Wicked fast .45ACP's


PDA






Sheldon J
May 27, 2009, 02:53 PM
Found this on a different forum, so who says a .45ACP cannot go fast....
45 ACP 90 gr. TFSP 2036 fps / 828 flbs
45 ACP 115 gr. TFSP 1650 fps / 700 flbs
45 ACP TPD 80 gr. TPD 2375 fps / 1002 flbs

From RBCD Performance Plus (http://www.rbcd.net/Personal%20Defense-%20Ammo.htm) I would love to see this round tested by the boys at the "Box O Truth"

I found out I had a local dealer N gave him a call, at about $45.00 for a box of 20 not a cheap round. The dealer described it as a fragmentable SD round that would not penetrate drywall, but on say human tissue according to them was twice as effective as a hydra shock...

If you enjoyed reading about "Wicked fast .45ACP's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
May 27, 2009, 02:58 PM
Snake Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.
Without adequate penetration, This is no Magic Bullet!

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot38.htm

It would make a nasty flesh wound though.

rc

memphisjim
May 27, 2009, 03:00 PM
i think a 90gr spitball at 2000fps would penetrate drywall

danprkr
May 27, 2009, 03:11 PM
Have been a fan of lighter fast JHP for defense since I read a study years ago about police shootings and what did the best job. Sorry I've lost the magazine in one of my many moves, and can't source it now, but the premises was to look at LEO involved shootings and determine what had worked in real life. The definite conclusion was that a faster lighter HP produced the most one shot stops on bad guys. So, I carry a 185gr +P+ in my 45, and 110gr JHP in my 357.

Having said all of that I have a hard time believing a hunk of metal .45 inches in diameter and weighing only 90gr would be able to survive impact long enough to penetrate. I mean if it were tested objectively I guess an exotic enough alloy might do it, but I'm betting 2+ bucks a round would be inline with manufacturing costs.

divemedic
May 27, 2009, 04:04 PM
The one shot stop is a myth, and any study that says otherwise is being dishonest. Think about it- if the target is stopped, you quit shooting. That will skew your results.

Look at the Reagan shooting: Hinkley fired 6 shots, with 4 of them striking a human target. The targets were: Reagan, James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Timothy McCarthy. All four of them were put down at the scene, even though all survived (two had permanent disabilities). This would give the .22LR a 100% one shot stop rating for this incident, yet no one will argue that the .22LR is an effective manstopper.

Superlite27
May 27, 2009, 07:33 PM
The dealer described it as a fragmentable SD round that would not penetrate drywall, but on say human tissue according to them was twice as effective as a hydra shock...

Hmmm. I've loaded some rounds that wouldn't break a pane of glass, but would take down a water buffalo at a thousand yards.

Is he selling any bridges? Maybe some swamp land in Florida?

I keep seeing all these fancy newfangled bullets coming out. If it won't penetrate drywall, it wont penetrate a rib bone. It's common knowledege that the lighter a bullet, the faster you can push it, but the faster it will come to a stop. Heavy bullets are slower, but conversely, they're harder to stop.

In this elusive thing called "stopping power", the permanent wound channel is the ticket. Penetration is the key. Want the definitive study? Go here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

I've yet to see a better explanation of how a bullet stops a human being. (If anyone does have something new and improved, please let me know, as I would be appreciative.)

Until then, you can keep your polymerasotopic nutronium dioxide carbon zubrillium reverse wadcutters that turn into silly putty when shot at children, but have a nuclear explosion when contacting rapists.

I'm sticking to good ol' 200 gr Hornady +P Hollow Points. I'm sure Hydra Shoks, Golden Sabre's, Ranger T's, DPX's and the like are arguably similar in the range of 165 - 230 gr. The Hornady's are just personal preference, but I would be comfortable carrying any of these.

I'm not going below 165 grains, though. You can push a piece of chewing gum to 4000 fps. Speed means nothing if it weighs less than a feather. I don't care how fast you push a piece of styrofoam, if it doesn't go through drywall, it doesn't do what I need: penetrate.

DeepSouth
May 27, 2009, 07:40 PM
Mag safe makes a .45 acp that will hit 2,260 fps with a 68 gr. bullet:confused:

Don't really know what the point would be but here it is.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=55751

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 27, 2009, 07:49 PM
How about putting this where it belongs, over in handguns?

danprkr
May 27, 2009, 07:50 PM
The one shot stop is a myth, and any study that says otherwise is being dishonest.

If I recall correctly through the fog of time they looked at several thousand LEO involved shootings, and then used as the criteria that the most efficient bullet was the one that stopped the BG the quickest. Presumed that the shooting that took the fewest shots was over the quickest, and therefore, the one shot stops were the pinnacle.

Here again it seemed logical at the time, and if I had the magazine (or could even recall which one it was) I might go back and reread it with the advantage of a few more years experience and street smarts. Either way I'm not advocating anything. Just stating my preference, and how I arrived at it.

This discussion has actually caused me to think that it may be time to re-research the issue as objectively as possible. :confused:

Sunray
May 27, 2009, 07:50 PM
Likely won't cycle the action.

danprkr
May 27, 2009, 07:55 PM
Sunray

Good point, hadn't even considered that.

wvshooter
May 27, 2009, 10:02 PM
Me thinks you may not be serious. I'm sure the speeds are accurate but what's the point? For self defense the speeds are too high. Good for a chuckle though.

divemedic
May 27, 2009, 10:28 PM
If I recall correctly through the fog of time they looked at several thousand LEO involved shootings, and then used as the criteria that the most efficient bullet was the one that stopped the BG the quickest. Presumed that the shooting that took the fewest shots was over the quickest, and therefore, the one shot stops were the pinnacle.

Ah- you are citing the now discredited Marshall-Sanow study. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm) The biggest flaw in this study was the way data was gathered. The study included shootings where a person received a single torso hit, and evaluated the ammo based on whether or not that single hit incapacitated the target.

The basic flaw here was that people who received more than one hit were excluded. Well, I don't know about you, but if I shoot someone and he keeps attacking, I will shoot him again. Of course, the act of taking the second shot would exclude that failure to stop from the study.

This has the effect of making the less lethal rounds look more effective than they are, and also made the study worthless. Garbage in= garbage out

cyclopsshooter
May 27, 2009, 10:54 PM
bet they dont stabilize worth crap

Coyote_Hunter_
May 27, 2009, 10:59 PM
Ah- you are citing the now discredited Marshall-Sanow study. The biggest flaw in this study was the way data was gathered. The study included shootings where a person received a single torso hit, and evaluated the ammo based on whether or not that single hit incapacitated the target.

The basic flaw here was that people who received more than one hit were excluded. Well, I don't know about you, but if I shoot someone and he keeps attacking, I will shoot him again. Of course, the act of taking the second shot would exclude that failure to stop from the study.

Who would have thought it in a study about one-shot stops, two shot stops were excluded. Dang.

Kind of Blued
May 28, 2009, 01:20 AM
Why not fast AND heavy?

.460 Rowland 1911

185 gr. JHP @ 1550 fps
230 gr. JHP @ 1350 fps

Xzyl
May 28, 2009, 02:45 AM
and if I had the magazine (or could even recall which one it was)

Could it have been an issue of Peterson's Handguns between 1990-1995? I remember that was around then that first came across them talking about the Marshall-Sanow study. I also remember that issue also had an article called "How much firepower is enough?" dealing with ammo capacity.

HeavenlySword
May 28, 2009, 03:22 AM
wait, won't break a pane of glass but will kill a buffalo?

***?

Claude Clay
May 28, 2009, 11:10 AM
^--------------

40 watt pulse rifle
reflects off of glass yet holes through a buffalo

Superlite27
May 28, 2009, 01:06 PM
would not penetrate drywall, but on say human tissue according to them was twice as effective as a hydra shock... =

won't break a pane of glass but will kill a buffalo?


About the same? I love bullets that won't penetrate anything but BG's.

danprkr
May 28, 2009, 02:52 PM
Peterson's Handguns between 1990-1995

Maybe, found the rebuttal (http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm) very interesting, but would like to reread the original to compare the 2 side by side. Of course it likely won't matter since I'm not sure I understood the technical analysis of the methods well enough to form a conclusion, but thanks.

divemedic
May 28, 2009, 07:42 PM
Who would have thought it – in a study about one-shot stops, two shot stops were excluded. Dang.

Except that the very method of excluding two shot stops means that the numbers are meaningless. If a round was involved in 1,000 shootings in which two shootings put down the attacker with a single shot, which happened to hit the target in the eye, and the other 998 shootings required multiple hits, the round would get a 100% under the methods used in the study, even though it failed to stop with one shot over 99% of the time.

chute2thrill
May 29, 2009, 02:35 AM
Wouldn't a 90gr .45 bullet be close to being shorter than it was wide?

If you enjoyed reading about "Wicked fast .45ACP's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!