Jump to content

Talk:.45 ACP/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:
http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/handgun.aspx
Note, no Ranger SXT line listed. However, looking here:
http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/pdf/LEPDF/2006%20Poster_Front.pdf
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. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm 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.

Scot:

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.209.114.201.30 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.209.114.201.30 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? 209.195.164.34 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)

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... 216.209.175.189 (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)

ACP

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 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 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 (talk • contribs) 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. --84.163.226.6 (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: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm



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 173.130.10.186 (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? 66.191.19.217 (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;"http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_34" please do so as I am being constituted for vandalism by the following who monitors this page.

76.84.53.229

Nukes4Tots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.229 (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 65.12.128.24 (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. --84.163.222.202 (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?24.98.146.124 (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)

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)

Spam

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.

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)

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}}).

checkY 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.

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

Cartridge name is incorrect

The correct name of this cartridge is 45 Auto, not 45 ACP. We should not allow slang/incorrect terminology. I propose that this article and all references to this cartridge on Wikipedia be corrected.

Reference: Cartridges are named by SAAMI, and SAAMI calls it the "45 Automatic," or "45 Auto" for short.

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/45%20Automatic.pdf

Also, SAAMI does not begin cartridge names with ".", so all SAAMI cartridge names in any article should have the "." removed, if there is one.

Silencertalk (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

SAAMI didn't even exist when the .45ACP was created, so it can't be the authority on its name. Also, SAAMI doesn't design cartridges, it merely helps set manufacturing standards for them. The companies and individuals who design the cartridges are ones who name them, and the names and conventions they use for their cartridges are the proper nomenclature for Wikipedia articles. Finally, while SAAMI may not use a period for caliber designations for whatever reason, that is still the universal standard. Bardbom (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Bardbom is correct, although Silencertalk's good-faith effort is acknowledged. There are many instances in life like this, where one must understand the history of standardization and its limitations. The standardization usually comes afterwards, not beforehand, in most technical fields. Instances like this are how one comes to know that there is no "universal authority" for the nomenclature in many subjects—although there are often dominant conventions. We should definitely mention the SAAMI nomenclature in this article, in a parenthetical way. But it's not the universal, sole, official "correct" name. Just the correct name within contexts where the standard is exclusively governing. — ¾-10 16:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that .45 Auto would have been a better name for this article, but if anyone decides to tackle this, please do it correctly. Don't just do a blanket rename of ACP to Auto. And rename the article too, don't just change the content. And don't forget to also handle the pages Automatic Colt Pistol, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, and .38 ACP as well. In fact, don't make the change at all. The common name for the cartridge, .45 ACP, works just fine as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:2701:3A00:6EF0:49FF:FE00:9BA1 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


The correct name is Caliber .45 M1911 and also .45 Automatic Colt Pistol which is always abbreviated as .45 ACP Digitallymade (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

original military specs?

Old manuals supposedly say that the .45 caliber M1911 Ball load as adopted in that year was specified to use a 230gr cupro-nickel jacketed, lead-core, round-nosed bullet of mass 230 grains (approx. 15gs) and a powder charge of 5.0gr (0.324g) Hercules Powder Company "Bullseye" propellant, and was specified to have a muzzle velocity of 825-850 ft/sec (255 m/sec). Is this an appropriate inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Very much so. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The velocity depends on the year. Original specs were 830 FPS but looking at the vietnam ammo I have, the box lists it as 800 +/- 15 fps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.129.34 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The velocity quoted depends on the year it was posted. In the 1960s .45 ACP was typically listed as having a 230 gr bullet fired at 765fps. It has often been assumed that the test barrel was 5" long but test barrels for cartridges were often 16" long. Later specifications for the 230 gr bullet had velocities ranging from 810 to 865 fps. These are significantly lower if fired in more compact handguns such as the Colt Commander. US cartridge makers have been notorious for producing unsealed ammunition whose performance deteriorated with time. Early on, around 1920, .45 ACP was already being loaded with lighter bullets to try to reduce the recoil because accuracy was poor. Digitallymade (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The listing of ammunition is both irresponsible and dangerous

The list of ammunition does not state that some of the cartridges listed are Plus P pressure levels. Not all .45 ACP chambered handguns are suitable for Plus P. The Springfield line, for one is specifically prohibited from using Plus P cartridges. Doing so could cause a catastrophic failure. As the ill effects of lead are being seen everywhere, ammunition is now being produced with solid copper bullets. That should be mentioned as well. Digitallymade (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Effective combat pistol cartridge?

"The .45 ACP is an effective combat pistol cartridge that combines accuracy and stopping power for use against human targets." Since when? US Army Medical stated "the .45 caliber bullet is of little value as a wound-producing agent except in the softer tissues and at near ranges. The bullet often fails either to penetrate or to fracture bone and practically never shatters bone in the manner common to the rifle bullet or fragment" and "While the same bullet with its characteristics was used in the submachinegun, multiple hits probably compensated for the weaknesses, so apparent in single shots." On the other hand they praised the German and Japanese sidearms of the time as much more effective antipersonnel weapons because of their higher muzzle velocities of approximately 1,100 f.p.s. [1] [2]

Now I don't claim to be an expert on wound ballistics and battlefield medicine but I'd like to think that army doctors have at least a little experience in the matter. Hopefully a little more than a retired cop.70.59.113.83 (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to rifle wounds is a bit inapt. All pistols have that problem; they have vastly less energy and wounding potential than even relatively weak intermediate rifle cartridges. There is virtually no real difference between 9mm and .45 ACP in this regard. The major difference between the two of them, when you're talking about standard FMJs, is that the .45ACP gives you a somewhat larger wound channel than the 9mm, where as the 9mm's extra energy and smaller diameter gives you better penetration against hard targets. It's a trade off, although a slight one because we're still talking relatively anemic pistol cartridges here.
  • Ahem. I think you were correct in pointing out your lack of knowledge of terminal ballistics. In particular you seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that the caliber (diameter) of a handgun round is important. It isn't. If I cut (this is just an illustrative example, and NOT how bullets interact with human tissues) a hole the size of a .45ACP vs. a 9mm Parabellum, the difference of 2mm isn't going to amount to much. The wound created by a bullet is based on the mass of the bullet and the velocity, and NOT the caliber. The size of the permanent cavity isn't nearly as important as the temporary cavity created by transmitted forces, particularly whith solid viscus injuries. The only gunshot wound I have ever treated where the permanent cavity was the primary determination of injury was due to a .177 pellet, which had already traveled (and slowed) through a bicycle helmet.
Also, the state of medical science in WWII wasn't that great, so you have to take those documents with a grain of salt.
  • Wounds from bullets during WWI and WWII are the same a wounds from current conflicts as well as wars in the 19th century. The science is the same, and the work done during WWII is still valid. Please do not confuse science with the current practice and available technology.
When you get into the civilian/police world where we don't have to worry about the Hague convention and the US's non-signer-but-still-an-observer status, since WWII (actually, since 1986, in response to a specific incident), methods of bullet construction has changed drastically specifically to make them more reliable. The standard has become a hollowpoint, expanding bullet capable of penetrating at least 12" in order to deal with obstructions such as bone. Due to this, caliber/cartridge choice really doesn't make a whole lot of difference anymore, as you'll find ammunition in most popular calibers capable of meeting that standard. With that in mind, it really comes down more to personal preference and what you are actually personally accurate with. A hit with a .380 in the center of mass is more likely to be effective than a .44 magnum in the arm (or a complete miss, for that matter). - Bardbom (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
All this childish talk about combat effectiveness, etc., and nothing about the 45 ACP as a TARGET round?! A place where it excels out to 150 yards? Shame, shame... You all give the nod to the folks who would say that guns empower people to kill, with not the least reference to the fine SPORT available to the 45 ACP shooter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.3.249 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Err...ok. The .45 ACP was designed and used primarily as a military and self-defense cartridge for the vast majority of its lifetime. Its use in target shooting grew out of that, and AFAIK it has no real advantages for target shooting over other cartridges (it has a relatively poor ballistic coefficient and is slow, making for some rather rainbow-like trajectories).
I think it's rather childish to admonish people not to talk about the primary purpose of a thing and then tell them they should only be talking about an incidental purpose in a misguided effort to...what, score political points? Got some news for you: The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to defend themselves with lethal force if it's necessary. Trying to hand-wave that away and talk only about sport shooting is a sure way to get our rights undercut and destroyed. - Bardbom (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Second Amendment was based in British law. King James 11 attempted to confiscate his subjects' weapons. NO! The Second Amendment was written specifically to prevent government tyranny. Read "The roots of the Second Amendment". The right to self defense and oppose tyranny stretch back to 10th Century Britain and the rule of King Alfred. If you don't know what you are writing about, please stop.

No, no, no. Remember that Wikipedia is an international resource, and the content should be directed to the global anglophone community. Secondly, you are dead wrong about the 2nd amendment. It actually states what it's purpose is (albeit quite ignored by courts over the years in the US)It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". How it is that we lost out on the notion that gun owners were to be part of a well regulated militia is befuddling. The intent of the 2nd amendment is crystal clear and was not intended to address the use of firearms for hunting, personal self defence, or target shooting. It doesn't prohibit these, but it also doesn't protect them either. SCOTUS is the authority which allows the use of firearms in self defence, not the 2nd amendment,
Any time you are dealing with a jacketed round-nose bullet traveling in the sonic/high subsonic range, there's not a whole lot of advantage with respect to caliber or velocity, either way, resulting from the bullet construction. But, if you have a large meplat (flat bullet nose) like with a wadcutter, semi-wadcutter, or other flat nosed bullet, or any well-made hollow point, things change fairly quickly, as a stabilized flat nosed bullet will actually cut through flesh (as opposed to really just piercing it), and crush bone (where a round ball might glance off it when on an angle). A 45 ACP or 45 Colt loaded to 800+ feet/second with a 255 grain Keith-style (semi-wadcutter) - or a similar flat nose bullet design - of proper hardness, will be an effective short-range deer hunting cartridge. The same bullet pushed over 1000 feet/second is still moving over 800 feet/second at 225 yards. There is simply not enough bullet mass in most 9mm Luger loadings for hunting deer, even with hollow points, but the 9mm Luger in anti-personnel loads only has to pass through 8-12 inches TOTAL to hit a human's vital organs. Supressed ("silenced" or "muffled") 9mm loads generally use 147 grain bullets to keep momentum in subsonic loadings, whereas most 9mm anti-personnel loadings (including FMJ) are 115-125 grains. All a hollow point bullet does is make a small bullet perform like a much larger flat point bullet. In order to do that, you need a combination of mass, velocity, and projectile construction commensurate with the target being attacked.Caisson 06 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The tendency to bounce off bone, is due more to low velocity than to shape of bullet. I've shot objects with 9mm that went right through when .45 ACP bounced off. Since both standard hardball (US loaded) have the same energy levels it's clear that 9mm has higher pressure at the impact sight. It's also true that higher velocity impacting flesh results in most damage. Anyone who looks at rifle ballistics can clearly see this. That's why I prefer .300 Win Mag over .308 (both using the same bullet, the Win Mag is vastly more destructive)
There is some truth to what you say, but still a lot of myth. In lighter rounds (E.g. .380 ACP) a JHP is going to have some added wounding capability vs. a FMJ. With higher powered rounds (.40 S&W) you don't see a big diffference. What matters most is velocity and mass, not the size or shape of the round. Remember that FMJ are used specifically to reduce the morbidity and mortality (I.e. carnage of war). The assumption was based on the high rate of amputations due to mangled extremities seen with Dum Dum bullets and the Minié ball used during the Crimean war, and Brittish colonial wars. Soft point (and JHP) show increased wounding, as do high velocity "boat tail" rounds (E.g. 5.56mm NATO) which "table" after entering tissue, mostly due to the ability to deliver energy in a shorter shot path and not over penetrate. If a bullet goes through tissue and exits, it transfers less of its kinetic energy to the tissue. Particularly with high velocity rounds (E.g. rifle rounds, 5.7x28mm) with tumbling bullets, use of soft point/JHP doesn't add much to the FMJ's highly lethal wounding potential. The 5.7x28mm round is highly effective against both unarmored and those wearing body armor out to a range of 200m. It is much smaller than the .45 ACP, but flies at over twice the velocity (716 vs. 260-270 m/s) with comparable muzzle energy. Admitedly, much of its effectiveness is due to the flatter trajectory. Always remember that the most important thing determining injury or death from a gunshot wound is where you are hit. Combat marksmanship trumps all other factors in the real world!

Digitallymade (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Objectivity?

This article reads like a promotion for, or defence of, the .45ACP. Just a few too many adverbs and unreferenced comparisons to 9x19mm and .40S&W. It also ignored the extensive research done by the US Army and USMC when deciding to jump on the NATO standard bandwagon for a side arm.

The .45ACP isn't better than other rounds because some US special operators use it. It simply is what it is. The .45 is primarily used for the limited role of a suppressed weapon. For a long time the side arm of choice has been the 9x19mm NATO fired from SIG P226/228, M9, or Glock 19.

Moreover, any comparison should include popular older (E.g. .380 ACP, 10mm Auto, .357SIG) and modern (5.7x28mm) rounds designed for automatic handguns, and not just the 9x19 NATO and .40 S&W. I would suggest that comparisons between rounds be moved to a common article, so every author doesn't have to re-invent the wheel.

References

  1. ^ http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm
  2. ^ http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htm

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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Metric dimensions

The metric dimensions in the first section have repeatedly been removed by various IPs. I've reverted this a couple times now, but wanted to give the opportunity for anyone's thoughts here. If somebody sees this differently, I'm all ears for a discussion. - Mr.1032 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The IPs that removed it are located to Agusta, GA, so are likely the same person. They have only removed the metric dimensions from the bolded title in the lead sentence, which it implies it's part of the name ".45 Auto", or is by itself a common alternative name, so maybe that's their objection. I don't read many cartridge articles, so I don't know if that is a standard way of listing it in the title line or not. In the absence of communication with the IP, perhaps putting the conversion in another place would be a solution, assuming it course that "11.43×23mm" is not a common name for the cartridge. - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! You make a great point about the title being bold implicating that's part of the name, I'll change that. It does seem to be a standard practice to have metric dimensions in the first line of a cartirdge article (although not usually bold), even when it's not a common name, please see .380 ACP and .357 Magnum for examples. - Mr.1032 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hope that will solve the IP's issue, but if not, we'll just have to keep reverting until they deign to explain. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.45_ACP/Archive_1&oldid=1169127903"