Talk:.45 ACP/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

The ancient debate about stopping power

A few changes I made: I read something about .45 being more effective than other loads "Because it knocks people down." Weither or not this was a poorly worded discription of stopping power, or weither or not whomever wrote it was misinfromed, I removed it because bullets dont really knock people down like in action movies. --ThegunsofNevada 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anybody out there qualified to fix this? I can see a few things I don't like. "Not effective against body armor". This is pretty silly, as this is true of almost every pistol cartridge. "Lacking accuracy or velocity at long range": This is a low-velocity cartridge, of course it doesn't have a lot of velocity at long range. I've not heard of it having a reputation for inaccuracy at longer ranges either; perhaps this is a criticism of the Army-style 1911 rather than the catridge itself? Also, references to hollowpoints mention "flesh-cutting" in more than one place. Are cuts really a wound caused by bullets? I thought they typically ripped and crushed flesh, rather than cutting it. Also, some hollowpoints being "legally available only to law enforcement": I thought this was a voluntary move on the part of some manufacturers due to possible public opinion problems. Friday 30 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Attempted to fix most of the above. Still not sure that discussion of politics of hollwpoint rounds belongs in the .45 ACP article specifically. Friday 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

There are public perceptions problems with hollow points, not exactly centered around the .45 ACP round. I think the "Black Talon" bullet is one of those JHPs that are law enforcement only. Public perceptions are skewed because supposedly that the Black Talon was this horrible bullet that did significant more damage. However, arguably, the bullet is simply an JHP that does a good job at making sure the jacket expands at differing speeds and against target behind cover - I believe auto glass can drop about 200 fps from a bullet, severely decreasing many JHP's jacket expansion capabilities. One of the side effects of JHPs not expanding is that the bullets goes through the intended target, and may harm others behind. Indeed, under this light, the Black Talon, and subsequent JHP that's designed to expand well in varying speeds and more consistent penetration against target behind cover, are actually safer than JHPs of older designs. I would like to see the abbrevation ACP be expanded. I forgot what exactly does it stand for. Calyth

"Black Talons" were simply vilified in the press until Winchester pulled them. Then they omitted the paint and reissued them as Ranger SXT ammunition. There are, to date, no "LEO only" JHP rounds. --Mfree 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

    ACP stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol."
On the contrary, there are lots of LEO rounds. Take for example nearly all +P+ 9mm rounds; you can't buy them retail. They are designated for the law enforcement market, and must be ordered through a dealer which sells to law enforcement. Now there's nothing keeping that dealer from selling them to you, unless state or local laws prohibit it, but that takes the liabilty pressure off the manufacturer. Same thing with, say, Ruger factory Mini-14 magazines of >5 round capacity. The are marked LEO, but anyone (local laws permitting) can purchase them, IF they can find a dealer who will sell them. And if you don't believe that, look at:
Note, no Ranger SXT line listed. However, looking here:
you'll see that the Ranger line is all marketed as "Law Enforcement Ammunition". Firearms Tactical also notes that the Talon and Ranger SXT lines are LEO, only reaching the civilian market through secondary channels. scot 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. There are no lines of ammunition that are banned from civilian purchase by federal law and hence restricted to LEOs. State and local laws are indeed found to differ. --Mfree 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you're wrong there, too. Anything the ATF considers "armor piercing handgun ammunition" is illegal to sell to civilians, but can be sold to police and military or exported. See 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 section 921(a)(17)(B). scot 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here's the ATF's list of what they consider AP handgun ammo, including 7.62 NATO AP and ALL steel core 7.62 x 39mm, and of course the original teflon/steel KTW stuff made for the Ohio highway patrol. scot 15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well just paint me purple and cover me in feathers, seems i'm having a bad factual day.--Mfree 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, lucky for you I'm out of purple paint and feathers. Just take a deep breath and say "Scot is always right" and you'll feel better :). BTW, this discussion inspired me to write this, so some good came out of it. Maybe I'll overhaul cop killer bullet next... scot 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit of perspective to this page today, trying to offset some of the POV and .45 worship that too often goes on when the .45 ACP is discussed. I added references to the some recent ballistic research.

