TexasCHLforum.com

Hello. I would like to hear opinions on the difference between 185grain and 230grain JHP in .45 ACP.

I have always gone with 230grain simply because it's a heavier bullet.

Is there a benefit to using 185grain? Which is better for self defense?

185 grain bullets are faster, and as a result provide for better expansion in expanding rounds (hollow points, expanding FMJ, critical defense, powerball, ect). Some guns will have feeding issues with the lighter bullets, while (most) others don't care.

I mix the weights to try to cover what I would need in any given situations. They don't shoot exactly the same at distances beyond 21 feet or so for me but that is my playing the odds that any situation I am in will be inside that distance.

Given a choice between 185gr and 230gr JHP projectiles for .45 ACP, I would choose the 230 grain projectile, and I would stay with the same type and weight of projectile for consistency. Ideally, I would also try to practice with ammunition of the same projectile weight.

I think it is interesting how the projectile recommendations found at http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887 tend to skew toward the heavier bullets, especially in .40 S&W and .45 ACP, and these recommendations influence my preference when considering terminal effect.

My opinion is about as uneducated as you will find, so take it with a grain of salt. I tend to default toward heavier bullets in big calibers like .45, .45lc, and .44. My theory is that the risk of over penetration is less than with the lighter, faster traveling bullets in the same calibers. I tend to think the heavy bullet should dump more energy in the target with less penetration issues. I also tend to think that my logic may be flawed however, so proceed at your own risk.

Nathan over at Concealed Carry Forum has a very detailed write-up on this subject.

http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/to ... C_ID=11911" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I prefer 230's, and heavier rounds in general, when taking down critters, 4 legged or other.

My experiences hunting have shown that heavier and slower rounds are not as prone to deflection as are the faster and lighter rounds, whether punching through brush or bone.

Vic wrote:Nathan over at Concealed Carry Forum has a very detailed write-up on this subject.

http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/to ... C_ID=11911" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link Vic.
After reading that and some of the replies here, I think I will stick to my preferred method of "Go Heavy".

I was buying some JHP's the other day and there were two options:

Hornady Critical Defense 185grain
Speer Gold Dot 230grain

I really like the Critical Defense line but chose the Gold Dot because of the bullet weight.

I carry nothing but Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP in my Glock 23.

Vic wrote:Nathan over at Concealed Carry Forum has a very detailed write-up on this subject.

http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/to ... C_ID=11911" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go Heavy! I like that. I carry 230 grain bullets, regardless of whether I'm using a 3" barreled gun or longer. I had considered changing to a lighter bullet for my 3" Kimber, but ultimately decided against it. The reasons were several....

1. I didn't want to have to think about stocking more than one kind of defense load in the same caliber.
2. The velocity loss going from a 5" barrel to a 3" barrel is approximately 110 fps. I can live with that.

When I carried a .40, I went with the 180 grain bullets instead of the 165s for the same reasons as my preference for a 230 in .45.

The one exception to the rule is when I'm carrying my .357 snubbie. 125 grainers are about as much as I can stand to shoot in it, and I have more confidence in that load than I would have in a 158 grain .38 Special. The thing is already a fire-breather. The last thing I want to do to it is turn it into a fire-breather with the hammer of Thor. I wouldn't be able to hold onto it.

I always use 230 gr HST's when I can find them. When I can't, I go with Winchester Ranger Talons of the 230 gr variety.

G.A. Heath wrote:185 grain bullets are faster, and as a result provide for better expansion in expanding rounds (hollow points, expanding FMJ, critical defense, powerball, ect). Some guns will have feeding issues with the lighter bullets, while (most) others don't care.

What he said, Normally, heavier, slower, more penetration, less expansion, and lighter, faster, more expansion, less penetration.

I think the bottom line is to use what you have loaded and not worry about the senerios (run what you brung) unless it's a planned excursion which isn't going to happen at my house.

230 because they just work! I've never found a 230 gr FMJ or JHP that wouldn't feed in any quality 1911.

I look at that graph a little different. The top dog is the 147 grn 9mm (for penetration only) and thats almost 100 grains lighter then the 230 grn 45. Then look at the 357 sig the fastest round. Look how the shock wave carrys wider and deeper then any other round.

Thats only a 125 grn bullet or 105 less then the 45acp. What I see is that speed is also very important if your round is above the 1150 fps speed. I carry 185 grn plus P in my 45 as I want as fast as possible but still good weight and the 185 does that in a plus P only.

Watched a show the other day were they said in world war II a 230 grn 45 FMJ would not penetrate an american army helmet. It would just leave a good dent out of a Thompson machine gun. The German 9mm from a MP40 would go through the helmet. Im not a 9mm fan but if I was in that war I would want the 9mm so I could kill my enemy not give him a headache with a head shot. This is were the 230 grn is to slow IMO.

If the 45 was able to hit 1400 fps range or above with a 200 grn bullet it would be the best handgun load ever made. Its still good but its slow speed is its one achiles heal. Thats why I really like the 10mm and 41 mag rounds. 180 and 210 grn bullets in the 1400 fps with 700 to 800 ft lbs. I would like to see the gelatin with those loads.

I remember when the first Gulf conflict came about and they had a trauma surgeon from the region on TV. He said they were seeing gun shot wounds like they had never seen before due too the speed of the bullets causing mass trauma.

Probably cant go wrong with either choice just giving a different oppinion. Im no expert either.