9mm versus .32, .38 or .45

meadowmuffin3

meadowmuffin3

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
In the Dog House mostly
Was talking to a fellow gun club member on the weekend about buying a .22 semi-auto handgun first then a 9mm once I have mastered the handgun skills with the .22
His comment was that the 9mm and the .40 S&W are not good calibres for target shooting (bullseye) because they are too fast and besides they are only for killing people (ouch!!) He felt that legal .32 models, .38 and .45 were far superior for target shooting as they are slower rounds.
Yet I am seeing on this website that a goodly number of people are delighted with the 9mm and 40 S&W.
I was thinking of saving to purchase a 9mm (likely CZ75 or Beretta 90-2) as soon as possible after acquiring the .22 Ruger target.

Any comments
 
Last edited:
Just one comment. Tell your "fellow gun club member" to get his head out of his ass before he suffocates.

9mm and .40 ".....are only for killing people." :rolleyes:
 
unfortunately this sort of "eliteism" rears it's head from time to time even in the best of clubs- it follows there are no other guns other than colts, or smiths, norcs are junk, etc- it's called snobbery - just a way of somebody putting themselves above others, and it divides us as a community-i've even seen it in print- one of the books i have says you MUST start off with the 45 in your RIGHT HAND, INJECT THE MAGAZINE WITH THE LEFT, GRASP THE SLIDE WITH THE LEFT , LET IT GO FORWARD, AND APPLY THE SAFETY WITH THE RIGHT THUMB- LEFT HANDED PEOPLE MAY THEN TRANSFER TO THE LEFT HAND FOR FIRING- and this is supposedly written by a us army captain- twit
 
yeah. my 9 and my 40 kill people on a regular basis.
btw, tell your asshat friend that I shoot 22's that are higher velocity then 9's or 40's.
how bout that?
 
While a dumb statement about "only for killing people" (duh!!), he's essentially correct in that 9mm especially and .40 less so are not recommended bullseye choices. I'm talking about competitive bullseye shooting, either ISSF or NRA.

The 9mm just isn't accurate enough in a standard twist barrel to meet the rigorous standards for bullseye -- especially at NRA distances of 50 yards. Special barrels with reduced twist have been developed after years of experimentation by the US military target pistol teams that do give incredible accuracy in a 9mm, but these are not off-the-shelf pistols. A regular 9mm won't be competitive in the hands of a great shot because it can't hold the ten-ring at the distance required. Sorry.

He is correct that .32 S&W Long, .38, and .45ACP are the standard calibers for bullseye shooting. While .40 S&W could probably be developed into a suitable cartridge (I don't see much difference in recoil compared to a .45) it hasn't been done so far as I know.

I would recommend finding out what kind of bullseye is done at your club. In Canada, two types are prevalent: ISSF and NRA. If the club shoots ISSF, for instance, the choices become immediately restricted, because no caliber greater than .380 is allowed for the centrefire portion of matches. NRA on the other hand actually requires .45 caliber for the last 900 of a full 2700 point match, although smaller calibers can be used in 1800 point matches.
 
A lot of old bullseye shooters think that was. they also don't think you need to load more than 5 rounds in the mag :rolleys: Funy that .22 probably has killed more people tha 9mm or .40...

There are no cool .32 guns (only the 'tree branches') not to menyion that ammo is not as common and costs more than 9mm.

.45ACP is not a bad caliber, even I have one :) but it's pretty expensive compared to 9mm.

I'm not a .40 caliber fan but I would recommend a 9mm for sure it's a good and fairly accurate caliber (when combined with accurate guns). Beretta 90two you were thinking is a fine choice.
 
I always thought that light, fast rounds were more flat and more accurate.

I'm not sure how 230gr 45ACP @ 700 fps can be more accurate at 50 meters
than 115 gr 9mm @ 1300 fps can.

Then again, it all depends what accuracy you are looking for.

If you are after 2-3" grouping from 25 m, off hand, CZs, SIGs in 9mm
can do this. Most people can do this with a proper training.

If you want consistent 1" groupings @ 50 m, then you better stick with
.22 LR, some fancy ammo and some race, bullseye gun.
 
What a bunch of asshats...

Buy the biggest, most expensive handgun you can find, one with lots of bling and shoot only hollowpoints. Take it to bullseye matches too!!

9mm is a great gun for the range!!
 
I'd go with a Sig and not the Beretta 90 Two. 9mm is a great caliber, I may get pissed on for this, but I've had no issues hitting my target with this caliber. Sh*t, I'll I've got are 9mm pistols. Well not entirely true, except one in 40, which is a trial for me.
 
targettarget said:
+1. It's a little out of context but hey, you said it, not me.
Click to expand...

hey go wash your mouth out- i've got 2- a woodsman 93 and a tokarev- i was using that as an example- when i was growing up, the same things were said about astras and taurus- point being, that unless your "gun" came from a certain manufacturer, it was junk- fact is ,somebody somewhere is going to call the other guy's gun junk- and it just demeans all of us- the only really poor guns i've had in 30 years were 2- 1 was an argentine mauser in 06 and the other was an ithica 49- i even found a spot for matty mattel's mouse gun a few years back- thought it might be prudent when the russians were supposed to come over the pole
and there's a certain intellegence service that actually PREFERS the 22 for termination- and if it's good enough for them, etc
 
