FMJ vs JHP...Will FMJ get the job done for SD? - Page 2 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 12-08-2010, 02:22 PM
Rifter's Avatar
Rifter Rifter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The People's Republic of Illinois, most corrupt state in the Union.
Posts: 5,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonPCnraRN View Post
Trekker: Here are some randon thoughts from a shameless gun nut. Over penetration with 45 ACP ball is over rated or causes over concern. Take any shootout involving LEOs and BGs and you will see that the ratio of hits to shots fired is very low. This is not to say that LEOs are bad shots but things get squirrelly when targets shoot back. The point is, a lot more rounds miss the target altogether rather than pass through the BG. So let's put the overpenetration concern on the back burner. Another thing I learned is you can increase the wound size dramatically by putting a flat nose on a fmj ball round. Hunters prove this all the time with flat pointed hardcast bullets. Now you can buy truncated cone 45 ammo or load your own. Will the truncated cone ammo create a wound diameter as big as a quality HP? No. But it will more likely penetrate through the sternum and into/through the spine better than any HP. Unless you plan on shooting anorexic supermodels you will want a bullet that will reach vital organs through layers of clothing, adipose, muscle and bone. Assume it is winter and Bubba spent the last 5 years at a government funded gym where the staff wears guard uniforms. A HP that opens up as designed may not reach anything vital considering Bubba's girth. Any bullet is a compromise. I have chosen to use the flat nosed version of ball ammo. .45 caliber ball ammo will leave a wound smaller than caliber. A .45 caliber bullet with a flat point will not leave a .45 caliber wound. It will be .60 to .70 cal depending on impact velocity. Again this has been proven by hunters using flat pointed non expanding hardcast lead bullets. Wounds are larger than caliber, usually through and through even after penetrating a shoulder bone to put the animal down. The whole point of this is that a flatnosed bullet will create a wound larger than the caliber of the bullet. Most of the members here will disagree with my rationale but I figured I'd give you the less popular view on the subject.
Good post -- I agree completely. I load the Hornady 230 gr. FMJ-FP as my primary load. It is reputed to have been Jeff Cooper's favorite bullet as well, and you can't do much better than emulate Cooper.
  #27  
Old 12-08-2010, 02:24 PM
AndyC's Avatar
AndyC AndyC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 55
Posts: 6,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by parallax View Post
You want whatever round you use for SD to dump all of it's energy into the target, create a massive wound channel, and not overpenetrate.
I agree with everything you said (although if it's a choice of over- versus under-penetration, I'll go with over) except the part about "dump all of it's energy into the target".

Pardon the slight OT segue, but this is something that bugs me every time I see it. I'm not a physicist but it sure seems to me that, while one might have a source of energy, it doesn't do anything by itself unless it's harnessed and put to Work ie. to cut a hole by means of a bullet - or whatever.

Just the concept of a bullet suddenly stopping and then magically "dumping energy" into a body seems ridiculous to me. I don't see the energy contained with a handgun's recoil being enough to make even 99.9% of adults cough - so why should any remaining "energy dump" suddenly become a form of magic?

To illustrate my point - take a Glaser. Sure, it "dumps all its energy" into a fellow on impact - but it doesn't penetrate a whole lot, and it's where and how deep a projectile penetrates that actually causes damage.

Back OT - to the OP, you want:

1. Performance - the reliability of that ammo in your specific handgun.
2. Placement - put the bullet where it counts.
3. Penetration - has to go deep enough to reach the vitals while tearing big holes.
4. Persistence - shoot him again if required till he stays down.

Point being - the bullet-style alone doesn't magically achieve all the above requirements by itself.
__________________
My Iraq Pics

Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club

Last edited by AndyC; 12-08-2010 at 02:48 PM.
  #28  
Old 12-08-2010, 02:28 PM
Oliver507 Oliver507 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mt Holly, NC
Posts: 211
+1 for what VIETVET said
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #29  
Old 12-08-2010, 02:28 PM
Rifter's Avatar
Rifter Rifter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The People's Republic of Illinois, most corrupt state in the Union.
Posts: 5,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekker View Post
As I said in my original post, I would like to get comfortable with carrying the same ammo as I shoot at the range (fmj).

