Why Hollow Points instead of FMJ or Soft Point Ammunition?


PDA






Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 01:01 AM
I was discussing this with my brother`n law who is currently a police officer and also who is on the tactical team.

Why do people use hollow points instead of soft points or Full Metal Jackets for personal protection??

He said that the police use them because they really don`t want to "kill" anyone. His police rounds that he`s required to use are the Federal Hydra-Shoks. They`re taught that this bullet will normally enter the body at a distance of about 4-6 inches.

When a normal citizen has to use his or her weapon to protect themselves why would we worry about this matter?? If it comes to the point of having to use a gun the intention, I think, would be the opposite of my B`n Laws statements.

I hope that I never have to use any of my firearms on another human but if I ever do, I`d like a quick result.....right??

With all the talk about "stopping power" (please don`t get on this subject) and the knowledge of the effectiveness of a full metal jacket, why do people like the hollow points????

If you vote on the poll please explain why.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Hollow Points instead of FMJ or Soft Point Ammunition?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
August 7, 2008, 01:07 AM
Hollow point bullets expand in soft tissue, transferring the energy of the bullet to the surrounding tissue. This has two effects, one of maximum shock to the target. This means, according to theory, the target ceases aggression faster, requiring fewer rounds to be used. This means the target actually has a higher probability of survival if ceasing aggression. Full metal jacket rounds tend to simply part tissue, and zip between, causing little terminal effect, but creating two holes for the target to bleed through. This means more rounds may be needed to stop the aggression, which can cause the target to bleed to death, after he or she has continued with thier aggressive behavior. This could be a baaaad thing, if the aggressive behavior is centered on you, and your defensive fire has little to no effect.
The second point is the over penetration issue, where any round fired is ultimately the responsability of the shooter, and any other target it may impact, intended or not. A full metal jacket round is more likely to overpenetrate, and impact an unintended target on the far side.

WAID
August 7, 2008, 01:08 AM
Are you sure you understood that right? Most of the time the reasoning is that the penetration is limited but it will still kill the first person shot, it just won't penetrate as many innocent bystanders. The 4-6" of penetration seems awfully short for any round more powerful than a .34 acp.

Treo
August 7, 2008, 01:09 AM
I like hollow points because I've been taught that they won't penetrate an outer wall of my home if I miss an intruder in my home

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 01:14 AM
What about the penetration? A FMJ would shatter bone structures and as you`ve staed, go completelt through the attacker. What`s "bad" about that?
The 4-6" of penetration seems
Just stating what I was told. He`s actually in the tactical training course now so all of this is fresh.. There are so many variables. Thickness of clothing, etc. I understand your concern.

belus
August 7, 2008, 01:47 AM
Hollow point because it does more damage to soft tissue (bruises muscle, rupture blood vessels). The bad guy won't be standing in front of a back stop, so I don't want my bullets sailing off to who knows where.

kcshooter
August 7, 2008, 01:50 AM
He said that the police use them because they really don`t want to "kill" anyone. His police rounds that he`s required to use are the Federal Hydra-Shoks. They`re taught that this bullet will normally enter the body at a distance of about 4-6 inches. The balistics for hydrashoks consistantly state penetrations of 10"-12" depending on caliber. HydraShoks are designed to create a significant wount channel, resulting in the fastest possible solution to a threat. They are not less lethal. They are designed to be more lethal if anything. Officers and civilians shoot to stop a threat as quickly as possible, this is one of the few overlaps in training. If an officer goes so far as firing his gun, it isn't to wound the threat. So this statement makes no sense to me.

Hollowpoints have a higher probability of stopping the threat quicker than FMJs. This is why they are accepted as the standard in defensive weapons.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 03:26 AM
The balistics for hydrashoks consistantly state penetrations of 10"-12" depending on caliber.
Is this stat on a naked person? wearing a t-shirt? in winter time with many cloths on? leather jacket?
Point being, He`s the policeman and this is the training that he`s recieved. I have shot quite a few boxes of the Hydra-Shoks and they are weak in comparison to many other Jacketed hollow points that I`ve used.
If an officer goes so far as firing his gun, it isn't to wound the threat
The majority of the time, it is absolutely to wound. This is a major part of their training. To stop a guy with a knife you don`t shoot him in the head. Deadly force with the firearm is used when all other attempts have been rendored fruitless.

There were several robberys in my area and the guys were wearing bullet proof material. Not saying that if someone breaks into my home they`ll be wearing body armor but I carry mostly everywhere that I go so it`s not only the home that should be considered here.

I agree with they "flyer" theory. I wouldn`t want to hit something that I wasn`t intending on shooting. This fact is the only one that I truly understand and agree with.

I guess that the HP`s make about a 1/2" bigger hole. At least that what I`ve seen. But I wonder how all of the variables that I`ve listed along with impacting bone, distance, clothing, barriers and "True" penatration would hindor the effectivness of the HP`s?

ugaarguy
August 7, 2008, 03:35 AM
Member JE223 has a great website, www.brassfetcher.com, where he's archived the results of his ballistic testing. He's one of the few professional folks who offer FBI protocol ballistic gelatin testing to the general public. He's been gracious enough to provide the results free of charge.

I use JHPs because they provide a balance of enough penetration depth to generally incapacitate an aggressor and still reduce the risk of over penetration.

ugaarguy
August 7, 2008, 03:56 AM
The majority of the time, it is absolutely to wound. This is a major part of their training. To stop a guy with a knife you don`t shoot him in the head. Deadly force with the firearm is used when all other attempts have been rendored fruitless.
You don't attempt head shots because they're low hit probability shots. You don't shoot to wound; you shoot to stop a deadly threat. Using a firearm is using deadly force - Period. A knife is a lethal threat, and a firearm is the appropriate tool to stop such a threat. You shoot center mass because it's a high hit probability shot, and hitting an organ within the thoracic cavity is likely incapacitate the threat. These incapacitating wounds often do result in death, however.

Again, there is no shooting to wound. A firearm is only used to stop a threat of deadly force or grievous bodily injury.

Google "Use of force continuum" or "Use of force pyramid." Military and law enforcement are taught to escalate their force to match that of the aggressor. In other words, use the minimum amount or force needed to stop the hostile action.

There are also three criteria which must be met for the use of deadly force; capability, opportunity, and intent.

For example, a guy 21 feet away from you with a knife drawn seriously saying "I'm going to kill you" meets the criteria. He is close enough to have opportunity, the knife is a weapon making him capable, and his words and actions indicate he has intent.

If this same guy with a knife is acting the same way, but he's across a football field from you, it doesn't meet the criteria. The knife is still a weapon capable of inflicting a deadly wound, but the distance has removed his opportunity.

Replace the knife with a rifle or shotgun and it now meets the criteria again. The long gun is capable of inflicting a deadly wound, and its range has restored the opportunity.

earthworm
August 7, 2008, 03:57 AM
1.Harkening back to the '70's I was taught the flatter the point the more energy transferred on impact:that a round nose or pointy bullet just shoved tissue aside while a flat (hollow) point smashed its way in.
2.The chances of an HP expanding thus transferring more energy is greater than that of a SP or FMJ.Every little bit helps so in this case I'll take "might" over "probably won't".
3.That's what cops carry.
4.In a revolver they look meaner:possible deterrant value.

MTMilitiaman
August 7, 2008, 04:01 AM
JHPs in a 10mm Auto or a .45 ACP--usually Gold Dots in the 180 gr or 230 gr variety, respectively.

Why? Because they have a good chance of making a bigger hole than a FMJ. A bigger hole stands a good chance of being more effective. And being more effective just might save my life. And since that is the hole (pun intended) point of having a defensive firearm available, it makes sense to use JHPs rather than FMJs when the opportunity is available.

I have carried 230 gr ball in a .45 before, and even 180 gr FMJFP in the G20 before, but it isn't ideal for me.

O, and very good post, ugaarguy.

Gordon Fink
August 7, 2008, 04:35 AM
Maybe your brother-in-law’s tactical team has the training and the latitude to take wounding shots, but such shots are an unwise practice in general. However, I would buy armoredman’s explanation for why an engagement with hollow-point ammunition could be potentially less lethal.

