How effective is the 45 ACP Ball round for self-defense?

[Slamfire]

Yes, but there weren't that many young males compared to the overall population. So at no time did the Veteran population end up at such a number that most of the adults or adult males were veterans. We only put 16,500,000 people (male and female), of which 10,100,000 were male (less, as the numbers indicate draft from 1940-1947) into the military (according to different sites than Slamfire, so more people, but still not enough to make it most males, https://stacker.com/history/states-drafted-most-men-world-war-ii), with a starting population of 133,000,000 in 1941 (before the war) and by 1945, we had grown in population to right at 140,000,000. It is hard to get (original premise pondered) a whole generation of adults that were veterans when a generation is roughly 20 years long and for the US, the war was less than 4 years and and roughly 1/4 (400K) of those that served were killed or died in service.

There are lots of numbers out there. This is one set:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acs-43.pdf

Drafts and voluntary enlistments from World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars left a substantial imprint on the veteran population, one that has lasted decades. In 1950, following World War II, more than 1 in 3 men in the United States were veterans (37percent of the male population aged 18 and over at that time)

The real question is, what was the chance that a man, 18 to 21 years old, was not drafted in the military during WW2? My Dad graduated High School, and he, like all those young men who had zero job skills, High School graduates were the most desirable group of men to draft into the military.

The military wants them young. Joe Foss had a private pilot license pre WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Foss He desperately wanted to be a Marine Fighter pilot. I read his book. But he was 27 years old and the Marine Corp considered him too old! Joe fingalded a post next to a USMC fighter squadron, went into the CO’s office and made the case why he ought to be a fighter pilot. And was more or less tossed out on the first try. But Joe was persistent, and made a deal with the CO. If he was made a fighter pilot trainee, Joe would be the death “Notification Officer” as long as he was a trainee. Student pilots were dying at an appalling rate, at least one a week, sometimes several a day, or every other day. The Notification Officer went to the parents of the recently deceased, and the whole event was extremely stressful for everybody. No Marine wanted to be Notification Officer. And that is how, given that Joe was overage, Joe got fighter pilot training.

The thing is, men in their teens and early twenties are able to stand physical stresses that even “old men” in their late 20’s can’t handle. Someone in their 30’s is clearly over the hill. (there are exceptions) Older men just wear out faster, and take too long to recover. Sure older guys can push paper, but young men are the ones carrying 60 lbs of gear and making 22 mile marches.

Look at the demographics of age, 18 to 24, and look at the small percent of men that are available. Now this is current population data, and there are less young men now than pre WW2.

https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/ta...c=1&loct=2#detailed/2/2-52/true/1095/68/21596

Young adult population ages 18 to 24 by race and ethnicity | KIDS COUNT Data Center

Map for Young adult population ages 18 to 24 by race and ethnicity

datacenter.aecf.org

Still, what I see is that war is disproportionally borne by young men. They are the first to be sent off, and if you are in that 18 to 24 year old age band, extraordinary circumstances have to be in place for you not to be drafted, and not to be assigned to a combat unit.

This looks to be a A-4 flight suit that was made into a shooting jacket. It was hanging in the Oak Ridge Gun Clubhouse. I have no idea of the original owner, but the patches tell a story

Anyone who was at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute was being educated the top mathematicians in the United States. The nuclear enrichment program at Oak Ridge was super secret, super important, and the super technical elite were assigned to the Manhattan project. This is obviously a young man who was too valuable to the Nation’s security to turn into mulch.

Now if you want to make the case that the percentage of men in the WW2 military is small, in comparison to the total population, the answer is yes. I am sure someone will show, the percentage of young men in the military, during WW2, was extremely high.

The Germans did have Volkssturm, and the grand pa’s in these units had the reputation of surrendering to Western forces as soon as they could!

 

[JohnKSa]

In 1950, following World War II, more than 1 in 3 men in the United States were veterans (37percent of the male population aged 18 and over at that time).

This seems to confirm the statement that: "So at no time did the Veteran population end up at such a number that most of the adults or adult males were veterans. " since 37% is considerably less than 51%.

My Dad spent the war years driving the bus taking defense workers to places like the aircraft plant... where my Mother worked.

Exactly. A major factor in the winning of WWII was the massive production effort that took place at home. That took a huge number of persons that never went to war in the conventional sense.

