Handgun Help....Please!

[ClydeFrog]

If you want to take another look at the new Glocks, they are rolling out a new extended slide .45acp model.

It looks & works like a 21 series but with a longer barrel.

[marine6680]

Any reason you are moving to a 45?

With modern HP ammo, the difference is very small between the calibers. Don't get caught up in the caliber wars.


You are already familiar with the M&P type action... moving to a DA/SA can require some extra time and training in addition to the training/practice you need to become familiar with a new pistol to start with.

Plus you want to change calibers to the 45... add some more range time to get familiar with the recoil characteristics and controlled rapid fire.


Of the ones you listed, I would go with the XD, due to its similar function. That limits the amount of practice you need to adjust.


Is the problem mostly with the trigger? As others have mentioned, the S&W pro series has improved triggers.


I have a fondness for the XD line of pistols, I really like the feel of them, and they point well for me. Many people find that they do for them a well. The new XDm improved the feel a bit and upped the round capacity... But to be honest, I like the feel of the M&P better. I still think the XD is a better pistol overall though.

I believe Springfield offers a line of improved models similar to the Pro line from S&W.


To me, being that this is a duty gun, I would keep the M&P, or change to a gun as similar as possible to reduce the likelihood of issues due to unfamiliarity.

A Pro model with a better trigger would be a good idea... If you can convince the higher ups that a trigger job on your current pistol would improve your aim and proficiency, reducing the chances of collateral damage, that might be an option. Just don't mention "lighter" trigger pull, I doubt they would like the idea.

Pro model M&P or an XDm in 9mm, and skip the 45, would be my choice.

[tahunua001]

first of all thank you for serving.

now down to business. although I have no personal experience with the para, the general concensus is that they are bottom of the barrel price for a reason, people probably wouldn't pay any more for them. dropping that from the ranks and you have a pretty decent competition going between the FNX and the XDM.

one tiny thing I would like to point out is that the long slide XDM is 5.25, not 5", if it really is a 5" then that would be an XD which is a completely different pistol line. now if the XDM 5.25 is what you are after then I highly recommend it. I have owned a number of guns over the years and XDMs are my favorite, particularly the 45ACP models. I feel like they would be a huge step up for you coming from your M&P. they have much better triggers, the 5.25 has a longer sight radius making it easier to shoot accurately, and 13+1 ammo capacity is about as good as it gets for a 45ACP duty pistols.

the FNX is also a very good gun but you need to understand that it is a completely different animal than what you are used to. it is a double action/single action, meaning that depending on whether the hammer is already cocked or if it is being cocked by you pulling the trigger the trigger can have two different pull weights, with the heavier sometimes being double what the single action trigger pull is. this is different from the XDM and M&P where every time you pull the trigger it has the same feel every time, no surprises if you forget to cock the hammer, no second guessing in a stressful situation.

both would be a step up from the M&P but I personally believe that the XDM is of better quality and craftsmanship and that you would be better served carrying something that is more similar to what you've carried for the last two years, meaning striker fired rather than hammer fired.

[L.E.O.]

Oh man. I was almost set on the FNX 45, but you raise valid points on the familiarity issue. I own and have shot a Walther P22 for a few years and though I know it doesnt really compare...it is a DA/SA. I think with some practice I should be ok.

I dont want to start a caliber war, but am I better off going with the larger slower bullet or a smaller, faster bullet? As I stated before, the more research I do, the more confused I become.

[loose_holster_dan]

As I stated before, the more research I do, the more confused I become.

consider the source. 95% of the people here have no formal training, and are just speaking from opinion. trust your research that sites medical opinion and ballistic physics.

IMO i prefer something i can shoot multiple rounds quickly and accurately. i prefer a 22 that i can shoot your eye out with from 25yds rapid fire than a 45 that i have trouble putting multiple accurate shots out. for me, that means a high capacity 9mm most of the time. pistol designs have a big impact. i can achieve better results with some 45's than 9's.

