| || |
|08-30-2006, 03:55 PM||#1|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Best carry load for .45 ACP?
Here in a bit, I plan to start running carry loads through my P97 to make sure it's reliable with them. Not being rich, I can't afford to test multiple loads, so I'd appreciate some recommendations on carry loads for the .45 ACP (this won't be my primary CCW gun, but I do plan to carry it when I'm cutting wood this fall, and want JHP loads in it when I pack it). I was thinking Remington 185 grain +P JHP. Anyone have any experience with this load (I'm sure the Ruger can handle it, pressure wise). And about how much does it cost per round? Thanks.
|08-30-2006, 04:07 PM||#2|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
I use Federal Personal Defense loads, 165 grain Hydra-Shoks. Rather than 185 grain +Ps, why not stick with 230 grain JHPs?
|08-30-2006, 04:18 PM||#3|
Join Date: Nov 2005
| || |
|08-31-2006, 04:32 AM||#4|
Join Date: May 2003
My long time standby carry JHPs have been the 230g Hydra Shoks. They have shown to be 100% reliable in both of my 1911s and very accurate. Only shot one deer with it and it was a small deer at only about 5 yards. Performed as expected on a lung shot.
I have also had very good performance out of handloads using Hornady 230g XTPs on top of a stout charge of Unique.
|08-31-2006, 05:28 AM||#5|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern Georgia
For me, it's always been the 230 gr. HydraShok. I was informed, on another Board, that these were "old technology", and that the Gold Dot was the way to go. When asked, though, the supporters only mumbled about "the tests", and that HydraShoks were "old tech".
The Remington 185 gr. +P runs about 1140 fps from a 5" barrel. They are pretty snappy in recoil. I'd check them out before deciding on them. The HydraShok is a bit less active in recoil.
The Hornady 200 and 230 gr. +P loads are also quite controllable.
|08-31-2006, 05:57 AM||#6|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Central WV
Alot of the answer depends upon personal preference and usage. For concealed carry/personal protection over penetration can be a concern.
I am partial to the Triton Quik-Shok and carry it in all of my weapons that are of a caliber that Triton Produced (yes I have TONS in my ammo locker).
On the Gold Dots, make sure to test that they function well in your firearm. I have had personal experience with having a firearm that was unable to fire CCI ammo. There are those that say that the CCI "Hard Primer" is a myth, but I made the mistake in my firearms neophyte era of loading a gun with CCI Gold Dots and neglecting to test fire it A couple of weeks later I was at the range and pulled out my firearm and tried to fire it --- CLICK! then CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK (it was a double action only gun). I held the gun downrange for a bit to make sure it was not a delay fire -- then took the ammo out to find that there WERE deep dents into the primer, but no BANG. I then took that very round and put it into a Glock I had with me and tried the round --- BANG!!! My heart was in my throat when I thought about what would have happened in the two weeks I carried those Gold Dots in my gun if I had needed it! Needless to say, that lesson has stuck deep into my brain and I would never do THAT again.
If pricing is a concern, you may want to investigate some of the online sellers of ammunition as they may make the ammo more affordable to you.
|08-31-2006, 06:55 AM||#7|
Join Date: Aug 2002
+1 on the Fed HydraShoks.
The new ones have been good to me. The old ones, with more of a truncated cone appearance, weren't that good to me. I've still got a bunch of those from when I tested them with my 1911, and found them unreliable. They make good practice ammo, 'cause there WILL be a slap-rack-bang drill performed
Lately I've switched to the 200 grain Gold Dots. They seem to work well in my Glock.
Like Mike noted, I wouldn't carry anything that my carry pistol hadn't gone through at least a couple hundred without a bobble - that means using the mags you'll be carrying as well.
I did purchase some Remington 230 JHPs, first time in a LONG time that I bought anything from them besides shotshells (I think they make some of the finest shotgun ammo around but DO NOT like their metalic cartridges!) and was reminded of WHY I don't like them.
Out of the first 100 rounds, I got 2 failures to pop the primer. I'm convinced this was due to the primers not having anvils, as the primer strike was so deep that it started rolling the edges of the primer in.
One of my good friends tells me I'm nuts, and that Remington makes good ammo. He doesn't have a good answer for what happened with those two rounds though. The other 150 rounds of that stuff I bought are setting in "the pile", along with those old HydraShoks.
|08-31-2006, 08:43 AM||#8|
Join Date: Jul 2005
|09-01-2006, 12:50 PM||#10|
Join Date: Feb 2005
I've settled on the Remington Golden Sabers in all my carry guns.
.45ACP, .357 Mag., .38 Spec., .380, .40 S&W.