 

[Bob Meyer]

First let me say that I favor premium defensive ammo for self-defense in the heavier calibers. When it comes to 380 acp and 32 acp, my preference is ball as I have concerns that hollow points may not provide the penetration needed to get the job done, especially if my assailant is wearing heavy clothing. The case for premium defensive ammo is well supported in the FBI report published in 2014 and in quite a few other articles by people that are much more knowledgeable than I am.

All of this aside, the 230 grain ball round has a long and celebrated history in the military. I am well aware of the limitations placed on the ammunition used by the military by various international agreements. I also knew quite a few WWII veterans that saw countless examples of the effectiveness of the 45 ball round in combat. Everyone of these veterans to a man had the same opinion which was that the 45 ball round was, in ever so many words, a “man stopper”. These veterans had no reason to make anything up. They were there and simply offered an opinion based on their personal experiences. And yet if you believe what so many “experts” opine today, the 45 ball round is next to useless when it comes to defending life and limb. I suppose there’s quite a bit to support the notion that a 185 or 200 grain hollow point round traveling around 1000fps is more effective than a 230 grain ball round traveling at 850fps. There are still some 1911 formats, like the short barreled 3” pistols and some other guns, that will only run reliably with ball ammo. Case in point is my older 1911 RIA 5” that was never set up to run anything but ball. This pistol is not at all reliable with hollow points but will run any ball round you care to put in it with complete reliability. So, if all you have in your 45 acp is ball ammo, are you at a disadvantage? So what’s the consensus? Is 45 ball as useless as some folks claim it to be?

Leroy Thompson used to publish in gun mags years ago. His main occupation was body guard, including for the Saudi royal family. He said that he had shot 5 assassins with 45 hardball. They were all 1-shot kills.

 

[JohnKSa]

Good for Leroy Thompson. That's exactly the kind of performance I would expect from someone paid to guard one of the wealthiest heads of state in the world. Is there some reason to expect that the results would have been different if he had been using .45ACP JHP rounds, or 9mm hardball?

Jerry Miculek fired 6 rounds, reloaded and fired another 6 rounds, keeping all the rounds on target and did it all in less than 3 seconds using .38Special in a S&W revolver. Therefore, anyone who wants to shoot fast and accurately and reload really rapidly should use a S&W revolver and .38Special ammunition and expect to get the same results as Miculek. Right?

 

[orionengnr]

Seems like we are getting away from the OP's question.

I have 1911's and have owned and carried 1911s for years. Of the 20-ish 1911s I have owned, I remember one that would not feed JHP, and that was an actual (pre-A1) 1911. All the others feed pretty much anything and everything.

That said, if all I had was ball ammo (or my LSWC handloads) I'd be okay with that until I could find some more JHPs....

 

[cfullgraf]

Most of my 45 ACP 1911’s work well with 230 RN bullets but can be hit or miss with hollow point bullets. The 200 grain Speer hollow points, aka the flying ash can, feed reliably but the muzzle velocity is too low for reliable expansion.

So, I’m happy with shooting 230 gr RN for the most part.

Besides, I like heavy weight, larger diameter bullets moving at slower velocities.

But, I got a resent production Gold Cup. The feed ramp is different from my standard 1911’s I have and it feeds 185-200 gr SWC bullets just fine. It may feed the current crop of designer hollow point bullets. I still feel the muzzle velocity is a bit low for reliable expansion but it might be worth an experiment.

 

[Bob Meyer]

Good for Leroy Thompson. That's exactly the kind of performance I would expect from someone paid to guard one of the wealthiest heads of state in the world. Is there some reason to expect that the results would have been different if he had been using .45ACP JHP rounds, or 9mm hardball?

Jerry Miculek fired 6 rounds, reloaded and fired another 6 rounds, keeping all the rounds on target and did it all in less than 3 seconds using .38Special in a S&W revolver. Therefore, anyone who wants to shoot fast and accurately and reload really rapidly should use a S&W revolver and .38Special ammunition and expect to get the same results as Miculek. Right?

The original question was about 45 ball ammo. I had some info that was relevant. No need to get missy about it. I carry 45 JHP ammo figuring it will give less overpenetration. The 45 bullet is heavier and larger diameter than 9mm. I expect the 45 will do a better job than the 9mm, JHP or ball.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Leroy Thompson used to publish in gun mags years ago. His main occupation was body guard, including for the Saudi royal family. He said that he had shot 5 assassins with 45 hardball. They were all 1-shot kills.

