Confederate
Member
Since the Smith & Wesson 645 has a stainless steel frame, I figured it would take +P ammo if anything would. Will it handle it okay or will I need a stiffer rebound spring? If so, where can I get one?
Thanks!
Thanks!
.45 +P Loads in S&W 645??
- Thread starter Confederate
- Start date
- Status
MachIVshooter
Member
It'll handle +P all day long with no problems. If you're gonna shoot .45 super, I'd suggest a stiffer spring. But it's not necessary for +P
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
Thanks. The thing's built like a brick outhouse! I figured it probably wouldn't be a problem.
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
I hear this a lot. It makes me wonder why anyone would prefer a 1911 over the 645. Smith reps used to use the 645 to show how reliable their pistols were. They'd load the mags with empty shells and feed them into the chamber. Look, ma, no bullets! No powder or primer, either.
I've only owned two other .45s in my life. One's a Sig Saur P226; the other was a Colt Gold Cup. The Sig's a fine gun, but its hammer drop pinches the dickens out of my thumb. The trigger also is one of those that build up and when it breaks, it kind of goes right through you. That first double action is a real bear. The Sig's reliable, though, and I can't say that about too many out-of-the-box 1911s. You spend upwards of a grand on a 1911, and then you have to customize it to get it as reliable as a 645. The 645 also has some of the nicest combat sights I've ever seen on a gun. High and clear.
I also love the 659 9mm, as well as the 5906. Put a 20-round clip in those guns and you've got a nice setup.
I've only owned two other .45s in my life. One's a Sig Saur P226; the other was a Colt Gold Cup. The Sig's a fine gun, but its hammer drop pinches the dickens out of my thumb. The trigger also is one of those that build up and when it breaks, it kind of goes right through you. That first double action is a real bear. The Sig's reliable, though, and I can't say that about too many out-of-the-box 1911s. You spend upwards of a grand on a 1911, and then you have to customize it to get it as reliable as a 645. The 645 also has some of the nicest combat sights I've ever seen on a gun. High and clear.
I also love the 659 9mm, as well as the 5906. Put a 20-round clip in those guns and you've got a nice setup.
outerlimit
Member
Because some of us like a light, consistent trigger pull.
Reliability has nothing to do with feeding empty shells. My Kahr MK9 won't feed empty shells that good, yet it has never skipped a beat at the range. It's all in the design of the gun.
All of the out of the box 1911's I've ever shot have been flawless. Most of them cost around $500.
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
I wouldn't say reliability doesn't have anything to do with feeding empty shells, but a gun needn't feed empty shells to be reliable. Still, I think it's an impressive design that will enable it.
One thing that impresses me about the Beretta 92 and my smaller 70S .22 is that neither has an ejection port. I mean, the whole outdoors is the ejection port! Sigs, too, fling their brass out of the top. The Beretta strips a cartridge off the top of the magazine and launches it straight into the chamber. Ramps, bullet configuration, springs and ports all are part of the equation.
I haven't seen a new 1911 for less than $500 these days. One of my favorite 9mm pistols years ago was a Star BM. It was a great little pistol and was a 1911 design, but as much as I liked it, it was the occasional jam that made me not quite trust it.
S&W developed their 645 using a 1911 design, but they improved it to the extent that mine's flawless.
The little Beretta 70S is so reliable because it doesn't have an ejection port for the case to hang up on. It's one of my favorite guns, has NEVER jammed and, to be honest, I'm just using this as an excuse to add this photo to the thread because I love looking at it!
One thing that impresses me about the Beretta 92 and my smaller 70S .22 is that neither has an ejection port. I mean, the whole outdoors is the ejection port! Sigs, too, fling their brass out of the top. The Beretta strips a cartridge off the top of the magazine and launches it straight into the chamber. Ramps, bullet configuration, springs and ports all are part of the equation.
I haven't seen a new 1911 for less than $500 these days. One of my favorite 9mm pistols years ago was a Star BM. It was a great little pistol and was a 1911 design, but as much as I liked it, it was the occasional jam that made me not quite trust it.
S&W developed their 645 using a 1911 design, but they improved it to the extent that mine's flawless.
The little Beretta 70S is so reliable because it doesn't have an ejection port for the case to hang up on. It's one of my favorite guns, has NEVER jammed and, to be honest, I'm just using this as an excuse to add this photo to the thread because I love looking at it!
outerlimit
Member
Beretta's are nice. Well, not the current ones, but you know what I mean. 
I worry about the small parts on the 92 more than I do on a 1911 though. Especially that little trigger return spring.
I worry about the small parts on the 92 more than I do on a 1911 though. Especially that little trigger return spring.
MachIVshooter
Member
Agreed 100%. I don't care if it can feed empties, so long as it feeds, fires and extracts/ejects empties. Of course, S&W pistols do this very well too. I've never had a failure in my 5906, 4006, 4506 and 4516 and only a couple with Norma 170 grainers in my 1006. My M&P .45 has also been flawless.
P226 is 9mm.
Open slide Beretta's still have a RH extractor. The open slide really does nothing to enhace reliability; looks purty and reduces weight. Arguably, it can allow more foreign debris to enter the gun.
Sig's have conventional enclosed slides.
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
Sorry. The Sig is a 220. I haven't closely inspected it in months. Still, I think having no ejection port is still far better than having one. A toothbrush in one's pocket is all one needs to "freshen" a dirty gun.
Many of the early autos had very small ejection ports, and it wasn't very difficult to see them catch a shell that was being extracted. Then they became wider and reliability increased. Beretta was really the first of the ultra-reliable centerfire pistols ever developed. The Colt 1911was, or could be, made to be reliable, but it and the Browning Hi-Power really couldn't touch the Beretta in the military trials.
The Sigs, also known for their reliability, sport no ejection port.
Many of the early autos had very small ejection ports, and it wasn't very difficult to see them catch a shell that was being extracted. Then they became wider and reliability increased. Beretta was really the first of the ultra-reliable centerfire pistols ever developed. The Colt 1911was, or could be, made to be reliable, but it and the Browning Hi-Power really couldn't touch the Beretta in the military trials.
The Sigs, also known for their reliability, sport no ejection port.
I haven't heard many complaints about the Beretta 92, except the caliber. Our military personnel don't like the ball ammo they're forced to use, but in all fairness, the .45 ball ammo is pretty useless, too. I've talked to a number of soldiers back from Iraq, and from what I understand, they only use their Berettas in a pinch. It has repeatedly shown itself to be a poor manstopper, regardless of its firepower. The enemy, on the other hand, have no moral problems using hollowpoints in their sidearms.OuterLimit said:
MachIVshooter
Member
What would you call it, then?
The slide is enclosed with an opening (port) from which to eject cases. I guess you could call it a case spitting cutaway if you want.
You do know that the 1911 and the Hi Power weren't even in the XM9 trials, right? Colt's entry was the SSP, a double action 9mm, and the FN entered the double action Hi Power. The other entries were the HK P7M13, Sig P226, S&W 459, Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. There were no single action handguns considered. The Beretta and the Sig were the only 2 that passed, and Beretta was awarded the contract through some political wrangling, despite Sig being the low bidder.
Go back a little further, to the second iteration of the JSSAP trials conducted by the Army, in which the Beretta, HK P7M13, S&W 459, and the Sig P226 all failed. The 1911 was present in that trial as a control, it finished 4th, the Beretta finished 5th.
What exactly do you call that cutout in the slide then?
I find it helpful to actually know the facts before I go blurting out opinions on things.
BlindJustice
Member
the only semi-auto pistol off hand I can think of is the P-08 LUger
If a pistol has a slide that is not fully enclosed - there is an ejection
port and in the case of the Berreta 92 it's huge
estoteric point imo
DOes the 92 have any design similarities to the P-38?
Just wondering, I like my CZ 75B which since it was behind
the iron curtain, not in the game of the JSSP
shame that... heck up gun the military to .40 S&W and
give them a select fire carbine in hte same cartridge.
Randall
If a pistol has a slide that is not fully enclosed - there is an ejection
port and in the case of the Berreta 92 it's huge
estoteric point imo
DOes the 92 have any design similarities to the P-38?
Just wondering, I like my CZ 75B which since it was behind
the iron curtain, not in the game of the JSSP
shame that... heck up gun the military to .40 S&W and
give them a select fire carbine in hte same cartridge.
Randall
Tom Fury
Member
As per OT on Springs
See Wolff.
Cheers, TF
See Wolff.
Cheers, TF
Kilted Cossack
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 53
I've got a buddy whose motto is "Damn a conversation that can't stand a little digression"----but still, folks, we started off talking about the 645!
