Re: What do you shoot for .45 ACP (JHP or FMJ)?
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:28 am
--CompVest wrote:MoJo wrote:Quahog wrote:KFP, thanks. I wanted to hear from some folks with more experience with this than I have.
I picked up some Cor Bon 200+p (1050 fps, 490 ft/lbs) today but after reading a bit, I was wondering if that was good or bad.
Here's the article I referred to in the OP:
"Though some claim it to be over-penetrative, I’ve found such claims to be more of an assumption than a fact, based upon the well-documented tendency of FMJ 9mms and even the .38 Specials toward excessive penetration of human targets.
In fact, the .45ACP FMJ isn’t at all over-penetrative. When used on humans, it will either remain inside the target or exit to fall to the ground behind it, fully spent. And in addition to its more than acceptable stopping power, it exhibits not only flawless feeding and function in the widest variety of guns, but is highly accurate, completely controllable in the fast shooting sequences typical of tactical encounters, and shoots to point of aim in nearly any type of gun. How much better does it get than that?"
Where did you get that information? Whoever wrote that has done anyone who reads that and takes it as gospel a great disservice.
Here's a link to some genuine data. .45 230 grain penetration data
ANY ammunition loaded by CorBon is going to be top shelf, if it works in your gun it'll work on the BG.
Thank you for your response MoJo!
Quahog, If the above statement was true the search for the magic bullet would be over.
Mojo & CompVest,
Here's the link to the complete article:
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/com ... usives_img
In fairness to the author, he does recommend CorBon’s 160-grain DPX JHP to be the best self-defense load. I just found the quoted section above to be strange and I thought perhaps there was something more to it. For range work, I use FMJs all the way and JHPs for self-defense. Wasn't expecting to do anything different as a result of the article but with all the knowledge out there, I am sure I can learn from any discussion.
Great link. What is interesting about this disinformation is that our DI repeated it under Geneva Convention cover (1978). I read the Geneva Covention's articles later at Bragg and it was indeed all about the treatment of civilians, POW's, who is and who isn't a lawful combatant, etc. But it didn't dawn on me to look up the DI and say something. He would have appreciated it...no really he would.