.45 and 1911 losing ground?

[Vern Humphrey]

You bring up a great point! If you take a look at the hole a projectile (bullet) makes, it's somewhat cylindrical shaped, right? (yes, I know, it's not perfectly straight, but in general... it's a 'tube' AKA, Cylinder) So, while the SURFACE area of that tube (cylinder) is the 'now-opened space, that didn't used to have a hole'... sure.. But.. the surface area of said 'cylinder' is in direct proportion to the diameter of the object that makes that hole. I know, I know... you don't want to quibble the math, I saw that, but my 13yo is bringing home geometry homework these days, and I get to step in when my bride lets me.

Well, maybe.

Try this -- shoot at a sheet of typing paper with a .22, then examine the hole.

First of all, there will be shreds of paper trailing backward from the hole. Put your finger over those shreds, pushing them back into position, and examine the hole.

You will see an irregular hole, much smaller than a .22 bullet, with tears radiating outward from the hole. (The diameter of the bullet is shown by the "scuff collar" around the irregular hole.)

This tells us how the bullet penetrated. The nose of the bullet touched the paper and stressed the fibers to the breaking point. The nose of the bullet entered the small hole and "shouldered" its way through, causing the radial tears.

This is somewhat similar to the way a round nose bullet penetrates flesh. The actual hole is smaller than the bullet. There will be no radial tears, however, because flesh is elastic and can give enough to allow the bullet passage.

This is why semi-wadcutters are so dramatically more effective than round nose bullets of the same caliber, weight and velocity -- they chop out a bigger hole.

 

[lsudave]

When I began carrying a few years ago, I started taking regular shooting/CCH classes, and the 1911 and .45 were always well-represented in those classes. It's what I was usually shooting, too. In the last 2 or 3 years I see a definite shift away from both, and it's common now to see no .45s or 1911s in a class. Personally I've shifted to 9mm and .40 Glocks for most of my shooting (still have all my 1911s though). Do you see the same? Have you personally shifted away from the .45 and/or 1911?

If anything, I think the price and availability of the RIA and similar 1911's have lead to a resurgence.
We went through a phase where everything had to be doublestack Wondernines, and these became plastic Glocks, which morphed into the .40 S&W polymer guns. That's fine for cops.

For the private individual, in all honesty, if 7 rds aren't enough, you're in some serious trouble that is beyond any pistol's capabilities. And also, with private ownership comes a sense of pride, and that often goes to a more aesthetically pleasing gun; you want something that looks good and is crafted well, not just a tool. Even the bargain level 1911's have that appeal.

 

[Panzerschwein]

The M1911A1 is the greatest combat handgun ever made.

Aside from that, it's an American icon.

The M1911A1 isn't going anywhere. More companies make the M1911A1 now than ever before. The gun is perhaps more popular now than it was 50 or even 100 years ago. It's popularity won't wain until someone makes some electro phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

 

[lsudave]

OP referred to what he saw at self-defense classes; I think we can address that.

I still feel like I'm young, but perhaps I'm becoming a curmudgeon; but either way, I feel that I know how to shoot my pistols, and don't feel the need to take a class for that. I know what works for me, and as far as my accuracy goes, I think it's good enough to do the job.

I own quite a few pistols, because I like them. Yes, I have a lot of 9mm's, because there were some cool ones around (and I love my CZ 75), but the classic 1911A1 GI model in .45 acp is, for me like for a lot of Americans my age and older, a must-have.

Go anywhere that sells different models of pistols, and you will likely see as many brands of 1911's as the combined total of various polymer 9mms. Seemingly every manufacturer other than Beretta and Glock make their very own 1911, and I suspect within a decade they will, too.

Sig would not make one, if they didn't understand that there's still a huge market for them.

 

[Fiv3r]

I respect the 1911, but I've bought and sold 3 of them. It think it's a fine gun, but I never could carry mine comfortably no matter how much I spent.

I just purchased an XDS in .45 thinking it was going to be a more comfortable (lighter) pistol close to a 1911 Commander, and it's going to the chopping block. It's not the .45's fault. Springfield gave me a less than ideal answer I had about a brass to the face issue, and the gun store that sold it to me was less than honest with me....so it's gone. Nothing wrong with the gun (well short of flicking brass into my eyes), but the deal left a bad taste in my mouth.

That said, I do like the .45 at the range. I just don't tend to carry a gun in that caliber. I usually carry a polymer .40 or snub .357 in the woods, and a full size Beretta if want more capacity when out and about. However, I'm an admitted .380 mouse-gun girly-man. It's the only gun I will ALWAYS carry.