[tahunua001]

it really boils down to personal preference.
I own both 45s and 9mms in both rifles and pistols. I like my 9mm handgun for concealed carry but I am way more accurate with my 45. I just got a holster so I could start concealed carrying it instead but I would feel perfectly safe with either.

for hunting this year I used a 9mm rifle on a deer, worked beautifully, a 45ACP would have worked just as well but I was out for challenge so I went with the smaller bullet. things to consider, would you rather be hit in the gut by the boxing lightweight champion or the heavy weight champion?

this issue has never been hashed out and never will be, there will always be personal preference. a lot of people compromise and go with 40 S&W, it hits harder than 9mm and has higher ammo capacity and hits faster than most 45ACPs. I personally own 9mms and 45s already so a 40 would be completely pointless, anything it can do, one of my other calibers can do better but if you really are on the fence and it doesn't matter which, perhaps the 40 would be best.

personally, if I had your job, I would feel a lot safer with 19+1 rounds on my side with a XDM 9mm than I would 10 rounds with a M&P 45ACP, and the same if I was carrying 15 rounds of 45ACP with an FNX instead of 10 with a M&P. if you already own DA/SA and feel that you are comfortable enough to trust your life and the lives of the citizens you've sworn to protect then by all means, the FNX is probably your best bet but in all honesty you can't go wrong with either.

[marine6680]

Accuracy is king... so whatever you shoot more accurately is the better choice. (within reason... outlined below)

Accuracy in a handgun is influenced more by the pistol than the caliber. Most modern quality pistols are mechanically accurate, some more than others yes, but the shooter is the biggest factor.


Finding friends that have versions of the guns you are considering... maybe working out a deal with a local dealer. Maybe they have some used guns or personal guns that they would be willing to bring out to a local range or your training range. Maybe they would be willing to do this in exchange for your purchase. Who knows... just ideas I'm throwing out.

Why?... because finding a gun you shoot well is more important than caliber. "Well" meaning accurately and sustained or rapid fire. I can shoot a 500S&W accurately, but not quickly or multiple times.


If accuracy is king... then penetration is queen. All modern HP ammo of all common duty pistol calibers, comes to within an inch or two in ballistics gel tests. So caliber will not tell you much. I am sure your department issues a quality HP round for duty, and that is all that matters... You need consistent and reliable performance.

If you shoot a FN 45 better than an XD in 9, then get the FN... if you shoot it well in 45, you may or may not shoot the same model better in 9...


This is a highly personal choice. All you can do is make sure you ask yourself the right questions and you ground you choices in practical not mythical or hypothetical reasoning.

Things like... what do you need the gun to do, how well does it fit my hand, how easy is it to manipulate, how well can I shoot it... you get the idea.


If you go with a DA/SA... my suggestion for getting the transition between the DA and SA triggers... start de-cocked, then fire two rounds (first is DA , the second will of course be SA) then de-cock and repeat... and repeat many many times. If you can start from a holstered position, do so. Focus on accuracy first and speed will follow in time. I myself need to work on this more, as I find my first shot still a bit off, I am on target, but not centered well. I do not have the same problem with a DA only, but depending on the gun, I am less accurate overall. (though with my old XD, I was pretty close, as it had a decent trigger) Keep that in mind as well, its all part of the "how well you shoot it" part of the decision.

[tahunua001]

If you go with a DA/SA... my suggestion for getting the transition between the DA and SA triggers... start de-cocked, then fire two rounds (first is DA , the second will of course be SA) then de-cock and repeat... and repeat many many times.

this was instrumental in the M9 qualifications I took in the navy. the first two sets were 12 rounds each and much of that was 2 two shot batteries, one double action, one single action. At the end of each we were ordered to make safe(which on an M9 decocks as well),and holster. we were not permitted to cock on draw although I personally feel it would be just as easy to train yourself to cock on draw as it would be to fire with DA trigger weight.

[Microgunner]

I prefer 9mm. Higher capacity and faster on target shots.
And good 9mm ammo these days really is "good".

[loose_holster_dan]

would you rather be hit in the gut by the boxing lightweight champion or the heavy weight champion?

a better question would be, would you rather be hit several times in the eye by the lightweight champion, or once in the shoulder by the heavyweight champion?

