[sammy]

The question refers to major power factor loads only. The reason why I ask is because I am looking for a gun to compete in limited 10 USPSA. The gun I am lookng at is a USP Expert which I can get in .45acp and .40 S&W. Thanks all, Sammy

[lexjj]

I have no experience in USPSA, but in terms of perceived/felt recoil, I think .40 is worse.

The .45 recoil and the .40 recoil are very different to me. The .45 gives a "push," but the .40 gives a sharp snap. I get my sights on target faster for follow ups with a .45.

[Oro]

I had a .40 built for IDPA years ago and it was not as pleasant for me to shoot as a .45acp in the same platform. The recoil was sharper and faster because of the powder burn characteristics in the different cases (I was even using the same powder in both IIRC).

[psyopspec]

It's often platform-dependent, but the USP Expert should be heavy enough that the general rule applies - .45 pushes, .40 snaps.

[Ichiro]

I'd say it depends on the gun. My friend has a collection of Sig Sauer handguns, and, of those, 9mm, 40SW and 45ACP felt the same to me.

In the S&W J-frames I used to own, 38 Special and 38 Special +P were entirely different beasts. In my Ruger SP-101, they feel the same, but .357 magnum feels different.

[c919]

They are just plain different, and alot of the perception depends on the gun.

Id say its time to do some renting......

[easyg]

It depends upon the gun and the load.

In pistols of similar weight and bulk, shooting rounds of similar size and weight, the .45 has more felt recoil.

[wrs840]

In pistols of similar weight and bulk, shooting rounds of similar size and weight, the .45 has more felt recoil.

I agree. This board is so pro-.45 and anti-.40 I was reluctant to post it. Group-think manifestations, IMO.

I own both. The .45 has more felt-recoil to go along with the bigger-bang, methinks.

...Push/snap... huh???

I think that's a psycho-acoustic effect.

Les

[WoofersInc]

Push -snap.

What they are trying to say is that 45 is more of a slower recoil that feels like the gun pushes back against you. The 40 is a quicker snappier recoil. They both might have the same recoil weight in energy measured but it is how the recoil is spread out and how fast it hits.
I find that I can get back on target faster with 45 ACP faster than 40 S&W.

[chris in va]

I had a 40 with an aluminum frame, and currently have a 45 also with the same.

The 40 felt like a quick, unpleasant spike against my wrist, the 45 more of a big roll drawn out over a longer period of time. All things being equal, I'd much rather shoot 100 rounds of 45 than 40.

That's all I have to offer.

[AKElroy]

The .40 probably gets the rap for sharper recoil because it is far more likely to be chambered in a plastic gun. In a steel platform, I doubt you could tell which you were firing.

[eitrheim31]

recoil is just momentum, keep newton's third law in mind. if two guns weigh the same you get....

40s&w- 3.67 kg*m/s (thats at 1200fps and a 155gr bullet)
40s&w- 3.73 kg*m/s (thats at 1050fps and 180gr bullet)
45 acp- 3.84 kg*m/s (1050fps 185gr)
45 acp- 4.09 kgm/s (900fps 230gr)

[LoneStarWings]

According to this recoil calulator:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

About the same.

Comparing a 24.5 oz .40 pistol t a 29.5 oz .45 pistol:

the .45 had: recoil impulse 1.01 lbs/sec, recoil velocity 17.66 fps, recoil energy 8.96 ft lbs

the .40 had: recoil impluse .90 lbs/sec, recoil velocity 18.84 fps, recoil energy 8.43 ft lbs

I used a 180 gr / 5 gr/ 1010 fps .40 load and a 230 gr/ 6 gr / 890 fps .45 load.

[hinton03]

plug them in and get actual recoil.

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

[easyg]

What they are trying to say is that 45 is more of a slower recoil that feels like the gun pushes back against you. The 40 is a quicker snappier recoil.
The 40 felt like a quick, unpleasant spike against my wrist, the 45 more of a big roll drawn out over a longer period of time.

You guys must have some extremely sensitive wrist and hands.
I can't tell a dime's difference between the two in similar pistols.

No .45 I have ever shot had a recoil that felt like a big drawn out "roll".

And no .40 that I have ever shot felt like an unpleasant "spike" in my wrist.
What were you shooting that made it feel like that in your wrist?
Maybe a Kahr pocket-pistol in .40?
That might sting some, but it wouldn't feel great in a .45 either.

Heck, I can shoot my Glock G22 all day long.

[CIL]

It seems to be from talking to others and even the post to this topic it varies by person. I had a xd 40 and a Kimber pro carry that I shot often. The kimber in .45 was alot easier to shoot a bunch of rounds through than the xd. I agree that the .40 seemed to have a quicker, snappier recoil than the .45.

[JoeSlomo]

I concur with the above posters...

The recoil impulse of the .40 is snappier than is the .45.

.40 = snap
.45 = shove

[BCRider]

It's interesting to see the push-snap folks as well as those that say they can't feel any difference.

I'm not pro or anti any chambering. In fact if I'm pro anything it would be in favour of 9mm because it's cheap to shoot.

But I have to totally go along with the .45="push" while the .40="SNAP" crowd. And this is from shooting the .40 from a fully decked out IPSC Standard class 1911 setup with the big magazine "funnel" on the base compared to my plain 1911 in .45.

It really does make a difference in how the rounds hit the hand even with similar weight guns and similar power factor ammo.

Likely it's related to how long the bullet spends in the barrel as well as the weight of the bullet and how it accelerates. Just looking at the power and gun weight isn't looking at the whole story.

Side note.... Switching back to back between magazines from my 9mm Shadow and my 1911 even shows this. I'd have to weigh them but I'm pretty sure my Shadow weighs MORE than the 1911. But the 9mm Shadow "snaps" more than the 1911. THe .45 pushes HARDER for longer but doesn't have a smack sort of feel. It's like if someone puts a fist in your palm and then suddenly punches forward with no windup vs they start from a foot or so back and get some good speed before their fist smacks into your palm.

[10-Ring]

For me, it is tough to quantify because the recoil is different. One is a rolling push the other snappy. Of the 2, I prefer the push b/c even as the ammo gets hotter, the push is still very manageable. What is funny for me tho is that I prefer the 10mm over it's shorter & weaker sibling...

[Blakenzy]

A more easily differentiated recoil would be between a .357mag and .45. There you can really tell the difference between a push and a slap in the palm.

[rcmodel]

The difference in recoil is negligible.

The difference in muzzle blast is considerable.
And that bothers a lot of folks, especially on indoor ranges.

.45 ACP = 21,000 PSI.
.40 S&W = 35,000 PSI

Both my sons strongly dislike shooting my .40 due to the sharp muzzle blast.

Both will shoot my .45's till I run out of ammo for them.

rc

[possum]

in my experiences there is not much difference in the recoil of the 2 but there is considerable difference to me in muzzle flip in .40 using factory standard loadings in both guns.

[heavyshooter]

Originally Posted by easyg
In pistols of similar weight and bulk, shooting rounds of similar size and weight, the .45 has more felt recoil.

I agree. This board is so pro-.45 and anti-.40 I was reluctant to post it. Group-think manifestations, IMO.

I own both. The .45 has more felt-recoil to go along with the bigger-bang, methinks.

...Push/snap... huh???

I think that's a psycho-acoustic effect.

Les

I was reluctant to share my experince as well; I have no desire to argue about it. ;)

I recently went to the range with a friend who wanted to break in his Kimber 1911 (.45 acp). I brought my Sig P226 (.40 S&W) and my Sig Pro 2340 (.40 S&W) along for the ride. I noticed hardly any difference between the Sig P226 and the Kimber. I did note a very slight difference between the Sig Pro and the Kimber, but as AKElroy mentioned above, that may be because the Sig Pro is polymer. I am a huge fan of both calibers. They make me realize how lame the 9mm is :rolleyes:. But if I were going to choose one I would choose the .40 S&W. It has excellent stopping power and it allows for greater capacity than most .45's without compromising grip size. As far as "push" vs. "snap" goes, I can't help you because the recoil felt the same to me.

my .02

Heavy

[OurSafeHome.net]

I think that's a psycho-acoustic effect.

