Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 236

Thread: "Why the .45 ACP Failed"

  1. #21
    Site Supporter JohnO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    CT (behind Enemy lines)
    I find the whole caliber debate a waste of time. Fine you can argue that your special Buffalo Bore exploding bullet is better than XYZ but if it misses its mark it isn't worth squat. Far too much debate has going under the bridge on a subject that is relatively inconsequential. Why don't we hear people argue shot placement? How many keyboard commandos can actually put their magic bullets were they will be effective?

    Full disclosure: I carry a Lightweight Commander in 45 ACP. I also live under a bullshit set of rules where I can't have more than 10 rounds in a magazine. Additionally the ridiculousness extends to how a "Large Capacity Magazine" (CT state law term) can be carried. I want to take away all worry of having the wrong magazine in the wrong place with the wrong amount of ammunition contained within. So I happily carry a 1911 with 8 +1 and don't feel I'm short changing myself by not having 10 +1 of 9 mm. Additionally I like the 1911.

    If I lived in a free state I would probably carry my Gen 5 G17.

  2. #22
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Away, away, away, down.......
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    That was pretty well established in the 1890s when the US had to hastily reissue .45saa's when it became obvious the replacement .38lc was not effective enough in the Philippines.


    In the 1930s a pair named Fairbairn and Sykes developed the double-tap technique to compensate for the Shanghai Police's anemic .380 colt 1908's.
    That photo perfectly illustrates poor shot placement that shouldn’t be expected to immediately stop a determined opponent from fighting.
    Last edited by Caballoflaco; 09-03-2019 at 02:56 PM.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    If the .45LC was the answer, then why did American troops continue to get hacked to death by Moros after the re-issuance of the .45LC?

    Answer: Because it didn't make a difference.

    Old wives tales are old wives tales, no matter how long they've been told by people who don't know any better just taking them as fact.
    Source?

    My reading shows the .45lc was only reissued in 1909. The war, which started in 1899, ended in 1913 (before the .45acp came into play) with a grand total of 131 American service members killed in action. I cannot find a year by year tally, but it appears the heaviest losses occured in 1906 under the .38lc

  4. #24
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Did the .45 ACP "fail"? Seems like it has been a commercial success for approximately 108 years at this point.

    Pistol rounds suck. Some suck more than others, but the real offset these days has to do with the ability to chamber fairly small handguns in 9mm and you just can't do it in .45. The smallest reliable .45 handgun is probably the Kahr PM45 or Glock 36, which is still about 40% larger than a Sig P938, Sig P365, a Kahr PM9/CM9, Ruger LC9, or Glock 43. If the efficacy is about the same, concealment and convenience will trump most things.

    If we'd issued 12-gauge shotguns and buckshot in the 1890s in lieu of a stupid revolver, the 1911 wouldn't exist today.

  5. #25
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    If you are going to dig up the Moros, you also need to look into the failure of the .45 at the Battle of Barrington.

    Why does that never get brought up in caliber wars?
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

  6. #26
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Here's what I know:

    Nothing. Nada. Zip. At least when it comes to be arguing about what handgun caliber works better than another.

    I know the .45 ACP FEELS like it should be more effective - who doesn't get a warm and fuzzy when threading those fat bastards into a magazine? Makes me want to put my 147 gr JHP next to it and say "Whimpy, whimpy, whimpy!"

    I know that shooting 50 rounds through my Shield 45 the other day showed that I could run the pistol about as fast as a G43, and it was plenty accurate (easy enough to plink a steel silhouette at 100 yards). I also know that later than night I was sucking down Motrin and putting ice on my wrist...

    I know a Vietnam era SEAL who swore he'd never carry a 9mm for serious use. I also know an Army CID agent who told me, straight faced and dead serious, that the muzzle blast from a 45 could knock a threat down; and a "hit in the big toe will tear their leg off."

    What's all this mean? About as much as any of the other drivel posted here so far. Handgun rounds suck. We only carry handguns because we can't conceal rifles or shotguns. If you FEEL better with a 45 - carry one and get on with your bad self. If you're confident your .25 ACP is all you need - have fun, and I'll be praying for you.

    I carry a 9mm on duty (G19), and the LAST thing I worry about is the "effectiveness" of the round.

  7. #27
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    One thing I like about .45 ACP - when I’m doing dryfires with snap caps, it’s easier to find them when they fall on the floor.

    Thus I conclude .45 > 9mm.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    About as good of a simple lay-explanation of this as I've heard.
    He’s our only non-shitty mod
    #RESIST

  9. #29
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    Source?

    My reading shows the .45lc was only reissued in 1909. The war, which started in 1899, ended in 1913 (before the .45acp came into play) with a grand total of 131 American service members killed in action. I cannot find a year by year tally, but it appears the heaviest losses occurred in 1906 under the .38lc
    Okay, unfortunately you've got some bad information there which might be driving your view.

    There were two distinct wars within the Philippine-American War. The first was the actual Philippine American war that only lasted until 1902 and featured the lion's share of the fighting, with over 4,000 Americans killed....not 131.

    Then there was the conflict afterwards going until 1913, which was the Moro Rebellion......which was part of the Philippine-American War, but distinctly separate according to the US military. The entirety of the Moro Rebellion saw ~130 Americans killed.

    The reason the most number of Americans killed during the Moro Rebellion occurred in 1906 is because of a large battle over several days in March where the US decisively engaged over 1000 Moros, killing ~900 of them. I think it was called Duro Bajo, or Buro Dajo, something like that. IIRC, a little over 20 Americans were killed in that battle......so you're looking at nearly 1/6th of the American death toll from the entire Moro Rebellion in that singular battle. There simply wasn't many more Moros after that battle to do much killing of Americans, which is why there wasn't that much fighting after.

    So, now that we've got that out of the way....

    Trying to equate the effectiveness of the .45LC with the overall casualty counts of an entire war is fucking ludicrous. It was a secondary weapon, sparingly issued to officers and some NCOs. The mental gymnastics anyone would have to go through to equate correlation with causation on that is astounding given there are so many other things that account for deaths in war.....namely op-tempo and logistics, like when you've got some retard officer that has too much motivation and not enough brains and literally kills all of his troops by working them too hard (as well as actually executing all of his Filipino logistics "troops").

    ON TOP OF THAT...….being that the .45LC SAA was only retired in whole by the US Cavalry. It was still the standard issue weapon for many years with the US Infantry. The Philippine-American War was largely fought by the US National Guard, and I'm not aware of any mystical magical happenings where the .45LCs they were using were magically replaced upon arrival to the Philippines with the M1892. AFAIK, the idea that it was ONLY 1892s being used in country until the SAA was re-issued is a falsehood in its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe in PNG View Post
    If you are going to dig up the Moros, you also need to look into the failure of the .45 at the Battle of Barrington.

    Why does that never get brought up in caliber wars?
    You Heretic with your thinking ways!
    Last edited by TGS; 09-03-2019 at 04:06 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  10. #30
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    Trying to equate the effectiveness of the .45LC with the overall casualty counts of an entire war is fucking ludicrous. It was a secondary weapon, sparingly issued to officers and some NCOs. The mental gymnastics anyone would have to go through to equate correlation with causation on that is astounding given there are so many other things that account for deaths in war.....namely op-tempo and logistics, like when you've got some retard officer that has too much motivation and not enough brains and literally kills all of his troops by working them too hard (as well as actually executing all of his Filipino logistics "troops").

    ON TOP OF THAT...….being that the .45LC SAA was only retired in whole by the US Cavalry. It was still the standard issue weapon for many years with the US Infantry. The Philippine-American War was largely fought by the US National Guard, and I'm not aware of any mystical magical happenings where the .45LCs they were using were magically replaced upon arrival to the Philippines with the M1892. AFAIK, the idea that it was ONLY 1892s being used in country until the SAA was re-issued is a falsehood in its own.
    Which brings up another thing about using this as some kind of trump card for the caliber wars- in order for it to work as a logical precedent, all of our troops needed to be exclusively using Colt .38 revolvers.
    Instead, it's very very very likely that the Moros not stopped by gunshots were shot with rifles (.30-40 Kraigs).

    It would be interesting to track down the origin of this myth, and it's very likely to be some kind of third hand antidote probably made up out of whole cloth (ala the thing about the Garand ping letting the enemy know a rifle was empty during a firefight).
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •