Does a short barrel .45 make sense

[corneileous]

I would rather slam my balls in a car door than get involved in a prolonged 9mm vs .45 debate, I would offer two observations:

Guess it’s a good thing that’s not what this discussion’s about, is it?...lol. Thanks for that visual, BTW...

1) While it certainly has some merit as a "woods cartridge" for folks that want to carry a field pistol (see GJM's thread on the USP 45) I'm not sure it is the best choice for a 3" barreled urban/suburban carry pistol.

If you’re just telling the thread, that’s ok but I’ve already stated why I chose this little 3” semi-auto so I’ll just have to make the best out of it. I’m not totally sold on wadcutters as defense ammo when there are other options available so I guess I’ll just take my chances on the short-barreled 45’s from Speer. Guess I coulda tried probably the same exact thing in the Federal HST’s for shortie-barrel 45’s but I didn’t even realize Federal made a short-barreled defensive round in a 45 until after I submitted the order for the Speers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corneileous]

I’m gonna try these as well. Thoughts?


https://www.underwoodammo.com/produc...18786995929145


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trooper224]

Honestly, I think you're starting to fall victim to analysis paralysis.

Over 80 posts and you're still asking essentially the same question. I think it's been pretty well established that what you have isn't ideal, but it's what you have. As the saying goes, "You don't always need a plan bro, sometimes you just need balls." The gun you have, combined with some of the ammunition you've mentioned, will be enough to discourage an attacker and that's the whole point. Maybe it isn't perfect, but it's what you've got. Take you shorty half ninety, load it with some rounds and train so you can accurately place your shots. Then, replace it with something better when you can. That's really all there is.

[corneileous]

Honestly, I think you're starting to fall victim to analysis paralysis.

You’re probably right, I do tend to get a little carried away but you seem as though you think it’s a bad thing. Most of you guys already have the necessary knowledge, a lot of us don’t. Put yourself in our shoes. There’s so much in the market these days with endless possibilities that how is someone like myself supposed to know what’s a good choice and what isn’t? That’s the purpose of these forums- isn’t it?

Over 80 posts and you're still asking essentially the same question. I think it's been pretty well established that what you have isn't ideal, but it's what you have. As the saying goes, "You don't always need a plan bro, sometimes you just need balls." The gun you have, combined with some of the ammunition you've mentioned, will be enough to discourage an attacker and that's the whole point. Maybe it isn't perfect, but it's what you've got. Take you shorty half ninety, load it with some rounds and train so you can accurately place your shots.

Hold on friend, I didn’t join the discussion till about 50 or so posts ago but I don’t think I’m essentially asking the same question over and over again. I’ve asked for thoughts and opinions and why people feel they way they do about their thoughts and opinions but that’s it.

And yes, it has been pretty well established that what I have isn’t preferred but just because that appears to be the case, is it really that bad? Considering that most handguns aren’t ideal? Is it not possible to make the best of it to not be considered a waste?

But yes, that’s the plan with the Underwoods. I’m just hoping that the +P in them doesn’t add more recoil that I’m somewhat trying to take away but going down from 230 to 185 grain but even if it does, I’ve gotten pretty proficient with just regular ole 230 grain target rounds.

Then, replace it with something better when you can. That's really all there is.

Replace what, the ammo or the gun? Kinda feelin’ like you’re referring to the gun but really- is really that bad? Again, it may not be preferred but I don’t think it’s bad enough to fully scrap and get something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRB]

You’re probably right, I do tend to get a little carried away but you seem as though you think it’s a bad thing. Most of you guys already have the necessary knowledge, a lot of us don’t. Put yourself in our shoes. There’s so much in the market these days with endless possibilities that how is someone like myself supposed to know what’s a good choice and what isn’t? That’s the purpose of these forums- isn’t it?


Hold on friend, I didn’t join the discussion till about 50 or so posts ago but I don’t think I’m essentially asking the same question over and over again. I’ve asked for thoughts and opinions and why people feel they way they do about their thoughts and opinions but that’s it.

And yes, it has been pretty well established that what I have isn’t preferred but just because that appears to be the case, is it really that bad? Considering that most handguns aren’t ideal? Is it not possible to make the best of it to not be considered a waste?

But yes, that’s the plan with the Underwoods. I’m just hoping that the +P in them doesn’t add more recoil that I’m somewhat trying to take away but going down from 230 to 185 grain but even if it does, I’ve gotten pretty proficient with just regular ole 230 grain target rounds.


Replace what, the ammo or the gun? Kinda feelin’ like you’re referring to the gun but really- is really that bad? Again, it may not be preferred but I don’t think it’s bad enough to fully scrap and get something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of these folks mean any offense, about any of this.

Just take a deep breath and take a moment to consider the whole scope of your concerns.

Ultimately, the first and most important step is to have a good holster and safe carrying practices, along with a sharp mindset to avoid trouble at all cost - especially in stupid places at stupid times that tend to be full of stupid people.

Beyond that, you need a skillset and mindset that can identify when a fight is absolutely and truly necessary, and have the skills and willpower to finish the fight effectively on your terms. Specifically, marksmanship and good shot placement is OVERWHELMINGLY more important than ammo selection. This has been covered.

Specific selection about ammo, and even your chosen weapon system takes a distinct third place behind these two ultimately higher priorities.

If shit hits the fan, I'd rather ride next to a guy with a well-run old Gen 2 Glock 21 full of 230gr hardball that I *KNOW* can shoot when it counts and who *KNOWS* the difference between when it is and isn't necessary.
Fancy guns and fancy ammo are great when all the other skills and concerns have been addressed.

So, if it seems that we're losing patience with your analysis paralysis over ammo selection, it's ultimately because we're concerned you're worrying about ammo for no further benefit, while so many other things worth worrying about go unconsidered.
Personally, friend, I say run a few boxes of whatever you've got through your XDE and if it runs like a champ, and you can run a clean 'Bill Drill' from concealment in under 4 seconds or so, carry it with confidence.

[Keith E.]

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?

When I carried smaller, Colt Lightweight Officers Model (very short-lived) and an early G-30, .45ACP handguns, they were loaded with standard pressure Hornady 230XTP or 230 ball. I had a very brief run with the Remington 185JHP +P until firing some out of the Officers Model one day at dusk. There was way too much flash for my use. The G-30 was shot a lot with the 230XTP & ball rounds during practice and pistol matches. I knew that the ball projectile was going to stay the same unless it hit a hard surface and felt that way about the XTP as well. I also knew where they would land from contact distance out to 200yds. Before folks get too wound up on the 200yd reference, that was plinking with the G-30, at a metal silhouette with about an 80% ding rate. That was good enough for me for several years and I had no concerns with the G-30 reliability or accuracy. If required, I would not have any problems carrying that same pistol with that same ammo nowadays.

YMMV,
Keith

[corneileous]

None of these folks mean any offense, about any of this.

Just take a deep breath and take a moment to consider the whole scope of your concerns.

Ultimately, the first and most important step is to have a good holster and safe carrying practices, along with a sharp mindset to avoid trouble at all cost - especially in stupid places at stupid times that tend to be full of stupid people.

Beyond that, you need a skillset and mindset that can identify when a fight is absolutely and truly necessary, and have the skills and willpower to finish the fight effectively on your terms. Specifically, marksmanship and good shot placement is OVERWHELMINGLY more important than ammo selection. This has been covered.

Specific selection about ammo, and even your chosen weapon system takes a distinct third place behind these two ultimately higher priorities.

If shit hits the fan, I'd rather ride next to a guy with a well-run old Gen 2 Glock 21 full of 230gr hardball that I *KNOW* can shoot when it counts and who *KNOWS* the difference between when it is and isn't necessary.
Fancy guns and fancy ammo are great when all the other skills and concerns have been addressed.

So, if it seems that we're losing patience with your analysis paralysis over ammo selection, it's ultimately because we're concerned you're worrying about ammo for no further benefit, while so many other things worth worrying about go unconsidered.
Personally, friend, I say run a few boxes of whatever you've got through your XDE and if it runs like a champ, and you can run a clean 'Bill Drill' from concealment in under 4 seconds or so, carry it with confidence.

I’m sure they don’t and I never really took any for offense but it’s plain to see that not a lot of folks agree with my choice of EDC weapon and that’s ok. I’ve even admitted that my choice of a short-barrel 45 probably wasn’t the wisest of choice but it is what it is. I love this little pistol. I’ve gotten good with it and it’s here to stay.

And yes, I know good shot placement is important but we’re not talking about any other more choice pistol- we’re talking about a short-barreled 45 that doesn’t seem to be meant to be a 45 just because of the nature of a 45. As far as why some ammunition manufactures make short-barrel 9mm’s, I fully understand it in such a large, but slow caliber that’s already slow even in a long barrel. I don’t mean to over-analyze but if there’s a reason why most of you guys are so against a shorty 45, is it not normal for someone to be a little bit more concerned about what’s best for it? If I really don’t have a reason to be concerned then I kindly digress.

But I will say that even though I’ve yet to try them, I feel pretty confident in the Underwood +P 185-grain ammunition I have coming to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stephanie B]

Ballistics By the Inch has some interesting data.

My uneducated opinion on SD cartridges is that it can be a massive rabbit-hole, filled with anecdotal information that is more misleading than anything else.

Personally, when it comes time to buying SD ammo, I just get something from DocGKR's list and call it a day.

[sheepdog]

Does a short barreled .45 ACP make sense? In my opinion, yes, absolutely, depending on the person. In fact, they may make as much sense as a 9mm or more depending on the shooter's physiology, level of proficiency and experience.

This isn't something you can understand with a short reply, but if you're interested I think you'll see I'm right.

Heavier bullets like a .45 ACP don't rely on velocity as much as lighter bullets like 9mm to create the energy that's needed to stop an attacker, so if you shoot a short barreled .45 ACP like the immensely popular Smith & Wesson M&P45 Shield M2.0, you'll typically have more energy than a comparable 9mm (not that you don't have more than enough to get the job done with 9mm or even .380 ACP, you do).

Look at the graphs below from ballisticsbytheinch.com (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/index.html). Each contains a limited sample of ammo, and since it was made more than ten years ago it may be a bit antiquated but it nonetheless demonstrates my point.

First notice that the barrel length vs. energy curve is arguably flatter on a 9mm. I only point this out to acknowledge that short barreled pistols can be an exception to the rule that larger bullets generally have a flatter curve (which you'd notice more comparing calibers for pistol carbines, but even then it's it depends more on the load IMHO). Either way, all calibers take a hit especially coming out of a sub 3" barrel (especially compared to .357 Magnum).

What we can say for sure is that heavier bullets don't need to rely on velocity as much as lighter bullets to produce energy. Don't get me wrong, lighter faster bullets are more efficient at creating energy (k.e. = 1/2 mass x velocity squared), but 9mm lacking mass to begin with is hurt disproportionately by shorter barrels.

A .357 Magnum which uses a much smaller bullet than a .45 is affected even moreso, and as you can see its muzzle energy rating takes a drastic hit on very short barrels. This is why snubbies in .357 Magnum are often criticized because they don't do any better a job than even 9mm out of a short barrel yet they're incredibly uncomfortable to shoot from a small/light gun (watch the Military Arms Channel ballistic test).

When comparing .45 ACP and 9mm, you can find loads powerful enough in either caliber, but more of the .45 ACP's coming from a short 3.3" Shield 45 barrel are going to be north of the 300 or 400 ft. lb. mark (depending on where you want to be) than the 3.1" barrel of a Shield chambered in 9mm.

