mini-GBIC seems to be simply a "let's add to the confusion" description of an SFP module. There's no shortage of available confusion, and at times I swear a good bit of it is deliberate.
For short-distance links on a gigabit switch (where all ports are Gigabit) it makes, no, zip, zero, nada, (etc) difference if you use SFP ports or wired ports to interconnect switches. SFP ports are primarily for allowing fiber connections over longer distances, when needed.
In the bad old days when you only had two or 4 gigabit ports, and those ports were the SFP slots, it mattered. With a full gigabit switch, it doesn't matter unless you have a 10GB uplink port (XFP or the other one I forget the acronym for just now.)
An SFP-copper module is not something you should waste money on buying, but if the money is already wasted, you can use it - it still makes no difference to the operation or effectiveness of the switch setup. If you don't need more than 48 ports (or 50, if you can use all 50 - many lock out a copper port when you use an SFP, but some don't), use one switch. If you don't need the full number of ports you'll have left on two switches after taking two ports to interconnect them, the best thing you can do for switching is to "trunk" multiple ports between switches - you have to set this up, you can't just plug in without setting up first - but you can have 2, 4, often up to 8 cables (removing up to 16 ports from your pool) to increase the traffic path between switches.
Other than keeping track of them, especially if setting up trunk groups, which port number goes where does not matter. For interswitch connections, it's usually less confusing to simply connect 48 to 48, 47 to 47, etc...Sometimes 48-24, 47-23 makes it easier to plug in other cables (not blocked by the switch-to-switch cables, if the switches are stacked in a rack with short cables.)