Differences in recoil between 40S&W and 45ACP, what are your thoughts?

[JLStorm]

All other things being equal on a gun other than caliber I find that the 40 recoil is a lighter faster snappy recoil and the 45 is a slower rolling recoil that has more pressure. Im not really interested in discussing anything other than the recoil characteristics of each round, but I would like your thoughts in terms of combat accuracy of multiple shots for duty and carry weapons in terms of controllable recoil.

In other words, given you have the same exact weapon in two different calibers the same amount of ammo for each weapon and the same exact training, in the end which do you feel you would be able to more accurately control in a multiple shot scenerio?

Please only respond if you have actual physical real world experience with both calibers. So, if you only have a 45 and have only read a lot about 40 , but have never actually shot one, please dont comment.

 

[amprecon]

I took both my G23 and G21 to the range the other day with WWB 230gr in .45acp and UMC 180gr in .40 and I fired the guns side by side. It's probably not fair to do this comparison and be able to say one recoils more than the other because the guns are of different sizes.
However there is a difference in recoil. The recoil of the .40 did seem snappier or sharper whereas the .45 had comparable recoil, but not as snappy or sharp feeling. There again though the recoil is relative, the grip of the G23 is slimmer than that of the G21. I wonder how the .40 would have felt out of a G21 frame. I have owned a G36 which from what I remember felt harsher than the G23. Grip thickness/shape does play an integral role in perceived recoil.
I owned a 5 1/2" barrel .44mag Ruger Redhawk which seemed punishing with all but the weakest loads, I shot it beside a 6" S&W 629 and ithe 629 felt like a kitty cat with the hotter .44 mag loads than the Redhawk with lighter loads, I know 1/2" barrel length would not be the contributing factor. It was the shape of the grip and location of the barrel above the grip.
I have also owned G19's and the recoil seemed "perfect...?" I mean it was not bad at all, the recoil is just more pronounced from the G23 that's all. For me the slightly more pronounced recoil is not prohibitive to me for good shooting and is worth getting used to just to have that extra power from the same sized gun.
Alot of how people perceive recoil has to do with what they have shot before. If they started out on .22's or large framed 9mm's then go to a smaller framed .40, yeah, it will have more perceived recoil. But if someone grew up in the woods shooting .44mags or .357's or .45acp's for that matter then move down to the .40, they won't perceive of it's recoil being that bad. It's all relative and if a .40 is the very first caliber you ever shoot, then it will be your standard for everything else you shoot in the future.
BTW I was shooting inside a 4" circle at 15 yds with both guns, getting more accuracy from the G21.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I find that the 40 recoil is a lighter faster snappy recoil and the 45 is a slower rolling recoil that has more pressure

Maybe this fits your description, but I found that the .40 seemed to have a sharper recoil, which may be what you mean by snappy, and I felt it a bit more unpleasant than the .45 that while having more recoil, seemed to draw it out longer.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Originally posted by amprecon:
The recoil of the .40 did seem snappier or sharper whereas the .45 had comparable recoil, but not as snappy or sharp feeling.

Agreed, it is more of a sharp push than a snap.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

 

[Trifler]

I've fired both .40 and .45ACP and I found the recoil in the .40 to be about as "hard" as the .45ACP in terms of the strain on my hand and arm and the time it took to bring the gun back on target. I walked away feeling like the .40 was pointless because I might as well use the .45. However, thinking back, the gun that fired the .40 was lighter than the .45 1911, so that would have affected the felt recoil.

 

[finalcut]

I think that they are so much the same that if you had two of the same weapon firing the two cals. without being told which one you are firing you could not tell which is 40 or 45. I bet 9 out of 10 people could not tell.

I think the different size weapons are what makes the big difference between the two - not the cal.

 

[Surefire]

Depends on the gun.

I've found the .40 to be a light recoiling peeshooter in the CZ 75 and Sig P226 with custom rubber hogue grips.

OTOH, in a Glock 23 or Sig P239, the .40 can be very stout for its power level.

Likewise, in .45 ACP the AMT Backup really beats my hands up, but practically every other compact to full size .45 IMO is an easy shooting pistol

So, generally, I find the .45 to be more a LOT more pleasant to shoot. Having said this, both cartridges have exceptions.

 

[lee n. field]

Please only respond if you have actual physical real world experience with both calibers. So, if you only have a 45 and have only read a lot about 40 , but have never actually shot one, please dont comment.

in the end which do you feel you would be able to more accurately control in a multiple shot scenerio?

I own and shoot both. A Ruger in .45 and and XD40.

I honestly don't notice much difference.

 

[Geno]

I agree. It isn't the round, it is the pistol. In pure research terms for a valid comparison, you have to fire the rounds through two otherwise identical pistols. In doing so, you hold neutral all other factors.

For my part, I would be interested to compare side-by-side, two identical 1911s...one in .40 S&W and one in .45 ACP. Then, let the party begin!

 

[MaterDei]

All other things being equal on a gun other than caliber I find that the 40 recoil is a lighter faster snappy recoil and the 45 is a slower rolling recoil that has more pressure.

I agree with this generalization.

 

[opd743]

I carry a G21 and my dad a carries G35. We go to the range at his house a lot together so I get to shoot the the .40 most times. I can say that my 21 has more recoil than the 35 but it is easier to control. The .40 just has a "snap" to the recoil that I don't like, even in the long 35. It's been said before but the .45 "push" is just easier to control for some(including me). My dad however swears by the .40. This debate could go on forever.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

Interesting topic. At the range last week, I shot my buddy's Glick 21 and Colt Model 72, and my Taurus 24/7 in .40. I found the recoil from my pistol to be much more manageable.

That being said, I don't like single stack .40's (the grips are too narrow for my hand), and his glick was too big for my hand. I picked the Taurus based on how I shot it, and how it felt in my hand. It was, and is, fantastic. At this point, I've yet to find anything close. The xD in 40, with the medium grips comes close, but it's just not as good.

You really just have to pick based on your hands. That's what I did.

 

[Ala Dan]

.45 is mild, when compared to the .40 S&W~!

 

[tinygnat219]

No question about it. 45ACP has less felt recoil than the .40 S&W. The two rounds are also completely different. The .45 ACP is a big round moving slow, dumping it's energy into the target making a nice big hole. The .40 S&W was designed for speed and has a higher velocity.

 

[Radjxf]

IMO 45ACP has much less recoil than the 40. Less snap, less torquing, less noise. Never saw the point in the 40 myself.

 

[dhoomonyou]

IMO the 40 flips the muzzle, the 45 is a push back into your hand.
Love both.

 

[critrxdoc]

I have to concur with the poster that said it is all about the platform. If a .45 to .40 conversion barrel was possible in the same frame, I doubt seriously if many could tell them apart. Most folks that say the .40 is "snappier" or the .45 is a "much more pleasant push" are shooting midsize vs fullsize frame. Apples and oranges comparison.

Decide what make and platform (full, mid or compact) you want and then rent them both and see for yourself. Recoil is VERY subjective and varies by make as well as frame size within the same brand.

 

[.357 magnum]

Very Experienced on this subject.

I own several of both. It took me longer to shoot the .40 well and I still give the edge to the .45! For me it is easier to fire off a follow up shot with the .45, and my accuracy is still better with the .45 That being said I have kept two .40's because I like the challenge, it makes me a better overall shooter. I also like the mag capacity, plus the fact that the .40 is one Hl of a good defensive round!

The Best to You and Yours!

Frank

 

[mballai]

I find the .45 generally easier to shoot than the 40. A thump versus a whack. This is more true with factory ammo. I make my ammo and have tailored some solid hitting loads with definitely less recoil than the factory 40 stuff. I love the 40 but I can shoot all day long with the 45.