~G. Fink

MTMilitiaman
August 7, 2008, 05:22 AM
However, I would buy armoredman’s explanation for why an engagement with hollow-point ammunition could be potentially less lethal.

Except for said explanation being obviously bogus due to the simple and blatantly apparent fact that the added tissue damage JHPs are known to cause due to their expansive properties, in addition to, or rather because of, increasing the amount of cardiovascular and respiratory tissue that is damage or destroyed, is more likely to put the victim, the shootee, if you will, into shock. And shock typically results in death without immediate application of proper medical response.

It's really simple. JHPs do more damage in tissue. This damage is likely, but not certain, to cause the attacker to bleed out and go into shock quicker, thus causing him or her to be physically incapable of continuing his or her aggressive behavior. In some cases it may cause the attacker to simply not want to continue his or her aggressive behavior. But this is a psychological response caused by the brain registering a massive amount of damage being done and changing its response from "fight" to "flight." Either way, the simple fact that JHPs are more effective because they do more damage when they expand, and that this increase in damage is likely to lead to a corresponding decrease in survivability is inescapable.

Also note that when I say "shock," I mean the medical term, which escapes me presently, for shock due to blood loss. Not so-called "hydrostatic shock," which though present in handguns is not likely to cause any permanent damage to tissues at handgun velocities. Most living tissue is elastic and resilient to shock enough to be relatively unaffected by the shock forces generated by typical defensive handguns. In fact, some credible sources (Fackler among them, IIRC) have shown permanent wound channels unlikely to be affected by shock forces generated by bullet impacts of less than 2000 fps. This is why rifles are rifles and handguns are handguns, and no one who has seen the effect of both on living organisms confuses the effectiveness of either for a nanosecond. If you're picking a fight, or preparing for a specific threat, you grab a rifle. A handgun is a defensive measure taking out of convenience due to its compactness and portability.

The only thing that matters appreciably when discussing handgun effectiveness is permanent wound cavity--width and depth--how wide the bullet expands, and how deep it penetrates. More of both is good. Yes, this includes penetration.

The FBI requires a minimum of 12 inches of penetration in callibrated ballistic gelatin after penetrating heavy clothing, angled windshield glass, or 20 gauge rolled steel for this reason. No load that penetrates 6 inches makes it into a duty sidearm carried by any federal agency, including the Federal Air Marshalls. Any such load would be of questionable effectiveness given it's unlikely such a load could penetrate to the vitals of an adult assailant given the oblique shot angles, clothing, and likely presence of skeletal mass and other obstacles present in a gun fight. Professionals who rely on weapons for a living know three things for certain; shot placement is key, under penetration gets you killed (over penetration might only get you sued and thrown in jail), and if it is worth shooting once, it is worth shooting thrice. This is why, to my knowledge anyways, Glasers and other frangibles have been tested by military and federal agencies, and universally abandoned for all but close range live fire drills on steel targets.

A six inch wound in real life most likely means only a shallow, superficial wound that results in a pain response that is completely ignored due to the adrenaline and endorphins in the body. The only way to ensure a quick end to hostilities is either through destruction of vital cardio-respiratory structures like the heart, lungs, and large arteries and veins found in the upper thoratic cavity, and the corresponding blood loss produced leading to shock, unconsciousness, and eventually death, or through the destruction of the central nervous system such as a hit to the brain or upper spinal column, resulting in near instant paralysis and death. Because the CNS represents such a small target, rounds are usually directed at the larger targets in the upper chest cavity due to increased likelihood of achieving an effective hit(s).

luft97
August 7, 2008, 05:38 AM
Hollow point bullets expand in soft tissue, transferring the energy of the bullet to the surrounding tissue. This has two effects, one of maximum shock to the target. This means, according to theory, the target ceases aggression faster, requiring fewer rounds to be used.

^^ This is why I use em.

HM2PAC
August 7, 2008, 06:15 AM
I use both depending on the weather.

During summer I load HP's.

In the winter it's FMJ. Up here it gets cold enough that the layers of clothing make me wonder about sufficient penetration.

