When I was a kid- '50s- 60's- I heard from Korean War vets (who you'd think would know better) that a .45 round in the hand would knock ya down. This was an article of faith second only to The Gospel. Likewise if you press on the barrel of a 1911 with your finger it would lock up the pistol so it couldnt be fired. Nevermind that the .45 was so inaccurate that you couldnt hit anything further than you could throw it anyway....
Effectiveness of the .45 caliber. And some of the Myths.
- Thread starter manta49
- Start date
- Status
kimbershot
New member
a shot in the hand with a fmj will drop a bg!
provided he's holding the hand in front of his eyes.
provided he's holding the hand in front of his eyes.
Given what everyone thinks they know today, one wonders where the reputation of both the .45 auto and the .45 (Long) Colt ever came from. That's no joke, either. In reading through my old copy of Small Arms of the World, they (don't know if it was Smith or Smith) stated the only round with proven combat ability was the .45 auto. Could be.
But Mr. DanRanull, my father said the same thing. We say they should have known better. Maybe we should know better. Maybe none of us know anything!
My father never mentioned actually using a .45 auto, though I do have a photo of him wearing a revolver, almost certainly a .45, in a reverse draw holster and an MP shoulder strap rig. He's standing in front of a Jeep in a photo that is so "period correct" as to be impossible to reproduce today. I should try to post that, except it's beyond my technical ability.
It's a particularly interesting photo. The Jeep has no bumper markings like are common now and his OD service dress jacket (not a short Ike jacket) has no brass collar insignia. I also have another photo somewhere in the recesses of the cedar chest of him standing in front of one of those bell tents wearing fatigues with a Daisy Mae hat and armed with a shotgun. Just by coincidence, I also have a photo of my son in the army armed with a shotgun--and a pistol.
But Mr. DanRanull, my father said the same thing. We say they should have known better. Maybe we should know better. Maybe none of us know anything!
My father never mentioned actually using a .45 auto, though I do have a photo of him wearing a revolver, almost certainly a .45, in a reverse draw holster and an MP shoulder strap rig. He's standing in front of a Jeep in a photo that is so "period correct" as to be impossible to reproduce today. I should try to post that, except it's beyond my technical ability.
It's a particularly interesting photo. The Jeep has no bumper markings like are common now and his OD service dress jacket (not a short Ike jacket) has no brass collar insignia. I also have another photo somewhere in the recesses of the cedar chest of him standing in front of one of those bell tents wearing fatigues with a Daisy Mae hat and armed with a shotgun. Just by coincidence, I also have a photo of my son in the army armed with a shotgun--and a pistol.
Last edited:
thibaultfelix40
New member
Every living creature I ever shot with a 22 ,from hogs to dragon flies, either died or ran away. I still prefer to tote a 38 and keep a bedside 357.
The 45 ACP was a good round 100 years ago, even 30 years ago. Things change, we evolve. People 100 years ago were a lot smaller than they are today. Big Macs have taken their toll. People today are bigger, stronger and healthier than 100 years ago. The average life expectancy was 47 in 1911 to day it is 77. The average chest wall is twice as thick today as in 1911.
Sure a 45 will kill you stone dead cold, but there are better options today.
Sure a 45 will kill you stone dead cold, but there are better options today.
Do you have a link about the average chest wall thickness? Are you talking the thickness of the chest wall itself or the associated exterior muscle & fat tissues on the outside? Not doubting, just looking for references.
1900 - Average life expectancy (Male) at age 10: 68.59 years
2004 - Average life expectancy (Male) at age 10: 76.30 years
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
This is different than the "average life expectancy at birth" often used. These figures, at age 10, eliminate early mortality due to childhood deaths from childbirth, childhood diseases and accidents.
Taken at face value, I see contradictions in your comment above. People 100 years ago may have been smaller, but today's "larger" adults are also more overweight and less physically fit than 100 years ago.¹ Most people live longer today because of a number of factors, such as;
I posit that 100 years ago, people who died of gunshot wounds from handguns likely survived the initial encounter but died hours or days later due more to a lack of timely medical care (bleeding & infections) and less detailed medical knowledge. Further, if our technical capacity was suddenly forced back to around 1900³ then today's modern JHP ammo would prove to be much more lethal than ammo from 100 years ago.
¹ Thanks to modern conveniences like the automobile and other powered machinery from pumped water to vacuum cleaners and farm equipment.
² Between 1900 and about 1950, medical aid took much longer to summon (fewer phones, slower communications). Even then, ambulance attendants were only trained in first-aid as a general rule. In the late 1960's, the first experimental paramedic units showed the benefit of trained personnel and getting people treated within "the golden hour" of their injury. In the 70's, paramedic units started spreading to every state.
³ Such a setback is possible by use of an EMP attack against the U.S. For more information, see: http://www.onesecondafter.com/ or read the novel One Second After by William Forstchen.
1900 - Average life expectancy (Male) at age 10: 68.59 years
2004 - Average life expectancy (Male) at age 10: 76.30 years
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
This is different than the "average life expectancy at birth" often used. These figures, at age 10, eliminate early mortality due to childhood deaths from childbirth, childhood diseases and accidents.
Taken at face value, I see contradictions in your comment above. People 100 years ago may have been smaller, but today's "larger" adults are also more overweight and less physically fit than 100 years ago.¹ Most people live longer today because of a number of factors, such as;
- More nutritious diet
- Safer working conditions with fewer farm & industrial accidents.
- Higher survivability in auto accidents.
- Modern medical procedures & antibiotics
- Improved medical diagnosis technologies (MRI, CAT, PET, etc.)
- Broader array of pharmaceuticals
- Better geriatric care (after age 60)
I posit that 100 years ago, people who died of gunshot wounds from handguns likely survived the initial encounter but died hours or days later due more to a lack of timely medical care (bleeding & infections) and less detailed medical knowledge. Further, if our technical capacity was suddenly forced back to around 1900³ then today's modern JHP ammo would prove to be much more lethal than ammo from 100 years ago.
¹ Thanks to modern conveniences like the automobile and other powered machinery from pumped water to vacuum cleaners and farm equipment.
² Between 1900 and about 1950, medical aid took much longer to summon (fewer phones, slower communications). Even then, ambulance attendants were only trained in first-aid as a general rule. In the late 1960's, the first experimental paramedic units showed the benefit of trained personnel and getting people treated within "the golden hour" of their injury. In the 70's, paramedic units started spreading to every state.
³ Such a setback is possible by use of an EMP attack against the U.S. For more information, see: http://www.onesecondafter.com/ or read the novel One Second After by William Forstchen.
Marquezj16
New member
I watched the video for its historical purposes. Take it for what its worth. The "experts" were quite annoying.
Last edited:
scrubcedar
New member
I Watched as much of the video as I could stand. Geez. Listen carefully to someone who has actually seen people bleeding from gunshot wounds(Retired Nurse), where you hit someone is more important than what you shoot them with. As for all the stuff he spouted on the video about the .45,"Son around here we shovel that stuff out from behind our Bulls, we don't play with it"
Cheapshooter
New member
I'm glad BillCA posted such a good rebuttal to this ridiculous post. After reading it I was laughing waaaaay to hard to write anything!
Last edited:
A couple of MANY links, it seems EVERYONE has an opinion on this.
http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
My google fu is lacking ATM, I will suffice to say that I may have been give bad info and thus regurgitated said bad information.
There is no doubt that people are healthier than anytime in our past.
I do however stand by my assertion that there are better rounds for SD such as the 357 Magnum, 357 Sig, 10 mm, 40 S&W. The question is, can you handle them? How much better makes how much of a difference? The 45 ACP IS NOT THE HAMMER OF THOR. I like the 45 as much as the next guy, however, it is quite anemic by today's standards. Blindly worshiping at the alter of the 45 is an emotional response more appropriate of a teenaged girl.
Carry what you want, just ensure that you are basing you decision on fact not myth.
Cheapshooter
New member
"Quite anemic" is as ridiculous a statement as the myths of super natural power the OP was referring to. Yes, the 10MM is more powerful, the 40 S&W is very similar in power, and has the advantage of holding another round or two in the same sized frame. But the 45 ACP "anemic" I hardly think so! Although ballistic gel tests may not duplicate exactly real life performance they are the best way we have to compare ballistic performance.
freebird72
New member
This has nothing to do with the .45, but it does have to do with "knock down power".
When I was younger, my friend's dad had one of them "Not Meant For TV" movies. In once scene, it showed a riot in some country, not sure where. Anyways, one of the rioters refused to move for the cops, so one cop with a shotgun, not sure what gauge but I would guess 12ga, points the gun at the rioter's gut at point blank range and fires.
The rioter did not fly back, he does not fall backwards, and he did not even really move. He just stood there for a few seconds, looks at his now bloody belly, calls out in pain and falls to his knees. I assume he dies, but it does not show any more of the footage.
I have also shot many squirrels with a 12ga, and never did I see one fly backwards. Now, granted that I used birdshot and not buckshot, but you would assume the difference would be small when fired at a small animal like a squirrel.
My point is, I no longer believe in the knock down power aspect of guns. I am sure some rounds have more force behind them, but I do not buy into the whole "blank round" has more knock down power than "blank round".
With all that said, I would still pick the .45acp over a 9mm.
When I was younger, my friend's dad had one of them "Not Meant For TV" movies. In once scene, it showed a riot in some country, not sure where. Anyways, one of the rioters refused to move for the cops, so one cop with a shotgun, not sure what gauge but I would guess 12ga, points the gun at the rioter's gut at point blank range and fires.
The rioter did not fly back, he does not fall backwards, and he did not even really move. He just stood there for a few seconds, looks at his now bloody belly, calls out in pain and falls to his knees. I assume he dies, but it does not show any more of the footage.
I have also shot many squirrels with a 12ga, and never did I see one fly backwards. Now, granted that I used birdshot and not buckshot, but you would assume the difference would be small when fired at a small animal like a squirrel.
My point is, I no longer believe in the knock down power aspect of guns. I am sure some rounds have more force behind them, but I do not buy into the whole "blank round" has more knock down power than "blank round".
With all that said, I would still pick the .45acp over a 9mm.
ScottRiqui
New member
You're right to discount "knockdown power". It's a simple physics problem - in the collision between a bullet and a person, total momentum must be conserved. No matter how fast a bullet is traveling, it simply doesn't have enough momentum to change the victim's velocity from zero to anything appreciably above zero.
Quick example:
200 grain bullet traveling at 1000 feet per second, and 200 pound person not moving.
Initial momentum of the bullet is 200,000 gn-ft/sec
Initial momentum of the person is zero.
Assuming the bullet comes to rest inside the person rather than passing through, the final weight of the bullet/body system is 1,400,200 grains. The final momentum of the body/bullet combo must still be 200,000 gn-ft/sec.
This gives a final velocity for the bullet/body combination of (200,000 gn-ft/sec divided by 1,400,200 grains), or about .14 feet per second (a little under two inches per second).
So as you suspected, the impact of the bullet is barely going to make the person's body move, much less throw him backward off his feet.
Last edited:
scrubcedar
New member
Bluetrain, it's a great round, but that's not the point. It's not a magic death ray, that's the point.
When we got in GSW's what was hit was far more important than what hit them. We had a lot who were hit with .25acp rounds who squeeked through barely alive. Peripheral hits just weren't normally a threat.
I'm perfectly willing to admit my lack of experience firing different types of pistol rounds but it seems to me if all I can do with a more powerful cartridge is spray and pray, not hitting what I'm aiming at, it's time to find a different weapon/caliber.
If I put holes in his heart and lungs with a .380 and you put holes in his shoulder/arm with a .45 what is the coroner going to say killed him?
IMHO the best pistol round for you is the most powerful one you can accurately shoot multiple rounds with. If it's the .45 for you more power to you, but it still is more important what you hit than what you hit it with.
