> And yes, the .45 specifically has a hell of a recoil, though the weight of the slide has a lot to do with it as well. Just remember your basic physics: if you're ejecting a 20g projectile at 1200fps, the 600g slide is going to travel backwards at 40 fps (which is still very fast).
The 1911 I believe was designed around a ~230 grain projectile (15 grams) that fired at about 850ft/s. There are some 185gr. rounds on the market today that do advertise the 1150-ish ft/s. velocity, but I find in practice that the feel isn't markedly different.
Along those lines, it's important to note that "felt recoil" is perceived somewhat differently to different people (grip strength, hand size, body type), and some people are simply more sensitive to recoil than others. Case in point: I don't find the 1911's recoil to be particularly notable; some think it kicks like a mule. If you're firing heavier projectiles, it'll feel like more of a push than a snap, but it's definitely not unpleasant (the impulse of the recoil is just as important). The 185gr. rounds tend to be a bit snappier (shorter, faster recoil), but still manageable. I'd classify "hell of a recoil" as anything from .44 magnum on up, and there's plenty of large, really ugly calibers out there that are probably very unpleasant to shoot (500S&W comes to mind). The .45ACP is definitely not one unless you're shooting it from a much smaller gun.
Since we're on the topic of felt recoil and considering it is also a function of the weight of the gun, I'd much rather shoot a 1911 than some of the tiny .380 autos on the market like the Ruger LCP [1]. If it's unpleasant to shoot, you're not as likely to practice with it. Even the smaller calibers can hurt if the gun is light enough. :)
You're right about my numbers being off - I was killing time on a long flight and it's been a while since I've shot a .45 (mostly because I have small hands.) But the general principle remains: the slide shoots backwards with equal force to the projectile.
And yeah, any sort of magnum cartridge (.357, .44, .50) is a beast because it has double the powder load. The .50 S&W in particular, as you mentioned, has so much recoil that it's prone to double-firing (S&W even recommends that you only load 1 round at a time). But among standard handgun cartridges, I still think the .45 kicks a lot more than say, a 9mm. It's also just big enough that you can't really stagger the rounds in a magazine without making it super-wide; hence why a standard 1911 holds 8 (7+1) rounds and 9mm pistols of the same weight can hold 15+. I find a modern .45 like the USP (12 rounds) to be uncomfortably wide for me to hold; though a Glock 17 (9mm, 17 round mag) is fine. That definitely makes the recoil feel worse.
> You're right about my numbers being off - I was killing time on a long flight and it's been a while since I've shot a .45 (mostly because I have small hands.) But the general principle remains: the slide shoots backwards with equal force to the projectile.
Eh, it doesn't really matter, IMO!
Realistically, no matter what the math might say, felt recoil is still a subjective spectrum (within reason, obviously too much force is going to hurt), because two people can fire the same gun and have different reactions.
Although, you definitely wouldn't catch me with a .500S&W ;) There comes a point when it's too much gun to be enjoyable.
My father had a .454 Casull once. He sold it because he could only go through a couple cylinders before a blister would wear on his hand through gloves. I've since borrowed his philosophy: If a gun hurts a bit too much to be fun, there's no point owning it!
I actually bought my first 1911 yesterday - a Ruger SR1911 Commander. Put 60 rounds through it at the range to break it in, and my wrist was none the worse for wear.
If I'd put that same amount of ammo through my Glock 17, I would have had a sore wrist at least for a little while. I find the 9mm to be more of a "kick" while the 45 is a "shove".
The construction of the gun is going to make a difference as well - the Glock is mostly polymer with a metal slide, slide rails, barrel, and some other internal parts (mag liner, etc) while the 1911 is mostly steel.
Google says the SR1911CMD is 36.4oz, while the Glock 19 is 23.65oz, unloaded.
The 1911 I believe was designed around a ~230 grain projectile (15 grams) that fired at about 850ft/s. There are some 185gr. rounds on the market today that do advertise the 1150-ish ft/s. velocity, but I find in practice that the feel isn't markedly different.
Along those lines, it's important to note that "felt recoil" is perceived somewhat differently to different people (grip strength, hand size, body type), and some people are simply more sensitive to recoil than others. Case in point: I don't find the 1911's recoil to be particularly notable; some think it kicks like a mule. If you're firing heavier projectiles, it'll feel like more of a push than a snap, but it's definitely not unpleasant (the impulse of the recoil is just as important). The 185gr. rounds tend to be a bit snappier (shorter, faster recoil), but still manageable. I'd classify "hell of a recoil" as anything from .44 magnum on up, and there's plenty of large, really ugly calibers out there that are probably very unpleasant to shoot (500S&W comes to mind). The .45ACP is definitely not one unless you're shooting it from a much smaller gun.
Since we're on the topic of felt recoil and considering it is also a function of the weight of the gun, I'd much rather shoot a 1911 than some of the tiny .380 autos on the market like the Ruger LCP [1]. If it's unpleasant to shoot, you're not as likely to practice with it. Even the smaller calibers can hurt if the gun is light enough. :)
[1] http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html