45 acp relevance idea
- Thread starter CAPMJUSTICE
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
burbank jung said:
There was, technically, never any cartridge known as the "Long Colt." It was just .45 Colt. The cartridge was introduced at the same time that Colt introduced the Model of 1873, the venerable Single Action Army. The original .45 Colt was a black powder cartridge, loading a 255-grain bullet over 40 grains of black powder, which produced up to 1,050 fps of muzzle velocity.
However, the Army also adopted as an alternate standard the top-break Smith & Wesson .45 Schofield revolver. The cylinder of the .45 Schofield wasn't long enough to accommodate the .45 Colt cartridge, so that revolver was chambered in the shorter .45 Schofield cartridge, which fired a 230-grain bullet over 28 grainis of black powder, producing somewhere in the vicinity of 800 fps muzzle velocity. The Ordnance Department eventually standardized on the .45 Schofield cartridge, since it could also be fired in the Colt M1873, and the cartridge was officially designated the ,45 Government.
It was the lighter, shorter .45 Government that the M1911 Ball cartridge for the M11911 pistol was designed to emulate, not the more powerful .45 Colt.
Last edited:
Actually, it is not. Not if you are sticking to SAAMI specs.
You CAN match the .44 Magnum, in a suitable gun, but you are WAAY beyond SAAMI specs to get there.
I believe SAAMI spec for the .45 Colt is 14,000psi.
TO add some further background information, the original 45 Colt load was the 255gr "conical flat point" over 40gr of black powder in a balloon head case.
You cannot get that amount of powder under that bullet in modern solid head cases.
There were a few years when both the .45 Colt and the .45 Govt (.45 Schofield) were both in the Army inventory, and both can be fired from the Colt SAA.
I believe that it was at that time that the moniker "Long Colt" came into common use. Never the "Official" name, just what everyone came to call it.
If I recall, Elmer Keith had written about the .45 Colt being refered to as the "Long" Colt .45 in the old days, in order to differentiate it from the short .45. I'll have to read Sixguns again. Of course, Elmer didn't have the internet available to verify proper terminology...:
EDIT;
Ok, yes... found it. "Sixguns by Keith"(1955), page 285; "Today we often hear the .45 Colt Peacemaker refered to as the .45 Long Colt. Some newcomers to the game claim there is no such animal, but if they had shot the short variety that Remington turned out in such profusion before, during, and after WW1, they would see that there is some basis for referring to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long".
Well, I guess that settles it, at least as far as I am concerned. After all... Who are we to argue with Elmer Keith, who grew up in the sunset of the old west and was mentored by actual gunfighters?
EDIT;
Ok, yes... found it. "Sixguns by Keith"(1955), page 285; "Today we often hear the .45 Colt Peacemaker refered to as the .45 Long Colt. Some newcomers to the game claim there is no such animal, but if they had shot the short variety that Remington turned out in such profusion before, during, and after WW1, they would see that there is some basis for referring to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long".
Well, I guess that settles it, at least as far as I am concerned. After all... Who are we to argue with Elmer Keith, who grew up in the sunset of the old west and was mentored by actual gunfighters?
Last edited:
this is kind of my point, there were (and still are) Long and Short cartridges for several calibers. .22, 32, .38, and others, but there was not a factory designated "long" or "short" in .45 caliber.
Both length of rounds existed, they just weren't factory named long or short, so, people called them that, as a simple way of telling the difference.
The Colt SAA predates the S&W gun by a few years, but both were in service together for some years, and both types of ammo were in the supply system for some time.
I can easily envision a cavalry detail going to the supply sgt to get ammo for their pistols, and when asked which kind, saying "Long, for the Colt..."
"Long, for the Colt" easily becomes "Long, Colt" and Long (comma) Colt easily becomes "Long Colt" and that name sticks...
The Army specifically requested the performance of the .45 Govt (.45 Schofield) in the round for their new semi auto pistol. And that's what Browning gave them in the .45 ACP.
Both length of rounds existed, they just weren't factory named long or short, so, people called them that, as a simple way of telling the difference.