I am comfortable that .45 is a stopper in fmj, but over-penetration is a concern. When I consider the odds against ever needing to draw for SD, over-penetration concern is somewhat diminished as a practical matter.

I am less comfortable with 9mm fmj for SD. Here, I'd really like to find a jhp that is shaped to feed like a fmj; if there is such a round, even if more expensive, the reliability would be enhanced. I carry 9mm most often for comfort and conceal ability.

Do the flat nosed .45 fmj rounds feed with the same reliability as ball or more like hp?
Yes, they feed just fine. I used that bullet for years as my primary combat pistol match load; loading and shooting many tens of thousands of them. Don't worry about over penetration. If you start worrying about that, you'll hesitate when the chips are down and then it may not matter to you anymore after that.

You can get the Hornady 230 gr. FMJ-FP in bulk for a bit less than $.19 a round. That's pretty damn cheap as jacketed bullets go. Try Graf's, or Midway for the 1500 rd. bulk box.
  #30  
Old 12-08-2010, 03:48 PM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Trekker: The Penn truncated cone bullets for 45 ACP and 9mm while having a slightly different shape, were designed to contact the feed ramp and tip up and into the chamber the same as 9mm and 45 ACP ball would. I think I posted a link to Penn 9mm bullets. I will post the link to the 45 cal bullets. Scroll down to the 230 gr truncated cone bullet and click on it. You will get a description of how the bullet profile was developed to provide 100% feed reliability. This bullet design was the brainchild of Jeff Cooper and the USAF. While the Hague Convention outlaws hollowpoint bullets, Cooper knew that he could increase the effectiveness of ball ammo by adding a flat point to the bullet. I asked Robert (Penn Bullets owner) why not a WFN bullet and the answer was simple. 100% feed reliability with the Cooper design truncated cone. The meplat (flat part) is about 0.30 inches. Beartooth Bullets has a formula to determine wound diameter based on meplat size (not caliber) and impact velocity. Using a meplat of 0.30 inches and a striking velocity of 800 fps yeilds a permanent wound diameter of 0.60 inches. That is a 60 cal permanent wound. The formula is used for non expanding flat nosed bullets only and has been validated by many of the hunters using Marshall Stanton's (Beartooth's owner) bullets on deer, hogs, elk, moose, etc. So imagine punching a 60 caliber hole through someone or something and you get an idea of why this type of bullet works. For those interested I will provide links to the Beartooth wound formula, plus other usefull formulas and the Penn .45 cal page.

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/resc...v2=800&v1=.300

http://www.pennbullets.com/45/45-caliber.html
  #31  
Old 12-08-2010, 04:19 PM
BDA45 BDA45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
I agree with everything you said (although if it's a choice of over- versus under-penetration, I'll go with over) except the part about "dump all of it's energy into the target".

Pardon the slight OT segue, but this is something that bugs me every time I see it. I'm not a physicist but it sure seems to me that, while one might have a source of energy, it doesn't do anything by itself unless it's harnessed and put to Work ie. to cut a hole by means of a bullet - or whatever.

Just the concept of a bullet suddenly stopping and then magically "dumping energy" into a body seems ridiculous to me. I don't see the energy contained with a handgun's recoil being enough to make even 99.9% of adults cough - so why should any remaining "energy dump" suddenly become a form of magic?

To illustrate my point - take a Glaser. Sure, it "dumps all its energy" into a fellow on impact - but it doesn't penetrate a whole lot, and it's where and how deep a projectile penetrates that actually causes damage.

Back OT - to the OP, you want:

1. Performance - the reliability of that ammo in your specific handgun.
2. Placement - put the bullet where it counts.
3. Penetration - has to go deep enough to reach the vitals while tearing big holes.
4. Persistence - shoot him again if required till he stays down.

