.45 ACP Accuracy

[Corpral_Agarn]

I think it may have more to do with the platforms the 45acp is coming out of rather than the round itself.

45acp has been around for a long time and many people shoot 45acp with the 1911 platform.

IMO the 1911 platform lends itself to be a very accurate handgun for many people. Trigger, sight radius, grip... all very good for accuracy.

A lot of people I have taught or worked with in shooting will tell me that the 1911 was so much more accurate for them than the [insert striker fired gun].

I don't htink it is any more or less accurate, I just think that a gun like the 1911 is more forgiving.

IMO that is likely where the perception that the round is more accurate came from.

Not meant to be a "the 1911 is the greatest gun ever" post, cause it for sure has it's problems, I just think that platform has a bigger effect than the round itself.

 

[RA40]

The 1911 to my perceptions points in a way that the 9's don't. I'm fairly consistent across most mine yet I have to concentrate on technique with the 9's. Heavier DA/SA trigger, that creeps, stacks, etc...the break and reset. Comes with concentrated practice so that's probably the reason why in my case 9's I have to be more conscious of.

 

[Bushpilot]

I don't notice the 45 acp to be any more accurate then the 9mm although I have shot some 45s that were very accurate. I agree with those who mentioned that 1911 triggers are usually better than average and that might have something to do with this perception. I've always considered the 45 acp, 9mm, 38/357 and 44 mag to all be exceptionally accurate....... when chambered in an accurate gun.....

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I don't think caliber plays a role in accuracy in your normal pistol shooting.

I think it's first the shooter and then the gun. But to me those are the only real variables in your average pistol shooting.

Now for competitive precise shooting quality of ammunition could be a factor, but caliber, no.


JMHO.....

 

[tipoc]

I believe there is some credence to the short-n-fat bullet being more stable (or easier to stabilize) than the relatively longer and skinnier one which can make the 45 fly more accurately. The ACP cartridge case is also superior to the tapered 9mm when it comes to chambering consistently and the velocity range of the common projectiles is narrower which might make more compatible with the rifling. Of course it's possible to make a very accurate 9mm...the SIG 210 comes to mind, but I think it's easier with the 45.

One thing that IS provable is that equal accuracy on a scoring target will always give the 45 a higher score being that the larger diameter cuts a higher scoring ring that the smaller one just misses. Sometimes bigger IS better.

Hmm? Let's see. In general the length of a 9mm bullet is shorter than the bullet for the 45 acp. So the idea about short and fat and bullet stability etc. I don't think carries much weight. It's also the case that the length of the bullet varies with bullet weight and type of bullet being used.

What may be of help is the ballistic coefficient of the two and comparing them for specific bullets and bullet weights. But doing this actually shows pretty much a wash and favors the 9mm some. (See Bob Forker's book Ammo and Ballistics Vol. 5). It's also the case that at the short distance handguns are generally used the BC is less important than it is with long guns regarding a bullet in flight.

That the 45 acp is "superior" in chambering over the 9mm due to the slight taper of the 9mm is also, well, an incredible idea concocted out of thin air. In the over 110 years that the 9mm has been around it has never been accused of being a poor feeding round. Some guns for it possibly, but if a round can be said to be a reliable feeder it is the 9mm that is a model for that. It's also the case that the more accurate 9mms also have a slight taper to the chambers.

About the diameter of a round. Yes the larger diameter of a bullet makes a difference in bullseye shooting. This is because a score can be higher if a line is broken. But this has to do with how bullseye is scored and not the size of the group. The larger diameter of the bullet does not effect the size of the group. Size of the group is measured center of hole to center of hole, the size of the hole makes no difference in measuring a group.

All in all it has more to do with the gun and the shooter than with the caliber.

 

[RecoilRob]

Wow....so much fail in so little space! Since you've taken me to task...let me reply: Compare 9mm bullets https://www.midwayusa.com/s?targetLocation=/_/N-19785+4294943573?Np=2&Nr=AND%28p_visible%3A1%2Ccustomertypeid%3A1%29&Nrpp=24&Ns=p_metric_sales_velocity%7C1&Ntpc=1&Ntpr=1&userItemsPerPage=48&persistedItemsPerPage=0 to 45's https://www.midwayusa.com/s?targetLocation=/_/N-19785+4294943988?Np=2&Nr=AND%28p_visible%3A1%2Ccustomertypeid%3A1%29&Nrpp=24&Ns=p_metric_sales_velocity%7C1&Ntpc=1&Ntpr=1&userItemsPerPage=48&persistedItemsPerPage=0

The 45's tend to have more bearing surface (in relationship to their length) than the 9mm's and many/most approach a bore diameter length of engagement. This makes the bullet run down the barrel with better stability. Of course there are outliers in both calibers that don't follow this general relationship...but we were talking in generalities and I think this holds true. The heavier 9mm's tend to be more accurate IME and even SIG recommends the 147 for their superb 210 to offer the best it can deliver.

9mm's normally have 1-10 twist where almost all 45's will have 1-16 (except Colt where they use the same twist in both calibers). I believe this is done in an effort to stabilize the 9mm which tends to have more nose protruding ahead of the bearing surface than the more squat 45's which don't need as much spin to stabilize. Does this in and of itself make one better than the other? No....but again we're looking at generalities and tendencies and I still believe that this tends to make the 45 the more stable in flight.

Where did I say ANYTHING about feeding? Never mentioned it or even thought of it. The taper on the 9mm does vary depending on who made the ammo and where it was made....so there's another variable that can work against precision depending on what ammo you are using. Sure....there are tight chambered 9mm's that are superbly accurate when fed ammo it likes (see SIG 210 above) but when referring to generalities a tapered round will always offer a bit more sloppiness than a straight wall and while this absolutely does offer it an advantage in feed reliability that's not Germain to this discussion. Accuracy potential is the subject and adding a variable that can be removed is often a less than optimum way to proceed.

 

[Hangingrock]

[QUOTE="RecoilRob, post:


Where did I say ANYTHING about feeding? Never mentioned it or even thought of it. The taper on the 9mm does vary depending on who made the ammo and where it was made....so there's another variable that can work against precision depending on what ammo you are using. Sure....there are tight chambered 9mm's that are superbly accurate when fed ammo it likes (see SIG 210 above) but when referring to generalities a tapered round will always offer a bit more sloppiness than a straight wall and while this absolutely does offer it an advantage in feed reliability that's not Germain to this discussion. Accuracy potential is the subject and adding a variable that can be removed is often a less than optimum way to proceed.[/QUOTE]

The 45ACP is not a Strait Wall Case either, at the base .476-Dia and at the mouth .473-Dia. A slight taper but none the less a taper (Lyman 50th Ed Reloading Handbook page number 442.)

 

[tipoc]

[QUOTE="RecoilRob, post: The ACP cartridge case is also superior to the tapered 9mm when it comes to chambering consistently and the velocity range of the common projectiles is narrower which might make more compatible with the rifling. [/QUOTE]

Excuse me Rob, I thought at first that when you said "chambering" above it had something to do with feeding reliability. Instead your point was about how the case sits in the chamber just before the firing pin strikes the primer. Once the primer is struck the case walls expand to fill the available space and to lightly grip the chamber walls. Then the bullet simultaneously moves forward to engage the grooves of the barrel. At this point any tiny variation in how the round sits in the chamber is usually of no consequence.

Now in pistols built for competition with "Match Grade" barrels the chamber is generally tighter by .001-.002 this is so that the round, when in the chamber, does sit more uniformally in relation to the lands and grooves. Such barrels are supposed to be more carefully and uniformally dimensioned overall as well. This is supposed to allow for more even expansion of the brass and more consistent burn of powder. This may or may not make for a practical difference depending on a number of other factors with the gun and the shooter. But it's a minor difference.

It's also the case that how the case sits the the chamber before the primer is ignited is often dependent on how the extractor holds the case. In many semis the extractor holds the round at a very slight tilt. The round does not headspace on the case mouth but is usually held by the extractor.

All in all the variance of how the case sits in the chamber makes so little practical difference, if any at all, in handguns that it's a non factor for most of us in handgun shooting. If you shoot at the level where it might make a difference then it is far down the list of things that do, for example below whether you got a good sleep the night before a match.

 

[doubleh]

All I know about accuracy differences between 45 acp and 9mm personally is shooting my two 1911s in 45 and my two 1911s in 9mm. I have not been able to come close to equaling the accuracy of my 45 guns with the 9mm ones. One of each is the same brand. I also shoot a plastic fantastic 9mm that comes much closer to the 45s in the accurate department even with it's less than stellar trigger when compared to the 1911s. I'm going to continue with my accuracy search for the 9mm though. I kind of enjoy it when I achieve a little improvement and that's all I'v managed so far. Maybe it's because I have other firerarm projects in the fire and don't devote a great deal of time to my quest.

 

[Pete D.]

Fyi....the NRA B6 50 yard target has a 10 ring that is 3.36” in diameter. The X ring is a tad under 1.7”
The National record for 20 shots using the .45 ACP at 50 yards is 200 - 11X. It was set in 1982.

 

[Tallball]

I went shooting yesterday morning and the "big hole" factor seemed to be in play again. I normally shoot at bullseye targets, but a kind gentleman who was done shooting offered me an unblemished silhouette target, so I hung it up. At about the same time a couple of guys showed up and were shooting at silhouette targets right next to me. At one point all three of us happened to be shooting at the heads. Admittedly, I was a little more accurate. That doesn't mean I'm a better shot: They were shooting small 9mm pistols, and I was shooting a 5" target revolver. All of us were hitting the head regularly, with pretty good groups. Their silhouettes had a bunch of small holes in them. Mine had a few scattered big holes (fliers) and then a big ole the size of a large apple where the close-together hits had torn the paper apart. I think with a 9mm or 38 my target would have looked more like theirs, but the big fat bullets close together were more than the paper target could withstand.

 

[JR24]

My best shooting is with a 1911 in .45ACP, but I think that's more because of the trigger than the chambering.

I used to think this until my father bought a sweet Wilson CQB in 9mm and I was shocked I still shoot my VBob better. Both are commander length and both have, dry fire, nice triggers. The only difference is the Wilson trigger is better and in 9mm.

I also, generally, shoot my Glock 21 more accurately, especially at > 20 yards, than my Glock 17. Though I have more trigger time on the 17, by a lot.

 

[Toprudder]

I know the difference isn’t as drastic between a .45 and 9mm, but a 2” group with a .22 sure looks worse than a 2” group with a 9mm just because there’s so much more space between the tiny holes a .22 makes.

So maybe it's all in your head?

I always say it is easier to shoot 1 hole groups when you use really big bullets. I just need to figure out how to shoot 2" bullets.