...and it is not to be discounted.

The "felt pressure wave" from weapons that fire supersonic projectiles is often a key part of your very own "flinch starter kit".

Marksmanship is 95% mental...
...and the rest is in your head.

[AKElroy]

I concur with the above posters...

The recoil impulse of the .40 is snappier than is the .45.

.40 = snap
.45 = shove

No offense--this has to be the 100th+ time I have read this, and I have to say it is nonsense in my opinion. The notion that .40 cal loadings with energy figures nearly identical to numerous .45 loadings produce different felt recoil in the same weighted pistol (assuming similar action types) just is not possible, nor is it my experience after shooting both extensively. I have shot them back to back, thousands of rounds each, and in guns of similar size & weight. I would bet very few would be able to guess which they were shooting. This perception is no doubt due to the belief that the .45 is SO SLOW and heavy that it must shove rather that snap, ergo, this is an assumption that shooters are inferring into their experience.

[heavyshooter]

AKElroy,

You are making my day!!! I was beginning to think that I was weird. Whenever I go to the range the consensus is that the .40 snaps and the .45 shoves. And I always think, to myself, "What???" They feel really similar to me. I shoot both rounds well so I was wondering what I was missing. I felt like the kid who sits in the cafeteria by himself. Now I know that I am not alone :D

Heavy

[easyg]

Does anyone have any links to some slow-motion shooting.
I would like to see if the guns actually react differently.

[Joe Demko]

I own guns in both cartridges. If they are both fired from identical platforms, any "snappiness" in the .40 is a product of the shooter's imagination.

[Dogbite]

The recoil from those 2 calibers is not bad at all. I wouldn't spend another second on this issue. Get what you like, and enjoy.

[CDW4ME]

Another comparison out of comparable guns:
Glock 39 + 185 gr. Speer Gold Dot = 932 fps = 356# KE = .77 momentum
Glock 27 + 155 gr. Speer Gold Dot = 1,134 fps = 442# KE = .78 momentum

Although the momentum is nearly the same, my opinion was the 45 had a softer recoil (more of a push, like others have said).

[TheWarhammer]

Here is my experience with the .40 vs .45 phenomenon:

I have a Kahr K40 that I bought back in 1997. I've lost count of how many rounds (thousands) I've shot through it, but I've never really felt the recoil was all that bad.

A few years ago I picked up an Officer's Model 1911 at a pawn shop. With all the talk of the .45's "knock down power," I was expecting this gun to really buck. When I brought both guns to the range, I was shocked to find that it seemed to have less recoil that my K40. Not that my K40 felt punishing in any way, but the .45 just felt like a powder puff in comparison.

I ended up selling the 1911 because I couldn't find mags that would reliably feed in it, but I still have my K40.

[Deanimator]

The .45 recoil and the .40 recoil are very different to me. The .45 gives a "push," but the .40 gives a sharp snap. I get my sights on target faster for follow ups with a .45.
+1

This is especially so in a light weight .40S&W. My Glock 22 has a very pronounced upward snap of the muzzle with 180gr. Blazers, so much so that it wants to take the gun out of my supporting hand when I shoot two handed.

[pbearperry]

I shoot both and I don't even think about it?Same to me.

[Aquila]

The IMPULSE of the two are distinctly different no matter what the detractors have to say. It's PHYSICS.

An example: A sports car and a superbike are both capable of 180 mph. The CBR1000 will get there a helluva lot quicker than the Porsche 997. One does the 1/4 mile in 12.7 seconds at 110 mph, maybe, and the other gets there under 10 seconds at 140 mph. Yet both will top out at 180 mph.

Take a look at the burn rates of the powder... The .45ACP is more of a push - it IS a push in an all steel 1911; in a small, lightweight polymer framed pistol the .45 ACP starts to move towards the feel of a .40 S&W - but it's not really a pussycat but it's not intimidating, either.

