Preferred carry ammunition

686 4 in barrel is something I have drooled over for a long time.

Current Setup: Beretta Mini Cougar 8040 : The Beltman Belt: CrossBreed holster...guess bonded is the way to go anymore but I still use my old non-bonded Golden Sabr rounds.

a reply to: intrptr

We must assume that he wants to be the last one standing.

I'm sure the reality is that any modern defensive round will perform just fine. It's really more of personal preference as few are making the choice based on past first hand performance.

Personally I've always used hornady critical duty/defense in a variety of calibers.

In .45 acp 165 gr Hydra Shok JHP light fast bullet that expands good and low recoil.

In 9 mm i use 124 gr Hydra Shok JHP

I have tested the .45 acp 165 gr Hydra Shok JHP hunting hogs and they do the job.

a reply to: intrptr


Those only apply to military, however.

If deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what tool or instrument you use to inflict that lethal force. It could be a car, a hammer or a firearm.

The ammo is not exotic by any means, and FMJ is the least preferred ammo type for several reasons. First and foremost, it is prone to penetrate the target and risks hitting an innocent person beyond the target. Second, it doesn't expand so for smaller calibers (like 9mm), your goal of incapacitating the target becomes more difficult.

Incapacitation can be brought about in several ways, but for defensive handgun use we'll assume the following:

1) You can cause enough blood loss forcing the shock condition, causing involuntary cessation of hostilities;
2) You can destroy the CNS, causing involuntary cessation of hostilities.

The only preconceived notion I have is stopping the threat as quickly and safely for me as possible. It just so happens that doing one of those 2 things above is the most effective means of accomplishing this.

I've used Hornady Critical Defense, Critical Duty and XTP. All fantastic rounds.

I've been evaluating Winchester PDX lately for regular carry. I like the consistency of expansion.

Old timers like Federal Hydra-Shok and Speer Gold Dot are still good, but they aren't the top of the heap anymore. There are other rounds I'd like to evaluate for use. There's some lead free stuff out there that looks promising as well as copper/polymer matrix bullets that have shown interesting performance capabilities.

a reply to: seagull


So true seagull, and thanks for the info I am happy you mentioned critical defense because it was a runner up. I might have to get a box and put it through the Glock.

Love light for caliber .45 ACP loads too. I used to run 180gr Corbons out of my G20 10mm

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: jimmyx

Or a devout worshipper at the alter of Murphy's law...

Has anyone ever wished for *less* ammo in a gunfight?

are you hanging around where gunfights take place?....or are you actively looking for one?

No, and also no

Since I don't mind the slight extra weight of an additional magazine, I fail to understand why this point is even noteworthy. If you somehow run out of ammunition, your weapon becomes an expensive paperweight. Since the criminals won't be using pencils and staplers, it is of no value to me without the requisite ammo

Mags are the most common point of failure for autoloaders. There are also a number of ways you can mess them up, nor can Murphy's law be ruled out. One spare mag is a situational backup, the other is insurance against mechanical failure or malfunction.

yep a .45 acp xdm compact but with walking in the trails in hog country I carry 5 clips.....so yea

they are not even felt in a belt pack.....the hogs are usually smallish but there are some big 400 pounders and they tend to stand their ground and stamp and then growl....tell me how many again....when they click their teeth......stamp and growl......lined up in a friggin line and I have turn my trail...they aint moovin....each clip has 12 in it......

originally posted by: DAVID64
This guy has tested pretty much every ammo out there. Good honest reviews and tests.

www.youtube.com...

I have 3 carry loads for my Glock 19 Gen 4. Gold Dot, Federal HST and Critical Duty.
Winchester SXZ 230 gr HP in my .45. Those things expand damn near the size of a quarter.
If I run outta those, I got 220 gr +P Critical Duty.

For all- Glock 30 Gen 4-45a.c.p., Glock 19 9mm, and Taurus Slim 9mm...Hornady and Critical Duty I use...but prefer Winchester PDX+1 H.P's.....also American and Gold Dot occasionally...not too preferential with full metal jacket types. Dont care...

a reply to: JBurns

If deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what tool or instrument you use to inflict that lethal force.

Lethal force is almost never justifiable.

Neither is 'overkill'.

Thats why explosive or incendiary ammunition is illegal. Newer ammunition types supersede this 'edict', imo.

In civilian defense scenarios , of course.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: intrptr

We must assume that he wants to be the last one standing.

Most modern side arms, rifles and shotguns will stop an opponent if you can get to it, if you can load it, if you shoot them first.

The type of bullet is secondary to all that.

a reply to: intrptr


The law disagrees with you. You shouldn't make demonstrably false claims. In fact, lethal force is justified any time you are in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

If the attacker has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause severe bodily harm or death, then you are legally justified in using immediate deadly force to put them down.

a reply to: intrptr

There is no such thing as "overkill" sorry. You're either justified in killing the person or you aren't. "Overkill" would be continuing to shoot them once the threat has ended - but that isn't called overkill, it is simply called unlawful deadly force.

And just FYI, explosive and incendiary ammo is not illegal. You can buy some right now, just as you can buy armor penetrating rounds. You can even use it to stop an attacker. Provided the shooting is justified (which they usually are ruled justifiable, lets face it), it makes absolutely no difference what projectile or weapon you used to stop the attacker.

I will say that explosive/incendiary rounds are useless though, for defensive purposes. Neither would detonate properly if they hit a soft target like a human body. It would need to strike a vehicle or weapon emplacement or something to actually detonate/ignite. You can use them against people all day though (legally, too), but don't expect any sparks or boom-booms. That only happens in the movies.

I should know, considering I own several of these things you mention (and more). Trust me, they aren't very impressive until you get into the 20mm range.

It just so happens that causing immediate death is the only surefire way to ensure total incapacitation. I carry weapons to give me the maximum advantage over a criminal/terrorist. It isn't suppose to be fair. I want overwhelming firepower and force, because if my (or someone else's) life is in danger, only the absolute best will do.

The time to worry about the criminal is after the threat is over, and when you're personally satisfied the scene is safe for yourself and bystanders. Only then is it appropriate to render aid to the attacker.

a reply to: intrptr


You're totally wrong when it comes to firearms and defensive justifiable deadly force.

They *may* stop an attacker eventually but eventually isn't good enough. To prevent the attacker from carrying out their evil and unlawful intentions, you have to put them down very quickly.

That is the only way to stop them from getting off a shot/stabbing you/detonating their explosive vests/etc.

The fact you equate handguns with long guns like rifles/shotguns demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this matter. If you're really that poorly informed, why even participate? It doesn't add anything to your credibility to parrot provably false anti-gun talking points.

The misinformation anti-gunners spread is more dangerous than any tool that exists. Any idea how many innocent people you guys have killed or injured with your blatantly false information?

a reply to: projectvxn


Very nice, I am a fan of the XTP projectiles also vxn

I think they load them in their Hornady Custom line?

a reply to: JBurns

The law disagrees with you. You shouldn't make demonstrably false claims. In fact, lethal force is justified any time you are in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

No kidding, Captain Obvious.

I said that hardly ever happens. Especially in the OPs scenario-- the choice of arms for the lady to defend herself at home.

If the attacker has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause severe bodily harm or death, then you are legally justified in using immediate deadly force to put them down.

To 'stop' them. FYI, all firearms are considered deadly weapons, by law.

Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit severe bodily harm is confined to the rarest of circumstance.

It's not defined as 'wherever' or 'whenever' either. You better know the specific laws in your state; at home, in public or private and under what circumstance you are allowed to defend yourself with a deadly weapon. The laws vary from state to state.

a reply to: JBurns

And just FYI, explosive and incendiary ammo is not illegal. You can buy some right now, just as you can buy armor penetrating rounds. Y

A three are illegal in Ca. period, Einstein.

You should check before you make bold claims about 'the law'.

But I get the whole ego trip thing you got going witt XPanding hydrashock wound cavity trauma thing.

a reply to: JBurns

The fact you equate handguns with long guns like rifles/shotguns demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this matter. If you're really that poorly informed, why even participate? It doesn't add anything to your credibility to parrot provably false anti-gun talking points.

The scenario in the OP is arming women for in home defense.

You're all over the place ...

The best in home defense weapon is a shotgun. In the rarest of occasions where the 'would be felon' or felons are armed with machine guns and wearing tactical vests , it won't matter much what she has to respond with.

But just to amuse everyone , if you had to get up in the middle of the night and respond to intruder(s) and you had the choice between shotgun or pistol, which would you choose?

No cheating, you can't have laser sights or multiple magazines, you got one 'ready firearm' with your favorite overkill ammunition...

a reply to: intrptr

The scenario in the OP is arming women for in home defense.

The scenario in the OP is no scenario. I am soliciting advice on carry ammo, for my new 9mm firearm that is replacing the .40 S&W

I agree that shotguns are useful for most situations at close range, but there are valid arguments for several types. If you're going to be clearing rooms or rescuing children from their bedrooms, then a handgun might be easier to wield. A shotgun is great, but rifles/handguns are easier to suppress to safe levels. Wouldn't want to blow mine or my family's ears out.

Also, I have the tactical vests covered too. Armor penetrating rounds, .30-06 black tip. Also have a .300 Win Mag for causing significant armor deformation.

Shotguns are defeated by even soft body armor, though. Therefore any rifle is required to defeat soft armor, and the heavier stuff is for steel plate armor/vehicle armor. I need the capacity to stop multiple armed/armored attackers, since that is within the realm of possibility.