shooting a 9mm vs. a .45

N

neutmiller

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
nova scotia
I own a 9mm. I find that it has a lot of kick. I fired a .45 1911 last week at the range. That gun was a lot more controlable than the 9mm. I have shot a few 9mm's and find they all have a lot of kick. I am new to the target shooting hobby. Why was the .45 so much more enjoyable to shoot?

Thanks
 
It's not that the 9's have more kick, it's just different kick/recoil.
The 9mm is more of a snappy round as compared to the .45.
The .45, in my opinion, more or less just 'rolls' in your hands
instead of 'jumping' in your hands.
I have two Sig 220's, one in 9mm and the other in .45, when
people ask what the .45 is like to shoot, I tell them;
it's a ball of silk that shoots .45!
Everyone's a little different, that being said we all precieve
and handle recoil differently as well.
 
Without: i'd actually consider a .45 to be more of a quick snap and the 9mm has more of a jump.

Neut: i would think because the 1911 has a slide trigger where as the 9mm most likely had a pivot trigger. or at least is what was explained to me when I noticed the exact same (I prefer a .45 1911 style over my .40 or my 9mm, and is what i'm looking for right now)
 
WITHOUT WARNING;
I agree with you 100000000000%
The .45 is just that much more fun....
Not to mention the fact that the .45acp has proven itself a more accurate target round than the 9mm.
John
 
9mm has less recoil than .45!

I agree that .45 is not as snappy but it it does recoil more. .40s&w has even more snap than 9mm.

another think to consider is 1911 weighs 40-42oz where most (non 1911) 9mm guns are 25-35oz so weight of the gun is a BIG factor as well. What 9mm do you have is it a Glock (or another plastic gun)? ;)

Steel frame 9mm that weights as much as 1911 will be very smooth to shoot! Even .40 1911 (to me) has less recoil than .45 1911.
 
IM_Lugger said:
another think to consider is 1911 weighs 40-42oz where most (non 1911) 9mm guns are 25-35oz so weight of the gun is a BIG factor as well. What 9mm do you have is it a Glock (or another plastic gun)? ;)
Click to expand...

I think this is the right answer here. The felt recoil has at least as much to do with the gun as with the calibre IMHO (at least when talking about the common calibres like 9mm and .45ACP). If your two guns were a Walther P99 in 9mm and a steel 1911 in .45ACP, then I think most people would perceive the P99 recoil as being greater (probably noticeably) despite shooting the smaller calibre. The 1911 is a bigger, heavier gun with a longer barrel. More of the weight is in the frame of the gun, and the fuller the single stack mag is, the more that is the case. The P99 is a much smaller, lighter gun. The barrel is an inch (20%) shorter, and almost all of the weight is in the slide and barrel assembly. The rounds are lighter, and because it is a pinned double stack they are sitting higher in the magazine, closer to the slide.

I just use the P99 as an example because it is known to be very "snappy" for a 9mm. Many of the Glocks in 9mm are similar, especially the 19 and 26. 17 and 34 seem to be more controllable.

Now if you really want to test this out, try some of the really heavy 9mm guns... like a stainless SIG P226, a Norinco NP-29 or even some of the Berettas. Very little recoil. Conversely, try a sub-compact Glock in .45ACP, or better yet, 10mm!!
 
I wonder if a slow, heavy bullet seems less snappy. I was shooting my new Sig P225 today and I was amazed how pleasant 147gr 9mm was out of this light little womens gun.:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
I was shooting my new Sig P225 today and I was amazed how pleasant 147gr 9mm was out of this light little womens gun.
Click to expand...
:D

...................lets not start that one :p (I'm glad you like it )

I own both and have shot alot of both in other different designs, and the design has alot to do with it (i feel anyway) along with the loads
if you are not handloading you are going to notice that the most significant difference is COST
try as many different designs to get an idea ( I think every shooter has a different experience and tell their experience differently

myself for example have had a different 9mm experience with a Berreta 92f a Browning HP all the SIGs and S+W and H+K
 
My 226-9mm in stainless is close in felt recoil to my Kimber alloy frame 1911-.45. The 226 weighs much more and gets back on target quicker but the 1911 feels "smoother" somehow, like riding a wave. Both are very accurate.
 
ghostie said:
I think this is the right answer here. The felt recoil has at least as much to do with the gun as with the calibre IMHO (at least when talking about the common calibres like 9mm and .45ACP). If your two guns were a Walther P99 in 9mm and a steel 1911 in .45ACP, then I think most people would perceive the P99 recoil as being greater (probably noticeably) despite shooting the smaller calibre. The 1911 is a bigger, heavier gun with a longer barrel. More of the weight is in the frame of the gun, and the fuller the single stack mag is, the more that is the case. The P99 is a much smaller, lighter gun. The barrel is an inch (20%) shorter, and almost all of the weight is in the slide and barrel assembly. The rounds are lighter, and because it is a pinned double stack they are sitting higher in the magazine, closer to the slide.

I just use the P99 as an example because it is known to be very "snappy" for a 9mm. Many of the Glocks in 9mm are similar, especially the 19 and 26. 17 and 34 seem to be more controllable.

Now if you really want to test this out, try some of the really heavy 9mm guns... like a stainless SIG P226, a Norinco NP-29 or even some of the Berettas. Very little recoil. Conversely, try a sub-compact Glock in .45ACP, or better yet, 10mm!!
Click to expand...
Thirded. I haven't shot a large number of firearms, but I did shoot a G17, Beretta 92F, and a .357 mag revolver on the same day, and the difference was huge. The Glock was definitely the snappiest; the .357 had massive recoil to be sure, but it felt dampened (probably due to the steel frame), and the Beretta felt like it had almost no recoil at all.
 
I find this all interesting.
I have yet to shoot a 1911 that I liked. Found them all to be recoil heavy (definitely womped the palm of my hand).
My Glock is "snappier" than my CZ, but both are more comfortable to shoot than a 1911.
That said, a while back I had the opportunity to try a XD45. Very nice! Still a bit more "push" than any 9mm, but far more comfortable than a 1911.
$.02
 
so much depends on WHAT you're shooting; both gun and ammo- shooting 124 grain slugs at 1k fps is a lot more noticeble out of my tokarev than out of my beretta 92sb- has a lot to do with the WEIGHT- by the same token, 200 grains are a lot softer out of the colt mk 4 gov't than out of an alloy gun,it's a lot harder when i move up to hardball 230 and down right nasty when you go up to 250 and i ACTUALLY LIKE THE 1911- it fits my hand well , and all the controls are in the right place- but i've "customized " it to my tastes/needs over the last 20 years or so
 
Last edited:
HI guys,
From my experience using of three similar STI's in 9mm and .45 for bullseye shooting I would prefer 45. Yes, it does stronger recoil but for some enigmatic reason the accuracy is better (in both guns I'm using a minimal suggested loads, 542 points for 9 and 557 for .45)
Nevertheless I believe that any opinions on this matter are very personal. I knew a guy form Calgary who shot 550 points at 25 m range using regular CZ-75 in9 mm.
 
Some interesting comments/thoughts here. In 9mm I just couldn't shoot my Sig P220 with any consistency. I did considerably better with my Baby Eagle but I sold both because I was a little disappointed in how I was shooting 9mm and decided to stick with .45 ACP and .357 Magnum. I shot a friend's Glock G17 and shot so well with it that I bought one. I shoot my G17 with more consistency and accuracy than I ever did with either my BE or P220. The weight of the pistol may have some effect on 'perceived' recoil but the grip angle has to have some effect as well. Out of the pistols I mentioned the Sig P220, for me, had the greatest perceived recoil followed by the Baby Eagle and the Glock the softest.....go figure.
 
I was much more accurate with the .45. I was shooting the Norinco M-1911A1C 'Commander' .45 ACP. I loved that gun and the shorter barrel. I own a Norinco NP-17 '9mm Two-Tone' 9x19mm. I have shoot a Berretta 92 and a Glock and the Norinco is as snappy as the Glock or even more so. The Berretta was not near as bad. This is my experience. I am fairly new to this. I started with a .22 and bought the Norinco for the price. I fell right in love with the .45 though.
 
Shot a 9MM STI Competitor - though it had a red dot site - i was very accurate... then my friend really small asian friend (under 100lbs and really really short) - she shot it and doesn't even shoot much and was able to get a grouping of 10 shots within a 2 inch diameter at about 15 yards - better than all of us who shot it :eek:
 
neutmiller... I have a Norinco commander with a Colt slide and with both a 9mm and 38 Super barrel. I simply love this gun in the 9. I consider it the best of both worlds.
 
i prefer .45 for the same reason.
keep in mind, 9mm is a higher velocity round, newton's third law..
higher velocity, snappier recoil

the .45 i find is a WHOOMPH.
the 9mm a PAK
i prefer whoomph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom