Should I ever buy a non-9mm pistol?

[Darker Loaf]

So, I've been pretty careful about the choices I've made in calibers so far. I only own 9mm centerfire handguns. It keeps things simple and cheap. I am well practiced with all of my handguns.

NOTE: I have a .22 LR semi-auto for beginners which I almost never take to the range, though it is a quality gun. So, we have .22 LR covered in pistol form.

And I've been struggling when looking at additions to my collection. And I can't help but to ask the Firing Line. If I have a 9mm only collection is there ever a compelling reason to own an non-9mm pistol? Keep in mind that I have adequate centerfire rifles when building your cases.

 

[BigMikey76]

I don't really feel the need to expand my caliber selection just because, but desire for different guns might lead to other calibers. As an example, I would like to pick up a pocket gun at some point, but I don't want something that small in 9mm, so it will likely be in .380. There is nothing wrong with having just one caliber, though, if it meets your needs.

 

[Darker Loaf]

Then you should vote for .380 in a concealed carry role. That's the only reason I'd down-gun from a 9mm: for something tiny.

There's nothing wrong with owning handguns in multiple calibers, except expense. Your argument (which is compelling and valid) is size and weight.

 

[JimmyR]

So, I've been pretty careful about the choices I've made in calibers so far. I only own 9mm centerfire handguns. It keeps things simple and cheap. I am well practiced with all of my handguns.

NOTE: I have a .22 LR semi-auto for beginners which I almost never take to the range, though it is a quality gun. So, we have .22 LR covered in pistol form.

And I've been struggling when looking at additions to my collection. And I can't help but to ask the Firing Line. If I have a 9mm only collection is there ever a compelling reason to own an non-9mm pistol? Keep in mind that I have adequate centerfire rifles when building your cases.

I would counter that with firearms, like with most things, variety is the spice of life. If all you have are 9mm, you miss out on a huge segment of firearms to be collected, carried, and fired. You miss out on a lot of historical guns that made the firearm industry what it is today, like the classic 1911s, the Smith and Wesson and Ruger revolvers that were carried by police of yesteryear, guns manufactured in countries that no longer exist (Czechoslovakia vs Czech Republic, for example), the Makarov, the Nagant Revolver, Webley revolvers, etc, etc. Limiting yourself to one caliber is exactly that- LIMITING.

Personally, I think a quality 357 revolver should be in everyone's collection. It allows for some variety, and provides an excellent home defense handgun that will often last a lifetime. 38 Special ammo is plentiful, even when 9mm disappeared from the shelves a while back, and can be purchased reasonably from most retailers. I keep a few weapons in 9x18 (9mm Makarov), and a smattering of other calibers. While I carry my 9mms, the others have their place, and get used as often as I can.

 

[Darker Loaf]

Thanks for the response! That's why a .357 revolver is on the list. Ok, so knowing I already have a full-sized revolver, a S&W 986 in 9mm, what is the logic behind .357? Just ammunition availability during shortage?

 

[Rangerrich99]

I voted for .357 magnum revolver. But I almost voted .45 ACP. Besides the fact that both calibers are iconic, just about every major manufacturer makes something in one of not both calibers. Which means we have endless possibilities to choose from. And most importantly, there are many, many, many iterations in both calibers that are just ridiculously fun to shoot.

I guess I'd have to ask you why exactly are you thinking about 'expanding your collection'? If all you're looking for is another gun that you can conceal, while there are plenty of choices in many calibers besides 9 mm, I'm not sure I see the point.

For myself, some of my handguns are strictly for fun at the range/in the desert, some are for HD, some for hunting, some are more than one duty, and a couple are SD, with exactly two that are strictly for concealed duty.

At any rate, I think if you pulled the trigger on some form of .357 mag it'd put nothing but a big smile on your face. If it were me I'd look at a Ruger Vaquero. Shooting .38 spl +Ps through those things always puts a silly grin on my face.

 

[Darker Loaf]

Rangerrich99: "I guess I'd have to ask you why exactly are you thinking about 'expanding your collection'?"

Because it is not a matter of why I am expanding my collection, but more the fact that I will expand my collection. I'm just a gun guy, so I'll probably always slowly expand my collection. Whether I decide to get a non-9mm handgun or not, my next build will likely be a full custom CZ 75 in 9mm. I have several long guns that are on my list as well. Also, I really want a 5-shot snubbie 9mm revolver at some point.

When I first got interested in handguns, I was about more than 9mm. I owned a 10mm before, and solid it due to reliability issues. I've owned and sold a host of .22 LR pistols. I've also had in my possession (borrowing) a .357 Blackhawk for over a year, so I've had my time on .357's and .38's. But now, it is so simple for me to buy ammunition and so cheap to shoot any of my guns. I'll buy quality 9mm on sale.

But I'll admit, the calibers in the above poll, with the exception of .40 S&W all intrigue me. .45 ACP because of 1911's and .45 ACP moonclip-fed revolvers. .380's because of smaller, lighter handguns. 10mm because of power in a semi-auto (and still reasonable cost and size). .40 S&W are still on the list because they are still fairly cheap and available--and almost because of ammo shortages. .357 is on the list for argument's sake and the category of guns are cool, too.

But sticking to 9mm won't really stop me from buying handguns. I'll probably just get a few more and focus on long guns.

 

[JimmyR]

Thanks for the response! That's why a .357 revolver is on the list. Ok, so knowing I already have a full-sized revolver, a S&W 986 in 9mm, what is the logic behind .357? Just ammunition availability during shortage?

Personally, I think there are certain guns that are made for certain calibers, much like the 1911, to me, just screams 45ACP (or maybe 38 Super, but let's keep it to readily available calibers). I think the 38 special/357 mag rounds just fit the revolver the way they were meant to be. 9mm revolvers often either need moon clips or are harder to find/replace. I have a bit of a purist streak in me, and when I hear about a 9mm revolver, it makes me feel like a great old design was attacked by Dr. Frankenstein. I'd rather have a 9mm 1911 than a 9mm revolver. The ammunition availability is a plus, too.

 

[Darker Loaf]

I must be wired all wrong! I want to put my 9mm in a 1911 and a revolver and put .45 ACP in a revolver.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Because it is not a matter of why I am expanding my collection, but more the fact that I will expand my collection. I'm just a gun guy, so I'll probably always slowly expand my collection. Whether I decide to get a non-9mm handgun or not, my next build will likely be a full custom CZ 75 in 9mm. I have several long guns that are on my list as well. Also, I really want a 5-shot snubbie 9mm revolver at some point.

When I first got interested in handguns, I was about more than 9mm. I owned a 10mm before, and solid it due to reliability issues. I've owned and sold a host of .22 LR pistols. I've also had in my possession (borrowing) a .357 Blackhawk for over a year, so I've had my time on .357's and .38's. But now, it is so simple for me to buy ammunition and so cheap to shoot any of my guns. I'll buy quality 9mm on sale.

But I'll admit, the calibers in the above poll, with the exception of .40 S&W all intrigue me. .45 ACP because of 1911's and .45 ACP moonclip-fed revolvers. .380's because of smaller, lighter handguns. 10mm because of power in a semi-auto (and still reasonable cost and size). .40 S&W are still on the list because they are still fairly cheap and available--and almost because of ammo shortages. .357 is on the list for argument's sake and the category of guns are cool, too.

Okay, now I'm understanding where you're going a little better. I still would vote some manner of .357 mag revolver, but were that not a choice, I'd say .40 caliber, simply due to the fact that (at least around here) .40 caliber ammunition was just about the last caliber to disappear from the shelves during both of the last two shortages. .38 and .357 went faster, which surprised me, if no one else. If I were pressed as to an actual brand and make, I'd have to say either a Sig p229 or a Beretta Px4 in .40.

The Sig is a bit more accurate and can be converted to .357 Sig with just a barrel change, while the Beretta absorbs more recoil and at least so far will eat more varieties of ammo.

 

[hartcreek]

Do you go into the woods? If you do then you will want more then a 9mm. Just that simple......a 9mm against a bear and your will kill it yes but it will also kill you.

 

[Lee6113]

I voted .45 ACP semi-auto. It's a terrific feeling unloading that at the range. I don't have one yet, but I definitely want one or two in .45acp when the time comes.

I also believe a .357/.38 revolver is a must (I'm also on the market for that).

But like you, I think most of my pistols I intend to buy will end up being 9mm.


Cheers!

 

[Pond James Pond]

No .44Mag? Sacrilege!

In absence of that I'd go for the .357.
I think revolvers are really great firearms with so many great features.

I suppose I could also go for the .380 for carry. I would consider one, but not for calibre. It just happens to be the calibre of the gun(s) I continue to lust after: the Astra A60 and Sig 232.

 

[riverratt]

You gotta get something that starts with a 4 in case you need it for self-defense. I mean come on, we all know a 9 will only create a flesh wound

In all seriousness, I voted for the 45 ACP in an auto. Just because I think everyone should have at least one 1911, they just feel right. Browning got it right.

A close second would be a 40 in an auto, then get yourself a barrel chambered in 357 sig. 2 guns in one is always fun.

This is just me, but I feel that a revolver should be reserved for big bore applications 44 and up.

 

[Darker Loaf]

I go into the woods a lot. I hunt. I backpack in bear country. I usually can't suffer the weight of something like a rifle backpacking: think 5-10 miles a day up and down hills.

So, to me a backpacking gun would probably be a 9mm... and actually a Glock 43 looks like that would be a pretty good option. I have 24 oz compact and ~30 to ~40 oz 9mm full size handguns. --OR-- If I can "bear" the weight (har-har), I'd lean to a .460 S&W or .454 Casull, likely a S&W .460 cut for .45 ACP, so I'd get that caliber, too.

--OR-- 10mm would be a good bear/hunting option, light-weight in a Glock, too, potentially.

.44 Magnum doesn't really appeal to me, because .454 or .460 would allow me to shoot relatively cheap .45 ACP. .44 Special is expensive and uncommon relative to .45 ACP.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I've not read the entire thread in detail, but had you already mentioned this being a woods gun?

If so that changes the parameters considerably.

In that respect, I'd say the 10mm would be a good option. Again the .357 would be a sound choice, but then which type of animal might you encounter.

In the bigger revolvers I'd say you're looking at heavy guns in .454 and .460.

I've carried a .44 and you know it's there...

 

[Darker Loaf]

No, I hadn't mentioned "it" being any type of gun. It's literally just philosophical musings. I meant it seriously though, as in it would direct my gun list.

I really want to know what calibers people think are "special" enough to stand out.

I have been toying with a "woods" gun for my list. I'm mostly in black bear territory, and I'd like such a gun to be fit for whitetail so I could use it for hunting. I know it sounds like a demanding parameter, but I'd like the gun to be a gun that I would shoot for fun as well, so I can gain skill at it easily. That's why I restricted the list on the poll to the above calibers. The above cartridges are mostly easily available (except 10mm but I admit a fondness for it as it is the only cartridge other than 9mm that I've actually owned in a handgun & .460 S&W). I lived in Alaska for a year, so .460 sounds a pretty good all-around cartridge in case I ever go back to hunt or visit.

10mm in a revolver is cool, because I'd get some increased performance if I wanted it, and I could still stuff it with cheap .40 S&W.

.357 is similar to 10mm. There are cheaper practice bullets, .38 SPL, but they aren't cheaper than 9mm. However, if .357 offered me enough advantages, I might consider it as it is pretty available.

.45 ACP is not significantly different enough from 9mm or .40 S&W, but it makes a nice plinker caliber for a .460 S&W. I know carbon ring, but, I could see the carbon build up being worth it to shoot .45 ACP through a 5" or 8" ported .460 S&W. 1911's are cool, but I really think I'd build one in 9mm if I was going to buy one.

.45 ACP for a "woods gun" doesn't really get me anything that 9mm already does, so that's why more realistically, a G43 is probably the best woods gun for me because I'd actually carry the sucker backpacking.

So, if I am going to go "up" from 9mm, I want it to be significant, hence .357, 10mm, and .460. But the real question is: Is this even logical? I want to hear arguments for upgunning from 9mm.

And if I am going to go "down" from a 9mm, it had better be small gun, lighter and thinner than a G43 (I am aware of such types of guns).

 

[TMD]

A one caliber collection. ...I'd rather eat chicken and broccoli every day for the rest of my life

 

[Pond James Pond]

Sounds like this is a financial argument more than anything else: you're evaluating everything in relation to the cost of 9mm.

That is fine, but some calibres are good for reasons beyond their cost and the fact that they are more potent make them a better woods choice, even if they cost more to run.

For example, you mention .454 running .45ACP and that being good because .45ACP is cheap. However, .454 cartridges are probably very expensive, so would you ever shoot them?
You then point out that .45ACP doesn't bring much more to the table than 9mm. So bearing both of those in mind, why bother with a Casull/.460 revolver at all?

Based on all that I'd still go back to 10mm or my initial suggestion of the more versatile .357Mag.

Personally, I like the .44Mag.... not because it is cheap, nor because .44Spl is cheap (they're not), but because it is, in itself, a great calibre that would deliver if I disturbed something big and hairy.
I can't afford to run it with factory ammo, so I reload for it.
If a lot of your reasoning is cost related, then is reloading an option for you?
It would mitigate costs in the long run for whichever caliber you choose.

I want to hear arguments for upgunning from 9mm.

Do you want the gun to do something that is unrealistic from the 9x19 caliber.
If yes, then you have your only necessary argument for "upgunning".

 

[darkgael]

Gun guy

I am a "gun guy" too. I own one 9mm, a Hi-Power. Well...two, if you count the Makarov (but that is not what you are talking about)
My habit has been to own one gun for each of the commonly available cartridges (and a few not so common). So I have handguns from .25 ACP up through .500 S&W with stops at 5.7X28, .38 S&W, .44 Bulldog, 7.62 Nagant, .400 CorBon. The only cartridge for which I have multiple guns is the .45 ACP (own two 1911s and a G36).
Spread your wings, Grasshopper.