If your using a 45, why not go with FMJs.
Why use a .45 with FMJs when it'll be less effective than a 9mm with JHPs? Or better yet, use a .45 with JHPs.
I think that the real world difference between JHPs is limited.
Premium JHPs aren't perfect either, that's true, and budget JHPs expand just fine when tested in water, for example, however premium JHPs do seem to be significantly more reliable in terms of expansion when shot through simulated clothing. Here is what happened when tnoutdoors9 on YouTube tested WWB JHPs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eNqzChoPQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45AQwzqaas
Of the premium JHP tests he's conducted under similar conditions, there has been only one partial failure to expand, but none simply zipped right on through like the WWB JHPs did. The Montana Gold JHPs also performed poorly, but I don't know anybody who lists them among the premium JHPs for defensive use--their claim to fame is high accuracy for competitions.
I carry 230 gr HSTs, but if I were stuck with WWB JHP or FMJ .45, I wouldn't panic or change anything about how I shoot.
I live in California like the OP, but for me it's really just a small matter of cost for cartridges that I would very seldom shoot for practice (only cartridges that have been cycled through my pistol to avoid bullet setback, and to keep my defensive loads fresh). I've already shot enough of them in my reliability trial to be sure that they'll work if and when I need them, and in the meantime I'll shoot FMJ ammo at the range to save money even over budget JHPs; then I'll simply use the savings to buy the occasional box of 20 premium JHPs for defensive use (as replacements for old cartridges) and rarely for practice.
If the worst case happens in CA, then it would be rather costly to test premium JHPs for reliability (shooting a couple of hundred rounds or so) by today's standards, but once that is done you can then shoot whatever is cheapest (and still works). And by the way, the battle over AB 962 isn't nearly over yet. While it's true that every bill that has been introduced to repeal it has failed in the legislature--not surprisingly since a majority of the committee that votes on this stuff thinks it's a great idea
--AB 962 will have to fight an uphill battle to survive in the courts on several grounds, including interstate commerce issues, enforcement issues (CA cannot punish vendors in other states, so the state would have to go after carriers), and discrimination issues (CA would have to treat retailers taking deliveries of ammo from out of state differently from private citizens, and there is no provision for this in the bill because CA lacks the authority anyway). In short, such a law would only work at the federal level, as is the case for firearms, for instance. Similar local laws have been successfully implemented within CA, but that's only because they haven't been challenged like this one is going to be.
