Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102

Thread: Does a short barrel .45 make sense

  1. #1

    Does a short barrel .45 make sense

    I did a quick search for a similar thread, but didn't find one. If i just missed it please link. That being said...

    Let's look at a line of guns, the Smith Shields. They can be had in 9mm, .40, .45ACP.

    There's something to like about the .45, it's chunky little can of whoop ass. A little short of mag capacity, but big on caliber. But...

    .45 ACP was built around 5" barreled guns. The .45 Shield has a 3.3" barrel. And there are a whole slew of 3" 1911 platform guns out there also. If fairly consistently heard that .45 ACP doesn't do well out of shorter barrels. Some testing seems to back it up. It seems to be the same issue similar that .380 has. If you have a hollowpoint that opens up adequately the round underpenetrates. If the round has adequate penetration, there'll be little to no expansion.

    Is this true, and if so, for short barrel guns is it better to go with natively higher velocity rounds like 9mm or .40 who's ammo is designed around shorter barrels (4") to begin with?

  2. #2
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    The short answer is no, the .45 doesn't make sense in a sub-compact gun.

    The long answer is...it's complicated.

    Ammo selection can make a sub-4" .45 a capable gun. That ammo begins and ends, in my opinion, with the 185-grain Barnes bullet in +P loadings. Because the Barnes bullet is designed to have a wide velocity envelope over which it works, it's a bullet that can be run in a shorter barrel with minimal negative effects. However, to achieve adequate velocity from a short barrel .45, it's still going to need to be loaded fairly hot, usually pushing over into +P pressure ranges.

    Add to the fact that micro 1911s in particular, have to be sprung like hell adding a +P loading to them exacerbates a lot of reliability issues inherent in that design (which are unlikely shared with the Shield or XD-S, but I don't have much experience with those platforms). Ultimately, you end up with a gun that has more recoil, lower capacity, and higher rate of wear - to have a sub-compact .45.

    Given that a 9mm gun has more capacity, less recoil, and better reliability out of the sub-compact platforms out there, there is no compelling reason to choose a sub-compact .45ACP handgun for any reason, at all. Which brings us back to the short answer above -

    No, it doesn't make any sense.

  3. #3
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    HK45c or USP45c are generally considered GTG. I wouldn't see the point of anything smaller than that.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  4. #4
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    HK45c or USP45c are generally considered GTG. I wouldn't see the point of anything smaller than that.
    Me neither. The HK45/USP45C are size wise a bit smaller than a Commander-sized 1911 and a bit larger than an Officer's-sized 1911. Making them about the best size for carry out there, anyways. Add in they are generally very reliable and are cheaper than a compact-1911...

  5. #5
    I'm going with the consensus of: no. I have a Colt 1917 Fitz clone. I can't say what speed the bullets are hitting but, out of a 2" barrel, 1 to 2 rounds a cylinder will keyhole. To me that says the velocity is getting down to the lower limit of stabilizing the round. Fun range toy and that big bore muzzle looks intimidating as all get out. Realistically though I'm reaching for something else for self defense.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I did a quick search for a similar thread, but didn't find one. If i just missed it please link. That being said...

    Let's look at a line of guns, the Smith Shields. They can be had in 9mm, .40, .45ACP.

    There's something to like about the .45, it's chunky little can of whoop ass. A little short of mag capacity, but big on caliber. But...

    .45 ACP was built around 5" barreled guns. The .45 Shield has a 3.3" barrel. And there are a whole slew of 3" 1911 platform guns out there also. If fairly consistently heard that .45 ACP doesn't do well out of shorter barrels. Some testing seems to back it up. It seems to be the same issue similar that .380 has. If you have a hollowpoint that opens up adequately the round underpenetrates. If the round has adequate penetration, there'll be little to no expansion.

    Is this true, and if so, for short barrel guns is it better to go with natively higher velocity rounds like 9mm or .40 who's ammo is designed around shorter barrels (4") to begin with?

    I suspect that you've answered your own question with this observation; ''It seems to be the same issue similar that .380 has. If you have a hollowpoint that opens up adequately the round underpenetrates. If the round has adequate penetration, there'll be little to no expansion.''

    When you ''shorten the runway'' reducing velocity enough to preclude reliable expansion of a JHP in any caliber, all you have left is a really expensive FMJ. At that point, due to the very narrow permanent wound channels produced by an FMJ, there is little real difference between the calibers. At velocities that can be expected from a 3''-inch barrel, a .380 95 gr. FMJ @ 875 fps produces about 18.5 inches of penetration, a 9mm 124 gr. FMJ @ 1,050 fps produces 27 inches of penetration, and a .45ACP 230-gr. FMJ @ 750 fps is good for about 23.5 inches of terminal penetration.

    The only question remaining (as Rob touches upon) is, Are the penalties (the need for +P and +P+ loads to ensure JHP expansion, commensurate increase in recoil, wear, and somewhat larger profile and weight of the pistol) that come with carrying a 3''-barreled .45ACP sub-compact worth it?

    I''ll leave it to you make that judgment for yourself.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  7. #7
    Hoplophilic doc SAWBONES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Third Dimension
    My own experience with smaller .45 Auto pistols includes two early H&K USP Compacts and two Glock 30s (early Gen 3) as well as a Colt CCO. (I don't and won't own a 1911-pattern pistol with a barrel shorter than 4.25" or a caliber other than .45 Auto.)

    All the above have run without any problems, as used in training courses and for range practice, and years ago for CCW too.

    Interestingly, the "softest" shooting of all, per my perception, are the G30s, seemingly having even less felt recoil than the G21. I know that doesn't make sense.

    (OTOH, I had two early G 36s, neither of which would EVER run reliably.
    Never got through more than 50 consecutive rounds without a failure to feed, fire or extract.
    I'm told the current examples run fine, though.)
    "Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman

  8. #8
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by Half Moon View Post
    I'm going with the consensus of: no. I have a Colt 1917 Fitz clone. I can't say what speed the bullets are hitting but, out of a 2" barrel, 1 to 2 rounds a cylinder will keyhole. To me that says the velocity is getting down to the lower limit of stabilizing the round. Fun range toy and that big bore muzzle looks intimidating as all get out. Realistically though I'm reaching for something else for self defense.
    200-grain flying ashtrays may fair better than 230-grain ball (I'm ASSuming that is what you're shooting out of it).

    Quote Originally Posted by SAWBONES View Post
    Interestingly, the "softest" shooting of all, per my perception, are the G30s, seemingly having even less felt recoil than the G21. I know that doesn't make sense.
    Doesn't surprise me. But that's because the G21 is HUGE. I suspect the way the grip fits in many folks hands causes it to have some weird in-hand shooting dynamics that make it less pleasant to shoot. The G30 is smaller enough that it negates those issues. I know from personal experience the G21 is the only gun I've ever picked up that is unpleasant to hold in my hand and downright painful to shoot, for the way it stretches my hand in order to grip it. I'd rather fire full-bore magnums through a 2.5" 629 than shoot 100 rounds through a G21.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    After too many attempts (Colt Defender, Colt Officer's ACP, Glock 30, and Glock 36), the answer, for me, is "No." The shorter barreled .45 is harder for me to shoot due to the spring rate needed for the lighter slide, less reliable due to the need for frequent spring changes, and the shorter slide offers no benefit for my preferred IWB carry method. Then there are the ammo issues with penetration and expansion outlined above.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    The Garden State
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lV8wwCzsso

    Older test of the Speer 230 grain short barrel round from 2013 by tnoutdoors9 with 3.3 inch barrel. Seems like a serviceable round but just barely. I like this round out of my HK45C with a 3.9 inch barrel but I wouldn't use a 45 with a 3 inch barrel. For that there is 9mm. As Rob points out, the 185 grain Barnes all copper round is the one to beat.
    Real guns have hammers.

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
  •