.45 ACP - More Recoil

Status
Not open for further replies.

94045

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
1,565
Interesting experiment today at the range.
The first .45 ACP Pistol I ever fired and the first 9mm.

Colt S70 Govment .45 ACP with S&B 230 FMJ
S&W 39-2 9mm with S&B 124 NATO

The interesting thing is most people thought the 9mm was jabbier and the .45 pushier but overall recoil essentially the same.

Yes, I realize the 9mm was roughly 12.5 oz lighter but it was interesting that the two most common pistols of the era where subjectively similar in total recoil.
 
That's pretty much my experience.

With full-sized pistols/revolvers, 38 special, 9mm, and 45acp all feel about the same. 40 S&W is a little bit spicier, but in a full-sized steel pistol, just barely.

IMHO, with a large steel revolver, 44 special and "normal" 45colt don't feel any different than 45acp.

Bring out the sub-compacts and it's a different situation.
 
That's pretty much my experience.

With full-sized pistols/revolvers, 38 special, 9mm, and 45acp all feel about the same. 40 S&W is a little bit spicier, but in a full-sized steel pistol, just barely.

IMHO, with a large steel revolver, 44 special and "normal" 45colt don't feel any different than 45acp.

Bring out the sub-compacts and it's a different situation.

That reminds me of a conversation in the lounge at the club we had. Everyone was talking about the biggest baddest handgun they had shot .50 AE DE, .454 Casull Taurus, .500 X-Frame and I'm setting there with a silly grin on my face and somebody had to ask. I said, "I don't shoot the big ones I'm to scared of the small.ones". While I imagined an S&W 340 loaded with Buffalo Bore Heavy Magnums.
 
A pistol 3/4 lbs lighter isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. That would make a HUGE difference in recoil with rifles. An 8 lb 300 WM will recoil about the same as a 7 1/4 lb 30-06. But in equal weight rifles the 300 WM is going to have significantly more recoil. The difference between pistols with that much weight difference is even more noticeable.
 
A pistol 3/4 lbs lighter isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. That would make a HUGE difference in recoil with rifles. An 8 lb 300 WM will recoil about the same as a 7 1/4 lb 30-06. But in equal weight rifles the 300 WM is going to have significantly more recoil. The difference between pistols with that much weight difference is even more noticeable.

I know it is not relevant today but it was in the time period we are talking (1970's). Those were the primary weapons being considered when the 9mm vs .45 decision was being made.
 
Interesting experiment today at the range.
The first .45 ACP Pistol I ever fired and the first 9mm.

Colt S70 Govment .45 ACP with S&B 230 FMJ
S&W 39-2 9mm with S&B 124 NATO

The interesting thing is most people thought the 9mm was jabbier and the .45 pushier but overall recoil essentially the same.

Yes, I realize the 9mm was roughly 12.5 oz lighter but it was interesting that the two most common pistols of the era where subjectively similar in total recoil.

The S&B 45ACP I bought last year was pretty soft shooting stuff. After 1300 rounds I was pretty familiar with that lot. Every other brand seemed a bit hotter than S&B in 45.

Nato 9mm is usually pretty warm so I wonder if just the ammo used made the two calibers seem closer in terms of recoil?
 
May depend on the lot you get. The 9mm is likely close to 1200 fps out of that length and the .45 is about 860 fps. That lot of 9mm clocked 1270 fps out of a 4.9" Beretta Barrel.
 
I've said repeatedly, I don't understand the argument for the recoil difference between the 9mm and the .45 ACP when you then put hot +P or NATO-spec 9mm into a lightweight polymer pistol. My Walther PPQ firing NATO-spec 9mm isn't really any easier to "control" than my Colt 1911 in .45 ACP when fed generic 230gr hardball. Now as long as the argument sticks to magazine capacity and pistol size, I can get along with the 9mm bandwagon just fine.

In the same size/weight pistol, of course, physics is physics and the heavier bullet generates more recoil. Try a 1911 in .38 Super sometime for a lot of fun shooting. It's loud, it can be flashy, and the gun "shoots flat" compared to the same frame throwing .45 ACP. Or lately, I've been firing a lot of mildly loaded 200gr SWC bullets in my .45 ACP, which are very soft shooting. I'd actually say the 1911 is easier to shoot with that ammo than the PPQ is with standard 115gr ball.
 
When the Series 70 GM was King, the High Power was Queen, and gives a more realistic side by side comparison.

Shoot any of them side by side, and you know there is a difference, especially with recovery if youre trying to shoot quickly.

Gun type, size, shape and size of the grips, etc, just adds or takes away from things.

Neither caliber is hard to shoot wirth, but the 9mm is still the King, when it comes to putting rounds on target quickly, repetitively, and accurately.
 
One thing I found when shooting smaller size and lighter weight 1911s in .45, like the Colt Commander, Officer's ACP, Agent, or Defender, is that there is less felt recoil and muzzle flip when shooting target loads with 185 gr. or 200 gr. bullets.
 
Here in the past week or two, I went to the range and shot a 9mm Shield 1.0 side by side with a Shield 45 2.0. This was one of the rare occasions I've had to shoot two almost identical handguns (according to S&W, there's only 0.3 oz difference) in two different calibers. I am neither a recoil junky, nor particularly averse to it. TBH, though, any difference in (my perception of) recoil as between those two was very minor.
 
I'll admit that I'm somewhat recoil numb. Yes, I feel the sting from big magnums and observe muzzle flip but it's on a gun by gun basis and not (service) caliber specific. Big heavy guns are more pleasant but it seems as velocity goes up so does sharpness of recoil. I prefer the impulse of big slow bullets over small fast ones but it's a very subjective thing. The other part is mental, some see flash and feel/hear blast and interpret that as recoil .everyone will perceive these things differently.
 
In equal weight handguns, .45 will produce higher recoil energy, but at a lower recoil velocity. More push than punch.

That's why .40 S&W has a reputation for being snappier, running velocities similar to 9mm loads with bullets 20-40% heavier. 10mm takes it to the next level, pushing 180 gr. bullets faster than 9mm can drive 115s.

Colt S70 Govment .45 ACP with S&B 230 FMJ
S&W 39-2 9mm with S&B 124 NATO

The interesting thing is most people thought the 9mm was jabbier and the .45 pushier but overall recoil essentially the same.

Most 124 gr. "NATO" ammo is a good bit warmer than your typical 115 gr. plinking fodder, produces a noticeably sharper recoil impulse.
 
Interesting experiment today at the range.
The first .45 ACP Pistol I ever fired and the first 9mm.

Colt S70 Govment .45 ACP with S&B 230 FMJ
S&W 39-2 9mm with S&B 124 NATO

The interesting thing is most people thought the 9mm was jabbier and the .45 pushier but overall recoil essentially the same.

Yes, I realize the 9mm was roughly 12.5 oz lighter but it was interesting that the two most common pistols of the era where subjectively similar in total recoil.
I VERY often am more concerned with the big-picture effect of *recoil* than the standard, pat, interpretations or descriptions.

I firearm can rise a LOT but in an almost black-powder *roll* and I note it only as an issue of sight realignment.

Another can knock holy-hell outa me but get back on target quickly and that's completely different while both can be called *high-recoiling* in some write-ups.

I've had .22s flat wear me out and yet transition to just the right *magnum* and barely notice it.

I really enjoy hearing other folks *seat-of-the-pants* interpretations of recoil.

Great, short post and observation. *jabby* and *pushy*? I dig it!

Todd.
 
Fit of gun to hand is also relevant here. A lightweight Ruger LCR in .38spl has less felt recoil for me than a heavy steel S&W model 36 J-frame, because the LCR has a contoured rubber grip and just fits my particular hand better. Other people might say the opposite.
 
Here in the past week or two, I went to the range and shot a 9mm Shield 1.0 side by side with a Shield 45 2.0. This was one of the rare occasions I've had to shoot two almost identical handguns (according to S&W, there's only 0.3 oz difference) in two different calibers. I am neither a recoil junky, nor particularly averse to it. TBH, though, any difference in (my perception of) recoil as between those two was very minor.

In those platforms I believe the 0.05" in width and longer front to rear grip dimension make a difference (Even if you use the extended mag in the 9mm). Try the.40 and I think you will have a new appreciation for how much the slightly larger platform mitigates recoil.
 
I VERY often am more concerned with the big-picture effect of *recoil* than the standard, pat, interpretations or descriptions.

I firearm can rise a LOT but in an almost black-powder *roll* and I note it only as an issue of sight realignment.

Another can knock holy-hell outa me but get back on target quickly and that's completely different while both can be called *high-recoiling* in some write-ups.