Nobody isn't saying it won't kill or won't stop people. There are those that argue the .22 subsonic is an outstanding stopper because the Israelis use them for assassinations and special ops stuff. That doesn't mean there aren't better choices.

This guy was a one shot kill. It only took him 60 years to die.

A medical mystery: How can gunshot wounds cause death decades later?

Cases of death from a decades-old injury draw headlines but medical examiners say they aren't all that rare, though they can be hard to investigate.

www.statnews.com

This gal was a one shot kill. It only took her 30 years to die.

Woman dies from gunshot 30 years later

A Memphis woman's death has been ruled a homicide three decades after her husband shot her and was charged with assault.

www.actionnews5.com

This guy is a one shot kill. It only took him 3 years to die.

Autopsy: Toledo man dead from wound 3 years after being shot

Dontayveon Jones, 26, was shot in north Toledo in April 2020. He died three years later this week due to complications from the gunshot wound.

www.wtol.com

The bottom line here is that ball is ball and pokes holes in the body. You poke holes in the body and it compromises the body. How much compromise will occur and how fast the person might die will depend on MANY factors. For hundreds of years, men swore by their black powder guns. Lincoln was a one shot kill. There are better choices than ball.

Getting back to the OP, how effective was it? We don't have the numbers or the basic descriptive data to know. This will all go back to the difference between psychological stops and physiological stops, stuff highly debated even with modern calibers, and the fact that many folks don't recognize a difference or don't distinguish between stops and deaths. Gunshots today, particularly from pistols, are much more survivable now despite having better ammo simply because of access to medical care.

The original question was about 45 ball ammo. I had some info that was relevant. No need to get missy about it. I carry 45 JHP ammo figuring it will give less overpenetration. The 45 bullet is heavier and larger diameter than 9mm. I expect the 45 will do a better job than the 9mm, JHP or ball.

This would make sense from a logical perspective. I am also a fan of .45 acp. However, it is hard to ignore shooting data where 9mm is performing statistically as well as 45 acp given the state of bullet technology today. If you are relying on momentum, .45 acp all the way. If you are talking about stops, then either is a fine choice with modern JHP ammo.

 

[trackskippy]

I still think its a mistake to think that the choice of ammo is the major thing here. It isnt. What "you" do with whatever you have in the gun is going to be the more important thing than whats in the gun.

Someone who has the skill and experience will do better with a gun loaded with ball, than someone who is counting on a magic bullet to make up for their lack of skill and experience. A good hit with either is likely going to bring the same result, same as a less than good hit will bring a similar result. Anything in the middle there is splitting hairs, and not likely even statistical on paper.

 

[S.Crockett]

Leroy Thompson used to publish in gun mags years ago. His main occupation was body guard, including for the Saudi royal family. He said that he had shot 5 assassins with 45 hardball. They were all 1-shot kills.

Sounds like an an appeal to hearsay. Therefore, aspirational.

 

[Tinman357]

Bullets poke holes. Hollow points may expand, may not. Hard ball may over penetrate, may not. A miss with either is a miss with no measurable effect.

A badly place hit will have less immediate effect than a well placed hit.

Dynamic violent encounters, including shootings, rattle even the most experianced and well trained defender. Some people can soak up rounds and keep coming at you. Others drop and die from seemingly non fatal hits.

Nothing is guaranteed. Training, good equipment, minimizing risk, tested and street proven ammo is about the best anyone can do.

Everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin.

All that said, I prefer well known and street proven hollow points in my carry sidearm, regardless of caliber. I lean strongly towards bigger is better. But, I don't discount the benefit of higher capacity sidearms.

But it ball is all I have when that time comes, I'll do the best I can. If the only gun I have only feeds ball, then thats what I'll use until I can get a better gun.

To that end, my most commonly carried sidearm is a Wilson X-TAC 45acp. I have thouroughly tested it with all kinds of ammo including very light, soft semi wad cutters. No jams. All good.

 

[GRIZ22]

45 hardball will work. Not the best but far from the worst

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Sigh. Let's just say, if anyone wants to quibble, a preponderance of adult males of a certain age group in my family, extended family, our church and our social circles. To stay on topic, probably few if any of them had occasion to use a 1911 against other humans, and those who might have, never shared those stories with me while I was a boy.