VetteVert
August 7, 2008, 07:53 AM
Read any hunting magazine written in the last 40 years. You need the proper combination of penetration AND expansion. You want to penetrate deep enough WITHOUT over penetration. You want the bullet to stop INSIDE your target. Like was mentioned, that gives you the most transfer of energy.

Think about it like this: Would you rather get punched in the face when your head can move backwards and dissipate some of the blow or when your head was flat against concrete? Same concept. A bullet passing through a target still has energy that could have been utilized.

Also, in a defensive situation, over penetration is a huge liability. Do you want to shoot an aggressor in your home and the bullet pass through them and into a child/sibling/spouse/neighbor? The liability only grows for an officer.

I realize you think your brother-in-law should know well more than some random person on the Internet, but it sounds like you are extrapolating this theory based on what you heard (that very well may be correct), not that he was taught a FMJ was better for personal defense.

Also, did he mention caliber? If I'm loading up a .380 or smaller pocket pistol then I may very well go with a FMJ for the under powered round....but not with a defensive loaded .45, 10mm, etc.

VV

Mad Magyar
August 7, 2008, 07:54 AM
In the winter it's FMJ. Up here it gets cold enough that the layers of clothing make me wonder about sufficient penetration.

Good point....

Aka Zero
August 7, 2008, 09:51 AM
fmj = Stab wound, with a little shock because of the velocity of the bullet. (High velocity rounds will do alot of shock damage, see .233)

HP = Internal "blunt" force trauma almost. Although not designed to "let people live" one big hole versus a lot of double holes usually means less blood loss. Usually a good hp puts all of the inertia of the bullet into whatever it hits. Like a baseball bat, it hits hard, but stops there.

Maybe that helps.

FieroCDSP
August 7, 2008, 11:08 AM
Look at some of the ballistics testing of bullets like Golden Sabres and Hydra-shoks. Notice that the best ones retain almost all their mass and end up looking like a circular-saw blade. And they still get 10-12 inches penetration!!!

Modern HP's are designed to do as much damage as inhumanly possible. And since you've already committed to lethal force when you pulled the trigger, doing the most damage per shot is better than doing less damage per shot.

BHPshooter
August 7, 2008, 11:17 AM
The 4-6" of penetration

The FBI tests call for a minimum of 12" penetration through ballistic gelatin. The Hydra-Shoks, though not a favorite of mine, usually meet the FBI's requirements.

The majority of the time, it is absolutely to wound. This is a major part of their training. To stop a guy with a knife you don`t shoot him in the head. Deadly force with the firearm is used when all other attempts have been rendored fruitless.

This is a false dilemma: "Do I shoot to wound, or shoot to kill?" NEITHER. You shoot to make them stop doing whatever it was that made you shoot them in the first place. We call that "shoot to stop."

Wes

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 7, 2008, 11:28 AM
Anyone who thinks JHP are not designed to kill or be less lethal than FMJ is crazy.

Modern JHP (like my personal favorite Federal HST) have 10-12"+ of penetration even firing through multiple layers of demim. They have rapid and consistent expansion and are surely extremely lethal.

Of course shot placement still matters. A 22 FMJ through the heart is a better shot than a .45 JHP in a non critical area.

A JHP does one thing and one thing only; it makes a bigger hole.
Same reason why people use .45 over a 9mm or 9mm over 22ACP.

A 9mm FMJ will never be larger than 9mm. A 9mm JHP will expand to easily .50cal (12.5mm)+ so you get bigger hole in a smaller (more manageable round).
A .45 FMJ will never be larger than .45. A .45 JHP will expand to easily .70 to .85+. You get a 50%-100% bigger hole in the BG.

Larger hole = more trauma
Larger hole = more blood loss
Larger hole = higher chance of hitting critical area

JHP isn't rocket science. It isn't designed to "only penetrate 6inches to be less lethal". It is simply designed to make a bigger hole.

If most humans could handle the weight, recoil, and flash of a 18mm round there would be no need for JHP. Until then JHP make a bigger hole than a FMJ, Well even then someone crazy bullet engineer would design one so it can expand to 24mm. :)

plexreticle
August 7, 2008, 11:38 AM
99.9% of the time hollow points barely expand.

