Poll: 7+1 of .45 ACP vs. 10+1 of .40 S&W

[only1asterisk]

Glock 36 vs. Glock 27?

Tough one,

David

 

[TheOtherOne]

I would go for 10+1 of .40 S&W because if you are ever attacked by 11 terrorist ninjas at the same time, you'll be sorry if you went with the other option.

 

[macd]

I have a Steyr M40 and I bought a Sigma 15 round mag and just cut a matching notch. Now a .40 with 15 rounds. I'd say I have my cake and eating it too! Nothing, I mean nothing, is a accurate as my Steyr.

 

[ACP]

I'm guessing you're debating between a 1911 and a Glock 23.

I vote 8+1 of .45 ACP using Wilson 8-rd. mags. Lower recoil, better trigger, no KB concerns, ammo costs the same.

 

[seeker_two]

.45ACP...

1. Proven caliber for 100 years.
2. Why shoot a "wannabe" caliber?
3. I own 10rd. .45ACP mags, too...

 

[Mike Irwin]

My first choice is always 6 of .357 Magnum.

If forced to pick between the two listed, I'd pick the gun that I shot best, and which fit my hand best.

Given that they're both the same, however, I'd still go with the one that felt best in my hand.

 

[dsk]

I suspect the 7+1 .45 is available with 8 round magazines. In that case it should be a no-brainer. For some odd reason the thought of being set upon by 11 terrorist ninjas doesn't concern me. A solitary, large nutcase does.

 

[cocojo]

The 45 and 8+1. Bigger hole & bigger hit.

 

[Chupacabra]

Tough choice for me as I like both calibers and IMO capacity really isn't an issue. Choosing the one to carry usually depends on which side of the bed I woke up on that morning! Some days I like carrying my USP, other days my .45. I feel comfortable with both.

Today I love my .45 with 8+1 (but I would feel just as comfortable with 7+1).

 

[Shmackey]

It makes no difference.

 

[taoshooter]

I got a .40S&W 10+1 double stack (P16-40 Ltd) - then found myself going right out and getting a single stack .45 7+1. I love the .40 but have to admit the .45 is more comfortable and more convenient even if it does have less rounds.

Also, I've found its much easier to find exta mags, mag carriers, etc, in stock at the local gun shops for the .45 than my double stack .40.

I think that if your accurate with the .45/7 the extra rounds of the .40/10 become less important. And I don't know about you but whatever gun is more comfortable is the one I have a habit of taking out of the range bag more often for practice.

Good luck with whatever you get!

 

[Sean Smith]

I'm purposely leaving out the make/model to focus on the caliber/capacity question.

That's called focusing on the wrong thing.

 

[spacemanspiff]

psssshaaw! you all are wrong! R - O - N - G wrong! this guy obviously needs 100+1 capacity with a calico in .22lr or maybe 50+1 with the calico in 9mm.






i voted for .45acp, but if its 1911, you can have reliable 8 round mags.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

Probably a little late weighing in, but I voted for the
7 + 1 of .45 ACP! Why? Cuz, that has
been my choice of carry for many, many year's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[OF]

I'm with Sean on this: there's not enough info to make any kind of relevant comparison. Since there is similar performing ammunition available now in both calibers, the major factors in deciding which way to go all have to do with the gun: recoil/handling, gun reliability/longevity, mag reliability, ammunition performance in whatever the barrel length is, etc.

As far as 8 vs. 11 rounds of ammo on hand, the difference is so minimal that it's pretty far down on the list of important things to consider when buying a pistol, IMO.

- Gabe

 

[Mike Irwin]

Hey Guys,

Please note that the original post says "two options in the same gun."

It doesn't say two different guns, so there's a lot less liklihood of there being vast differences in the ergonomics.

 

[OF]

Yeah but it's not just ergonomics. There's a big difference between two guns of the same type but diff. calibers. There's more to the difference between a G26 and 27, for instance, than the capacity. They handle differently and have different reliability records. The 9mm and the .40 have different reactions to barrels that short, etc. Same with, say, a Sig 229 in .357SIG or 9mm. Or a 1911 in 9mm and .45...

My point is that the capacity and caliber difference means almost nothing by itself (especially when there's only a 3-shot difference between the choices). Only when you look at the platform/ammo combination can you really evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each pistol and make a relevant recommendation.

Maybe a better example of this would be a choice between 10mm and .45. If the platform was a 1911 I'd recommend .45, but if it was Glock 20 vs. 21 I'd recommend the 10mm. So the decision is only relevant knowing the platform. Same thing if it was a G23 vs. a G19. There's more to that decision than just the capacity. I don't want to tell the guy that 8 rounds of .45 is better than 11 rounds of .40 becuase maybe it is and maybe it isn't. It depends.

Sean said that focusing on this issue without looking at the pistol itself was putting your attention on the wrong criteria and I agree.

- Gabe

 

[firestar]

If they are in the same gun and there is no increase in grip size, I would go for the higher capacity everytime. I like the .45 better but .40 is almost as good and with 3 extra rounds, you can miss 3 more times.

I would take a 13+1 9mm if the trend continued.

 

[Berg01]

I've always had a preference for the .45 ACP caliber, and I didn't care much for the .40S&W caliber until I got my CZ 75B in .40 (at a price I couldn't refuse!); with enough practice, I've gotten used to the snappier recoil, which really isn't so bad with the full length steel framed gun.

 

[matsaleh]

Clarification on the Question

Wow! Thanks for all the great feedback and suggestions. I do appreciate it.

Still, there seems to be a little confusion about the question, so please let me clarify: I didn't want to choose between two different makes or models in this case; I'm evaluating a specific model that comes in two flavors of interest to me. The gun I'm considering is the Bersa Mini FireStorm, distributed by SGS. Looking at the specs, there are some differences in the two guns, but they seem minor to me. I have handled the .40 at a gun shop (the trigger is sweet, IMO). I have fired neither gun.

I want a reliable and reasonably powerful carry gun, but money is an issue. I've read good things about Bersa in general, and on this board have read a few favorable posts about the Mini FireStorm (yes, I know there is confusion with the same-named Llama model, but that's not what I'm interested in). I can walk out of a local gun shop with a NIB gun in this model for under $350, which is a great deal for such a package, IMO.

Thanks again!

 

[txgolfer45]

matsaleh,

Why not save up additional money and get something better than a Bersa or Llama. Just a thought.

Scott

 

[OF]

I bought my Glock 29 used but in great shape for $425. It can be done, just got to look around for a bit.

I can't offer any advice about the FireStorm...although in a compact gun I'd go with 9mm over .40

- Gabe

 

[dsk]

I'm just scratching my head as to how they can take a frame capable of holding ten rounds of .40, and bastardize it so that it only holds seven .45 rounds. If you can hold ten .40's you should be able to hold at least eight .45 rounds given the same amount of space.

 

[Dr.Rob]

No kidding, doesn't everyone have 8 rd mags for their single stack 1911's?

 

[355sigfan]

It depends on the guns more than the caliber. Are chosing between a Les Baer 1911 and a Smith 4006. In which case I would take the 45 acp. Actually I would take a Kimber or any medium quality 1911 over most any 10 round DA 40's. However if your talking a sig 220 vs a sig 229 then the 229 gets the nod. The calibers are preaty much identical. I would not get worked up about the 3 rounds between 7 and 10. I would rather look at the pistols that they were to be fired in.
PAT