[Blackjack]

If your interested read " If Your Serious, Get A .45 "... under News at this site:

http://www.sightm1911.com/

 

[Guest]

Blackjack is this the article you referenced?

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/legends/serious.htm

If so, do you mean to comment on ball ammo as being very reliable in a mud and sand filled pistol?
As to effectiveness, I believe you are preaching to the choir.

 

[Blackjack]

Yes.

Thanks for posting the exact Link.

Yes.

..and perhaps more..one determined man with a Pistol and experience VS three with AK`s and wins.

BTW: Sorry you find " preaching to the Choir" unnecessary..



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Blackjack on 2001-06-16 11:25 ]</font>

 

[Randall_1611]

The link was a good one, plus there are a lot of visitors to this site that might be learning something new. Just a thought! Mike

 

[telackey]

I have nothing wrong with trying to be the most reliable you can; but I have never understood the ball ammo crowd. If one is that concerned, by all means carry a revolver instead. Just my opinion, the great thing about guns is everybody can pick the style, calibre, and ammunition that suits them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: telackey on 2001-06-16 10:21 ]</font>

 

[Guest]

Blackjack,
No problem at all,what I mean is that I agree with you. Seriously 230gr .45ball is the minimum load I would carry in .45acp.
I do not have a use for the .165 and .185gr loads and I would prefer ball to either.
As to the choir, we can followup with the chorus from Col. Cooper.

Below is a pic of Winchester Govt. issue 230gr "ball" that was used in the "real world" it required only one shot, and did not over pentrate the torso. It entered through the left abdomen, passed through the chest coming to rest against the rt. shoulder blade.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David DiFabio on 2001-06-17 02:10 ]</font>

 

[Guest]

Blackjack,
Again, I agree with you for the most part.

 

[Blackjack]

Thanks David, appreciate it :smile:

As always we value your opinions here and your willingness to share your experiences.

Nasty looking slug, that "used" .45.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Blackjack on 2001-06-17 08:18 ]</font>

 

[Jake Salyards]

Gentlemen, interesting thread here. I am a believer in ball myself, but I only base that on what I have read and heard. Telackey - I read something interesting regarding the auto/revolver dependability deal: Jeff Cooper wrote of a canoe trip he took through a particularly bad part of Mexico. He took a savage lever gun, a shotgun and his trusty 1911. Among others he convinced his family doctor to accompany him on the trip also for some adventure, but also so there was a medical man with them out in the boonies. Anyway, the doctor brought along a wheelgun. The doctor was thinking (as I would have too) that being in the river on and off and camping the revolver would be a much more dependable piece. Every night Mr. Cooper would clean both the guns. The 1911 he would just give a standard cleaning to to get out the gunk, but the revolver had to be taken completely apart as often it was so packed with grit that the cylinder wouldn't even turn when the trigger was pulled. Now, I, personally don't have any firsthand knowledge about this, as I have never had a similar experience, but it was interesting to me as I had thought the wheelgun was the be-all, end-all of dependability. I think if I was faced with a similar journey I would pick a glock 20 or a 1911 and not a revolver. Of course this is just walter mitty stuff, as I have no plans to be chest deep in water and mud with my gun; but - you never know where you're going to find yourself in just a few minutes. Anyway, I invite your comments on this if you find it interesting.

**Edited to add this second comment-

David, I agree with you that ball is very effective. When I have this conversation with myself I usually come to the conclusion that I can't have my cake and eat it too. Meaning I will probably never be able to know that the round I fire will tear through car doors and windows if necessary, but yet always stop just on the farside of the attackers torso. Because of course that is what I want. I want a nuclear weapon that only disables the one person who is trying to kill me and then stops without hurting anyone else. Often, for me, the best is not the most effective; but rather the best suited to the situation. I choose ball ammo for carry right now, but with different dynamics of bystanders and potential place of confrontation, I would choose a HP, not so much to inflict greater damage, but as a means of slowing that projectile after it strikes. Of course, if I always know what is behind what I'm shooting at this becomes less problematic, but I still think it bears consideration. I invite your comments. Jake

_________________
A bad attitude or unsettled mind will destroy focus, guaranteeing failure regardless of training and preparation.
- Mark F. Twight, "Extreme Alpinism"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jake Salyards on 2001-06-17 11:16 ]</font>

 

[joenuclear]

.45 ball

IIRC Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch said something about always using ball ammo as it usually gave your target 2 holes to bleed out with.

 

[L. Reynolds]

Ball ammo

never thought of that Joe..guess thats why good ole Uncle Sam uses it huh? 4 years in and never saw Hollow point this or the newest one shot stopper. Guess old habits( or in this case ammo) dies hard

 

[rogeroger]

What about Federal's EFMJ? Is it good?