I do have a sense of humor, and I thought it was hilarious prior to invading Iraq in 2003 when the British Royal Marines were so desperate to trade with us for our folding knives because they weren't allowed to have them back home.
I do have a sense of humor, and I thought it was hilarious prior to invading Iraq in 2003 when the British Royal Marines were so desperate to trade with us for our folding knives because they weren't allowed to have them back home.
It's an age old argument. I own all three of those calibers and wouldn't want to get hit by any of them.
Who brought the knives to this gunfight?
It is not so much that the buying public needs the .40, but the arms manufacturers need it. It requires very little modification of a fire arm to convert a 9mm to .40 caliber, but to convert a 9mm to .45 caliber requires an almost entirely new pistol.
Even the venerable Beretta 92 is now available in .40, but you won't see it in .45 anytime in the future.
Also, from a marketing point of view the .40 allows a double stack more easily than a .45 and large capacity magazines sell handguns (whereas practice nearly obviates the need for the high capacity magazines).