Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Speer advertises a short barrel Gold Dot.

Sgt Bill, I agree with you and bow to your experience. Occasionally I carry a .380. The OP asked for opinions on the .45 so that's what I commented on.

WRW wrote:Speer advertises a short barrel Gold Dot.

Sgt Bill, I agree with you and bow to your experience. Occasionally I carry a .380. The OP asked for opinions on the .45 so that's what I commented on.

Yes, but not a short barrel +P. That was the question. Their idea of short barrel is 4", which is average CC (compact is arguably the most popular size, but I don't have data to back this up) for anything other than a 1911. Most other ammo, besides .45, is tested in 4" barrels and those are considered standard (3.5" is considered short barrel and yes, 1/2" matters). That right there should tell you that even they recognize that the large bore, low pressure of .45ACP causes performance to drop off too fast compared to the other calibers. There are obvious benefits to a large bore and low pressure designs, short barrels isn't one of them. HP bullets are designed for an impact velocity. Go too fast or too slow and performance may suffer. Penetration and expansion tend to be less reliable. Due to the 1911, 5" is the norm vice 4" for everything else. Most .45ACP loads are designed for it. It takes years for a new design to prove itself. Short barrel .45 ammo hasn't done that for me yet. Just like the early HP designs, it took years to work the kinks out and really prove the advanced designs. Some worked better than others. We are lucky that today standard, premium ammo works really well until you get to the extremes. The latest short barrel designs are trying to address this. There isn't enough data to say if they have succeeded yet, IMHO.

Perhaps I am coming off too strong. .380, .38 special, .45ACP, etc. are all good defence rounds. Depending on how you crunch the data, it is arguable statistically that 125gr .357Mag is best (and by extension .357SIG *should* be too), 230gr .45ACP is second...and so on. Just because you don't carry the "best" doesn't mean you made a bad choice. The "best" rounds all require larger guns and have much more recoil than some good alternatives. Only you can decide what compromises you want to make. It is not extraordinary that the largest and most powerful rounds commonly carried provide the best performance. Duh! A .308 is generally a much better deer cartridge than .223. Selecting the best ammo for your gun also depends on what compromises you wish to make.

All I was pointing out is that .45ACP performance (which is legendary) falls off fast in short barrel configurations. The same thing happens with .357Mag. Those amazing stats were generally created with 3.5-4" barrels. Some people think that they are getting the legendary .357Mag performance in a 2" snubby. Isn't going to happen. Does that make a 2" .357Mag snubby a bad choice? Not at all, but you should be aware that there is a big drop from the legendary performance using a barrel that short. You need to be aware of it so you can make an informed decision. That is the whole point. Nothing more, nothing less. The original question was about .45ACP, so I stuck with that.

If this is your first pistol, I would recommend a 9mm (or similar) vice the .45ACP. On the "best" scale it isn't far down and ammo is cheap. Cheap ammo is vital since the most important thing is to have it with you and the second is practice. Walmart "white-box" is approx. $20 per hundred for 9mm and $30 per 100 for .45. Shoot a couple thousand rounds and it adds up.

WRW wrote:The .45 has a long, well documented history as being an adequate handgun round (possibly slightly bettered by the .357 Magnum) with muzzle velocities of around 830-860 fps for 230gr. With the 3" barrel, the muzzle velocity of the 230gr. does drop into the 700's of fps, but if the +P rated loads are used, the muzzle velocity comes back up to within 20 fps of the 5" barrel.

Now, if performance is the sole concern, then yes there may be better rounds available, but I'm reminded of the cold war era description of "overkill" (Nuclear weapons had the capacity to kill everyone on earth 3 times, but they wouldn't be any more dead).

IMO the .45 is better as a defense round than the .357 ONLY because recoil is easier to control. Other than that the .357 beats the .45 hands down in terminal energy and penetration.

And, Bill I also carry a .380 from time to time especially if I'm dressed where concealing something larger is an issue. I have no concern about the stopping power of a well placed shot from this cartridge...and besides, Young's .380 is very accurate and easy to control at 10-12 feet...puts them right where you want them...

DK, have you ever fired a 357 Sig. I find that the recoil is almost nothing compared to a 45 ACP. Remember the Sig is a semi auto and the blowback design reduces recoil the same as a 45. The bigger slug and sectional density of the 45 gives it more muzzle flip and recoil then the Sig. 357.

