… to carrying one mag of “ball” in addition to whatever JHP is in your .45-of-choice, and in your primary reload/s (I know - I’m in the Republic of IL, hence a moot point of sorts. It’s an academic question:)???
More specifically - is there really anything nowadays that ball will do that “good” JHPs won’t? (And while I’m at the keyboard - what, exactly, is the penetration of ball in calibrated gelatin - can’t seem to find any current [calibrated] data.)
Thanks all!
john
Not unless you have a need to shoot though bears.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Yet another shortcoming of living in the Republik of Illinois:( Oh - and I’ve heard the administrators and handlers at the zoos really frown on it as well:(:(
john
I want to say around 26", and it tumbles once or twice or so.
A good JHP penetrates most things better than ball, when it comes to “hard” targets like a car door.
Just my experience with the .45ACP.
My home town is Chicago (I was born in Oak Park) so I feel your pain. Been years (decades) since I was there and it has only gotten worse since I left (early 1970s).
Don’t know about carryin’ FMJ all the time, but I do on the few occasions that I find myself “out and about” in the woods.
As for FMJ test data, there is precious little of it; seems nobody cares about testing it.
There are a few- “few” being three or four- data points in the Ft. Collins and Pierce Co. ATK WBWs where competitors’ JHPs failed to expand at all and would behave as FMJs. Penetration depths were in the 26" to 29" range, IIRC.
Might even be some similar data (unexpanded JHPs) here on m4 if you look around.
You can also try:
http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm
run by Don Haney. He states in his site’s gel tests disclaimer page that his tests are conducted in adherence with the accepted calibration standards using 10% gelatin:
The gelatin is 100% pure from Kind & Knox. It is mixed to 10% and calibrated using a .177 BB at 590 fps to a penetration range of 7.5 - 9.5 cm.
but there are no photos that show the calibrated blocks and projectiles in situ. All the same, I’ll take the man at his word- I don’t know him and have no reason to believe that he’d misrepresent such a thing given his generosity and effort to provide the data. Take it for what you will. 
Mr Haney also provides several tests of other FMJs in the “mouse-gun” calibers that may or may not be of interest to you.
Uh…maybe I missed something. There has been significant testing of .45 ACP non-expanding projectiles, like M1911 FMJ, 185 gr +P Truncated Cone TMJ, 200 gr LSWC, etc… But since none of these projectiles have had any change in their design for several decades, there is not much sense in continued retesting. Besides, they all tend to punch a caliber size hole to 20+ inches without much variation or drama. They also tend to have more deflection off intermediate barriers than modern JHP designs.
Doc from what I’ve read in Duncan Mcpherson’s book wouldn’t the TC and RN bullet create a subcaliber hole or am I missing something?
Sometime, no matter how unusual, there is a need.
I work in-house security at a place where our dangerous animal emergency/escape protocol addresses bears. My second reload magazine is loaded with .45acp hardball in case time/circumstances preclude me from accessing one of our rifles.
regards,
wrinkles–Nope, you got it; caliber size or a bit smaller.
I’d be surprised, and kinda let down, if you did.
Having been unable to locate this information (non-expanding projectile/FMJ test data) for myself, would you be so kind as to direct me, and anyone else interested, to the data points mentioned above, Doc?
:help:
Look at Dr. Fackler’s work–most of this testing was done in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, so you may not find it on the internet…
Well, Doc, that’d explain my (and the OP’s) inability to find “recent” data.
Even though I’ve seen some of Fackler’s illustrations (for 9mm 124 gr. and .45 230 gr. FMJ ball), I don’t have access to any other material from Fackler.
While I can run MacPherson’s WTI model for such configurations all day long for predicted penetration (I have it committed to a rather extensive Excel spreadsheet 'cause I am lazy like that :D), nothing beats real data and lots of it.
Oh well, back to the salt mines.