Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=14177		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  peter94 [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
Some interesting thoughts here. I hate to hear of problems with the Taurus (simply because of how reliable my 1911 has been). However I suppose like everything, there are a few lemons. I certainly dont want a carry gun that is only going to fire 60-70% of the time. I went and took a look at both guns today. I think I'm leaning towards the Taurus simply because of the fact that it is a little smaller, and is about $120 cheaper. But then I think about how much a gun and mag holster will cost, and then it almost balances out. However the Taurus does have a mechanical safety on it, which (In my inexperience) I would consider a plus. I think it may just come down to a coin toss.
Author:  bensdad [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
Srigs made me a couple fabulous holsters for my MilPros. One is OWB and one is IWB. The only time I use mag holders is at IPSC. Otherwise, I just pop a mag in a cargo-pants pocket. If I'm not at work, I'm wearing cargo-pants or cargo-shorts. If I'm at work, that's another story.
Author:  tman065 [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
peter94 wrote:
Some interesting thoughts here. I hate to hear of problems with the Taurus (simply because of how reliable my 1911 has been). However I suppose like everything, there are a few lemons. I certainly dont want a carry gun that is only going to fire 60-70% of the time. I went and took a look at both guns today. I think I'm leaning towards the Taurus simply because of the fact that it is a little smaller, and is about $120 cheaper. But then I think about how much a gun and mag holster will cost, and then it almost balances out. However the Taurus does have a mechanical safety on it, which (In my inexperience) I would consider a plus. I think it may just come down to a coin toss.


If you skimp on a holster for ANY pistol, you will be sorry. I carry IWB (inside the waistband) whenever I am dresssed and not working. I poorly made holster would make that hell.

Don't forget, too, that you will need a belt designed to carry the weight of the gun. Flimsy belts mean that the gun tends to tip away from your body. It's uncomfortable AND it's more likely to print (be visible under clothing).

I know it's more than you probably want to spend, but believe all of us, it is worth it in the long run.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
A Marine combat veteran of my acquaintance insists that he will never carry a gun with a safety.

Adrenaline messes with your brain, so keep it simple. With a long trigger like the PT111, the manual safety (like the lock and loaded chamber indicator) is a superfluous part added by attorneys.
Author:  tman065 [ Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
Andrew Rothman wrote:
A Marine combat veteran of my acquaintance insists that he will never carry a gun with a safety.

Adrenaline messes with your brain, so keep it simple. With a long trigger like the PT111, the manual safety (like the lock and loaded chamber indicator) is a superfluous part added by attorneys.


I carry my PT145 with the safety off :wink: (properly holstered, of course)
Author:  peter94 [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
Well, I just picked up a PT111 Pro. The one I bought was all black, ($349) compared to the stainless slide ($379). So I saved an extra 30 bucks. All in all I think i'll be happy with the gun. I dont know if I really wanted to part with the extra $150 plus tax for the XD. Although someday I will own one.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
peter94 wrote:
Well, I just picked up a PT111 Pro. The one I bought was all black, ($349) compared to the stainless slide ($379).


Yeah, you don't need the stainless unless you intend to conceal the gun next to a human body with sweat glands. ;)
Author:  Big and Tasty [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taurus PT111/140 vs. Springfield Sub Compact 9mm/.40cal
sheepdog wrote:
zimme71 wrote:
Ok....I'll chime in about the Springfield XD40 sub. I carry a 3" daily, and have over 2500 rounds through it w/o any issues at all. The ammo is going to be a bit more than the 9mm, but I personally wouldn't trade my .40 for anything. And it does have the built-in backstrap safety (which does work btw). To be fair, I haven't shot the Taurus, so I can't say one way or the other about it. Now the Taurus Judge....that's a fun one :D


Pretty much sums up my thoughts too (even the part about the Judge....those are great guns!), although I haven't quite put 2500 rounds through my XD yet.

The combination of the grip safety and the USA trigger system on the XD's is very effective. Plus the other neat features make it attractive (super-easy to disassemble, loaded chamber indicator, striker indicator, ergonomic, uber-reliable). The newer models (the XD-M's) are pretty slick...



I have been carrying the XDSC 9 since January and love it. For the reasons above and it just felt better to me. I have not shot a Taurus so no opinion for or against them.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/