[Futo Inu]

Sorry if this is redundant, and I know it's sort of a dufus question, but I needed to ask since the .40 has more ENERGY than a .45 at the muzzle (only very slightly more), on average, whereas the .45acp has more MOMENTUM/"POWER" (quite a bit more). I'm pretty sure the .40 is more controllable; the .45 less (i.e. the .45 has noticably more recoil), but I want to verify and get multiple opinions, or contrary opinions if that's the case. I'm comparing ONLY these two calibers, and am interested ONLY in the controllability/muzzle flip/recoil, in particularly how it relates in getting back on target faster for follow-up shots, and PARTICULARLY for shot #2, but any string of rapid-fire shots. Is the .40 noticeably more controllable with faster follow-up shots, or not? Only slightly/theoretically, but not noticeably? Or not at all (i.e. the .45 is equally as fast on follow-ups)? Speak GENERALLY in comparing the two cartridges, but if you cannot speak generally without more information, then compare them specifically as follows: SAME size and weight handguns, both 4" bbls, 40 is a 165 grainer (standard pressure/vel, not +P), .45 is a 230 grainer (standard pressure/vel, not +P). Thanks very much. --Dan

[10-Ring]

I have owned a few 40's & have sold them ALL (Beretta 96, Para P16, Glock 23, USPc 40). I find I can shoot my 45's far better & w/ more comfort. The difference is in the recoil. The 40 is snappier whereas the 45 is more of a rolling push. Sure YMMV but that is my impression.

[Khornet]

I can shoot my .40 faster with accuracy than I can my .45. I don't ge this 'awful .40 recoil' stuff...better go shoot a bunch more, maybe I'll see the light.

[Skunkabilly]

After shooting 9mm for a while I think I like a snap better than a push. After eschewing .40 for the longest time I think I want one again.

[CWL]

I prefer .45ACP.

This is just an individual preference though, plus I must have fired 20X more .45 rounds than .40S&W in my life.

[Dorrin79]

broadly speaking, i think it has more to do with the platform than the cartridge.

A full-size 1911 allows for fast followup shots. A Kahr MK40 does not.

I think that is due to the platforms, not the cartridges.

That said, I think more .45 pistols are designed to absorb the .45's recoil than .40s, since the .40 is often offered in small, lightweight packages.

[Berg01]

If the recoil bothers you, just keep shooting it until it doesn't bother you anymore! With most semiautos, its a matter of getting used to the recoil of a particular gun with plenty of rangetime. The recoil in my .40 cal CZ 75B isn't bad at all, but I've been shooting it a lot lately. The fact that is a full-sized, steel frame gun probably mitigates the effect of the recoil somewhat. But I would say that the .45 ACP Sig P220, or a full-size 1911-pattern pistol would generally be a little more controllable in rapid-fire, than most of the other .40's I've shot.

[DMK]

I also agree that they are close enough that it would really come down to the gun. Maybe if you could compare two 1911s side by side in each caliber.

I've compared one of my 1911s and my CZ-40B side by side and they were close, but 1911 is easier to get the sight picture back for a quick follow up. However, it's heavier and longer than the '40B. It also has better sights.

[Archie]

Recoil (total) is determined by the relationship of bullet weight and velocity versus firearm weight; or
(Bullet weight in grains) times (Muzzle velocity in feet per second) divided by (firearm weight in grains) equals (recoil velocity of firearm).

I have three full sized, steel framed 1911s in 45 ACP. Two of them have heavy springs for full charge loads. They handle most any hardball or equivilent round fairly well; and the weight soaks up a lot of recoil.
The third steel gun has a light recoil spring and is set up for wadcutters. It doesn't have much recoil at all.

I have a alloy frame Commander in 45 ACP. It has a heavy spring and shoots hardball well, but the recovery time between shots is somewhat longer. In real life, not enough to matter; in game shooting, perhaps.

I have a H&K USP40 with plastic frame. If I shoot the WW Ranger SXT 165 loads, it handles pretty well. Recoil is a bit more than with the 45s, but this is not a target pistol. With the Speer-CCI 155 Lawman load, the recoil is rather sharper and stronger. Definately harder to control (that is, recovery time to next shot) than any of my 45s.

Now, practise will not change the relationships. You can shoot all you want and the light pistol with the heavy 40 loads will still recoil MORE than the full sized 1911 with standard loads. Getting "used" to recoil does not lessen the impulse, it strengthens the shooter. If you get to the point you can one-handed rapid fire a 44 Magnum, it will still be easier to shoot a comparable 38 Special wadcutter.

