Hollow points or Ball?

[Fenris]

Since studies show that in the stress of combat shooting situations, most shots are complete misses, is the concern about over-penetration misplaced.

Maybe all bullets should be attached to a string so they will not go further than intended.

I do not know the laws on these matters in Texas. But it strikes me that the operative word is "reckless". Not all actions that result in an accidental injury are reckless. Do these laws apply equally to LEO's? Or is this another example of civilians being required to achieve a higher standard than would be expected of an officer?

 

[Deanimator]

The 1911 was designed for Ball ammo and it does the job. And all this hoo haa about overpenetration is nonsense.

What "job" is that? Conforming to the terms of the Hague Convention.

All of that "hoo haa" hasn't been "nonsense" either to the people in New York City who were hit by through and throughs from the 9x19mm ball that the NYPD used to use. It wasn't "nonsense" to the cops who accidentally shot good people after having shot a bad person with the same bullet. Nor was it "nonsense" to the taxpayers of NYC who had to pay settlements or judgements arising from those accidental shootings of innocent persons.

You probably won't go to jail if you have a "good" shoot in which there's a through and through and a bystander gets shot. You probably won't even get arrested. You WILL get sued, and you WILL lose. The victim's family isn't going to care WHY you shot their relative. It just matters that you DID. The courts pretty much feel the same way. If it were my relative who got shot by your through and through and my lawyer got hold of your above quoted statement, I'd CRUSH you in civil court. And I wouldn't care if it were Osama bin Laden that you'd shot either.

 

[Phydeaux642]

Now, I don't know if he shot through the guy or just missed

Determining whether or not he hit his intended target would be very important for this arguement.

 

[MCgunner]

You probably won't go to jail if you have a "good" shoot in which there's a through and through and a bystander gets shot. You probably won't even get arrested.

Determining whether or not he hit his intended target would be very important for this arguement.

Read the statute. Nothing there concerns misses or through and throughs or whatever. If you hit an innocent, you will go to prison if properly prosecuted and convicted, TDC, not "jail". The jury will ask, "Was an innocent person hit", don't matter how he got hit, and "Was the bullet from your weapon." Ballistics will determine the latter. That's all they need know to convict.

TRUST me, you WILL get arrested. The cop ain't the judge, he will make the arrest. There ain't no ifs and buts here. You broke the law, no matter the justification for the shoot, you hit an innocent. Read this......

§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.

What about this statute do you not understand? It's pretty cut and dry to me. You can parse words over the RECKLESSLY INJURES thing, but me, I ain't takin' the chance. Walking around with hardball in your weapon is pretty reckless, seems to me. Won't take much from the prosecution to convince a jury of that, either. Reckless also means you didn't make sure of your background, just started letting bullets loose in a crowded store, or whatever. And, yes, even under current Texas law post castle doctrine, you are not immune to civil suit regardless. Hope you enjoy living in a cardboard box.

 

[Deanimator]

§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.

Lawfully shooting an assailant isn't "reckless", even if you have a through and through and hit someone else. If it WERE, there'd be a number of cops from the NYPD who would have done jail time for just that. They didn't.

On the other hand, hitting somebody else because of a through and through during a "good" shoot is a CIVIL TORT. You are responsible CIVILLY for where you bullets go, even if you've committed no CRIME. Except in strict liability crimes, such as statutory rape, mens rea or at least negligence is required for conviction. That is NOT required for a tortious act which injures someone. Causality only is required, and not even direct causality. For a finding of civil liability, intent isn't required, merely proof that the act took place and that the defendent caused it.

 

[Erik]

Uhhh, but the shooting of the innocent, NOT the assailant, seems to be the issue at hand, at least from my read of the argument.

----

My answer: Which ever modern, premium JHP proves to feed and perform reliably from a given pistol. Concerning bipedal threats, there is really not much argument in the matter. Shoot ball? Fine, if it is all that has proven to feed and perform reliably from your given pistol. It is a case of having to make do. Another way of putting it: make do with the best you can, beginning with ball. Of course, I'd recommend upgrading your pistol in that case, but not everyone can.

---

I know folks who have deployed to sandy, violent places who do not fall under the Hague Convention. Subsequently they are afforded the option to carry more effective ammunition than our troops are held to, namely modern, premium JHP. They are happy. Perhaps importantly to some, the troops they come into contact with apparently are duly impressed, and occasionally express the desire to be allowed to use the same.

 

[Erik]

Oh, and to the cartridge alternators: If your concerned with the reliability and performance of JHPs, presumably because of either experience or belief, why on Earth load your magazines in such a manner with cartridges you do not trust?

 

[Ken Rainey]

The good thing about a standard .45 auto 230 FMJ rd is that it isn't likely to overpenetrate on a solid torso hit and if it does, it ain't likely to have enough energy to do much else...it's a slow heavy bullet that looses it's speed and momentum after doing such, unlike 9mm ball which is more likely to do so because it is smaller and faster, thus the NYC problems - but don't forget the amount of people there, which raises the odds against.

Any bullet can "overpenetrate" if it just hits the flesh of an arm or just goes thru the skin on a bad guy's side or whatever...that's just bad shooting or bad shooting luck if the bad guy is moving a lot - crap happens. If you know there is people on the other side of your target and you absolutely have to shoot and you're close enough to your target, go to a kneeling position if possible and fire accurately toward their upper torso if you trust yourself...if you don't trust your shooting that much...well, then it's up to you.

As far as worrying about the overpenetration of a 230 grain .45 FMJ compared to a HP goes, well, you're worrying about the wrong thing. Hollow points DO NOT always expand, especially slow moving ones, I don't care who makes them or what they're called. Stating that someone is just asking to be sued or is being reckless for using 230 ball ammo is just wrong, shooting when you shouldn't be is always a liability. Now, you might could say that if we were talking about +P+ 124 9mm FMJs or .357 125 FMJ, etc. and you might would have more of a case. Use what's reliable and accurate and know your limitations, shooting limitations that is...

 

[combatantr2]

My take...

FMJ and the 1911 compatibility has been proven over time and time again. Not promoting PARA, but you can clearly see Jarret running 1000rounds of ball ammo in 10mins thru a 1911 design pistol with zero issues. While reliably feeding a JHP thru a 1911 is not impossible, I have yet to see for myself a 1911 running a thousand round test with JHP ammo. Have three 1911s, 2 standard and 1 commander all cheap NORCs and among the three the commander had issues with the 'soft' JHP. While the other two had great runs with JHP. JHP round count? Less than 100 rounds for each one. Are they reliable? Maybe. But for practical and peace of mind purposes I load them anyway with FMJs. But i'd like to run the other two (someday) with a JHP test of 1,000 rounds just like Jarret , and find out for myself.

But for now FMJs gives me the peace of mind.