compact 45 self defense

On the other hand, the hole would be maybe 14" at .9", and, at .452", it could be 3 feet, with holes at both ends...

More then one way to make a first impression...;)
 
Forget about FMJ for self-defense...It's range ammo..

laktrash said:
I know this has been discussed over and over but I have several several compact 45's. I have always used 230 grain fmj with no issues. But thinking about some self defense ammo maybe the new hornady critical defense or corbon powerball My concern is reliability with the compacts. Some say they have issues with compacts mine have all been totally reliable. Its a little expensive to fire several 100 rounds to prove reliability. Any imput on these two choices or a better choice I'm happy with fmj but I keep seeing over penetration in alot of discussions.
Click to expand...
Try out Remington Golden Saber ammunition.
They're proven and in use by numerous agencies; feature a most excellent feed profile, excellent terminal ballistics and good accuracy.

They're available in 230gr, 185gr and 185gr +P. The +P version is very hot and not recommended for your compact.
 
Hardball is fine for practice but a very poor choice for self defense. I haven't shot a critter yet with .45 hardball that didn't run out of sight. You need something to disrupt some flesh on its way through and a jacketed roundnose ain't it. At least a good SWC or better yet, a JHP. Given the choice and knowing I only needed one shot, I'd rather have a percussion pistol loaded with .44 roundball than .45 hardball. At least the soft roundball will expand and probably not exit.
 
compact 45 self defense
I know this has been discussed over and over but I have several several compact 45's. I have always used 230 grain fmj with no issues. But thinking about some self defense ammo maybe the new hornaday critical defense or carbon powerball My concern is reliability with the compacts. Some say they have issues with compacts mine have all been totally reliable. Its a little expensive to fire several 100 rounds to prove reliability. Any imput on these two choices or a better choice I'm happy with fmj but I keep seeing over penetration in alot of discussions.

Just a public service reminder of the original question...
 
Last edited:
A gross overstatement.

Hardball is fine for practice but a very poor choice for self defense.
Click to expand...
Hardball was successfully used for many decades by the military, police, and civilian markets with a proven track record. A hollow point is better (if it expands) but a 230 gr. FMJ will do a lot of damage without expanding.

Corbon Powerball would be one of the last choices I would make -- after hardball.

Go with proven designs with a higher chance of being reliable in your gun -- Gold Dots and Golden Sabers. The Corbon DPX also looks good, though I haven't shot any.

So, you have to buy a bunch of this ammo, and, it all needs to be from one lot of ammo, so, hopefully, the rounds you put in the gun have the same powder that was in the ammunition you tested.
Click to expand...
Complete BS when dealing with premium self-defense ammo. Any variance in velocity due to the powder is not enough to to effect expansion. Variances in powder from lot to lot might effect accuracy in a target rifle at 400 yards. It's not going to be a major factor in a handgun at 10 yards.
 
Posideon28 said:
I REALLY wish Jim Downey would test these loads for velocity.
Click to expand...

Heh. Well, at present we're working on something else, related to but different than BBTI - you'll probably hear about it this winter. :D

But I will say that when we set up to do the additional testing this past spring, and ordered the .327, .41, and 10mm barrels, we actually ordered a complete additional set of all 14 barrels so that in a few years we could revisit the first set of data with additional testing - to see how things have evolved. When it comes to that I'm sure we'll consider what seems to be the hot ammo on the market. :cool:

Jim D.
 
First of all, in most FMJ loads, a .45 and even a 9mm is unlikely to penetrate all the way through a human body, even at self defense ranges. Talking to a coroner in Nevada, with 12 years experience, he's seen only one 9mm FMJ exit from a frontal shot. And that was because he was a very skinny crackhead shot at contact distance. Two other rounds stayed inside the body.

If you purchase self-defense ammo from any of the "big 3" makers, you will probably find the powder & charges consistent over several cases of ammo. While they don't use canister powders, they do make large batches of powder that will be used in large runs of the product. If you only buy the product annually, then you might notice a slight change in powder performance. But it shouldn't be that significant.