[1stmar]

I don't agree accuracy is king in this case. Reliability is king and stopping power is queen. Last thing you want is a malfunction. Round count vs bullet weight/size is long been argued as has 9mm vs 45. Speed of recovery shots is a valid point but my guess is with the adrenaline going and if more the one shot is fired it won't matter what caliber it is, they will be coming as fast as you can pull the trigger and you'll handle either well. Go look at the dash cam video of shootings. 9mm vs 45 can be a holy war, I'd rather have a 45. If you able to and need to get off more then 10 rounds you are probably behind cover and able to secure a reload should you need to. First round off is likely your most accurate, I don't like da/sa for that reason, for that reason I would pick something with the best trigger. I'd look for a safe action trigger for consistency that felt ergonomically well in my hand, had a good reputation for reliability and had sufficient stopping power (9mm and above). Best trigger (safe action) is probably a ruger sr, good reputation for reliability and stopping power is there. Good sights as well. But those are my opinions xd fits the bill there as well but IMO is a bit big for my hands. Trigger can always be tuned. Reliability can usually be smithed if required.

[biohazard313]

get a glock or a sig like most LEO

[SocialAnarchist]

biohazard313:

get a glock or a sig like most LEO

Funny stuff.

[ClydeFrog]

A well known gun website is offering used CPO(certified pre owned) P220 .45acp DA only(no single action). It comes with 2 8rd .45acp SIG Sauer magazines & free shipping. The sale price is $429.00 USD.
The P220 pistol is not a R(1913 rail) model.
If I had the $$$, Id snag it. DA only models would work well for LE duty.
$429.00 isn't bad at all. After market magazines & parts(barrels, sights, holsters, etc) are available for P220s.

Clyde

[marine6680]

I don't agree accuracy is king in this case. Reliability is king and stopping power is queen.

Reliability is another topic entirely though. Not related to choice of caliber that much.

Gel tests and medical evidence points to there being no real difference in the 3 common service calibers. So the caliber wars are more about choice validation (ego protection... people don't like to think they may have made a bad choice) rather than a fight over a universal truth.

In the end, between the three is really personal choice and whatever you are most comfortable with.

You need to start adding a lot more power to get to a point where "stopping power" can matter. Mostly due to the ability to throw very large and heavy chunks of metal at faster speeds. Leading to large holes and very deep penetration. (the larger magnums come to mind)

I agree on having a good constant trigger as an asset.

[DannyB1954]

+1 for Loose Holster Dan. There is no telling what your conflict will be like. If you need to shoot through car doors, maybe a 357Sig would be best. I think the reason that LE shied away from the 45 acp was because the barrier penetration was not that great. The FBI could have gone to that instead of the 10mm 40 S&W.
You need to see what you shoot best. Maybe buy or borrow one of those shot timers they use in competitions and see how fast and accurate you are with each caliber. 5 quick rounds on the paper beats 2 on the paper and 3 who knows where.
You do have me interested in the FNX models. I am certain there is a magical gun that is better than the dozen I already own.

[DannyB1954]

As an after thought, .05" is not that large of a measurement, 40S&W is .40" and the 45acp is .45". Fast hollow points tend to expand more than slow ones. The biggest difference is in the bullet weight. You can get heavy 40S&W, and guns like the Glock 40's can be converted to 357 Sig cheap enough if you want to give that a try, (drop in a new barrel, about $120).

[tahunua001]

I think the reason that LE shied away from the 45 acp was because the barrier penetration was not that great. The FBI could have gone to that instead of the 10mm 40 S&W.

no this is not exactly accurate. the 10mm was developed to have better tissue and clothing penetration, nothing in it's development was ever attributed to car doors and cinderblock walls. the 10mm was deemed too hard to control and so the 40 S&W was developed as yet another compromise, less recoil than 10mm and faster followups at the loss of stopping power and theoretical tissue penetration.

[DannyB1954]

The 45 acp penetrates tissue and clothing just fine. They had to have another reason to dislike the round for LE purposes. It is possible that it does not penetrate body armor, which is still a penetration problem.

