Comparison of ammo for full size 45 ACP 1911

Assuming they shoot to advertised velocity, the WWB 185 will have 12% less recoil.

Try both bullet weights for yourself. I'd be more concerned with POI differences between the bullet weights than recoil.

In .45 ACP I'd stick to 230-grain.

I have found that 185 gr. ammo seems to have less felt recoil when used in a shorter barrel Colt Combat Commander, Commander, and Officers ACP. Similar results when I have used 185 gr. National Match target ammo in a Colt Gold Cup.

Try both. See which one you shoot the best

I know to compete you need semi Wadcutter bullets. They cut a clean 45 caliber hole in the target. I used to shoot 185 grain and it did fine for me.

Recoil has a physical component that can be calculated, Jim Watson stated the factory 185gr will have 12% less recoil than the 230gr if the factory velocity specs are right. I'd believe him.

But there is also a subjective component to it, muzzle flash and blast, bore axis, gun fit, etc. so ultimately the only way to find out would be go get a box of each and try them.

My experience with reloads and shooting mixed loads (alternating them in the magazine) I doubt I could tell a 12% recoil difference unless the flash and blast were very different. Its also a quick way to gauge POA/POI as if the groups don't clearly separate out either you are not a good enough shooter for it to matter, or the shift is negligible at that distance.

As was said above, for bullseye matches you need SWC or wadcutter bullets to punch clean full caliber holes and thus "break more higher scoring lines" if you expect to compete.

It would be a radical step to buy a box of each and shoot them for feel and accuracy. All I did was a simple power factor ratio.

Me?
I load .45s very lightly because I have lost what little recoil tolerance I ever had. I had just as well go to 9mm altogether except I have the .45 guns and gear I had rather shoot than sell.

As far as the clean holes, I thought that in bullseye shooting, you were entitled to have a doubtful shot plugged for accurate scoring. I know USPSA has overlays for the close calls.

Power factor is muzzle velocity in fps times bullet weight in grains, divided by 1000 to get a convenient three digit number for comparison. It originated in IPSC when consumer chronographs got cheap and they didn't have to maintain ballistic pendulums. It is a measure of momentum although not in scientific units. Momentum, not energy, is what is conserved in the form of recoil. Trying to assign a value to FELT recoil is difficult; you just have to shoot the gun.

I guess there's all kinds of advice out there, but I've always advocated going back to .22s and working very hard on fundamentals for a while if a flinch starts to show up. Get your mind re-focused on doing the steps and seeing what you need to see to make the shot, so that when you switch back to a centerfire handgun you're thinking "front sight, press, front sight, press..." and the little bang and bit of movement the gun does in between really isn't something you're noticing as you're preoccupied with shooting properly.

In the end, service style handguns really DO have minimal recoil and noise. Nothing that's going to hurt you or make you drop the gun. So when you get your focus onto the fundamentals you can completely skip perceiving the disturbance of the gun's reaction. It just isn't important.

I'm not sure I really buy into the idea that 185 gr. bullets will make some noticeable difference vs. 230 gr. ball slugs. The gun's still going to make noise and it's still going to recoil. If that's what your mind is stuck on as the most important thing in the moment, then incremental differences in big bang vs. almost-as-big a bang wouldn't be helpful.

Perhaps part of the "shoot a box of hardball" idea is just in getting you to fire a full recoiling gun 50 times to reinforce the unconscious cognition that this gun isn't going to hurt me, i'm bigger and tougher than recoil, I don't need to flinch from it.

A corollary to my idea there is that I've observed that shooters who come up in stationary (for lack of a better word) "square range" shooting disciplines tend to be more plagued by flinching than those who come up through more dynamic shooting disciplines. I think that's because there's so much time given to preparing the shot and squeeze...squeeze...oh gads it's going to go BANG and kick...squeeze... (pop) ... whoops, I flinched! So much anticipation of the shot that the noise and recoil become the factor at the front of consciousness, rather than something hardly perceived.

I've rarely seen a trap, skeet, sporting clays, IDPA, USPSA, SASS, etc., shooter really bothered by flinching. They're so target-focused and their brains are pre-occupied fully by getting in position/stance and making a swift, clean shot, especially on a moving target, or while they're moving themselves, they tend to not really register the noise and recoil at all. Now they may exhibit other bad habits such as poor follow through, but those are a different issue to fix. There's a problem to solve, and solve very quickly, and the gun is just the tool. No carpenter flinches when he swings his hammer because of how loud it will be when the nail is struck. He's focused on cleanly striking the nail and moving to the next one.

MikeMyers,

Get a box or two of the Win 185 gr. FMJ target loads and go shoot. This will clear things up for you regarding the recoil.

In general heavier bullets hit higher on the target irregardless of velocity. You will see this with 185, 200 and 230 gr. ammo. But it will only be a few inches or less at 25 yards. That's why they make adjustable sights.

In general target rounds for bullseye shooting with the 45 acp are either 185 or 200 gr. SWC rounds at between 730-800 fps. The lighter weight and the reduced velocity are aids in competitive bullseye. (Hardball competitions are another thing). But that is not always the case. For some years Nosler has been making an excellent 185 gr. JHP that in testing by the Marines proved to be more accurate than traditional bullets. More on that later.

Here's an example from Wilson Combat, a 200 gr. SWC bullet at 770 fps:

http://shopwilsoncombat.com/45-ACP-...-Barrel-400-Bulk/productinfo/RA45-200-LSWC-T/

Here are some other options along the same line:

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/7...5-acp-200-grain-lead-semi-wadcutter-box-of-50

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/9...-acp-200-grain-match-semi-wadcutter-box-of-20

There are many more along these lines.

From the American Rifleman on the 185 gr. JHP:

"This handloaded match ammunition’s velocity is reported by several sources to range from 770 FPS up to 830 FPS in a tight match barrel, with most competition guns shooting at the upper end of this velocity range. Ten shot groups in the neighborhood of 1” center-to-center at 50 yards are the norm in the USMC match prepared 1911 pistols when fired out of a machine rest."

"According to both Dorman and Lawless, the Nosler 185 JHP bullet has shown itself to be more accurate than either a cast lead semi-wadcutter or a jacketed semi-wadcutter in the .45 ACP. O’Connor, Dorman and Lawless all indicate that this accuracy stems from the nature of the manufacture of the JHP bullet. “A jacketed hollow point bullet is built from the base out so the concentricity is true, unlike the full metal jacketed bullet which is built from the nose out,” said Lawless.

“I just machine-rest tested 15 of our new 1911 match-prepared pistols,” continued Lawless. “All but one fired 10-shot groups with 9 Xs or better at 50 yards, and that’s with all nine or ten bullets being deep inside the X-ring. The one gun that didn’t shoot up to snuff went back to the armorer for a rework.”

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2016/4/07/usmc-match-45-load/

There is plenty of information on this available both in reloading manuals and on the innertube.

tipoc

Federal match 185gr fmj swc 780 fps.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/9...cp-185-grain-full-metal-jacket-semi-wadcutter

The heavier bullet generates more recoil, which shows up as muzzle rise, even before the bullet is out of the muzzle. So the heavier bullet is launched at a higher angle and at pistol ranges, strikes higher on the target. The effect is more obvious with a revolver than an auto. At 15 yards there was no discernible difference between 200 gr and 230 gr bullets, but 185s hit low from my .45 OACP. Immaterial, you will adjust the sights.

MikeMyers,

Absolutely the best thing for you to do is to go and see this phenomena for yourself. It a bit easier to see with wheelguns than with semis but still a true thing. Go shoot off a rest if you need to for accuracy's sake with different bullet weights at 15 or 25 yards. Use the same point of aim.

What are you missing? Well, to begin with, think of an actual gun and actual bullets rather than the speed of light and 10 ft. per second. Keep in mind that fighting gravity has little measurable effect on handgun bullets at the short distances we normally fire them (unlike rifle bullets). Fewer questions and more shooting will tell you this.

It has to do with bullet weight and recoil. In any gun recoil begins as soon as the gases from the burning propellant begin to expand. The bullet begins it's journey down the barrel. The muzzle begins to rise even before the slide begins to move rearward. The heavier bullet stays in the barrel longer than the lighter bullet. So the muzzle rises an incremental bit more with the heavier bullet, both because of the stouter recoil with the heavier round and due to the time it takes to exit the muzzle. The result in general is that the heavier bullet strikes higher.

Here is a pic of a S&W M681 on the right. The target above shows 14 rounds of a 158 gr. bullet. Below is a 125 gr. bullet. These shot at 10 yards same point of aim. The results are more pronounced in a revolver than in a semi, due to the movement of the slide.



You can also pick up a copy and Robert Rinker's book and study on it some there. Usually it makes little difference, and like Jim said above (he wrote his remarks while I was messing around and beat me to it) that's why sights are adjustable.

It has to do with the time the bullet is in the barrel, not what the bullet does when it leaves the barrel. It's called dwell time. Recoil has an effect also.

A heavier bullet generally has a slower velocity than a lighter bullet, so the muzzle is higher when the heavier bullet leaves the barrel. Also, the heavier bullet usually recoils more which causes the barrel to rise more as the bullet exits.

This is how I remember it. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

One reason Elmer Keith liked the .44 Special was that recoil, barrel time, and trajectory all balanced out such that light and heavy loads shot to the same zero at some useful range. .44 Magnum doesn't.