Most of us knew what you meant.

 

[JohnKSa]

The original question was about 45 ball ammo. I had some info that was relevant.

The problem is that it's very difficult to draw conclusions based on what a top expert in his field can do. What Leroy Thompson did to assassins with .45 ball ammo is as relevant to how effective it would be in your hands or mine as what Jerry Miculek did with a .38Spl S&W revolver is relevant to how fast and accurately a typical person could shoot and reload a revolver.

Just about any pistol cartridge has the potential to achieve one-shot stops with excellent shot placement. Any of them can fail with less than perfect shot placement. The first statement means that evidence can be found to support the effectiveness of just about any pistol cartridge and the second means that the evidence doesn't tell you much about what happens with less than perfect shot placement.

 

[small town life]

Ask all of the dead from the wars and gangs that used tommy guns!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I still think its a mistake to think that the choice of ammo is the major thing here. It isnt. What "you" do with whatever you have in the gun is going to be the more important thing than whats in the gun.

Someone who has the skill and experience will do better with a gun loaded with ball, than someone who is counting on a magic bullet to make up for their lack of skill and experience. A good hit with either is likely going to bring the same result, same as a less than good hit will bring a similar result. Anything in the middle there is splitting hairs, and not likely even statistical on paper.

When it comes to fighting, what is or isn't more important is determined AFTER the shooting stops, not before. Everything else is a matter of advantages. Using the right ammo is one of the factors we can control for that will give us some advantage over using just ball, everything else being equal. I can appreciate that a good hit will have the same result, but that assumes folks are going to get necessarily good hits in a battle and we know from experience that most of the shots fired in gun battles are not good shots and don't result in good hits. That is where the ammo that does the most damage is advantageous.

Contrary to your way of thinking, ammunition is very important because it will be what contacts the opposition. It is sort of like what is going on with Russian artillery right now. Many of their shells are sans explosive. Sure, a really good artillery person could make it work, but shooting 'ball' instead of 'expanding' is not working as well for them.

Skill and experience are often surpassed by luck and treachery.

Ask all of the dead from the wars and gangs that used tommy guns!

Tommy guns aren't exactly similar to semi-auto pistols, the extra barrel length providing additional velocity and the rate of fire is totally different. Never mind that when Tommy guns were in favor, medical care sucked compared to what it is today.

 

[trackskippy]

When it comes to fighting, what is or isn't more important is determined AFTER the shooting stops, not before. Everything else is a matter of advantages. Using the right ammo is one of the factors we can control for that will give us some advantage over using just ball, everything else being equal. I can appreciate that a good hit will have the same result, but that assumes folks are going to get necessarily good hits in a battle and we know from experience that most of the shots fired in gun battles are not good shots and don't result in good hits. That is where the ammo that does the most damage is advantageous.

Contrary to your way of thinking, ammunition is very important because it will be what contacts the opposition. It is sort of like what is going on with Russian artillery right now. Many of their shells are sans explosive. Sure, a really good artillery person could make it work, but shooting 'ball' instead of 'expanding' is not working as well for them.

Skill and experience are often surpassed by luck and treachery.

Regardless of what is in the gun ammo wise, Im not going to be shooting the gun any differently. Would you?

I see no other way to respond with a handgun, or any gun for that matter, but especially a handgun, other than to continue to shoot your opponent until they are down, out, and done. You dont stop shooting until they are done. There are just too many variables going on, to say the ammo is the decisive part of the equation here.

You may have the latest and greatest wonder ammo in the gun, and still shoot the gun to empty and need a reload to solve the problem.

Will premium ammo do more damage than ball, if it works as advertised, yea, probably? Is it enough of a difference to be an actual difference? Whos to say?

Only way to really know is, you and the other guy have to work it out and see. There will be an answer to that specific problem in there somewhere.

And the very next instance is a whole new specific problem.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Regardless of what is in the gun ammo wise, Im not going to be shooting the gun any differently. Would you?

I see no other way to respond with a handgun, or any gun for that matter, but especially a handgun, other than to continue to shoot your opponent until they are down, out, and done. You dont stop shooting until they are done. There are just too many variables going on, to say the ammo is the decisive part of the equation here.