As far as hollow points like the Black Talon "cutting like a buzzsaw through flesh" (I read that somewhere else, BTW), if a pistol round rotates once every 22 inches (eg, fired from a barrel with a 1 in 22 inch twist) and it penetrates 11 inches into tissue, it will only make one half of a revolution before it stops. Ergo, no "buzzsaw". This "buzzsaw" fallacy is too often perpetuated as knowledge by people who don't take the time to do the math.

The Black Talon was 95% marketing hype, and 5% decent design--it's been proven no more effective than any other high performance hollow point design of the same era, and the new Ranger is the same design with the points rounded off, and is no less effective. That said, your physics model is too simple. In reality, linear and rotational deceleration will be quite different, and further complicated by the fact that the bullet's rotation inertia will change dramatically as it expands. The upper bound, however, works out to be 1 turn at full speed rotation in the time it takes to decelerate to 0, so the correct answer is likely going to be somewhere between 1/2 and 1 turn.

Most wound damage by subsonic bullets like the .45 ACP is caused by the permanent wound channel, while supersonic bullets like the 9mm Luger do commensurately more damage by the temporary wound channel (cavitation) caused by their higher velocity. Gel studies show this conclusively.

Gel studies show permanant cavities and temporary channels--they say nothing about which does any good.

As far as the .45 being unable to defeat body armor, this is a proven fact, with documented cases of .45 ACP even failing to penetrate and deflecting off of windshield glass, due to its low velocity and large frontal surface area. This makes the .45 ACP a marginal round for police use, IMO as they may often have to fire into moving motor vehicles, a problem not often encountered by military forces, who will typically have longarms to deal with such threats. I did not mention this in the article, however.

Deflection has a lot to do with shape as well--if the bullet hits at an angle such that the tangent between bullet and surface is not close to perpendicular to the direction of travel, then the bullet will deflect. For equal deflection angles, heavier bullets will deflect less than lighter bullets at the same energy, because the heavier bullet will have more momentum. The best bullet for minimizing defelection would be plated Keith style SWC; it's heavy, not nearly as back-heavy and so more stable, and the wide, flat nose is going to keep the angle closer to parallel to the path. See this article, the section on "Brush-Bucking Calibers and Bullets".

My favorite story regarding poor penetration of the .45 ACP is the televised interview with an LAPD police supervisor who stated that, due to weapons changes brought about following the infamous Northridge bank robbery shootout, they were switching from 9mm to .45 ACP, which would make their sidearms "more effective against body armor"! I still laugh when I see this one. 9mm Luger bullets are demonstrably better able to defeat lower grades of body armor, and other obstacles like building walls and car bodies, than the .45 ACP. More simple physics.

Armor penetration depends as much on bullet construction as anything else, otherwise there would be no such thing as "armor piercing bullets". The WORST bullet type for use against body armor is an expanding bullet, because it is designed to deform and spread force over a wider area. This is exactly the opposite of an AP bullet, which is made out of very hard materials so that it doesn't deform. A .45 ACP FMJ with a tough jacket is going to be more effective than a 9mm JHP against armor, due to the higher sectional density and resistance to deformation. The .45 ACP FMJ will also be more effective against a soft target than a 9mm FMJ due to the larger permanant cavity. Granted, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison; a 9mm FMJ at 147 grains has the same sectional density as a .45 ACP FMJ at 230 grains, and at the same velocity they will penetrate armor just as well. However, if you do go FMJ, then bigger is better against soft targets--unless you want to get into the fragmenting 5.56x45mm vs. tumbling 5.45x39mm comparisions.

"Law Enforcement Only" ammo is implemented by manufacturers to allow police departments to avoid paying federal excise tax on ammo.

Then why isn't LEO ammo sold to civilians either a) less expensive or b) illegal due to tax evasion? Class I firearms sold to police go through the same distributors and same FFL holders that civilians firearms do, so they are paying the excise tax; why is ammo any different? I assume that the police can claim such purchases and get a refund from the Feds, so I don't see that it makes any difference other than for PR, like Ruger's refusal to sell 20 and 30 round Mini-14 magazines to civilians. scot 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope this comment answered some of your questions, Friday and others. --NDM 07:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts on ballistics, etc.


I've read your comments and find many of your points to be interesting.

I agree with your assessment that most of the controversy surrounding the Balck Talon cartridge represents hype and hysteria.

I'm gratified to see that your calculations concerning the rotation of the bullet agree with mine to within one half of a rotation.

As far as gel studies go, I also agree that they serve as interesting models, but must be verified against actual experience. I do feel that gel testing offers information which may lead to valid inferences. I did not, however, state in my initial posting that my opinions regarding gel testing, and the significance of permanent channel vs. cavitation vis a vis wounding potential arise not only from gel testing, but also from having performed several hundred autopsies on gunshot victims. I do apologize for that oversight, as it would have clarified my position on this topic a bit.

I have seen that the pattern of wounding of bullets appears to change on somewhat of a continuum when viewed as a function of projectile velocity, with the nature of the wound changing significantly when comparing subsonic vs supersonic projectiles. Cavitation can indeed be a significant factor in the wounding ability of supersonic projectiles. This topic is quite complex and subject to many variables, and I certainly cannot do full justice to it here.

Your comments on penetration of body armor and deflection of bullets from obstacles ignores effects caused bullet velocity, which should not be neglected, as the behavior of objects in the supersonic realm may differ significantly from subsonic objects.

As for your questions about "LEO-only " ammunition: I am not a tax lawyer, so I do not know why the excise tax would not be paid upon resale. Perhaps the tax applies only at the time of initial sale to the end user, and not upon subsequent surplus sale. Perhaps people who do sell this ammunition are simply breaking the law. I do not know. I would comment that if police are exempt from paying the tax in the first place, then obtaining a tax refund would seem unnecessary. Your questions would best be answered by a tax expert, which unfortunately I am not.--NDM 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The .45 ACP page says the following: "The U.S. Army had been using .38 caliber revolvers, and tested .38 caliber pistols developed by Colt just after the turn of the century. " It must be reworded to use the exact century. The century digit turned 6 years ago.

Severino Alvarez216.68.72.130 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

.45 ACP magazine capacity:

In the past, magazine capacity limitations existed with the .45ACP (such as the Colt 1911 with a 7+1 capacity), but I do not feel this is the case any longer. With weapons such as the Glock 21 (13+1 capcity), the Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical model (13+1 capacity) and the new Fabrique Nationale FNP-45 (14+1 capacity), the issue of poor magazine capacities are a thing of the past.

Since this is not my article, I chose not to personally edit the material, but I leave it up to the original author to edit it as he/she sees fit. I think an inclusion about the fact that magazine capacities for .45 pistols meet and in some cases exceed 9mm capacities in certain models of pistols is a valid addition to the article. 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While this has been true for quite some time--I had a 13+1 Para Ordnance 1911 frame, with the extended 15+1 magazine, back in 1990--the widebody .45s have never had the popularity of the smaller calibers, because the grip is significantly wider and deeper. The .40 S&W, on the other hand, was designed to fit in 9mm length frames, and as a side effect, they generally stagger the rounds less to fit in a 9mm magazine well; this means that all that needs to change for a .40 S&W is barrel and slide--maybe just barrel and extractor. This all boils down to mean that, with very few exceptions, you can't compare 9mm and .45 ACP guns directly, since they're not the same outside dimensions. I'll take a look at the article and make sure that it makes things clear. scot 16:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Capacity, cont'd

I agree completely that the ergonomics of the .45 caliber pistol frame may not lend itself to every shooter's hand size. With that, there is no contest. My only suggestion was to include a statement that makes clear there are options for high-capacity .45acp chambered pistols. I think the addition you made to the article makes that pleasantly clear now. All-in-all it is a good article. Good information. 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullet diameter

The article lists a nominal bullet diameter of 0.452 in. This is news to me. I reload, and have been loading 0.451" diameter jacketed bullets and 0.452" diameter cast lead bullets for several years. The vast majority, if not all, jacketed bullets sold for reloading .45 ACP are of 0.451" diameter. Similarly, I've seen and used cast lead bullets of both 0.451" and 0.452" diameter.

It would sure be helpful if the article mentioned the actual land-to-land and groove-to-groove diameter of barrels of .45 ACP firearms. I assume it must 0.450" groove-to-groove, based on bullet sizes. The rationale is that copper jackets don't deform as readily as lead, so you need a bullet only 0.001" larger than bore diameter to get a good bullet-to-barrel seal whilst avoiding excessive stress on the barrel - thus 0.451" diameter. Cast lead, being softer, requires a somewhat larger bullet (0.452" diameter) for similar performance.

Commercially-available jacketed bullets, identical to those used in .45 ACP premium self-defense ammunition, are invariably of 0.451" diameter, aside from a few manufacturers who bill theirs as being of 0.4515" diameter. I don't know how realistic a manufacturing tolerance of 0.0005" is for a bullet, and my dial calipers only measure increments of 0.001".

Is this a true discrepancy, or have reloaders and jacketed ammo manufacturers been using the wrong diameter bullets all these years? Or am I just being anal? 8) Objekt 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to your statements necessarily as much of what you say is self-research. I can only say that I got the info from the Lyman Reloading Hanbook, 48th edition (this is the book I get all the cartridge dimensions from). The dimensions listed in that book show a bullet diameter of .452" IIRC. I don't have the book handy at the moment, but I will recheck in the AM. Coincidently, this reference book also has groove-diameter info. I'll check it and post here tomorrow with what I find. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the handbook mentioned above, the diagram specifies a .452" bullet. Reading the near the end of the text, it has this to say...
"Groove diameters can vary from .450" to .453", but the shooter should not size cast bullets larger than .451" due to chamber dimensions."
The test specs given were for a .450" groove diameeter and a .451" cast bullet. I have no way to know what factory ammo size it, so I suppose I have no problem changing the spec to .451". I'll change it now. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
All this is a bit weird, because although jacketted bullet diameter for the .45 is indeed 0.451 spec now, this is much closer to groove-groove diameter for the barrel, which is .450-.452. And perhaps that is as intended-- you want jacketted bullets to be made at groove-groove dimensions, and NOT the "official" barrel diameter, which is measured from land-to-land and ought to be *smaller* than this by several thousandths. Real pistol barrels, certainly those made in 1911, might very well not be nearly this precise, even from weapon to weapon. There's more than you want to know about "slugging" your particular barrels if you cast, which involves firing a soft bullet and then measuring IT to see what your barrel actually is like. [1]. I first started to laugh at the idea of casing bullets to 0.001" but apparently they can be cast now more accurately than weapon-to-weapon variation, even for military weapons made on modern lathe equipment, 100 years ago. SBHarris 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that firing a bullet will obturate or swage it to fit the bore, unless it's grossly mis-sized or extremely hard. Also, as far as measurement goes, American firearms tend to go by the groove diameter, not the land diameter; this is why a .308 Winchester uses a .308 bullet, while a .303 British uses a .311 bullet. Of course this is complicated by obsolete trends, such as the .357 inch .38 caliber rounds, evolved from heeled bullet designs that acutally used bullets closer to .40 inches. There's also the .221/.222/.223 measures, changed to make the name more unique thought they use the same bullets; this survives into the present with the .480 Ruger, which uses a .475ish bullet. Also, slugging is generally done by pushing or pulling a soft lead slug through the barrel by hand, not firing it. When doing it by hand, not only do you get an undamaged sample (stopping a high velocity bullet with no damage requires lots of careful prep) but you can also feel the passage of the slug. Going from chamber to bore, you should never feel a loose section, the barrel should be cylinderical or decreasing in bore diameter all the way to the muzzle. scot 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I'd forgotten that the American practice of bore diameter measure differs from the Brit, and that neatly explains why the .45 official bore diameter so much more closely fits groove-groove. And yes, there's the .22 bullet foolishness. Apperently they are all the same except the rimfire which really is .2225 or something actually different from the others. Arghhh. SBHarris 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is one case where the American way of measurement (save for the heeled bullet leftovers) is actually much more useful; bore diameter is the most important bit, land diameter can vary a lot--just look at Marlin Firearms micro-groove rifling vs. conventional 6 groove rifling. .22 rimfire rounds and barrels can vary a lot in actual diameter, since the bullets are so soft; Lilja makes a .2215 rimfire, a "tight" .2200 rimfire, and .224 centerfire barrels. Also, firearms .17 caliber is .172, vs. airgun .17 caliber of .177. Of course, as odd as firearms measurements are, I still think the most idiotic system of measurement has got to be metric tire measures--if I want a wider tire, darn it, I just want to be able to say "Give me an 11.5x31R15", I don't want to have to go "I've got a 215/70R15, so to go up 20mm I need a 235, so what the heck profile do I need to keep that the same outside diameter?", and then trying to figure out the speedometer error at 70 mph when it turns out I need to get a 235/75 profile to get the off-road tread... scot 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for mentioning a lot of stuff I never knew about. I just finished reading the article about heeled bullets. Very educational! --Objekt 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Source?

Can someone please provide a link or citation to this "Marshall & Sanow" report concerning stopping power that is mentioned in the article? 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe people are referring to Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study. I have not studied the primary sources including this book, but people I tend to trust say that this book makes statements that are unsupportable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of the data set Marshall & Sanow collected. But it certainly has been a very influential book. (Me, I'm in the camp of Martin Fackler, some of who's papers I've read, all of which were are of high quality.) Hga 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal liability and "+p" ammunition.

I would like to see a supporting citation for the claim that the use of +p ammunition has resulted in higher risk of legal liability in otherwise justifiable shootings. This is an issue that has been bantered about quite a lot, and a lot of people have simply accepted it on faith, but there have been others who have challenged this as an urban myth. If there are any actual cases where this has happened, please cite them. Thanks!X-Defender 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's a source of questionable authority, the rec.guns FAQ has this to say:
Hollowpoint bullets are more likely to result in a live attacker after surgery. This has been documented by several police departments who switched from standard roundnose lead ammo to higher- powered hollowpoints. Their results: fewer dead cops, fewer dead crooks, and fewer dead bystanders, including fellow cops.
The fact that police often use +P and +P+ ammunition (the +P+ 9mm, for example, is often sold as an LEO only item), combined with the commonly stated opinion (also mentioned in the rec.guns FAQ) that you should carry the same type of ammunition as the police to avoid potential liability issues, combine to make it seem that the concern about carrying +P due to liability issues is quite groundless. Based on that, I think I'll remove it, unless someone can provide reputable sources to back it up. scot 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On tnat subject, can somebody point to a good source about the J-Mag? Lee Jurras, IIRC, MV1400 fps w a 185gr, c1975. Trekphiler (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW: The "J" in J-Mag stood for Jeffredo, not Jurras. There were several necked down versions as well. D.E. Watters (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a mention and a picture here; looks like the case was much longer than the .45 ACP, though the OAL may not have been (the nose of that bullet looks spherical). There's also mention of a Jefferedo Gunsight Company making a conversion kit here, which involved a .30-06 class case cut down to 1.025 inches. This is a bit shorter than the .38 Special, and certainly .38 Special wadcutters will work in the 1911 (that's how Clark Custom got their start). Case capacity would be quite a bit less than the .45 Win Mag. On the other hand, the .460 Rowland pushes a 185 grain bullet at 1550 fps out of a .975 inch case (vs. the .45 ACP at .900) so the J-Mag is not up to modern standards. Of course, with more case capacity, I'd expect it to run at slightly lower pressures. The .460 has a max pressure of 40,000 PSI, which is pretty hot--more than the 36k of the .44 Mag, and equal to the .45 Win Mag and .30 Carbine. scot (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of firearms

This list of firearms is getting out of control. Way too many firearms, what can we do to trim it down? Arthurrh 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove the list? Lots of firearms use .45 ACP rounds. If someone cares about which guns use it, let them go to the, say, AK-47 page, and see if the firearm in question uses/does not use the ammunition... (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur with removing it. And if they want to see what chambers it, the quick way is to click the "What links here" link... scot (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a SHORT list of firearms adopted by Militaries. I think that list should stay. It hasn't become a problem yet. People have been doing a good job of trimming guns like the "MAC-10" out of the list. If it becomes a problem again, I think reopening this conversation might be in order. The assertion that one would go to the individual firearm page might apply if this were not a limited list. But, again, the list is only for martial firearms. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


The "C" in ACP stands for "Colt," not cartridge. John Browning's cartridges designed for Colt bear the name ACP (.25 ACP, .32 ACP, .380 ACP, .38 ACP, .45 ACP) just as revolver cartridges from the same period were given proprietary names of the gun maker (e.g., .38 S&W). The Wikipedia entries for .25, .380, and .38 all have this correct. "Automatic Cartridge Pistol" does not even make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Nim (talkcontribs) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Also see that there is no citation for this proposition in the ACP article.--Ana Nim (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SAAMI concurs that it means "Colt." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Nim (talkcontribs) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly concur. Whoever stated that it means "Cartridge" is incorrect. These need to be changed. --Asams10 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes and reversions made. This was an ANON vandal, methinks. What do the other subarticles say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asams10 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Concealed carry re: the USA

I was not aware that the .45 ACP was popular for concealed carry in other countries. 9mm and .380 ACP are much more popular worldwide in my experience. I will source my statement. Sukiari (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

HUGE amount of unsourced information.

The ENTIRE third paragraph of the "Performance" section is unsourced. Can anyone find one? Paladin Hammer (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article will never be based on sourced facts, the giant flock of over-enthusiastic .45 fanboys will assure that. -- (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
PERFORMANCE section is in need of legitimate references. As an example the accuracy of the comment "Most .45 suppressors must be fired "wet" (with an ablative medium, usually water) to bring sound levels down to "hearing-safe" (under 140dB, generally)" is questionable, at best, and has no reference cited. It is also grammatically "awkward". I have added a "Citation Needed" tag to the assertion. (MOB)DeadMeat (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

.45 ACP for M1911

While it is certainly true that the '06 was still under development in 1905 when Browning developed the .45 ACP, the .30-'03 had exactly the same dimentions in the area of the cartridge we're interested in, and in fact the very slightly shorter '06 could even be fired in '03 weapons. Are you saying these dimentions in Browning's pistol cartridge are a total coincidence? The man was not a fool and knew he was selling to the Army. Of course it was a selling point that the head was exactly the same. I've fired many a reloaded .45 made by cutting off old neck-damaged '.06 brass. They work just fine. SBHarris 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not a total coincidence, however the case head dimensions are NOT identical. Look at the two side-by-side. That's not the main issue, though, you cannot base one case on a future case, now can you? It was not based on the .30-03 either, it was a unique case designed with a deeper head with larger extractor groove. The fact that the rim diameter and, I believe, rim thickness were identical is due to convenience, it doesn't mean that they took the .30-03 cases and made .45 cases out of them. This IS true of the 44 Automag, though as it was simply a .30-06 or .308 case cut down with a few other forming steps. I know, I made them for a while from .308 Blanks. --Asams10 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Cartridges of the World, 10th Ed., the base, shoulder, and rim diameter of the .45 ACP are .476 inches, and the rim thickness is .044 inches. The .30-06 base is .470, rim diamter is .473, and rim thickness is .045. Close enough that you could use the slightly smaller diameter .30-06 case in a .45 ACP (the .001 rim thickness difference is too small to matter much) but a .45 ACP case is going to be a really tight fit in a .30-06 chamber, especially once you consider than the .30-06 chamber tapers down to .441 at the shoulder. So yes, it looks like coincidence that they're almost interchangeable. No modern American rifle cartridge has a .476 base; they jump from the .30-06's .470 to .495. The 6.5mm Swede is a .477, but the rim is larger in diameter and thickness. There were some BP Winchester and Sharps cartridges with the .477 base, but they were rimmed. The .45 S&W Schofield is the only case I can find in CotW that is long enough, with a close enough diameter (.478 at base and neck), that it could have been turned down to make a .45 ACP. That's pure speculation though. It might just be a scaling up of the .41 caliber cartridge Browning had been playing with in 1904, for a modified model 1902 pistol. scot (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Performance Characteristics Ambiguities

This section leads the reader to believe that Marshal & Sanow's "one shot stop" rating is accurate. However there has been a lot of criticism of Marshal & Sanow's pseudo-scientific testing procedures and wide use of anecdotal evidence. See here:

Calling Marshall and Sanow's efforts "pseudoscience" gives them too much credit. Their theories are faulty, their methodology is flaws, and more to the point they have engaged in outright fraud in order to have their so-called data produce the results they want.

They are uneducated charlatans.

Respectable professionals in terminal ballistics such as Doctor (Colonel) Fackler of the US Army's Wound Ballistics Institute have no use for Marshall and Sanow---the only support they get is from the gun magazines they work for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

.45/38 Auto Pistol

The internal link for .45/38 Auto Pistol appears to be broken, but there is a not to fill it. Any reason in particular and may the link be corrected? (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the question is is the .45/38 Clerke the same as the .38/.45 Clerke. I don't know enough about the wildcat to say, but if it is, the link should indeed be corrected. No idea what the 'no fill' message is about. Any thoughts? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a whole new set of categories: firearms by ammunition-type

Giant articles like List of firearms need some sub-sort categories and you can think of many that have already been tried: sorting by type (sidearm, rifle, etc), calibre (a start at this has been made), and finally by cartridge (ammunition type), which isn't (of course) the same as calibre. Sorting by ammo type has NOT been done. A lot of the last type of information keeps getting added to the cartridge articles, then deleted again. But it really should be tagged as stand-alone lists and re-inserted in each cartridge article, as an embedded list which serves as a main direct, as per WP:SS. For example: this article on .45 ACP once contained a pretty good list of weapons that fired this cartridge. That got shorter and shorter and finally deleted entirely. But it was good information, and many of the weapons already had their own articles. What is needed here is a stand-alone List of firearms manufactured in .45 ACP, and then that referred to, as a main list, within the .45 ACP article. I may try putting it back as a very short section, and see if everybody freaks. But it's a major type of weapons sorting that isn't getting done. SBHarris 01:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ammunition Chart Update,

There is a site called double tap that creates ammo with more impressive ballistics and I want it to replace what is currently on. The following keeps on changing my edits, so if anyone can go to double tap's web site;"" please do so as I am being constituted for vandalism by the following who monitors this page.

Nukes4Tots —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with using one particular manufacturer's product as the basis for a cartridge's ballistics data. Historically the 230 grain bullet, for instance, has always been around 850 feet/second from typical handgun barrels. This remains the case with the majority of modern manufacturers around the world. Double Tap are using proprietary propellant formulations to achieve higher velocities, and are a small scale "boutique" manufacturer. This is not to denigrate them, perhaps they have genuinely raised the bar, but as it stands now the nominal ballistics for the .45 Auto are those shown in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The 9x19mm article lists three typical loads in typical bullet weights as well as two high power loads, one for heavy and one for light bullets. I find it much more informative than a collection of everyone's favorite load. -- (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Does anyone know about armor-piercing bullets for .45ACP?

Universale Mashinenpistole

The UMP45 fires this round. UMP stands for Universale Mashinenpistole wich translates to Universal machine pistol. That is understandable because the 45ACP is a pistol round. But the thing that confuses me is that the UMP45 is a German made weapon. So why does it fire a US made round? I guess because the UMP was made in the late '90s it is possible that the US and Germany collaborated on the creation of this weapon. Any ideas? (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)xxAYHUIxx

Nowadays it is common for manufacturers (operating or distributing in various countries) to offer chambering of a model for various popular cartridges, for example, you can get an OEM Glock chambered for just about any ammo you want; you can get an OEM Walther P99 or H&K USP in either 9mm or .40 S&W (among others); etc. They want a piece of each region in the global marketplace, and even within the U.S., people have reasons for buying various calibers (eg, if I already have an M1911 chambered for .45 ACP, then maybe I want my new Glock to be chambered that way, too, so I can use my same ammo for either pistol). Basically, for any maker, whether headquartered in Germany or USA (or with subsidiaries in both), whatever they suspect there's a market for, they'll try making and selling. — ¾-10 00:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
To add to the previous answer, my understanding (drawn from the publication Heckler & Koch: Armorers of the Free World) is that the UMP was designed as a replacement production gun for the MP5, of which one of the complaints of was its inability to fire the .45 ACP cartridge. Spartan198 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

.45 Remington-Thompson?

Why is this cartridge even in this article? It is dissimilar in many ways. It was only chambered in one gun, that was not a pistol and never reached production. The caliber is not .452, instead it is .447. It isn't based on the .45 ACP, it was based on the .30-06. Pigoutultra (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Removed three links to ammo resellers. I know they have nice databases of ammo stats but they also have links to purchase now which violates WP:EL and WP:RS. Alatari (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What Barrel Length?

The table in performance characteristics does not say what barrel length is being considered. This will drastically change results so please add that information. there is tooo many dicks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Metric Dimensions are incorrect

The metric conversions on this page are incorrect and need to be fixed as it is a dangerously inaccurate reference. When manufacturing firearms and ammunition the tolerance can go into microns for proper fit and function.

.452" = 11.48mm .473" = 12.01mm .476" = 12.09mm .480" = 12.19mm .898" = 22.80mm 1.275" = 32.38mm

Theskylinegtr (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to be pretty foolish to use Wikipedia as a reference when handloading. As for the metric numbers, they appear to have been calculated by the infobox widget, which I'm guessing is designed to round to what it considers the nearest significant digit. Not sure how you'd go about fixing that... - Bardbom (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .45 ACP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)