Maybe it was a round count issue, but they could have developed a high capacity 45 instead of inventing a whole new caliber. There were high capacity 9mm at the time, so a doublestack 45 would have not been that hard to design.

The FBI spent a lot of time and money to figure out they did not want the 45ACP. Some of the military branches like the 45acp, but then they are restricted to the type of ammo they use by the Geneva Convention. Also in a military encounter, they are not too worried about the ball ammo going out of one target and going into the body behind them.

[tahunua001]

in what possible way would the geneva convention limit the calibers they can choose? that is complete and utter nonsense. the geneva conventions dictate how prisoners of war are treated and have absolutely nothing to do with what small arms are allowed to be used.

what you are more than likely thinking of is the Hague convention of 1899 and 1907 which banned use of expanding ammo designed to cause greivious wounds, as well as outlawing toxic gases. in this case you would also be wrong. there is no treaty in the world that would prevent the US from switching to 10mm, 40 S&W, 25ACP or 22LR if they wanted. NATO standardization often times may make it seem like a better idea to stick with 9mm but 45ACP is not a standard NATO caliber and therefore your entire argument is complete nonsense.

also, you have definitely never been in the military if you think that collateral damage is not a major consideration when it comes to tactics, training, and outfitting.

[L.E.O.]

Ummm.....So...Back to my duty gun choice lol. I was almost set on the FNX 45 yesterday. I found a FNP 45 in a gun shop while I was away on training. It felt good in the hand and I felt OK with the safety/decocker.

Then I picked up a Beretta 90-two 9mm. It fit my hand like Beretta used my paw as a mold. Now I'm wondering?

Beretta 90-two DA/SA
w n/s and a TLR-1
17 rds of 9mm + 2 extra mags on duty

or


a FNX 45 DA/SA
w n/s and a TLR-1
15 rds of 45 ACP + 2 extra mags on duty

I havent ever shot either and will not get a chance to before the purchase based on:
Inavailability in my area(I will have to order both these guns from a LE dist.)
Cost
My wife's patience

[HisStigness]

I wouldn't go with the FNP because it's kind of like buying last year's iPhone. There's a reason they made the changes they did and only produce the FNX now. I don't know of any mid/full size pistols that hold 15 rounds of 45, so that sure is enticing. If the DA/SA is an issue but you like how the FN feels, take a look at the FNS which comes in 9 and 40. As far as grips go, I'd have to agree that it doesn't get any better than a Beretta 90 series.

[tahunua001]

this is just clear and simple bias on my part but I would definitely go with the FNX over the 92 based on my experience with the M9. functionally the M9 and 92 are the same and while on active duty I absolutely hated the M9. they were jam traps, while doing qualifications they were dropping like flies, constantly requiring safety time outs. I went a few times as moral support for other sailors who wanted to qualify but weren't exactly comfortable with guns and on those occasions there were also jams.

granted these were range guns and are ridden very hard every day and have likely seen more rounds than 99% of shooters will ever put through a handgun but it still left a very poor impression of their reliability to me. in addition to that is beretta's inexplicable attachment to mounting the safety/decockers on the back of the slide. the location and rotating actuating motion required to engage/disengage it is in no way comfortable or natural for more shooters, requiring to adjust the grip slightly in order to work it. again perhaps this is just personal bias but I heavily prefer that if a gun that has the safety selector on the frame if it's going to have one at all.

also the FNX has replaceable backstraps to better fit your hand, 92 doesn't.

[DubC-Hicks]

If it was me, I wouldn't get a 90-two. The grip seems too slippery to me, and replacement grips aren't really made. And I don't know all the reasons, but it just is not a popular gun. I would look more at the 92A1 if I was going with the Beretta. I think its a bit cheaper and it takes the normal grips.

Now between the Beretta or FNX, that's really personal preference and whichever you think will work best for the job. I love the Beretta, its accurate, has low recoil, and is reliable. But the FNX seems to be a great gun too. I'd have a hard time deciding.

[L.E.O.]

I think I should have added I was looking at the 90-TWO Type G, which is DA/SA and has the decocker only, NO SAFETY.