Quote:
|
When you use slow moving ball ammo like a .45, the wound channel is not as disruptive as with something that would tear better like a swc/wc or hollow point.
|
You just compared a SWC with an HP. At one time the SWC was thought to "cut a better wound channel" (which sounds logical to me), but actual shootings didn't show the SWC to be any better than HB, where as the increased expansion diameter of the HP is definately effective, expecially with sharp edges or petals.
Quote:
|
As already stated as a concern by others, the semi-wadcutter isn't the most popular choice due to reliable feeding into the chamber. I don't know of any semi-auto able to feed wadcutters.
|
Not where the 1911 is concerned (we're talking throated pistols). All mine feed 200 gr. lead SWC's slick as a whistle. When the .45 was king of ISPC, so was the 200 gr. SWC--for it's extreme reliablity for one thing. Better than hardball in my experience. I have 8 rd. mag's. that won't reliably feed the first rd. of HB, but have no problems with SWC's. The H&G 68 is the profile I'm talking about, and in 200 grs.
With other pistols, I tend to agree. Most were never designed to feed that rd., though my SIG's in .45 and .40 will feed them. In my P220's, the bullet must be seated fairly deep (barely some shoulder showing) or you can't fit 8 rds. in the mag. It's not the length that's the issue, it's the radiused front part of the mags that are compatible with HP's and HB, but not the wide portion of the SWC that sits too far forward.