Differences in shoot-ability?

[45dotACP]

Okay, so I've always had this question. So many people talk about the .45 like it's harder to shoot than a 9mm. Yes, it's bigger, heavier, pricier, and holds less ammo, but I've personally not encountered huge differences in performance with my Glock 21 (old gun) as compared to my Glock 34 (current gun).

I also note that Todd turned in some pretty impressive numbers with the HK45 as compared to the fairly similar P30...namely sub 2 second Bill Drills, which I view as the test of whether or not your gun is "shootable" at speed. If you slow fire, any caliber will do, because recoil is no concern, but with a Bill Drill, the greater recoil should make a big difference right?

So is the shootability difference really all that great? I may be totally off base here. What do you guys think? Do you see any huge performance gaps between different calibers (9, 40, 45 etc..) in similar sized guns?

[Mr_White]

I don't think the difference is very much - freestyle.

Single handed there seems to be a significant difference for me.

I am trying to learn from other people's experiences and avoid a heavy caliber over time and with many thousands of rounds expended, for the sake of my elbows.

Range/training ammo is one thing to base recoil characteristics off of, but to my sense every caliber is hotter in a proper duty/defense load. 9mm goes from 'easy' to 'quite manageable', .40 goes from 'unpleasant' to 'get it the f away from me', and .45 goes from 'quite manageable freestyle' to 'wow, I can't believe the muzzle is climbing like sixty degrees with this 230gr + P HST.'

.40 is also a standout ugly recoiling caliber when crammed into 9mm-sized guns.

I seem to shoot 9mm more accurately, I think because it doesn't drag as much of a flinching/anticipatory response out of me. I don't think I'm alone there.

I'll take 9mm.

[RevolverRob]

Physics is still a thing, right? Well - if you compare the physical forces from 9, 40, and 45 you aren't seeing a heck of a lot of difference, but there is still some...

Let's see - 124-grain FMJ - 351 ft/lbs of muzzle energy; 230-grain FMJ 365 ft/lbs of muzzle energy (source: http://www.ballistics101.com/). That's 14 ft/lbs of energy different. That is less than the energy it takes to swat a fly different.

Yea, I don't think you're going to find a really big difference between any of the service size calibers.

[jetfire]

I shot a G21 and a 1911 pretty well when I was shooting .45s. For me, the issue was less one of shootability and more of durability over the long run. I find dry fire tedious, and up until this year had ample time to engage in serious live fire sessions. I found that I tend to fatigue quicker shooting a .45 than I would with a 9mm.

I know that Todd by the end of the HK45 test was wearing an elbow wrap, and another friend of mine whose duty gun was a 1911 had similar issues.

For what it's worth, my PR on the Triple Nickel was set with a Glock 21.

[Wondering Beard]

in similar sized guns?

I think those are the operative words.

To a great degree we are talking about ergonomics rather than caliber here. I can do things more easily with a Glock 21 (e.g. shoot strong or weak hand only, be more accurate) than I can with a 1911, and that's because of the way the G21 fits my hand.

Of course, another factor is experience.

[45dotACP]

FWIW, I prefer the 9mm. I am a cheapskate, so cheap practice ammo won me over in the end. It all pretty much started when I saw this guy's video though. Thought it was an interesting side by side comparison. He spouts occasional bits of gunstore commando like "stopping power" etc...but the video interested me most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDO..._9_AI44ybfjZRQ

[Leroy]

Ft/lbs of energy does not equate to force applied to shooter. Force is product of mass and acceleration whereas engery is mass and velocity. A .45 could accelerate at the same speed as 9 mm albeit for shorter period of time and come out of the barrel significantly slower but impart twice the force because of twice the mass. But it has been a long time since I did math on moving bodies so i could be wrong.

[JHC]

My recollections (fond) from my 20's is I ran a .45 1911 faster than anything before or since. But that was in the early '80's. I didn't own a timer so who knows now. But I cannot run a .45 1911 or G21 even close to how I can run a 9mm today. Not freestyle and certainly not duelist. Physics has caught me.

[Savage Hands]

So is the shootability difference really all that great? I may be totally off base here. What do you guys think? Do you see any huge performance gaps between different calibers (9, 40, 45 etc..) in similar sized guns?

A perfect example is the XDs in 9mm and .45acp which are the same size, I have shot a few hundred rounds in one session with the 9mm while I hate shooting more than one mag out of the .45.

[Leroy]

Yeah, I am wrong about my theory. Although I find 9mm easier to shoot fast and accurately because I flinch less. I also find the gun does not lift as much which makes it easier to track the sights.