Ball ammo for EDC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can live with it in .45acp and I like it in .32acp (not that I carry a.32 much but I do have a PPK/s in .32....LOL which I like to carry to "a movie" every couple of years )................................


There are/maybe better rounds out there but a .45 inch hole is a nicely expanded .38.
 
you said it best .. "I'll just stay here, stuck in the past" .. and are doing exactly what you accuse most others of doing .. "blindly following bad examples of some who claim to know everything" !

Well, thank you for sharing that. Now a couple of questions:

1. The only pistol a man owns will reliably function only with FMJ ball ammo. He uses that pistol for self-defense in a situation completely out of his control. Has he been irresponsible in any way?

2. Another man owns a pistol and carries it for self-defense. He practices regularly with reloaded ammunition but carries the latest ultra-whatever ammo. The ammunition he is carrying has never been fired in that pistol. When faced with a self-defense situation his pistol fails to fire/feed/extract/eject and locks up solidly. Who was irresponsible?

I suggest that you actually read what someone has written, take a little time for the mental juices to flow, before drawing conclusions that are not supported by the thoughts presented.

Best regards.
 
Does anyone carry RN target ammo for SD...

Yes.


It's a big fat heavy bullet, I can hit what I aim at with it, and it'll kill someone.

'Nuff said.

Confederate-battle_120-animated-flag-gifs.gif
 
I've said many times here- I think we blow this ammunition thing way out of proportion when it's discussed.

It's not like there's a scale of 1 to 10, and a 9mm FMJ does a "5" on the chart, but a 9mm JHP does an 8. It's probably more like 8 and 8.2. You're putting holes in something that you want to leak. Put the hole in a good spot.
 
Well, if Massad Ayoob says it, and Gun Digest prints it, it must be true. (Kinda like everything you see on the Internet is true).
icon_rolleyes.gif


Thanks, but I reckon I'll keep using my own intelligence and experience when it comes to figuring out what works best for me.

Maybe I'm another one of those guys who's stuck in the past...you know, guys who can make their own decisions.

It must be really nice to be born educated. Me, I had to spend a lot of time and money training under some of the best instructors in the world. I also actually had to learn by doing silly things like reading, conducting research, looking at the science, stats, case reports and opinions gathered from those more educated on the subject, possibly more intelligent and having more resources and experience than I before feeling I had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, sort through what I felt was the truth and come to logical conclusions for myself, let alone train or give advice to others. I wonder what it's like to be so intelligent and have so much applicable experience to be able to circumvent all of that nonsense.
 
It happens almost every day. People are idiots for believing what is on the internet. Yet the people that write this are writing it on the internet. I had a guy I worked with that liked to bring that up when I would mention something I read online. I was a fool for believing the people on this forum , I was only to believe him because he was Mr. Gun. I quickly learned to not dispute any view by Mr. Gun. This was a company that was in the gun industry and many of us were long time shooters.

Funny thing is the most malfunctions I ever had was with a Dan Wesson CBOB using Ball ammo, it wouldn't even work with ball. Was glad to get rid of that gun.

It goes without saying that when you use HPs for self defense you have to try it in your gun first. If it doesn't work you try another type of HP.

If someone has a modern pistol such as a Glock, M&P, SIG or HK and you can't find a HP that works well then something is wrong with your pistol.
 
Ball ammo is not my first choice for carry, especially in 9mm. I did carry a 1911A-1 with ball ammo for several years in some questionable places while in the clutches of Uncle Sam. It would function and feed reliably, and made a half inch hole in whatever the round might strike. Again, not the best choice in most cases, but not totally inadequate either. If a particular gun won't feed HP reliably, and will feed ball, then ball probably is the best choice.
 
It must be really nice to be born educated. Me, I had to spend a lot of time and money training under some of the best instructors in the world. I also actually had to learn by doing silly things like reading, conducting research, looking at the science, stats, case reports and opinions gathered from those more educated on the subject, possibly more intelligent and having more resources and experience than I before feeling I had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, sort through what I felt was the truth and come to logical conclusions for myself, let alone train or give advice to others. I wonder what it's like to be so intelligent and have so much applicable experience to be able to circumvent all of that nonsense.

