.45auto - Bullet weight/velocity as a determinant of felt recoil

[DHart]

I'm interested in hearing other's views regarding bullet weight & velocity (within a particular caliber) as that influences how controllable a firearm is.

When choosing a premium defense load/bullet weight, suppose a shooter is more more interested in loads which are very controllable and less interested in loads developed to have the highest energy or velocity. Is there a direct correlation that generally applies to this with regard to bullet weight/velocity?

Are lighter bullet defensive loads, within a caliber, which have higher velocity and perhaps higher energy less controllable/more sharp recoiling than heavier bullet defensive loads which move at lower velocity and may have lower energy?

Let's take .40S&W for example.
My frame of reference in 40S&W is with 180gr loads, which I enjoy shooting a lot.

Last time I compared 180gr to 165gr to 155gr premium defense loads in .40S&W, it felt to me that the 180gr was the softest, most controllable loading of the three; and the 155gr and 165gr premium defense loads felt notably harsher and sharper in recoil.

I'm wondering if that same perception holds true for other people?

In .45auto: Would Federal's Premium Defense ammo 165gr @ 1140fps be harsher-shooting, perhaps more recoil than their 230gr @ 900fps - or would the opposite be the case?

[DHart]

I know that the best way to answer the question for oneself is to get the loads and compare them side by side. But I was wondering if enough others have observed similarly to draw any kind of loose conclusions.

To be more specific

.45auto
Has anyone here had a lot of experience with different weight .45auto defense loadings? Do the lighter weight .45auto defense loadings seem harsher or softer than the 230 gr. defense loadings (all else being equal, of course)?

This is of particular interest to me as I'm finding that as I get older it seems a little bit more difficult to shoot my compact .45s (G30, M&P45C, Commanders) than it used to be. Would I find the 200gr or 185gr Premium defense loadings to have less recoil, be a little bit more controllable in these smaller .45s?

[m1a_scoutguy]

Everything you wanted to know ! Good info for sure !
http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/power-factor-recoil-bullet-weight-gives-edge/

[anachronism]

Recoil perception is subjective. We all sense recoil differently. Then you get to add muzzle flip into the picture, and try to balance out what you are actually feeling, recoil (straight push), or muzzle flip (muzzle rise).

Try a few different types of ammo, and pick one. And we haven't even touched on terminal bullet performance yet.

[DHart]

Everything you wanted to know ! Good info for sure !
http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/power-factor-recoil-bullet-weight-gives-edge/

Excellent link. Thanks very much!

[DHart]

Try a few different types of ammo, and pick one. And we haven't even touched on terminal bullet performance yet.

Aside from calculating and comparing power factors for considered loads, buying them and shooting them is definitely the best way to know.

Terminal ballistics are another matter entirely and not what I was inquiring about - just felt recoil, really.

[anachronism]

I understand that, and I only tossed that in because I don't know what your terminal performance standards are, and as you said, that's not the topic. As far as recoil goes, the softest 45 load I've ever tried was Remingtons 185 gr Match Load. They barely dribbled out of my 5 inch Colt, and my G21. Contrast that with Federal 185 gr JHP Defense load, which is one screaming, blasty SOB. Since I dislike muzzle blast in confined spaces, I moved on 230 gr Federal Hydrashok. The heavier loads seem to have a slower, more straight back recoil, and the light blasty stuff had a more abrupt, sharper recoil, accompanied by more muzzle flip. My compromise has been std velocity 230 gr JHPs because I appreciate the slower, rolling recoil, at least in the guns I've had so far. My Commander performs pretty much the same as the full-size guns, but both types of recoil are more pronounced. My 250 gr bowling pin load needed to be confined to the full-sized 1911. That load in the steel framed Commander was difficult to control, and actually painful to shoot.

I hope this post is closer to the information you were hoping for.

[rjacobs]

You are asking about defensive ammo, not range/match ammo... Am I tracking you correctly?

If I am gathering that correctly, I dont give a damn what the felt recoil is on my defensive carry ammo as that will be the very last thing on my mind if I have to use my gun. I want it to do one thing well and thats stop the bad guy.

