Single Stack Build - 40 S&W or 45 ACP?

[Ronnie j]

If you ever wanted to compete in IDPA CDP division you need a 45, if you want to compete in IDPA ESP division you need a 40 and Tripp system mags. Other than that there isn't any real reson to shoot .45

[pjb45]

My first SS was a 45 Trojan. I do not shoot it at all now. It is mostly a house or travel gun.

Kodiak Precision built my SV Limited gun. An incredible gun. While waiting for him to complete my .40 SV single stack, I had Virgil build me a 40.

I have NO GUNS issues whatsoever with a 40 Single Stack. It takes factory and reloads, JHP and TCN, all with ease. My 40 is a custom built gun, so I might not have ever had reliability issues that factory guns may experience.

The barrels in both guns chrono about the same, so I just have one formula for Limited and Single Stack.

I use Tripp mags and with no issues.

If it means anything, I have seen TGO and many other GMs shoot 40 in single stack.

There is no scoring advantage in 45 v 40. The size of the hole has nothing to do with your accuracy.

I was pretty serious about shooting Single Stack. It was my gun of choice for most matches. I have now gone over to the dark side and will be shooting Open for the next year.

[lawboy]

Where are you guys shooting that you have to BUY 45 brass?!

I have been shooting/loading 45 since 1997 and I have never bought a single case.

I leave brass on the ground at every match and I have at least 10k cases sitting

in bags in the garage and it only seems to grow. I don't get this buying brass.

I buy 45-70 brass, but 45ACP? Hardly!

[Duane Thomas]

But of course, if the 1911 was meant to be anything besides 45acp that's how JMB would have made them!

Actually, John Moses Browning originally chambered the design that would in time evolve into the 1911 in .38 ACP (dimensionally identical to .38 Super, which is simply a higher pressure .38 ACP). The design was only rechambered to .45 ACP at the Army's insistence, it was not at Browning's preference. So if you want to make the "this gun should be chambered only in what John Browning intended" argument, then all our single stack 1911s should be chambered in .38 ACP - or maybe .38 Super if you want to go for the readily available modern version instead of the original obsolete cartridge.

[Duane Thomas]

Our host Brian Enos has said that in his experience, which is immense (my comment there at the last, not his) when you take into account cartridge type (.40 or .45) and magazine configuration (single or double stack), from easiest to make the gun work 100 percent of the time at the top down to hardest at the bottom, it goes like this:

.45 Single Stack

.40 Double Stack

.40 Single Stack

.45 Double Stack

I know a couple of people who have gone the .40 S&W route for USPSA Single Stack. They both had to go through a long (I mean years long) process of sorting out the gun before it would work. Admittedly when they were done they both had very nice guns that worked well. Also admittedly they both started out with factory guns versus having their guns built from the ground up.

If you're not willing, or able, to have your gun built from the get-go by a top 'smith who knows how to make a .40 single stack run, you are probably going to find a .45 considerably less problematic.

[steviesterno]

But of course, if the 1911 was meant to be anything besides 45acp that's how JMB would have made them!

Actually, John Moses Browning originally chambered the design that would in time evolve into the 1911 in .38 ACP (dimensionally identical to .38 Super, which is simply a higher pressure .38 ACP). The design was only rechambered to .45 ACP at the Army's insistence, it was not at Browning's preference. So if you want to make the "this gun should be chambered only in what John Browning intended" argument, then all our single stack 1911s should be chambered in .38 ACP - or maybe .38 Super if you want to go for the readily available modern version instead of the original obsolete cartridge.

Damn... I had no idea. well, I will eat my words but I still think 45s are bad-ass!

That's enough rhyme and reason for me. Plus with loaded ammo at like 15 cents/round for jacketed, I'm not too worried about 45 being too expensive. And that's what 22 trainers are for.

[steel1212]

Our host Brian Enos has said that in his experience, which is immense (my comment there at the last, not his) when you take into account cartridge type (.40 or .45) and magazine configuration (single or double stack), from easiest to make the gun work 100 percent of the time at the top down to hardest at the bottom, it goes like this:

.45 Single Stack

.40 Double Stack

.40 Single Stack

.45 Double Stack

I know a couple of people who have gone the .40 S&W route for USPSA Single Stack. They both had to go through a long (I mean years long) process of sorting out the gun before it would work. Admittedly when they were done they both had very nice guns that worked well. Also admittedly they both started out with factory guns versus having their guns built from the ground up.

If you're not willing, or able, to have your gun built from the get-go by a top 'smith who knows how to make a .40 single stack run, you are probably going to find a .45 considerably less problematic.

This is very good advice. It didn't take me years to get my SA Trophy match chambered in .40 to run. I just did the research and got a few needed parts. I do have a smith right down the road but until I build my ground up gun he pretty much just did some minor tuning to it. Now the gun in my avatar he did wonders on!

[392heminut]

But of course, if the 1911 was meant to be anything besides 45acp that's how JMB would have made them!

Actually, John Moses Browning originally chambered the design that would in time evolve into the 1911 in .38 ACP (dimensionally identical to .38 Super, which is simply a higher pressure .38 ACP). The design was only rechambered to .45 ACP at the Army's insistence, it was not at Browning's preference.

Not to mention the fact that the 40 S&W was not even around back then for JMB to even consider!

[JakeMartens]

But of course, if the 1911 was meant to be anything besides 45acp that's how JMB would have made them!

Actually, John Moses Browning originally chambered the design that would in time evolve into the 1911 in .38 ACP (dimensionally identical to .38 Super, which is simply a higher pressure .38 ACP). The design was only rechambered to .45 ACP at the Army's insistence, it was not at Browning's preference. So if you want to make the "this gun should be chambered only in what John Browning intended" argument, then all our single stack 1911s should be chambered in .38 ACP - or maybe .38 Super if you want to go for the readily available modern version instead of the original obsolete cartridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_ACP

The 1911 design came from the

1900 .38acp

Which progressed into the

1902 .38 acp

And when the military said that they wanted a .45acp it became the

1905 .45acp

And then through testing and additional wants from the army the firearm we ended up with is the

1911

Which then evolved into the

1911a1

Something that I found interesting in this video is that back in the 1850's Colt experimented with .40 caliber revolvers

http://www.downrange...-handgun/11672/

[Duane Thomas]

Interesting fact (I think), the first tool room prototype of what would eventually become the M1900 was originally put together by Browning in 1895. Though we think of the 1911 because of the designation as an early 20th Century design, it actually had its roots in the late 19th Century.

[BoldasLions]

I feel that its ever so slightly easier for me to call a shot off a 45 than a 40 at the same pf. I'm currently shooting a 40 build, but the next will be 45.

[BoldasLions]

I feel that its ever so slightly easier for me to call a shot off a 45 than a 40 at the same pf. I'm currently shooting a 40 build, but the next will be 45.

In addition to the increased reliability of the 45 I'm sold.

[steel1212]

I feel that its ever so slightly easier for me to call a shot off a 45 than a 40 at the same pf. I'm currently shooting a 40 build, but the next will be 45.

In addition to the increased reliability of the 45 I'm sold.

That all depends on how the gun is setup.

[Sean Gaines]

I have shot both, and I like the recoil impulse of the .40cal over the .45acp. I am having a custom .40cal built right now! There are cost savings, but that was the determining factor. I am just a .40cal fan. I like the snappyness of the .40, I like how the gun cycles.Actually I like the way the 9mm shoots better, but in our game, that puts you at a major disadvantage. As far as reliablity, its just like any other gun, if you have the right smith behind the gun, you shouldn't have any problems. Also load long,and pay attention to your feed lips on your mags, and you should be fine.

[Steve RA]

Another - thus far unmentioned - problem with the .40 is that if you pick up brass you will get Glock brass which usually needs another sizing step to make sure it runs properly.

[Torogi]

Another - thus far unmentioned - problem with the .40 is that if you pick up brass you will get Glock brass which usually needs another sizing step to make sure it runs properly.

You use a U-die for that. It works even with the worst glock bulge.

[steel1212]

Another - thus far unmentioned - problem with the .40 is that if you pick up brass you will get Glock brass which usually needs another sizing step to make sure it runs properly.

U die and lee factory crimp die and I have ZERO problems with glocked brass. Actually I'm not even using the FCD right now.

[ControlTheGun]

Another - thus far unmentioned - problem with the .40 is that if you pick up brass you will get Glock brass which usually needs another sizing step to make sure it runs properly.

U die and lee factory crimp die and I have ZERO problems with glocked brass. Actually I'm not even using the FCD right now.

I size all my 40 brass with a Dillon size die turned down until it presses on the shellplate, and have never seen chambering issues with my M&P or 2011.

My next single stack will be a 40 for all of the reasons that steel1212 mentioned, mainly cost and brass is everywhere.

[cyburg]

Todd Jarrett recently had a couple of single stack .40s built by Jeff Abernaty of Tommy Gun Works.

[Sean Gaines]

Todd Jarrett recently had a couple of single stack .40s built by Jeff Abernaty of Tommy Gun Works.

I thought todd built his own guns now, isn't that what "strikeforce" is all about?? I really don't know....

[cyburg]

THey have the Tommy Gun Works Logo on the slide.

I know he is building rifles and some other pistols

[oak hill]

I prefer .45 in single stack

[Ross Carter]

If you want to share ammo with your other 40 you will need to build your SS with whatever OAL the other pistol likes otherwise you will still have two different ammo to keep up with.

Many people run a long OAL in their Limited 40's, this can be done in the SS using 10mm mags and setting the pistol up correctly. If you run factory OAL the 40 SS mags will work.

Then there is the issue of chronograph, you will be lucky if both pistols chrono the same so unless you compromise with a higher power factor than needed in one pistol you are back to two batches of ammo.

In testing I found I could shoot the 40 SS slightly quicker than my beloved 45 1911, but if I wasn't in top form the old 45 was better, maybe because of centuries of practice with the 45. My takeaway from that was the 40 SS had some performance advantage but it required more from the shooter to see it.

I'm pretty sure more Single Stack Classics have been won shooting the 45 than any other calibers combined so even counting the capacity advantage the 45 is still King in SS.

[RIIID]

The Single Stack Classic Match has only been won(HOA) with a .45 once, if I'm not mistaken. The .45 has probably won more in the classes M thru D than the .40.

Rich

[Ross Carter]

I'm having a little problem reading the 1911 Society archives for some reason. http://www.1911society.org/