TexasCHLforum.com

Okay,
So I am going to buy a new carry gun this afternoon. I am trading my PT-111 9MM for either a PT-140 in .40 or a PT-145 in .45.
Same gun, different calibers. Here is the question:

Balitically speaking, is the performance of a .45 better enough over the .40 to justify the increased cost of ammo? Also, how much better is the .45 over the .40?

All loaded questions I know, but please help me decide

Tim,

Having owned a PT145 as well as quite a few small 40 cal pistols, I recommend the 45. Even though it's a bigger bullet, the recoil is less severe w/ the 45. Small pistols in 40 S&W are VERY snappy and not much fun in my opinion.

Gary

Gary,
Do you think the recoil issue is due the .45 only travelling about 890 FPS, or do you believe it is the mass of the bullet?

I have the S&W Sigma and Kahr CW40 in .40. The Sigma is 4", 14+1. The Kahr is 3.6", 6+1. I've not had any trouble firing either. When I go to the range I generrally put about 200 rounds through the Sigma and 50-75 through the CW40 and doesn't bother me. I like the .40.

All of my weapons are .40 cal. In fact I am waiting on another... :)

The 45 is a low pressure cartridge. The 40 is a high pressure cartridge, which results in a snappier recoil impulse. Coming from a 9mm, you'll really notice the difference. There's nothing wrong with the 40, it's a great cartridge and very popular. But, so is the 45.

I have owned 3", 4", and 5" 1911s in .45 ACP, and all of them were easier to shoot than my .40 S&W USP Compact. Now part of that is the difference in designs. A properly set up and functioning 1911 is a joy to shoot, while the USP just can't compare in that regard. But, making allowances for the differences in pistol design, the .40 is still quite a bit snappier, with much more muzzle flip, which I'm guessing is due to the higher slide velocity. The .45 "pushes" rather than "snaps." But even with the snappier velocity, the .40 is just a tick down on power to the .45.

I think that what it is, is a great compromise between the 9mm and the .45, and that is principally why I bought mine. It gave me better magazine capacity (12+1 compared to 7 or 8+1) without sacrificing too much power, and without making the grip too fat to be comfortable. Even so, my 3" Kimber with 2 backup magazines (22 rounds) is flatter and easier to carry most of the time than the USP (25 rounds), mostly because the USP's backup magazine is so thick, and I only sacrifice a total of 3 rounds. Any weight difference is negligible.

OTH, plenty of LEOs carry .40s and are perfectly comfortable with them. I just prefer the .45.

I am really leaning towards the .45.

As a note, Cheaper than Dirt has the taurus PT-1911 on sale for 399.00. I really want one but they are not very conducive to concealed carry via a tucker type holster.

I have both 45 and 40. I prefer the 45 for shooting. It's softer on the recoil and I find my second shot comes quicker.

tboesche wrote:Okay,
So I am going to buy a new carry gun this afternoon. I am trading my PT-111 9MM for either a PT-140 in .40 or a PT-145 in .45.
Same gun, different calibers. Here is the question:

Balitically speaking, is the performance of a .45 better enough over the .40 to justify the increased cost of ammo? Also, how much better is the .45 over the .40?

All loaded questions I know, but please help me decide

Cost of Ammo? Based on the cost of Win WB at Wallyworld, I think you'll find the .45 ammo is cheaper than the .40 and probably more available. The venerable old .45 carried the U.S. through several global conflicts - we were the victors in a couple of 'em.

There are plenty of options out there for holsters that are quite concealable. I have carried a 5" 1911 for over a year and have no issues with concealment. My wife will be carrying a 4" 1911 once her license arrives. I know that its a personal decision but I just can't see myself with anything other than old slab sides. Whatever you purchase, thanks for the economic stimulus.

Ditto on the 45 over the 40. The 40 works fine, is a great cartridge. But with the two side-by-side, I always go for the 45. About the same amount of recoil, just not as sharp.

DPS passed on the forty and gave up the forty-five for the 357 SIG and got the lightning bolt stop back. Go figure.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I have owned 3", 4", and 5" 1911s in .45 ACP, and all of them were easier to shoot than my .40 S&W USP Compact. Now part of that is the difference in designs. A properly set up and functioning 1911 is a joy to shoot, while the USP just can't compare in that regard. But, making allowances for the differences in pistol design, the .40 is still quite a bit snappier, with much more muzzle flip, which I'm guessing is due to the higher slide velocity. The .45 "pushes" rather than "snaps." But even with the snappier velocity, the .40 is just a tick down on power to the .45.

I think that what it is, is a great compromise between the 9mm and the .45, and that is principally why I bought mine. It gave me better magazine capacity (12+1 compared to 7 or 8+1) without sacrificing too much power, and without making the grip too fat to be comfortable. Even so, my 3" Kimber with 2 backup magazines (22 rounds) is flatter and easier to carry most of the time than the USP (25 rounds), mostly because the USP's backup magazine is so thick, and I only sacrifice a total of 3 rounds. Any weight difference is negligible.

OTH, plenty of LEOs carry .40s and are perfectly comfortable with them. I just prefer the .45.

+1 on all points.

The .45 is definitely more pleasant to shoot, but the .40 isn't hard either until you get into the really small guns like the Kahr PM40. There you'll notice a significant difference.

Because the .40 is a high pressure cartridge, there are more experiences with case failure reports in the weapon than with the .40. My son had one in his Glock .23 that blew the magazine out of the weapon and sent pieces of the slide stop flying off the gun. The only reasons I can think of to go .40 over .45 are slightly lower ammo costs and greater magazine capacity.

I carry .45 almost all the time. My mousegun is a .40

tboesche wrote:Gary,
Do you think the recoil issue is due the .45 only travelling about 890 FPS, or do you believe it is the mass of the bullet?

It may hurt more, and make a bigger hole...

Sometimes its the obvious, and a little humor that helps you make these types of decisions...

I agree with Gary, the .40 is a little snappier, but you can get used to it and be very effective with it, just like anything else with a little practice, and study...

I carried the .40 for years, and I still could, I am just going thru my .45 "Piledriver" phase, and am enjoying the 1911 concept these days...So far it works...

Half the fun is the adventure we have in figuring this stuff out...

Keep us posted...