What are the Pros and Cons of the .45 ACP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9mm & .45ACP both deliver approximately the same amount of ft/lbs, so their recoil energies MUST be approximately the same.
Click to expand...

Energy has nothing to do with recoil. A 230 gr bullet at 850 fps has almost twice the recoil of a 124 gr bullet at 1200 fps. 7.7 ft lbs vs 4.7 ft lbs. Just for fun I calculated a 40 S&W shooting 180's at 1000 fps at about 6.5 ft lbs of recoil.

A 45 ACP has no pros unless you just want to own and shoot a caliber used by the US military for a long time. There has never been any test, study, or research showing it out performed any other handgun round. Most of the mythology of the 45 can be traced to the fictional writings of Jeff Cooper who had no data to back up any of his claims. But some people still believe it.

Lots of cons.
 
I don't really buy any hype at all, but view the cartridge pragmatically. It is an old design, but it is an inherently accurate one moving at a slower speed with more mass which is devastating to a human at close distances. The only reason to want high performance out of your .45 is if you're using hollow points for maximum expansion since you'll need high speeds. Most of us just go down a "few" grains in bullet weight to achieve this. I think in the modern world of hollow point ammunition technology, it's rendered much of the caliber debate moot. They will all perform terminally in tissue similarly. If we only have FMJs, I would pick .45 every time.

.40 is a bit snappy for me. It is very accurate ammunition, though, so there's that. I've yet to try it in a government size 1911 and maybe that would change my mind.

9mm is about the best option for the high speed low drag world we live in now. Modern HPs are fantastic performers and won't over penetrate like FMJs will. Typical pistol capacities in full size guns are very high. In reality, you will be shooting until your target goes down no matter the caliber of your gun, so 9mm is probably a better utilitarian choice.

Many of us own many different caliber guns so the caliber debate doesn't apply to us. We love them all.
 
jmr40 said:
Energy has nothing to do with recoil. A 230 gr bullet at 850 fps has almost twice the recoil of a 124 gr bullet at 1200 fps. 7.7 ft lbs vs 4.7 ft lbs. Just for fun I calculated a 40 S&W shooting 180's at 1000 fps at about 6.5 ft lbs of recoil.



A 45 ACP has no pros unless you just want to own and shoot a caliber used by the US military for a long time. There has never been any test, study, or research showing it out performed any other handgun round. Most of the mythology of the 45 can be traced to the fictional writings of Jeff Cooper who had no data to back up any of his claims. But some people still believe it.



Lots of cons.
Click to expand...


Well as someone else pointed out: recoil is subjective. If i am shooting 500+ rounds a day till my arms and Hands are tired? That matters. Personally I had no problems firing about 75 rounds with it and my hands and arms aren't tired. And the recoil wasn't even something I noticed.

What matters more to me is what it does to the target. And are you saying it doesn't have pros? I'm curious about that. Though I will say that there are some new ammo types for .45 ACP that may have changed that. They have a new round that fires 2 .45acp rounds in 1 cartridge lol. Depending on function, that is going be a hard hitter up close.
 
shaunpain said:
I don't really buy any hype at all, but view the cartridge pragmatically. It is an old design, but it is an inherently accurate one moving at a slower speed with more mass which is devastating to a human at close distances. The only reason to want high performance out of your .45 is if you're using hollow points for maximum expansion since you'll need high speeds. Most of us just go down a "few" grains in bullet weight to achieve this. I think in the modern world of hollow point ammunition technology, it's rendered much of the caliber debate moot. They will all perform terminally in tissue similarly. If we only have FMJs, I would pick .45 every time.



.40 is a bit snappy for me. It is very accurate ammunition, though, so there's that. I've yet to try it in a government size 1911 and maybe that would change my mind.



9mm is about the best option for the high speed low drag world we live in now. Modern HPs are fantastic performers and won't over penetrate like FMJs will. Typical pistol capacities in full size guns are very high. In reality, you will be shooting until your target goes down no matter the caliber of your gun, so 9mm is probably a better utilitarian choice.



Many of us own many different caliber guns so the caliber debate doesn't apply to us. We love them all.
Click to expand...


Which I agree. I'm mainly looking at this from a "what does the .45 ACP do and what can it not really do?" I know it is silly, and the question might have more tread if we were talking about...say...a 5.7 or 9x18 Makarov lol. But I have little experience with a .45 and shoot 9 and .38s almost exclusively.
 
Entertainment without wacking the hands to discomfort. Challenging to shoot quickly with its rolling recoil and no optics needed at 25 yrds to see hits/misses. Low cost lead works fine for most uses. IMO, able with a 45 makes able for many a handgun.
 
Last edited:
Since I started shooting NRA Bullseye last year, my respect for the 45 ACP round has increased. It is very easy to roll accurate ammunition. It is accurate over a wide range of velocities and bullets. With wadcutters, it makes a nice, big, clean hole. The M1911 was developed with this round, that pistol is wonderfully reliable in the 45 ACP and has been developed to an outstanding accuracy level. The round itself is short and stubby, and based on current thinking, that is the best shape for accuracy.

I have never shot anything living with the round, but I do believe that the bigger the hole the better, all things being considered.
 
9mm & .45ACP both deliver approximately the same amount of ft/lbs, so their recoil energies MUST be approximately the same.
Click to expand...
I said this, and I believe this.

Energy has nothing to do with recoil. A 230 gr bullet at 850 fps has almost twice the recoil of a 124 gr bullet at 1200 fps. 7.7 ft lbs vs 4.7 ft lbs. Just for fun I calculated a 40 S&W shooting 180's at 1000 fps at about 6.5 ft lbs of recoil.
Click to expand...

This, I do NOT understand. Could you explain your math, please???
 
Pros:
Accurate
Makes a bigger hole than 9mm
Widely available
Good potential for reloading
(Generally) subsonic

Cons:
Cost
Magazine capacity
Slower follow up shots
 
This, I do NOT understand. Could you explain your math, please???
Click to expand...

Recoil comes from conservation of momentum, which means that momentum of bullet + ejected gasses is equal to the momentum imparted on the gun.

So if you are, eg. (using metric units because lazy European, also ignoring gasses), launching 10 gram bullets at 300 m/s (with a KE of 450 joules or something) and 5 gram bullets at 425 m/s (with a KE of something like 452 joules), the gun firing heavier ammo will recoil more, because the momentum of the first is 3 Ns versus 2.13 Ns of the second, even though the second has a touch higher kinetic energy.

However, higher pressure, faster rounds have a 'snappier' recoil and are louder so there's that, too. The older rounds designed for blackpowder-like pressures are easier on the ears.
 
Last edited:
Let me add to Branko's comments.

Newton's Third Law of motion: Everything that goes out the barrel has a momentum property that, when totaled must equal the momentum imparted to the gun. If we know the mass of the gun, the classical relationship between momentum and kinetic energy is then used to compute the kinetic energy imparted to the gun. This "translational Kinetic Energy" for the gun becomes what some like to term as "free recoil" of the gun. It is easier to do this in metrics so the free recoil comes out in the units of Joules.

I think the origination of 44 Amps thinking is that of muzzle energies, where bullet mass plays a smaller role than the velocity squared. Unfortunately, Newton's third law does not state muzzle energy is equal to the guns imparted kinetic energy. It is the "momentum's" that are equal, thus to compute imparted free recoil of the gun, we must use "momentum" where mass of the bullet relates to velocity but not squared, thus the bullet mass becomes much more of a factor in computing the guns recoil.

I can do some sample calculations if you wish. Heck, if I can remember where it is, a few years ago I posted some three-d plots somewhere on this forum for free recoil versus gun weight versus caliber for about every caliber then around. The problem is making that data useful. Here is the rub: free recoil can be rather precisely calculated. But I know of NO math trick that will turn "free recoil" into "felt recoil".
 
44 Amp said:
This, I do NOT understand. Could you explain your math, please???
Click to expand...

As other's have stated, momentum and not energy is what determines recoil. Momentum is conserved, kinetic energy is not.

Couple of examples of recoil calculations of guns from 1963 Schaum's Engineering Outline. Notice that kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 MV^2) is not involved:

rp-1.jpg
 
jmr40 said:
A 45 ACP has no pros unless you just want to own and shoot a caliber used by the US military for a long time. There has never been any test, study, or research showing it out performed any other handgun round. Most of the mythology of the 45 can be traced to the fictional writings of Jeff Cooper who had no data to back up any of his claims. But some people still believe it.

Lots of cons.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh pro's....the one stop shot statistical analysis, old now, showed 45 much better than 9mm....why....here, look at this in detail

9x19 best round.....7" @ 13.5" for 9mm

45 auto best.......85" at 14"

If your eyes are open, you can see that is Much more effective....they also have video, if that helps you.

Sure, we can argue about gelatin testing....ok, look at the statistics....but then those are arguable, then look at the testing.

9mm becomes effective when you start thinking about multiple rounds on target; weak wristed shooters; small hands; high capacity....many of those are mutually exclusive.....so, make mine a 45 auto.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt that someone with a .45 is noticeably more effective then someone with a 9mm, or a .38. I think a century of use has proven all of the above as effective as far as handguns can be effective.

Mind you, I have a thing too for things which start in .4, but I don't think about it in the terms of "better" or "worse", but rather in terms of "I like it better".
 
It hits hard, makes big holes, is generally very accurate, available in semi auto and revolvers.

Con....................................................................................
 
I think the fact that you can't fit 15+ rounds in a magazine is about the biggest con. But realistically for most people that isn't a huge detriment. Also you will never see a Ruger LCP chambered in a .45.

For all practical purposes the round is just as effective or maybe more so than others common rounds. The heavy weight of the bullet makes shooting 100 yard shots harder, but again not a concern for most people.

9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP are all good rounds otherwise they would have fallen to the wayside.
 
Momentum is conserved in a collision but kinetic energy is the number most widely used by Gunwriters when they are shilling for the industry. It is difficult to increase momentum as momentum is mass times velocity. It is easy to increase kinetic energy because kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared. Just a little increase in velocity and the KE goes up by the square. Therefore with a small pressure increase Gunwriters are able to claim massive "improvements" in lethality because the KE increased by a large margin.

To me, momentum feels a better predictor of lethality than kinetic energy, and I have read any number of articles by proponents of either side, I am getting to be of the opinion that momentum and KE do not provide good models for predicting lethality. I am falling into the Dr Martin Flackler camp. One of his excellent articles is WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

I agree with his premise that if it breathes, and it bleeds, if it bleeds enough, it will die. Create a large enough through hole, promote blood loss, and the target will die quickly. So I am back to believing that large holes are better, all things being equal, to small holes, but for different reasons. The better bullet provides a wide crush space, a longer through hole, and these factors promote massive blood loss.
 
Which I agree. I'm mainly looking at this from a "what does the .45 ACP do and what can it not really do?" I know it is silly, and the question might have more tread if we were talking about...say...a 5.7 or 9x18 Makarov lol. But I have little experience with a .45 and shoot 9 and .38s almost exclusively.
Click to expand...

It's a handgun round, so what it does is poke small holes in people, which if placed in the right areas will shut off important functions of the body and eventually incapacitate somebody. Shot placement will probably be an important factor in determining how quickly that will happen. As will the amount of holes that you poke.

What it MIGHT do, is cause somebody to FALL down, either because you destroyed something they needed to continue standing, or because their brain tells them "You just got shot, it's time to die".

What it WONT do, is blow people in half or "knock" them off of their feet.

Pros: It, like it's brothers the 9mm and .40, is a good centerfire handgun that is going to be about as effective as any handgun round can be (unless that guy who rolls around with a .45-70 BFR on your hip). It, like it's brothers the 9mm and .40 is chambered in just about any platform you could want by reputable manufacturers who make quality products. It, unlike it's brothers (I know there are several exceptions to this), is what 1911s are normally chambered in. It also does have a rich history, and generally carries more "WOW" factor to people who's gun expertise comes solely from watching TV and playing Call of Duty.

Cons: Bullets cost more, you will generally have a lower magazine capacity, and more recoil, which usually translates to slower follow up shots. Also because of the diminished magazine capacity and increased recoil, most good gun manufacturers will offer more compact CCW guns in 9mm or .380 than they will in .45. Hence the reason I doubt there will be a "Glock 44" chambered in .45. But hey, you never know.

Also, remember that recoil management doesn't have anything to do with being able to fire a gun, or even hitting things with it. We've all seen the youtube videos of the guy dual wielding .500s. It's about your ability to quickly bring that gun back on target, fire accurate follow up shots, and do it consistently. Some people can do that just as easily with a .45 as a 9mm. Some can't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top