- Joined
- Sep 21, 1999
- Messages
- 1,819
Hiya CJ!
It's me again. This time, I'll try and be brief (just finished, couldn't be brief, sorry. Scroll down to the bold text to skip the long diatribe, if you like) and sane.
I'm an armed guard, working what amounts to a personal protection gig in Las Vegas.
Our security manual states that we are allowed to carry .38s, 9mms, 40's, and I suppose, any caliber smaller than that. Only hollowpoint or frangible rounds are allowed.
The thing is, I prefer the .45 acp, Glasers and Hydrashoks (230 gr.)
My Chief is aware of the fact that I am more familiar with small arms than all of the other guards, including himself (I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I definitely know more than the average guy) and he has advised me that as long as I choose a round that doesn't over penetrate, I am allowed to carry what ever I feel comfortable with.
I chose a Glock 21. The thing hasn't jammed on me since I bought it, the first month that it was offered to the public, and I am able to shoot fairly well with it. (I aced the two weapons qualifications necessary for me to carry it on the job)
What concerns me is the fact that since our manual doesn't allow a .45, were I forced to use the weapon, I'm worried that I may be liable for using a weapon that's "prohibited" in our manual. I've worked there for 6 months now and have told myself that since my Chief stated I can carry the .45 (in front of witnesses) I covered myself, but I would really like to see the .45 added as a choice in our manual.
The main obstacle I have is the fact that my Chief is a 20 year Navy Vet (2 tours in Vietnam, PBRs) and has developed a severe case of prejudice against the .45. He says they're clunky, inaccurate and basically, PsOS. I'm thinking that his expereince is due to the fact that he was handed WWI surplus .45's that were worn out in 1918.
(By the way, he carries a Ruger P-whatever in 9mm. So far, I have managed not to spew my opinion LOL.)
The bottom line is that the .45 is not allowed at this time out of fear that the round will over penetrate compared to a 9 or a 40. I'm unable to find a definitive answer for this, but it sure seems to me that a slower, heavier bullet will penetrate less than a faster, lighter bullet, especially if 9mm+P+'s are used.
So the A or B question is this:
Will a Federal Hydrashok 230 Grain bullet fired out of a full sized weapon penetrate further than a 9mm or a 9mm +P+?
Any other thoughts you'd have on the subject would be greatly appreciated, but I won't be insulted if you just answer A or B. (Just let me know if A is 9 or 45.. heh heh)
Thanks much!
Dave
It's me again. This time, I'll try and be brief (just finished, couldn't be brief, sorry. Scroll down to the bold text to skip the long diatribe, if you like) and sane.
I'm an armed guard, working what amounts to a personal protection gig in Las Vegas.
Our security manual states that we are allowed to carry .38s, 9mms, 40's, and I suppose, any caliber smaller than that. Only hollowpoint or frangible rounds are allowed.
The thing is, I prefer the .45 acp, Glasers and Hydrashoks (230 gr.)
My Chief is aware of the fact that I am more familiar with small arms than all of the other guards, including himself (I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I definitely know more than the average guy) and he has advised me that as long as I choose a round that doesn't over penetrate, I am allowed to carry what ever I feel comfortable with.
I chose a Glock 21. The thing hasn't jammed on me since I bought it, the first month that it was offered to the public, and I am able to shoot fairly well with it. (I aced the two weapons qualifications necessary for me to carry it on the job)
What concerns me is the fact that since our manual doesn't allow a .45, were I forced to use the weapon, I'm worried that I may be liable for using a weapon that's "prohibited" in our manual. I've worked there for 6 months now and have told myself that since my Chief stated I can carry the .45 (in front of witnesses) I covered myself, but I would really like to see the .45 added as a choice in our manual.
The main obstacle I have is the fact that my Chief is a 20 year Navy Vet (2 tours in Vietnam, PBRs) and has developed a severe case of prejudice against the .45. He says they're clunky, inaccurate and basically, PsOS. I'm thinking that his expereince is due to the fact that he was handed WWI surplus .45's that were worn out in 1918.
(By the way, he carries a Ruger P-whatever in 9mm. So far, I have managed not to spew my opinion LOL.)
The bottom line is that the .45 is not allowed at this time out of fear that the round will over penetrate compared to a 9 or a 40. I'm unable to find a definitive answer for this, but it sure seems to me that a slower, heavier bullet will penetrate less than a faster, lighter bullet, especially if 9mm+P+'s are used.
So the A or B question is this:
Will a Federal Hydrashok 230 Grain bullet fired out of a full sized weapon penetrate further than a 9mm or a 9mm +P+?
Any other thoughts you'd have on the subject would be greatly appreciated, but I won't be insulted if you just answer A or B. (Just let me know if A is 9 or 45.. heh heh)
Thanks much!
Dave