For the .45ACP, I use the 230grn. I'm carrying either a 1911, or a Colt 1917 Rev. with 5" Bbls. For a compact pistol, I'd go with the 185grn+P for more velocity out of a short Bbl. I found the Sabers to be totally reliable in all calibers I've tried and very accurate to boot.
My $0.02 YMMV.
|09-25-2006, 06:41 PM||#11|
Join Date: Sep 2006
I've been told (by a LEO no less) the best load is Winchester Ranger SXT 230 load. That's what I carry in my EAA Witness.
And for those who prefer the 9mm, The Ranger SXT +P+ in 127 grain offering.
Again, that's what I've been told.
|09-25-2006, 07:28 PM||#12|
Most law enforcement officers use whatever their department issues, because they get it for free and because it absolves them of liability issues pertaining to ammunition selection. I've known a couple of officers who pack .45ACP for their off duty guns and used Federal Hydrashok for years. The Hydrashok design is a bit old but I've yet to see any credible source describe it as obsolete. I have a good supply of Hydrashok and that's what I keep in the guns here at home.
At least one East Bay department is using Federal 230g HST +P. I've shot a couple of boxes and it shoots very accurately.
|09-25-2006, 09:56 PM||#13|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quite honestly I do not think there is enough difference to get worked up over between the matching loads of Win, Rem, Fed, or CCI/speer. I have shot lots of it all and wish I could get Rems Golden Sabre's still in the fifty round boxes but my dealers has dropped them and now only carries 50's in Fed and CCI. I have been shooting the HST loads from Fed as well as the Gold dots and feel both will work as advertised. It is my understanding the HST is the New post-less Hydrashocks with the bonded jacket, something the ER people like as the bonded jackets are less likely to come loose and cut up people working on the wound.
All of the 185 and 230 loads I have shot have all functioned in the various 1911's i own and it seems at the more recent versions are still capable of expansion no matter the season and all are going to make great big holes in what they hit.
Story's from A-stan have said that 124 gr ranger sxt's in 9 mm mp5's are excellent fight stoppers.
|09-28-2006, 05:34 AM||#14|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Central Texas
I don't get too hung up about brand or trick bullets. A "premium" JHP that's 100% reliable in my gun is all that I'm looking for. Gold Dots, Ranger SXT, Golden Saber, HydraShok, etc., . . . all are just fine, IMHO.
Currently I'm using 230 grain Golden Saber in my 1911 - it's reliable, accurate, has a good reputation for expansion, and even if for some reason it doesn't expand, it's still a standard-weight .45 ACP slug . . . and that ain't bad.
|09-28-2006, 09:28 PM||#16|
Join Date: Feb 2005
I have been carrying the winchester ranger SXT 230gr +P, mainly because it is inexpensive, and as far as I can tell there is no such thing as a miracle bullet, but the SXT is a decent hollowpoint. If Gold Dot, Hydrashock, Cor Bon, etc., didnt cost twice as much, without any evidence of being twice as efffective, I would carry something else....
|09-19-2019, 02:47 PM||#19|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
|09-19-2019, 04:08 PM||#20|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
What's WRONG with 230 grain STANDARD ammo by WINCHESTER, REMINGTON, FEDERAL & a host of other companies??
Pardon me for pointing out that the over a CENTURY old-school US military load was found to be DEADLY even on fanatic MORO PIRATES, who were "hopped up on drugs & wearing body armor.
(After-action reports of fighting in the Philippines revealed that the US military could always STOP a Moro charge with TWO weapons: The 12 gauge pump shotgun, using 00 buckshot & the Colt's Model 1911.)
ALL of the current 230 grain standard velocity ammo that is commonly available is BETTER than the ammo that was available even 50 years ago.
IF reliability in any .45ACP chambered handgun in good condition is THE GOAL (& when your LIFE is at risk it IS), make mine STANDARD US military ball ammo.
|Search tags for this page|
185 grain ccw,
45 acp carry loads,
45 acp for woods carry,
45 acp handloads for carry,
45 acp short barrel test,
best 45 acp ammo for woods carry,
best 45 acp for carry,
best carry 1911 45,
best carry loads
Click on a term to search for related topics.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Question on a carry-load||Retmsgt.||Gun Talk||7||08-28-2010 08:13 PM|
|Need Load .40 S&W load - 140 gr Cast, Bullseye/Win231||OmegaMan||Ammunition||2||11-21-2006 01:22 PM|
|Minimum test for a carry load?||Chubby Pigeon||Handguns||7||08-15-2005 03:55 AM|
|.223 load||ray||Ammunition||8||04-20-2005 11:46 AM|