I don't think the .45 or 1911 is going anywhere, but I don't think it's going to be in my wheelhouse.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Despite the predictable fact that 1911/45 fans are still loyal to the platform, it's also a fact that it's gradually being eclipsed by more modern designs, that have higher capacity, less weight and bulk, are simpler to field strip or fully disassemble, and have lower production costs. This is predictable and inevitable.
The 1911 is a cool pistol, that will always have a following, but I'd say calling it, "the greatest combat handgun ever made", is merely an opinion based on emotion, nostalgia, and personal taste. It is hardly an established fact.

 

[Warp]

Go anywhere that sells different models of pistols, and you will likely see as many brands of 1911's as the combined total of various polymer 9mms.

That is not my experience.

 

[200Apples]

The 1911 is a cool pistol, that will always have a following, but I'd say calling it, "the greatest combat handgun ever made", is merely an opinion based on emotion, nostalgia, and personal taste. It is hardly an established fact.

Ah, the voice ^ ^ ^ of the unenlightened...

Jeff Cooper Commentaries, August, 1993

Recently a [Gunsite] family member (who does not wish his name broadcast since he is a full-time lawman) was in attendance at a military smallarms school. This was considered an elite organization to which only the crème de la crème were invited. It was conducted by the Defense Department, which might have put us on the alert.

When our friend showed up for work with his 1911 it was immediately explained to him by the teachers at the school that what he was carrying was obsolete, irrelevant and immaterial. It would handicap him in the conduct of the training. Naturally, being one of the enlightened, he stated that he would try and struggle along. In the final shooting exercises our friend was so far ahead of the rest of the school that he was, in effect, in a different category. This did not endear him to the management.

While not a combat scenario, the story speaks for itself.

Then there was Sgt Alvin York, who, when armed solely with his 1911, The Greatest Combat Handgun Ever Made, took out a German machine gun position and walked over 132 German soldiers to their capture.

October 1918 - Argonne Forest, France. It was another wet and foggy morning in the rugged Argonne Forest. At precisely 6:10 AM, the battalion attacked. The mission was to take the German Decauville Rail. This would force the Germans out of the Forest. The attack took York’s battalion up a funnel shaped valley, which became narrower as they advanced. On the sides of the valley were steep ridges, manned by German machine guns and troops. As the Americans advanced, they encountered intense German machine gun fires from the left, right and front. As York recollected:

“The Germans got us, and they got us right smart. They just stopped us dead in our tracks. Their machine guns were up there on the heights overlooking us and well hidden, and we couldn’t tell for certain where the terrible heavy fire was coming from…And I'm telling you they were shooting straight. Our boys just went down like the long grass before the mowing machine at home. Our attack just faded out… And there we were, lying down, about halfway across [the valley] and those German machine guns and big shells getting us hard.”

The German fire took a heavy toll. Something had to be done to silence the German machine guns. Sergeant Early took three squads of men to attack the machine guns (this included York). They worked their way behind the Germans and captured a large group of German soldiers who were preparing a counter-attack. Early’s men where contending with the prisoners when machine gun fire hit them, killing six Americans and wounding three others. The fire came from German machine guns on the ridge, which turned their weapons on the US soldiers. The loss of the nine put Corporal York in charge of the eight remaining US soldiers. As his men remained under cover, guarding the prisoners, York worked his way into position to silence the German machine guns.

"And those machine guns were spitting fire and cutting down the undergrowth all around me something awful. And the Germans were yelling orders. You never heard such a 'racket in all of your life. I didn't have time to dodge behind a tree or dive into the brush... As soon as the machine guns opened fire on me, I began to exchange shots with them. There were over thirty of them in continuous action, and all I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting. I don't think I missed a shot. It was no time to miss… All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to. But it was they or I. And I was giving them the best I had."

One of York’s prisoners, First Lieutenant Vollmer, emptied his pistol trying to kill York (while York was contending with the machine guns). Failing to injure York, and seeing his mounting loses; he offered to surrender the unit to York, which was gladly accepted. By the end of the fight, York and his men marched 132 German prisoners back to the American lines. York was promoted to Sergeant and awarded the Medal of Honor.

http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/The_York_Story.php

 

[X-Rap]

Hard to believe you'd of heard otherwise from Cooper, I drank his Kool-aid for over 20 years and still view him as the father of the modern pistol but what someone told him over 20 years ago is hardly new news.
As to York, wasn't there an Enfield Rifle in there as well?

Sent from my VK410 using Tapatalk

 

[JDR]

I'd like to offer up a few clarifications...it all has to do with what you are using the gun for...

If one of my .45's has to work out of the box, with no GS tuning or tweaking, I'm going with my Gen4 Glock 21 or my HK45, hands down.

Since all of my 1911's have been tuned & tweaked by a good gunsmith (except my Ruger SR1911 Cmdr.), I can say that my Dan Wesson Valor is more accurate, and almost as reliable as my Glock or HK.

But if I'm using one of these in a training or heavy practice situation, where I'm shooting 200 or more rounds and the gun might get hot & dry before it gets cleaned & lubed, I'm OK with the DW Valor, but I'm more inclined to go with the G-21 or the HK45.

A 1911 can definitely be setup by a good pistolsmith to do whatever you want to do with it, but a 1911 is definitely more maintenance intensive than some of the newer designs, and you're kidding yourself if you choose to believe otherwise. My DW is my favorite pistol, but you have to look at things objectively and use judgement to select the gun that is best suited for a specific purpose.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Ah, the voice ^ ^ ^ of the unenlightened...

Pot, meet Kettle.
The fact that the 1911 was used in a heroic act, or even a bunch of them, doesn't prove it's the greatest combat handgun ever made. Not even close.
This "logic" is suitable for a, well.......a Democrat
You're confusing "greatest, or "best", with "most iconic", which admitedly the 1911 may well be. But this gets us right back to the subjective, emotion-driven argument I referenced earlier.

 

[200Apples]

.
D... d.. d. Democrat?!

Them's fightin' words!

And since I am the offended party, I have the choice of weapons, my good man: 1911s at dawn.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Yeah, yeah, ok, you're right, that was way over-the-line. I apologize .

 

[Schwing]

I think this topic is very similar to the "Which caliber is best" threads. There are those that love them and those that hate them.

Personally, I have never cared for the design or ergonomics of the 1911 but can certainly appreciate its iconic status. For shear appearance, it is one of the coolest looking IMO.

My dislike for the design I won't even go into here as it is sure to ruffle some feathers. As for me, I have found others of simpler and more modern design to be more to my liking. Others still hold them in the highest regard. At the end of the day, if you have a gun that is 100% reliable (ok... 99.999%), you shoot it well, you carry it comfortably and you just plain like it, who cares what it is?

As far as the O.P.s original question, no I don't think 1911s or .45 as a caliber has diminished in the slightest. In fact, I think there are far more offerings for 1911s than at any other time. As for .45 somehow falling out of vogue, I see a lot of caliber arguments passed around but I still see the majority of handgun shooters at my range shooting .45. I am not an LEO but work in an LEO office and only know of 1 officer that doesn't carry a .45.

Neither 1911s nor .45acp are going anywhere for a very long time.

 

[entropy]

Not to quibble the maths, but diameter of the bullet is somewhat irrelevant...

The circumference of the hole is the true measure of the wounding effect.

Pistol rounds are traveling much slower than rifle rounds and for the most part they lack the high velocity temporary wounding effect. For pistol rounds it comes down to the blood loss of the wound. When you want to measure the wound surface of a pistol round you need to measure the circumference of the hole being cut.

Circumference = pi x diameter

Edmo

The diameter is relevant, because no matter what number you plug in as the diameter, the answer, (the circumference) will be 3.14159....... times that amount.

.355 x 3.14159=1.11526445

.451 x 3.14159=1.41685709

Using these numbers, I got the circumference of a .451 diameter is 1.27 larger than the circumference of a .355 diameter.

Keep in mind this circumference is two-dimensional. Measuring three- dimensional non-standard structures (such as wound channels) involves calculus, count me out on that!



Also, if what you said about terminal ballistics of pistol bullets were true, (sometimes it is sometimes it isn't) then the diameter of the bullet would be very important, as it would be the chief disabling factor. A larger diameter bullet would bleed out more, all other things being equal. (Sounds like we agree on that) Having conducted gelatin and modeling clay tests, (modeling clay isn't the best medium, but it does retain maximum expansion dimensions) I can say that even the .25 ACP FMJ does have some additional temporary cavitation (Not much, and that due to tumbling.) .
I did those tests long ago, and I will admit I biased them towards the 125 gr. .357 Mag. JHP. I had to halt the test when I fired them, because I lot a lot of the clay!

That said, there is tons of data, and some film, of ballistic gelatin tests out there.

I still stand by the adage, "A 9mm might expand, but a .45 won't contract."

 

[joneb]

The diameter is relevant, because no matter what number you plug in as the diameter, the answer, (the circumference) will be 3.14159....... times that amount.

The FBI calls it blunt force trauma and the 45 acp has more of it than the 9mm Luger.
This is coming from a FBI firearms instructor.

 

[edmo01]

The diameter is relevant, because no matter what number you plug in as the diameter, the answer, (the circumference) will be 3.14159....... times that amount.

.355 x 3.14159=1.11526445

.451 x 3.14159=1.41685709

Using these numbers, I got the circumference of a .451 diameter is 1.27 larger than the circumference of a .355 diameter...

You picked up on my critique for those who only look at the diameter of the bullet versus the full circumference which more accurately measures the wounding surface. If you look at the circumference of the wound hole, bigger bullets quickly gain an advantage over the various wee little bullets.

Reference the temporary wound channel... Smarter nimrods than me have determined an impact velocity of 2,000 fps or faster imparts a significantly rapid expansion of the temporary wound channel. This increased expansion will exceed the elastic expansion of flesh and generate a greater wounding effect than slower rounds.

The take away is the higher velocity of rifle rounds rip and tear the blood vessels more than slower pistol rounds... More blood loss equals higher "ouchie" factor.


Remember regardless of our analysis, it comes down to the fact that pistol rounds generally suck for quick incapacitation. Additionally, accurate shot placement of multiple rounds will likely be your friend.

Edmo

 

[TRX]

What you see in classes is going to depend on two things: what kind of class it is, and what's available at the local gun shop at a reasonable price.

Right now, 9mm and .40 glockalikes are common and inexpensive, so you see them everywhere. As long as they conform to the First and Second Laws, they're good enough for their purpose.

(First Law: "The gun *must* go bang."
Second Law: "The gun must go bang *again*.")

 

[lsudave]

That is not my experience.

Went into a big shop nearby the other day, and the ratio for semi-autos had to be close to 50-50; a counter for Glocks, another for Sigs, another for HK, CZ etc. These were rather small, and the combined total ran the length of one wall (the building is about a square in shape). That was to the right as you enter, and the used handguns took up about 1/4 of that row of pistols.

For the row in front of you as you enter, there was a little section that seemed to be Springfield and Browning (about 1/4), then a very big section full of 1911's of every make. Maybe only a few of each brand, but they had a ton of brands; Kimber, Colt, Dan Wesson, Springfield etc (the 1911's were separated out from the other models, on the brands that make more than just that).

I think if you removed the 22's, revolvers, and used section, it was about dead even for what was available.

 

[CoalTrain49]

45 acp is all I shoot. Gold Cup is my range gun, Sig is my carry.

But then I'm an old guy who has trouble remembering my social security number.

 

[alexcue]

Well, it may just be the cost to shoot. 9mm is just much cheaper to shoot all the way around. Personally I own 3 1911's. A 1943 Remington Rand 1911A1, a 1970's Series 70 Gold Cup and a SA Loaded 1911. Each takes everything I want to run through them. Heck my Remington was my primary pistol for years! It's still my favorite gun to shoot, because of the nostalgia.

But come to the present and i own 3 going on 4, 9mm's. They are fun to shoot and really other than some not liking FP ammo, are very reliable and light in comparison to the .45's.

Since I reload the cost is a bit less than buying, but 9mm is still much cheaper to shoot based on the amount I shoot. So someone new into the sport... which would he pick?

 

[wrdwrght]

I like 9mm, and have SIGs, Glocks, Walthers, and CZs to push it.

But, for self-defense, the efficacy of the round presumes an expansion that will make it more like .45ACP.

If its expansion is not optimal, the wound channel will be less, and considerably smaller than an even non-expanding .45ACP. After all, the .45ACP is inherently wider and, wait for it, has more mass.

But the difference between the two rounds is not measured in orders of magnitude. Indeed, even a .22LR can kill in the right circumstance. If I were to characterize the .45ACP, I'd say it's more tolerant of the wrong circumstance. When it finds flesh, the .45ACP will do as much damage as a properly-expanded 9mm even if something prevents the .45ACP's proper expansion. Instructive here is Iraqveteran8888's YouTube video (https://youtu.be/VDnsGe0QwhA) showing .45ACP passing through 3/4 inch plywood at 440 yards.

Whatever the truth of the matter, I'll just say that my 1998 SIG P220 has been joined this year by a Colt 1911 Series 70, a CZ 1911A1, and a higher-capacity Walther PPQ45. And I have a higher-capacity CZ97BD on my radar.

So, I'm doing what I can to keep John Moses Browning's .45ACP, not to forget his 1911, alive. I just wish manufacturers would lower their prices to make my effort easier.

 

[MIL-DOT]

For what it's worth, i stumbled across a thread on another forum the other day, where someone made a comment about .45 being a dying caliber, and several people agreed, and I don't recall anyone arguing the point.
It may be falling out of favor a bit, relative to others, but IMO "dying" is pushing it, but it seems to be what some folks feel.
I'm not making an argument either way, just posting that because it's relevant to the discussion topic at hand.

 

[Lj1941]

For what it's worth, i stumbled across a thread on another forum the other day, where someone made a comment about .45 being a dying caliber, and several people agreed, and I don't recall anyone arguing the point.
It may be falling out of favor a bit, relative to others, but IMO "dying" is pushing it, but it seems to be what some folks feel.
I'm not making an argument either way, just posting that because it's relevant to the discussion topic at hand.

John Moses Browning got it right 105 years ago. Some of the modern "Polmyer Wonders" are good but not better than what Browning gave us way back then. The demise of the 1911 A1 has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Woolecox]

No. Not here.