thank you for the good words. i enjoy reading your very informative writings on the 1911's...
Sarge, as always--a well written post.
while not necessarily applicable to the given topic--i thought i might share these thoughts:
without a doubt, most will agree that hangunners using decent 9 mm rigs do better in speed and precision than with .40 S&W or .45 auto. (of course those same handgunners do better with the .22 LR given a respectable rig, such as a High Standard, Ruger mk2, Beretta Jaguar, etc.--a cartridge that can be "sufficient"--yet not ideal).
i consider the 9 mm a fine rig for CC, and like the 9 mm rigs alot--especially the H&K p7 m13 platform. without a doubt it is my favorite handgun cartridge to go out to the range with.
i've little use, or respect for the .40 S&W--in my mind an "answer" to a problem that didn't exist. the round is hard on rigs, and in my experience is not very accurate at the unusual "longer handgun ranges" of 35--50 yards.
while most self defense rigs are likely to be utilized at the shorter ranges of about 3--12 yards, i think it is important to have some level of accurate capability with the rigs--out to 35 yards, and even 50 yards (refrain from the "that's what a rifle is for" type of comments).
over the years, i've noted that at the 50 yard line if firing at either a paper plate, or a milk jug--i can make fairly consistent hits with a cross section of various .45 auto rigs. my success with the 9 mm is less frequent--in fact, i've found that the plate or jug needs to be at the 35 yard line for near equal accuracy. with the .40 S&W the success rate is much lower yet.
i find the .45 auto to be the most accurate of the 3 cartridges, and the round is fairly easy on rigs. if toted in a H&K USP, loads can be increased, to some advantages in some situations--ie., in the woods settings, etc.
i don't concern myself too much with the "goblins", and whether or not the 9 mm is adequate. most informed handgunners know that it can be sufficient. it's the big, aggressive dogs (and in wood's settings, other critters), that concern me--one only has to be bitten once by an aggressive dog to fully understand this--for they can cause significant injury.
in the mid 1960's, i was bitten by a dog out in the country. a fair amount of damage to my leg, requiring a visit to the ER. i was the 4th victim to that dog, and subsequently, the dog was ordered to be put down. this bite still causes some problems today--nearly 50 years later.
in the 60's it was German Shepherds that were popular, in the 70's it was the Dobermans, the 80's and 90's the Rottwielers--and today--the Pit Bulls (read that "land sharks"), and Canarios, etc. while on a walk the other night, i saw 3 Pits in a half hour's time. last night a person pulled up across the street and got out with a large Pit--he had a hold on the collar, but it was lunging, trying to get loose from him to get at the neighbor's cat that the dog spotted in the hedge.
my oldest brother just retired from 3+ decades in LE. he mentioned that large, aggressive dogs were often an issue for them. while it may not be a real significant, pressing issue, if a handgun is needed for defense/protection, in my opinion i believe that an indivdual CC citizen--or LEO--is likely to do better in a situation involving the bigger attacking dogs when launching somewhat heavier, bigger diameter pills...and this is at least one reason why i prefer the .45 auto to the 9 mm...
all learning is like a funnel: however, contrary to popular thought, one begins with the the narrow end. the more you progress, the more it expands into greater discovery--and the less of an audience you will have...