Even when they do, they penetrate a heleva lot further than 4-6"

Your brother is misinformed.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 7, 2008, 11:48 AM
99.9% of the time hollow points barely expand.

That is a misnomer. The JHP in 80s and early 90s generally did suck. Bullet science has come a LONG way though. Modern JHP expand very reliably even through heavy demin.

http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2006/05/wound-ballistic-workshop.html

Heavy Clothing
All bullets performed well in Heavy Clothing. Federal HST again demonstrated the
designed expansion characteristics and outperformed all tested rounds for expansion.

Bullet Caliber/Weight Penetration Expansion Retained Weight

Federal HST 45 ACP 230 gr. 14.0” 0.850” 99.65%
Winchester SXT 45 ACP 230 gr. 12.5” 0.773” 101.26%
Remington GS 45 ACP 185 gr. 14.25” 0.704” 102.22%

Federal HST 40 S&W 180 gr. 13.0” 0.788” 101.56%
Winchester SXT 40 S&W 180 gr. 14.0” 0.757” 91.89%

Federal HST 9mm 147 gr. 13.75” 0.689” 102.38%
Federal HST 9mm 124 gr. 12.0” 0.709” 102.26%
Winchester SXT 9mm 127 gr. 13.5” 0.684” 97.48%


Note in this example "heavy clothing" is 4 layers of 13 pound denim. Which is likely substantially more than an BG is going to wear.

The Federal HST penetrated 14" after expanding to 0.85caliber and retained 99%+ of its weight.

Even the well known "Hydro shock" rounds are no match for the current top of the line bullets.

http://www.btfh.net/shoot/images/bullet-test-6/hst.jpg

http://www.btfh.net/shoot/images/bullet-test-7/9-hst.jpg

Mad Magyar
August 7, 2008, 11:52 AM
99.9% of the time hollow points barely expand.

There are many documented incidents, especially in Gun rag ammo reviews, where they do not expand as advertised, but I think your stat is a little over-stated...My concern deals with reliability issues...Judging from my observations and personal experience with other shooters/CCW holders: not enough of this exotic ammo is fired on the range (expense factor) to be near 100% sure of pistol/ammo acceptance. If this requirement is met: go for it!:)

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 12:02 PM
In the winter it's FMJ. Up here it gets cold enough that the layers of clothing make me wonder about sufficient penetration
Kinda my point. Different circumstances can alter the outcome.

Even the well known "Hydro shock" rounds are no match for the current top of the line bullets
Maybe that`s why they are being used by the police.

I know that the use of a firearm is deadly force but "deadly" force isn`t always the intent. As for the "head shot" remark, they are taught to apply a double tap to the chest or torso and one to the head when deadly force is warranted.

A good soft point bullet can have a similiar effect as a HP. Not the same but about the same. Gelatin testing can be done by most anyone. I saw a test once where a 9mm was fired into the gelatin with a really deep penatration and then a 30-06 was fired with mmuucchh less penatration but it cut the gelatin a complete flip. This was shown on the Discovery channel show MythBusters.
Great pics above here.

I know that most people use HP`s I just wanted to see if everyone understood the reason that they use them and when they can overestimate the actual effect. There`s no bone in gelatin.
I try to use both, as I flip flop my loads in my magazine.

I asked him again about the penetration and he said that 3 days ago they were shown a film and the 4-6 inches was explained under the circumstances of thick clothing. They are assigned .45 cals. I`ve read material stating 8-10-and12 inches?????? Who knows? I don`t believe that they`ll only travel to that depth either. This one is confusing.

I shot into a barrel of water with some jacketed Hollow points and the most bullets went completely through the barrel as I found them on the ground right beside the barrel. They did not expand. In fact, I could have reloaded them. I`m no expert on this kinda thing. Maybe it was the water, maybe it was because I was only a few feet away when I fired. Beats me.

plexreticle
August 7, 2008, 12:13 PM
There are many documented incidents, especially in Gun rag ammo reviews, where they do not expand as advertised, but I think your stat is a little over-stated...My concern deals with reliability issues...Judging from my observations and personal experience with other shooters/CCW holders: not enough of this exotic ammo is fired on the range (expense factor) to be near 100% sure of pistol/ammo acceptance. If this requirement is met: go for it!

I did exaggerate my point but no more than the bullet manufactures do when they advertise their latest hollow point ammo.

Ballistic gel shot straight on at 10 feet isn't the same as shooting someone in the gut or ribs or head. Find some pics of recovered bullets from shooting victims and they won't look quite as nice as the ones posted.

There are many reasons to use self defense ammo. It's way better than standard hardball but don't think your gonna turn a 9mm into a .85cal.

Water-Man
August 7, 2008, 12:13 PM
"Police really don't want to kill anyone". GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 7, 2008, 12:13 PM
Maybe that`s why they are being used by the police.

Never said hydroshock is a bad round. It was a great round and got picked up by LEO all over the country. However material science advances and now there are rounds with better capabilities.

Police departments are like any large organization. It takes time to change. They are changing though. First they get vendor to come out to make demonstration. They need to do their own testing for reliability. Eventually it has to be budgeted. Major purchase made. Pushed out to the cops, etc.

Federal makes both Hydroshock and HST. I doubt they are trying to pawn an inferior product on cops. The Hydroshock round is almost 20 years old. Something better has come along and they are demoing it to LEO.

I know that the use of a firearm is deadly force but "deadly" force isn`t always the intent. As for the "head shot" remark, they are taught to apply a double tap to the chest or torso and one to the head when deadly force is warranted.

Wrong and a horrible misconception to spread. If deadly force is not authorized/required you don't shoot. A firearm is ALWAYS deadly force. Period. Shooting someone in a situation that doesn't warrant deadly force is manslaughter or maybe assault with deadly weapon. Cops have other tools at their disposal if deadly force isn't needed (handcuffs, baton, pepper spray, physical force, taser, etc).

big_bang
August 7, 2008, 12:27 PM
The top bullet manufacturers put an awful lot of R&D into their designs. In the case of a hollow-pointed handgun bullet, that R&D is spent figuring out how to most effectively kill a human in short order. Since you obviously can't use real test subjects, they do the best they can with surrogates (gel, etc) and/or modeling methods...but the end goal is still the same.

I can't readily think of a civilian FMJ handgun round that's designed for anything other than training...but my brain may be working slowly today. :)

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 12:30 PM
Do you think that if there`s a crazy, literally, crazy person in a dollar store with a knife that the cops will march in and instantly kill the guy? No, If other non-lethal technics are rendered useless they may shoot him in the leg or shoulder or some other non-lethal area. Nobody wants the death of another human being on their conscious unless it is absolutely necessary. Now if the bad guy has a gun, the end, but weapons other than guns and the BG isn`t directly capable of getting innocent by-standers involved then there are alternatives.

Water-Man
August 7, 2008, 12:35 PM
Master of Arms..."shoot him in the leg or shoulder". Where do come up with that crap?

armoredman
August 7, 2008, 12:38 PM
Master of Arms - never. Lethal force is lethal force, period. No police officer is trained to use lethal force in a less than lethal manner. I have worn a badge for 6.5 years, and believe me, lethal force IS the last alternative, but once it has to be employed, you shoot to STOP. Shooting to wound is Hollywood garbage, period. A leg or arm is a much more difficult target, and a missed shot is far more likely to hit an innocent bystander. Not to mention, a shoulder is a very complex joint, many large blood vessels, etc. A hit in such an area may cause life long crippling injuries. Now, tell a jury you used deadly force, but didn't believe you had the right to. That's what shooting to wound means, by the way. Now what do you think the jury will do? You will pay the guy for the rest of your life.

BHPshooter
August 7, 2008, 12:44 PM
I know that the use of a firearm is deadly force but "deadly" force isn`t always the intent. As for the "head shot" remark, they are taught to apply a double tap to the chest or torso and one to the head when deadly force is warranted.

I really don't want to sound like I'm coming down on you, because I'm not, but your posts show a fundamental lack of understanding as to the legal and ethical questions surrounding deadly force.

44AMP stated it perfectly. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3380234&postcount=8)

His post is repeated here without permission:
Perhaps it is because you are new to guns. It is a small thing, but words carry meanings beyond their dictionary definitions, and in a court they carry legal consequences as well.

Asking what is the most lethal bullet when talking self defense is considered bad form. In a court it is much worse. When we talk about self defense ammo, we use the term "effective".

Effective at stopping the attacker. Not killing them. Stopping them.

If an attacker dies as a result of being stopped, so be it. It is not a concern, as long as they are stopped. Most states laws are written so that you are only justified shooting someone if they must be stopped from harming you/others. You are allowed to use "deadly force" to stop. You are not authorised to "kill".

Lawyers, prosecutors, courts, and cops understand the word "kill" to imply a premeditated act. This can get you in all kinds of legal trouble if you ever have to shoot someone in self defense. Just as you train with your firearm, you should train the way you speak. One does not shoot to kill (that is murder), one shoots to STOP an attacker, that is self defense. One never shoots to wound. Saying you only meant to wound implies (to the law) that in your mind, deadly force was not justified. And if deadly force is not justified, then you are not, legally, allowed to shoot someone.

Sorry for the language lesson, but it is almost as important as your physical skills with a firearm. Train properly and your skills will protect you. Your choice of words, and the impression they create may be the difference between a decision of justified self defense and having to defend yourself again in a court of law. Seriously, think about it.

You're either authorized to use lethal force or you aren't. There's no in-between.

Wes

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 7, 2008, 12:54 PM
Do you think that if there`s a crazy, literally, crazy person in a dollar store with a knife that the cops will march in and instantly kill the guy? No, If other non-lethal technics are rendered useless they may shoot him in the leg or shoulder or some other non-lethal area. Nobody wants the death of another human being on their conscious unless it is absolutely necessary. Now if the bad guy has a gun, the end, but weapons other than guns and the BG isn`t directly capable of getting innocent by-standers involved then there are alternatives.

WRONG. No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it any less WRONG. :banghead:
These kind of "hollywood style" beliefs will get people killed OR they will end up putting you (or someone you believe in) on trial for manslaughter.

A FIREARM IS DEADLY FORCE. PERIOD. If you don't understand that you shouldn't have a firearm.

If a cops believe the BG is NOT a deadly imminent threat they WILL NOT SHOOT (at all anywhere). Neither should you. PERIOD. What is the rush? If he is not a threat there is no reason to shoot him. People die all the time from leg or arm wounds. If it wasn't for the excellent medevac in Iraq my buddy would have died from a "leg wound".

If the cops do believe he is a deadly imminent threat they will SHOOT. PERIOD. When you do shoot it is to stop the threat. Maybe the guy lives, maybe he dies. That isn't the point. The point is to shoot until he is no longer a threat.

Your belief that a firearm can be used less than lethal is stupid. I rarely use that term but it is STUPID. It will get someone killed or put someone in jail.

The final outcome is not what matters. People have died from pepper spray and tasers. People have lived from multiple gunshot wounds. People have been shot in heart, lung, or head and lived. People have been shot in arms or legs and bled out. None of that changes the purpose of the device.

You (and a civilian in self defense, cop on the beat, troops in Iraq) shoot to stop the threat. SHOOT TO STOP. It is so easy a child can understand. If you can't then please sell your firearms before you get yourself or someone else killed.

BHPshooter
August 7, 2008, 12:55 PM
Do you think that if there`s a crazy, literally, crazy person in a dollar store with a knife that the cops will march in and instantly kill the guy? No, If other non-lethal technics are rendered useless they may shoot him in the leg or shoulder or some other non-lethal area. Nobody wants the death of another human being on their conscious unless it is absolutely necessary. Now if the bad guy has a gun, the end, but weapons other than guns and the BG isn`t directly capable of getting innocent by-standers involved then there are alternatives.

:banghead:

I refer you to Correia. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=223132&highlight=plan+taser+backup&page=2)

Quoted here:

i've heard countless stories of law enforcement officers choosing to use less than lethal force (taser, pepper sprays, etc.) to take down folks that have "melee weapons" like knives, baseball bats, etc., all being at a safe distance.
See my post above. Different set of rules and circumstances.

