Vlad G

1) Yep, second sunday of every month 2) Scores will be up tonite, they take me a while to get done as I have to find a few hours of free time 3) I normally send in the membership apps to USPSA as I do the prep work for the next match (financials, classifier submissions, new members applications, financial reports for the club, payout checks, etc). That is normally another few hours so I have to find time for that as well. Basically there are about 6-8 hours that go into every match, not on the range that I need to deal with every month. I wish I had more time do it all promptly, unfortunately I don't.

The cool guy graphics. I'm kinda ok with my $8 Hanes tagless black T's. But I'm not tactical I guess.

I will say that rig is legal, but undesirable. In the ideal world, when you reach for a mag you want your hand to move backwards along your belt until it runs into a mag, grab it, and go. When your mags are arranged linearly this works well. When you start staggering them you end up grabbing the mag inconsistently, or missing it completely. Personally I've been using the same old Uncle Mike's double mag pouches for 9 years. This one actually. I have two of them on my belt next to each other and they are getting kinda beat up but are in perfect working order after many many thousands of reloads. They are adjustable so they fit a number of mags (I've personally used then with CZ, Glock, M&P, and Beretta mags). Every now and then I look at high speed low draw ones and go "Hmm those look sexy I should buy some" and then I remember that I payed $25 for mine (inflation, they were $12 9 years ago), work like a champ, and would be an idiot to replace them.

Never claimed they didn't, I was just pointing out that if you compare their .40 loads, you would notice that those are also much hotter then many other factory loads so we need to compare apples to apples

That picture was stolen from here, where you can find a bunch more information relevant to this argument. Having shot some of the hot .45 loads that go over 1000fps I'll argue that they are no more pleasant or unpleasant then hot .40 rounds. You can also buy 165gr 1200fps or higher .40's (and that is out of 4" barrels) if you want to up the ante. I'm also curious if you chrono'ed those loads, I generally find that the published number play some interesting games with factual evidence. I believe the fps numbers in that picture are chrono numbers, not published numbers.

To late Ronny, they outed us. All those years of hiding are now for nothing. Yes, we are ninja! The guns are just for show, really we just throw stars faster then you can see (and make power factor with them), we just distract people with our blank firing .40cal guns so they don't see our elite throwing skills.

Well that true, but its the best we got unless someone volunteers to get shot and tell us which one hurts more. Any takers?

Disclaimer: I realize that I'm involved in the most terrible meme of gun forums, the "my favorite caliber is better then yours" silliness, but I haven't done it in a while, so I'm rolling with it. Lets start with a picture: All of them penetrate enough, so we won't argue about that. Compare the wound cavities if 9mm to the .40. There is a NOTICEABLE difference, is it not? Now compare the .40s to the .45. Do you see a difference? I do not. Now lets do some math. Muzzle energy is 1/2mv^2 and if we want to represent that in ft.lbf we need to devide that by 7000x32.16 (or there abouts) That means that for the loads on that drawing we end up with: 9mm 124gr load: 384ft.lbf 9mm 147gr load: 347ft.lbf .40 165gr load: 424ft.lbf .40 180gr load: 395ft.lbf .45 230gr load: 391ft.lbf Seeing how they penetrate about as much, and the .40 loads start with the highest amount of energy, it also means they deposit the highest amount of energy into the target. In reality that difference is pretty small however, they are all decent performers. It is however pretty clear from the picture above that the .40 and .45 outperform the 9mm, at least in ballistic gel. So why not use the .45 you ask? Well lets look at the size of cartridge. First of all, the width of the case means given an equal width magazine you will fit fewer rounds in it, no if or buts about it. You might even be willing to say thats ok by you, you would rather have fewer bigger rounds in the same size guns. But it isn't the same size gun, is it? The .45 round is about 1.26" long and the .40 is 1.13. That is a pretty significant difference in length, which translates to a difference in front to back dimensions of the magazine and which in turn translate to difference in the front to back dimensions of the fire arm. In short, you can fit a .40 in the frame of a 9mm, but you can't do the same with .45 Why do so many LE departments issue a .40? It isn't just the coolaid. They end up with terminal ballistics of a .45 in a gun sized for 9mm and that matters when you have to fit the hands of your officers. You also end up with significantly higher number of rounds in the same gun. You might lose 2 rounds from the capacity of a 9mm but you can still get 15 rounds in there instead of the 10 you would get with a much larger .45 based frame. So I'll say it again: There is nothing wrong with 9mm, .40, or .45. Buy the one you like most, can afford, shoot best, fits the gun you like. They all work. However that doesn't mean that because YOU see no reason for a certain cartridge, someone else might not, or that LE departments are idiots of issuing a gun or caliber that you find unpleasant.

