1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > Hardware & Accessories > Ammo Can


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2012, 09:56 AM
iMagUdspEllr iMagUdspEllr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 45
M45 Ammo?




Does anyone happen to know the designation and/or specifications for the new Colt M45's ammunition?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-17-2012, 12:13 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
I would certainly expect the ammo to be the standard .45 ACP ammo (cartridge, caliber .45, ball, M1911) that has been in military use for the last 101 years. Chamber pressure = 19,000 psi; Velocity = 885 +/- 25 fps (25.5 ft from muzzle)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2012, 12:29 PM
iMagUdspEllr iMagUdspEllr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 45
885 fps? So is that with a 230gr bullet? Powder has improved over the last century so I assumed they would be running hotter loads than that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2012, 12:37 PM
MisterDave MisterDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMagUdspEllr View Post
885 fps? So is that with a 230gr bullet? Powder has improved over the last century so I assumed they would be running hotter loads than that.
They could - but can you provide a reason they need to?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2012, 12:47 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
iMagUdspEllr, That's the current spec and yes, it is with a 230 grain ball projectile. Graves all over the world are filled with evidence that M1911 ammo is effective.

Last edited by rickgman; 12-17-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2012, 04:57 PM
iMagUdspEllr iMagUdspEllr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterDave
They could - but can you provide a reason they need to?
The same reasons why they felt the need to make changes from the original M1911 on the new Colt M45. Technology advances. So, we improve things with said advances.

Another question. Do you have sources that show the military .45 ACP specifications that they are using for the M45? I googled a little bit but I couldn't find anything specific like the M882 for the M9. Thank you for your responses.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2012, 06:09 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
iMagUdspEllr, Check out TM 43-000 l-27 ARMY AMMUNITION DATA SHEETS SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2012, 05:11 AM
STLCoyote STLCoyote is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 71
Theoretically couldn't they use those Federal expanding FMJ's here? I know that round may not be the end all be all, but it's gotta have a higher wounding capacity than straight up ball.
__________________
This is the truth: when you risk your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn. -Miyamoto Musashi
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2012, 01:27 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
Coyote, In contrast to the concern by many on this and other firearms forums, the military does not recognize any terminal ballistics issues associated with the use of GI ball ammo. Since they do not recognize any issues, they are very unlikely to even entertain changes. Besides, the use of expanding ammo inhibits penetration to some degree and penetration is a very big deal in the military world. In the military world, there is no such thing as overpenetration.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2012, 09:28 PM
STLCoyote STLCoyote is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
Coyote, In contrast to the concern by many on this and other firearms forums, the military does not recognize any terminal ballistics issues associated with the use of GI ball ammo. Since they do not recognize any issues, they are very unlikely to even entertain changes. Besides, the use of expanding ammo inhibits penetration to some degree and penetration is a very big deal in the military world. In the military world, there is no such thing as overpenetration.
Excellent point.
__________________
This is the truth: when you risk your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn. -Miyamoto Musashi
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-23-2012, 08:44 AM
1saxman 1saxman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMagUdspEllr View Post
The same reasons why they felt the need to make changes from the original M1911 on the new Colt M45. Technology advances. So, we improve things with said advances.
Another question. Do you have sources that show the military .45 ACP specifications that they are using for the M45? I googled a little bit but I couldn't find anything specific like the M882 for the M9. Thank you for your responses.
No significant changes - it's still a 1911-type/platform because that's what the boys wanted. Other pistols may reflect 'changes' and 'technological advances' but the 1911 remains the best pistol ever conceived for CQB.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-23-2012, 08:54 AM
OIF2 OIF2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Home for good, finally
Posts: 2,483
When I was in Iraq I borrowed some GI ball from the boys in 5th Group, who were using arsenal rebuilt 1911A1s. I was given WW commercial white-box stuff. The Army used to have a ton of TZZ ball, but that's all gone now.
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2012, 09:00 AM
Doc18d Doc18d is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Displaced Texan in South Florida
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLCoyote View Post
Theoretically couldn't they use those Federal expanding FMJ's here? I know that round may not be the end all be all, but it's gotta have a higher wounding capacity than straight up ball.
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of expanding ammo.
__________________
De Oppresso Liber
"If you knew you were going to be in the fight of your life today, would you have trained harder yesterday?"

COFFEE Club member #5
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2012, 09:28 AM
tsp45acp tsp45acp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Greensboro, N.C.
Age: 53
Posts: 6,736
This isn't "Geneva", and I don't recall the last war we fought there....