Last edited:
.... Just a thought, the idea of a .22 to start with is definitely the way to go ! Given the costs, either a USED semi auto, or a .22 revolver, would be a good start, just deciding which way to go is the hard part ! If you get a good quality .22, don't just go with the cheapest,go for quality and which fits your hand the best ! ( a good .22 will last a lifetime ! ) If you like the idea of a revolver, it can be the cheapest way into center-fire target shooting, with some excellent used offerings in .38 Special from Smith and Wesson notably. Plus the recoil from .38 Spl. is light/moderate, and when you decide to get into reloading, .38 Special is probably the easiest of cartridges to work with. ...... David K. ....:)
 
Last edited:
meadowmuffin3 said:
Was talking to a fellow gun club member on the weekend about buying a .22 semi-auto handgun first then a 9mm once I have mastered the handgun skills with the .22
His comment was that the 9mm and the .40 S&W are not good calibres for target shooting (bullseye) because they are too fast and besides they are only for killing people (ouch!!) He felt that legal .32 models, .38 and .45 were far superior for target shooting as they are slower rounds.
Yet I am seeing on this website that a goodly number of people are delighted with the 9mm and 40 S&W.
I was thinking of saving to purchase a 9mm (likely CZ75 or Beretta 90-2) as soon as possible after acquiring the .22 Ruger target.

Any comments
Click to expand...

Yes or not. He just gave his personal comment and his experience. We all have our favorite cal. Some like .45 and some like 9mm or 40, nothing wrong with that. I personal pefer 38+P for bull's eye but some of our Abby member shoot excellent with 9mm. Pick what you like the best. By the way you have to buy both the CZ and Beretta. They are great guns.

Trigun
 
Wife & have .22 Buckmarks (Target 5.5 and stainless plus UDX) and CZ 452, very happy with them, can recommend as .22s. We're both improving in terms of sighting, trigger control, stance... at $16 for 500 rounds...

Get quality, if not happy with what you have wont use it, then a waste.

Next a 9mm CZ or Browning likely (sssssh she does not know this yet).
 
Shoot whatever's comfortable for YOU. I personally shoot 9mm because I like the low recoil and cheaper price for WinClean, my dad shoots .45 because that's his thing. I know a lot of guys who much prefer .22 pistols and to be honest, I'm a big .22 fan for both pistols and rifles and I've had a lot of fun shooting .22, just as much as my 9mm. Hella cheap plinking ammo and almost no recoil. My next pistol will be a .22.

Obviously, if you're shooting competition then that changes everything but I don't, I merely plink. LR
 
Hey MM3, JV here again. I just answered another question of yours in another thread (on first generation shooters). You mentioned there that you were thinking of either a CZ75B or a Vertec. I see now that you are really looking at the new Beretta 90-Two. The Vertec was a variation of the old 92FS. I mention this just to clarify.

Have you fired a .22?

No offense, and I will probably get pounded for saying so (I'm putting on my armour as we type), but a .22 is the most boring thing in the world to fire. No loud noise, no recoil, no "holy s**t" factor, no nothin'; all IMHO of course. Yeah, I know, some people (a lot of people?????) say develop your technique on the .22 and then graduate to the fun stuff. Well, I suppose that may well be true - if you don't die of boredom first!!!!!!

By all means, if you have the cash for the .22 and the centerfire, then knock yourself out. Get both. Multiple copies. But, if cash is an issue.....go straight for the centerfire. Go for the gusto.

I shall now retire from this thread for a couple of days while the uproar takes place.

Have a good one.
 
I shoot all the mentioned calibers including the 32 S&W Long out of a snubby revolver, they are all fine for target shooting. Shoot what you like and just ignore the idiots.
 
In general, I must chime in with support for the Good Judge Vandelay's comments above, in that, yes, when compared to my .45s, the .22 is not as exciting to shoot (less glamour, less glory).

However, by having both I can get the best of both worlds:

.45 Pros: Exciting shooting; big and loud bang; greater challenge to aim and shoot well; all very glorious.

.45 Cons: Relatively expensive ammo - especially now.

.22 Pros: With my S&W .22 Auto I can shoot very well 60 yards - much better than with the .45s; ammo is super cheap (500+ rounds for 14-18 dollars); cheap shooting allows lots of basic handgun firing training at low cost; is good to be shot by beginners or non-gun folk (kids, dudes, women etc.) for whom a .45 may be too much to start off with as a first time pistol experience.

.22 Cons: Once you've shot the 'big boys' it feels more like a strong pellet gun. My relatively light and small S&W .22 Auto feels much more lively and exciting to shoot (noise, kick) than my friend's 6 inch Taurus .22 revolver, which is the same size as a .357 (heavy and provides no kick at all - this REALLY feels like a pellet gun - you can rapid fire double action and the front sight doesn't even move).

Again, owning both has worked wonders for me and I'd recommend it - especially since most of these guns don't really cost THAT much and will last a lifetime if properly looked after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom