Why does Law Enforcement not like the .45?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Female officers are one reason my Dept. chose the 9MM over the .40 SW several years ago, as I was told by an Administrator. Some simply cannot handle the increased recoil, muzzle blast, etc., in a light polymer frame and "we want everyone to be able to qualify". Yeah, ok. Unfortunately, there are some who struggle today with the 9MM. Perhaps next time we upgrade, in order to make sure everyone is comfortable and not intimidated, we can swap in the 9MM's and issue Saunders Wrist Rocket Slingshots, along with marshmellows for ammo. They recently shortened the range from 25 to 18 yards... as certain people, mostly females, had trouble qualifing. Seems to be the standard today in our society, dumb everything down to the lowest level, no stress, no accountability... everyone gets a trophy! Lol! That being said, one female, a tiny firecracker and a damn good officer, is a crack shot and puts me to shame every time we shoot together. I don't think its physical size that matters, but mindset and skill, a certain type of personality. Unfortunately that certain type of personality is not one of the quotas that are desirable during the application and interview process.
 
Last edited:
Female officers are one reason my Dept. chose the 9MM over the .40 SW several years ago, as I was told by an Administrator. Some simply cannot handle the increased recoil, muzzle blast, etc., in a light polymer frame and "we want everyone to be able to qualify". Yeah, ok. Unfortunately, there are some who struggle today with the 9MM. Perhaps next time we upgrade, in order to make sure everyone is comfortable and not intimidated, we can swap in the 9MM's and issue Saunders Wrist Rocket Slingshots, along with marshmellows for ammo. They recently shortened the range from 25 to 18 yards... as certain people, mostly females, had trouble qualifing. Seems to be the standard today in our society, dumb everything down to the lowest level, no stress, no accountability... everyone gets a trophy!
Click to expand...

Good post.

Yep, it's the "wuddle hands" syndrome, or formula ... :rolleyes: Departments & agencies should issue the troops that which is comfortable for quals and an "easy carry" in the holster for the shift.

That being said, one female, a tiny firecracker and a damn good officer, is a crack shot and puts me to shame every time we shoot together. I don't think its physical size that matters, but mindset and skill, a certain type of personality.
Click to expand...

She's the exception that proves the rule. The skillful recruits and veterans don't require the selection of a "dumbed-down" duty cartridge. Skewed L.E. hiring policies do.
 
Last edited:
"The military was hugely disappointed with both the 1911 and the 45 after WW-2 and wanted to adopt 9mm at that time."

No, actually, the military was not hugely disappointed with the .45. Consideration was given to replacing it with 9mm due to political considerations of adopting standard arms and armaments with our European allies.

The military also wasn't hugely disappointed with the 1911, they simply recognized that technology had moved forward and now there were more options in handgun design.
 
"Yep, it was the 45 COLT that was brought into service to defeat the tribesmen."

and

"It was brought back into service temporarily. It was the issue cartridge from 1873 to 1887."


No, it wasn't.

The .45 Colt cartridge was standard issue by the US military for about 3 years.

After that, it was not issued again and was replaced by the .45 Smith & Wesson cartridge.

In service it was found that the .45 Colt cartridge, as originally loaded, was simply more powerful than was needed.

When S&W entered the fray with its No. 3 revolver, it also entered the .45 S&W, a shorter cartridge with a slightly lighter bullet and a reduced powder charge.

That cartridge standard was issued for the rest of the .45's life, and was the cartridge that was reissued in the Philippines.


What many people don't realize, however, is that the .45 revolver and its cartridge was also not assured of bringing down a pissed off Moro tribesman. For that matter, neither was the .45-70 rifle or the .30-40 Krag.

About the most effective weapon available for stopping a Moro was a Winchester 12-gauge pump shotgun, but most of those were provided to the Philippine Constabulary.
 
One final point...

As originally developed and adopted by the US military, the .45 Auto round does NOT duplicate the performance of the .45 Colt cartridge.

It's less powerful than the military .45 Colt revolver cartridge.

The .45 Auto very closely matches the power of the .45 Smith & Wesson cartridge, which was loaded with a 230-gr. bullet to a velocity of about 800 fps.

Original military .45 Colt loads for the Peacemaker revolver were loaded with a 255-gr. bullet to a velocity of about 950 fps., making it significantly more powerful than either the .45 S&W or the .45 ACP as both were used in military service.
 
I've had two well over six feet tall males tell me that they shot a 1911 and it damn near tore their arms off. I've seen older women blaze away with 1911s and a 13 year old young lady humble males with her skill with a full sized 9mm.

The original questions one of those that are just endless repetition from the Internet fanboy base. Why can't we use more stopping power because of some gun cliche nonsense? The issue has been studied professionally and that info is out there. The modern 9mm works just fine, is easier to shoot for all, and that's that.

Why do we ask it again and again with the same old Moro crap cliches? Cranky - yep.
 
After that, it was not issued again and was replaced by the .45 Smith & Wesson cartridge.
Click to expand...
Mike, Would it be accurate to say that handguns chambered in .45Colt were brought back into temporary service and that .45Colt chambered handguns were military issue from 1873 to 1887?

I get that after the initial few years they switched to the S&W cartridge but the guns that went to the Philippines, and many of the ones issued from 1873 to 1887 were marked .45Colt, were they not?
 