The most popular .40S&W pistol is the Glock 23. There is certainly more SNAP to that pistol. Same with the Glock 22 (probably the second most popular .40 S&W pistol) but a little less than the Model 23. I've seen more piss poor shooting with .40 S&W than any other caliber. I'm speaking about higher speed shooting here. Target shooting is different. The .40S&W is NOT undoable. It takes strong hands ( particularly the support hand ) and practice. Speaking of practice, I've seen more piss poor shooting by beginners with .40 S&W than with .45 ACP or 9 mm due to the shooters' reactions to the recoil impulse.

Interestingly, the .357 Sig has a very SHARP report which I've noticed beginners flinching due to the report more so than the recoil. This is true to a great extent for beginners no matter the caliber.

Another example: Same supersports bike and the same Porsche 997. Both have the same top speed - about 180 mph. The bike will do zero to 60 in under 3 seconds. The car in about 4 seconds. The bike will do 0- 100 in 6 seconds. The car in about 10 seconds. In one mile the bike is at topspeed. In one mile the car is doing about 150 mph. WHICH DO YOU THINK IS THE MORE VIOLENT IN ACCELERATION?

I've found that if I train for a month or so on .40 S&W everything else is much easier.

[MacTech]

Slow Motion vids of some firearms cycling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZUMGRxPM4), cutaway 1911 at :47 seconds in (braced), 1:13 in, non-braced shot, snubbie .357 unbraced at 2:36

in the unbraced .45 video, the gun fires at 1:13, gun motion starts upward at 1:16, approx. 3 seconds or so of slow-motion delay before the muzzle starts lifting

by comparison, the snubbie .357 (yes, I know, a different class of firearm, not fair to compare a revolver to a semiauto, different recoil impulse, and not fair to comare a snubnose barrel to a 5" barrel) fires at 2:38 and immediately torques upward, it also twists slightly sideways

the .45 pushes straight back, the .357 snaps upward

[jad0110]

No offense--this has to be the 100th+ time I have read this, and I have to say it is nonsense in my opinion. The notion that .40 cal loadings with energy figures nearly identical to numerous .45 loadings produce different felt recoil in the same weighted pistol (assuming similar action types) just is not possible, nor is it my experience after shooting both extensively.

Another car example.

The last car I owned was an '03 Mazda Protege5 with a 5spd manual. My current car is an '04 Ford Crown Vic. I know, complete opposites.

Here are some specs:

'03 Mazda, 2.0L inline 4
130 horsepower
2750 lb curb weight
0-60: 8.7 seconds

'04 Ford CV, 4.6L V8
224 horsepower
4,000 lb curb weight
0-60: 8.7 seconds

Both reach 60 in 8.7 seconds, but people who have ridden in both swear the Ford would suck the paint off the Mazda in acceleration. Not the case. Though the stats are similar, the way the two cars go about achieving their acceleration numbers is totally different. The Mazda builds it's power deceptively and gradually. The Ford's greater torque shoves you into the seat more noticeably, making it feel faster.

So though the numbers may be the same, the feel is totally different. The same is certainly possible with handguns and in fact, the .40 G23 feels noticeably different to me than the .45 G21. Granted, I shot them on different days, and the snap vs push isn't the best way to describe the recoil I felt. But I remember the higher pressure .40 G23 did have a distinct "crack" or "vibration" to it. Not painful, but pretty distracting, to me anyway.

Just my feelings on it. Maybe my hands are more sensitive than other's. I am able sense when and which tire is a couple of pounds lower on air pressure than the others pretty reliably.

[GLOOB]

Momentum isn't the whole picture. Energy isn't the whole picture. Energy + momentum still isn't the whole picture.

Don't forget there is 1 huge factor in recoil that isn't explained by energy and momentum - Muzzle blast. Yes, your gun barrel acts like a rocket engine.

This is the reason that bullets with lighter, faster loadings often produce more recoil than ones with heavier, slower loadings. This is also the reason muzzle brakes work to reduce recoil. They aren't slowing the bullet down, guys. They're slowing down the exiting gasses which propel the gun backwards like a rocket. Anyone who shoots magnum rifles knows they kick like mules, above and beyond what going to a larger, non-magnum caliber might, despite similar terminal effect.

Faster bullet egress and more gases escaping at a higher velocity from a slightly narrower barrel mean that "pound-for-pound" it is quite possible that a .40S&W CAN kick harder than a .45ACP in similar energy loadings due to muzzle blast.

Then consider FELT recoil. Most everyone will agree than increasing the stiffness of your recoil springs will increase the FELT recoil. Does it make your bullets go any faster? Many of the .40S&W pistols are built on 9mm frames. Rather than increasing the mass of the slides, they make things work by increasing the stiffness of the recoil springs. So in this way, .40SW gets an especially bad rap.

But even in the same gun, it is quite possible that some loadings of .40SW will produce more felt recoil than some loadings of .45ACP, all biases aside.

[kludge]

GI .45 kicks > XD-40.

IMO.

[shotgunred]

depends largly on what ammo powder you you and how much of it.
For IDPA the 45 has class just for it. with the 40 you are competing against guys with 9mm and popcorn fart reloads.

The 40 is a maverick round for IDPA. you ar giving up an advantage to everyone else. So what I shoot nothing but a 40 and pratice and compete with what I carry every day. If I was out to be top dog at the local IDPA I would switch to 9mm. If I wanted a second competition gun it would be a 45.

[JimmyN]

Here's my take on it, based on physics.

Muzzle energy, firearm weight and other factors being equal perceived recoil differences are a function of time.

The firearm starts moving rearward as soon as the bullet starts moving forward out of the case. It has to, you can't break the laws of physics. The bullet being lighter in mass moves faster and farther than the frame which has much, much greater mass, but the energy being stored in the mass has to be equal for both action and reaction.

The movement of the bullet down the barrel continues this action/reaction until the base of the bullet clears the barrel at which time both bullet and firearm have stored all the energy they are going to receive. The ejecta (gas and residue) that follows the bullet out of the barrel does have mass, but the total weight of the gas and particulates is miniscule compared to the weight of the bullet, so it contributes little to the recoil energy imparted into the firearm, and is likely offset by the drag of the bullet in the barrel.

Although the bullet is accelerating forward, causing the firearm to move backward the bullet is trying to drag the barrel forward with it due to friction in the barrel. So some of the rearward recoil energy is negated by bullet drag working against the rearward movement of the frame. There are many factors in play when you fire off a round. But most, like gas ejection and bullet drag, would tend to cancel each other out, and have only a minimal effect on the overall felt recoil.

So a faster bullet imparts all of it's reaction energy to the firearm over a shorter period of time than a slower bullet, resulting in what is perceived as a 'snappy' recoil. A slower bullet that produces an equal amount of energy spreads it out over a longer time period giving more of a 'push' perception in felt recoil.

A .357 loaded at max power with 125gr bullets will have a much snappier recoil than it does with a 158gr bullet loaded to the same power level. In a lightweight 12~14oz revolver with 125gr max loads the lack of mass in the frame results in it moving backward so rapidly, due to the short duration of the impulse, it may unseat the rounds in the other chambers. Using 158gr bullets will spread the impulse out over a longer period, as the bullet accelerates slower, and the problem doesn't occur.

The 125gr will also impact lower than the 158gr using the same POA. The heavier bullet takes longer to reach the end of the muzzle, so the barrel has more time to rise, and thus impacts higher than the lighter round which left the barrel sooner.

But that's just my opinion based on physics and practical experience......

[BCRider]

I think you've hit the nail on the head by brining in the time element to the question. This is the one factor that isn't covered when comparing just the muzzle energy or IPSC power factor numbers. But the impulse duration is a key factor in how we feel the recoil. Pressure and time is what accellerates the bullet. To get the .40 up to speed for the lesser time it is in the barrel means that the pressure has to be quite a bit higher than for the .45. Add to that the lesser time in the barrel and you've got your recipe for a snap rather than a push.

Overall though this is coming down to two groups. THose that say they can definetly feel the difference and those that think the others are making this up as we go along. For those that say they can't feel a difference I have to ask if you have had two guns sitting in front of you and fired off a magazine of one and then immediately picked up the other and shot off a magazine of the other. If you do I think you'll find yourself changing sides. More so if you're shooting the "classic" 230gn in the .45 and the lighter of the more popular bullets in the .40. When shot back to back like this the difference in feel is quite noticable.

[AKElroy]

Another car example.

Let's not. Bullets are not cars, they stop accelerating the instant they leave the barrel. If burn rate were a consideration, that variable would suggest the .45 would actually have more snap as it is less overbore than the .40. (It has more volume to burn in the larger bore compared to the .40). This is why the .40 produces more muzzle flash. Light & heat are produced to the detriment of forward propulsion; the .45 has more efficient combustion as a result of its larger bore. Bottom line is this; if more powder is fully consumed in an equal length barrel, equal weight platform, pushing a similarly weighted projectile, then it will produce more felt recoil. Again, example after example above is comparing 1911's to much lighter plastic .40's. The only polymer to polymer example (G37 to G27) is not valid, as they have radically different grips (no pinky curve under needed on the 37) & ergo's, not to mention weight. Not to mention one small but additional factor; even in identical platforms, the .45 will weigh slightly less due to thinner barrel wall thickness compared to the .40, which can only lead to slighlty more muzzle flip. Sorry, but this is still a fignewton of your collective imaginations.

[AKElroy]

THose that say they can definetly feel the difference and those that think the others are making this up as we go along. For those that say they can't feel a difference I have to ask if you have had two guns sitting in front of you and fired off a magazine of one and then immediately picked up the other and shot off a magazine of the other.

I have a series 80 colt .45, a G27 .40 and an XDm .40. Even with HOT DoubleTap 165's, the Xdm is BY FAR the softest of this group to shoot, even though it is far lighter than the series 80. If I were comparing the Colt to the Glock (as so many in this thread are), then of course I would jump to the conclusion that the .40 is more snappy. This whole "Push vs Snap" nonsense is born out of nothing more complicated than the fact that far more plastic guns are chambered in .40 than .45.

[James T Thomas]

Recoil, and it's perception, is subjective.

If you were able to safely have yourself blindfolded and test fire each of those calibers with your selected SD ammunition, I think you would -then, find the difference as slight. So much so that you might make your selection based upon other considerations.

Much of the perception comes from the combined sensory input of the
blast, report, etc. and the other senses, that if you are able to eliminate the others and concentrate on just the impulse, it is not as it seemed to be.

[AKElroy]

Much of the perception comes from the combined sensory input of the
blast, report, etc. and the other senses, that if you are able to eliminate the others and concentrate on just the impulse, it is not as it seemed to be.

My brother from another mother---Exactly so, Especially when one notes that the .40 is more overbore (More flash, blast & noise), and that many .40 loadings are supersonic and most .45 loadings are not; 1100-ish FPS for the .40 vs. 900-ish for the .45. (speed of sound roughly 1070 FPS). All this noise & action gives the perception of snappier .40 recoil, but an objective GAUGED MEASUREMENT of recoil between the two does not.

[GLOOB]

AKElroy,

You aren't considering the effect of escaping muzzle gases. Have you read my post? If the powder is completely burned by the time the bullet exits, there will be less muzzle blast for the .45ACP. And having a narrower (overbore?) barrel means gases escape at higher pressure and vaster velocities, all else equal, for the .40SW.

Muzzle blast is proven to cause recoil. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil by slowing the exiting gases. Muzzle brakes work best on guns with a lot of muzzle blast, because more of that recoil is produced by muzzle blast. You just admitted that a .40SW has more muzzle blast; yet, you are arguing the opposite to logic? Maybe? Think about it. Muzzle blast is doing something, and it's certainly not putting any more energy into the bullet.

Remember that the direction of a muzzle brake doesn't matter. It's not reducing recoil by directing gas up or back. As long as a muzzle brake slows gas, it doesn't matter which direction it goes. It reduces recoil, even if the gases still exit forward.

The mass of the exiting gases is very light, but they exit as speeds much higher than even the bullet velocity. And energy is proportional to velocity squared. High speed muzzle blast can become a significant factor in recoil, even in a pistol.

Not that a .40 has THAT bad a muzzle blast. But it's still a factor to consider, maybe?

[AKElroy]

Muzzle blast is proven to cause recoil. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil by slowing the exiting gases. Muzzle brakes work best on guns with a lot of muzzle blast, because more of that recoil is produced by muzzle blast. You just admitted that a .40SW has more muzzle blast; yet, you are arguing the opposite to logic? Maybe? Think about it.

Accelerating the projectile produces the overwhelming amount of felt recoil; any shove produced by escaping gas would be minimal in my view but you may have a point nontheless with regard to how the blast effects perception. It is my view that any additional shove created by escaping gas would be offset by the basic physics of motivating the heavier .45 projectiles. Blank guns used for stage props require super light recoil springs in order to function, for example. Having shot a bunch of both, it is still my view that most could not tell the difference if they shot them blindfolded, and if they did, they would likely peg the .45 as the heavier of the two. (By the way, don't). Lest we choose to ignore it, the actual intrumented tests of recoil between the two prove the .45 generates more. Any other beliefs are subjective and not supported by the science. By the way, muzzle brakes reduce FELT recoil. The horse has left the building and all rearward pressure has been exerted by the time the break grabs and re-directs escaping gas. We feel less recoil with a brake because the impulse is shorter in duration. Put a comped gun on a recoil scale with an un-comped gun and the scale will read the same number for both. One just got off the scale sooner--

[ar10]

Of course it does, look at the ballistics chart posted. The .40 is leaving the muzzle at about twice the speed as a .45.

[m2steven]

To be comparing calibers not in question, my Glock 26 hit really hard in comparison to my Glock 22c. The 40 really doesn't have a recoil in comparison. I'd think a Glock 45 equivalent to it's 40 would feel approx. the same. Ballistically - the explosion in the 40cal is about the same or greater as it is in the 45 or the energy transfer data would not be so similar. Smaller round with same energy as larger round = bigger starting force for the smaller round.

[GLOOB]

"By the way, muzzle brakes reduce FELT recoil. The horse has left the building and all rearward pressure has been exerted by the time the break grabs and re-directs escaping gas. We feel less recoil with a brake because the impulse is shorter in duration. Put a comped gun on a recoil scale with an un-comped gun and the scale will read the same number for both. One just got off the scale sooner-"

Since the horse has already left the building, why would you want powder still burning? And how, as in your original argument, would that actually reduce recoil?

A muzzle brake doesn't make the impulse shorter. That's exactly opposite. They make the impulse longer by delaying the expulsion of gases. The peak force of recoil is reduced, but overall impulse length is increased.

The most dramatic example of this type of muzzle brake is a silencer. You might say it coverts a "snappy" feeling recoil into more of a "push" or a "shove?"

One more time, I will agree that muzzle blast is not that big a factor in pistols as in high power rifles, where it can account for up to 50% or more of the maximum force of recoil. But it seems like it would be one factor that works against the .40 vs the .45, just due to the difference in muzzle blast/flash, and it has nothing to do with perception.

[Airburst]

That is a very subjective question to ask, but I do agree with the descriptions of both calibers' recoil on your hand. I would most definitely say the .40 snaps back in my hand while the 45 seems to be a slower feeling. Again, it's all subjective.

[uvausmc]

Between my SA TRP 1911 .45, Para lightweight LTC 1911 .45, and my XDm .40, i would definitely say the .40 is harder to control. However i shoot my XD .40 in USPSA production class and enjoy it. If you are looking at getting a 1911 style platform for limited/10 there is probably a lot less difference since they will have more weight forward. i feel like the added weight and 1911 grip size/angle plays a major role in controllability.

[cerberus65]

I personally prefer the feel of the .45 despite trying hard to convince myself I didn't need one. I have also shot .40 and .45 side by side before (and both in plastic guns). After that I finally broke down and got a .45 (actually several). I've yet to get a .40.

