Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns US Military and the .45 ACP

So for military purposes, there are perhaps 3 drawbacks to the .45 ACP.

1 - Barrier penetraton. That big bullet just has a lot of surface area and it doesn't penetrate nearly as well as the 9mm against hardened barriers.

2 - Recoil. Personally I've never seen anyone who has had COMPETENT instruction not shoot a .45 ACP well. My daughter at age 12 was lights out with 230 grain hardball out of my LIGHTWEIGHT commander. But there are those sissys who whine, so I guess this is a drawback.

3 - Weight. Logistically pallets of .45 ACP are REALLY HEAVY, and the ammo is heavy to carry (not that an individual will ever carry enough that it matters). So I really just don't see this as a real big issue.

The solution?

Let's get real, the .45 ACP hasn't been upgraded for over a century now. Develop the cartridge further. Over the past century there have been a ton of very good, very viable AP rounds for the .45 ACP that the military could use and not be in violation of The Hague accords. Most employ lighter, faster moving bullets.

If we did this, we could get pistols that still have more frontal diameter, lighter recoil, flatter trajectory, and better barrier penetration.

So why doesn't the military look into cartridge development like they did when the 9mm's barrier penetration was found to be insufficient?

All I know is that when I use the FN 5.7 on Call of Duty I am totally unstoppable.



Travis

My thoughts?

E=mc^2.

Develop a bullet that goes the speed of light. Since ultimately energy has to remain constant, when the light speed bullet hits something and slows down, either it imparts energy into the target OR converts to mass in order to make things equal.

The mass then imparts energy into the target.

How can this not work?

1) 45 or 9, neither of them are worth a poop for penetrating barriers, but that's not what a pistol is used for

2) Agreed, however now that we have women and limp wristers in the military, racking the slide on a 1911 does require a bit more strength than some can muster.

3) As a sidearm is not a primary weapon, the number of rounds carried by a soldier is not a significant portion of the weight they pack. I can't imagine a soldier packing more than 50 rds of handgun ammo, and there is about 1# difference between 50 rds of 9 and 45.

It doesn't matter what the troops shoot, until you train them how to shoot.

Well, for shooting up a standard Mercedes Benz sedan from the back seat of a motorcycle, I think the 9mm FMJ would have a definite edge over the .45 ACP.

For anything with ballistic armor on it, tough, I don't think there's going to be much difference.

Exactly!

Until the military embraces a different paradigm about the role of the sidearm in military service and the training that would have to accompany that shift, the handgun for them is really nothing more than a rabbit's foot and why anyone would give a hoot what they use is beyond me.

It's kind of like asking a wino what's the best red to serve with veal.

9mm NATO typically has better barrier penetration than the 5.56 inside of 100 yards. It will also out-penetrate most .44 mag loads on barrier penetration. It's a seriously punchy little cartridge.

That's what baffles this old guy. The Army knows it's tough to train personal to be proficient with a handgun. Hence, the reason for building and issuing the M-1 carbine for many troops that would normally have been issued a 1911. Also the reason for issuing a bayonet with the battle rifle to infantry. Troops can be trained to use a battle rifle and bayonet and gain a reasonable level of proficiency with minimal time.

So what's the logic behind issuing everyone a handgun?

I am calling BS! I have shot a 44 mag and 9mm through enough cars doors to know it will not out penetrate a properly loaded 44 mag. A properly loaded 45 ACP in +P form will penetrate as good and sometimes better than 9mm on car doors.

what sort of cartridge development do you suggest. if you are limited to hard ball the only thing you can do is speed it up, which as you mentioned it could potentially have too much recoil as it is. The reason the 9mm has developed into a decent round is because bullets have developed. We have a very nice selection of modern bullets.

the other problem you left out is 45 acp always means less rounds in a pistol.

Which gets to one of my pet peeves with the wonder nine, the belief the a double stack hi-cap mag will make up for lack of shooting skills. Just because one has 15-20 rds on tap doesn't mean they are better served than having 8-10.

The Army was convinced in 1945 that the 9mm was the better military round primarily because of barrier penetration. They used old GI helmets for their test. I don't remember the details, but 45's were bouncing off the helmets at ranges over about 30'. The 9mm loads were still giving complete penetration beyond 100 yards.

It is well known that 9mm easily punches through some of the lighter body armor while 45 won't

You can bet that in future conflicts we will see more and more enemies wearing some type of body armor. Unless there is some way to make 45 better in this regard going back to the 45 would make as much sense as trading in the Hummers for horses and wagons.

I have been thinking about this. There more than likely going to stick with the 9mm. Why dosent someone come out with a truncated cone 147gr FMJ load in +P?

The flat point should boost stopping power some and the addition bullet weight should boost penetration as well.

Why not just buy +P gold dots

Cant argue with that. I was just thinking of the truncated cone bullet if there limited to FMJ.

I also have some serious doubts about that statement Kevin. How about a link to your source?

Jerry

Sure it does. If there are 11 bad guys, 15-20 would be better. Or 6 bad guys you had to shoot twice. Or 4 bad guys that were moving and hard to hit. Or 3 bad guys wearing soft armor. Or 2 bad guys who needed suppressive fire.

More bullets and less reloading is always good. If somebody's of the mindset to "spray and pray" with 15 rounds, they're the same guy who's gonna spray and pray with 8 rounds. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue.

This would really be coming full circle, as the very first 9mm ammo was a truncated cone with a small flat point-although it was 124gr. As far as +P, Most European ammo is already there.

Jer

All the 9mm ball I own comes to a pretty definite point. More so than say, .45 ball which has a very rounded nose. The 9mm stuff is a lot more pointed and certainly gives the impression that in ball configuration, it would be a good penetrator. I can't say it would out penetrate the .44 mag, but my experience with the .44 mag is with jacketed soft points or cast, and shooting against thick steel, the 9mm certainly craters the metal significantly, while the .44 causes a very large, round dent.

I don't have any steel thin enough for either of them to penetrate, so I can't definitively say one will go through where the other doesn't.

Dan