No, never fired a .357 Sig but have plenty of experience with a .357 mag. Having just consulted a ballistics table I dont think the .357 Sig compares to the .357 mag though...at least not in the context of terminal energy for hotter loads...is that correct?

Yep! you are on the right track. Trust me the Sig has much less recoil and it seem's that it is more of a push as compared to the muzzle whip and thump from a .357 Mag.
Bill

What firearm you carry is very similar to sex. It's not what you have it's how well you use it.

zephyp wrote:No, never fired a .357 Sig but have plenty of experience with a .357 mag. Having just consulted a ballistics table I dont think the .357 Sig compares to the .357 mag though...at least not in the context of terminal energy for hotter loads...is that correct?

.357SIG is not only comparable, but nearly identical to .357Mag when limiting the discussion to .357Mags people actually carry. I.e. those that racked up the legendary performance record. The super hot +P+ .357Mag loads out of 6+ inch super revolvers don't count. I think .357SIGs performance is better than .357Mag when talking about the sub-compacts/2" snubbies.

I get 1325-1350fps for 125gr Speer GDs in a Glock 33 and 1375-1400fps in a Glock 32. This is right inline with 125gr/3-4" .357Mag performance which is what everyone refers to when discussing self-defence and this caliber. Don't forget that semi-autos and revolvers are measured differently. A semi includes the chamber, while a revolver doesn't. Subtract about 1" from a semis measurement for a direct comparison to a revolver.

I find .357SIG recoil to be more snappy than my .45ACP. To be fair, the Glock is significantly lighter than a full sized steel 1911. Absolute recoil levels don't seem to be different.

Edit: .357SIG is my favorite CC cartridge with .45ACP a close second. If I couldn't shoot HP/LN rounds, .45ACP all the way.

Vahunter wrote:What firearm you carry is very similar to sex. It's not what you have it's how well you use it.

All I can say to that Henry is the same thing you did...

I have a couple of the defensive handgun tubes: http://www.thebullettesttube.com/products.html

If someone has a 3" 1911 and is around NOVA we could arrange to test the latest short barrelled and +P .45 against a 5". The last good tests I saw are two years old and things have certainly changed, but I don't have a 3" to test with.

gunderwood wrote:I have a couple of the defensive handgun tubes: http://www.thebullettesttube.com/products.html

If someone has a 3" 1911 and is around NOVA we could arrange to test the latest short barrelled and +P .45 against a 5". The last good tests I saw are two years old and things have certainly changed, but I don't have a 3" to test with.

Those look pretty interesting - have you used them much? I was almost getting ready to soak some phone books again, until I saw this... I noticed on their site for the defensive handgun tubes that for magnum calibers, two handgun tubes can be used together. I chrono'd some 135gr Nosler JHP 10mm loads yesterday at 1650 - I'd love to try those tubes, but it looks like I'll need two of them... Still beats cleaning up phone books!!

If someone can bring a 3" and 5" .45 to Bill's in June I'll have my 4" then we could try them over the chroney. I d like to see how much velocity is lost from a 5" down to a 3".

Vahunter wrote:If someone can bring a 3" and 5" .45 to Bill's in June I'll have my 4" then we could try them over the chroney. I d like to see how much velocity is lost from a 5" down to a 3".

This site gives indications of what effect that has: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

CCFan wrote:

gunderwood wrote:I have a couple of the defensive handgun tubes: http://www.thebullettesttube.com/products.html

If someone has a 3" 1911 and is around NOVA we could arrange to test the latest short barrelled and +P .45 against a 5". The last good tests I saw are two years old and things have certainly changed, but I don't have a 3" to test with.

Those look pretty interesting - have you used them much? I was almost getting ready to soak some phone books again, until I saw this... I noticed on their site for the defensive handgun tubes that for magnum calibers, two handgun tubes can be used together. I chrono'd some 135gr Nosler JHP 10mm loads yesterday at 1650 - I'd love to try those tubes, but it looks like I'll need two of them... Still beats cleaning up phone books!!