I'm like you had to spend hours reading, watching video, talking to active LEO's, reading what every state police in the nation uses, the FBI, CIA and untold other agency's in the world all use JHP of various caliber and weight.
 
Well, thank you for sharing that. Now a couple of questions:

1. The only pistol a man owns will reliably function only with FMJ ball ammo. He uses that pistol for self-defense in a situation completely out of his control. Has he been irresponsible in any way?

Yes - he is irresponsible for carrying for self defense a firearm that, per your description, will only function with ammunition that is clearly known to over-penetrate and risk innocent bystander injuries. If he is lucky he won't injure or kill a bystander, if he is not lucky, he could kill a bystander. How would he be justified in his use of hardball if his 230 grain bullet exited the back of the thorax of a perpetrator and killed a 4 year old child that was standing behind the perpetrator? Would he feel responsible because his only gun would not function with hollow points?

2. Another man owns a pistol and carries it for self-defense. He practices regularly with reloaded ammunition but carries the latest ultra-whatever ammo. The ammunition he is carrying has never been fired in that pistol. When faced with a self-defense situation his pistol fails to fire/feed/extract/eject and locks up solidly. Who was irresponsible?

No - in this case he is not irresponsible, but he is not being prudent. You should train and get comfortable with the ammunition that you will use in your carry piece. You don't have to do ALL of your training with the more expensive ammo, but at least enough to know how your firearm will function with said.

I suggest that you actually read what someone has written, take a little time for the mental juices to flow, before drawing conclusions that are not supported by the thoughts presented.

Best regards.

Step back, take a deep breath and understand that you are using hardball ammo going against the common practice of using expanding bullets for self defense. There are MANY reasons to carry expanding bullets, and if you only have one gun and it won't reliably fire expanding point projectiles you are being irresponsible if you are carrying that piece for self defense.

I teach use of lethal force, and I instruct my class to carry hollow point ammo for self defense, and I lecture on why.

You are free to do what you feel is right.

best

mqqn
 
Last edited:
Yes - he is irresponsible for carrying for self defense a firearm that, per your description, will only function with ammunition that is clearly known to over-penetrate and risk innocent bystander injuries. If he is lucky he won't injure or kill a bystander, if he is not lucky, he could kill a bystander. How would he be justified in his use of hardball if his 230 grain bullet exited the back of the thorax of a perpetrator and killed a 4 year old child that was standing behind the perpetrator? Would he feel responsible because his only gun would not function with hollow points?



No - in this case he is not irresponsible, but he is not being prudent. You should train and get comfortable with the ammunition that you will use in your carry piece. You don't have to do ALL of your training with the more expensive ammo, but at least enough to know how your firearm will function with said.



Step back, take a deep breath and understand that you are using hardball ammo going against the common practice of using expanding bullets for self defense. There are MANY reasons to carry expanding bullets, and if you only have one gun and it won't reliably fire expanding point projectiles you are being irresponsible if you are carrying that piece for self defense.

I teach use of lethal force, and I instruct my class to carry hollow point ammo for self defense, and I lecture on why.

You are free to do what you feel is right.

best

mqqn

Quite frankly, this demonstrates exactly the same type and level of elitist thinking that results in "common sense" gun control laws.

The object of carrying a defensive side arm is survival. If I know that I will be attacked and have to defend myself when I leave my house I would be foolish to leave my house, and especially stupid if all I carried was a handgun. If I am attacked on the street and have to defend myself everything else is a secondary issue; I am not about to stand there and be killed or maimed just because there is some possibility that my ball ammo might go through my attacker and hit something else. When I am trying to stay alive I think the idea of both an entry wound and an exit wound draining my attacker could be a very good thing.

Simply because a certain level of technology might be available, and might be thought more efficacious in some or all circumstances, does not mean that all other technologies should be forgotten (or banned).

Just because a person has only the means to defend his life in one way does not mean he is being irresponsible by doing so.

Fortunately, in the US we have the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to restrict that right by limiting the type of arms, the types of ammunition, the means of bearing arms, etc. The type of thinking demonstrated in this thread is no different. For many years we have observed as state and local governments banned concealed carry, while simultaneously banning open carry, all the while claiming that these were just "reasonable" limitations in the interests of public safety. Lately we have seen many efforts to limit certain types of arms, magazine capacities, ammunition types, and other things, all presented as "common sense" measures.

