.45ACP and short barrels

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Newton

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
1,267
I just got through reading an article about the evolution of the .45ACP cartridge that stated that the round was designed to do well out of a 5 inch barrel, but lost significant velocity from shorter barrels, moreso than other calibers.

As someone who is considering the acquisition of a USP Compact in .45, is the sub 4 inch barrel and large bullet a bad combination, and if not, then should load selection be a major consideration, e.g. 185 grain versus 230 grain.

Newton
 
That's one way to put it. (aka: shot placement trumps all)

Let's say you have have a short barreled .45.

If you really want penetration, why not use hardcase 230gr FMJ?

If you really want expansion, why not go light and fast with something like RCBD, Glaser or some EMFJ type bullet?

The real problem is sitting down and thinking about which side you want to lean towards...

1) assured expansion and energy dump with a prefrag? But it might not penetrate a car door or a leather jacket they say?

2) assured maximum penetration... ball bullet, hard as you can make it to resist dumping energy in expansion... fast and heavy as possible to get much inertia and keep it going and going and going.

If you want the middle, tailor your load to the middleweight loadings and pick a good HP for relative penetration. To err on the side of expansion, just go for an EFMJ.

If you just really can't decide, then carry a spare magazine with the opposite type of bullet. If you really really can't decide then do a magazine cocktail and alternate every 1 or 2 rounds like some do. Might work as long as you practice.

I'd probably carry 230gr Speer Gold Dots in a short bbld pistol because that is what I am used to in full sized .45 pistols. Might go with 230gr EFMJs with a short barrel after practice? IMO 230gr is the best weight for .45 ACP due to the low sectional denisty it already has.

cheers
 
Okay, well I have absolutely no idea about what Lone Gunman said.

I am looking at the March 2001 Shooting Times issue where they were specifically addressing the issue of smaller 1911s and selection of defense ammo. The barrel sizes they used were from 3 (Kimber 3.16") to 6" (Springfield longslide).

Of note, the .45 acp was really designed for a 5" barrel. That does not mean other lengths of barrels won't work. What it does mean is that the standard of 850 fps is based on using X amount of powder that produces 850 fps out of a 5" barrel.

That is part of the reason .45 acp does not make for a good rifle round. You might get slightly better accuracy with a rifle or carbine chambered in .45 acp, but little, none, or even less velocity depending on the barrel and round use.

In Shooting Times, there was not much gain of velocity with the 6" over the 5" barrel and in a couple of cases, there was loss of velocity. Several of the velocities between the Commander 4.25" and 5" barrels were not great at all, usually around 30 fps. The difference in the 3" to the 5" barrel was much greater. They ranged from 75-125 fps. What does that mean? According to Forker's "Ammo and Ballistics" book, loss of that much velocity is roughly equivalent to hitting your target 50 yards away for much of the 230 gr ammo he chrono'd at various distances.

Using the Speer Gold Dot 185 gr hollowpoint, out of the four barrels the velocities were 901 (3.16" barrel), 1012 (4.25"), 1024 (5.0"), and 1046 (6.0") fps. This resulted in expansion of .527, .592, .597, and .612" but it should be pointed out that expansion was based on shooting into water.

Given that many .45 acp do not expand reliably in real life situations, the shooter may not want to choose to shoot a 230 gr hollowpoint from a 3" barrel. For the Fed. Hydrashok, that round will only be going 769 fps, a full 132 fps slower than if fired from a 5" barrel. If it is going to have trouble expanding a full speed, then it will have even more trouble traveling at 132 fps slower. The 3" shot is 15% slower than the 5" shot.

Barrel lengths do make a difference in velocity and that difference can be significant between 3" and 5" barrels. However, there will be diminishing returns with increased barrel length over 5" on the .45 acp.

Personally, I liked the information on the Speer Gold Dot 185s, not the +P ammo. As such, you would get essentially a higher velocity round without the extra POP of +P and still get better performance from a 4" barrel than some other 185 gr. ammo does from a 5" barrel.
 
Double Naught

THAT'S what I was looking for, gives me some food for thought, thanks.

Mike H
 
I think this is one of the areas where the 45s and 44s are superior to the 9mm/38 Spc choices. Again, regardless of expansion, the a 45 is still going to leave at least a 45 caliber hole!

I tend to favor the 200 Gr weight as I like the 200 Gr Gold Dot. The 230 Winchester Rangers are my second choice. If the gun was reliable with them, I would feel very well armed with a 5", 4.25" 4" or 3.5" barrel 1911 with seven or eight of the aforementioned loads in any weight in there. If you really want expansion, I guess the 185 Gr +P Golden Sabers. But be sure they are reliable in your gun. I am of the understanding that the Winchester Rangers are the most reliably expanding 45s available right now.
 