Keep in mind that a premium Gold Dot/Hydrashok/Golden Sabre is likely to have been produced in a run resulting in over a million rounds at a time. A million rounds of 9mm or 45 is only 2,000 cases of 500 ea. Economy of scale and set-up labor usually dictates that ammo makers run large lots of one load before switching to something else.

The problem with short barrels is that most handgun rounds seem to be optimized around a 4-5" barrel for the most part. That means lower velocities out of shorter barrels. Use of slightly lighter 185-200gr bullets at higher velocities seem to help with both reliability and accuracy in my experience.

Gold-Dots or Sabers, STX, XTP, DPX etc are ways of marketing a cartridge and establishing a presence. Most of today's JHP's work enormously better than those from the 1970's and 80's. The only real consideration is whether the load is reliable and accurate out of your gun. If it's reliable and you can score good hits with it, almost everything else is icing on the cake.

No handgun ammo is going to be 100% effective against all opponents at all angles. Pick your favorite flavor and if it's reliable and accurate, stick with it.
 
If you purchase self-defense ammo from any of the "big 3" makers, you will probably find the powder & charges consistent over several cases of ammo. While they don't use canister powders, they do make large batches of powder that will be used in large runs of the product. If you only buy the product annually, then you might notice a slight change in powder performance. But it shouldn't be that significant.

I had two points. First is what's on the label may or may not be consistent with what's inside the case. Short barreled ammo, with slow burning powder, and a light bullet? "Low Recoil", sure, compared to a .454 Casull, etc.
If they can misrepresent what's on the outside of the box, why do you think they would be consistent with what's on the inside? Does it go bang? Does the bullet go down range at a reasonable rate? Is the ammunition within a certain area that will cycle most actions? Did we make the maximum amount of money we can from each round? Those are the questions I think the Big 3 ask, and, probably in reverse order.

Keep in mind that a premium Gold Dot/Hydrashok/Golden Sabre is likely to have been produced in a run resulting in over a million rounds at a time. A million rounds of 9mm or 45 is only 2,000 cases of 500 ea. Economy of scale and set-up labor usually dictates that ammo makers run large lots of one load before switching to something else.

The problem with short barrels is that most handgun rounds seem to be optimized around a 4-5" barrel for the most part. That means lower velocities out of shorter barrels. Use of slightly lighter 185-200gr bullets at higher velocities seem to help with both reliability and accuracy in my experience.
Click to expand...

Actually the reloading conclusions should be somewhat different. Heavier the bullet, the more chance a faster powder would have a chance of reaching peak pressure, max velocity, in a short barrel. Problem is, by looking at the tests done by Jim Downey, most of the ammunition loaded does NOT reach max velocity in shorter barrels, so, one may conclude the powders need to be faster.

Also, longer bullets tend to make things MORE accurate, since they tend to self-align.
 
The issue should always be what works in YOUR gun, not what works in mine ... for instance, a number of people tout the Cor-Bon DPX ... I love it in revolvers, but it won't feed in my carry Kimber UCII .45 ... after testing a bunch of SD ammo, I settled on 230gr Golden Sabers .. they've never failed in the gun I OWN AND CARRY ... maybe they won't work in yours and the DPXs will ... advice is cheap, but when the rubber hits the road, only ammo you've tested for function in your weapon can be considered ... another point ... an earlier poster mentioned .357 Pow'RBall cases stuck in his guns, so he recommended against that round ... I use that same round in both a Smith 686+ and a Taurus 617, and have never had a problem with stuck cases ... each gun is different, each shooter is different ... try it before you trust your life to it ...
 
Poseidon,

I usually don't find that many ammo makers "misrepresent" their products. If a company advertises their 175gr bullet at 1250fps, generally chronographing several samples will show anywhere from 1245 to 1252 fps or something similar. Now, if they advertise that as "low recoil" the question is compared to what? Compared to a 210g at 1300 fps? Sure. Compared to a .357 125gr JHP? No.

Your questions can be asked differently by honest manufacturers;
Does it go bang?
Is it reliable?

Does the bullet go down range at a reasonable rate?
Does it meet the specifications for the load?

Is the ammunition within a certain area that will cycle most actions?
Does it meet the cycling requirements for most handguns in this caliber?