The Colt SAA predates the S&W gun by a few years, but both were in service together for some years, and both types of ammo were in the supply system for some time.
I can easily envision a cavalry detail going to the supply sgt to get ammo for their pistols, and when asked which kind, saying "Long, for the Colt..."
"Long, for the Colt" easily becomes "Long, Colt" and Long (comma) Colt easily becomes "Long Colt" and that name sticks...
The Army specifically requested the performance of the .45 Govt (.45 Schofield) in the round for their new semi auto pistol. And that's what Browning gave them in the .45 ACP.
No one is making brass, that I'm aware of, with the original thinner walls.
The old cases would have a serious issue with loads approaching .44 magnum. Search for "balloon head cartridge" and you'll find pictures of how modern brass differs from original.
A rough estimate.
Matt's bullets claims that his .45 lead hollow points expands to almost a 1/2 dollar is size when shot into a phone book. I placed a cast .45 on a quarter. Next to it is a 135gr Speer Gold Dot, and on the dime is a 135gr Gold Dot shot into 2 jugs of water. By looking at the expansion and guessing what the .45 can do, the question arises, is the larger hole more effective?
Matt's bullets claims that his .45 lead hollow points expands to almost a 1/2 dollar is size when shot into a phone book. I placed a cast .45 on a quarter. Next to it is a 135gr Speer Gold Dot, and on the dime is a 135gr Gold Dot shot into 2 jugs of water. By looking at the expansion and guessing what the .45 can do, the question arises, is the larger hole more effective?
Last edited:
CAPMJUSTICE
New member
Thanks so much for all the responses. I didn't actually say it, but I was looking for experiences and endorsements of any calibers people find as effective hybrid woods/self defense calibers, no just the 45acp. I'm glad people have responded with input about multiple hybrid options. I really wasn't trying to make a 9mm vs 45acp debate, but more of a 9mm vs anything people have found to be a better hybrid caliber. It seems like a lot of people feel like there are better options than 9mm for a hybrid firearm.
Which of the Hybrid self defense/woods defense calibers would be best to start with? I like the qualities of availability, and versatility. Also would it be better to pick just one ammo to always have for simplicity, or maybe have two different kinds of ammo that can be switched out with a magazine change when I'm going from town to country to fit the two different situations?
Which of the Hybrid self defense/woods defense calibers would be best to start with? I like the qualities of availability, and versatility. Also would it be better to pick just one ammo to always have for simplicity, or maybe have two different kinds of ammo that can be switched out with a magazine change when I'm going from town to country to fit the two different situations?
For whatever caliber you choose, I suggest a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter. The bullet is the most accurate for target, inexpensive to reload, and effective because of the meplate. I'd like to think that it sounds better in court to say all you had was some target ammo to defend yourself than a "man killer" hollow point. For a combination load, I'd pick the Hornady XTP. I've read more handgun shooters use the XTP than other bullets.
There is an accurate answer, but it is one that people tend to dislike.
If we consider ONLY bullet diameter and limit things to just the service pistol calibers instead of considering everything from .22Short out of a handgun up to 700 Nitro Express from a rifle.
The larger hole has a higher probability of damaging something important.
Case closed, right? Well, that answer leaves a lot unsaid.
If both bullets hit something relatively unimportant as far as incapacitation goes, then they will be essentially equally ineffective. If they both, for example, punch through a roll of fat, the fact that one is bigger isn't likely at all to have any impact on the outcome of the fight.
If both bullets hit something really important as far as incapacitation goes, then they will be essentially equally effective. If they both, for example, hit the spinal cord, or the brain, or one of the large blood vessels over the heart, the fact that they differ in size isn't likely to change how fast the person becomes unable to fight.
So what about the case where the larger one hits something important because it's larger that is missed by the smaller bullet. That's where you can see benefit of the larger round; but people tend to overestimate how likely this is.
And, of course, since bullet diameter is a tradeoff (you get it by giving up other things), one should also consider things like "shootability", "carryability", capacity, penetration, etc.
jetinteriorguy
New member
If you are only going to be in areas where a black bear is the most dangerous wild animal you might encounter, I personally wouldn’t be the least bit worried carrying a full size high capacity 9mm for self defense. Since I handload I have a pretty stout load of 147gr XTP’s that should do the job on any two or four legged critters that would attempt to bother me. Even though it’s a pretty stout load for a 9mm, it’s still easily controlled from my CZ 75B SA.
The same bullet technology that has improved the 9mm, applies equally to all other calibers....including the .45 ACP. Many pooh pooh the notion that a bigger hole in the target is better, quoting studies that purport that most any handgun caliber has the equivalent ability to disable an attacker, and all are severely limited. The problem with this "science" is that it generalizes a limited number of events into an overall applicability.
While granting the 9mm has improved significantly, I'd opine that the .45 is just that much better, as well, and further, that the .45 and it's bigger hole is significantly better as a fight stopper. More rounds in a 9mm? Yep, but I'd offer that the 8 rounds in the standard 1911/.45 ACP mag are enough, given civilian uses. LEO's may need add'l capacity, but that's part of their job. Extended gunfights are a distinct possibility...not so for the civilian.
Military use has a different set of constraints...not the least of which is the size of the gun vs. the spectrum of military personnel. The 9mm was chosen in large measure to satisfy that metric as well as the oft quoted need to standardize ammunition throughout NATO components. Anecdotally, I've met many desert war vets who were less than enthused with the 9mm currently in use and expressed a desire for a better round/gun.
I personally carried both while in Vietnam 50 years ago...liked the .45 but carried a 9mm Browning for the bulk of my tour as an airborne FAC. The significant risk of being shot down over hostile country was paramount in my selection. I carried a 5.56mm Car 15 in the aircraft with two (2) bandoliers of ammunition, (my primary defense option) plus the BHP. A fight after a shootdown was a certainty as the VC and NVA regulars routinely shot all downed FAC's in my assigned lll & lV Corps areas of operation. I took the 9mm for it's add'l capacity over the USAF issued S&W M15...a no-brainer. With ~20 mags for the long gun, I hoped I'd never have to resort to the BHP, while praying for an Army slick to pick me up.
Now, as an old vet, but still able to carry the weight of a duty sized gun and given the choice, I'll pick the .45 over the 9mm as a civilian...the choice of the 9mm, in my view, is strictly driven by the size and weight of the guns designed around it, not for it's superior stopping advantages. YMMv and probably does, but that's my take on the debate....Rod
While granting the 9mm has improved significantly, I'd opine that the .45 is just that much better, as well, and further, that the .45 and it's bigger hole is significantly better as a fight stopper. More rounds in a 9mm? Yep, but I'd offer that the 8 rounds in the standard 1911/.45 ACP mag are enough, given civilian uses. LEO's may need add'l capacity, but that's part of their job. Extended gunfights are a distinct possibility...not so for the civilian.
Military use has a different set of constraints...not the least of which is the size of the gun vs. the spectrum of military personnel. The 9mm was chosen in large measure to satisfy that metric as well as the oft quoted need to standardize ammunition throughout NATO components. Anecdotally, I've met many desert war vets who were less than enthused with the 9mm currently in use and expressed a desire for a better round/gun.
I personally carried both while in Vietnam 50 years ago...liked the .45 but carried a 9mm Browning for the bulk of my tour as an airborne FAC. The significant risk of being shot down over hostile country was paramount in my selection. I carried a 5.56mm Car 15 in the aircraft with two (2) bandoliers of ammunition, (my primary defense option) plus the BHP. A fight after a shootdown was a certainty as the VC and NVA regulars routinely shot all downed FAC's in my assigned lll & lV Corps areas of operation. I took the 9mm for it's add'l capacity over the USAF issued S&W M15...a no-brainer. With ~20 mags for the long gun, I hoped I'd never have to resort to the BHP, while praying for an Army slick to pick me up.
Now, as an old vet, but still able to carry the weight of a duty sized gun and given the choice, I'll pick the .45 over the 9mm as a civilian...the choice of the 9mm, in my view, is strictly driven by the size and weight of the guns designed around it, not for it's superior stopping advantages. YMMv and probably does, but that's my take on the debate....Rod
Last edited: