You're not wrong. Sometimes it's like the gun manufacturers can't win, even when they're giving people what they want. People like the punch of a 9mm, they like the higher capacity it offers. Gun manufacturers give us a round that has about the same punch and even higher capacity. "Garbage, give us more 9mm!"
Typically I carry .40 or .45. I have 9mms, but if I'm carrying that chances are it's in a back up role.
That's exactly why it caught my eye. I was carousing the 32 ACP specifications a few months before this was announced and thinking to myself that if someone bumped up the bullet weight just a smidge, then added powder until it was travelling at 9mm speeds, it would probably actually make a decent round. I wouldn't call it a 32 magnum since it's not quite moving at 1450 FPS, but it's the update the cartridge has sorely needed to be viable outside of antiquated novelty guns.
On the flip side, if no one is willing to break from the herd and be an early adopter that pretty much relegates anything new to obscurity from day 1. Which may or may not be a bad thing. Just because something exists doesn't necessarily mean it's good and maybe obscurity is where it belongs. But for good things to be discovered someone has to be willing to take the plunge, put the thing through it's paces, and see if it's good bad or indifferent.
Well, since you're here I'm assuming you like S&W. My preference is either an M&P or a Shield. If you want something you can carry, Shield. If you just want a fun range toy, it's hard to go wrong with an M&P.Speaking of optic-ready in general, I'm about at a place where I've given up on my vintage S&W revolver goals and am ready to turn back to plastic wonder guns for a while... but this time: optic-ready plastic. I don't even have one optic-ready (or optic-equipped) pistol in my entire collection.That has to be fixed before Dementia Joe B outlaws everything.
For you optic fans, what would be the one 9mm optic-ready (or optic-equipped) plastic wonder gun that you'd buy if you were in my shoes?
It doesn't have to be particularly small or concealable... just best suited for use with a pistol optic.
It's an interesting metric, but some things to consider:Some interesting observations on gunfights, especially #17.
17 Most Important Gunfight Stats: Backed By Data and Real World Experience - Tier Three Tactical
Gunfights are awesome to watch on TV. The good guy wins, and bad guys go flying through the air in a spray of blood. Unfortunately, ... Read morewww.tierthreetactical.com
It says most gunfights are over in less than four shots fired and I assume that means by both parties.
Maybe instead of worrying about why it wasn't adopted in 1945, you should take into consideration the ballistic advancements made in the last 87 years that have made the 9mm a competent round.
At this point I'm seriously considering obtaining a .22 LR pistol for shooting practice. Shooting almost anything else is a costly endeavor lately.Speaking of .30 Super Carry, I was in Cabela's on Sunday and found my first box of .30 Super Carry. They only had one box of 30 self-defense rounds and it was $35.00 plus tax. Not cheap, but probably no more than similar self-defense 9mm rounds. The difference is that there was a very healthy supply of 9mm range ammo (at under 40¢/round) and no range ammo at all in .30 Super Carry.
Practicing with .30 Super Carry gonna be a very costly endeavor.
32 Magnum already exists. Probably their attempt at avoiding confusion with existing cartridges. Like when someone asks for 9mm, but they have a 9x18 (Makarov) or 9x21 (9mm Italian) not a standard 9x19 Parabellum. Or when I ask for .45 ammo at the gun counter and there's that awkward pause before I specify ACP because I've forgotten 45 GAP, 45 Super, and 45 Colt exist.
Gaston Glock re-designing the 45 ACP to do...exactly the same thing the 45 ACP already does.
That's the one reservation I've got with respect to it. A Shield Plus in 30 SC would probably be fine for it's purpose. But with ammo prices like that it's gonna be a hard sell.