P239 is a bit bigger then some you listed but very comfortable to shoot. Glock 26? M&P compact? XD/M Compact? There are also a bunch of 1911 like compact 9mm, Kimber makes one that is a safe action type trigger, STI makes the LS, Springfield makes the EMP, etc.

You are using them wrong Sometimes that is true, sometime it is not. There are multiple types of impact ratings. For example ANSI has "base impact" and "high impact", and rarely to the $10 pairs tell you which standard they refer to when they say ANSI rating.

You need a 239 too. And yes .40 recoil is dependent on the firearm, like everything else. Put a defensive load in a compact or subcompact and it is going be rather stupid feeling. Put it a full size firearm and you won't care.

Your are NOT using the glasses to keep "shells" from flying into your eyes. You are using the glasses to keep high speed small particles out of your eyes. Bullets shatter on impact we certain backstop materials, steel targets, rocks in the backstop berm, etc. The resulting fragments rarely fly backwards but sometimes they do, and often you are not the only person shooting and the fragments from a different shooter my hit you. Shoot long enough and you WILL be hit by bullet splatter. If it hits your skin it will feel like like small pinch, it will likely not even break your skin. If it hits your eye, you will lose that eye. Additionally, guns sometime explode (because some one reloaded ammo in some foolish way), dubious origin ammunition hang fires, etc. And then someone shoots you in face with shotgun, just ask our ex-VP how that can happen. You want high impact rated glasses, and the best you can afford.

I love the medium BCM handle, but I never use it the "old fashioned way", that approach never made sense to me, hand stays on pistol grip, left hand smack the handle.

They'll work just fine, but expect them to get scratched, foggy, and generally unusable after some time. Eventually you'll want something better.

That's a daft argument. Either the .40 is a terrible snappy round with to much recoil or it is a weak round for people who can't handle a mans gun. I don't recommend a .40 for new shooter but there are very good reasons for it.

Invest into a dedicated pair or shooting glasses. I personally prefer Rudy Project Rydon's with the prescription insert, but they are not cheap. I like the fact the outer shield lenses have lifetime warranties, and even if they get scratched they protect the more expensive inner prescription ones. If money is not a great issue take a look at the EXCEPTION TACTICAL or Rydon (I use the Rydon) with the ImpactX photocromic. They have life time warranties on the lenses and 3 years on the frames. The Rydon's prescription inserts are pretty thin so they only accept mild level prescription inserts, the Exception can take much heavier inserts. You can look here for more models. If money is an issue, take a look at the ESS High Adrenaline or some of other models from ESS. No matter how much you spend and what you chose make sure they wrap around and cover the sides of your eyes. You only have one pair of eyes so take care of them. Edit: Oh, an never ever buy polarized lenses for shooting, if you think you will EVER want to shoot a gun with a red dot on it.

So let me get this straight, in the 31 years since the adoption of the M9 there has been no advancement in the firearms world, the US military picking a side arm (by definition a secondary weapon) because it it was cheaper (then its sig 226 competitor) makes it the ultimate fire arm, and the fact that pretty much every law enforcement institution is using something NOT a Beretta (like Glocks and M&Ps) somehow qualifies it as the ultimate self defense weapon? Of course the fact that an STI costs 3-4 times as much has nothing to do with its lack of adoption by people who have a budget to worry about. I think your argument basic boils down to the Beretta has been around longer and it is cheaper. In some ways I'm not even arguing that an STI is a perfect weapon mind you, all I'm arguing is that there are things better then the Beretta. So .. before you declare this chess game over, would like to actually tell me what makes the Beretta the perfect weapon? Oh, and please tell me how whatever wonder properties the M9/92 platform brings to the table translate to the PX4 the original poster inquired about, a completely different design, and maybe you can tell me how many people were issued those.

Ray that's not a very solid argument. I've actually provided some examples why I think the Beretta is not the ideal firearm. I tried to explain why thing like DA/SA triggers and the Beretta safety arrangement are in my eyes strikes against it. I've already stated that it is a perfectly reliable firearm and it has no large faults, but I've pointed out reasons for which I find it less then ideal. In response you provided arguments based on what you read in magazines and a flat out statement that it will do ANYTHING I ask of it. I'm actually pretty sure it won't, and you might want to consider that different people may ask different things from their handguns. Maybe you would like to explain why you believe the Beretta should be the gun one picks for self defense and why an STI would be unsuitable. For full disclosure I'll add that I don't own an STI (I just hang around a lot of them) and despite recommending against the FN-45 I actually own FNP-40 which while a slightly different sized platform then .45 does have many of the same design principles.

I stand corrected Ray, you are absolutely correct, the Beretta are Gods gift to all us and STI's are crap, because magazines said so. As for the tier of your a**, well that's not for me to decide, so I'll take your word for it.

I would encourage you to try the indoor matches. Also, be careful what you experiment with early on, you can build some bad habits and you need to watch out for safety stuff, where an experienced RO comes in handy.

Look at it this way, we all end up owning guns we don't shoot, and we all end up changing our taste over time. Don't sweat it that much. Buy whatever catches your fancy, shoot the crap out of it, and if you change your mind later you buy another one. Its not like you aren't going to buy more guns anyway. It isn't like you asked about a Lorcin or a Raven, the guns you are looking at are perfectly serviceable guns.

It should be noted that Ronny and I are biased because of our competition experience, but keep in mind that the kind of shooting we do stresses everything about a firearm. Our handguns have to be reliable, accurate, handle well, allow for quick shot to shot recovery, have safeties in useful places, work dirty or sandy or muddy, have magazines that work when stepped on or full of sand, have replacement parts that you can actually find and not wait for, have triggers that allow accurate shooting, etc. I've seen EVERY kind of gun fail. Shoot enough and you will break every gun out there, so keep in mind that while most people shoot their guns, USPSA shooters wear out their guns with 10k-15k rounds per year being fairly common. We also get to see a lot of people show up with lots of different guns and get to see what problems they have, how easy is to solve it, and what gun they buy after they had enough of the one they started with. Things that work while firing from a normal firing line, slowly, at a hung paper target don't work so hot at speed and on the move. Here are some examples. DA/SA guns need to die. There is a reason the 1911 design with its single action trigger and the newer safe action triggers on M&Ps. Glocks, XD's etc are so popular. Shooting a DA/SA trigger means you have to master two different trigger pulls and sometime need to shift your grip between first shot and follow up shots. If all you do is shoot at a bullseye target from a firing line, you may never realize this because most people shove a mag in the gun, rack one in, and start shooting with the gun in SA. A consistent trigger is important. Safeties need to make sense and be easy to operate. The Beretta slide safeties are in my opinion an atrocity. Removing it a speed can be done but is awkward. Give me a 1911 type safety that I can slam my thumb on, or no safety at all (ie: "safe action" triggers, although I like the XD/XDM approach best with a trigger and grip safety). Combining a 1911 type safety with a decocker is also a pretty poor idea. For example someone could point out that the FN-45 has a option of a 1911 like safety and could be carried cocked and locked so no need to worry about the SA/DA issue. However it suffers from the same problem that the H&K USP suffered. If you have your gun cocked and locked, and you don't care about the DA pull and you don't train because you are never going to use it, you will regret it the first time you slam you thumb on the safety a bit to hard and push into the decock mode and you are now in DA mode. I could go on, but my point is there are certain ergonomic considerations that only become apparent under hard use. When I say the FN and the Beretta are second tier guns, it is because of such considerations and based on my experience of seeing such things in use in competition. Edited to add: I also have an aesthetic beef with the 92 platform. I particularly disapprove of the external trigger bar and such things make it look like a steam choo-choo train to my eyes. I'm willing to forgive the aesthetics if the functionality is there, but the safety arrangement kills it for me. Plus they don't fit my hands comfortably, but thats a personal issue.

More importantly that dollars and such, is that they are organized.

Don't worry about the timer. The ONLY thing that should dictate your speed through a stage is your vision. You need to see what you need to see to make the shot. If you rush it, you will not get your hits and you can't miss fast enough to win. Let your vision control your speed. For stage breakdown, look at what the more experienced shooters are doing and also ask them how to shoot a stage and also why shoot it that way. You might notice that lots of us talk to each other before we run a stage and discuss our plans. Yes we are competitive and want to do better then the next guy, but that doesn't mean we don't share our plans which each other because some time the other guy sees a small flaw in our plan or a way to improve it.

Yup, I said it, and I stand by it. They are PERFECTLY usable firearms, nothing wrong with either, but as far as I'm concerned there are better options. If I wanted a double stack .45 with a hammer I would save my coin until I could afford and STI, but most likely I would buy an M&P. But that is for ME. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion.