Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Why the .45 ACP "sucks" for self defense

Well that's the title, but I think the discussion would be more appropriately "Why the .45 ACP offers the least advantage over all the other common self defense cartridges"

This is a subject that will sure enough start a Holy War, but It's interesting that 25 years ago this would be an absolutely preposterous discussion, as back then it was arguably "the best" of the lot. But things have changed and now, whether you agree with it or not, the discussion at least does have some merits.

I have always said I don't carry any gun because of the cartridge, but because of the gun. I know they all work, and I know they all work pretty much just as well. I just don't go in for, or find anything useful in worrying about one cartridge over another. Just like I don't find any meaningful difference in the .270 vs. .30-06 debate; waste of time.

Anyhow, enjoy the Holy War this thread is likely to kick off.

Sounds to me like you're just trolling for an argument, rather than a serious discussion. Eliminating the value of the cartridge used for self defense up front shows you to be either young or foolish - maybe both.

Don

If we didn't have "better bullets and powders" , I would be happy with just a 45.

Not for an argument, but I've been a member of the campfire at least 10x as long as you have, and I know there are those here who will argue that a 1% difference in anything is worth agonizing over.

I bring it up because the guy on the video's position would have been preposterous 25 years ago, but actually does have some merit today.

Now on to the second half of your statement. I wish I were young, but I am foolish; many here will attest to that.

But I've also treated more gunshot wounds than most military medics who have been to war, and I've seen first hand what handguns do and don't do. Coupled with hunting experience, I've learned that what may look like a big difference on paper, often times means absolutely nothing in the field. Things such as the difference in the size of a fully expanded 9mm vs. a fully expanded .45 ACP. On paper when you do the math, as a % increase in size, the difference looks big and impressive. But when both bullets hit a living being, that living being doesn't do the math, and you have to search long to find some extreme example where that difference in expanded diameter was THE one and only issue that carried the day. Yet examples of bullet placement carrying the day (or ruining someone's day) can be found in pretty much every incident.

From 9mm-.45 ACP and everything in between, the difference in ACTUAL performance on human beings just isn't big enough to agonize over. I used to...I not only agonized over caliber, but I was very specific about which load I carried; I sweated EVERY detail. Only to learn that your choice in caliber or load being the deciding factor in a gun fight is statistically outside the realm of what's reasonable to worry over. (or what I personally find reasonable, you may disagree)

My chances of being in a gunfight are about the same as getting hit by lightning. Now the chance that I'm actually in a gun fight, but the ONE thing I needed in that gunfight was the flatter trajectory of the 9mm, or that somehow in this particular gunfight NO JHP bullet would expand regardless of cartridge/bullet combination, so starting out with a .45 caliber hole is the only reason I survived. Or the only reason I survived is because I had an 18 round magazine, or I'm alive because only a 180 grain .40 S&W round would have penetrated enough to stop the goblin I was facing.

In the realm of gunfights, there are always incidents you can point to for the purposes of justifying some particular choice in equipment. And those examples are almost always some sort of extreme circumstance.

But in EVERY gun fight, and EVERY shooting scene that I've ever responded to personally, or have heard about, shot placement or lack thereof has been a key factor.

And I KNOW that when reasonable choices are made in firearm, cartridge, and ammunition...followed by good shot placement, in the vast majority of shootings, just that was sufficient. Because shot placement can cover a LOT of sins in your choices. But caliber, capacity, bullet choice, etc...rarely, are those choices sufficient to cover the sin of not being able to place rounds where they'll do you any good.

So I choose my firearms not because of caliber, but for me it's more about how well I and that particular gun get along in the scoring department. Do I shoot it well trumps just about everything...and the other factors come in behind that one criteria (within reason of course).

But hey, according to you I'm young and foolish; so for God's sake, don't listen to me.

The guy on the video is a polemicist, and not a good one at that. His arguments are circular sophistry. Anyone could prove anything if he sets parameters that define his previously stated conclusion.

BTW, it's very telling that he qualified his position as "my opinion," so no counter argument is possible.

All the advanced bullet technology arguments made for the smaller caliber semi-auto rounds also enhance the 45 ACP's performance. Penetration testing with bullets like the Federal 230 HST fired at +P velocities show same penetration as the commonly cited smaller caliber SD cartridges.

I haven't found any of the few Yankee Marshall videos I've seen to be worth a 2nd viewing or of much value. YMMV

I'll take the 45 load with a big cast bullet over a 9mm for self-defense against 4 legged critters.

YM was a regular on several forums I used to frequent... anything for attention. From my recollection, it would be hard to infer that his use of the word 'sucks' wasn't a compliment. At any rate I didn't waste time on the video because his opinion on defense cartridges--or anything else--is of no value to me.

I agree.

Nothing but an attention whore.

He clearly intended the title to be inflammatory, because he immediately states that the .45 doesn't suck. He just said it has the "least advantages" of any of the common combat cartridges. And while there is "some logic" to what he says, you have to split to prety fine hairs to acknowledge said logic.

To me, the whole cartridge debate is about splitting pretty fine hairs. I mean, you just can't dispute the performance record of the .45 ACP. Sure, on paper you can find some imperfections...you can also find that with any other cartridge. But CLEARLY not only does the .45 ACP get the job done, but it has done it so well that to many the .45 ACP's performance is THE benchmark of what you would want in a self defense cartridge. Is it perfect? Nope, but neither is any other cartridge. So I guess we'll have to settle for DAMN GOOD.

So while I see no point in arguing "best", I will take issue if people actually said the .45 ACP is a bad cartridge.

But all this is splitting very fine hairs. By ANY measure, the .45 ACP is an excellent self defense cartridge.

+1 also just posting something to start an argument was kind of juvenile

There are few men here that know exactly what the .45 ACP (or variant) will do and will not do. The same know what a steel frame 1911 will do to a man's skull. They are not all dead yet.

No, we aren't.

I was raised by old Korea and WWII combat vets, two of whom had used the issue 1911 and ammo on men a total of seven times between them. All but one recipient was Done Right Now and the other one required a second dose and that was all.

Testing of the 45+p HST meets FBI/LE standards. But as an example, testing of the latest FBI/LE 9mm load, bests that 45+p HST in every category: bare, heavy clothing, steel, wallboard, safety glass, and iwba heavy clothing.

So, a center mass hit w/ this 45, has no advantage over the 9. But the 9 is easier to get faster paced hits, better against barriers, etc.

This is why hammer fired 45s, and the heavier recoiling chamberings are going away, while striker fired 9s are the trend in the LE community. The latest FBI/LE 9, even bests the 357sig.

45 ACP can be loaded and deployed to produce way more energy than 9mmP.
What "sucks" are large guns that aren't strong enough to handle powerful loads.

Frankly, I don't give a crap about "available bullets" etc. I shoot my guns at reactive targets.

No, reactive targets don't necessarily equate to how a living target will "react" to being struck by a bullet, but when it comes to delivering mass, I prefer a bullet that starts out with some mass.

I can shoot a 9 very well.

I can shoot a .45acp equally well.

My .45 holds 10 shots

It doesn't need to expand from .356 to .452. It's already at .452!

I'm satisfied.

If I'm feeling a little weak and debilitated and I'm not sure I can crawl out of bed. I'll tote a 9.

Dan

Another wannabe internet fee-nom stirring the pot to get his hit-count up.

Can anyone post a link to the video?

Thank you

a 124 HST at 1200 out penetrates a 230HST at 950 in "wood, metal, etc.??