with all else equal, the bigger hole. And the bigger hole in somebody, the faster they'll drop.
So, essentially what you're saying is a round exists that will kill consistently when it hits someone in their big toe? A whole lot of factors beside bullet diameter come into play, and it's not an exact science. 250 lb. rapists have been dropped with one shot from a .25, and drunks have taken a whole cylinder in the chest from a .38 and kept walking. The OP said he had heard that the .40 was a better one shot kill round. The .45 is larger. I think debate over superior calibers is moot, as it is more important to hit a target effectively than to rely on the number on the case to do the work. Again, only my humble opinion.
Benning boy-please read my post more carefully. I distinctly said all else being equal-that means assuming same shot placement. Also you are supposedly quoting isolated instances instead of being able to speak from practical experience. Remember-I never said ANYTHING about dropping somebody by shooting them in the big toe so PLEASE DON'T TRY to twist my post around until you've had the same experiences I have and THEN you'll be qualified to discuss with me on same level. Stalkingbear out and done with this thread.
The .40 was originally designed as a less potent alternative to the 10mm round. The .40 is right in between the 9mm and the 10mm rounds. Instead, it became compared to the .45 round when the ballistics are completely different. Let the numbers show themselves. .40 S & W Information: .40 S&W - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .45 ACP Information: .45 ACP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The .40 round is faster, but the .45 ACP round will trasmit more kinetic energy to the target. Think of it this way: Taking a .40 caliber round in the chest might be like getting hit with a large, 23 ounce, framing hammer at full swing. I imagine that taking a .45 round would be like getting hit with a full-up sledge hammer at full swing. Both will work just fine, but I would put my money on the .45 ACP. ....or you can be like me. I have a .45 ACP and a .40 S&W pistol.
