45 acp relevance idea

"...the .45 ACP is outdated for basic self defense..." That's more about the mag capacity fad than anything else. I've always found the .45 to be far more pleasant to shoot than the 9mm. And a 1911A1 fits my hand where no DA 9mm comes even close.
"...incidents with wild animals..." A great deal depends on what critter and what bullet one is using. Ball(as in an FMJ) isn't the best thing for dealing with unruly fauna. Isn't great for the two legged varmints either. Dogs you shoot in the head.
The best handgun for any kind of shooting is the one you shoot best, regardless of its chambering.
 
The point about ammo availability is a good one. For a few weeks now I’ve debated picking up a 40SW in addition to my 45ACP since I can find ammo more easily and cheaper in some cases. What I’ve noticed, however, is that I’m hardly the only person to figure this out and a lot of those pistols have also disappeared. Not only that, but ammunition for those pistols is starting to disappear too. My concern is that once the existing supply of 40SW and 45ACP starts to dry up, up how long it will take for that supply to catch up when manufacturers are likely prioritizing 9mm given the current demand? And once the supply does catch up will we see similar price differences that we saw before? I’ll be interested to see how it all plays out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If I was asked on my opinion for a "commonly available" handgun cartridge that is good for both two and four legged critters, and dispatching wounded / sick animals such as deer hit by a car, my first pick would be the .357 magnum not the .45acp.
 
I own and handload for a couple of 40s&ws, couple of 45acps, a couple .357mags, and a 10mm and if I were a rural LEO dept that needed to be concerned with any dangerous wildlife, a 45acp wouldn't even be a consideration.

While it's true that it still works just fine for thin skinned 2 legged threats, it fails miserably on thicker skinned, 4 legged threats. Penetration on thick skinned animals is poor for the 45acp so it's more of a liability than an asset.

Hands down, my choice would be a 10mm. Higher capacity, much higher velocity, significantly higher ME and with the polymer options available, all in a lighter package. Don't get me wrong, I own 2ea 1911s in 45acp and love to shoot them but any woods walking I do in the Rockies, I always take my 10mm.
 
Technology is great and advances in it can absolutely have profound effects.

That said when it comes to firearms.......
Not a GIGANTIC amount has changed since smokeless powder.

.45 ..... well it ain’t gonna bounce off.
.40 ...... Ummm yeah probably gonna leave a mark...
9BPLE ........ pretty damn effective in its day.....but since humans have changed so much....

Point is modern 9mm is probably the most efficient caliber. It doesn’t mean it has to be the ONLY caliber.

Learn to shoot. Not learn to shoot a specific caliber.
 
Of the handguns I own, I would choose my BHP 40cal because someone mentioned that the 40S&W could be used for hunting and it's the most accurate/compact handgun. I think it comes down to what your use is first. If I was just camping, I'd probably carry my Makarov because it's so compact.
 
9mm is a good and effective caliber.

45acp is a good and effective caliber.

There are lots of good and effective calibers.

Shot placement is the key to success with either. The caliber you prefer isn't critical. Go with what scratches your itch and don't be concerned with anyone else's opinion.
 
Regarding the use for outdoor and 4-legged critter defense, the nice thing about a pistol chambered in 45 acp is that most likely it can also shoot 45 Super and 450 SMC, with factory loads that compare to very hot loaded 10mm rounds both in energy and in price (although not in availability). There are those who swear by 45 Super for hog hunting:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-big-hogs-in-the-mix-10mm-or-45-super.642312/

In that thread they say:
"The advantage of the .45 super is in bullets ranging from 230-260 grains, bullets the 10MM can't fire, or aren't common. Don't have any 10MM loads for 220 grain bullets."

The higher capacity of 10mm is great, though. But on the other hand... 10mm is more expensive to shoot than bulk 45 ACP. Price and the suitability for different uses (personal defense, woods defense and big game hunting) makes the 45 acp a very versatile round I think. Again, it is a very capable jack of all trades but master of none.

But as I wrote on a previous post, 9mm is in my opinion the superior round for personal defense. It is for nothing that it was initially called 9mm "Parabellum" meaning "Prepare for war".

They didn't call it 9mm "Para animalis" : )
 
Last edited:
I have Glock 19, 34, and a 1911 posted for home defense. Added a 45 AR15(Glock Mags) this year to go with my 870 Tactical. Absolutely love that AR. 8" Barrel, no gas tube and blows the black out of the bull at 25 yards.
 
COSteve said:
While it's true that it still works just fine for thin skinned 2 legged threats, it fails miserably on thicker skinned, 4 legged threats. Penetration on thick skinned animals is poor for the 45acp so it's more of a liability than an asset.

Hands down, my choice would be a 10mm. Higher capacity, much higher velocity, significantly higher ME and with the polymer options available, all in a lighter package. Don't get me wrong, I own 2ea 1911s in 45acp and love to shoot them but any woods walking I do in the Rockies, I always take my 10mm.
Click to expand...
Hey COSteve, if I remember well you are the fellow with a long slide Glock 21, no? You in the Front Range area?