I thought that it was the .357 magnum, with its slower burning powders, that was most adversely affected by a short barrel length.
 
My Crossman 10 pump BB gun will knock cans over with one pump. If I pump it 3x's or more it just blows holes threw the can. Speed doesn't mean much when your pushing a 230gr slug. Shoot a bad guy with a marble out of a paint-ball gun and ask him how 280fps felt.
 
Velocity does matter with a hollow point bullet. They have a fairly small range of velocities that they work in to give optimum performance. When you drop from a 5 inch barrel to a 3 inch barrel you will loose velocity, but the trouble comes when you ask how much. Each barrel will perform differently than another, some are faster or slower than others. So the only way of knowing if your chosen hollow point bullet will work consistently in your gun is to chronograph the combination and if possible use some test medium to check expansion and penetration.

Unlike most other opinions, I would not use a 185 or 200 grain bullet, but this is a personal choice. I would see what the actual velocity is of your gun and load combination and go from there. Looking at what others get for velocity is great, but it is meaningless if you gun won’t produce it.
 
Setting aside the philosophical baggage with such a debate, I'll just say:

My Kimber Ultra Carry performs better for me using the 185 grain bullet weights.

In my full-size guns, the 200 grain bullets work best for me.

I don't buy or shoot 230 grain bullets much.

FWIW
 
IT IS 2003

(Strongly held experienced opinion).................

3" to 6", use a modern bullet (Gold Dot, Golden Saber. Starfire, SXT, etc.) of 230g.
Pick the MOST reliable one from YOUR gun, then aim if needed.
 
Also, for clarification, the 'Winchester Ranger SXT' is known for very reliable expansion. The Rangers are great, but the 'Winchester Premium SXT' is pretty inconsistant.
 
This has been a popular question on some of the forums lately ... not unsurprisingly considering the wealth of quality compact & subcompact .45 pistols hitting the market ...

If you're not adverse to browsing through some discussion on other boards, which even includes some good folks from this board, here are some links where this discussion also took place ...

Some of the links DO have some threads where personalities eclipsed the subject, but there's some decent info hidden amidst the vitriol ... have patience ...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...ight=.45+best+loads+in+short+barreled+pistols

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000044.html

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000142.html

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000182.html

http://glocktalk.gunserver.com/show...13085&highlight=short+barreled+.45+ammunition

http://glocktalk.gunserver.com/show...92915&highlight=short+barreled+.45+ammunition

http://glocktalk.gunserver.com/show...20532&highlight=short+barreled+.45+ammunition

I still tend to favor the Ranger T Series in my short barreled weapons, and realize it's very difficult to locate for Non-L/E, but if I couldn't get it anymore starting tomorrow I'd go back to carrying the Gold Dot and Golden Sabre 230gr loads.

Reliable functioning, Accurate placement and Penetration are my most important concerns ... and if all 3 of those concerns are met I want reliable expansion. You'll hear pro/con regarding over-penetration issues and concerns of FMJ loads. I'm restricted from carrying FMJ ammunition, due to over-penetration concerns by my agency, so I'd use any good quality JHP if the premium ones weren't available. Winchester 185gr Silver Tips expand great, but generally exhibit less penetration than many folks consider "adequate". 185gr & 200gr +P loads are also often alleged to exhibit "less" penetration than the heavier 230gr loads.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be concerned that you're selecting a "bad" weapon & caliber combination. As a matter of fact, I'd guess you'll enjoy shooting it quite a bit. I know at least a couple of local L/E special enforcement guys that do very well with their USP Compact .45's during qualification, and trust their weapons and ammunition daily ...

It's not like you're going to find any "final" answers on this question, you know? We'll still be reading articles about this subject next year ... and debating it on the forums, too. ;)
 
Not surprisingly, some folks blow off the entire subject as dribble, some say it's true but shot placement nullifies the issue, and well, almost nobody says anything to agree, because after all... it's a .45 :D

It's fairly obvious that the loss of velocity from shorter barrels in .45 is a fact. All calibers lose velocity, but the .45 seems to lose velocity faster than the other 2, and it had less to start with.

This is why I choose the .45 for my full size "HD" pistol (USP45), but prefer to stick with the higher velocity .40 S&W in shorter length barrels. The .40 was designed around a 4" barrel, so taking off 1/2" doesn't do much to change the performance. My personal favorite USP Compact is the .40, while as mentioned, my favorite USPf is the .45. I swear the USP Compact just seems (to me) to be at it's absolute best in .40. And I say this only after LOTS of side by side shooting to decide which one I wanted.

The .45 is actually my favorite semi-auto round, but I'm not nostalgically or historically attached to it. I accept the fact that it, along with everything else in this world, has limits and boundaries. I try to choose the best tool for each given scenario, despite my personal "favorites".

Oh drat, I forgot my Nomex suit today!
 
While I thought it went without saying, I will add to my above comments that accuracy cannot be compromised. It doesn't matter how fast or slow, large or small, heavy or light a round is if it doesn't hit a target. Additionally, you have to find a round that works reliably out of your gun. Go figure.

The information provided was for hollowpoint ammo and expansion. I don't really give a lot of credit to the expansion part of the testing as it was with the slug shot into water and not even into ballistic gelatin. The velocity information was of interest because it compared rounds out of different length barrels.

If you are into expansion, then the information may be helpful. Regardless of the maker, no handgun ammo I have seen expands 100% of the time in people shot. While I have not seen a tremendous amount of this, Evan Marshell's research and Jim Higginbotham's research and experience and analysis of this very type of question hasn't produced any 100% rounds either. I don't know all the factors pertaining to this per situation (clothing thickness, distance, barrel length, etc.) but what I do know is that if you aren't going to get the damage from the expanded slug, then you want as much penetration as you can get. Ideally, you would have both, but from handguns, that doesn't seem to happen. Expansion too soon can result in too shallow penetration and not enough tissue damage to be very useful. Unexpanded hollowpoint rounds tend to perform about like ball ammo when they don't expand and get more penetration than if they had expanded. "Tend to" is the key phraseology here. Based on the physics of 2 objects of the save size/weight/mass traveling at different velocities into comparable media, the one with the greatest velocity will penetrate more. Transfer that to shooting bad guys and even with unexpanded hollowpoint rounds, the greater velocity will add penetration capability and hence will be more likely to damage more areas of the body...something that might be useful in trying to incapacitate the bad guy you are defending yourself against.
 
The general consensus is that in sub 4" barrels, most .45 ACP hollowpoints fail to expand and become far too overpenetrative for their desired purpose. If you carry a short barreled .45, you should be aware of that fact. The slow velocity and the momentum produced by a heavy bullet means little when the bullet fails to expand and retains enough velocity to penetrate through and through and then into the body of an innocent bystander.

Choose your carry loads wisely! Don't fall victim to the erroneous stopping power data thats so prominent in the various gunrag publications. What they lack in moral consciousness is eventually going to get someone killed. (and I don't mean your assailant either)
 
It is just so enjoyable to be able to discuss issues like this and read so many rational responses from reasonable people ... even if those responses vary in agreement ... Those of you that were able to follow, with patience, most of the other conversations in the links I posted can well understand and appreciate the civility here on this board, I'm sure ...

Anyhow, the ballistics testing info I listed in the GT thread for the CS45 (3.25") & Colt Commander (4.25") was pleasantly surprising to us when we had the Ranger T Series ammunition tested. Not only did the ammunition perform well out of the short barreled CS45, in both standard and +P pressures, but it did so in the "dreaded" 4-layer denim test in calibrated 10% gelatin. The unfortunate part is that this ammunition is still restricted to L/E, export & military sales by Winchester corporate policies ... so Non-L/E availability is limited and often difficult.

But, like I also mentioned, we're coming across enough decently acceptable ballistics testing info, and reported actual results, to suspect that many of the other "premium" loads are starting to exhibit acceptable "performance" levels out of the increasingly popular shorter barreled weapons. Winchester isn't the only ammunition manufacturer to notice the popularity of these weapons in plainclothes, off duty and Non-L/E defensive situations ...

I also agree the .40 S&W appears to be a good performing caliber, even when used in weapons with barrels of 4" or less. In the recent ballistics testing we hosted, however, even the standard pressure Ranger T Series .45, fired out of the 3.25" barrel, exhibited slightly larger expansion & penetration than either of the Ranger T Series .40 S&W loads tested in the 4.1" .40 duty weapons, in the same denim/gelatin tests.

RA40T/180 - 878fps/11"/.655/184.2gr rec wgt
RA40T/165 - 1026fps/11.5"/.67/171.8gr rec wgt
RA45T/230 - 802fps/13"/.76/234.3gr rec wgt
RA45TP/230- 839fps/12"/.77/235.2gr rec wgt

What's it mean in real life? Don't know ... but the preliminary reports we're hearing about certainly appear decent.

Back to the JHP performance issues, though, Onslaught and Double Naught Spy make some insightful observations and comments ...

One thing I always thought is that if the .45 JHP performs "properly", penetration & expansion-wise ... fine. If the JHP cavity is plugged and expansion is prevented ... well then, you're most likely back to the "performance" characteristics of the FMJ round.

If you start with a JHP, the "worst" you might end up with is a "FMJ", with perhaps a slightly better chance of deformation, considering the edge of the cavity might deform sooner upon impact with a hard structure than the round & completely jacketed FMJ bullet nose. If you start with an FMJ, however, that's the "best" you can probably look forward to ... I prefer to start with a JHP, not only to maximize expansion potential, but to minimize over-penetration potential. That's been imposed on me by my agency, too.

We can certainly expect, and even see, consistent performance exhibited in artificial test mediums and tissue simulants ... but that may be the last thing we see when the same bullets are fired into actual tissue, muscles, organs, bones, connective structures, etc ...

I trust my current Ranger T Series ammunition choices in my 3.25" & 3.75" .45 weapons, as well as my "fall back" GS & GD choices ... but then, I may not be the right person to listen to for any sort of an opinion, because I also trust my ammunition choices to perform if needed in my 9mm & .40 S&W weapons with barrels ranging from 3", 3.5" to 4.1", as well, and I carry the 9mm & .40 S&W as issued weapons in both 3.5" & 4.1". ;)

Thanks again for the insightful, interesting and cordial debate in this thread. It's relaxing to read ... Too bad we can't all share coffee, or something, in person while discussing it ...

Newton,

Any of this helping?
 
It is easy to get all wound up in such a topic - - -

- - -But I really have to question how much it really matters in real life.

There seems to be a consensus that no one bullet type will expand 100% of the time. If it does, fine. If not, then what?

A .45 exits the barrel at a diameter which we HOPE a 9 mm HP will attain if all goes well. If, due to whatever factors, the .45 ACP bullet does not expand, then it is still pretty good. I prefer the JHP .45 bullets, yes--Even without any expansion at all, there is still the effect of a blunt meplat, and the kinda-sharp edges may dig into bone rather than glancing off.

Yes, a major concern with a certain velocity level of a .45 bullet is to ensure expansion. If this doesn't matter a lot, so what if the velocity goes significantly below 800 fps? Some of the "legendary" combat handgun cartridges possessed rather modest velocities. In the days before jacketed HP bullets, there was no particular emphasis on expansion, so a round nose lead bullet was thought to do pretty well. Look up the .45 Colt, .45 S&W Scofield, .450 Boxer, .455 Webley AND Colt, .476 Enfield, .44 Russian, .44 Special, .44 Colt, .44-40, .41 Colt and .38-40, especially from shorter-length revolver barrels.

About the only reason higher velocity is important, in a majority of cases, is to flatten the trajectory a bit. And, realistically, in how many non-military fights has a handgun been used effectively, beyond 40 yards, in the past 70 years?

Can anyone here provide ANY documentation of any person being killed or seriously wounded by a handgun bullet over penetrating a bad guy? "Yeah, Johnny, but it COULD happen." I think a more realistic benefit of the lightweight JHP bullet is that it doesn't ricochet so badly as an FMJ. Otherwise, I could be fairly happy with a 230 FMJ load.

One man's opinion. I agree with member fastbolt:
Thanks again for the insightful, interesting and cordial debate in this thread. It's relaxing to read ... Too bad we can't all share coffee, or something, in person while discussing it ...
Click to expand...
Best,
Johnny
 
Fastbolt,

Yes, definitely, a lot of very good, balanced information, thanks for asking. I am impressed with the quality of these answers, and the behavior of the members in this forum, a real breath of fresh air.

I didn't know that the USPc45 had found its way into LEO holsters, interesting. Seems that those superb Ranger T's are top dog in .45ACP, much as is the case in other calibers.

A USPc45 in stainless is just hollering out to me, it does seem that there is an issue with short barrelled .45's, moreso than other calibers, I'm still sold on the idea though, I just think that ammo selection will be more significant.

Excellent answers guys, thankyou all for your help.

Newton
 
Quick question guys...

Why doesn't the Silvertip penetrate enough???

If it's because of too much expansion at the speed it obtains from a full sized barrel, then wouldn't it make sense that the slower speeds from a compact barrel make it a better overall performer??? I mean, from what little I know, the round expands well at speed, but the speed is too great thus it expands too quickly which leads to too little penetration. So if it's traveling a little slower than wouldn't it go deeper and still expand???

Am I way off base here or what??? Does my logic play out???

G
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
USP COMPACT 45 (NOT CT) Velocities
Replies
4
Views
850
DetroitStudent
D
T
  • Locked
Does a shorter barrel significantly hamper the effectiveness of the .45acp?
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
M2 Carbine
M
C
  • Locked
.45 auto short barrell JHP ammo?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Ken Rainey
K
A
  • Locked
.45GAP outperforms .45ACP
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
4K
George Hill
G
T
  • Locked
SD ammo for Kimber Tactical Ultra II? (3" barrel)
Replies
7
Views
925
TOADMAN
T
Back
Top