.45 ACP vs. everything else

45acp has to be the round I shoot the absolute best, most accurate for me because I don't flinch, squint in anticipation of pain and without ear protection it's a nice round boom, non violent recoil and even my wife shoots the hell out of it. Accurate followup shots. Nice to reload, lots of ammo, bullet choices.

Whether a 1911 or my Governor it's just a pleasure and that makes me shoot it a little more effectively than anything else. Optimized state of the art 45ACP ammo really makes this an effective round.

Watch the ballistic gel, denim and leather penetration tests and compare to other calibers and it's clearly a great round. And the Hornady Critical Defense ammo is one of those new optimized ammos. It penetrates 4 layers of denim and leather then expands to twice it's diameter with a huge wide wound path and all the energy in the bad guys chest. There are nice comparisons of all brands in slow motion video and very clearly the damage is at the top of the ranking for every round they test. Sure some of the magnums are a little more explosive in how they expand through the gel but the 45acp is right up there at the top.
 
The fact is simple. People use calibers other than .45acp only because they do not have anything else or do not want to learn how to shoot a real gun.

Many respected gun writers and gun commentators agree that the 1911 in .45acp is easier to shoot than the other calibers.
 
Last edited:
When you walk out that door, choose the best feeling, most accurate, and very best looking....
springfieldloaded.jpg
 
.45acp works great for me!!! Although I do summer carry a 9mm. A .45 compact is in my future.

To the OP nice collection, very jealous!!
 
I've only owned 2 .45ACP handguns in my life, a Sig/Sauer P220 and a Detonics Combat Master. Both were fine guns but I have sold them both and now find myself armed with 2 9mms now, a Beretta 92F and an Argentine Hi-Power, along with a S&W 28-2. I don't feel under-gunned with a 9mm or .357 magnum, and with today's modern bullet designs, anyone IMHO who thinks that nothing but a .45ACP will get the job done is harboring a deep prejudice, as well as a bit more than a little ignorance.


It's all about hitting your target, and if you do it best with a 1911/.45ACP, then go for it. My Beretta is what I shoot best with, and armed with it I am a formidable opponent in a gunfight, same with my Highway Patrolman. I hope I never have to find out the "hard way", but if I must, then I have complete confidence in myself and my weapons.

And that's all I have to say about that...
 
To each his own. Emotion notwithstanding, it takes time to learn to use a handgun effectively. The facts are that lots and lots of folks are not fanatically devoted to learning how to use a handgun with utmost facility but are rather just plain old folks who want/need a handgun that will work effectively to meet their particular needs. Long ago, I was one of those folks. I started with a .45 ACP. Fine. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. With little money... I couldn't afford to practice enough to learn how to handle the round well. Got a 9mm S&W M-59. Immediate improvement in accuracy. Hits count. Cool. Now it is 32 years later. I've had lots of experience shooting a variety of handguns. I have a 625-2 that I enjoy. But on the bedside table one will find a Glock 22RTF. It is simply a better choice. Again, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, people are not bullet proof. They don't typically go around carrying a car door or windshield in front of them. Most of them do not weigh +300lbs. and bench press 800lbs. Even if they're as big as William "Refrigerator" Perry, they go down when hit properly. And it really doesn't matter what flavor of the day the round happens to be. On two occasions I've had need to use a handgun. Thankfully in neither instance did I have to fire. In neither instance did the assailant critic my choice of handgun or the caliber or the particular load, etc. In each case they just seemed to focus on the end of the gun that was pointed at them. Apparently they were both impressed that the pistol was pointed directly at them and that there was no indication that there would be any hesitation in using that pistol if needed. I'm currently looking around and will possibly buy another 1911 type pistol. But then I'm also thinking about a Sig P-226 in 9mm. If I buy one or the other, either one will be a fine pistol chambered for a fine round. Neither one is a one shot stopper unless the person using the pistol is a one shot stopper. JMHO.
 
If all one wants to do is punch holes in paper, then get a .22 and do it really cheap.

If one wants to depend on a gun to save lives, then get a bigger gun. I have a poster in my office that shows a .45 and with writing below the photo saying, "it is silly to shoot twice."
 
If all one wants to do is punch holes in paper, then get a .22 and do it really cheap.

If one wants to depend on a gun to save lives, then get a bigger gun. I have a poster in my office that shows a .45 and with writing below the photo saying, "it is silly to shoot twice."


The .45 ACP is not a death ray that will automatically stop an opponent in a gunfight, despite the mythical aura created about it.

In today's society an armed attacker may very well be in a chemically-induced state where more than one shot is required. In such a case having more than 7 rounds onboard may be a good thing. More than one shot may be required to stop the fight, silly or not. The point is not to shoot until you think they are done, it is to shoot until THEY think they are done. If it takes one round, then so be it. If not, then my large-capacity magazine is comforting to me. The attacker may also have friends...

Again, shot placement, sound tactics, and modern bullet designs will trump folk wisdom most times.


The world is round...
 
If all one wants to do is punch holes in paper, then get a .22 and do it really cheap.

If one wants to depend on a gun to save lives, then get a bigger gun. I have a poster in my office that shows a .45 and with writing below the photo saying, "it is silly to shoot twice."

This link An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power was posted a while back. Absent the "silly shot" the 45 doesn't look all that great according to the data. If you are only going to shoot once in self defense, the data shows that the .22 was among the most effective. Perhaps your poster is showing a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit? :D
 
This link An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power was posted a while back. Absent the "silly shot" the 45 doesn't look all that great according to the data. If you are only going to shoot once in self defense, the data shows that the .22 was among the most effective. Perhaps your poster is showing a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit? :D

there will always be glitches in the data posed by the standard benchmark loads for each caliber.
in the case of the 45ACP that load is a round nosed 230 in the ballpark of 800 FPS. just like the hardball grandpappy used to use back in the big one.
projectiles have advanced since then and are available. but that old 230G RN still dominates the shelves and is very likely to be the projectile involved in much of the data. Absent the projectile advancement, shes really putting in one heck of a show.
if treated more like a newer caliber, such as 40S&W where the benchmark is a TCFP ... I suspect we have a game changer that the data does not account for. I've yet to see a study that focuses on bullet design.
 
This link An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power was posted a while back. Absent the "silly shot" the 45 doesn't look all that great according to the data. If you are only going to shoot once in self defense, the data shows that the .22 was among the most effective. Perhaps your poster is showing a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit? :D

Nope. While I agree there have been a lot of deaths from .22 caliber weapons, few guns beats a .45. While they will not pick a person up or sling them across a room, they will drop the person pretty quickly. I have several charts giving stopping power and the .45 is on top almost every time.
 

Attachments

  • 2ahrh1259196876.jpg
    2ahrh1259196876.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 74
This link An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power was posted a while back. Absent the "silly shot" the 45 doesn't look all that great according to the data. If you are only going to shoot once in self defense, the data shows that the .22 was among the most effective. Perhaps your poster is showing a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit? :D

Submitted with respect (bold added by me):

(edited Copyright - Phil )

-------------------------------------------------
SORRY ABOUT THAT!...... dcxplant
------------------------------------------------

What was said at the end of the report was that the .22 data was very misleading, and that the larger calibers did more damage going through clothing and bone...which to me is common sense.

They key is having a good quality expanding bullet that retains it's weight while doubling is diameter and placing the shot well. Shooter's typically get good hits more consistently with lighter calibers.
 
Last edited:
there will always be glitches in the data posed by the standard benchmark loads for each caliber.
in the case of the 45ACP that load is a round nosed 230 in the ballpark of 800 FPS. just like the hardball grandpappy used to use back in the big one.
projectiles have advanced since then and are available. but that old 230G RN still dominates the shelves and is very likely to be the projectile involved in much of the data. Absent the projectile advancement, shes really putting in one heck of a show.
if treated more like a newer caliber, such as 40S&W where the benchmark is a TCFP ... I suspect we have a game changer that the data does not account for. I've yet to see a study that focuses on bullet design.

Yes, any of these type reports are rife with absent data. However, the newer 40S&W didn't show to perform better than other calibers.


Submitted with respect (bold added by me):
(edited Copyright - Phil )

Right. But then how do we explain that the average number of rounds before incapacitation for the 45 was 2.08 and the .22 was 1.38? It's not a great difference, probably statistically meaningless but ceratainly no support for the one shot 45. Many say that the large 45 barrel is enough of an intimidation factor to stop the bad guy in his tracks which would I suppose would be part of the psychological incapacitation your quote referred to. The data doesn't support such a notion, nor does it support the notion that any larger caliber has any significant one shot incapacitation advantages over other smaller calibers psychologically, physically or otherwise. At least none that I read in the report. Most all the numbers among the calibers are eerily similar. Though, if you didn't stop em right away with a .22 then subsequent shots did't seem to help much-- the larger calibers were a bit more effective, but we were talking about a second shot with a .45 being silly.

The author's final conclusion was that caliber really isn't that important.

Don't misunderstand, I own three 45. I just find it interesting that the data in the report supports few if any of the popular notions or misconceptions as they may be regarding the 45.
 
Last edited:
Yes, any of these type reports are rife with absent data. However, the newer 40S&W didn't show to perform better than others.




Right. But then how do we explain that the average number of rounds before incapacitation for the 45 was 2.08 and the .22 was 1.38? Many say that the large 45 barrel is enough of an intimidation factor to stop the bad guy in his tracks which would be part of the psychological incapacitation your quote referred to. The data doesn't support such a notion, nor does it support the notion that any larger caliber has any significant one shot incapacitation advantages over other smaller calibers psychologically, physically or otherwise. At least none that I read in the report.

The author's final conclusion was that caliber really isn't that important.

Don't misunderstand, I own three 45. I just find it interesting that the data in the report supports few if any of the popular notions or misconceptions as they may be regarding the 45.

it could be a result of training that accounts for the 2.08 vs 1.38 figures.
most pistol training teaches that your best cover is standing behind 2 outbound bullets better known as a double tap. which is what a large number of us 45 shooters will do because that's how we are taught, be that second silly shot necessary or not.
I have a theory about the 22's numbers. It has a long history in pocket micro guns that predates training and qualification for ccw. its been a street go to gun for decades for its palm sized goodness and thus, has been employed widely by the untrained who will fire one and either soil themselves of tap and rack since they are notorious for feeding problems when the action is corroded shut
 
Yes, any of these type reports are rife with absent data. However, the newer 40S&W didn't show to perform better than other calibers.




Right. But then how do we explain that the average number of rounds before incapacitation for the 45 was 2.08 and the .22 was 1.38? It's not a great difference, probably statistically meaningless but ceratainly no support for the one shot 45. Many say that the large 45 barrel is enough of an intimidation factor to stop the bad guy in his tracks which would I suppose would be part of the psychological incapacitation your quote referred to. The data doesn't support such a notion, nor does it support the notion that any larger caliber has any significant one shot incapacitation advantages over other smaller calibers psychologically, physically or otherwise. At least none that I read in the report. Most all the numbers among the calibers are eerily similar. Though, if you didn't stop em right away with a .22 then subsequent shots did't seem to help much-- the larger calibers were a bit more effective, but we were talking about a second shot with a .45 being silly.

The author's final conclusion was that caliber really isn't that important.

Don't misunderstand, I own three 45. I just find it interesting that the data in the report supports few if any of the popular notions or misconceptions as they may be regarding the 45.

Caliber may not be important to some but to those I have seen with holes in them, caliber was pretty important.

I can only speak about what I have seen and what works for me.

This link: Stopping Power

tells a different tale about stopping power or ONE shot stops.

Or: http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=2&Weight=All which shows only 40% one shot stops with a .22LR
 
Last edited:
Caliber may not be important to some but to those I have seen with holes in them, caliber was pretty important.

I can only speak about what I have seen and what works for me.

This link: Stopping Power

tells a different tale about stopping power or ONE shot stops.

Or: 22 Long Rifle Stopping Power which shows only 40% one shot stops with a .22LR

You should read the third paragraph in the link authored by Greg Ellifritz. He specifically cites how skewed the data is that you refer in the link "Stopping Power". According to Ellifritz, they only included data if there was only one hit, and only included the data if the one hit was to the torso. If there was more than one hit or the one hit didn't hit the torso then the data was not used. So yeah... if the first shot didn't stop em and a second shot did, or even if the second or more hits didn't stop em, then that data wasn't used. If that's true, it sounds kinda flakey to me.

As far as one stops with a .22... Ellifritz shows the percentage to be even lower at 34%.

Leaving the .22 aside, I think that the data in Ellifirtz' report showing how all the calibers performed so closely is pretty convincing.
 
Last edited:
As with everything the ammo makes a huge difference too but depending on what you want it to do. Some ballistics tests I found interesting. The magnums are pretty astounding results on the slow motion gel tests. I think the Hornady Critical Defense and the Gold Dot ammos are the ones that seem to be the most consistent no matter how much denim and other material they go through first.

9mm sample test
SLOW MOTION 9mm Police Hornady 90gr XTP impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

38 special +P refernce
38 Special Speer 135gr +P Short Barrel Gold Dot impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

44 mag reference
.44 Magnum Speer 240gr Gold Dot impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

357 reference
.357 Magnum Speer 125gr Gold Dot - YouTube

22 LR reference
22LR CCI 40gr Velocitor PLHP impacting ballistic gelatin from a Ruger 10/22 (42,000 frames/sec)! - YouTube

Good ballistic slow mo of 45acp
SLOW MOTION 45ACP Federal 230gr Hydra-Shok impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

Reference 45acp Golden Sabre Rem 230gr
SLOW MOTION 45ACP Remington 230gr Golden Saber impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

Reference 45acp remington 185gr
45ACP Remington 185gr +P Golden Saber impacting 20% gelatin - YouTube

Remington Gold Saber 45acp. The denim seems to clog this one way more than I would expect and it penetrates deep and doesn't seem to expand as much as ones like the Hornady Critical Defense which mushrooms to almost twice the original size
Remington Golden Saber .45 ACP 230 gr JHP SIM-TEST w/denim - YouTube


Hornady Critical Defense 45acp which is what I carry. Damned impressive round imo.
.45 ACP Critical Defense Ballistics Gel Test - YouTube

230gr FMJ really just flies right through
.45 ACP Ballistic Gel - YouTube

These rounds dont have the red rubber plug like the Hornadys but they seem to perform more consistently than other hollow points. This is the other kind I'm carrying in a couple guns. It expands almost perfectly even through denim.
Speer Gold Dot .45 ACP 230 gr JHP SIM-TEST w/denim - YouTube

This is the other Hornady XTP I have shot before but I'm not as impressed with as the Gold Dot or the Hornady Critical defense.
Hornady XTP .45 ACP +P 230 gr JHP AMMO TEST - YouTube

This Winch PDX1 also does not impress me, compared to Gold Dot you can see side by side compare.
Winchester PDX1 .45 ACP 230 gr Supreme Elite Bonded test w/denim - YouTube

Another home test of the Hornady Critical Defense, expands to almost twice the size every time
Hornady Critical Defense FTX .45 ACP Bullet Penetration and Expansion Test. - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Caliber may not be important to some but to those I have seen with holes in them, caliber was pretty important.

I can only speak about what I have seen and what works for me.

This link: Stopping Power

tells a different tale about stopping power or ONE shot stops.

Or: 22 Long Rifle Stopping Power which shows only 40% one shot stops with a .22LR



Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall's "study" on the effects of stopping power has been suspect, if not outright dismissed, almost since the time it was released back in the early 90s. Many in the gun press have criticized, correctly, in my opinion, that their findings left out much data that was essential in their recommendations as to proper bullet weight, caliber, etc.

A short summary initially published by the International Wound Ballistics Association.

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time
 
There's been some statements in this thread that I have to express a difference of opinion with.

1. Quote: "Back during WWI, it was found the .45acp round to be most effective. During WWII, it was again the gun the Germans feared. NATO pushed for the 9mm due to lesser chance of lethal injury and being a common cartridge. As usual, the US government caved and went to a 9mm."

What study showed that the .45ACP was most effective (as opposed to the 1911 being a good platform for trench warfare)? More effective than what? Webley .455? German 9mm? Did someone establish a protocol and collect information on how combatants reacted to being hit with a round from a pistol? There are anecdotes; however anecdotes do not demonstrate stopping power, they are generally used to selectively bolster a particular position. The various versions of the Sgt. York story are a good example.

I've read a lot of WWII history, and have never seen anything about German soldiers notably having a special fear of the .45. With several million men under arms, I'm sure someone might have said something somewhere, but: "the gun the Germans feared"? As opposed to an M-1 Garand or a Soviet PPSh?

"Lesser chance of lethal injury". Again, I've never seen anything to document that. The desire to standardize calibers is well-known but there's been a long-running urban myth that Georg Luger invented the 9mm Parabellum to "wound" rather than kill, and this sounds like another re-hash of that.

2. The question has been proposed that one should state which weapon one would grab (9mm, .40S&W, or .45ACP), to confront an immediate threat. I believe the proper response is as follows:

First: the one I was currently trained and capable on.

Second: if currently capable on all, then the one that represented the best quality platform on the table; i.e., a new Kimber would trump a beat-up early Beretta M-9, a Beretta M9A1 would be preferable to an old Colt or Remington-Rand warhorse from the 40's and so on.

Third: if all were good examples, then I would take the one with the best type of ammunition in it. If FMJ were the only choice, I would probably grab the .40, because I've only seen that caliber with flat-points, and that MIGHT give it a slight advantage over round-nose FMJ.

3. Finally, there is the ever-popular "which would you rather be shot with?" question, to which I can only answer: I would strongly prefer not to be shot with any of them, because they are all very lethal, and I prefer not to expire just yet.


The winner in a gunfight will be decided by the fact of who gets the first vital hit in, and by the psychological reaction of your opponent to being hit if it isn't an instantly disabling CNS injury. Whether it's a revolver or any of the various auto types, a gun that fits your hand well-enough (and we are an adaptable species, within limits), places decently powerful hits quickly and accurately enough, and is combined with the training to enable you to do that to the best of your ability will count for far more than the thousands of articles written on "stopping power".
 
Guess I'll join in here. :rolleyes:

I like the 45. I shoot it well in a full size gun. But in a compact, the 9 suits me just fine. I can do without the 40.

The true problem is that there are too many experts on the matter and none of them agree. :confused:

For every one that say's that one caliber is the best, there is yet another that say's the opposite.

I can find statements by very well known experts and instructors that prefer one caliber over the other. And they all practice what they preach.

So who do you believe? The answer is, none of them. You work out your own salvation and do what's best for you.

Also, many of the studies done on shootings and the effects of different calibers include people with different shooting styles and methods.

For example, gang bangers fire for effect. They fill the air with bullets until they hit their intended target. Often there are multiple targets. Either that or they walk up to you and shoot from arms length or closer. I don't care what caliber you use. Your dead at arms length. And MOST of them use FMJ ammo.

Caliber is not the most important choice to make. Instead, choice of a gun that fit's YOU, quality training, practice, and situational awareness MUST be given equal consideration.

One without the other is foolish. And caliber wars are foolish to argue. If experts and instructors don't agree, what makes you thing we will? ;)
 
Back
Top