I reviewed my post and found a typo that may have caused some to misunderstand my point of view. I originally posted
Quote:
|
I thought that your answer would be similar to that, and both both agree and disagree.
|
What I meant to say was
Quote:
|
I thought that your answer would be similar to that, and I both agree and disagree.
|
Meaning that I do agree that .45 ball is a potent round and suitable for defense, but I also feel that the ability of a bullet, that has been proven to operate reliably in a given firearm, enhances performance as a general rule. If the bullet fails to expand, it is no less effective than ball ammo. If it expands and performs as designed, there are benefits such as larger wound channel, increased delivery of energy and others that I may not be aware of. The key being that it is proven to be reliable in the firearm. An FMJ bullet that completely penetrates a target does not deposit all of the energy that it is carrying onto the target. If a HP bullet of the same diameter, weight and velocity passes completely through the same target at the same place, it does not impart 100% of it's energy either, but due to the increased frontal area, it will impart a higher percentage of it's energy and exit the other side at a lower velocity than the first bullet. As well as providing a larger wound channel with the possibility of doing more damage, this is also a consideration with regard to reduced danger of overpenetration. If the reliability of the two rounds is identical in the given gun, I see no benefit to the FMJ.
Reliability is the true key and I have seen just as many failures to feed caused by an FMJ bullet that was seated too deep or a victim of some other type of manufacturing defect as I have stoppages resulting from HPs with a proven track record in a particular gun.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always believed that our armed forces used ball ammo as a result of the Hague convention. This is what I was taught while I served, but that information could be invalid as I do not recall having ever read the Hague convention. Going to do that now though, just for educational purposes.
Justin