Does a shorter barrel significantly hamper the effectiveness of the .45acp?

[Trip20]

When dealing with a compact auto-loader in .45acp, is it of real concern that there is a loss of velocity due to the shorter barrel? Enough that it might be better to get the same firearm, but in 9mm which has a higher velocity?

I've read on forums that a .45acp through say, a 3 or 3.25 inch barrel, has lost enough velocity that you cannot expect HP ammunition to reliably expand. Not sure if this is BS - or something to seriously consider.

I'm considering purchasing a pistol made in both 9mm, and .45acp. Same dimensions. In 9mm, the capacity does jump up 2 rounds. The difference in capacity is not significant enough to me, in that it would sway my decision one way, or the other.

So I'm left with this internet rumor regarding .45acp in a shorter barrel losing too much velocity. So I'm wondering if the 9mm, which has a higher velocity, may be a better choice in a shorter barrel.

Please, no 9mm vs 45acp wars. :banghead:
I have confidence in both rounds.
My questions specifically relate to how they may, or may not be hampered ballistically due to a shorter barrel.

Thanks much.

 

[C-grunt]

I think that the 45 doesnt rely much on high velocity and you could go with 185 grainers to keep velocity up.

 

[combatantr2]

I believe it does. Maybe that is why there are light 45acp in the market today to keep up the velocity to acceptable lethal effectiveness. That is why I always load up 230 grain hardball ammo in my standard govt. model just as JMB originally designed it.

Just my .02 cents standard 5 in. is not that difficult to carry compared to commander or officers model. Im barely 5'5", medium built but the slimness of the 1911 allows me to comfortably carry it.

 

[mete]

You can make any kind of bullet you want .The ammo companies now are making ammo specifically for short barrels handguns that reliably expand.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Except for the new specialty short barrel ammo (which I have not seen for automatics), there is a significant difference in velocity when barrels are shortened by 30-40%. What you need to keep in mind is that the .45 acp round is based on a standard of a 5" barrel. Depending on the make, model, and speed of the ammo, you could lose anywhere from 75-150+ fps velocity compared to a 5" barrel. Basically, your target gets hit with ammo traveling at a speed comparable to that of the target being 100-150 yards away.

Hollowpoint ammo for most pistol calibers is not a great expander. Whether or not the rounds will expand in animal tissue is not well represented by shooting milk jugs, wet or dry newspaper, wet or dry phone books, wood, ground, etc.

If you go with a shorter barrel and you want HP expansion, consider getting defensive ammo that weighs less. For example, shoot 185 gr. ammo instead of 230 gr. Lighter weight ammo is more easily brought up to speed than heavier ammo.

 

[Old Fuff]

It is said in some circles that if the bullet starts out big it doesn't have to expand.

In any case, slugs that do well in jelly don't always perform the same way in real life. Too many things can make a difference.

My problem with the 3 or 3 1/2 inch barreled pistols on a 1911 platform is that for many reasons they may not be reliable, and reliability is always the most important issue in a personal weapon.

If your pistol jams, it doesn't matter how big or little the bullet is, or how it is constructed...

 

[mbartel]

In a low-pressure large bore handgun cartridge, bullet diameter and weight are very important factors in effectiveness. It's true that velocity is important too, but the .45acp is very effective even at a lower velocity. If the 9mm had the same FMJ bullet at the same velocity as the .45acp, I don't think anyone would consider it much of a SD cartridge. Even so....a lot of JHP bullets can not be relied upon to fully expand after penetrating layers of clothing. And let us not forget the combat record of the standard 230 gr hardball. Is that FMJ bullet the most effective one out there? Of course not....But will it get the job done at a lower velocity? Oh yeah!!!!! JHP bullets depend on too narrow of a velocity range to perform their best. In a subcompact self defense .45acp, hardball will feed reliably, and punch a big deep hole in the target.

 

[Jamie C.]

It is said in some circles that if the bullet starts out big it doesn't have to expand.

This is true.

And if all handgun projectiles were 1.00 cal, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

The problem, however, is that in the grand scheme of things, even a half inch hole is a fairly puny thing..... especially if not made in the right spot.


J.C.

 

[Old Fuff]

A review of the Old Fuff's past posts will show that he's a strong advocate of bullet placement over bullet design or construction. However, within reason a bullet can't be too big, although "smaller will do" if the placement is right.

But the bottom line is that no cartridge/bullet combination will work if the gun jams at the wrong time. Therefore always look to reliability first.

 

[Lou22]

I have 2 short-barreled 45s I use for concealed carry. I like 230gr so I use 230gr +P Ranger in the Glock 36. I believe the extra velocity at least partly offsets the 3.88 inch barrel. Since the instruction manual says don't use +P in my Cobra Patriot, I carry 230gr Double Taps in it, likewise to make up for the 3.3 inch barrel. Recoil's pretty stout out of the 20 ounce Patriot, though.

