Quote:
Is this making sense? Do any of you have a 9mm that replaced a .45? Are you comfortable with the lesser powered round?
Yes, I do have a 9mm that replaced a .45. I have been shooting handguns in various competitions for about 30 years. A couple of years ago I gave up the larger bore sizes because of arthritis and chronic tendonitis.
I packed a full size 1911 Les Baer for years then stopped because of the weight. Yeah, guns are supposed to be comforting, not comfortable, but sciatica (spelling) got the best of me. I switched to a lightweight commander sized gun (Kimber Pro Carry) but the timer doesn't lie and I wasn't happy with my performance shooting multiple targets while getting off the X.
I thought about a Kimber in 9mm, but one of the guys at the offices in Montana told me they were very problematic. I think it's well known in the industry that getting the 1911 platform to run reliably with some of the 9mm HP offerings can be difficult. Reliable magazines can also be an issue.
CG gives some very good advice. If you are sold on the .45 stick with it and buy your wife something more suitable for her. Ammuntion in 9mm has come a long way since the infamous FBI shootout in Florida. Most notably, the Remington 147 Golden Saber ammuntion is performing exceptionally well in ballistics gellatin and medical examiners are seeing dramatic results in human tissues. There is a lot of information available on the Web from reliable sources.
After umpteen years of shooting the 1911 and 2011 platforms almost exclusively, I settled on a Glock 19. The 9mm in the "safe action" pistols from Glock, S&W M&P, Springfield XD, etc. have a lot going for them. No external controls, nuts reliable, easy to shoot, high capacity, etc. With the right ammo, they are adequate for self defense purposes against the two legged predators.
As for the .40 Smith and Wesson, in a 1911, my arthritis can tolerate the recoil of a 230 grain .45 Hydrashock or 230 Golden Saber better than a whomp-em-stomp-em load in .40 S&W.