"All fall to hardball"

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hemlock0013

New member
I know this is a controversial topic, but it’s been on my mind lately. My mind began buzzing because of a recent thread about which gun/ammo combo shooters would most trust their lives with. A few mentioned 1911s with 230 gr. Ball ammo.

Do I agree with this choice? Logic tells me I shouldn’t. I’ve read all the Marshall and Sanow articles and data saying that even a puny .380 hollow-point has better stopping power then .45 ball. And then there was that whole goat-shooting experiment which said the same thing. I consider myself a man who respects reason and logic. After all, don’t we pro-RKBA types take pride in the fact that logical, objective data supports our side?

So why can’t I discount the hardball types as illogical and out of date? Is it because of the veterans I’ve spoken to who are alive today because of the .45 GI load? Is it because of all the anecdotes I heard growing up in the South? Is it because when I’ve done casual plinking, blasting holes in water jugs, firewood, and cheap canned beer, the .45 just does a hell of a lot of damage? Is it because I respect the reliability if the cartridge? Is it because I’m a bit of a traditionalist at heart who has watched too many Peckinpah movies? I don’t know.

I’m not sure how I stand on this issue. If I was in mortal danger, what would I reach for? My Glock loaded with “street-proven” 9mm Hydrashoks, or the old Vietnam-era 1911 I learned to shoot with loaded with GI ball? It should be an easy choice, but it’s not.
 
I agree. I will test my my upgraded Norinco (when I get it back from the gunsmith) with 230 gr. Hydra-Shoks. I hope it functions with them. If it doesn't I will use hardball. I attended Thunder Ranch last month and most of the instructors including Mr. Smith swear by hardball. They have a lot more experience than I do. I don't know.

------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times to spit on his hands,hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." H.L. Mencken
 
The concept that "all fall to hardball" started with sea stories told by vets. I recall my father discussing the .45 from his Navy days. He said you could hit a man at 100 yards with a .45 and it would flip him end for end. Yeah, right! And I thought my pop would never lie to me. And remember the story of how the .45 was adopted to replace the .38 that failed against Mauro (sp) tribesman in the Phillipines. Well sportsfans, the .45 failed too. The only thing effective against those drugged up, leather bound nuts was a .30-06.

There have been numerous failures with hard ball. I'd take a good 9 mm hollowpoint over it any day of the week. If I had to use FMJ, I'd use either my .40 or get a 10 mm. The flatpoint the FMJ comes in in those calibers provides a better working surface against tissue than the nice, round FMJ of the .45, which beautifully displaces tissue without necessarily destroying it.
 
Forgot one thing. The reason that Clint Smith and his instructors recommend FMJ is because they want a .45, they want a full sized 1911, and they believe that as the 1911 was designed to work with FMJ, that's the only way to insure reliability. So, the issue for them is reliability, and they trust the large size of the .45 to solve the effectiveness gap. I suspect that the fact they grew up with 1911s has something to do with that. Anyone remember the old line that revolvers hold too few rounds (6), 9 mm hold too many (8 or more) but a 1911 is just right (7)? Never made any sense but it justifies their love for the 1911.

I personally don't buy that. Given the high price of the weapons they put their imprimatur on (the Thunder Ranch specials from Les Baer and Wilson), they should expect a weapon that functions 100% reliably with hollowpoints.

By the way, please don't take this is a sign of disrespect for Clint Smith or the TR crew. I'm hoping to make it down there myself someday and I may be carrying a 1911 when I get there (that or a Glock). But I'll be carrying HPs when I do. Best of both worlds.
 
I feel if you have a 100% reliable pistol, tested with the hollowpoint of your choice, why not use 230gr HP's? You still get a 230gr bullet, and it might expand beyond .45 caliber. It's a wiw-win situation!

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
I didn't mention this in my previous post, but thought I should add it now.

I've thought alot about these "war story" reports of .45 ball effectiveness and I think in many cases they are true, the .45 stopped the bad guy with one shot. However you are talking about shooting soldiers, they aren't looking to die, they are just doing their job. When a man like that gets shot his brain probably tells him "OH MY GOD I've been shot!" and he expects he is going to die, so he stops fighting and surrenders, or lays down and dies.

The CCW holder is usually not going to have to defend himself from soldiers (hopefully), he or she is likely to be facing someone whacked out of their gourd on some substance, possibly impervious to pain, maybe even unaware they have been shot. These cretins would require a CNS hit to stop immediately, or massive blood loss to rapidly make them incapable of pressing their attack.

The handgun is a poor choice of weapon in this kind of encounter, but the only one you will be likley to have with you outside of your home. Why not make it as effective as possible? Bigger holes mean more blood loss.

I use 230gr Hydra-Shok because it has the full momentum of a 230gr bullet, the 12" penetration necessary to reach the vitals from an angled torso shot, and it might expand to cause more rapid blood loss.

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
Rex, you have brought in a factor that many do not think about: the bad guy's mental state. Always always important. Cheers to you.
 
It would be foolish to base what ammo you carry to defend your life on some articles written by Evan Marshall or Ed Sanow.

Nobody feels that those findings are accurate being that their database is so small.

The "goat tests" probably never took place, either.

So discount both, and use your own common sense.
 
I'd be real careful before saying that nobody thinks that Sanow's/Marshall's data is inaccurate. It lines up quite well with results from other studies, including a multi-year one ran by cops. And, as Marshall says on his website, where are the outraged cops saying his stuff is wrong?

Me, I listen to what the agencies in the know choose. Border Patrol and Secret Service both have a lot of experience, and both prefer moderate weight hollowpoints at high speed. Good enough for me.
 
Actually, if you read accounts of the Moro uprising, .45 was a good deal more effective than the .38 it replaced. We're talking revolvers and .45 Colt here, of course. Now that wasn't saying a whole lot, but the accounts concerning .45 showed a marked increase in effectiveness.
 
The reason .45ACP hard ball works so well is, as an English authority once said, ".45 caliber bullets come pre-expanded!"
 
Guys,

Most of what people know about terminal ballistics comes from one of two sources, the IWBA or Marshall/Sanow. Without knowing how the studies are done, (someone mentioned cop studies) we can't judge them. The Marshall/Sanow stuff makes sense, on the surface, until you get beyond. Yeah, the Secret Service and BP each have an opinion, and the FBI has a different one, so who's right?

There are a lot of flaws in the Marshall/Sanow stuff, and people believe it. Even their biggest fan, Mas Ayoob admits that someone on drugs may be immune to the effects and often cites the guy with 33 bullet wounds before he went down. IF THE PHSYIOLOGICAL MECHANISM THAT MARSHALL/SANOW PREACH EXISTED, IT WOULD PROBABLY OCCUR REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIM'S STATE OF MIND. It doesn't! How do you scientifically factor a psychological state and determine if someone gave up or was incapable of fighting. The officer Coates shooting is a classic example. He shoots the BG 5 times with a .357 (unknown round), who DROPS! The BG fires one round from his 100% ballistically inefficient .32, while "stopped" and lying on the ground, which passes between the officer's vest and arm, enters under the armpit, severs the Aorta and Officer Coates drops and dies within seconds. The BG survived. Analyze that!

They all fall to ball is simply an old euphemism from a time when hollowpoint ammunition often jammed in autoloaders. If someone falls, it is because they suffered from Hemorraghic shock (blood loss), destruction or injury to the Central Nervous System, or they gave up. The biggest hole or the CNS hit wins, whether it's ball or hollowpoint. Anything else (BG gives up after hearing gunshots), is icing on the cake. Shot placement is more important than what you place in it.

Regards to all,

Chuck
 
This discussion is as old as gun powder. Use some common sense and go with what you feel is right. I shoot a .45 with 230 Hydra-Shoks. I know shot placement is important and sure a well placed shot with ball is better than a bad shot with hollow points. Still, if shot placement was everything, we would all carry mouse guns.
 
"Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary
cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle projectiles.19 Even those who have espoused the significance of temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in handgun wounds"

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced.
To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high
velocity rifle bullet."
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

In other words HPs don't create larger permenant cavities and faster bullets don't create remote damage. Permanent cavity, penetration, and shot placement are the key factors of stopping power.

My conclusion is that hardball penetrates the best and larger calibers make larger permanent cavities. If I was in mortal danger I'd pick the 1911.

Shok
 
That quote is quite interesting. It runs directly against the advice given to me by a friend who's a board certified pathologist and medical examiner. His opinion, based on his experience, is that high velocity hollowpoints are the most effective rounds available.

Shot placement is the key to stopping the target. But after that, the amount of energy the target absorbs is the key with commensurate disruption (note, I said disruption, not necessarily destruction) of surrounding tissue. Why is a .44 Mag Silvertip more effective in the real world than a full power .44 Mag 240 grain flat point? Why is a 9 mm hollowpoint more effective than 9 mm armor piercing or FMJ? The "penetration is all crowd" pointedly ignores the success of rounds (such as the 9 mm +P, .40 135 grain, or .357 125 grain) that don't penetrate deep enough to be used for drilling oil wells. Why? Because to accept the success, they would have to accept that their theory as to how the human body reacts to wound trauma isn't necessarily accurate. And they would have to recognize that "they all [DON'T] fall to hardball." And too many of them are emotionally invested in this adage.
 
I'm very hesitant to base any of my carry choices on Marshall & Sanow's work. On the surface it looks very good, but underneath it really starts to show a lot of problems in their sampling methods.

M&S also have been very hesitant to share their data, which raises another large red flag.

There is an excellent, and independent, article that "retro engineers" M&S' methodology by a guy in the Netherlands that really calls askance on the conclusions.

I don't go as far as some and say that M&S are lying, but I don't believe that all of their data is valid.

I personally believe that penetration, first and foremost, MUST be the critical factor in choosing a defensive round. Without penetration adequate to get into the vital organs of your target/attacker, you might as well not be carrying a gun at all.

Almost all .380 JHP bullets lack the necessary penetration to reliably get into the vitals. Thus, my conclusion is that in .380, it is best to carry hardball ammo, which will penetrate adequately in the target.

As for the Strausbourg (sp?) goat tests? It is my belief that these NEVER took place. No one has ever come forward and said "I was there, this is what happened." The "reports" on these tests are shroulded in the mystery of "a friend's uncle's daughters' grandson's cousin's dog was there and said..."

Even if these tests did take place, what do they tell us? That certain bullets are likely to be VERY effective in bringing down an attacking domesticated goat.

But, what do they tell us about a bullet's effectivness against a human target? Virtually nothing. Goat physiology and human physiology are not closely related....
 
Buzz_Knox,

There are numerous reports of Moro tribesmen getting whacked multiple times with .30-40 Krag bullets and still keep on going.

Even high-velocity rifle bullets were not always effective.
 
Mike

You make an excellent point about the Maro tribesmen. Nothing is guaranteed to work. Even headshots don't always work. There are many people who have sustained severe wounds and didn't even realize it until later. That's why I prefer relatively light weapons: less drag when I run like hell!

I trust when you say penetration is the primary criteria for a cartridge, you have as an unstated assumption that the round must be accurate first and foremost? The deepest drilling round on the planet is worse than useless if you can't accurately deliver it to an effective location on the target.
 
I think there's a lot to be said in the words of Jeff Cooper, "Carry the biggest,most powerful caliber pistol you can control".

I would feel more comfortable carrying a .45 in Hardball than a 9mm. Even more using hollowpoints I knew to be reliable. The nice thing about hollowpoints in a .45 is that even if they don't expand it's still a .45!
You're smaller calibers depend more on bullet expansion to do the job.

That being said I still think the .357Magnum in a quality factory loaded 125grain JHP is the best handgun caliber out there, BUT this is limited to frontal center mass shots. You also pay for this in felt recoil, noise, and muzzle blast. Given a choice I'll pick the bigger caliber if it is reliable, accurate and controllable. The .45ACP is all of this in a gun designed for it.

I'd rather have someone use a 9mm they could shoot well than a .45 they could barely keep their shots on target with......shot placement is number 1.....

[This message has been edited by G. Kennedy (edited May 05, 2000).]
 
Buzz_knox,

Perfectly adequate "Accuracy" in a defensive handgun is, in my mind, 1/4 to 1/2 WOC (width of chest). In other words, I do not feel that you are in the least in trouble if your gun and ammo will only hold 4 to 5 inches at 25 meters.

So, quite frankly, no, I really don't agree that accuracy is first and foremost.

Here's what is, in my opinion:

1. Ability of user to actually use the gun adequately. This includes both familiarity with the chosen firearm and the ability to hit the target (which is not the same as the gun's accuracy).

2. User's mindset and prior preparation. Is this person prepared to shoot, if necessary? Has this person actually fired the gun recently (related, but not the same thing as using the gun adequately). Has this person taken steps to reduce the liklihood of a confrontation requiring deadly force in the first place?

3. Is the chosen firearm reliable in its operation? If it's not, you can have a resolute, prepared person firing the "most effective" cartridge ever seen on the face of the planet, but the odds in his/her favor are a LOT worse if the gun can't be depended on 100% (one of the reasons I normally carry a revolver, but that's neither here nor there).

4. "Effectiveness" of chosen cartridge. Heavy emphasis is placed on adequate penetration, followed by expansion. If the bullet expands well, but only penetrates an average of 6" to 8" or maybe a little more, it is, in my opinion, completely inadequate for the intended purpose.

5. Finally, we come to the gun's inherent accuracy. As I said, it's way down on the list, in fact, last on the list. Because all other things considered, most armed confrontations are going to take place at a distance where the gun's accuracy just isn't a factor -- a few inches, or a few feet.

Granted, more accuracy is better, but:

A) you're never going to get stellar accuracy out of a defensive handgun in the first place due to the limitations of both the guns and the cartridges, and

B) the "accuracy cone" (or whatever they call it) for projectiles at most combat distances is rather small anyway, and hitting the target depends a lot more on the qualifications of the shooter rather than the qualifications of the gun.

I get a kick out of reviewers who condemn a defensive handgun because it won't consistently shoot a sub 3-inch groups (but stays sub 5 or 6-inch all day long) at 25 meters, but at 5 meters its shooting nice 2-inch groups).

And as often as not, they don't give it any plugs for the fact that it has been 100% reliable with all of the test ammunition that's been fed through it, even with funky hollowpoint ammo run through semi-auto pistols.

I really get the impression that too many people lose track of what is truly important when picking, and carrying, a defensive handgun.

Well, anyway, that's MY opinion on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top