Point being - the bullet-style alone doesn't magically achieve all the above requirements by itself.
Ding! Well said.

As regards energy, knockdown power, worries about over penetration, ect. - the linked report is well worth the read. The link came from another forum member recently - but the report has been quoted for over two decades. If I choose whether to listen to marketing or science - I opt for the latter.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Another interesting read...

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/trig...t-penetration/
  #32  
Old 12-08-2010, 04:49 PM
Trekker Trekker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 192
Gentlemen-

I sincerely appreciate these thoughtful and helpful posts. I didn't expect this response because it's an issue that has been around, in one form or another, for such a long time. You have provided some excellent new (at least to me) and some vintage information which, taken together, provide me with much of what I need to settle my OP.

I welcome any additional posts, of course.

Who makes a flat nose factory load in 9mm?

Is 'power ball' a viable round? Only available in .45 ACP?

Is there a .45 ACP and/or 9mm JHP that is generally regarded as better than most others in terms of reliability? I know ammo feed reliability can vary from gun-to-gun, but I don't understand why a manufacturer would design in specs that would preclude feeding some ammo reliability.
  #33  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:33 PM
GunBugBit GunBugBit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Arizona
Age: 60
Posts: 5,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillD View Post
We always seem to assume in these types of conversations that once a GI pulled out his FMJ stoked .45, he won every contest.

I'm sure there were dead GI's found with a 1911 in their hand.
Oh certainly.

But Corporal York's famous achievement with an M1911 (that wasn't the only weapon he used but he did "tech off" six Germans with an M1911) was carefully corroborated before he was awarded the Medal of Honor. We'll never know but I wonder if those six Germans would have dropped if he'd been shooting a smaller caliber like 9x19mm Parabellum.

A pistol good enough for that guy is good enough for me, and so is the type of ammo he used.

I prefer to risk overpenetration rather than underpenetration.
__________________
USPSA, SCSA
  #34  
Old 12-08-2010, 06:35 PM
rottman43055 rottman43055 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 394
I notice in these type of threads some always talk about how things have improved etc & no reason to use history etc.

My observation is this: The delivery systems of the projectile has improved. Guns function better right out of the box, larger magazine capacity etc etc, BUT the actually killing principals have not. Pass a projectile thru a vital...

Bodies have not changed in the last 100 years, a lead ball passing thru it will still do damage & possible kill it.

Therefore, fmj isn't old tech. at all.
  #35  
Old 12-08-2010, 07:12 PM
JimD303 JimD303 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 503
If your gun won't feed at least 1 of the premium JHP loads 100%, then get it fixed. If it won't work right after it was worked on, take it to a gun show and sell it.

There are JHP's that are shaped like Ball ammo, it's made by Corbon and called the Pow'r'bal. They are hot as hell, and really flashy.

Ball rounds tend to be budget round. Premium JHP's tend to be much more consistent in their charge, OAL, frequently have nickle cases, etc.

Talking about military use is unrelated, especially the "Geneva Convention". If you're going to repeat gun-store banter, at least do your homework on where the whole "no expanding ammo" thing comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_C...99_and_1907%29
  #36  
Old 12-08-2010, 08:01 PM
Trekker Trekker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 192
Jim and others who support JHP-

Why is it that my Colt Combat Elite .45 ACP might feed Federal JHP with absolute reliability but fail to feed Remington JHP (or some other brand) from time-to-time? Are 1911s so sensitive that ability to handle JHP depends on subtle bullet design characteristics of one or a few brands?

I'm not anti 1911 or JHP, but I am being the devil's advocate because I want to understand why so many say "Find out which ammo your pistol feeds reliably and go with that round for SD".

As a pistol wears from normal use, which might mean firing thousands of rounds in a year, might it's delicate appetite change from one bullet configuration to another? I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to understand.
  #37  
Old 12-08-2010, 08:53 PM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
Any "self defense" pistol that can't feed quality JHP ammo isn't worth having.