Did we make the maximum amount of money we can from each round?
Is it cost-effective to continue producing?
(i.e. to make a profit, will we price ourselves out of the market?)

My analysis of Downey's data indicated that many handgun cartridges - .38 Special & .357 Magnum and 9mm seemed to be optimized for a 4-inch barrel. There were some anomolies - such as some .38 Specials performing better in a 5-inch barrel than either a 4-inch or 6-inch barrel.

That's not unusual as more ~4-inch weapons are sold than most other sizes when you consider the overall handgun market.

Saying that "most of the ammunition loaded does NOT reach max velocity in shorter barrels" is a given. If you want the maximum velocity out of your 2.5" magnum wheelgun, you'll have to load it yourself. Ammo companies have to consider liability for loads like that too, where you don't. If they market a "max velocity" load for a 2.5" revolver, they have to know it won't overstress when fired in a 6-inch or even an 8 3/8" barrel. Because you know that some nimrod will try it, thinking "Gee whiz, I'll bet I can get 2,000 fps out of my 8-inch barrel with these!" no matter how many warnings are on the box. And then he'll sue because nobody prevented him from being stupid.
 
I've always been of the opinion that the shorter the barrel, the heavier the bullet should be. Lighter bullets will exit the barrel all the more quickly, thereby generating less peak pressure, and lose more of their potential velocity than heavy bullets will. That's my opinion, anyway.
 
There were some anomolies - such as some .38 Specials performing better in a 5-inch barrel than either a 4-inch or 6-inch barrel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are some glitches in the data here and there - I attribute it to the small size of the sample (three shots of each ammo at a given barrel length). Ideally, we'd had the time and funding to do a *lot* more shots - but we have to be practical. :(

So, as I try and tell people - take the information as indicative, not definitive. You want definitive answers, shoot a box of ammo out of your own specific gun and see how it performs.

Jim D.
 
The Colt Defender is, IMO, one of the best compact .45's out there. For me, it naturally points on target about 97% of the time from a drawn holster. It also seems to work reliably with JHP's without fussing around.

Jim,
I don't know that people really appreciate all the time, effort and expense of your project. You've done a remarkable job of documenting performance in various barrel lengths as well as setting a benchmark for future testing. You guys did a hellva fine job.
 
Bill, I didn't mean to sound defensive - just honest about the limitations the project faced. We've had a good reception, with 1.2 million hits to date, and I have been pleased that others have been able to find things in the data which we hadn't. And people are using it as we hoped they would, as a springboard for more informed discussion and even a little research. So, it's all good. :D

Cheers -


Jim D.
 
Saying that "most of the ammunition loaded does NOT reach max velocity in shorter barrels" is a given. If you want the maximum velocity out of your 2.5" magnum wheelgun, you'll have to load it yourself. Ammo companies have to consider liability for loads like that too, where you don't. If they market a "max velocity" load for a 2.5" revolver, they have to know it won't overstress when fired in a 6-inch or even an 8 3/8" barrel. Because you know that some nimrod will try it, thinking "Gee whiz, I'll bet I can get 2,000 fps out of my 8-inch barrel with these!" no matter how many warnings are on the box. And then he'll sue because nobody prevented him from being stupid.
Click to expand...

BillCA:

I don't understand this. Fast burning powders are still loaded to the same pressure limits. If it's 20K for 45 ACP Plus P, the slower burning powder goes to the same 19k the fast burning powder does, it just takes longer to get there.

The fast burning powder spikes to peak pressure more quickly, and, the result is the bullet is accelerated more quickly down the barrel, before it has a chance to move.

The same bullet with a longer barrel starts to move down the barrel, and, peak pressure is reached while the bullet is accelerating down the barrel.

The pressure spike might, in a very long extended use run, wear the firearm differently, but, I seriously doubt that. As a general rule, the faster powders
require less powder to reach peak pressure, which results in less overall force being generated on the parts of the gun.

Jim: I LOVE your site. It clearly illustrates what sort of ammunition is being generated, and, what is likely to work in your gun. A GREAT place to start, and evaluate ammunition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top