I know that most seem to prefer 230gr rounds in their .45acp 5" 1911.

For those who carry a 4-4.25" Commander, can a good argument be made that a 165gr round is a valid choice?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: az4783054,

Can't help you, as I carry Federal HST 230gr +p in my 4.25 inch 1911s. Sig and DW VBOB.

A long time ago, I shot some 185 gr. STHP into water filled jugs. Shot from a 4.4" P-220.

The results were ok, but nothing like the 230 Gr. Black Talon or the 230 gr. Golden Saber.

While I would not feel at a disadvantage with the 185, given a choice, I would first choose a 230 gr.

I just noticed my title said 185gr and text said 165gr. I know that 185gr is (for many) an acceptable option to 230gr.

It is 165gr that I am inquiring about. Lower recoil, back on target quicker, etc

It's a pity that Federal doesn't state how long a barrel they used to get the velocity they did out of their HST and Guard Dog loads. On paper they seem to resemble some of the better .40 S&W loads out there.

These results include 165 grain.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

I'm in the Mas Ayoob camp on this one. If a round doesn't have a decent number of shootings behind it, I'll pass. Not interested in being a Beta tester.

I have a Colt LW Cmdr and a Wilson Pro. My carry round is either Federal H-S or HST 230 gr.

^^^ 1,087 fps from what appears to be the Guard Dog equivalent, and 964 fps from the HST, both from a 4" barrel. That really does kinda sound like a healthy .40 S&W load to me.

If I ever carry my Commander I will use 200gr. Ammo (Gold Dot or XTP). The 165gr. Just seems too light.

165 seems light to me. 200 or 230 for me.

Why? You can carry a 158 gr .38 7 round revolver with the same results. IMHO, the .45ACP is most effective with 230 gr lead, but I am old. I often carry 230 gr ball. You can argue ballistics all day long, but the most effective round is the one in your magazine at the time you need it. Buy reasonable ammo and spend a LOT of time shooting it. A well placed .22 beats a miss with a .44 every time,

Even an all copper Barnes runs 185 grains. Cross sectional density of 165 grain 45 would not good. I tend to be "fast and light" (155 grain .40) but in a 45 I am not looking for great hard barrier performance, I would stick with a 357 Sig for that.

If I wanted to shoot 165gr bullets, I would use one of my 40's. Lots more ammo choices, and more rounds in the same size gun.

For 45's, I like 230gr bullets in mid and full size guns. In subcompact guns like my XDS, I like 200gr bullets. Hornady's 200gr XTP ammo is one of my favorites.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^^ 1,087 fps from what appears to be the Guard Dog equivalent, and 964 fps from the HST, both from a 4" barrel. That really does kinda sound like a healthy .40 S&W load to me.

My initial thoughts were "why not just get a 40?"

Its a fast round no doubt. I prefer a heavier bullet in that caliber however..

Not apples to apples here, but my backyard ballistics tests showed the fast and light .40 155gr failed to expand (HST), while the only 165-185gr failure was Hornady Critical Defense.

Ultimately, I looked at the results I got, plus what I got shooting 3 gun, the distance/energy graph, added a little pixie dust and divided by zero and went with 165gr Gold Dots.

My advice: get what you know works. It's "fun" to micro analayze things like caliber and bullet weight, but in a DGU your ammo choice isn't going to win the day for you. Your awareness, choice of reaction, reaction speed, determination and probably a lot of dumb luck are going to be much, MUCH more important that what pill came out the barrel.

230gr only. What God and John Moses Browning intended! Figured I would say it first

Actually, Mr Browning, Colt, and Winchester started out with a 200 gr .45 bullet in 1905.
That is what I carry.

Try Liberty defense 45. 78 grn at 1900fps. Just thought I'd stir the pot!

I've used 165gr and 185gr self defense ammo in the Colt New Agent with good accuracy results.