Does a short barrel .45 make sense

[BehindBlueI's]

Sooo, none of my ammo is going to expand? It did here....

https://youtu.be/Q28V7xQoZjc

You asked "why this would make a good self defense round", I replied "in general..." as to why they are recommended.

Short barrels often have difficulty getting a bullet fast enough to do both expand and penetrate to recommended levels, especially if the cartridge isn't designed for the barrel length. Hence the recommendation for wadcutters/semi-wadcutters in those circumstances. If you've got a cartridge that both penetrates sufficiently and expands (and has tolerable recoil and shoots point of aim) then that's the better option. Wadcutters are for when that's not true.

[corneileous]

That’s the one

Well, I’ll be. lol. I wasn’t sure what you were taking about as that response was purely a shot in the dark.

But since we’re on the same page now, I couldn’t see the driver side of that truck but I did see the passenger side where there was a couple people that jumped up on the side so I would imagine whatever the laws are of the state you’re in would dictate how you responded to that if you were in that driver‘s shoes but I guarantee you if the window would’ve been broken, and if whether or not you respected FedEx’s policy against guns in their trucks, that definitely would’ve been all the excuse I would’ve needed to start shooting straight out the passenger window.

But on a sidenote, I don’t think I would call that particular case right there an “attempted” hijacking because in the video I saw, they were actually pulling packages out of the first trailer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

From my reading here (and the experts might correct me on this), the things you want in a defensive load are 1) reliability 2) accuracy 3) penetration 4) expansion.
1 & 2 are easy enough.

3 & 4 tend to be a bit tricky.
Older JHP designs tend to expand or break apart at the expense of penetration. You may get a kewl looking yootoob vid or gel pic, but it doesn't get where it needs to go.
But, classic ball ammo profiles like FMJ or LRN can deflect off bones or not do a lot of damage as they pass through tissue.

Modern ammo is usually able to do both successfully- penetrate the minimum FBI recommended depth, expand, and stay together. But, some of the older loadings are kind of marginal at pushing a bullet fast enough to do what it's supposed to do, especially in short barrels. .45acp, .38 Special are two that are famous for this. They're older designs that are kind of slow already. Shooting them out of a shorter barrel can mean that it's not going fast enough to expand when it hits a target.

So, the classic solution is the wadcutter. It has sharp shoulders, so it will 'bite' when it hits bone instead of deflecting. It will also do more damage to tissue than a round profile.

[corneileous]

You asked "why this would make a good self defense round", I replied "in general..." as to why they are recommended.

Short barrels often have difficulty getting a bullet fast enough to do both expand and penetrate to recommended levels, especially if the cartridge isn't designed for the barrel length. Hence the recommendation for wadcutters/semi-wadcutters in those circumstances. If you've got a cartridge that both penetrates sufficiently and expands (and has tolerable recoil and shoots point of aim) then that's the better option. Wadcutters are for when that's not true.

So then would you agree that a lighter weight bullet from a 230 grain in a short barrel 45, or a specially made short barrel defend round would probably be the wiser choice? Sure, there’s really good expansion and penetration taking place in that video I posted but realistically, how close in comparison it is four pieces of denim in front of ballistics gel compared to the human body?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

So then would you agree that a lighter weight bullet from a 230 grain in a short barrel 45, or a specially made short barrel defend round would probably be the wiser choice?

I can't really agree or disagree as I don't think I know enough to make a blanket statement like that. My *guess* is one of the lighter all-copper loads might be a good choice if it hits POA, but that's a guess. I was hoping DocGKR could weigh in. If I remember I'll try and text him later today.

[jd950]

I can understand that, hence the reason I asked about it. But are these what you’re talking about? But why these? Why would these, even in the lighter weight be trusted by you over the 230 gr HST’s or Speer Gold Dots?

In a commander length or longer barrel, I would choose 230 grain hst or gold dots, maybe +p, maybe not. In the short barrel, yes, those are one of the ones I was referring to. Why? I know the track record of HST and Gold Dot, and probably Winchester Rangers, too, in 230 grain and in 4-5" barrels. The Barnes in short barrels because I have read the comments and seen the test results from people I trust on this topic, including the moderator of this forum, and because the technology makes sense to me and my own informal testing fits with what I have read and heard. They will, generally, penetrate sufficiently and also expand/become jagged while doing so. That round also seems to have a lighter recoil, and that is a good thing. Typical .45 ammo either expands but fails to penetrate enough or penetrates ok but fails to expand. Generally I have not been impressed with he 185-200 gr ammo anyway. And, despite the folklore and almost religious fervor for the idea, I simply do not subscribe to the belief that .45 ball ammo is worth carrying, unless one is restricted to ball ammo for some reason.

I am convinced the .45 in a short barrel is a less reliable defensive option than a good 9mm round, and I have the ability to choose, so I choose what I think is best. If all I had was a 3" .45 I would carry that with whatever ammo worked well in the gun and that I could shoot well and I would probably not lose any sleep over it.

Everything is a compromise and to me, the compromises are just a bit too much with a 3" .45. That does not mean it is useless or cannot do the job, it just means I think there are better choices with a greater likelihood of performing as one would hope for. There is also the benefit of lower recoil greater capacity in 9mm, and that also matters to me.

In tiny guns I use 9mm for any serious role. But if I was going to carry a 3" .45 acp, I would put the Barnes stuff in it, unless and until I find something I think is better or as good and less expensive. I hope this response was useful to you.

[corneileous]

In a commander length or longer barrel, I would choose 230 grain hst or gold dots, maybe +p, maybe not. In the short barrel, yes, those are one of the ones I was referring to. Why? I know the track record of HST and Gold Dot, and probably Winchester Rangers, too, in 230 grain and in 4-5" barrels. The Barnes in short barrels because I have read the comments and seen the test results from people I trust on this topic, including the moderator of this forum, and because the technology makes sense to me and my own informal testing fits with what I have read and heard. They will, generally, penetrate sufficiently and also expand/become jagged while doing so. That round also seems to have a lighter recoil, and that is a good thing. Typical .45 ammo either expands but fails to penetrate enough or penetrates ok but fails to expand. Generally I have not been impressed with he 185-200 gr ammo anyway. And, despite the folklore and almost religious fervor for the idea, I simply do not subscribe to the belief that .45 ball ammo is worth carrying, unless one is restricted to ball ammo for some reason.

I am convinced the .45 in a short barrel is a less reliable defensive option than a good 9mm round, and I have the ability to choose, so I choose what I think is best. If all I had was a 3" .45 I would carry that with whatever ammo worked well in the gun and that I could shoot well and I would probably not lose any sleep over it.

Everything is a compromise and to me, the compromises are just a bit too much with a 3" .45. That does not mean it is useless or cannot do the job, it just means I think there are better choices with a greater likelihood of performing as one would hope for. There is also the benefit of lower recoil greater capacity in 9mm, and that also matters to me.

In tiny guns I use 9mm for any serious role. But if I was going to carry a 3" .45 acp, I would put the Barnes stuff in it, unless and until I find something I think is better or as good and less expensive. I hope this response was useful to you.

So what are some of the other brands of this ammunition that you’re recommending?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

In .45 Auto barrels under 4" or so, I'd also likely choose a Barnes all copper 185 gr +P loading.

Barrels 4" and longer, I'll stick with a good 230 gr loading.

Synthetic gel YouTube videos are NOT valid terminal performance tests....

[willie]

When I had a ND inside my truck with factory 230 grain hardball, the bullet imbedded in the plastic part of the door and did not penetrate farther. Barrel length was 5 inches. When I would shoot into a plowed field with any 45 Auto, I could rake through the dirt and find the bullets. Firing grease guns and Thompsons into dirt banks at 50 and 75 yard distances showed similar lack of penetration.

Doc's findings are gospel. Study them. Perhaps more bullshit has been written about bullet this and that than any other subject. I am an expert on bullshit because I have been reading it for over 5 decades, and I still do dumb things. I may have more Doc type ammo than any other person here but sometimes carry a 9 loaded with the old Federal 115 +p+ jhp.

[jd950]

So what are some of the other brands of this ammunition that you’re recommending? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doing a quick search I found loaded ammo with this bullet from Buffalo Bore, Black Hills and Barnes. I think they would all be considered reliable brands. I would suggest getting a box of each and checking for function, "accuracy", flash, recoil, etc., in your gun(s) and in your hands and then get some more of whatever seems best and confirm it works for you and your gun. Others may have more knowledge of these particular options.

This stuff isn't cheap, unfortunately, but you need to be confident it works reliably in your gun, in my opinion. I would be interested to hear how the experiment works out for you and what you choose.