Another thing to think about is that a lot of serious competition guys reload. I don't know if the particular competition you're considering is that way or not but if so it's something to consider. Everything I've read suggests that you have to be more careful with .40 since it's higher pressure. Not that we wouldn't be very, very careful reloading anyway... :-)

[raskolnikov_22]

Not enough difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 to matter IMO. Choose what you want, practice, and get used to it.

Better yet, practice with a .357 or .44 Magnum. Then any auto will feel like a BB gun.

[1911Tuner]

recoil is just momentum,

Well...That's not entirely accurate.

Momentum is a function of mass X velocity. The recoil impulse...what we feel...is acceleration.

Force forward equals force backward. As force goes up, so does the rate of acceleration of both bullet and gun. The recoil impulse is what we feel. In a pistol cartridge, about 90% of the bullet's acceleration occurs within the first half-inch of bullet movement. With some cartridges using a quick powder like Bullseye and a heavy bullet...the bulk of acceleration can occur before the bullet ever clears the case. Whatever added acceleration that occurs after the initial impulse is scarcely detectable.

Once the bullet is gone, there is no more acceleration of bullet OR gun. Any additional movement of the gun after bullet exit is due to momentum, or the conservation thereof. There is some additional "push" after bullet exit due to the exiting powder gasses and particulate...but that is miniscule in a pistol caliber compared to what comes from the main event.

Of course, this applies only to fixed breech arms...such as a revolver...because the impuls is transferred directly and immediately to the gun. Not so in an auto. What you feel as recoil in an autopistol is a function of the slide's compression of the spring, and the slide striking the impact abutment in the frame...which causes the greatest majority of muzzle flip.

The recoil system is a closed system, and once set into motion...creates a separate action/reaction event apart from the one that comes from the firing of the cartridge...or the main event...which is between bullet and breechblock.

The faster the slide accelerates rearward, the faster it compresses the spring...and the sharper the felt recoil. The harder it strikes the impact abutment...momentum plays a role here...the more the muzzle will flip.

Force forward equals force backward. As the spring compresses, it exerts more force in both directions. The stronger the spring...the more force it exerts...and the more push you feel on the frame from the spring.

Because the slide has moved a very short distance at bullet exit...about a tenth inch in short recoil systems...the spring adds little to the force forward/backward equation...and by the time it compresses enough for the shooter to feel much of its influence...the bullet is long gone, and the recoil generated by the main event is over.

So, we feel very little "kick' from firing the round in an autoloader. We can detect virtually none. There simply isn't time. What we feel is mainly slide to frame impact.
We can up the spring's tension to reduce the impact momentum...but we pay the price in sharper recoil before impact. This is the reason that small caliber blowback pistols have such sharp recoil for the power of the round. They use spring tension and/or slide mass to delay the breech opening...so the springs are necessarily stout for the size of the gun and the cartridge.

Incidentally...straight blowback pistols are also recoil operated. Both types function as a result of...force forward and force backward.

Cheers!

[GojuBrian]

Well, this whole thing has proven pretty subjective to the individual,lol.

I can't tell much of a difference on the same platform myself.

My wallet would rather me shoot a $600 -700 .40 auto than a $1000 1911 .45 all day long. :eek:

[V45C]

having put maybe 10,000+ 40sw thru several sigs and cz's , and maybe 230-240,000 45 acp downrange i find no real difference in either calibers recoil.
detonics/sig 239
colt lwc/sig 226
colt gvt/cz 75b etc.
but then i'm not bothered by recoil that much.

[1911 guy]

Neither is overly powerful, recoil-wise. The .45ACP kinda pushes into your hand on recoil, the .40 snaps back into the hand with a bit more speed. Of course it's like comparing the Ford doing 65 MPH to the Chevy doing 68 MPH. Yeah, one is going faster (bullet velocity is very different, I'm talking recoil here) but the difference is pretty negligible.

[Bass Killer]

Its all about the gun. I have a .45 that has less recoil than one of my 9mm's.

[H2O MAN]

1911 guy The .45ACP kinda pushes into your hand on recoil, the .40 snaps back into the hand with a bit more speed.

This has been my experience.
The snapping .40 and it's resulting muzzle flip annoyed me so I sold my .40 hand guns and now shoot .45ACP exclusively.