45 ACP SD Ammo Questions

[duns]

I'm collecting my first 45 ACP pistol tomorrow (Colt 1911 Series 70 Reissue)! I've already bought various brands of JHP ammo to try out in it. I just bought what was readily available and now I'm wondering what characteristics these ammo selections may have. These are the types I bought (all are 230 grain):

• Winchester Supreme Elite PDX1 (S45PDB) - energy 432 ft lbf
• Hornady +P XTP (9096) - energy 461 ft lbf
• Hornady +P TAP CQ (90955) - energy 461 ft lbf
• Fiocchi (45T) - energy 391 ft-lbf

I've searched in THR and elsewhere but not found much out about these. I obtained an impression that the first three are designed to meet the old 1990's FBI test protocol and therefore might be deep penetrating with slow expansion (i.e. expanding only after penetrating a considerable distance) -- would that be right? I ask because I have my doubts about the validity of the FBI test protocol as a basis for optimizing bullet design.

The two Hornady rounds look identical and have identical energies. What are the differences?

The Fiocchi JHP's have a lot less energy than the other three rounds but are only about half the price. Any thoughts on their suitability for SD?

Any links to ballistic gelatine tests on any of the above?

Any other rounds that you would recommend to me?

Thanks!

 

[NG VI]

Cluck energy it's all about bullet design, any current duty ammo is illmatic.

 

[Nushif]

I find the best SD ammo is the kind that screws the bad guy up the worst by hitting a bunch of real bad stuff inside them.

 

[CoRoMo]

There's a bit of relative information here:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/45ACP.html

Hornady 230 grain +P XTP (part # 9096)
Hornady 230gr +P XTP (short barreled pistol) (part # 9096)


FWIW, I would not get hung up on the ballistic performance of any of those rounds. You've chosen some premium ammo there, and they are all going to perform if they are put on target. What I would do is shoot each of them from a steady rest to see which ones group the best at 25 yards and which ones shoot where aimed. The most accurate of the bunch, if 100% functionally reliable in my gun, would be the winner. I'd feed a couple boxes of the chosen round, through the gun, and if I didn't have a single issue whatsoever, I'd use that round for my defense load.

 

[Diamondback6]

Most 1911's don't like +P, though. Unless the manual specifically says +P is OK, I strongly suggest avoiding it and sticking with standard 230-grain JHP--just about any currently-marketed premium-brand will do ya, but I prefer Hydra-Shok/HST's myself with Gold Dots for backup mags in case I need extra penetration.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

of those, PDX1 is the best. FBI uses it.

i prefer HST, or ranger, but if i couldn't find those, pdx1 would be it.


(hornady jhp's don't expand that much, thus leaving a smaller permanent wound cavity)

 

[REAPER4206969]

PDX1 is Ranger.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

^right. i should have specified that i was referring to the Ranger Talon ammo.

 

[REAPER4206969]

Thought so.

 

[mothermopar]

Eh, like they said, buy an American made HP and see if it functions in your gun. If it doesn't, move on to another American made HP, and so on and so forth.

Standard velocity 45ACP has been stopping fights since 1911 (and those were FMJ)...

 

[NMGonzo]

I have the fiocchi.

feeds on my full size 100/100

if you need more power than that, run for the rifle

 

[keltex78]

PDX1 - Great Expansion
TAP and XTP - Similar bullet - Hornady is typically a good compromise between expansion and penetration.
Can't comment on the Fiocchi. The PDX1 and both Hornady loads will be great.

 

[ScratchnDent]

I'm happy with any modern HP that feeds reliably and hits as close as possible to point of aim. The +P loads tend to shoot low in my 1911.

 

[mljdeckard]

I carry 230 gr HSTs. They routinely expand to the size of a quarter. I think that you should use the best JHP ammo you can for carry. I am not sold on +P ammo. I think that the cartridge was designed to work at a certain pressure and velocity, and has proven itself to do so very well with standard pressure.

Having said that, I have not see much, if ANY significant difference in how JHP ammo performs. Much of the time I can't see much difference between JHP and ball ammo. I think that the real world advantage is exaggerated. Any JHP ammo that cycles reliably is fine. (And if for some bizarre reason you were caught with hardball in the magazine and had to fight with it, it will probably be fine too.)

 

[duns]

What I would do is shoot each of them from a steady rest to see which ones group the best at 25 yards and which ones shoot where aimed. The most accurate of the bunch, if 100% functionally reliable in my gun, would be the winner.

Thanks for the Brassfetcher gelatin test links. The only test relevant to the rounds I listed was on the Hornady +P XTP http://www.brassfetcher.com/230grHornPlusP.html. The penetration and expansion characteristics look very nice - good amount of expansion, taking place quite early on, and 12"-13" penetration. I would think that is pretty near optimum if a self-defense round.

Your suggestion for testing the rounds I listed is very helpful. I will do just that.

 

[duns]

Most 1911's don't like +P, though. Unless the manual specifically says +P is OK, I strongly suggest avoiding it and sticking with standard 230-grain JHP--just about any currently-marketed premium-brand will do ya, but I prefer Hydra-Shok/HST's myself with Gold Dots for backup mags in case I need extra penetration.

The Colt manual doesn't say not to use+P but warns they will wear out the gun faster -- but that's true of any gun I think (wear will increase exponentially with stress).

 

[duns]

of those, PDX1 is the best. FBI uses it.

The FBI developed some very inappropriate recommendations for ammo in the past so I'm not sure the FBI using it means much.

(hornady jhp's don't expand that much, thus leaving a smaller permanent wound cavity)

The BrassFetcher test on +P XTP http://www.brassfetcher.com/230grHornPlusP.html showed consistent expansion to about 0.72", which is about 1.6 x nominal diameter. That seems to me to be pretty good. Do you have comparative data against other brands?

 

[duns]

PDX1 - Great Expansion
TAP and XTP - Similar bullet - Hornady is typically a good compromise between expansion and penetration.

Any test data for the PDX1? (I searched briefly but didn't find any.)

 

[bigfatdave]

FWIW, I would not get hung up on the ballistic performance of any of those rounds. You've chosen some premium ammo there, and they are all going to perform if they are put on target. What I would do is shoot each of them from a steady rest to see which ones group the best at 25 yards and which ones shoot where aimed. The most accurate of the bunch, if 100% functionally reliable in my gun, would be the winner. I'd feed a couple boxes of the chosen round, through the gun, and if I didn't have a single issue whatsoever, I'd use that round for my defense load.

Quoted because it is 100% correct.
Look at it this way (as much for future searchers as any previous or original posters):
- The difference between unarmed and armed is so vast that it can't be measured in a meaningful way. (rule #1 = have a gun)
- The difference between modern duty calibers with modern HP ammo is measurable ... but so small compared to placement that it becomes a much lower priority than range time. (software is exponentially more important than hardware)
- The difference between different modern HP designs in the same caliber is hardly worth worrying about, assuming they feed reliably. (if it won't feed, who cares how good it performs terminally?)

So:
1- get your new toy broken in with cheap ball ammo
2- get some good mags if you have any trouble (I like Wilson, but I haven't tried everything)
3- Test your various ammunition candidates out and write down what does and does not work
4- don't forget a quality holster and a belt if you don't have them yet
5- stock up on the cheapest and most available SD ammo when you can, and try new stuff as you find it

My only .45 (Citadel 3.5" officer's size) seems to like Hornady 185 grain XTPs and Gold Dots (but not the short barrel ones) so far, I've had some trouble finding more stuff in quantities worth testing.

 

[REAPER4206969]

Any test data for the PDX1? (I searched briefly but didn't find any.)

Search for Ranger Bonded.

 

[duns]

- The difference between different modern HP designs in the same caliber is hardly worth worrying about, assuming they feed reliably.

Are you saying that all manufacturers in a given caliber are working to the same or similar design criteria? Do we know what the criteria are? E.g. is it not possible that some favor penetration over expansion and others vice versa thus leading to the need for a user to decide which characteristics are important in what they imagine to be their context of use?

 

[REAPER4206969]

The FBI developed some very inappropriate recommendations for ammo in the past so I'm not sure the FBI using it means much.

The FBI tests are the industry standard.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

The BrassFetcher test on +P XTP http://www.brassfetcher.com/230grHornPlusP.html showed consistent expansion to about 0.72", which is about 1.6 x nominal diameter. That seems to me to be pretty good. Do you have comparative data against other brands?

Ok, here are the pics. The .45 HST +P 230grn bullet expanded to .895 thousands. That's almost double from the original diameter of .451.



and

WINCHESTER RANGER .45 ACP PERFORMANCE
TEST FIREARM VELOCITY/ES/ED @ 15 ft. ENERGY @ 15 ft. VELOCITY/ES/ED @ 25 yds. ENERGY @ 25 yd. 5-SHOT GROUPS @ 25 YARDS
Smallest Largest Average
Kimber Target 5-Inch 914/33/10 fps 426.6 ft/lbs 893/45/10 fps 407.2 ft/lbs 1.75 in. 3.85 in. 2.98 in.
H&K P9 4 1/4-inch 814/52/12 fps 338.3 ft/lbs 797/48/13 fps 324.3 ft/lbs 1.26 in. 4.94 in. 2.69 in.

PERFORMANCE IN 10 PERCENT BALLISTIC GELATIN--KIMBER 5-INCH BARREL
Penetration Retained Weight Expansion
12 5/8 inches 229.9 grains/100 percent .822 inches

http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/winchester_ranger/

 

[bigfatdave]

Are you saying that all manufacturers in a given caliber are working to the same or similar design criteria? Do we know what the criteria are? E.g. is it not possible that some favor penetration over expansion and others vice versa thus leading to the need for a user to decide which characteristics are important in what they imagine to be their context of use?

duns, I'm saying that I care a lot more about reliability than the exact terminal ballistics. First find a few types of reliable ammo, then worry about the exact performance in meat.
If you had ammo that made your gun into a death-ray and it didn't feed, where would you be the day you needed to shoot?

You can't get good hits by buying special ammo, you have to actually test it and practice once in a while, HP design is so far down on my list of priorities that I load what feeds and isn't too painfully expensive.
(I'll go $1/round for good feeding, perhaps a bit more ... but have you seen the price on over-marketed ammo?)