When we got in GSW's what was hit was far more important than what hit them. We had a lot who were hit with .25acp rounds who squeeked through barely alive. Peripheral hits just weren't normally a threat.
I'm perfectly willing to admit my lack of experience firing different types of pistol rounds but it seems to me if all I can do with a more powerful cartridge is spray and pray, not hitting what I'm aiming at, it's time to find a different weapon/caliber.
If I put holes in his heart and lungs with a .380 and you put holes in his shoulder/arm with a .45 what is the coroner going to say killed him?
IMHO the best pistol round for you is the most powerful one you can accurately shoot multiple rounds with. If it's the .45 for you more power to you, but it still is more important what you hit than what you hit it with.
Marquezj16
New member
Agreed.
But what if both hit the same location? Wouldn't a bigger caliber cause more damage?
scrubcedar
New member
You bet, Identical hits cause more damage with a bigger/more powerful round. Did that more powerful round slow down or make less accurate your follow up shot? One round is almost never enough. I can give you chapter and verse on the subject of how tough humans are. What about ammo capacity? We're all pretty well aware of what a low percentage of rounds fired in anger actually hit the target. Is one or two rounds less before a reload the line between your death and his? Shoot what you can consistently and repeatedly hit with. If it's a .45 great.
I'm in violent agreement with Scrubcedar in that what you hit is more important than the size of the projectile.
You have to hit your target to be effective.
You also have to hit some crucial or vital structure to stop a threat.
Any bullet that can penetrate to the far side of the body can be quickly lethal.
Realism 101 - My perspective
I'm a good shot. But I'm old and rusty and no longer competing in matches. But I'm still a good shot but by no means an "expert" shot. While I can make COM shots on paper, I know my skills and accuracy will suffer when I have to try to shoot a real, moving target. And they'll suffer even more if that target is trying to kill me. I know all this.
Still, I want the threat to end as quickly as possible. Ideally with one bullet. My aim isn't going to be perfect. My form will probably look silly as I'm trying to not be killed and screaming like a girl. Since I won't be able to place the shot with precision, bigger bullets are better. Bigger bullets mean bigger holes. That means an increased chance of damaging something important. Say, his descending aorta. Or inferior vena cava. A big bullet doesn't need to expand, but if it does it's just that much better. Bigger holes mean faster blood loss. That means I may not have to shoot him twice. Or four times.
I'd much rather have the cops looking at my downed assailant who has one hole in him rather than two - or four, or even seven. If the assailant dies, I'd rather the doctors tell police it was fatal because of where he was hit rather than the number of times he was hit.
If you shoot your best with a .380 or 9mm, then using it will probably serve you better than trying to use something bigger that you shoot less accurately.
You have to hit your target to be effective.
You also have to hit some crucial or vital structure to stop a threat.
Any bullet that can penetrate to the far side of the body can be quickly lethal.
Realism 101 - My perspective
I'm a good shot. But I'm old and rusty and no longer competing in matches. But I'm still a good shot but by no means an "expert" shot. While I can make COM shots on paper, I know my skills and accuracy will suffer when I have to try to shoot a real, moving target. And they'll suffer even more if that target is trying to kill me. I know all this.
Still, I want the threat to end as quickly as possible. Ideally with one bullet. My aim isn't going to be perfect. My form will probably look silly as I'm trying to not be killed and screaming like a girl. Since I won't be able to place the shot with precision, bigger bullets are better. Bigger bullets mean bigger holes. That means an increased chance of damaging something important. Say, his descending aorta. Or inferior vena cava. A big bullet doesn't need to expand, but if it does it's just that much better. Bigger holes mean faster blood loss. That means I may not have to shoot him twice. Or four times.
I'd much rather have the cops looking at my downed assailant who has one hole in him rather than two - or four, or even seven. If the assailant dies, I'd rather the doctors tell police it was fatal because of where he was hit rather than the number of times he was hit.
If you shoot your best with a .380 or 9mm, then using it will probably serve you better than trying to use something bigger that you shoot less accurately.
- Status