I've never owned one, but shot the snot out of a rental at Carter's Country in Houston, TX "back in the day."
That rental 645 was the pistol that taught me that I like to shoot double action autos in double action---I could make headshots easy as pie at 15 yards.
As for +P compatibility, Ace Custom .45s lists the 645 as suitable for Superization. Superfication? Superbing? (Super-Bling? Sorry, word association games are playing in my head.) Here's the link: http://www.acecustom45s.com/gunsmith.htm
The 645 is a big solid chunk o' steel---just like the 1911. It's also thin and flat like a 1911. Feeding empty cases might seem like a stunt---unless you're old enough to remember your shiny new e-nickle Series 70 refusing to feed anything but ball. Anything. But. Ball. This was back when absolute State of the Art (SOTA) .45 expanding ammo was the 200 grain Flying Ashtray from Speer/CCI, and when Mas Ayoob was saying that there were only three or four gunsmiths in the country qualified to do a good feed job on a 1911.
As to the "port" issue---it took me a minute, but I get what Confederate is saying---rather than an ovalish port on the side of the slide, the SIG has an ejection "space" that goes from the tippy top of the right side of the slide to the near bottom of the left side of the slide.
For an Olde Schoole ejection port, check the PPK's.
I've never owned one, but shot the snot out of a rental at Carter's Country in Houston, TX "back in the day."
That rental 645 was the pistol that taught me that I like to shoot double action autos in double action---I could make headshots easy as pie at 15 yards.
As for +P compatibility, Ace Custom .45s lists the 645 as suitable for Superization. Superfication? Superbing? (Super-Bling? Sorry, word association games are playing in my head.) Here's the link: http://www.acecustom45s.com/gunsmith.htm
The 645 is a big solid chunk o' steel---just like the 1911. It's also thin and flat like a 1911. Feeding empty cases might seem like a stunt---unless you're old enough to remember your shiny new e-nickle Series 70 refusing to feed anything but ball. Anything. But. Ball. This was back when absolute State of the Art (SOTA) .45 expanding ammo was the 200 grain Flying Ashtray from Speer/CCI, and when Mas Ayoob was saying that there were only three or four gunsmiths in the country qualified to do a good feed job on a 1911.
As to the "port" issue---it took me a minute, but I get what Confederate is saying---rather than an ovalish port on the side of the slide, the SIG has an ejection "space" that goes from the tippy top of the right side of the slide to the near bottom of the left side of the slide.
For an Olde Schoole ejection port, check the PPK's.
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
The trigger of the 645 is a delight, in both double action and single action. By turning the hammer safety half way, the gun is still cocked and the hammer blocked, so all that would be necessary is a slight flick of the safety to render it operable in single action.
The Sig is a fine gun mechanically, but I just don't much care for the feel. A "port" as I see it is a dedicated hole, or portal, through which empty cases are ejected. The Sig has a cut away section on top of the slide which allows the case to extract without hinderance. It's really no more a port than is the opening on a Beretta.
Regarding the 645 feeding empty casings, I think it speaks to the great reliability in feeding, but in itself has little to do with functioning. A gun that doesn't feed empty casings may be just as reliable; still, the fact that the 645 feeds the casings does illustrate the gun's ability to feed anything that's stuffed into its magazine.
I believe the Colt 1911 was used as a control. I used to have all the data from that report at the tip of my fingers, but it's since been packed into a box somewhere. In the trials I read, the Beretta 92 came in first, and the Smith 459 came in second. The Colt DA and others failed miserably, though many of the manufacturers screamed bloody murder about the way the tests were conducted.
The Sig is a fine gun mechanically, but I just don't much care for the feel. A "port" as I see it is a dedicated hole, or portal, through which empty cases are ejected. The Sig has a cut away section on top of the slide which allows the case to extract without hinderance. It's really no more a port than is the opening on a Beretta.
Regarding the 645 feeding empty casings, I think it speaks to the great reliability in feeding, but in itself has little to do with functioning. A gun that doesn't feed empty casings may be just as reliable; still, the fact that the 645 feeds the casings does illustrate the gun's ability to feed anything that's stuffed into its magazine.
I believe you are confusing several versions of the trials that occurred at different times.
There were 3 iterations of essentially the same trial, and another to follow later. I have the report somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up, but here is the top of my head version.