I am near Conifer/Morrison, PM me and lets talk guns! : )

And yeah, regular 45 acp wouldn't be no good for thick skinned fare, but 45 Super out of that long slide G21 of yours would be a mini hand cannon, definitely do the job for anything in our area and maybe bigger (a few Alaskans tout it).
 
The gun community has done no disservice to the novice shooter at all. If anything the novice shooter has failed to do proper research on his or her own and are probably lazy so they ask a question to which there is no wrong or right answer and it becomes a question of personal preferences and opinions. Those that are quick to give answers are giving answers based on personal experiences or what they have read.

Guns are tools and with certain calibers, these calibers are best utilized in different scenarios for the various situations that may arise. I will give you an example:

A person may ask if a 22lr or .380 is good for self defense and immediately it turns out to an all out debate resembling democrats and republicans. But I always carry a 22 lr or .380 around the house because of how I plan to use it. It is a light gun and if I'm wearing pajamas or just lounging around clothes I have the gun on me. It is not meant to defend myself but it is meant to give me a chance to get to my bigger caliber guns I have strategically place around the house.

Everyone seems to ask questions about "BEST, CHEAP GUNS" for self defense and my question is why do you want cheap when were are talking about your life. Anyway the internet is not the best place to ask for advice as a large majority that put their 2¢ have no experience but have read about it.
 
While it's true that it still works just fine for thin skinned 2 legged threats, it fails miserably on thicker skinned, 4 legged threats. Penetration on thick skinned animals is poor for the 45acp so it's more of a liability than an asset.
Click to expand...

What "thicker skinned" animals are you referring to?

The only native thick skinned threat I can think of is Bison.

now, there are big tough animals, and thick body animals, and some that are both, but nothing in North America is thick skinned in the sense some African animals are save perhaps, the Bison, with is thick skinned, thick bodied and tough all in one package.

Not many of us have to deal with them, however.

Consider this, in many places neither the .45acp or the 9mm Luger are legal for big game hunting. IN some other place, where the biggest game is whitetail deer and black bear, they are.

Which of course has nothing to do with the OP and the idea that the .45acp is "no longer relevant" for self defense...

NOTHING THAT WORKS is ever irrelevant for self defense.
 
zoo said:
Hunting with a Browning High Power in .40? That’s impressive!
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Honestly, as long as it's legal to hunt with, there's really no reason why it couldn't be.

.40 S&W is certainly powerful enough for deer, and the Browning Hi-Power is an accurate pistol, so as long as he has the skill to hit targets with it at long distance, there's nothing to laugh at.
 
My BHP 40 is pretty accurate. For fun, I use to shoot clay pigeons at 100 yards with it. So, at less than even 40 yards, it'll go where I point it. I just think it is possible to kill an animal with with the 40 and therefore a person. I'd have less faith in a 9mm. My BHP 9mm is not as accurate. My .357 would work and could be used for hunting but I only use that as my home defense gun because it's simple to use. The gun is too bulky and I like traveling light. A rifle is good enough. If had an accurate load for my Kimber Ultra .45, I'd choose that as my personal firearm if I had to carry it. The last is my Makarov. That would be my go to camping gun. It's so light, I'd forget it is there as if it was a knife pouch. It wouldn't be good for hunting but a good/inexpenseive deterrent from some crazy that would show up in your campground to start trouble.
 
"I shot this guys dog for him with my mighty 45 auto. The first shot was right behind the left leg. The dog went to jumping straight up in the air. Every time it touched down I put another bullet behind the leg. I shot 5 rounds behind the leg. The dog finally stood still and I put round number six through its neck and dropped it instantly."[/

Very poor way to judge a bullets preformanace and ridiculous to knock the .45 based on the above statement. Only thing I see depicted above is Piss poor shot placement if you ask me.. that's what I'm reading, NOT inadequate .45 ACP performance.
I have seen .22 LR's used to take down some big dogs and various large animals... instantly, dropped right in their tracks. Difference is proper SHOT PLACEMENT. Head shots. More humane. Shot placement is everything. ;)
Nothing wrong with the .45 ACP hardball.
 
Very poor way to judge a bullets preformanace and ridiculous to knock the .45 based on the above statement. Only thing I see depicted above is Piss poor shot placement if you ask me.. that's what I'm reading, NOT inadequate .45 ACP performance.
I have seen .22 LR's used to take down some big dogs and various large animals... instantly, dropped right in their tracks. Difference is proper SHOT PLACEMENT. Head shots. More humane. Shot placement is everything.
Nothing wrong with the .45 ACP hardball.
Click to expand...

Since you weren't there you really don't know what the hell you are talking about do you? I had 5 shots tight behind the shoulder in a group that could be covered by a coffee cup.
 
Decades ago I helped slaughter one of my brother's pigs. It took 3-4 shots in the head with a .22lr using a handgun before it died and I was aiming at the brain cavity. I'd suggest a .45 or at least a 9mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top