How Many Carry a 1911 with FMJ Ammo?

David: Excellent point.

SDM originally asked if you were not enamored with .45 ACP hollowpoints.

I think I explained that. I think your point is good as well, that ball ammo may not be a superior fall back position.

That said, the testing I have seen on ball is it does penetrate
and create a fairly decent wound channel.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/45ACP 230gr FMJ.jpg

Used to load .45 ACP super hard cast 230 grain ball in my .45 Colt/Linebaugh.
Just fill the case with H-110, seat the bullet, shoot it.

I estimate about 1800 fps. I suspect that velocity plays into how effective
ball ammo is.

There is pretty good evidence that wound channel increases considerably between 700 fps, and 1100-1200 fps, regardless of bullet design.

The wound channel seems to stop increasing much after that, unless a serious velocity difference is used.

However, for hard cast, if you can get to 1350 fps, you start having bullets
deform, and become expanding on their own:



with a pretty good jump in wound channel, now due to bullet expansion as well.

That 155 grain wadcutter at 1350-1400 fps in starting to look better all the time.

Epiphany:

I've loaded some Hawk bullets, with thin jackets, to pretty high velocity.


I asked Hawk what speed they wanted to ensure expansion. They said 1300 fps, but 1200 fps would be the minimum. I guess they figure that if they get going 1300 fps, since the core is soft lead, it's going to expand, regardless of is the HP works or not. Smart Cookies.

The only reason the Geneva convention lists FMJ bullets is because Germany wanted to use their Lugers and that's the only bullet they could get them to shoot. Bullet design has certainly advanced since then.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it looks like human intelligence hasn't. None of what you've said is actually, you know, TRUE.

HINT: The Geneva Conventions aren't the treaties that banned expanding bullets, it was the Hague Conventions of 1899, which predate the Luger P08 by almost a decade.

The Geneva Conventions aren't the treaties that banned expanding bullets, it was the Hague Conventions of 1899, which predate the Luger P08 by almost a decade.

Click to expand...

Shucks, you beat me to it.

Your Stupid because you don't use what I use!

I like this, it's almost as good as my caliber is better than yours because.....

Federal that has an offering called "Guarddog" that looks interesting. It's truncated cone nose design looks like feeding wouldn't be an issue. Sorry photo didn't stick.
Technical Information

•Caliber: 45 ACP
•Bullet Weight: 165 Grains
•Bullet Style: Expanding Full Metal Jacket
•Case Type: Nickel Plated Brass

Ballistics Information:
•Muzzle Velocity: 1140 fps
•Muzzle Energy: 476 ft. lbs

There the image you you.

That's the stuff

Thanks Seven

Huh, that's pretty interesting.

Wonder what the "expansion" stats are on it compared to regular hollow points.

Prosser, I'm not saying FMJ doesn't penetrate well, only that certain JHP's penetrate barriers well enough to get the job done.

If you needed to penetrate 20 gauge steel with a JHP and it still penetrates 22.7" of ballistic gelatin, does it matter if FMJ penetrates 30"? If the torso is 12" -15" front to back, it seems to me that a 22" depth is sufficient.

David E said:

A 1% failure rate is totally unacceptable.
We do. Apparently, we have a better gunsmith than you...
My 4" Kimber Compact lightweight is 100% from the factory, as are my Para's and several others.
then carry a Glock!

Click to expand...

Ummm....if your Kimber was already 100% then you didn't need a Gunsmith.
This Gunsmith hasn't worked on my 1911 yet. It went in for free warranty service.
The issue with mine was that it wouldn't feed the FIRST Round and sometimes the second or third.
A half empty mag it would feed anything.
They had an issue with an out of spec Mag Catch

And for the record...he has been a gunsmith for 30 years.
Has been an IPSC Master Class Shooter for 20 years.
And he competes with 1911's that he builds for himself.
So if he tells me something about 1911's I listen.

David E:

Well, went over this today with my gunsmith. He pulled a tape measure out, and was going to measure how far in 14" is. First thing I did was square up, and point my gun at him, metaphorically, pointing out that if he was shooting at me, I was going to have both arms up, aiming at where he was aiming at me. Taped that way, the bullet may not even get to my bicep, much less my vitals, and will not keep me from continuing to try and defend myself.

I thought FMJ a reasonable alternative, he didn't. His experience with hardball, or round nose bullets has NOT been good. I thought that given enough bullet weight, round noses must be ok. I mean the .450 Nitro Express has worked for years, using 480 grain ball, hasn't it?

He pointed out that the stuff nearly got him killed. It worked once on a really mean buffalo bison cross, that was trying to kill the truck, and him.

He jumped out, hit it with one barrel, and the animal got right up. However, that gave him time to hit it with the next barrel in the brain. Game over.

Next time out, he, or the gun doubles. He hits the buffalo with one barrel in the shoulder. However, the bullet turns on the shoulder, when it should have gone through to the other side, through the vitals. The bullet went down the outside of the ribcage, and ended up under the skin, on the outside, nothing vital hit. That VERY pissed off buffalo didn't kill him because he was lucky enough to have friends backing him up, who finished the buffalo as it charged.

So, if I'm going with round nose, I guess it better be heavier, like the 600 grain Barnes solids, in .510".

Seems to me that I have heard some rather strange results with .45 ACP ball
going places it shouldn't, rather then straight through the target.

Anyone have similar results? I'm really not warm and fuzzy about bullets that don't stay online when you put them where they are supposed to be.

I also got an ear full that one of the problems with the original .45 Colt loads
was that, due to the soft lead used, the bullets would deform too much, and fail to penetrate to the vitals. Solution is harder casting, and heavier bullets, with LFN type designs.

Just to put my money where my mouth is, I bought 40 rounds of 425 grain bullets, LFN's, at 1350 fps, in .500JRH today.

My 1911 came out like new. I like the chrome bead blast finish JRH put on it.

KungFuNerd said:

Ummm....if your Kimber was already 100% then you didn't need a Gunsmith.

Click to expand...

Nope, the guns I mentioned have never seen a gunsmith.

This Gunsmith hasn't worked on my 1911 yet. It went in for free warranty service.


And for the record...he has been a gunsmith for 30 years.
Has been an IPSC Master Class Shooter for 20 years.
And he competes with 1911's that he builds for himself.
So if he tells me something about 1911's I listen.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a good one there. I had a problem with a gun the factory couldn't fix, but my gunsmith did. You may have the same experience with yours.

What's his name? Maybe I've shot with him.

A 1% failure rate is totally unacceptable.

Click to expand...

I just caught that.

If you run a machine long enough, eventually, it will break down somewhere. If you haven't had a failure of some sort, get out and shoot some more.

I've had my Rock Island experience various failures during range sessions, and all of them can be traced to bad magazines or being too dirty. That doesn't discourage me from using it as a carry gun. I just make sure to clean and lube it frequently, and use high-quality mags that I've tested with carry ammo.

Prosser,

The Speer bullets penetrated over 22", if that matters in your scenario.

Interesting stories from your gunsmith.

willypete said:

I just caught that.

If you run a machine long enough, eventually, it will break down somewhere. If you haven't had a failure of some sort, get out and shoot some more. .

Click to expand...

Obviously, but a 1% failure rate is far too high.

One failure per 100 shots? No, I require, and get, better than that.

1911Tuner said:

...and it's just one less thing to come up in court.

Click to expand...

Can you cite a case where ammo selection was the only issue in court?

Can you cite a case where ammo selection was the only issue in court?

Click to expand...

Now, where did you get the "only" issue from what I said? I said "one less thing" going on the premise that I'd have many questions to answer in the aftermath of a defensive shooting. Ammo choice would just be one less thing. I mean...what can a prosecutor say about hardball? That it makes a hole, and not a lot more. No brainer. Move on to the next question.

Can you cite a case where ammo selection was the only issue in court?

Click to expand...

Fish. One of the polled jurors said that she felt that he was justified in firing, but that his choice of "Deadly, overpowered hollowpoint ammunition that is only designed to inflict maximum damage...to kill...ammunition far more powerful that the police used" caused her to decide to vote to convict.

It's an old legal eagle strategy known as pulling everything out of the bag of tricks to overwhelm and keep the defense off balance and on the defensive, hoping that they're not prepared to answer all questions. Juries can be swayed on the turn of a phrase, or...as Twain noted..."The right word...delivered at just the right moment...is like a thunderbolt."

Remember this, if nothing else. Civilian court proceedings aren't so much about getting to the truth. They're about winning, and doing all that is legally admissible to achieve that end.

Fish has numerous issues making it difficult to pinpoint the conviction. Polling jurors is not a precedent.

My guess is going armed in the first place may have a bigger influence on a decision over the type of ammo or caliber.

I'm just looking for case law, there was no ill intent here.

Prosser wrote,
Anyone have similar results? I'm really not warm and fuzzy about bullets that don't stay online when you put them where they are supposed to be.

Click to expand...

Possibly going a little far afield here, but there is some relevance with bullet path. My guess is a hollow point that doesn't expand may follow a straighter path than ball ammo. Semi-wadcutters have a reputation for following a much straighter path through media than ball.

Proser, based on your previous posts, you seem like a guy who may have seen this already, but here is an article that may explain why ball ammo doesn't follow a straight path.

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/articlepvdw.html

Jeff Cooper reported that, contrary to appearances, the Hornady .45 flat point - an enlarged version of their first USAF design - penetrated straighter and deeper than roundnose. Apparently the same stabilizing influence of the definite lines of demarcation between flat nose and ogive, then ogive and bearing surface.

I think it was M. Ayoob who reported that .45 ACP hardball would exit a human body less often than ballistics would predict (and that old standard .38 Special roundnose more often.)

Likewise, the 200 gr .38 Special wadcutter design, that I believe was a popular law enforcement round 50+ years ago. Probably to get straighter bullet path and more penetration out of a low powered round.

I have noticed no difference in the way my gun recoils and all with my carry ammo versus FMJ rounds. I only shoot JHP once in awhile.

Again, I think an interesting thread could be produced in the hunting forum asking for anecdotes from those who hunt hogs and deer with a .357. I say .357 because it's very commonly used in both hunting and self defense.

I don't think you'll find many hunters using round nosed FMJ's for the purpose, but it would be interesting to hear of any personal experiences.

KodiakBeer - you're right for hunting, since a .357 usually comes from a revolver and at much greater speed so that a hollow point can be of use...but that's a different deal from an auto loading heavy slow bullet to be used for defensive purposes...of course, it's shot placement with adequate penetration that makes the difference in hunting as well with bigger and faster generally being better!

Lone_Gunman said:

Hey it has been a long time since I have posted here, but I thought I would add my 2 cents for what its worth. I have been a trauma/vascular surgeon for about 20 years now. I have seen people shot with every thing from 22 LR to 30-06. Now obviously, people I see are not dead at the same, but some of them arrive to the trauma unit nearly dead.

Of the people I have operated on, and the projectiles I have recovered, or seen on X ray, I would tell you that hollow points do not expand as well as the companies that make them would claim. I have never seen an expanded 380 hollowpoint. I would say less than 50% of 45 and 9mm projectiles will expand.

Most hollow points just plug up, and dont expand at all.

Click to expand...

I don't have a real strong opinion on this one way or the other, largely because FMJ in .45 is still pretty effective, and because--as you point out here--JHP doesn't always expand. My 1911 loves JHP, but the spare mag has FMJ. In my view, even if only 50% of my JHPs expand, I think they're worth it.

Anyway, the reason I chose to speak up here is to highlight a point your post just touches on: What about the people that skip the trauma unit and go straight to the morgue? How well and how often do those JHPs expand? Of course you don't know, and nobody expects you to. However, your post reminded me of something I read not long ago (even though the source is over five years old) about terminal ballistics. It's a LONG read for those that are that interested, but there is a lot of good stuff in the early sections, and the author is a former LEO who now works in a morgue. He also discusses FMJ vs. JHP, and he's not terribly impressed with JHP--especially in anything smaller than .45. It seemed to me that combining his perspective with yours would be worthwhile for those willing to read a bit: http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal Ballistics as viewed in a morgue.htm