The first JSSAP trials were administered by the Air Force in 78 or 79, and the 92 was declared the winner. The 1911 was used as a control here, though they were random 1911's selected from inventory, not new guns.
The second JSSAP trials were administered by the Army in 81 after they protested the results of the first. As mentioned in my earlier post, the weapons involved were the Beretta, HK P7M13, S&W 459, and the Sig P226, with the 1911 again as a control All 5 failed, the 1911 finished 4th, the Beretta finished 5th. The 459 did finish second in this trial as I recall.
The actual XM9 trials took place in 84. As mentioned previously, weapons involved were the Beretta, HK P7M13, Sig P226, S&W 459, Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. The only two weapons to pass overall were the Beretta and the Sig. The Smith 459 did pass certain phases, and was actually first in the accuracy trial. Sig came in as the low bidder, but Beretta was eventually awarded the contract on "official" basis of cost of magazines and replacement parts. Many have speculated that there were deeper politics at work.
After the XM9 trials, Smith alleged that the 459 failed only due to a mathematical error in awarded points, and after much investigation and political wrangling, the XM10 trials were scheduled for 1987. Beretta refused to submit any weapons for testing since they passed the XM9 trials, so stock Berettas were used. This test also included the Ruger P85. Beretta again passed. The Smith not only failed overall, but in fact failed portions of the trial it had passed in the XM9. Ruger failed overall as well.
I will see if I can find and scan the copy of the report I have, but the above is reasonably accurate to the best of my recollection.
The definition of an ejection port is an opening in the receiver of a firearm through which empty cases are ejected. The Sig has one, the Beretta 92 has one (it just happens to be huge), as do all semiautomatic handguns.
There were 3 iterations of essentially the same trial, and another to follow later. I have the report somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up, but here is the top of my head version.
The first JSSAP trials were administered by the Air Force in 78 or 79, and the 92 was declared the winner. The 1911 was used as a control here, though they were random 1911's selected from inventory, not new guns.
The second JSSAP trials were administered by the Army in 81 after they protested the results of the first. As mentioned in my earlier post, the weapons involved were the Beretta, HK P7M13, S&W 459, and the Sig P226, with the 1911 again as a control All 5 failed, the 1911 finished 4th, the Beretta finished 5th. The 459 did finish second in this trial as I recall.
The actual XM9 trials took place in 84. As mentioned previously, weapons involved were the Beretta, HK P7M13, Sig P226, S&W 459, Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. The only two weapons to pass overall were the Beretta and the Sig. The Smith 459 did pass certain phases, and was actually first in the accuracy trial. Sig came in as the low bidder, but Beretta was eventually awarded the contract on "official" basis of cost of magazines and replacement parts. Many have speculated that there were deeper politics at work.
After the XM9 trials, Smith alleged that the 459 failed only due to a mathematical error in awarded points, and after much investigation and political wrangling, the XM10 trials were scheduled for 1987. Beretta refused to submit any weapons for testing since they passed the XM9 trials, so stock Berettas were used. This test also included the Ruger P85. Beretta again passed. The Smith not only failed overall, but in fact failed portions of the trial it had passed in the XM9. Ruger failed overall as well.
I will see if I can find and scan the copy of the report I have, but the above is reasonably accurate to the best of my recollection.
The definition of an ejection port is an opening in the receiver of a firearm through which empty cases are ejected. The Sig has one, the Beretta 92 has one (it just happens to be huge), as do all semiautomatic handguns.
OP
OP
Confederate
Member
Nope. I'm saying that after testing mine, I would feel comfortable carrying it like that in a grave situation, in situations where I was expecting imminent danger. Even carrying it cocked (Condition Zero) seems fairly safe, or at least as safe as carrying a Glock with a cartridge up the snoot.
I'm far from actually trying it, but again, my own testing seems to indicate that carrying it in Condition Zero is about as safe as carrying a cocked Glock. In my tests, I tried to trip the action by purposely mishandling the gun and I was unable to get it to trip, even with rough handling. I'm not sure I'd be as confident with one up the snoot!
I'm far from actually trying it, but again, my own testing seems to indicate that carrying it in Condition Zero is about as safe as carrying a cocked Glock. In my tests, I tried to trip the action by purposely mishandling the gun and I was unable to get it to trip, even with rough handling. I'm not sure I'd be as confident with one up the snoot!
loop
Member
Somebody needs to kill this thread.
- Status
