GlorifiedMailman
Newbie
I am a courier who is frequently tasked with transporting very expensive medical equipment on a time-critical basis. While the company I work for does not issue firearms, we are allowed to carry our personally owned firearms on the job, and it is commonplace to do so. For over a decade I have been carrying my Glock 19 while making deliveries, but my research has led me to question whether I would be better served by a larger caliber because I spend most of my time behind a windshield (frequently at night and in high-crime areas). I’ve seen you recommend .40 S&W 180gr for police work around vehicles because it has less deflection and less chance of under-penetration after shooting through an automobile windshield compared to 9mm. However, your research has also brought to my attention the array of modern 9mm loads that can penetrate adequately after going through a windshield.
I practice at least once a week, usually firing at least 200 rounds. Switching to .40 S&W or .45 Auto would cost me more to practice with, but not prohibitively so, and I’m wondering if I should switch or continue with 9mm.
I currently already own a Glock 21 Gen 4. At the range I can’t discern a difference in ability to shoot accurately and quickly between the 21 and 19. However, shooting quickly and accurately at the range is a lot easier than in a self defense situation with a moving target, especially if I must shoot one handed.
Firstly, I’d like to thank you for publicly posting much of your research findings for us all to see. It has very likely saved lives and has guided my ammunition choices for over a decade.
Secondly, the crux of my question is: Do the larger, heavier calibers give a significantly better likelihood of a successful outcome in a shooting incident involving auto glass, so much so that I should switch? Do the advantages of lower recoil, (potentially) faster, more accurate follow up shots, and higher capacity of the 9mm outweigh whatever advantage the .45 has in penetrating after auto glass? I’m also asking on behalf of several of my co-workers wondering the same thing, and we appreciate any insight you may have.
(I currently carry Federal HST 147 grain, but I try to get Winchester RA9B when it’s available because of it’s track record through windshields.)
Thank you.
I practice at least once a week, usually firing at least 200 rounds. Switching to .40 S&W or .45 Auto would cost me more to practice with, but not prohibitively so, and I’m wondering if I should switch or continue with 9mm.
I currently already own a Glock 21 Gen 4. At the range I can’t discern a difference in ability to shoot accurately and quickly between the 21 and 19. However, shooting quickly and accurately at the range is a lot easier than in a self defense situation with a moving target, especially if I must shoot one handed.
Firstly, I’d like to thank you for publicly posting much of your research findings for us all to see. It has very likely saved lives and has guided my ammunition choices for over a decade.
Secondly, the crux of my question is: Do the larger, heavier calibers give a significantly better likelihood of a successful outcome in a shooting incident involving auto glass, so much so that I should switch? Do the advantages of lower recoil, (potentially) faster, more accurate follow up shots, and higher capacity of the 9mm outweigh whatever advantage the .45 has in penetrating after auto glass? I’m also asking on behalf of several of my co-workers wondering the same thing, and we appreciate any insight you may have.
(I currently carry Federal HST 147 grain, but I try to get Winchester RA9B when it’s available because of it’s track record through windshields.)
Thank you.