Yeah, Sgt York used FMJ and folks have been killed by muskets too. See the logical progression there? Pretty soon we'll have the flint spearhead and logn stock contingent show up. "If it was good enough for the Colonial Army, then it's good enough for me!" Mentally ossified traditionalists.

Stupid line of reasoning. Find a quality JHP round. If your pistol doesn't feed JHPs have it fixed or replaced.
With that line of reasoning M-4s shouldn't have a bayonet. Shooters by and large are traditionalists. For some shooters ball ammo was good enough then and for their current purposes good enough now. Every bullet is a compromise. Maybe for some shooters knowing a bullet will perform a certain way under all circumstances is most important. Hollowpoints clog with clothing, barricade material or for whatever reason don't open as designed. They may not penetrate deep enough. Ball ammo may only create a wound 60% as large as the most effective hollowpoint under ideal conditions. But its performance is consistent ie less susceptible to variables that affect its performance. If you put a flat point on the ball ammo you retain the reliability factor while increasing wound size. What Jeff Cooper knew then still applies 30 plus years later.
  #38  
Old 12-08-2010, 10:02 PM
Brian1979 Brian1979 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Redlands, California
Posts: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
Any "self defense" pistol that can't feed quality JHP ammo isn't worth having.

Yeah, Sgt York used FMJ and folks have been killed by muskets too. See the logical progression there? Pretty soon we'll have the flint spearhead and logn stock contingent show up. "If it was good enough for the Colonial Army, then it's good enough for me!" Mentally ossified traditionalists.

Stupid line of reasoning. Find a quality JHP round. If your pistol doesn't feed JHPs have it fixed or replaced.
^^^ This is good and I agree 100%
  #39  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:26 PM
JimD303 JimD303 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekker View Post
Jim and others who support JHP-

Why is it that my Colt Combat Elite .45 ACP might feed Federal JHP with absolute reliability but fail to feed Remington JHP (or some other brand) from time-to-time? Are 1911s so sensitive that ability to handle JHP depends on subtle bullet design characteristics of one or a few brands?

I'm not anti 1911 or JHP, but I am being the devil's advocate because I want to understand why so many say "Find out which ammo your pistol feeds reliably and go with that round for SD".

As a pistol wears from normal use, which might mean firing thousands of rounds in a year, might it's delicate appetite change from one bullet configuration to another? I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to understand.
Different overall lengths, different bullet geometry, different slide velocity related to different recoil impulses from the powder charges...there are a lot of variables. Even what brand magazines you feed them from can make a big impact in 1911's.

In general, the more gradual the nose on a JHP is, the more likely it is to feed in a picky gun...there are bound to be exceptions to the rule, though.

Between Hornady, Winchester, Speed, Federal...you have lots of different ammo lines, in different weights, so there are probably 20 different high quality JHP's in .45ACP made by those companies listed above. If you include Cor-bon, Double-Tap, and some of the other smaller guys, that list grows even longer.

Most well made 1911's should shoot pretty much any factory 230gr JHP without issue. For production guns which haven't been tweaked by the attentive hands of an experienced gunsmith...maybe you'll run into a gun here or there that just does NOT want to feed a 200gr Gold Dot, or a 230gr TAP round. It's just important to confirm that they will.

In the day where you can pickup a polymer .45acp for literally half the cost of a quality 1911 that will run ALL of the above 100%, it's hard to justify keeping a 1911 that WON'T do the same, IMO.
  #40  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:28 PM
snow's Avatar
snow snow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Sooner State
Posts: 2,862
Hi Trekker, it is more than just bullet design. Sometimes the problem lies in the magazine. They are just stamped steel, small changes from one to another will release the round at a different time and angle in the cycle. Small differences in the slot that locks the magazine in place will lock it in at differing heights, or not at all.


Add small bullet dimensional changes from one brand to another and you may end up with a combination that won't feed reliably.


And yes, it can change over time, but it is usually the mag that changes. A drop can bend the lips or spring pressure alone can bend some of the cheap mags.
As far as the pistol itself, they usually get better with some use.
  #41  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:39 PM
oilcanollie oilcanollie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 77
still undecided myself !

I test fired a few Silvertips and XTP's outa my 10mm thru a coulpe layers of denium mat'l and found the bullets expanded much like a FMJ. I fired into the test media without the denium and got great expansion. Back to the drawing board, maybe I'll try the Gold Dots
  #42  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:54 PM
JimD303 JimD303 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonPCnraRN View Post
With that line of reasoning M-4s shouldn't have a bayonet. Shooters by and large are traditionalists. For some shooters ball ammo was good enough then and for their current purposes good enough now. Every bullet is a compromise. Maybe for some shooters knowing a bullet will perform a certain way under all circumstances is most important. Hollowpoints clog with clothing, barricade material or for whatever reason don't open as designed. They may not penetrate deep enough. Ball ammo may only create a wound 60% as large as the most effective hollowpoint under ideal conditions. But its performance is consistent ie less susceptible to variables that affect its performance. If you put a flat point on the ball ammo you retain the reliability factor while increasing wound size. What Jeff Cooper knew then still applies 30 plus years later.
Not really. A flat nose round will often have the exact same geometry as a JHP (to the factors that matter in the feeding cycle.)


Show me which of these rounds "clogged up and didn't expand" here, when shot through thick clothing and drywall.
http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Specifically:
http://le.atk.com/pdf/Butte_WBW_5_27_09.pdf
.357SIG into heavy clothing: GDHP to .528", SXT to .687"

http://le.atk.com/pdf/Ft_CollinsPoliceDpmt.pdf
.45acp into wallboard: HST to .815", GDHP to .69", Golden Saber to .52", SXT failed to open, stayed at .45" <- here is your 1 example.

http://le.atk.com/pdf/AuroraPoliceDpmt.pdf
.45acp into heavy clothing: HST to .965", GDHP to .89"

http://le.atk.com/pdf/LosAngelesWBW.pdf
.45acp into heavy clothing: HST to .877", GDHP to .765"
Of the premium 9mm's fired into Auto glass at a 15 degree angle, they expanded from .568" to .799".

http://le.atk.com/pdf/RiversideWBW.pdf
.40S&W into heavy clothing: HST to .81", GDHP to .648", SXT to .786"

http://le.atk.com/pdf/SanAngeloWBW_Report.pdf
.40S&W into wallboard: GDHP to .64", HST to .72", SXT to .64"
.45ACP into wallboard: GDHP to .63", HST to .86", SXT to .73"


Bullet technology has evolved considerably since the first guy thought up the idea of drilling out the front of a projectile. Most of these projectiles are getting greater than 50% expansion after passing through these "clogging" barriers.

Against bare tissue, or a t-shirt, you're seeing 70%+ consistent expansion in many of these rounds. Some have even gone to 100%+ expansion.

Why you would prefer a bullet which you KNOW won't perform as well as a JHP in a worst case scenario is beyond me.
  #43  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:56 PM
JimD303 JimD303 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilcanollie View Post
I test fired a few Silvertips and XTP's outa my 10mm thru a coulpe layers of denium mat'l and found the bullets expanded much like a FMJ. I fired into the test media without the denium and got great expansion. Back to the drawing board, maybe I'll try the Gold Dots
The Silvertip is kind of an old design. They had some rounds that just would NOT get the penetration required, and some that just wouldn't open.

It has been eclipsed by lots of better rounds, today.
  #44  
Old 12-08-2010, 11:58 PM
snow's Avatar
snow snow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Sooner State
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilcanollie View Post
I test fired a few Silvertips and XTP's outa my 10mm thru a coulpe layers of denium mat'l and found the bullets expanded much like a FMJ. I fired into the test media without the denium and got great expansion. Back to the drawing board, maybe I'll try the Gold Dots


Naw man, just insist the bad guy take off his clothes before you shoot him


You do bring up an interesting point. Personally, I pay little attention to manufacturers claims. If they did the same two tests, which ONE are we going to hear about?