That being said (totally in jest), I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that different units in the US military were using 185gr JHP's. But I could be wrong.....and I am often.
__________________
Tracy # 16000
1988 Colt Delta Elite, 2001 Colt LTW Commander XSE, 2003 Colt Gunsite Nite Sites, 2009 DoubleStarr Ar-15,
1996 Colt Special Combat 45 ACP(Carry version- Blued w/ Nite sites)--Wife's gun, 1998 SA Comped Longslide 45 Super/45-08 Armco, 1997 SA V-10--Wife's gun 04/98-Lee Pro 1000
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2012, 10:06 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
OIF2, I heard a rumor that TZZ ammo was not being issued in the Middle East. Seems silly but I have discovered that silly is sometimes still the truth. Have you heard anything to that effect? Talking about TZZ ammo, have you found TZZ match ammo to be better or worse than WCC match ammo? I've personally only shot WCC match ammo but have picked up some TZZ match ammo cases at the range. They seem to reload well.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-25-2012, 02:05 PM
iMagUdspEllr iMagUdspEllr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1saxman View Post
No significant changes - it's still a 1911-type/platform because that's what the boys wanted. Other pistols may reflect 'changes' and 'technological advances' but the 1911 remains the best pistol ever conceived for CQB.
Cerakoting the entire gun, using an ambidextrous safety, using a dual recoil spring, using G10 grips, adding a 1913 picatinny rail, night sights, and a skeletonized hammer don't count as significant changes? I'm not trying to argue but you are falsely claiming a gun that has significantly changed, has not. I don't know why you are saying there were no significant changes.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-25-2012, 06:32 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
iMagUdspEllr, I believe that saxman is stating that virtually all the changes you mentioned really fall into the category of enhancements as opposed to fundamental mechanical changes to the basic design.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-25-2012, 06:53 PM
bjeffv bjeffv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,260
Imag you could always use 45 +p to get some more juice and/or handloads. The reason standard charges havent increased is because saami spec ammunition has to stay at the original published pressure. I.e. todays ammo has to be safe to use in any 45 auto gun ever made.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-25-2012, 10:00 PM
Brucey Brucey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9
Did we sign it? We use hollow points in sniper rifles and still use incendiary weapons( I think). Both of those are banned. Why not use them in pistols?

Last edited by Brucey; 12-25-2012 at 10:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:59 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
Brucey, You bring up a good point. Here's the story - despite the fact that we did not sign these documents, we still abide by their intent. That is a matter of national policy. For a period of time we did not use hollow point rifle ammo (specifically M852 ammo) for combat operations. In fact, the M2A1 cans that M852 ammo came in use to have the words "No For Combat Operations" stenciled on the can. Later, a memo was written by the Judge Avocate General's office which allowed this ammo to be used in combat operations (and this was later expanded to M118LR ammo). The rationale employed in the memo was that despite the fact that the ammo was hollow point ammo, the reason for the use of this projectile construction was for enhanced accuracy as opposed to increasing suffering. Furthermore it was explained that this ammo did not result in any more extensive terminal ballistic damage than other conventional types of rifle ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:07 AM
JWnTN JWnTN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
OIF2, I heard a rumor that TZZ ammo was not being issued in the Middle East. Seems silly but I have discovered that silly is sometimes still the truth. Have you heard anything to that effect?
Not OIF2, but around 2004-05, the US stopped using Israeli made ammunition in combat.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-26-2012, 12:08 PM
Riverpigusmc Riverpigusmc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Central Florida
Age: 57
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc18d View Post
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of expanding ammo.
We are not a signatory of the Geneva convention. We DID sign the Hague treaty, however..not sure if it prohibits hollow point munitions
__________________
" All civilians are either dependants or targets". Drill Instructor Boone, Parris Island
Wilson CQB, Kimber Tactical Pro II, Bulldog Pug .44 Special, ect. NRA Life Member

COTEP CBOB0523
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-27-2012, 06:47 PM
OIF2 OIF2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Home for good, finally
Posts: 2,483
I haven't seen any TZZ ball anywhere in the Army since the late 90's or so... except the match stuff. The early TZZ ball was really hot and tended to crack slides. It wasn't that accurate, either. Some of the TZZ match ball is still in inventory and issued to some Guard and Reserve units that use 1911s in competition. The Army Marksmanship Unit (both active and reserve) uses M9s in competition, so 1911 ammo isn't needed. The TZZ Match stuff you want if it comes up for sale are lots #007 and #008. The other stuff doesn't group (at 50 yards) all that well. The lots mentioned will hang with the best of the old W-W white box match ball. Hope this helps.
Bob


Last edited by OIF2; 12-27-2012 at 06:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-27-2012, 08:15 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 732
Bob, Thanks for the info. If those two lots of TZZ match ammo shoot as well as the old WCC match ammo, that tells me it is good stuff. I was surprised to hear that the early TZZ ball ammo was excessively hot. Do you know what lots were problematic? Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:51 PM
OIF2 OIF2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Home for good, finally
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
Bob, Thanks for the info. If those two lots of TZZ match ammo shoot as well as the old WCC match ammo, that tells me it is good stuff. I was surprised to hear that the early TZZ ball ammo was excessively hot. Do you know what lots were problematic? Thanks!
The early TZZ GI ball was all pretty hot... close to 900 fps. Don't remember the lots, but it was all the early stuff. There was also a bunch of SWC 185 grain TZZ target stuff the Army bought then that was used by some military teams that wasn't that good. The later batches of TZZ match ball improved as time went on. We chrono'd some later 007 stuff in the late '90's that was averaging around 850 fps. Good stuff that was used at Perry with great success until the M9 took over.
Bob
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved