I came across the following post and thought I’d share here and solicit some feedback / opinions from this group.
Thoughts?
Why .45 ACP is a literal waste of space:
At the risk of upsetting people who emotionally bonded with a caliber in the 1980s, here’s the uncomfortable reality:
.45 ACP accomplishes nothing in modern defensive handgun use that 9mm does not already do, while demanding more gun and delivering less capacity in return.
Handguns chambered in .45 are typically:
• Larger or heavier than comparable 9mm pistols
• Lower capacity, often significantly so
• Harder to shoot well for the average user
And for what?
No meaningful improvement in terminal performance.
Modern ballistic testing has made this painfully clear. When using contemporary duty ammunition, service pistol calibers (.38, .357, 9mm, .40, .45) all perform within a very narrow band of penetration and expansion when fired into calibrated ballistic gelatin.
Why pistol rounds all kind of suck:
This is the part people don’t like hearing.
Pistol rounds are fundamentally limited because:
• They operate at relatively low velocities
• They do not create hydrostatic shock in the way rifle rounds do
• They do not reliably cause immediate physiological incapacitation unless critical structures are hit
Unlike rifle or shotgun projectiles, handgun bullets do not destroy tissue through velocity-driven cavitation. They poke holes. Slightly different sized holes, sure, but still holes.
From an anatomical standpoint, rapid incapacitation with a handgun requires:
• Central nervous system disruption, or
• Catastrophic circulatory collapse
Both outcomes depend far more on shot placement than caliber. A .45 that misses vital structures does not magically compensate for poor hits. A 9mm that passes through the heart, or upper spinal cord ends the problem decisively.
There is no physics argument that turns an extra fraction of an inch in bullet diameter into a substitute for accuracy, speed, and repeatability.
Capacity, recoil, and reality
Since pistol rounds rely so heavily on placement, the logical response is obvious:
• More rounds
• Faster follow-up shots
• Less recoil penalty
• Smaller, lighter guns that are easier to carry and control
9mm delivers all of that. .45 delivers none of it.
You are trading away capacity and shootability for a theoretical advantage that does not exist in real-world data.
The idea that .45 “hits harder” persists because it feels intuitive, not because it survives scrutiny. Energy transfer differences are marginal, and frankly meaningless. Penetration standards are met by both. Expansion is reliable in both. Incapacitation remains placement-dependent in both.
Worshiping the .45 in 2026 says more about your (lack of) understanding of terminal ballistics, than it does the performance of the round.