Having said all that: If you have a steel frame 1911 in 40 S&W, you will then be able to properly compare the felt recoil of both rounds. But in reality, you have to compare two different pistols.

[PCRCCW]

Dont listen to any of them. The Beretta 25 Jetfire is the KING OF RECOIL
:evil: :neener:
Ok....Ill go back to my corner....now, where did I put the shiney thing?

Shoot well

[FireInTheHole]

Ilove the .40 SW's recoil. I rip off a mag from my g22 and then switch to the beretta 92 and it feels like Im shooting .22 LRs...... PING PING PING :p

[FireInTheHole]

*Going off topic*

Flyer what gen glock you use those corbons in?

[w1mnk]

Personally speaking, my 40s (Glock 22,23, S&W 4013, Springfield XD etc.) have a little more muzzle flip than my 45s (Glock 21,30, HK USP45F, 220ST, Kimber Stainless II etc.) with defensive loads. With target loads, they are very similar.

[Morgan]

Well, I shoot my USP full size pistols in 9mm, .40 and .45. Pretty much the same gun, the .45 marginally larger, weighing in about 1/10th of a pound heavier.

In target loads, the 9mm 115gr is appreciably lighter recoiling than .40 180gr, which is a about the same, maby a tiny bit lighter than .45 230gr. The .40 has a "snap" to it that the .45 lacks, which makes more recoil sensitive people dislike it. Personally, I like 'em both. The 9mm is faster back on target (it basically never leaves) in target loadings.

In defense loads they're all about the same. 9mm 124gr +p, .40 165gr, and .45 200gr +p, all Speer Gold Dots. The 9mm has marginally less felt recoil, .40 and .45 are pretty much identical. I think training makes a huge difference, and I note no difference in practical shooting speed between them in defense loads - same gun.

[Haycreek]

My 1911 govt models are back on the target faster than my Glock 23.

[Preacherman]

You can't compare apples to oranges: and comparing .40 to .45 in different guns is an invalid comparison. You have to compare them in guns of the same basic configuration, weight, etc. to get a clear picture of the differences in recoil and controllability.

I've fired a 1911 in .45 alongside one in .40. Both were steel-frame and -slide, same sights, beavertail, etc. I found both rounds (defensive loads - Remington Golden Saber 185gr. +P in .45 ACP and Golden Saber 165gr. in .40 S&W) were about the same in felt recoil, controllability, etc. The .40 did have more of a "snap" as compared to the .45's "push", but the splits between shots were basically identical.

In Glocks, I've fired a G23 alongside a G30, using the same ammunition as above. The G23 was more controllable and comfortable in my hands than the G30 - I just don't like the latter's very fat grip. (I've recently sold my Glock .45's and switched to SIG's, precisely because of the grip issue.)

Hope this helps...

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

To answer your question, I can control the .45 ACP
better; under rapid fire condition's, as the .40 S&W has
too much muzzle flip when fired in any weapon other than
a Beretta 96*!:D I guess the big Beretta tames recoil a bit?

*FootNote- I haven't tried the .40 S&W in a SIG P226.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Double Naught Spy]

Which had more recoil? Which is louder? Which is better for defense?

What all these questions have in common is that they are overly simplified and so the answers may not be relevant. A lot of what is going to determine felt recoil is the platform from which the round is fired. I have shot some sweet compensated .45 acp guns with full power loads and thought they felt like shooting a little 1903 Colt in .32 acp, except for being rather large, heavy, and having a big compensator on the end and a ported barrel, but recoil was sweet.

It was mentioned that the .40 had more snap than the .45. Whether that was due to the caliber, recoil spring setup, or amount or type of power is uncertain to me. Faster burning powders will produce a sharper (snappier?) recoil than slower burning powders. Even within a given caliber where the slugs supposedly go about the same velocity, some makes of ammo will feel snappier than others.

In other words, if you prefer one over the other, you can adjust things such that you can get a more ideal handling situation that appeals best to you.

[Redlg155]

I agree with most folks here in saying that a lot depends on the platform. I've fired the HK USP 40 and 45 full size handguns and there wasn't much difference in control. The .40 was a bit snappier while the .45 had more of a longer rolling type recoil impulse. The time to get back on target was about the same. The .40 was 180grain Winchester JHP and the .45 was Win USA white box FMJ.




Good Shooting
Red