I do have JHP in my gun. Before I bought them I had ball. I don't feel any less or more armed now that I did before. But that's just me
  #45  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:59 AM
snow's Avatar
snow snow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Sooner State
Posts: 2,862
LittleLebowski, Come on Man. Saying some one worships Cooper, implying they are stupid and can't learn??? FOUL BALL. It really detracts from any good info you may provide. Don't we post trying to help someone? It's hard to help anyone while you are insulting them.


Step back, have a brew, relax
  #46  
Old 12-09-2010, 01:14 AM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
No, the bayonet has been irrelevant for decades. The Army just did away with it in Basic. And Cooper (unlike you) knew when to learn and innovate. The Modern Technique was a revolution at the time. However, let's take a look at what's winning competitions now: the isosceles stance.

In case you've been in a time capsule for the past 30 years or so pistol technology has evolved to the point where there are plenty of designs that handle feeding JHPs with aplomb. Even a properly tuned 1911 can. Right now, I see a lot of people afraid to admit that their weapons (with the stupid 2 piece feedramp) cannot handle feeding JHPs. Instead of addressing the issue; they're making excuses. I've had 1911s that can handle JHPs and I wouldn't own one that didn't.

Quoting Cooper non stop shows that you worship him and cannot change when something better somes along; something that he would detest and ridicule.

I've been known to study his work a bit but I'm not so stupid that I cannot evolve or seek a better way.



Actually, I used Cooper's name for historical reference and that it was an improvement over round nosed ball ammo. I didn't mention shooting stance but since you did, I prefer a modified combination isosceles / Weaver stance. It depends on terrain, weight of gun, recoil, etc. If studying the writings of certain people equates with worship then I guess I "worship" John Taffin, Paco Kelly, Elmer Keith, Veral Smith, Marshall Stanton, Randy Garrett, Tim Sundles and Terry Murbach. I mention Cooper here as I doubt many on this forum know who these other men are. But if you read some of their writings then you might understand why I tend to hang with the solid bullet, large meplat crowd. I don't have any problem with hollowpoints per se. I just took up the side of the underdog in the hollow point vs ball ammo debate. I stand by my conviction that any bullet is a compromise and there are instances where a hollow point excels and the same can be said for a nonexpanding bullet with a large meplat. From reading the posts on this topic it appears that most dogma comes from "it's a HP or it's nothing" crowd. For the record I don't think much of round nosed ball ammo and prefer a WFN design where the meplat diameter is 80% of caliber. The Cooper design is sort of an in between shape to ensure 100 percent feeding in military grade 1911s. Just as you feel any 1911 worth a hoot should feed hollowpoints, I feel that any 1911 should feed a 45 cal WFN with a .36 inch meplat. I have yet to find a 230 gr WFN so I settled for Penn 230 gr truncated cone bullets for the time being. I will see how my modified Milspec will handle the Buffalo Bore 255 gr hardcast FP and then try an equivalent load using Beartooth 255 gr WFN bullets. The goal will be to better the original load of the 255 gr 45 Colt RNFP designed for the Colt Single Action Army and Colt Model P single actions. By better I don't mean more powerful, just a better bullet design, WFN vs RNFP. By the way I doubt a lawman in the 1800s worried about over penetration when facing a bad guy. Maybe it was because there were fewer lawyers in those days or people had the sense to get out of the way when the shooting started. Anyway I am not trying to talk anyone out of using hollowpoints. I was just trying to point out there are times when a different bullet design (truncated cone, WFN)might be better, depending on circumstances. As for who I worship...he ain't on Earth, if you get my drift.

Last edited by NonPCnraRN; 12-09-2010 at 01:27 AM.
  #47  
Old 12-09-2010, 01:32 AM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by snow View Post
LittleLebowski, Come on Man. Saying some one worships Cooper, implying they are stupid and can't learn??? FOUL BALL. It really detracts from any good info you may provide. Don't we post trying to help someone? It's hard to help anyone while you are insulting them.


Step back, have a brew, relax
Don't worry. I've been married 30 years and this wasn't the first time I was told I am stupid and can't learn. I suspect it won't be the last.
  #48  
Old 12-09-2010, 07:59 AM
WESHOOT2 WESHOOT2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Vermont (Caspian country)
Age: 65
Posts: 15,321
my turn

Test 230g HP ammo from Remington and Winchester.

For the 9x19 test Remington and Winchester 124g HP +P.



And after all is said, even a small rock can get the job done (see "David and Goliath").



__________________
'
"all my ammo is mostly-retired factory ammo"
  #49  
Old 12-09-2010, 08:52 AM
BDA45 BDA45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimD303 View Post
Why you would prefer a bullet which you KNOW won't perform as well as a JHP in a worst case scenario is beyond me.
I didn't read every link, but I did not see any data on flat nosed FMJ.

The heavy Federal HST JHP rounds yield excellent results - that's why I have plenty of it. Same with Cor Bon.
  #50  
Old 12-09-2010, 10:12 AM
NonPCnraRN NonPCnraRN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 1,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDA45 View Post
I didn't read every link, but I did not see any data on flat nosed FMJ.

The heavy Federal HST JHP rounds yield excellent results - that's why I have plenty of it. Same with Cor Bon.
That is something I have pointed out previously on numerous occasions. There is no gel testing that I know of that compares a non expanding bullet with a large meplat to hollowpoints. The ammo manufacturers jumped from RN bullets to HPs for autopistols. The truncated cone, LFN and WFN bullets are ignored for the most part. Without any testing we have to rely on anecdotal evidence by hunters as to the effectiveness of the TC, LFN, and WFN on game. The other point I was trying to make regarding these bullets is that they perform the same way each time. Too slow and HPs don't expand, too fast and they break apart, they do plug up with debris and don't expand. This happens often enough that you can't say a hollow point will perform optimally 100% of the time. Not everyone who carrys a 1911 is interested in just SD against humans. With a WFN 255 gr bullet at 950 fps and set up accordingly, the 1911 would make a great trail gun. As I have pointed out before, such a load would approximate the original load for the Colt SAA or Model P. A WFN bullet of the same weight would improve over the original RNFP. Unfortunately ammo makers such as Buffalo Bore and Double Tap are relatively new to the ammo scene and offer something other than either round nose or hollowpoint ammo. As and example I have some Double Tap 200 gr WFN hardcast 40 S&W ammo. The bullet has a meplat wider than Rosie O'donnell's rear. It would be beneficial to see this tested in gel along side a quality hollowpoint used as a standard. The 200 gr WFN is softer shooting than the 180 gr jacketed HP of similar velocity, is very accurate in my G23 and G27 and cuts nice wadcutter type holes in targets. Even in the G27 I would have no qualms about protecting myself against anything on 2 or 4 legs except for the larger bears (grizzly). The little G27 is not a hunting arm, but it is comforting to know that I can drop a gun in the pocket of my hiking shorts or pants and be able to launch a 200 gr bullet at over 1000 fps. I would expect even better performance from a 255 gr .45 cal hardcast WFN bullet out of a full sized 1911at 950 fps. If rounds such as these perform well on game will they perform any less against humans? Admittedly the penetration needed for a human target is less than that needed for deer or hog. But I don't have to worry about the bullet not reaching vital organs regardless of the BG's size or what he's wearing. I see people ask questions regarding ammo for winter vs summer and think just pick one load that will work in the worst case scenario and be done with it. I just wish the ammo companies that produce WFN and heavy for caliber FP ammo would do some gel testing or publish the results if they have done so. Lastly, wouldn't is be interesting if a low cost lead WFN compared favorably to an expensive hollow point? How many people here shoot their expensive hollowpoint ammo exclusively including range practice? You have every right to feel I am full of Bravo Sierra, thats what makes these forums interesting. Flame away, I have my Nomex underwear on.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved