|
|
|||||||
Quote:Quote: Yes, of course. That is obvious. And more so for the 40 years of standard issue AFTER WW2 due to the vast quantities of .45 ammo existing at the close of the war. However, the .45 was used as the platform for ballistic testing of helmets and body armor from initial introduction of the M1917 helmet {the "British" design} thru the M1917A1 thru the M1 and development of body armor in WW2. Interestingly, the Army never addressed the failures of the .45 thru a program of improvement {as was done with the .30 Government cartridge} at any time in the cartridge's "lifespan"...and still hasn't. In fact, we are now issuing those Marines tabled to carry the 1911 ammunition deemed ballistically substandard in the early 1950's! Curious, indeed. It doesn't take a whole lot to stop a .45 FMJ. The "high technology" alternatives you presented above are not necessary to improve the .45's penetration capabilities since it starts so poor in this regard from the gitgo. If you add those options, however, you give nothing up in diameter and gain much in penetration. Personally, having used FMJ's in the .45 on many, many stock animals, I do not see the advantage of it in any significant way, none, when using FMJ's. |