Was rolling around in my head the possibility of buying one of these neat little CZ pistols (Model 83) in .380 ACP, so I decided to check out bargain type ammo prices. In Cheaper Than Dirt, I see that it's about $3.50 more per box in the Blazer offering, and about $4.50 more per box in the American Eagle offering. What the hell?

The 9mm is made in far greater quantities than the .380 ACP. Many of the ammo companies have dedicated line(s) just for the 9mm where the .380 may only be run a few time per year.

Doesn't make sense to buy a .380 vs a 9mm, then, unless you just absolutely have to have a tiny pocket gun or if, to you, money is no object.

Exactly - the .380 is about as powerful a cartridge as the small blow-back pistols can handle. If you want a bit more power, such as the 9mm, then you need to step up to the short recoil operated guns. That brings a corresponding increase in size and weight (although modern manufacturing methods have made great strides in shrinking the size of these pistols).

Another plus for the 9mm is that it can be found everywhere where as the .380 might be a bit more problematic.

My reloading line runs when ever it has to. My .380 brass is mostly range pickup (5000 pieces) so the brass has no cost. I use Titegroup to load my .380 with 95 Gr Montana Gold bullets. It's cheaper than the 9MM I can load.

A hundred rounds cost me $15.70

9mm is universal.

A CZ 83 in .32acp is on my "to get" list.

Overseas Contingency Operations, formerly called, Global War on Terrorism. 9mm is used worldwide. It is the NATO standard pistol cartridge. Everyone makes it.

Look at the 9x18 in the CZ 82. I punch paper and plink with the Silver Bear or Brown Bear. There's hotter stuff for carry. It's zippier than the 380. It strikes me as a perfect fit for the 82. Components are available too.

What the Rooster said. 9mm Mak is far cheaper than .380 and has just a tiny bit more oomph. It�s even cheaper than pretty much the cheapest 9mm ammo, so you can afford to shoot the 9mm Mak CZ. Personally, I�d never even consider the .380 version when 9mm Mak is so cheap.

It's the economy of volume and the pricing pressure from offshore manufacturers. Small "pocket pistol" ammo has always been expensive relative to it's power and size. In the 1960's an box of .25acp was $10.00.

There's only one reason to get a .380 over a 9mm in my opinion....and that's because the sexiest gun alive, the Sig P232, doesn't come in 9mm.

The economy of scale.

They do not sell more .380 because it cost too much, and .380 cost too much because they do not sell more of it.

correct me if I am wrong but aren't all three the same bullet size?

a .380acp is 9x17
a mak is 9x18
and a 9mm is 9x19

And the person with that box expected it to be more than s/he needed for an entire lifetime. Same thing with the .32 and the .380, except that the .380 has benefitted from some cool new designs that have some people shooting them more now. But, the new micro 9mm guns are making inroads into that.

That has a fifteen round mag.

Those are cool. I had it's progenitor, i.e., the P230. Always sorry I sold it back in the 1990s.

I'm wondering how some of these new micro-9mm's will hold up over the long haul. I like to SHOOT my guns. I've got over 10,000 rounds through my Beretta 92FS and 3,000 through my Sig P232 and they're both still kicking. I just wonder if a Kel-Tec or other plastic framed gun would hold up as well under 9mm.

Mak is .365 - .366. The other 2 are .355 -.356.

Supply and Demand. I pay more for my 300 Savage ammo than I would if I was buying 308 Winchester ammo. All things being equal.

Good point. That seems a comparable example. About the same material costs, even use the same bullets, but there's a big difference in the demand for the two finished products.