Quote (FMX_89 @ Mar 2 2012 03:02am)
I prefer a .40 S&W over both if you are only going to own 1. It's a good compromise. You get more stopping power than a 9mm, and less recoil than a .45. Rounds are much cheaper than .45.
My carry gun is a Glock 23. Best of both worlds, right at 2 lbs loaded. Reliable. It's a great DEFENSIVE gun.
That said, the gun on the shelf of my nightstand is an old school S&W model 645. If someone breaks in my house, the fact that it is over 3.5lbs loaded and has enough recoil to blacken an eye doesn't matter. In this situation I don't want to miss and hit him in the arm only to have him run away. If I miss and hit him in the arm I want to blow it off altogether. This is the same theory as a short barreled shotgun.
I also have a Kel-tec Sub 2000 chambered in .40 S&W that accepts Glock mags. It makes a great backup to the 23 since the mags interchange.
It's all in what your intended use is. I don't know about Cali but most of the police stations around here issue Glock 22 and Glock 23 models for the .40 S&W's well rounded attributes.
why not build an ar that runs .40 s&w

i personally think the sub 2000 looks ugly no offense