No I haven't used them yet. They are definitely expensive compared to water jugs, etc. However, you can measure the wound cavity volume. I have a couple, but to reuse them requires a large crock pot to melt them into. Then it takes hours for them to set up again. Basically, we could shoot the ones I have, but no chances for a reload at SgtBills. It just takes too long.

We would want all ammo from the same product line. I.e. GD, Ranger Ts, Sabers, etc. No mixing and matching. Would have to shoot a mag or so on target so we know exactly where the rounds will hit as the tubes are only a couple of inches in diameter. That sounds like a lot, but you don't want to distort the wound cavity because it hits the edge of the tube. Also, it is important to understand that the statistical significance of our results will be nill. We would have to shoot a large number of these tubes to get results we can actually trust. As the velocity drops out of the ideal range, the probability of adequate expansion and penetration goes down. You can't draw conclusions based on individual rounds, which is all we would have.

WRW wrote:

Vahunter wrote:If someone can bring a 3" and 5" .45 to Bill's in June I'll have my 4" then we could try them over the chroney. I d like to see how much velocity is lost from a 5" down to a 3".

This site gives indications of what effect that has: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

Yes, but the tested ammo doesn't cover all the possible rounds we CC. This was necessary for their testing. If Speer GD short barrel is optimized for 4" (it is) than it may not work well in a 3" or at least as well as a different manufacturers short barrel which is designed for 3" (does this exist?).

gunderwood wrote:

WRW wrote:

Vahunter wrote:If someone can bring a 3" and 5" .45 to Bill's in June I'll have my 4" then we could try them over the chroney. I d like to see how much velocity is lost from a 5" down to a 3".

This site gives indications of what effect that has: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

Yes, but the tested ammo doesn't cover all the possible rounds we CC. This was necessary for their testing. If Speer GD short barrel is optimized for 4" (it is) than it may not work well in a 3" or at least as well as a different manufacturers short barrel which is designed for 3" (does this exist?).

No one said it did cover all possible rounds. It just gives an indication of how much velocity could be lost using shorter barrels, or gained with longer barrels...which was what Vahunter proposed.

WRW wrote:No one said it did cover all possible rounds. It just gives an indication of how much velocity could be lost using shorter barrels, or gained with longer barrels...which was what Vahunter proposed.

I don't think I disagreed with that...just was pointing out why we wanted to test it ourselves. So the problem of testing specific rounds in a specific firearm is?

Edit: Shoot enough rounds over a chrono and you realize that similar guns means jack little.

gunderwood wrote:

WRW wrote:

Vahunter wrote:If someone can bring a 3" and 5" .45 to Bill's in June I'll have my 4" then we could try them over the chroney. I d like to see how much velocity is lost from a 5" down to a 3".

This site gives indications of what effect that has: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

Yes, but the tested ammo doesn't cover all the possible rounds we CC. This was necessary for their testing. If Speer GD short barrel is optimized for 4" (it is) than it may not work well in a 3" or at least as well as a different manufacturers short barrel which is designed for 3" (does this exist?).

If you are going to test all possible rounds in three different barrels, you've got your work cut out for you.

WRW wrote:If you are going to test all possible rounds in three different barrels, you've got your work cut out for you.

I'd be willing to throw in 50-100 rounds of 230gr Ranger T's for testing. Possibly the GDs, but I don't think I have many of them left. As I said about the original test, testing all possible combinations is hard and they limited what they did test for a good reason. They didn't test either of my .45ACP carry rounds, Speer GD or Winchester Ranger Ts. I don't know how they perform out of a short 3" barrel and am interested to find out. I'm sure other people here carry other rounds which weren't tested either. I would be happy to let them test it in my 5" barrel 1911 so I can test their short barrel. The answers will be limited just like the test VAHunter linked. The data is useful, but just not universal.

To test wound performance of specific rounds in specific guns still requires shooting many rounds and we won't get statistical significance. However, shooting a couple of identical rounds out of the 3" and then out of the 5" would be interesting, just not conclusive.

A person isn't as hard to put down as an animal so lets say you shoot me with a .45 with a 3" barrel and then a 5" barrel at a normal gunfight range of about 7 feet, I'll be willing to bet that the termial performance of each would be about the same and if the shot placement was right I'd be dead. I have a saying about hunting... A gut shot deer is a gut shot deer whether it's shot with a .243 or a .458 winchester