Stick to the ammo that is recommended on "the list" and be done with it. HST, Gold Dots, Ranger-T...

Dont compromise your ammo selection due to "felt recoil" in a defensive shooting situation. It will lead you to choosing an under-performing load IMO.

[DHart]

I agree with you both that if the objective is defense, terminal ballistics are important to consider. At the same time, controllability of the pistol can count for a LOT, as well.

My defense load choice is HST, Gold Dot, and Ranger in whichever of the three defense calibers that I have guns for (45, 40, 9). I find it a bit harder to control quick shots with 230 gr. HST in a mid-size .45 pistol than 180 gr. HST in a mid-size .40S&W pistol. So I was wondering if there might be a .45auto load that I could control a little easier in a rapid fire situation than full charge 230 gr..

Ultimately, though, I'm very confident in 180 gr. HST, Gold Dot or Ranger in my mid-size and full-size M&P40 and P320 pistols, and I can control and shoot them very well indeed. So, perhaps carrying .45auto isn't as smart a choice for me, when I have such great .40S&W pistols that I shoot so well.

[rjacobs]

If you want something in SD that MIGHT have lower felt recoil(ive never shot it before) AND still passes the FBI testing that Doc Roberts does, the 185g Cor-Bon load using the Barnes bullet might be something to look into.

Beyond that there are no loads using anything else than a 230g bullet in .45 acp on the list.

[DHart]

If you want something in SD that MIGHT have lower felt recoil(ive never shot it before) AND still passes the FBI testing that Doc Roberts does, the 185g Cor-Bon load using the Barnes bullet might be something to look into.

Beyond that there are no loads using anything else than a 230g bullet in .45 acp on the list.

Yes, indeed. The Barnes all copper loads, from a variety of ammo makers, looks to be a very effective, though expensive, option.

Bill Wilson's personal carry load, named Wilson Combat Pinnacle (his "senior citizen" load, as I call it) with the Barnes 160 gr bullet likely performs well also, and given its power factor of 168 (right there with Double Tap's "Mann" load with the same bullet) is likely to be a good bit more controllable, especially in small .45s, than the 230 gr. full power loads which have power factors in the range of 205 to 225.

I probably just need to spend more time shooting my M&P45C and the control will improve. That said, my M&P40 and P320 in .40S&W are still my #1 pistols for defense.

[tacticaldesire]

Here's what I've noticed.

In .40, from my experience, 180gr Defensive loads (i.e Hydrashok) definitely felt less harsh than the 165gr and 155gr offerings.

Same goes for .45. 230gr felt softer to me than some of the 185gr loads. But it depends entirely on the round. I can't tell much of a difference between say, a 185gr Critical Defense round and a 230gr HST. If anything the CD feels lighter. But a 185gr Hydrashok definitely feels stouter than the 230gr.

So while I do think bullet weigh makes a difference in felt recoil, ultimately I think it comes down to the specific load and the gun at hand. The impulse you're getting from a USP .45 or Glock 21 is going to be a lot different than say a Shield or XDS.

Really though, with .45 being a such a low pressure round, the differences in reality aren't all that significant. I think it's most noticeable with something like a .40SW.

[DHart]

TD... Thanks for the comments. Your experience with the .45auto loads are what one might expect when comparing power factors for the loads.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp59/zmonki/Misc%20Pics/45auto%20Power%20Factors.jpg (http://s397.photobucket.com/user/zmonki/media/Misc%20Pics/45auto%20Power%20Factors.jpg.html)

The power factor comparisons for .40S&W (with the exception of Federal 180 GR. HST) also are generally in line with what we have both experienced when shooting those loads.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp59/zmonki/Misc%20Pics/40SW%20Power%20Factors.jpg (http://s397.photobucket.com/user/zmonki/media/Misc%20Pics/40SW%20Power%20Factors.jpg.html)

[Ron3]

Yea, you'll have to decide whats best for you.

The last .45 I carried (for a few months) was a Glock 36. 185 Gold Dots loaded warm were snappy and not fun to shoot, but quicker to get back on target than practice 230 gr ammo.

Buy a few loads and try them yourself.

[DHart]

I'm finding that as I get older, .45auto, in small pistols, is becoming a little more difficult to shoot well and quickly. I know that if I focused firmly on shooting .45 better, and more, that would turn around.

But better for me these days is focusing on shooting .40S&W well. I find it nearly as easy to shoot forty (given a great pistol designed for forty) as it is for me to shoot nine. And I like the extra punch that forty has over 9mm.

Forty has greater capacity than .45 (and I feel that capacity can easily be critically important) and more punch than 9mm, so these days, for me, forty is a very sweet combination of qualities! 180 GR HST is a respectably effective load and with 16 rounds on tap in an M&P40, or 15 in a Sig P320 Full or Carry size, very easily controlled pistols that are fun to shoot - that's just the ticket for me for a carry gun.

[readyfireaim]

Here's what I've noticed.

In .40, from my experience, 180gr Defensive loads (i.e Hydrashok) definitely felt less harsh than the 165gr and 155gr offerings.

Same goes for .45. 230gr felt softer to me than some of the 185gr loads. But it depends entirely on the round. I can't tell much of a difference between say, a 185gr Critical Defense round and a 230gr HST. If anything the CD feels lighter. But a 185gr Hydrashok definitely feels stouter than the 230gr.

So while I do think bullet weigh makes a difference in felt recoil, ultimately I think it comes down to the specific load and the gun at hand. The impulse you're getting from a USP .45 or Glock 21 is going to be a lot different than say a Shield or XDS.

Really though, with .45 being a such a low pressure round, the differences in reality aren't all that significant. I think it's most noticeable with something like a .40SW.
i agree with this statement. my experiences have been with a springfield 4.5 xdm and a 1911 that replaced it [both in 45 acp]. i will say the xdm was a total jam o matic with all ammo i ran thru it, but when it actually did what it was supposed to do,recoil was noticably worse than my current 1911[5" para expert], however that wasnt always the case. when i first bought my 1911 it had a smooth front strap, cheesy plastic msh, and really bad factory grips. i replaced the grips with vz simonich gunner grips and skateboard grip tape called viscious grip tape on the front strap, the recoil changed dramatically for me. my whole point is try adding either grip tape or stippling the grips on your gun, it will make a world of difference. btw my 1911 eats up 230 grain federal hst's [std pressure] all day long and the grips arent bad on my hands either but i dont have baby butt smooth hands either. just something to take into consideration

[DHart]

When comparing the recoil from different bullet weights, within the same caliber, I am presuming the comparison is done with one pistol only. That's the only way to get a valid subjective impression of the feel of the recoil.

Of course, the recoil will feel radically different going from a Glock 21 to an M&P45 Compact to a Shield 45, regardless of bullet weight differences. But that's not what I'm thinking about with this thread. Just comparing bullet weights.

I think what it al boils down to, it isn't just the weight of the bullet that makes a difference in recoil feel. How hot each bullet is charged makes a big difference, as well. If you push a lighter bullet to give the same PF as a heavier bullet, the lighter bullet will recoil more heavily because it has a larger powder charge behind it. And, I guess, that in many cases, a lighter, faster bullet will have a quicker, snappier recoil and the heavier, slower bullet will have a slightly longer recoil.

Within .40S&W, I find the premium 180 gr. defense loads to have a soft recoil impulse, somewhat similar to the soft push of a .45. They have a very good feel to them. The 155gr and 165gr premium defense loadings, on the other hand, are the ones that feel harsher, snappier, and people sometimes complain about .40S&W with those loads.

[foxtrotx1]

I'm a little confused by that linked article. They show data indicating that charging the case with x amount of powder means that the heavier bullets will travel faster than the lighter ones that also contain x amount of powder. Shouldn't the lighter one go faster since mass is lower and it requires less energy to get moving? Or does pressure build up more behind the heavier bullet, driving it faster?