whatnickname
Member
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?
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?