TexasCHLforum.com

In my opinion, stay away from the Kel-TecP-11/P-9 unless you want to be wearing a bandage on your shooting hand and I guess if you are a guy it won't matter that your thumb gets warped out of shape, but..... Also I don't understand the "having to have a high caliber like 9mm etc for self defense". A .22 or .32 if you can shoot them accurately and hit what you aim for can do more damage than the 9mm or higher caliber that you can't hit the side of a barn with. Carry what you can comfortably shoot and are accurate with and that is self defense. This is just my opinion mind you. (most don't agree on this.)

seniorshooteress wrote:. Carry what you can comfortably shoot and are accurate with and that is self defense. This is just my opinion mind you. (most don't agree on this.)

I would think most do agree with you on your latter point.

Mastodon wrote:Having 8(?) 40S&W cartridges by your side will be plenty comfy.

The Glock 23 comes with two 13-round magazines, so that'd be 13+1 at minimum!

seniorshooteress wrote: Also I don't understand the "having to have a high caliber like 9mm etc for self defense". A .22 or .32 if you can shoot them accurately and hit what you aim for can do more damage than the 9mm or higher caliber that you can't hit the side of a barn with. Carry what you can comfortably shoot and are accurate with and that is self defense. This is just my opinion mind you. (most don't agree on this.)

I certainly do not dispute the spirit of this line of thought. That being said, when I was heavily researching which gun to buy, and during the phase of researching and selecting which calibers/chamberings I wanted, I did come across tales of incidents where a "sub-caliber" (.380 and lower) may not penetrate a leather jacket, or a heavy denim coat. I do not have any first-hand experience with this phenomenon, and I don't believe everything I read, but this sort of concern cropped up over and over when considering a handgun sporting less than 9mm Luger in power. There must be something to it.

I feel that since I can get a handgun in a comfortable size that also has enough capacity to make me confident and chambers rounds that I have no reason to doubt, then that's what I want to have if I ever need it, and nothing less.

Certainly, a .22 through the bad guy's eye would stop the threat, but I do not want to limit myself like that (having to make such a precise shot). I can practice with a higher caliber/chambering so that I can make my shots hit where I aim them, so that I have the best of both worlds.

A service caliber that you can shoot well is always better than a sub-caliber that you can shoot well.

I am not arguing with you, don't get that idea! I'm simply stating that the typical line of reasoning is that a .22 trumps a .45, provided that a shooter cannot hit what is being aimed at with the .45, but can achieve the shot with the .22. No disagreement there, but what about the shooter who can make the shot with either? I would say that a higher caliber, properly placed, will be much more effective, and will not suffer the potential to be rendered harmless by the bad guy's clothing.

{Edit: I mean ".380", not "3.80", and have corrected the above error}

Vic wrote:

Mike from Texas wrote:... I am an admitted non fan of the 40 S&W caliber.

I am interested in why people say that. I've seen that sentiment expressed on may forums all over the Internet.

Before the threat of turning this into a 9mm versus .40 S&W versus .45 ACP debate, I like all three calibers, as I noted in my original post. I would have been happy with any of the three. For me PERSONALLY, I wanted a bit more "punch" than the standard 9mm (even though I am fully aware that a modern JHP 9mm cartridge will deliver effectively), but more capacity at the same weight as a .45 ACP. The .40 S&W is a "compromise cartridge", but that's precisely what I was looking for. That is what led me to choose the .40 S&W. The recoil does not bother me. I have most of my handgun experience with the FEG PA-63, a Dan Wesson .44 Magnum, and my father's off-duty gun which is a J-frame S&W Airweight with .38+P. Needless to say, I am more used to recoil than not. I think the Glock 23's recoil will feel like a gentle tap to me, given what I am used to!

I'd still be interested in all opinions on why others are not a fan of the .40 S&W cartridge.

Nothing more than a personal preference. I am neither as accurate or as fast with follow up shots with the 40. I am admittedly fastest with the 9mm, but my split times even with the 45 are still quicker than the 40. In addition to that, I have tons of guns in 9mm & 45 and have not any good reason to get a 40, and my dislike for the caliber just helps to anchor that position. Any of them will kill a person grave yard dead and in reality there is not enough difference in stopping power to argue one over the other.

It all boils down to shoot what you are comfortable with, and I just happen to not be comfortable with the 40.

Congratulations, Friend of mine bought a Glock a month or so ago.

I went with the M&P 45 Compact, and have been very impressed with it.

Don't think you could have gone wrong either way.

congrats on the purchase!! now time for some more ammo!

In case you're interested, "hickok45" on YouTube has several Glock 23 videos. Here is his Glock playlist. He has many more videos, but these are the Glock vids.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 7D1&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Enjoy!

eugeniuss wrote:congrats... does having a CHL speed up the buying process in a store?

It did for me!

Hooyah!