· woo woo
Big bores in general, I'd be okay with. If fmj includes truncated flat point or copper washed wadcutters, then maybe those too in .38/.357.
I always appreciate your detailed, thought out replies.Well, if it's only about "feelings", then facts need not interfere??
FWIW, I look at ball/FMJ/non-expanding handgun bullets as essentially being the default "worst case" scenario for each caliber.
How much better than "worst case" would make you feel better?
Now, if you're looking to find a "caliber" answer to somehow not making "worst case" the worst case? Dunno how to spin it.
I remember having this conversation with a good friend of mine once, when the subject of permitting ball loads for off-duty .380ACP users. he was the current range master for a medium-sized agency, and had also served as a detective for major crimes, special enforcement bureau, etc. His answer was basically that if someone could take advantage of potentially seeing expansion, meaning using some type of JHP, why wouldn't they want to take advantage of it? Yes, the arguable variability of penetration differences was also discussed, but the "advantage" ultimately went to a properly designed JHP, overall. That was one man's opinion.
Personally, even though I'm no longer working under the ammunition requirements of my former agency, I'd typically prefer to save the ball ammo I've set aside in various calibers for the firing range, and use the JHP's for retirement CCW use. I own 9 pistols chambered in .45 ACP, too. Now, if any of those .45's hadn't been demonstrated to be reliable in their feeding of JHP ammo, and couldn't be made reliable with the use of some particular JHP load? I'd probably mostly be carrying the other .45's that would reliably feed JHP loads. This isn't the 60's & 70's anymore.