What may sound like a reasonable argument for or against something can lead to de facto prohibitions. No one may have a bicycle until everyone has a bicycle sounds very democratic, even utopian. But it can quickly become something else, as every bicycle must be of the same type and no one can use anything else even if that is all they have.
 
What you are failing to understand is that you will have to defend your life twice, once at the point you draw and fire, and again in court.

You have the ability and information needed to make the decision now with regard to what you carry before you have had to defend your life.

Your lack of understanding of the great importance of that simple issue is telling.

I sincerely hope that you never have to defend your life or the life of someone you have a duty to protect, but if you do, you make the choice yourself on what you carry.

You are free to do what you want in this great country.

best

mqqn
 
Last edited:
mqqn.... don't know your age .....but in the 60s and early 70s the introduction of modern hollow-point ammo ...... and the desire of police departments/officers to have them.. sparked a huge debate about the use of these new "Killer" bullets.....effectively delaying their general use for about 5 years.

IIRC there were several major lawsuits because of their use.... by the Police.....because they did "to much damage". Anybody remember the "Black Talon" round that was pulled ..... "Killer bullet"...who's sharp edges "cut" a swath of destruction through the human body!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Overpenetration is/may be the lesser of the evils we may face ..... given the stats that only something like 1 in 5 rounds fired hit the intended target........ the other 4 are the bigger lawsuits waiting to happen in MHO.

As stated above I'd be OK with hardball in .45, might even prefer it in .32apc....but would prefer a more "modern" bullet in .38.

FWIW I would not want to be hit with a .69 cal "ball of lead" fired from a "Brown Bess".

Lebo makes some sound arguments..... in .45..... if he was using Wally World 130gr fmj .38 not-so-Special....... I would agree with you more.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to come down on the side of LoboGunLeather on this.

There's too much fantasy scenario arranging going on these days about how much a bullet will expand, or will it expand more or less depending upon the bullet weight, or whether it will expand at all, or if it will or won't expand depending upon what the bad guy is wearing, or if someone is standing directly behind the bad guy... and on and on and on.

Defensive gun use isn't about scenarios at all, but rather, completely about statistics.

Scenarios are made up fantasies while statistics are real live results of real live incidences.

Somebody show me how many 4 year old children were hit by a bullet passing through a perp. Anyone? Maybe it happened a time or two, so do we need to change an entire paradigm of defense because of two accidental deaths of kids? If we do, then we need to look again at swimming pools and electrical outlets and drain cleaner and every other thing that kills a helluva lot more kids than a bullet going through a bad guy.

Now how about how many firearms have misfired for some reason or another, perhaps mostly from "iffy" magic ammo that is supposed to expand like a balloon and make the bad guy blow up?

I favor the reliability statistics of ball ammo over the "child behind the bad guy" statistics any day.
Whatever happens, I am not a loose cannon with a gun. I am a thinking citizen who knows what mortal danger looks like, and when I have to take a shot to get myself or loved ones out of a dangerous situation, I want my weapon to go bang every time I pull the trigger and not have to rack it to get to the next shot.
I will be very happy to let a jury sort things out whatever the outcome.

Bottom line is that each person should choose what they feel like using and leave others to do the same.
 
mqqn.... don't know your age .....but in the 60s and early 70s the introduction of modern hollow-point ammo ...... and the desire of police departments/officers to have them.. sparked a huge debate about the use of these new "Killer" bullets.....effectively delaying their general use for about 5 years.

Overpenetration is/may be the lesser of the evils we may face ..... given the stats that only something like 1 in 5 rounds fired hit the intended target........ the other 4 are the bigger lawsuits waiting to happen in MHO.

As stated above I'd be OK with hardball in .45, might even prefer it in .32apc....but would prefer a more "modern" bullet in .38.

FWIW I would not want to be hit with a .69 cal "ball of lead" fired from a "Brown Bess".

Lebo makes some sound arguments..... in .45..... if he was using Wally World 130gr fmj .38 not-so-Special....... I would agree with you more.

Using BAMs reasoning, HPs that miss the target are more of a liability than hardball then, due to the lethality of the round. It's a never-ending argument. Worry more about putting them where you want them, and less about where they're going after they go through it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top