Lou

 

[Jamie C.]

Wasn't pickin' on ya, Fuff.... Just pointing out that for every "truth" any of us can come up with, there's probably an equal and opposite "truth" that we haven't run up on yet.

Besides... read my signature down there at the bottom of this post.
Then have a little sympathy for the devil... or at least his advocate.



J.C.

 

[geekWithA.45]

My musings on this very topic can be found here, from last August:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_08_28_geekwitha45_archive.html#112537543053088710

Don't forget to read comments, folks have interesting input

 

[DHart]

ANY TIME YOU MAKE A CHOICE OF ANY KIND, YOU MUST GIVE SOMETHING(S) UP. Ask yourself if it's worth it.

Micro sized (3" barrel) 1911's seem to be very popular these days, but I can't understand why. Perhaps people think they can't carry anything bigger or they think they're cute or "cool" because they're small. If you study the choice of a 3" 1911 vs. a Compact (4"), Commander (4.25"), or Government (5" - the "standard" which the caliber was created for) you will see that the choice of a 3" 1911 isn't such a good choice. If you choose a 3" 1911, you will be giving up quite a lot, in a variety of ways, just to have that short barrel (for what?). 1911's with 3" barrels are marginal performers from a variety of standpoints:

1) They tend to be less reliable/more finnicky
2) They must have semi-exotic ammo (CorBon DXP, etc.) to give very good terminal effectiveness (due to losing 40% of the original design barrel length - 5")
3) They have a shorter sighting radius which compromises effective accuracy
4) The have more felt recoil making follow up shots slower and shooting less enjoyable
5) They require much more frequent changes of recoil springs (this can be expensive, as some of these recoil spring designs are complex)
6) They require a shorter magazine, thereby reducing on-board ammo capacity.

If you disregard all of that, yes, I guess they are "cool". Obviously, a lot of people buy 3" 1911's thinking they must have a 1911 that small for whatever reason. Many of those guns run reliably. Many of those guns are reliability nightmares. They all give up a lot and if you really want to rely on their terminal effectiveness, there are few loads which perform very well.

David DiFabio of Ammolab found some rounds to be effective from a 3" barrel, but they're very expensive loads:

The Corbon PowRBall 165gr jhp+P offers very good performance from the 3" test gun, as does the Barnes Hex 185gr bullet, the new CorBon DPX loading should offer equally good performance.

Most common 185gr and 230gr bullets do not reliably deform let alone expand in the common sense of the word at 3" velocities and the 230gr Golden Saber offers is not immune either.

The following loadings DO NOT offer reliable expansion when tested using the 3" Springfield Micro Compact test gun:

1.Federal 185+P and 230gr HydraShok
2. Speer Gold Dot 200gr+P & 230gr Gold Dot
3. Hornady 185, 200, 230gr XTP and +p XTP, CQ, & TAP
4. Winchester 185gr Silvertip
5. Winchester 230gr SXT
6. Remington 185gr and 185gr +P Golden Saber
7. Federal 230gr classic jhp
8.Corbon 200 and 230gr jhp+p
9. Federal 200gr +P EFMJ
10. Federal 165gr Personal Defense
11. Winchester "white box" 230gr jhp

Bottom line is that for guns as small as a micro 1911 there are much more reliable platforms and more effective calibers. Buy a micro 1911 if you must, but consider that a bobtailed Commander is virtually just as concealable and considerably better in terms of reliability, ballistic effectiveness, ammo versatility, lower recoil, better sighting radius, etc.

Alternatively, if you have no choice but to buy a gun with a 3" barrel, you might consider the Kahr K40 or any of the small models from Glock, HK, SIG in forty caliber. They are all exceptionally reliable and the forty caliber (9mm also) performs very well when fired from short barrel pistols.

Speer's announced .45 acp SB (short barrel) load was designed for Compact and Commander length barrels (4" and 4.25") and is likely to be a comparably poorer performer from 3" barrels.

 

[mete]

When Speer first came out [ ~ 25 years ago] with their 200 gr JHP with large ~ 1/4" hole the jacket was scored in 12 places IIRC. This would open up on anything. For example a woodchuck hit in the shoulder /spine area - the bullet would not exit !! Later they didn't score the jacket. That would have expanded with the shortest 45acp barrel. The newer 9mm 147s at subsonic velocity expand well ! Just two examples to prove my point that you can make any kind of bullet ou want.

 

[DHart]

Trip20... 9mm can be a very effective caliber indeed... I love both .45acp and 9mm and feel well protected with either. The key is placing the bullets precisely when you're under duress and choosing effective ammo. In 9mm I prefer at least 124 gr. JHP and typically choose 147 gr. JHP because I like heavier bullets for caliber to help ensure penetration through upheld arms, wrists, heavy leather coats, layers of clothing, blubber and muscle, etc. The Kahr K9 is a superb and reliable and small platform in an effective caliber (9mm). I would choose a K9 or K40 over a micro 1911 anyday. But I love Commanders and Governments too!

 

[Old Dog]

Ah, DHart ... regarding these comments:

Micro sized (3" barrel) 1911's seem to be very popular these days, but I can't understand why. Perhaps people think they can't carry anything bigger or they think they're cute or "cool" because they're small. If you study the choice of a 3" 1911 vs. a Compact (4"), Commander (4.25"), or Government (5" - the "standard" which the caliber was created for) you will see that the choice of a 3" 1911 isn't such a good choice. If you choose a 3" 1911, you will be giving up quite a lot, in a variety of ways, just to have that short barrel (for what?).

I've been carrying 1911s of one stripe or another, on and off-duty since the early '80s. I considered myself dedicated to the Commander-size for concealed carry purposes -- still am, pretty much. That said, I totally understand why someone would want to go a bit smaller. I've got a Defender, an OM and a SA loaded LW Micro-Compact ... Fact is, they all are easier to carry than even a 4-incher, especially the Defender and the Micro, given the much lighter weight, the shorter barrels and yes, the "carry-melt" treatment helps too ... . I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who's never had a bad 3-incher. Mine have all functioned with 100% reliability and are accurate to boot. Now, you also said:

1) They tend to be less reliable/more finnicky
2) They must have semi-exotic ammo (CorBon DXP, etc.) to give very good terminal effectiveness (due to losing 40% of the original design barrel length - 5")
3) They have a shorter sighting radius which compromises effective accuracy
4) The have more felt recoil making follow up shots slower and shooting less enjoyable
5) They require much more frequent changes of recoil springs (this can be expensive, as some of these recoil spring designs are complex)
6) They require a shorter magazine, thereby reducing on-board ammo capacity.

- There does seem to be evidence that the shorties can be less reliable (although some of us have not had that experience)
- All of mine feed Golden Sabers well (my usual carry round) and have fed every other type of hollow-points I've tried.
- The shorter sighting radius, I submit, may make it easier to pick up the front sight at short ranges -- which is the intended use of these pistols. This is my experience, anyway. My SA Micro is my most accurate shorty, and it's more accurate than a couple full-size 1911s I've got (working those issues).
- Yes, there is substantially more felt recoil, so adjusting to the shorties can be a significant learning curve; yet, shooting them can be mastered readily with diligent practice.
- Haven't had occasion to change the recoil springs on any of my shorties yet as I simply don't subject them to huge numbers of rounds (typically, 50 rounds each at a range session at least once a month) and they've all got between 2500 to 5,000 through each -- but the springs seem to be holding up well. I agree, the recoil spring design is complex.
- With Wilson Combat 47OX mags -- 7 rounders -- my shorties all function reliably. When carried, I use the issue 6-rounders with the Wilson 7-rounders as spares, and don't feel like I'm giving up too much ...

Some of us didn't buy our shorties because we thought they "were cool." I admit, I picked up a couple of 'em on a whim, but have come to trust them implicitly, rather like 'em, and even carry 'em every now and then (with no worries).
-

 

[DHart]

Old Dog... I can understand the attraction to a smaller/lighter gun, no doubt! That's why I bought my Defender. And as I said above, no doubt there are many reliable 3"ers out there (among many unreliable ones - especially in the "K" crowd)! My Defender was reliable and a great gun. It was the other compromises which bothered me... and there are a lot of compromises to be made with a 3" 1911... especially the paucity of truly effective ammo. I find I can pack a LW Commander about as easily as my Defender, so I choose Commanders for carry if I want a 1911.

I love 230 gr. Golden Saber as a defense load but, personally, I'm not comfortable with 230 gr. Golden Saber from a 3" gun, given David DiFabio's testing and anaylsis. My own chronograph testing put the rounds down to around 735 fps or so... way too slow for my liking. (But I would not volunteer to stand in front of one and be shot with it!!!) If I were to carry the Defender, I would choose 165 gr. PowerBall or CorBon DPX. And with the Defender, recoil spring replacement has been recommended at around 600-800 rounds... and at about $30 or so for replacement, I decided to stick with Commanders. As always, your choices and comfort zone are entirely your business, not mine. I understand your appreciation for them, but for me I decided there were other preferrable options. Best wishes to you.

 

[MICHAEL T]

The new Corbon compact DPX is giving me the relieablie and expansion This is a non +P and seems to work fine.
I wrote of the loss of power and was told not to worry still a 45. Well when I stand in my old barn and shoot wall then pull bullets out with my fingers (230ball) I worry. Commander lets me see daylight.using same ammo.
Everybody says 12" of penteration for SD I don't think a 45 at low 700fps ball or HP is gonna come close.HP would be worst if even opens part way. Need lighter bullet to get speed back to 850 or more. At SD range the lighter bullet will give just as good of belly ache as a 230 round

 

[Trip20]

Thanks for your responses all.

I am not interested in a micro 1911. My post does not indicate what brand/model firearm I am considering for a reason - I did not want this to be an issue. I hope it's a given that reliability and accuracy have been taken into consideration.

Also, the "cool" factor does not come into play when I'm considering a self-defense platform.

As stated, I have confidence in both 9mm, and .45acp. However, if I can have the same size platform, and only lose 2 rnd capacity by going with the larger caliber - I would consider this a viable option, provided the larger (slower) caliber was not hampered by the shorter barrel to a degree which would cause concern.

ANY TIME YOU MAKE A CHOICE OF ANY KIND, YOU MUST GIVE SOMETHING(S) UP. Ask yourself if it's worth it.

This is essentially what we do when we carry a pistol instead of a rifle.

 

[DHart]

Trip20.... you're so right... doesn't matter if we're talking 1911's, SIGs, or Glocks... a 3" tube is a 3" tube and you do give up a lot in terms of terminal ballistics with the .45acp from such a short tube. And as David Difabio's testing indicates, simply choosing a lighter bullet doesn't necessarily make everything better... look at all the 200 gr., 185 gr., even 165 gr. loadings which when fired from a 3" tube did not give reliable expansion:

The following loads DID NOT offer reliable expansion when fired from a 3" micro 1911:

1. Federal 185+P and 230gr HydraShok
2. Speer Gold Dot 200gr+P & 230gr Gold Dot
3. Hornady 185, 200, 230gr XTP and +p XTP, CQ, & TAP
4. Winchester 185gr Silvertip
5. Winchester 230gr SXT
6. Remington 185gr and 185gr +P Golden Saber
7. Federal 230gr classic jhp
8. Corbon 200 and 230gr jhp+p
9. Federal 200gr +P EFMJ
10. Federal 165gr Personal Defense
11. Winchester "white box" 230gr jhp

If you must carry a .45acp pistol of any type, with a 3" barrel, it seems to me to be very prudent to limit your ammo selection to CorBon's 165 gr. PowRBall and DPX loadings, and Barnes Hex 185gr bullets... expensive as they are!

 

[combatantr2]

Trip;

effectiveness = reliability. i believe these 2 must come hand in hand. you want to launch a 45acp is shorter barrels, less than the 1911 5in, launch it from another gun-format. A P345 is a tack driver. shorter 1911s is a hit & miss when it comes to reliability. no point using modern 45acp if you cant fire it reliably.

 

[HD]

this is why i bought a sig 245...

accurate , reliable , not ammo fussy , compact , 6+1 or 8+1 , it works from nib...

 

[Trip20]

Thanks

Ok - I think I'll steer clear of .45's in a 3-3 ½ tube. There appears to be too much compromise... and to be on the safe side, I'll more than likely go 9mm if I stick with this platform choice. Thank you all for shedding some light on the subject. You've been very helpful.

 

[Jamie C.]

Short-barreled .45acp wounding vs. .40S&W wounding...

Not really a "scientific" comparison, but it's still something to think about.
Here's a couple of links to articles with pictures, concerning a couple of ND's that resulted in close-range gunshot wounds to the hand. ( The pics are not for the squeamish. )
The .45 was a G-30, the .40 was a Sigma.
http://www.thegunzone.com/nd.html
http://www.thegunzone.com/timm-nd.html

I know the exit wounds and bullet paths aren't the same, still, as I said, they give a person a pretty good idea of what these two rounds can be expected to do when fired from these types of weapons.

Oh, and before anybody starts calling these two gents "idiots" or anything of the like, just keep in mind that it only takes a second of not thinking to really screw up. And to paraphrase another poster's thoughts on these articles "There but for the grace of god goes all of us.


J.C.

 

[Borachon]

Wow. Raw pictures indeed.

And neither one of these guys died? I thought the transmitted pressure wave produced by giant bullets like the .45 and .40 was suppose to cause a tsunami of pressure to rush through their blood and cause their heads to explode like balloons.

According to them, they didn't even pass out.

You are ruining all my previously held concepts of the .45 and .40.

It's true that velocity is important too, but the .45acp is very effective even at a lower velocity.

I think it would still be effective. As much as any bullet will be. But there has to be some difference when the bullet is moving slower. Do you have links to studies done that show it is as effective or more than guns of comparable 3.5in size? The reason I ask is that I'm interested in the performance of .380 caliber as compared to larger bullets, like .40 and .45 when fired from equal length barrels. I'd like to see some penetration data and expansion data.