The .45 acp in combat

Now in the civillian world and in law enforcement all anyone has to say about the .45 acp fmj is to complain about how it is such a bad round to use.

Why is this?

Hype, media, good advertising methods all contribute to this. Buy the more expensive HP rounds, they cost the same or less to make so we make more mantra. :)

Every large animal I ever shot with one died right there, well so did the ones were shot with a .22 ........

They work every time in my springer loaded so why mess with perfection? I do not doubt their effectiveness as a SD round. Not one bit. This gives me confidence in my weapon. I know it will go bang when needed.
 
The enemy has better equipment (guns that shoot faster, has thicker armor and more of everything).

Not since 1966, when I first enlisted, I dont recall any of my comrads saying that.

The guns we used to have was a lot better than what we have now

Again, not so, based on my experience and those of my comrads in arms.

You shouldn't be shooting so the enemy can't find your position (although he has you "pinned down" with fire.

Not really, the more rounds (firepower) out going, the less that is incoming.

Our troops are operating too far from home (so you'd rather fight in your backyard?).

No Sir, from what I've see wars and combat does to an area, I want it in someone else's back yard, not mine. I'm for doing everything possible to keep my family from being exposed to what I've seen.

Worse thing that ever happened in my life was when my wife got activated and sent to this war. All I knew of war was from SE Asia, it drove me nuts until I got on a plane and flew to the Middle East and saw how much differant it was. I felt a lot better, but even then I stayed with her until she came home.

You betcha, I'm all for keeping wars in someone else back yard.
 
I think a little history lesson is in order here. .45's were first adopted by the U.S. Military in the 19th century. Back then it was not the .45 ACP but rather the .45 Long Colt and .45 S&W Schofield cartridges. Part of the reason that the army chose such guns was because, in the days of blackpowder and relatively low velocities, the big, heavy slugs were effective not only on people but also on horses (remember the primary users of handguns were the cavalry).

Fast forward a few years to 1892, the army and navy decide that they want a more modern DA revolver and they choose the Colt M1892 in .38 Long Colt, a rather aneimic cartridge by todays standards. At first, the .38 is satisfactory in dealing with the Spanish. Theodore Roosevelt said that the Spaniard he shot with his .38 at San Juan Hill "crumpled like a jackrabbit". However, a few years later trouble arises when opium-fueled Moros don't seem to crumple when shot with .38's. To be fair, issues were also encountered when the Moros were shot with 30-40 Krag rifles as well, but the handguns recieve the most attention.

It is decided that the .45 is to be re-adopted and it is for a short time in the Colt M1909 New Service revolver. A couple of years later, John Browning comes along with this new-fangled semi-automatic handgun which fires a cartridge that give nearly identical performace to the .45 revolvers. The army decides that they like it and the 1911 pistol is adopted. All is good since there isn't any sort of armor than stops bullets very well and the cavalry is still alive though in its twighlight. Everyone is happy through WWI.

Now we're into the 1920's and 1930's and we start to have some problems. The .45, while still good for people, is starting to have problems when those people are gangsters or bankrobbers sitting inside these new fangled automobiles. A couple of different solutions to the problem are devised. Colt chambers their 1911 for a new cartridge called .38 Super which has little trouble going through these new fangled autos and S&W introduces the most powerful handgun yet devised with their .357 Magnum revolver.

Now, we get to 1935 and John Browning yet again comes into the picture. That crafty old JMB produces what is probably the greatest enemy to the 1911 he fathered: the GP35 Hi-Power. This gun uses that infernal Teutonic 9mm cartridge but gee-wiz it carries almost twice as many of them as the 1911 does. Those silly Europeans seem to like that sort of thing, but we still like our .45's so we stay with them.

A few years go by an now we get to 1941 and this big, old mess called WWII. We need lots of guns so we make lots of them including lots and lots of shiny new 1911's in .45. We still like them OK, but we start to notice some things that we hadn't thought of before. Those pesky Nazi's like to wear steel helmets and sometimes our nice slow .45 bullets don't go through them. Likewise, that danged old Tojo likes to send lots and lots of Japanese soldiers and sometimes seven of those big, old .45's just aren't enough. Well we beat those pesky Nazi's and that danged old Tojo anyway but now those big, mean Russians are looking kind of scary.

Now we get together with some of those silly Europeans and decide to make an alliance in case those big, mean Russians do something nasty. We call this alliance NATO and we decide that it would be smart for all of us to use the same kind of ammo. Wouldn't you know it, those silly Europeans seem to like that wierd Teutonic 9mm and we start to think about it. Those big, mean Russians seem to like to send lots of people like that danged old Tojo did and they wear steel helmets and big, thick coats like those pesky Nazi's did. This wierd 9mm seems to be able to go through steel helmets and big, thick coats better than our nice, slow .45's and we can have lots more of them in case there are a lot of big, mean Russians. We decide that maybe the Europeans aren't as silly as we thought they were and that maybe this wierd 9mm isn't so bad since we can't find anymore horses to shoot. The problem is, we want new rifles and machineguns too and we've already got this shiny new 1911's. Well, we decide that we'd rather have new rifles and machineguns so we'll just keep those shiny new 1911's until they wear out.

Now we skip ahead about 20 years and we're in this nasty place called Vietnam. These funny little guys in black pajamas seem to like to fight with us, but they don't wear steel helmets or big, thick coats like those big, mean Russians do so our .45's still seem to work OK on them. The only problem is that lots of those shiny new 1911's aren't so shiny and new anymore and by another 20 years later, they're old and worn out.

By 1985, we're out of that stinky, old jungle and worried about those big, mean Russians again. Since we need some new pistols anyway and we have this nice President Reagan that doesn't mind if we spend some money on the military, we decide we can finally buy those 9mm's that we wanted 20 years ago. Most of us like these new fangled Berettas except a few old guys that say they don't feel as nice as those old 1911's did.

Now, we fast forward another 5 years and those big, bad Russians aren't so big and bad anymore. However, now we're in this hot sandy place called Kuwait and we start having some problems with our nice, new Berettas. Seems that some of our soldiers are using some big, bad ammo that those silly Europeans use in their submachineguns. That nasty stuff is breaking our shiny new Berettas so we decide that we should only use nice, mild stuff that won't hurt our nice, new guns.

Now we skip ahead another 10 years and we're back in some hot, sandy places called Afghanistan and Iraq. We have to fight these crazy little dudes who like to say "death to America" and talk about 70 virgins all the time. Sometimes when we shoot these little dudes with our nice, soft 9mm's that won't hurt our Berettas, they don't just roll over and die like they should. Now, our soldiers, who sometimes like to gripe anyway, start thinking about the stories that their dads, grandpappys, and that old drunk who stood on the corner told about how great the .45 worked on Nazi's, Japanese, and Viet Cong. They start to think, "hey, if I had a .45 like dad, grandpappy, and the old drunk did, it'd be a death ray." So, they start to engage in one of their favorite passtimes: they gripe about the 9mm. What they unfortunately don't realize is that over time, dad, grandpappy, and the old drunk forgot that every once in a while, that Nazi, Japanese, or Viet Cong would have to be shot more than once even with the "death ray" .45 and that sometimes you had to use a rifle in order to dissuade the Nazi/Jap/VC from his current course of action.

So, what's the lesson to be learned from this? A handgun loaded with FMJ ammo sucks. A handgun loaded with JHP ammo doesn't suck quite as bad, but it still sucks. If you have to shoot someone, use a rifle or a shotgun. If you don't have a rifle or a shotgun, use the less-sucktacular JHP ammo in your handgun and remember that the BG might require repeat ventilation before he sees the error of his ways. If all you have is the super-sucktacular FMJ ammo, expect to have to ventilate the BG more than once before he re-evaluates his outlook on life (or perhaps death considering he's been ventilated).
 
Having fired quite a bit of that "soft shooting 9mm" I would say you might be a little misinformed or at least exaggerating. The Nato 9mm is and has always been on the warm side. Most of the Beretta slide failures were in Special Forces who were indeed using much hotter SMG ammo. It wasn't the rank and file using the regular Nato stuff.

From what I remember, the slide failures were also largely attributed to a French contract where they made the slides out of spec.

Just trying to keep things accurate. Back to the 45. While I served in the Marine Corps I heard a LOT of complaints about the 1911 (accuracy, reliability, worn out parts, etc.....) but not much about the 45acp. I carried the Beretta 9mm for years and I qualified expert with it 5 times. It served me just fine.
 
Having fired quite a bit of that "soft shooting 9mm" I would say you might be a little misinformed or at least exaggerating. The Nato 9mm is and has always been on the warm side. Most of the Beretta slide failures were in Special Forces who were indeed using much hotter SMG ammo. It wasn't the rank and file using the regular Nato stuff.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear, the "soft shooting 9mm" I was referring to is "soft shooting" in comparison to the SMG ammo like Hirtenberger 124grn +P+. Also, while it is warmer than your run-of-the mill WWB target ammo, the U.S. Military issue 9mm ammo isn't as hot as a lot of the commercial self-defense ammo that we have available to us.

Just trying to keep things accurate. Back to the 45. While I served in the Marine Corps I heard a LOT of complaints about the 1911 (accuracy, reliability, worn out parts, etc.....) but not much about the 45acp. I carried the Beretta 9mm for years and I qualified expert with it 5 times. It served me just fine.

I've heard complaints about the 1911 and .45 as a combo from my grandfather who is a WWII veteran. While he did not have extensive experience with the pistol (he was issued a M1903 Springfield and later an M1 Garand) he did say that he thought it had overly heavy recoil and that he never could hit much with one. Of course, he said the same things about the Thompson and Browning M2 as well.

I have, however, heard similar complaints from other veterans. My Uncle, who was a M2 machinegunner in the National Guard during the 60's, was issued a 1911 and also said that he had a difficult time shooting it accurately due to the recoil. Also, I remember seeing an interview with a WWII Army Ranger on the History Channel some years ago who mentioned the .45's "terrible kick" and that you had to "aim low" in order to compensate for it.

Personally, I've never felt that either the 9mm or .45 has overly heavy recoil even when shot with +P or +P+ ammunition, but then again I do a lot more shooting with .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum revolvers so perhaps I'm biased.
 
Last edited:
Remind me to nominate Webleymkv for best post of 2010 when time comes for that. History of US handguns in a single post. Well done, sir.
 
Regarding hard to shoot - uncle in the 60's... wasn't that was still in the old-style, one handed sideways stance? I find 45's easy to shoot and 1911 easy to shoot well. A buddy, former army and deputy shot them in the army and hated them. Became a SIG man. He shot mine at the range and now has three 1911's.

I like 45acp, as I find it accurate and makes a big hole with or without using a HP. If a mag has FMJ rather than HP's do I feel under gunned - no. I like HP for their ability to expand and hopefully reduce penetration.
 
Last edited:
Been around soldiers much?????

No, they were always in the rear in Nam. Semper Fi Do or die. USMC

Just kidding....really....kidding....almost....no really

Of course you do know God made Paratroopers so Marines would have heros.
 
As an Army veteran I think the Army does at best a barely adequate job of teaching rifle marksmanship and a very poor one of teaching pistol marksmanship. During my 4 years of AD 1967-1971 I received NO pistol training, period. I carried an M1911A1 when I was an M-60 gunner, since I already owned one I had learned to field strip and clean it ON MY OWN before I went across the Pond- I had never handled an M-60 before, by the way. My M1911A1 worked fine for me when I had to use it. Later I carried one as a companion to my M-79 when I was in the 12th Engineer Battalion, again, NO training or range sessions-never fired the M-79, either. I think the military is always looking for gadgets and gimmicks to compensate for lack of training
and small arms proficiency. Part of the push for wondernines for LEOs is the idea that you put enough lead in the air, you'll hit somebody.
Yes, military people do love to whine and complain. When I became an officer
I noted that the quality of the enlisted men was a favorite topic and conversation-they never measured up, of course.
 
A bud of mine used to work at an Army Depot rebuilding firearms. He was also shipped out to locations to rebuild unit firearms.

He told me of one unit that had recently returned from Iraqi. Their M92's were beat up. The unit was using a +P+ Federal Hydroshocks, because FMJ just was not working well. I got the idea that +P+ was marginally better.

When you are dealing with suicide bombers who really believe that they are finally going to have sex with girls, just after they blow themselves and you to kingdom come, our guys need more than just marginal cartridges. And the 9mm just ain’t hacking it.

Hard to know what a 45ACP would do, but I believe it is a step in the right direction.
 
Now in the civillian world and in law enforcement all anyone has to say about the .45 acp fmj is to complain about how it is such a bad round to use.

In combat, you usualy don't care if the round overpenetrates and hits some unknown person down range. In law enforcement and self defense, you do.
 
The cartridge/pistol combination was quite successful but not satisfactory for U.S. military purposes. Over the next few years a series of improved designs were offered, culminating in the adoption in 1911 of the "Cal. .45 Automatic Pistol Ball Cartridge, Model of 1911", a 1.273 inch cartridge with a bullet weight of 230 grains. The very first production, at Frankford Arsenal, was marked "F A 8 11", for the August 1911 date.
And the link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP

This is, of course, just a quick search and it doesn't show the exact date. Looks like 100 years might be this August!

28 March 1911 is the date in this article for the adoption of the pistol.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm#test
 
Originally posted by pinetree
Regarding hard to shoot - uncle in the 60's... wasn't that was still in the old-style, one handed sideways stance?

I honestly don't know how he was taught to shoot back then, it was before I was born. I do know that these days he uses a more modern two-handed stance while my grandfather still uses the one-handed sideways stance.
 
Regarding difficult to shoot, the Navy taught the old one-handed sideways stance in 1970, and pistol training was limited to two days. IIRC, we got three days on the Garand, so they weren't big on small arms training... :)

Regarding adoption dates, it looks like some references are for the adoption of some variation of the .45 ACP cartridge and other references are for the adoption of the 1911 pistol itself. I guess either can be celebrated, as both are great.
 
As you all probably know, there is some controversy about shooting styles for handguns, there being different concepts of realistic handgun combat ranges. But I think it is still appropriate to train or practice using a handgun with one hand. After all, everyone (but me) on this forum claims that you will only have one hand handy when the time comes. But enough of handguns.

Civilians who shoot at indoor ranges tend to be overly handgun focused and imagine that the handgun is a serious combat weapon for the army. It might be indispensible now and then but it hasn't been a serious combat weapon since soldiers rode into battle on horses and even then there were wide variations in its use. But all armies issue some sort of pistol because there is a need for one. But there usually isn't much time devoted to training with pistols.

Training with weapons doesn't stop with basic. In fact, it intensifies after that, though not necessarily with small arms. Only with "large" arms there's a lot more to learn than just shooting them and the shooting itself can be quite involved. One might even say a 105mm howitizer is hand-loaded on the spot. That's a misleading statement but imagine how much you have to learn if you become a tank crewman. As my son put it, changing the air filter on an M1 tank involves a lot of heavy lifting and cursing. And tank gunnery these days is closely related to video games. Some of the exercises you go through are totally unexpected, too, or they were to me. I never would have expected that training on a 105mm howitizer would have included direct fire on a moving target but it did. I don't even recall if there was shooting at a moving target in basic.

Then, when you reach your unit, they teach you all over again what you really have to know. I wound up in a division headquarters. We had a room full of .45 autos. We also had a lot of machine guns but I have no idea if anyone in the unit knew how to handle one. Probably the chaplain's assistant.
 
Back
Top