Why I prefer Hardball in my .45 ACP

DANGEROUS GAME vs. DANGEROUS HUMANS

Before you read this please understand that No One has to agree with me. I am not trying to gain a following or tell people what to use. This is MY opinion and I am simply sharing what and why I use what I use.

"Karamojo" Bell set the standard for dangerous game when he wrote: "A bullet that breaks up is worse than worthless. Penetration is what counts. A bullet that cannot reach the vitals it is aimed at, no matter what the intervening tissue and bone, not only does not kill quickly and reliably but vastly compounds the element of danger to the hunter. A wounded animal is ten times more likely to kill or injure the shooter than an unharmed one. The answer for dangerous game, especially thick-skinned, heavily boned species, is the "solid" bullet precisely placed from a rifle of sufficient caliber to provide the power needed to penetrate, but not so heavy as to be awkward or overpowered."

Bell's idea was to combine the knowledge of anatomy with precise bullet placement, using a "solid" bullet of sufficient power to reach that part of the animal that would bring a quick, decisive death.

Thinking of this while reading some articles on why a person should never use "hardball" ammunition for self-defense, I was struck by the logic of some of the writers in gun magazines. Often their reasoning was like this: "If I was shooting a bear or other dangerous game, yes, I would use hardball. But not for self-defense against a person."

My reaction was "WHAT!?"

I was amazed that their thinking seemed to be that humans are less dangerous than animals. Now I am no expert but for as long as I have walked this planet I have met a whole lot more dangerous humans than I have dangerous animals.

Most all of the writers sing the same song. "Use a bullet that will expend it's whole energy in the target and stop in the target." or words to that effect. To me, such talk is about as ignorant of how and what bullets do in living tissue as can be. For one thing, bullets don't have "energy" in the literal sense of foot-pounds of energy. The definition of "foot-pounds" is the amount of energy required to lift one pound one foot. Hang a twenty pound log on a rope 4 or 5 feet long. Shoot into it with your 9mm using the 124 gr. FMJ ammo which is rated at 324 foot-pounds of muzzle energy. I don't care how close you get to the muzzle, your shot will not swing the log one foot.. If it actually produced 324 foot-pounds of energy it would knock that log flying .... and break your wrist when it went off. Your .44 Magnum won't move the log very far either. Quite frankly, neither will a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle. Bullets don't have that kind of energy.

I sometimes wonder if these "experts" have ever shot anything that was living and breathing at the time.

But what about "over penetration"?

I want more penetration than I need, not less. If I put a hole in something I would rather have a hole going out if possible. Wouldn't that endanger innocent bystanders? Yes. It certainly could. And no one wants to injure or kill innocent people. But rarely does one have the option of choosing when and where to shoot in a self-defense situation. If it is truly a life or death situation requiring the use of deadly force, the blame for innocents being harmed is laid upon the person who committed a crime that resulted in the use of force. (Check your local use of deadly force statutes.)

It should also be mentioned that the majority of shots fired in self-defense .. as recorded by records of Police shootings ... miss their intended target entirely. To me a missed shot is pretty deadly. I mean, if it will stop in the body of a bad guy, but the bad guy is missed, it will easily stop in the body of an innocent. As far as I am concerned, the over-pentration argument is just writers hype. They have to sell articles.

I want a load that will penetrate to the vitals no matter the angle that I am shooting, or how large the intended target is, or what the target may be clothed with. Some of those fancy hollowpoints may not even reach the body if it is winter and the person is dressed for very cold weather and weighs in excess of 300 pounds. While that bullet may penetrate 12 inches of jello and then stop, shooting a large fat bad guy dressed for 10 below zero just might not do anything but piss him off.

The other side of the problem is this: often hollowpoint bullets fired through clothing tend to "plug" the hollow point and the bullet acts just like a solid hardball. There is a lot of empirical evidence to verify this.

And last, hardball does not give feeding problems that some large-cavity hollowpoint bullets can. The gun just runs better with hardball. I prefer reliability over problems getting some fancy bullet to feed properly. I want that firearm to operate properly and reliably first and foremost. So no thanks. I will use my old hardball .45 ACP thank you. The whole reason it was designed was to stop large aggressive attackers and it will still do that IF the shooter does his or her part.

And THAT is the key to everything. Precise placement of the shot. Something that is pretty near impossible to do when your life is on the line. But it was something hunters of dangerous game (and those who hunted dangerous men) learned. It is something that those of us who carry need to learn.

answers

Thomas Peterson
8:31 PM (10 hours ago)
to me
Like you say it is just my opinion, but here goes. I totally agree with you about carrying hard ball in the 1911 type guns. For one, it is proven. From the Philippians, to today it just works. Secondly, I would much rather have reliability in a gun fight, than a hollow point that might or might not work. I have read numerous, documented police gun fights where hollow point bullets did not expand, at all. Over penetration is possibly a concern for police departments, especially with the .357 or .357 Sig, both of which will almost always over penetrate with ball ammo. For all the rest of us two holes are probably better than one.