You may have the latest and greatest wonder ammo in the gun, and still shoot the gun to empty and need a reload to solve the problem.

Will premium ammo do more damage than ball, if it works as advertised, yea, probably? Is it enough of a difference to be an actual difference? Whos to say?

Only way to really know is, you and the other guy have to work it out and see. There will be an answer to that specific problem in there somewhere.

And the very next instance is a whole new specific problem.

Well, I ONLY use super-whamodyne, magic armor piercing, heat seeking, incendiary, explody bullets, so I've got it covered!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Regardless of what is in the gun ammo wise, Im not going to be shooting the gun any differently. Would you?

Quite possibly. I will also be more cognizant of overpenetration issues if shooting ball. However, whether or not you are shooting it differently isn't salient. What is salient is if and where the bullet hits the bad guy and what damage is done.

There are just too many variables going on, to say the ammo is the decisive part of the equation here.

You won't know if it is decisive until it hits the target. AGAIN, these are things determined AFTER the gun fight. There are many variables and the ones that matter won't be known for a given fight until after the fight is over. Maybe it mattered that you went to Thunder Ranch and got high speed low drag training. If you win fight, maybe you claim all your training mattered. If you lose the fight, then maybe all the training didn't matter. People will tell you were and many places that training really matters, and maybe it does, yet we have seen countless stories of untrained people being victorious. You don't know what was important or decisive until AFTER the fight is over.

As for being decisive, one of the reasons virtually all US police departments use hollowpoint ammo.

NEW YORK POLICE WILL START USING DEADLIER BULLETS (Published 1998)

New York Police Dept will equip entire force of almost 40,000 members with hollow-point bullets, which cause much greater injury to people they strike but are considered less likely to cut down bystanders; Police Comr Howard Safir originally announced switch to hollow-point bullets in March...

www.nytimes.com

Hollow point bullets to be standard issue for Met Police

The Metropolitan's Police firearms chief tells Simon Israel that all of their armed officers will be issued the controversial bullet as standard, arguing it poses less of a risk to the public.

www.channel4.com

Choose your ammo... police style - Backwoods Home Magazine

By Massad Ayoob Issue #93 • May/June, 2005 One of our greatest modern gun experts, Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC, Ret., once made the observation that the bullet is more important than the gun. The gun, he explained, is merely the launcher. It is the bullet that actually does the job. This is true...

www.backwoodshome.com

Even detractors of hollowpoint ammo realize it is more effective...

LAPD Gets Approval to Switch Officers to Hollow-Point Ammo : Law enforcement: Police contend that it's a safer bullet, but some activists claim it will result in more deaths.

After years of dispute and study, the Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday gave approval for the city's police force to use hollow-point bullets, a controversial type of ammunition that expands on impact with its target.

www.latimes.com

The bottom line is that hollowpoint bullets do a better job causing tissue damage than ball ammo. The more damage done, the faster the person is apt to change behavior or succumb.

 

[small town life]

When it comes to fighting, what is or isn't more important is determined AFTER the shooting stops, not before. Everything else is a matter of advantages. Using the right ammo is one of the factors we can control for that will give us some advantage over using just ball, everything else being equal. I can appreciate that a good hit will have the same result, but that assumes folks are going to get necessarily good hits in a battle and we know from experience that most of the shots fired in gun battles are not good shots and don't result in good hits. That is where the ammo that does the most damage is advantageous.

Contrary to your way of thinking, ammunition is very important because it will be what contacts the opposition. It is sort of like what is going on with Russian artillery right now. Many of their shells are sans explosive. Sure, a really good artillery person could make it work, but shooting 'ball' instead of 'expanding' is not working as well for them.

Skill and experience are often surpassed by luck and treachery.



Tommy guns aren't exactly similar to semi-auto pistols, the extra barrel length providing additional velocity and the rate of fire is totally different. Never mind that when Tommy guns were in favor, medical care sucked compared to what it is today.

Response wasn't limited to tommy guns as 1911's were used also.

 

[TTv2]

I would like to read every post in this topic before posting, but I can't. The topic of non-expanding handgun ammo for defense is one I think should be covered more because while we know that hollow points are more effective, the science of how much more regarding self defense is debatable.

The focus on hollow points use is largely on reducing over penetration for liability purposes as if someone were shot and the bullet exited and hit someone else it could be deadly for someone who isn't deserving of lethal force. That aside, effect on target is the focus and for a person who is alone they need to stop a threat fast and a hollow point seems to do more damage quicker to facilitate that cessation of a threat than an FMJ does.

However, shot placement is always key and with smaller calibers like .32 the FMJ is favored due to hollow points being unable to expand and/or penetrate, so that's not to say a .45 FMJ is useless as if we find smaller calibers useful with FMJ then a larger caliber certainly is as well.

I'll cut to the chase and just give my opinion: I would use .45 FMJ or ball ammo if I was concerned about large animals like bear or moose because penetration is key and .45 ball can penetrate very well. I would consider it during times of war or civil war where the only law is to kill or be killed and I had to supply myself with my own ammo.

I can't help but think of other calibers when the JHP vs FMJ question comes up, but this is about .45 ACP and it's not a preferred caliber of mine. Unless a supressor is involved, I'd rather have a different caliber almost all the time than a .45 ACP.

 

[small town life]

I would like to read every post in this topic before posting, but I can't. The topic of non-expanding handgun ammo for defense is one I think should be covered more because while we know that hollow points are more effective, the science of how much more regarding self defense is debatable.

The focus on hollow points use is largely on reducing over penetration for liability purposes as if someone were shot and the bullet exited and hit someone else it could be deadly for someone who isn't deserving of lethal force. That aside, effect on target is the focus and for a person who is alone they need to stop a threat fast and a hollow point seems to do more damage quicker to facilitate that cessation of a threat than an FMJ does.

However, shot placement is always key and with smaller calibers like .32 the FMJ is favored due to hollow points being unable to expand and/or penetrate, so that's not to say a .45 FMJ is useless as if we find smaller calibers useful with FMJ then a larger caliber certainly is as well.

I'll cut to the chase and just give my opinion: I would use .45 FMJ or ball ammo if I was concerned about large animals like bear or moose because penetration is key and .45 ball can penetrate very well. I would consider it during times of war or civil war where the only law is to kill or be killed and I had to supply myself with my own ammo.

I can't help but think of other calibers when the JHP vs FMJ question comes up, but this is about .45 ACP and it's not a preferred caliber of mine. Unless a supressor is involved, I'd rather have a different caliber almost all the time than a .45 ACP.

Knowing your background is paramount no matter the type of bullet. You don't think hp couldn't exit and hit a bystander? What is almost as bad is not being able for a hp to penetrate clothing enough or at all. Best scenario is for the bad person to drop dead and save bullets!

 

[hawg]

A .45 caliber hole is still a .45 caliber hole.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Response wasn't limited to tommy guns as 1911's were used also.

I am not sure how I did not comprehend that.

Ask all of the dead from the wars and gangs that used tommy guns!

-----------------------

You don't think hp couldn't exit and hit a bystander?

Hollowpoints can absolutely overpenetrate. However, if they did expand, then they were tearing up more tissue than a ball round on the same trajectory at the same velocity and would therefore be slowed more than the ball round if they do exit. Hollowpoints tend to be less dangerous to targets down range. It isn't an absolute and wasn't presented as such.

The focus on hollow points use is largely on reducing over penetration for liability purposes as if someone were shot and the bullet exited and hit someone else it could be deadly for someone who isn't deserving of lethal force.

 

[Rexster]

All else being equal, if I am carrying a weapon that has the power to put holes through something like a car door, or windshield glass, I would rather use ammo loaded with bullets that will be more likely to hold together, while penetrating those materials. Bonded-core JHP is more likely to perform this way. Round-nosed .45 ACP FMJ is less consistent. I do not expect a pocket pistol cartridge to shoot through intermediate cover, but a reason (for me) to opt to carry a duty/service-sized weapon is to be able to engage attackers that are inside motor vehicles, or are otherwise on the other side of a car door.

When I was younger and less-prosperous, it was also a time of .45 ACP JHP being much more costly, per round, than today, if we adjust for inflation. So, it was financially much more difficult to shoot a statistically meaningful sample of JHP through one’s 1911, in order to be truly certain that it was a reliable combination. So, for a time, I carried a premium JHP in the chamber, and the mag was loaded with good-quality round-noised FMJ. (This was before bonded-core defensive ammo was available.)