The most important part, however, is hitting your target. Some people like what they describe as the gentle push from lobbing a .45 ACP bullets believing 9mm is too flippy (even if it is considerably less so than .40 S&W or .357 SIG) whereas other people are just the opposite preferring the flippier 9mm over the perceived recoil of a .45 ACP (especially out of such a small gun). Ultimately, however, a shooter should place a greater priority on the gun/caliber they shoot more accurately under stress as the most important thing is hitting your target, so if you shoot a 9mm more accurately, go with a 9mm. But .45 ACP tends to be more accurate in gunfights, so if Newton's Third Law doesn't bother you shooting a .45 ACP from a short barreled pistol (in other words, it won't discourage you from practicing), and it translates to increased accuracy, go with it (https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power).

On the one hand, punching paper is different than combat. You wouldn't want to keyhole an assailant even if you could because you'd greatly increase the chance of over penetration and thus wasting energy in the process. It already takes 3 rounds on average of either .45 ACP or 9mm to stop an attacker. Coupled with the fact that you're already taking an energy hit with a shorter barrel, you don't want rounds leaving the body if you can avoid it (Note: it does statistically take slightly fewer rounds of .45 ACP, but we can't shoot 2.08 bullets). So a little dispersion in the end is actually welcome.

Remember, however, 70-80% of accuracy tends to go out the window in a gunfight, so accuracy is still important even if only reasonable "combat effective" accuracy is required (and even desired) to stop an attacker. In fact, .45 ACP may even be at a ballistic advantage coming from a shorter rather than a longer barrel because—all things being equal—a heavier bullet penetrates (and thus over penetrates) more than a lighter bullet. However—and again, all things being equal—a faster bullet also penetrates (and perhaps over penetrates) more easily than a slower one, so it's always a balancing act, but since the .45 ACP is already going to be a larger bullet than a 9mm, taking the velocity edge off may actually make .45 ACP more effective than shooting it out of a longer barrel. In that study I linked earlier, 9mm fails to incapacitate 13% of the time while .45 ACP fails 14% of the time. Certainly that is within the margin of error, but to make my point, .44 Mag is statistically tied with both also coming in at 13% despite having twice the energy. How can that be? As one coroner put it, "I've never seen a .357 leave the body and I've never seen a .44 Magnum stay in one". Like .44 Mag, .45 ACP probably doesn't do any better because a heavier bullet can pass through more easily (again, all things being equally as we're always balancing, not just mass and velocity, but bullet design as well).

Getting back to accuracy, Massad Ayoob is a good example of a subcompact .45 ACP fan (or at least he used to be as I am not sure what he's doing these days). He has written extensively in the past comparing the Glock 26 and Glock 30. He notes that the G26 is superbly accurate for the type but that the G30 is even more accurate in his hands so he often preferred to compete with it back in the day (over a G26).

That said, we are also more rounds limited shooting a .45 ACP from such a small gun, so it all depends on what someone is more comfortable with considering both a gun's shootability and capacity. If the latter isn't a concern and you can handle shooting a subcompact .45 ACP and you shoot it more accurately, you'll also find its a little more powerful and that combination can be more effective (but as the study shows, that does not necessarily have to be the case depending on what happens with the bullet).

If the recoil bothers you and you find the 9mm more accurate in your hands, go with it (as most people do including me), but anyone saying .45 ACP doesn't make sense coming out of a short barrel is being short-sighted in my opinion. It really depends on the shooter and the load.

Lastly, I don't even own a .45 ACP at the moment (most of my guns are 9mm, .380 ACP, .357 SIG and .40 S&W), so I am not sticking up for .45 ACP out of any personal bias.

[RevolverRob]

Short barrel .45 still makes no sense. But this weekend, I am carrying one - my late father's gun. It's father's day tomorrow, the first one without my father, and I'm gonna carry his gun for that reason. It's loaded with 230-grain ball, because that's what it is reliable with. Doesn't make any sense and I don't care.