Yes, they were chambered in .45 Colt, but they were not supplied with .45 Colt ammunition.

The were supplied with M1887 ball cartridges, which merged elements of both rounds into a single offering.

As for whether or not they were marked .45 Colt specifically as the cartridge designation, I not 100% sure, but the few I've been able to find online don't seem to have been so marked.

I find it more likely that they would have been marked simply with a caliber -- .45.
 
Yup. It was for the Schofield cavalry revolvers and is sometime referred to as the .45 Schofield cartridge. The U.S. military had revolvers in both calibers and standardized with the shorter round for simplicity.

That led to a situation where the Colt .45 revolver (Single Action Army/1873/Peacemaker) was the standard issue sidearm for the Army but the standard cartridge used in it was the .45 S&W/Schofield/M1887 Ball
 
Bill Jordan said the 38 Special was the most powerful round the ordinary man-i.e. 90% of us-could hope to master. Charlie Askins and Jim Cirillo used the 38 Special. Again, only the hits count.
 
If I remember correctly didn't that occasionally result in some soldiers with Schofields getting 45 Colt ammo they couldn't use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"If I remember correctly didn't that occasionally result in some soldiers with Schofields getting 45 Colt ammo they couldn't use?"

Possibly, but realistically, no.

By the time the Schofields were "issued" on a limited basis after testing, the Army had already adopted the .45 S&W round and was issuing it exclusively.

After about 1875/76, .45 Colt ammunition was not issued at all, and any remaining stores were either distributed for training or were destroyed.
 
If it were up to me, the 10mm (full power loads) would be all that L.E. carried. I carried it for many years until the dept insurance co. Made us standardize. Since Chief did not want to lose all his female officers, we got 9mm.
 
reynolds357 If it were up to me, the 10mm (full power loads) would be all that L.E. carried. I carried it for many years until the dept insurance co. made us standardize. Since Chief did not want to lose all his female officers, we got 9mm.
Click to expand...

Man, ... does that suck majorly or what? :rolleyes:
 
reynolds357 said:
If it were up to me, the 10mm (full power loads) would be all that L.E. carried. I carried it for many years until the dept insurance co. Made us standardize. Since Chief did not want to lose all his female officers, we got 9mm.
Click to expand...

The reality and effects of "disparate impact" lawsuits make this a pipe dream (but you knew that ;) ).

That's notwithstanding the questionable "ballistic advantage" of the faster moving .40 round (10mm Auto, or 10mm Norma, however far back your appreciation for it goes) ) as a service cartridge.

After all, even the original proponent of the 10mm Auto, Jeff Cooper, didn't initially envision the hotter iteration produced by Norma. Cooper envisioned the 10mm Auto as being pretty much ideal using a 200gr/1000fps cartridge.

Not every "average" handgun shooter (also meaning not every "average" cop) could probably competently and accurately utilize a 175gr/1300 or 200gr/1200 "service load" in a 10mm, just like not everyone back in the revolver days could shoot a .357 Magnum as well, meaning as controllably or as accurately, as a .38 Spl/.38Spl +P.

I get your meaning, though. I was always a proponent of wanting to require everyone to be able to handle .357 MAG, but that just wasn't the case, and eventually the use of .38 Spl +P was "standard" for quals, and the guys carrying .44 MAG on-duty were allowed to use .44 Spl for quals.

If wishes were horses ... ;)
 
This conversation is somewhat confusing to me.

I have 1911's in 9mm, 40, and 45acp.

They all feel about the same to me, recoil-wise.

Maybe it's just because LE agencies issue lighter-weight handguns?
 
This conversation is somewhat confusing to me.
* * *
Maybe it's just because LE agencies issue lighter-weight handguns?
Click to expand...

Or, ... maybe it's because they're preferenced to hire mostly less-capable humans? :rolleyes:
 
IMHO, here some of the reasons for avoiding a .45 in LEO department circles:

Effectiveness of smaller rounds, (9mm or .40 S&W), has been enhanced by the introduction of better hollow point bullets. While we can argue the validity of the testing and results, most of the data that I've seen leans in this direction, and that's what department decision makers are using for input.
Heavier recoil in the .45 than a 9mm or .40: this makes training to proficiency tougher.
Limited capacity in guns that have a grip size usable by smaller framed LEO's
Reduced magazine capacity...
Increased cost of ammunition, both in service as well as training varieties.
Public acceptance....45's may raise the perception in the public mind that our LEO's are carrying "cannons".

The shift to .40 caliber guns decades ago, answered some of the objections, albeit marginally.

Recoil, while measurably less than a .45, is still a factor, especially in the 180 gr. loads, while muzzle blast, at least in examples I've shot, is definitely greater.
Capacity is greater, but not up to the levels of a 9mm, but this too, comes at a cost, as the grip size is considerably bigger than a single stack .45. For example, my Sig P226 and M11A1 are every bit as big as any .45 I've shot with a double stack mag well.
Ammunition cost is lower than a .45, however, about mid-way between 9mm and .45 here abouts.
It does seem that public acceptance of .40's in the hands of police, has not resulted in any measurable backlash, at least in the law abiding community.

HTH's Rod
 
Where has anyone come up with the idea that cops don't like the .45 ACP?

That last duty gun I've carried was a .45 ACP.

The 9MM is good, .40 S&W is better, the .45 ACP is king.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top