.45 ACP, still viable for military or police?

Viable - yes.

Best choice - no.

I still wouldn't want to get shot with one.

I think it’s a question of cost effectiveness. 9mm will serve the same purpose for less $$ in ammo and usually less in firearm expense.
But yes, it’s still a very useful caliber.

Absolutely, it is. But, for the reasons already mentioned, it's just not as preferred by the powers making the money decisions.

I think it is viable as a police round, but not the best choice. As a military round it is a huge step backwards.

With the best HP ammo 45 is a solid stopper against human threats and a viable option for LE or anyone else. But any advantage it has over 9mm or any other round with equal ammo is statistically insignificant, and not worth the lower mag capacity and other negatives. But if someone simply likes it better then it works.

The military has different needs. When loaded with FMJ ammo there is no statistical difference in terminal performance between 9mm and 45. But 9mm, especially with some specialty loads, does a much better job at penetrating light body armor and barriers. That combined with much greater capacity makes the 9mm the clear winner for the military.

For a lot of people with small hands, the double stack 9mm and the .45 1911 are poor choices and a single stack 9mm is more effective.

To me a viable handgun is one that you can hit the target with. For the average person, that is more likely to be a 9mm over a .45.

Read a memoir by a WWII ordnance guy who took a bunch of rear echelon types out for handgun training in North Africa; they mastered the 9mm quicker than they did the .45 and shoot better with the 9mm than with the .45. As much as I like my .45, that is reality: for the average person the 9mm would be a better general issue sidearm.

Absolutely, but not as a one-size-fits-all. 45 ACP tends to be a lot of gun for some people in general. For the most part, a 45 auto confines users to either a single stack 1911 with a reduced mag capacity, or a double stacked modern handgun with a fairly fat frame, plus the weight involved for the pistol and heavier ammunition. This of course is a problem in the military, where one size MUST fit all, for the most part. In the LE world, when and where some agencies allow officers to choose between different calibers and pistol designs, and the officer can proficiently utilize the pistol, why not.

This topic always makes me think of this story.

https://www.policeone.com/police-he...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

The 1911 come to be in the days while the Army still rode horses. John Moses designed the .45 ACP to be able to shoot through a horse.
In a conversation with a friend about the .45 ACP I question the velocity compared to the .40 and 9mm to which my friend replied "Its like getting hit with a tack hammer compared to a sledge hammer.

I ilike the .45 ACP

For some it may not be the best choice due to recoil,size of pistol etc but a good choice less the above factors. I believe the Ma State Police carry M&Ps in 45 auto.

If the 9mm is so good why do many Special Forces units prefer and carry a 1911 in 45 Auto?

I'm just asking...

These arguments of 9mm vs 45ACP are wearing me out.

That said, let's assert for a moment that all 9mm are as 'good' as all 45ACP. From a transitive property that means that all 45ACP is as good as all 9mm. It seems the debate should stop there. From a practical perspective, I've seen at a distance of a few feet what a 45ACP can do to a face, and have arrived right after a BG took a pair of 9mm HPs in the chest. God protect us from either one of those events.

Back to the original question, my perspective is that the 45ACP is still viable ballistically, but not so logistically these days.

Walkalong said:

Wasn't that the .45 Colt when the .38 Spl was not phasing them? May remember it wrong.

Click to expand...

The .45 Colt was the Army issue before they changed to DA .38 Special. After it proved ineffective, a switch was made back to .45 caliber but I'm not sure which one. From what I've read, the Army didn't use the full-power .45 Colt round very much because they had Peacemaker and Schofield revolvers in the field and the shorter Schofield round would work in both. Philippine Insurrection was where the ineffectiveness of the .38 caliber round was exposed and that happened before the .45 ACP round was invented.

jski said:

Is the .45 ACP cartridge still a viable round for military or police use?

Click to expand...

The .45 ACP is migrating into SMGs nowadays. When police units buy anything in that caliber, it's something like B&T ACP45, to be used inside buildings against threats with no or little body armor. I do not see .45 ACP handguns bought by departments anymore. One interesting trend though, it's finding its way into countries that historically never used it, like Russia (well, China did have it in spots - the country is just this big). So, the use of .45 ACP is plummeting in its ancestral homeland, while it's growing, very slowly, in rest of the world.

A buddy of mine just got on a local sheriffs department and he is required to shoot .45 but it can't be a 1911. He's pretty disappointed as 1911 is the only gun he is naturally a decent shooter in .45 with. Guess that just means more range time with friends.

Walkalong

No, you got that partially right. The Army put the Colt SAA with the 5 1/2" barrel back into service in the Philippines because the .38 Long Colt cartridge in the Colt New Army Model 1892 revolver was ineffective against the Moros.

ArchAngelCD said:

If the 9mm is so good why do many Special Forces units prefer and carry a 1911 in 45 Auto?

I'm just asking...

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess standardization. 9mm is easier to master, most anyone can shoot it, higher capacity pistols, more durable pistols (poly,) interchangeability of ammunition, the list goes on. The 1911 requires more attention... cocked and locked vs an always-on, striker-fired pistol.

Special Units have personnel that are trained to a higher standard, that typically train more often, and more realistically. If you look at battle rifles... the generic ground pounder gets handed an M4, you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. Special units get to pick what they think they need for a specific mission... full auto, suppressed, unconventional cartridges, etc.

I think the .45ACP is still a viable round, but the real question is what are you carrying it in? Ammunition and bullet design advancements have brought the 9mm UP closer to the .45 in terms of performance, the .45 has not lost any points there.

I would rather and do carry .45 ACP, both Glock 30 and 1911's.

As I stated on the the firing line to this same post:

The 9mm is popular now because of price and low recoil. More and more police and military are allowing women and people with small hands or are recoil shy to join.

I will stick with .45 as it has greater momentum and the same improvements made with 9mm hollow points have also been made to .45.

To those that say 9mm offers more rounds, well, you're going to need those rounds compared to .45.

ArchAngelCD said:

If the 9mm is so good why do many Special Forces units prefer and carry a 1911 in 45 Auto?

I'm just asking...

Click to expand...

Because it hits harder especially when dudes are on drugs. As far as the 1911 specificly, it’s very professional gun. You have to really know how to use it well to avoid a error or failure in combat. It’s not for “everyone”