Do you really need the most expensive ammo for carry

You don't "need" to use the most expensive ammo for carry, but that's not the same thing as saying that you're not getting something concrete for the extra money spent on premium quality self-defense ammunition.
Who's better prepared?
Click to expand...
The person who has actually prepared as opposed to just spent money.

Buying and carrying premium self-defense ammo for carry doesn't preclude actual preparation.

For example, I have found a practice round that prints to the same place as my carry round does. I've shot enough of my carry round to verify to my satisfaction that my carry gun will function reliably with it and to verify where it prints. When I practice with my carry gun, at least some of that practice is done with my carry ammo--but most of it is done with the practice round that prints and shoots like my carry round.

In other words, preparation doesn't have to mean that you only shoot the cheapest stuff out there so you can practice a lot with it, nor does it mean you only shoot the must expensive stuff you can find. You can get a lot of good practice with inexpensive ammunition and put in enough practice with your carry round using premium ammunition to make sure it works and prints properly.

I remember when one of the strongest justifications for reloading handgun ammunition was that it allowed a shooter to create a practice round that duplicated a person's carry loading to allow them to practice without burning up expensive carry ammo.
 
Edward429451 said:
...One man has a Highpoint and casts lead boolits for it. It's all he can afford. But he can practice very much with it and knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will function and where it will print.

Man two has a HK-P7 and expensive hollowpoints because that's what he was told was good to carry. But he doesn't have time due to work or whatever so his P-7 sits on the closet shelf with HP's in it and he does not practice near as much as the man one.

Who's better prepared?
Click to expand...
Of course, JohnKSa is correct. The man who has actually prepared himself is better prepared than the one who didn't.

However, a major limitation of using hypotheticals is that one may construct his hypothetical so as to illustrate any conclusion he wants.

So let's suppose two men. Each has the same make, model and caliber gun; their respective guns have been fired extensively and proven to be accurate and reliable; they have comparable training and similar skill; and they each train and practice regularly following the same practice regimen. One loads his gun with generic FMJ ammunition which has proven to be accurate and reliable in his gun. The other loads his gun with Federal HST JHP ammunition which has proven to be accurate and reliable in his gun.

Which man is better prepared?
 
If you're trying to sell ammo, the guy with the HP's, but in reality if they faced off they'd prolly kill each other in the same instant.

But your point is otherwise well taken and valid.
 
I tend to think that buying the "best" ammo for self defense is more hype than reality or in other words, NOT a significant step forward above the lesser priced ammunition if you are reasonably proficient with your firearm.
Click to expand...

I thought that way until I went out and put some rounds through clothing and in to water. Some like the WWB "USA" hollow points clog up on every shot. What I was getting was high priced ball ammo.

Then rounds like Winchester Ranger Bonded, Remmington Golden Saber, and Speer Gold Dot opened every time. I was getting ammo that seemed to work better. It might still clog in tissue, but I am pretty certain the USA HPs will. There is a world of comfort in the difference between might and most likely will.
 
It depends on caliber and bullet construction. For example, several very dated bullet designs like LSWCHP, SJHP, and Winchester Silvertip can still perform very well, even by today's standard, if loaded to the right ballistics.

There are three basic ways to get good performance, meaning acceptable penetration and reliable expansion, out of dated bullet designs: drive a medium to heavy weight bullet at high velocity, make a medium to heavy weight bullet with a big enough hollowpoint cavity to expand at low to medium velocity, or make a medium to heavy weight bullet of a malleable enough material to expand at medium to low velocity.

An example of the first way to get good performance from old bullets are Magnum class cartridges like .357 Magnum, 10mm Auto, .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum. Even with rather primitive bullets that often either fail to expand or underpenetrate in other calibers, the magnums can drive a heavy enough bullet to penetrate well at high enough velocity to expand well in spite of its primitive design.

The second way to get old bullets to perform well can usually only be done with bigbores like .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Long Colt. These cartridges, while usually not loaded to particularly high velocity, The diameter of these bullets allow for a cavernous looking hollowpoint cavity that allows them to expand even at moderate velocity while still having enough weight to penetrate well. It should be noted that while these calibers still do all right with older bullets, newer designs typically perform better still.

The final way to make an old bullet design work well is to make it out of very malleable material which usually means soft, swaged lead. These bullets are so soft that they deform and expand rather easily even though they may not have high velocity or large hollowpoint cavities. Probably the best example of this type of loading is the Remington .38 Special +P 158gr LSWCHP "FBI Load."

Some cartridges, however, cannot do any of the three things I described above. Probably the most obvious example of this is 9mm. While a good cartridge that is perfectly adequate for self-defense with more modern ammo, 9mm does not do well at all when fed older bullets. This is because 9mm can't drive bullets as fast as a magnum, have as big a hollowpoint cavity as a bigbore, or be made of soft lead and feed in a semi-auto handgun. Because of this, older 9mm JHP loadings seemed to suffer from one of two problems: they were either too light and too fast or too heavy and too slow.

The loadings which were too light and too fast were usually 115gr or lighter and often loaded to +P or +P+ pressures. This was done because, in order to get the older 9mm bullets to expand, you had to drive them at near-magnum velocity and in order to do that and stay within pressure limits you had to use light bullets. While this did make the bullets expand, it also resulted in underwhelming penetration.

The loadings which were too heavy and too slow were the original 147gr JHP's. These were developed in order to address the penetration concerns of the light, fast loadings and the bullet weight was increased in order to create a momentum-to-energy ratio that would allow for deeper penetration. While these loadings did indeed penetrate, their expansion was not reliable under anything but ideal conditions.
 
heres something to consider

sincecost is the topic here, look at barnes vortx line of loaded ammunition and corbon dpx line.

they use the same identical barnes solid copper x bullet. the velocity listings are the same. but the corbon dpx loaded ammunition costs 46.99 versus barnes vortx at 26.99 a box of 20.

are you going to say the corbon version is more premium then the barnes loading just because of the price?
 
Might be identical rounds at two different price points.. but my lifes worth paying the higher price if I cant completely differentiate the rounds. After all its not like the typical CCW carrier is going to burn through 20 rounds of ultra premium in live engagements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top