I sympathize with the finch thing. I seem to go through this every couple of years and I also agree with what Sam1911 said. I tend to do it far more often when I am shooting a stationary target. Even just shooting pins is better for me because I am far more focused on getting my sight back up on target than I am about pointing and squeezing the trigger. I have found that using snap caps randomly mixed in my magazine or leaving random chambers on my revolvers empty helps tremendously. I think a large number of shooters probably do flinch from time to time and some shooters probably flinch a lot and just don't know it. When you hit that snap cap or empty chamber and you SEE yourself flinch, you really know when you are flinching. I have also gone back to a lot of .22 shooting when I seem to be flinching. I don't know why it is a reoccurring problem for me but those are the techniques that seem to work for me.

As for recoil between the 185 and 230 gain bullets, I frankly can't tell the difference. I only own one .45acp and I CAN tell you that my gun prefers the 230 grain bullets for accuracy. In my experience, everyone's gun is a little different so shooting a few of each from a rest is IMHO the only way to know for sure.

Sam1911 said:

A corollary to my idea there is that I've observed that shooters who come up in stationary (for lack of a better word) "square range" shooting disciplines tend to be more plagued by flinching than those who come up through more dynamic shooting disciplines. I think that's because there's so much time given to preparing the shot and squeeze...squeeze...oh gads it's going to go BANG and kick...squeeze... (pop) ... whoops, I flinched! So much anticipation of the shot that the noise and recoil become the factor at the front of consciousness, rather than something hardly perceived.

I've rarely seen a trap, skeet, sporting clays, IDPA, USPSA, SASS, etc., shooter really bothered by flinching. They're so target-focused and their brains are pre-occupied fully by getting in position/stance and making a swift, clean shot, especially on a moving target, or while they're moving themselves, they tend to not really register the noise and recoil at all. Now they may exhibit other bad habits such as poor follow through, but those are a different issue to fix. There's a problem to solve, and solve very quickly, and the gun is just the tool. No carpenter flinches when he swings his hammer because of how loud it will be when the nail is struck. He's focused on cleanly striking the nail and moving to the next one.

Click to expand...

I have a different take on this. I think that in many of the shooting sports other than bullseye and silhouette that Sam mentions shooters can be "not really bothered by flinching" because it matters less in those sports and a person can compensate for their errors in a number of ways. They still flinch but it does not show or does not matter. The targets are larger, and often closer. The scoring is different and speed and gun handling skills may be more critical to a good score than if you can place 10 rounds within a 3" or so circle at 25 yards shooting one handed or two handed.

Flinching is also an umbrella term that covers an array of separate errors.

tipoc

Tipop,

No arguments there. I agree that some shooters do (something wrong which we lump under "flinch") even when they're dynamically engaging targets. We've got some guys who can be counted on to shoot decently at the close range stuff but their shots start to drop at mid-ranges, and if you throw a 30 yard target into the mix, they can be expected to miss it entirely, no matter how carefully they sight. That's one good example.

But yeah, flinching can mean different things to different people.

It takes different forms I think. Personally, my thing is to anticipate the shot and push into it, the muzzle dips slightly as a result. Takes mental effort to avoid it. I can still shoot a decent group because I'm consistent in the error. Good group just an inch to three off from where I want it to be. I can compensate for it by changing my point of aim.

I've known and seen other shooters who between each shot readjust their grip on the gun slightly. His groups were inconsistent. Usually it's because the gun slips a bit in their hand with each shot. A new set of stocks can help and being conscious of what they are doing helps as well. They only realized it when they saw slo-mo vids of themselves shooting. Actually he didn't see it even in slo-mo till I pointed it out.

Knew another fella who just before each shot unconsciously gripped the gun tighter. A woman I knew seemed to strangle the gun before a round of fire and was unconscious of it. I think these are forms of anticipating the shot.

Some folks shut their eyes just before the shot, or when they think the shot will go.

Others hold their breath.

There is also just true flinching. A person seems to jump a bit just before dropping the hammer (or striker) as if afraid. This can be overcome pretty quick if they want to shoot and like it.

When Jeff Cooper used to speak of a "surprise break" he was talking about a way of not anticipating the shot and so not flinching.

I was shooting with my nephew. He can shoot well slow fire and was trying to get where at 8 or 10 yards hit a 6x4" rectangle at speed. He'd let her rip and was missing more than he hit. I noticed that when he was shooting he was humming to himself. I asked him what he was humming. He denied he was humming. I called him on it again and it was the theme song from a Jason Bourne movie. He was unaware of it and fell into a mental rhythm when shooting fast. So we worked on that. Folks can be funny.

As far as the clean holes, I thought that in bullseye shooting, you were entitled to have a doubtful shot plugged for accurate scoring. I know USPSA has overlays for the close calls.

Click to expand...

I gave up shooting matches long ago simply because there was far too much standing around and not enough shooting. If people are going to be arguing about if a different bullet shape would have "broken the line" and they thus deserve an extra point, that would seem to make things even slower. Maybe at national level matches this makes sense, but for my idea of fun its counter-productive. So perhaps my experience is only with "club rules" but everyone there shot SWC or wadcutters back then.