I've had .22s flat wear me out and yet transition to just the right *magnum* and barely notice it.

I really enjoy hearing other folks *seat-of-the-pants* interpretations of recoil.

Great, short post and observation. *jabby* and *pushy*? I dig it!

Todd.

Rifles are not much different. I enjoy shooting a .470 NE (In a proper weight rifle) or .404 Jeffery but I do not particularly enjoy a .300 Wby and a .340 Wby is simply "No Thank You".
 
Last edited:
I will admit to not having experience with the big magnum rounds. I don't notice much difference between 9mm & .40. I don't find .45 out of 1911 unpleasant at all. Probably my handgun with the most recoil is my .357 revolver (depending on the ammunition used). I believe the most unpleasant handgun I have ever shot was a Kel-Tec P3AT. Most of that
is because there just isn't anything there to hold on to.
 
Fit of gun to hand is also relevant here. A lightweight Ruger LCR in .38spl has less felt recoil for me than a heavy steel S&W model 36 J-frame, because the LCR has a contoured rubber grip and just fits my particular hand better. Other people might say the opposite.
I found doing an annual qualification course rapidly shooting 50 .38Spl.+P rounds out of a 2" S&W 5 shot Chief M36 to be unpleasant. Usually had bruised or abraded fingers by the end.

Shooting the Glock 26 that superseded it was a pleasure in comparison.
 
GLOCK G36/ 3.8" Bbl./ 6+1/ .45 ACP/ 230 gr. Ball/ 27.5 oz. loaded.
GLOCK G26/ 3.4" Bbl./ 10+1/ 9mm/ 147 gr. ball/ 27.0 oz. loaded.

The G36 has decidedly, but not objectionably, more recoil.
(but then, you don't have to shoot it as many times)

:D




GR

Glock 30 shoots soft for a Compact .45 ACP.
Any Steel Frame Officers model and even my Kimber Compact CDP II (LW Officer's Frame and 4" Barrel) is a surprisingly soft shooter. To be honest I can't think of a .45 I have shot that isn't more pleasant to shoot than my Ruger EC9S or even my P365 (Which shoots relatively soft for its size but I get trigger slap and the rear corner of the 10-Rounds dig into the center of my palm).
 
Can't say I agree. Running my steel commander 1911 vs a Glock 17 or, worse, a Sig 226 or 9mm 1911 with my handloads (124 grain FMJ @ around 1180 fps) it's not even close to basic 230 grain ball loaded 850 fps or so.

The felt recoil is more, muzzle rise is more and, most importantly, it's slower on the clock. It's exacerbated when comparing like size to like, such as a 9mm 1911 vs 45 or the various Glocks, or even a Glock 19 to lightweight officer 1911 in .45.

Not only that, but when doing drills, moving or transitioning targets I find the 9mm takes a lot less focus to keep on target faster, more room for error, so to speak, if actually needed for defense.

At least in my hands.

I like both, a lot, and carry both though mostly 9mm since my back has begun objecting to carry guns > 35 oz loaded or thereabouts.

*I will also caviat that a mid size 45 vs an ultra small 9mm could very well be the same felt recoil, I don't like the micro 9s and don't shoot them often.

**I also find 115 grain the most jumpy 9mm in my mind, 147 is by far the softest to shoot. Just some of my Glocks don't like fat 147 grain bullets.
 
...Any Steel Frame Officers model and even my Kimber Compact CDP II (LW Officer's Frame and 4" Barrel) is a surprisingly soft shooter...

Have to differ on the Colt Officer's ACP.

Left the caliber for the Glock G23/ .40 because of the snap and torque of one.

Came back to the .45 ACP with the 1911-A1 and G36, both of which are accurate and comfortable to shoot.




GR
 
I will admit to not having experience with the big magnum rounds. I don't notice much difference between 9mm & .40. I don't find .45 out of 1911 unpleasant at all. Probably my handgun with the most recoil is my .357 revolver (depending on the ammunition used). I believe the most unpleasant handgun I have ever shot was a Kel-Tec P3AT. Most of that
is because there just isn't anything there to hold on to.

I’m just the opposite on the P3AT. Maybe because I have smaller hands? I find it not that bad. I’d rather put a few mags through the little kel-tec than a single cylinder of .38 through a J frame or even a K frame if it has a light barrel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top