[newsflash]

Anyone have experience with a good .45 auto 185 gr. JHP for self-defense and hunting? I would primarily use such a round for self-defense but would also use it in a Gov't .45 as a backup to a .308 rifle.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. I have not really looked into much in that weight for .45 ACP, but will be doing a test on the new Corbon DPX 185-gr. +P hollow point in the near future.

I have not personally tested these and know of no one who has used them on either animals or felons, but I believe that Remington offers Golden Sabers in 185-gr, both at standard and +P ratings. I've had good luck in recent times with Golden Saber in 230-gr., but have not worked with the 185-gr.

As you mention "hunting back up", you might take a look at Hornady's 200-gr. XTP. It can be had at both standard and +P velocities and is normally a very accurate load in most pistols. I've killed a deer with the 200-gr. in a handloaded equivalent to the +P and got complete penetration on a broadside shot. I know this is a bit heavier than the 185-gr. weight you specified, but it might be worth a look.

Best and good luck.

 

[Guest]

For a time I carried Federal 185's in a Commander and a 3-inch Model 625. While I never had too shoot anything or anyone with them, they seemed to be rather mild. Like Stephen, I prefer the 200-grain weight in .45 ACP.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

I have used Super Vel 190, Winchester Silver Tip 185, and handloads with the old Sierra JHC and Power Jacket at about 1150 fps as well as the Cor-Bon PowerBall 165.

I would not use any of them for hunting anything bigger than a 50 pound critter. They might suffice for defense if a normal frontal hit that did not strike bone was offered, people probably are not as difficult to penetrate as critters but I like a little safety cushion.

Years ago a local deputy used the Super Vel 190 to good effect, it was pretty impressive even if it was not particularly well placed nor lethal.

The 185 DPX Steve mentioned might be a horse of a different color. Time will tell but it looks to be a good bullet.



Good luck!
Jim

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, Jim. I've noted the very same thing in animals: less penetration. I find this interesting as 10% ballistic gelatin is based on Fackler's results using hogs' hind quarters. I've wondered what this difference is from. Do you think it might be hide thickness? I cannot recall where, but it seems that I read human hide (back) is roughly equivalent to 4" of ballistic gelatin. IF this is right and IF the toughness of the animal hides is the cause of the divergence, it would be fairly easy to see, given enough examples of actual penetration in the same species.

I know I witnessed repeatedly poor performance with the Federal 165-gr. Hydrashok on javelina and one using the 230-gr. version.

Best.

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Steve;
This is just conjecture and I am very open to more informed opinion but right now here is my take;

Fackler used a very young feeder pig. They don't have the thick skin or layer of fat nor the muscular structure of an older pig or a wild animal. Mind you that is probably a good idea.

As you know I gather all the practical info I can on people also. Gelatin gives even an "optimistic" average for people. Note that in the Miami shootout that neither of the "million $ shots" that hit Platt hit bone yet one penetrated 8" and one penetrated no more than 6"...neither made it to the heart. Still as an average it is probably a fair indicator or at least for comparing one bullet to another. I won't accept anything that penetrates less than 12" in gelatin and I like 14-16".

Bear in mind that .45 ball only exits the human body a little over half the time and in Evan Marshal's stats it penetrates and average of 20" in people while it penetrates 29-30" of gelatin.

Right now I forget who did it but the IWBA has an article on comparison of carefully prepared "wetpack" and animals. The two are very close from handguns on up to the .375 H&H but the comparison is on heavy critters.

My general take is that on people, gelatin is "optimistic" and wetpack is "pessimistic". On people gelatin is extremely optimistic (but might work for the "behind the shoulder" shots) and wetpack is pretty close to what we will get.

Onward,
Jim

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello, Jim. I'd not said much about it in "public" due to the attitudes on some sites, but the wet pack and animals do seem pretty darned close. This is why I don't feel too "bad" that I don't have the bucks to spend on ballistic gelatin and a controlled environment. Doing the expanision thing in wet pack and water usually tells me what I want to know.

Thanks again.

Steve

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Hello, Jim. <snippage> Doing the expanision thing in wet pack and water usually tells me what I want to know.

Thanks again.

Steve

Roger that. The best we can do is compare one bullet to another. I have used gelatin before. Wetpack and water are much easier to use and still allow a relatively reliable comparison from one bullet to the next in both penetration and expansion. That is probably all we should really expect from anything.

These are unlike things such as clay and duxseal which expand bullets that are known poor expanders and have variying degrees of resistance - I use my 50 pound block of duxseal to catch bullets in the shop...it will expand a .458 Steel Jacketed solid and stop in with only about 5" of penetration!!!!

Onward,
Jim