Poll: Which Is Most Reliable 9mm, .40, .45?

Which Caliber is Most Reliable 9mm, .40 or .45 In Terms Of Failures To Fire?

  • 9mm

    Votes: 24 53.3%
  • .40

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • .45

    Votes: 16 35.6%

  • Total voters
    45
Status
Not open for further replies.

sigbear

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
221
I have purchased 8 new guns in the last 6 years, and in my case the 9mm has been the most reliable in terms of the failure's to fire of any kind.

Beretta 92fs 9mm, never a failure to fire of any kind 5000+ rounds fired

Sig P226 9mm, slide failed to close after firing the 1st 150 rounds, the gun did this 3 times at the same session, never had a issue of any kind after that day, close to 10,000 rounds.

Walther P99 compact 9mm, never a failure to fire of any kind 2500+ rounds fired

Walther P99 9mm Full Size, No failures yet, only 1000 rounds

Sig P239 .40 shot less than 1000 rounds and traded for the Walther P99c, multiple FTF's.

Sigma .40, this gun always had FTF's after about 150 rounds per session, however, never had a FTF when shooting less than a 150 rounds at a session

S&W 1911 .45 jamomatic, got much better when mag's replaced with Wilson combat mag's but still FTF's. 5000 rounds

Sig P220 .45 two tone right off the bat bullets hanging up on the ramp, sent it back, much better, however, the slide at anytime, while firing, may just float in the middle of the frame, not locking into position, 22# wolf recoil spring on order.

I have kept all my 9mm's, Traded in both .40's the 1911 and the Sig P220 will go if the spring doesn't work.

I have been shooting for a long time and the 9's in semi and my 2 Ruger revolver's in .357's have worked best for me.

Is it me or does someone else see the same pattern?

Sigbear
 
Depends on what manufacture of ammo, and what gun you are shooting them all in.

I'd say not one of the rounds is inherently more or less reliable than the next.
 
I agree with GunNut. Both of my self defense pistols are in .40. I don't shoot as much as you do but my Ruger P-944 & my XD-40 have about 1300 rounds through both of them. The XD has never malfunctioned. The Ruger had one failure to eject with UMC ammo (the empty case was hung up lengthwise in the ejection port). That was at around 600 rounds. I quit shooting UMC ammo & haven't had anymore problems with the Ruger.
 
I have a 92f and a S&W 5903TSW and a P229 (229 is .40) I qualified with the 92f and havent had anykind of failure with it or the 5903 but have had a few jams with the 229.
 
That criteria has nothing to do with the caliber, just the quality of the ammo manufactured. If you want to talk feeding reliability, the 9mm has a slight advantage as its case tapers making the rear of the case slightly wider than the front. The feeding reliabilty is further improved by the more elongated taper of the bullet design. Ejection should "technically" be more reliable as well because the case taper reduces friction as the shell is extracted over a straight walled case.
 
Reliability and effectiveness are two different things. I have all 3 calibers and, as far as reliability goes, there is no difference. Understand, when I hear reliability I think function.
 
Relaibility has nothing to do with caliber, so I vote for just you. I have three BHP's in .40 and two in 9mm, plus other 9's and .40's. Each has had thousands of rounds through them with no problem.
 
I have to agree that they should all be just as reliable if fed the ammo they were designed for and the ammo is of equal quality. Some individual guns will balk badly at bullet designs, shapes, weights, power, etc. that differs from what they were designed for. Standard ball should be as reliable in any of them. Remember too that cheap ammo may be bad in anything.
Caliber really shouldn't matter except in stopping power where bigger is better but that's another set of arguments. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top