testtest

Is the .45’s Stopping Power a Myth?

I carry a 1911 .45 Auto frequently. Commander or Defender or Wilson Combat. I am 76 years old and am very comfortable with a .45 Auto cocked and locked. I do also sometimes carry a Ruger LC Max in .380 in an Alabama pocket holster when I need to be really covert. My interest in the .380 is what got me to looking at the fluted bullet idea. The .380 produces such weany velocity that I think depending on hollow points to expand is probably a mistake. To help guarantee adequate penetration I switched to FMJ. Then I discovered the fluted bullets and am using them now instead.
 
Tonopah said:
I carry a 1911 .45 Auto frequently. Commander or Defender or Wilson Combat. I am 76 years old and am very comfortable with a .45 Auto cocked and locked. I do also sometimes carry a Ruger LC Max in .380 in an Alabama pocket holster when I need to be really covert. My interest in the .380 is what got me to looking at the fluted bullet idea. The .380 produces such weany velocity that I think depending on hollow points to expand is probably a mistake. To help guarantee adequate penetration I switched to FMJ. Then I discovered the fluted bullets and am using them now instead.
Click to expand...
Use Lehigh 38 Spl +P 100 grainers in my S&W J-Frame have confidence in this load.
 
There are only two ways to get more stopping power - more velocity or more mass. Many years ago, a friend let me shoot his .357 Magnum, a Ruger Speed Six if I recall correctly. I think it was loaded with 125 grain +P loads. I was completely unimpressed with the recoil. I'm not a big man, but I appear to be one of those people who just don't notice recoil, not until you get up to elephant gun level. However, muzzle blast is another matter; that thing was horrific. Since then, where handguns are concerned, I have been firmly in the big, slow bullet camp. Currently, all I have is a .38 Special (left handed, so I tend toward revolvers), but as soon as circumstances allow, I want to get my hands on one of Ruger's .45 Colt/ACP Redhawks.
 
The Night Rider said:
There's nothing new to add to this topic. Every time it comes up the discussion just devolves into people justifying their choice.

Sydney Vail, Martin Fackler and Gary Roberts all agree that there's no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers.

If any one of the three was clearly and consistently stopping more bad guys than the other two then every Police Department in America would be carrying it and everyone else would be buying it.

Here is a very good article that addresses this issue

http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/why-glock-why-9mm

QUOTE from the article

I thought back to the effects different pistol rounds having on animals, victim's of shootings, and Officer involved shootings that I had seen personally and read about during my career. I couldn't think of a single shooting where the person or animal was shot with a 9mm and lived, but would have died if the round would have been a .40S&W or a .45acp. And I could not think of a single shooting where a person or animal was shot with a .40S&W or a .45acp and died, but would have survived if the round would have been a 9mm.
Click to expand...
The truth is, handguns are rather anemic compared to long arms. Marksmanship matters more than caliber. That said, as I stated elsewhere, my preference for big, slow bullets is mostly because of muzzle blast. In a self defense encounter, you aren't likely to have time to get your earplugs in before the action starts, even if, for whatever reason, you actually have them with you. The only way to achieve greater stopping power is either higher velocity or more mass; either will do the job, but big and subsonic is (hopefully) less likely to permanently ruin my hearing, especially in a hallway or small room.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Wood chuck cant chuck wood so dont worry about a woodchuck chucking wood, worry about a woodchuck sporting wood

Say that fast several times 😆🤪
Click to expand...
1728725673032.png
 
Tonopah said:
Hans Gruber — I respect your point of view and you state it ably. Your conclusion is that for street use purposes, ignore ballistic gel tests and consider Paul Harrell’s “meat target” tests as entertainment only. There seem to be no real world examples of effectiveness of the ARC or Lehigh bullets, or if there are, there is certainly no statistically relevant data as yet.

Paul Harrell did test non-expanding 9mm bullets and he did like the fluted ones but, as you say, not scientific testing:

I am not sure we can know what special operators (government) use as that information is not widely available. They might be using Lehigh bullets for special uses just as they might be using the 6.8 SPC in preference to 5.56mm but, at least I, don’t know. But the absence of data points does not support the effectiveness of the fluted bullet — fair comment.
Click to expand...
Probably not all of them as they for the most part are able to use whatever they want. That said, the few that I know are definitely using modern commercial hollow points.
 
carry what your comfy and proficient with, my first gun many years ago was a colt 45 gold cup, its now been in the safe for years, i like and there is a place for multi caliber weapons (380-45). i carry something different but mostly sub compact or micros (in different calibers), depending on where i am going, what i will be doing and how i am dressed. however what ever caliber i carry i have studied the gel test for penetration and expansion that are obtained with the sub, micro, and full size (barrel length) with the premium defensive ammo, as the barrel length determines penetration and expansion. its not a one size fits all, things mainly bullet weight have to be adjusted
 
Tonopah said:
I carry a 1911 .45 Auto frequently. Commander or Defender or Wilson Combat. I am 76 years old and am very comfortable with a .45 Auto cocked and locked. I do also sometimes carry a Ruger LC Max in .380 in an Alabama pocket holster when I need to be really covert. My interest in the .380 is what got me to looking at the fluted bullet idea. The .380 produces such weany velocity that I think depending on hollow points to expand is probably a mistake. To help guarantee adequate penetration I switched to FMJ. Then I discovered the fluted bullets and am using them now instead.
Click to expand...
If the ARC is the same as the Ruger ARX load that came out several years ago, I’ve actually done some (non scientific, admittedly) testing with them.

As I recall, their main claim was that they would do good in flesh, but not overpenetrate through walls, due to their polymer/metal construction.

So, we set up a target of a 1 gallon water jug, backed by 2 pieces of drywall 4” apart. This was, we figured, an approximation of a round that didn’t get a “full thickness” hit on an assailant, and penetrated the body.

For control, we also used a Winchester flat nose 95gr FMJ and a Hornady XTP (also 95gr, iirc), which was considered the best .380jhp at the time.

Pistol used was a Sphinx AT380M.

They all blew up the water jug; really couldn’t tell the difference between them.

They all penetrated both sheets of drywall.

Both the FMJ and the ARX buried themselves in the hard packed dirt of the range, penetrating at least another 12” (the longest pistol cleaning rod we had with us); the fully expanded XTP (about .5”) was found laying on top of the ground about 10’ beyond the drywall, having bounced off the ground. Its exit through the second sheet showed it was probably yawing going by the a distinct oval shape.

So, yes, those fluted bullets will definitely penetrate like an FMJ. Their claims (if they still make them) of limited overpenetration through walls should be taken with a large grain of salt, however.

I would have thought that if the fluting/cavitation claims had any real weight, that the ARX’s jug would have shown much more dramatic damage; it really didn’t. All jugs were split on the sides from base to cap; the screw-on caps all were blown off, and the exiting side were fairly well shredded.

Not really scientific, but the results were something to be considered.

Think I have the rest of that box of ARX around here somewhere, come to think of it.

My most common carry .380, a Sig 238, is loaded with Winchester FN FMJ. I’ve been playing with a Performance Center Shield EZ .380 for a bit now, though…its longer barrel has me thinking that JHP’s will function decently while giving proper penetration, and I’m looking at Federal’s Punch or HST, Remington’s Golden Saber (107gr—a little more weight should give better penetration), and Hornady’s XTP as likely candidates.
 
Wow. I think we all got lost somewhere along the way here. Started out discussing if 45 ACP stopping power is a myth… which it’s not. Now we’re debating the over penetration capability of .380 ACP
 
The thread drift is mostly based on the discussion moving towards the effectiveness of different bullet types — with lots of criticism directed at fluted monolithic bullets as compared with hollow points. Hollow points have come a very long way during my lifetime and I like 185/200 grain Hornady Critical Defense, or similar, in my .45 Autos just fine. In a small caliber like the .380 Auto, relying on a hollow point to actually perform (expand) is much more problematic. In the case of the .380 Auto, the shooter might be better off with FMJ or, even better (theoretically), a fluted monolithic as that will provide FMJ reliability (feeding) together with FMJ like penetration but also offers the possibility of additional tissue destruction along the way.
 
Common reasons for HP ammo not expanding can be attributed to gumming up the empty nose with material, or not enough velocity. For some calibers - more of a challenge. I do like the principle of the fluted bullets but we'll all have to see how they do - patience, as they have only been out for a while.
 
trader said:
Common reasons for HP ammo not expanding can be attributed to gumming up the empty nose with material, or not enough velocity. For some calibers - more of a challenge. I do like the principle of the fluted bullets but we'll all have to see how they do - patience, as they have only been out for a while.
Click to expand...
Bullet design has a lot more to do with reliable expansion than velocity.

Modern JHP’s are designed for optimal expansion in a certain velocity “window”—usually +/- 10% of their listed velocity, to account for shorter or longer barrels than the test barrel.

And the flutes have been around for over 10 years. If they were truly all that they claim, they’d be in a lot wider use with professionals…the fact they aren’t in use at all says a lot.

Personally, I don’t see them doing any better damage than a solid bullet—particularly a flat nose solid, or SWC design—of the same caliber, weight, and velocity…and for a LOT cheaper.

That’s why I say that they are snake oil.
 
Last edited:
Tonopah said:
If, for whatever reason, in whichever caliber, you choose to use a FMJ bullet type — you may as well instead choose a fluted monolithic as there is at least the possibility of greater tissue destruction. Can we at least agree on that?
Click to expand...

I see your point.

For me, personally? The juice isn’t worth the squeeze; that is, from all the evidence I’ve seen, the odds of it causing that extra damage are extremely low, and not worth the premium costs the fluted designs will incur over time (the initial proving of reliability and accuracy in the firearm, and then the firing from time to time (I usually cycle my carry mags twice a year) to confirm reliability, accuracy, and ammo “freshness”.

You feel that it is; that’s your call, just as I’ve made mine.

Hopefully, neither of us ever needs to find out we should have chosen the other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top