Once you carry a gun, I'm assuming you don't, and if you do then your instructor failed to convey this to you, you probably don't have 20 pound bat belt of accesories and tools. Also cops get a lot more training on the use of those tools.

CCW holders don't go through POST.

Plus when they're by themselves dealing with a non-compliant suspect they will use OC or tasers, but when it is a bonafide violent actor then you will notice the less than lethal stuff usually gets used only when there is a 2nd officer there with a lethal weapon in case plan A don't work.

CCW holders don't usually have backup. At all.

all being at a safe distance
I do role playing in my classes. I'm 6'5", weigh 310 pounds. I have one scenario where I play a badguy in the process of kidnapping a screaming woman in a parking lot. The student enters the room, approximately twenty five feet from where I'm pulling the struggling woman. As soon as the student gets involved, I charge, pull a rubber knife out of my coat, and attack.

Usually I gut them like a fish before they even get the gun close to ready. I've got bruises all over my torso from the number of students who slammed the muzzle of the dummy gun into me as they rock it out of the holster. This is usually while my rubber knife traverses them from belly button to armpit.

Often, you don't have time.

Usually that scenario shuts up everyone who wants to carry chamber empty, shoot the bad guy in the leg, have their first round as snake shot, or other stupid crap like that.

Do you ever notice that when [truly violent] people get tased on Cops, there is always another officer there with a gun drawn? I don't have that option. I'm not a LEO, and I don't have backup.

Wes

kcshooter
August 7, 2008, 01:30 PM
You and your brother have been given some false info.

The HydraShoks have qualified for almost every major departments and agency's testing requirements. The penetration is about twice what your brother stated. Regardless of where he got this info, it goes against every recorded test. It is older ammo and is slowly being replaced, mostly by HST from what I've seen, but it is still more than sufficent, and better than most.

Cops shoot to stop the threat, and death is an acceptable outcome. They do not shoot to wound as a blanket rule. If the crazed knife wielder continued to the point that the cop had to fire his gun, I can guarantee you that the perp's death is an acceptable outcome, if thats what it takes to stop him. This is why cops carry JHP ammunition, it is proven to stop a threat quicker. The wounds caused by hollowpoints are also proven more deadly. Draw your own conclusion, it isn't hard. A responsible officer surely won't shoot to wound only, and was never trained to. Shots to the leg and arm are pure hollywood B.S. and protocols for such antics are not taught by law enforcement, even to tactical teams.

The FBI doesn't change their load in the winter, because heavy clothing will not stop a bullet from being affected. It can clog the cavity and cause it not to open and act like a FMJ, but since it may expand, it's still better than switching to FMJ in cold weather.

There are very, very few incidents of criminals using body armor. It has happened, but in a fraction of a percentage of incidents. Neither FMJ nor JHP will be effective against it.

You should not stagger your loads in your magazines. You will get a different recoil response between each round, and there is no positive advantage of this. This has been examined, and no law enforcement group has ever adapted this policy for a reason.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 01:33 PM
:uhoh: Wow, really got a few of you stirred up here. lol
Well, I`m far from new to firearms but I`m also not a cop. There may be words in a dictionary describing certain terms that are being used here but I really don`t think that all of the books and training can prepare a person for every situation. I`m sure that there are some who wouldn`t think twice about killing a perp. but there are also a few who would probably do exactly as I`ve explained.

I try not to suggest that our officers of the law are ruthless killers and on the other hand I`m not trying to portray them as babysitters. I just think that there is no way to say how anyone would react in a threatening situation and that as many rules, definitions, laws, protocols, etc.etc. as there are that each incident will be played out in a unique matter.
So basically I agree with you about the term but I`m not going to say that everyone would do it exactly like the book said or take a life when they know that they don`t have to.
Be happy. No point in terms such as crazy, crap, stupid etc.etc.

Oh wasn`t this a thread about hollow points vs. Full Metal Jackets??:confused:

mothergoose
August 7, 2008, 01:49 PM
I know I'm new here and all, and I don't want to overstep my new guy position, but I would love to know what Department your brother works for so I can stay out of that town. If the local PD actually teaches their officers to take wounding shots there are going to be a lot of bullets flying around as the cops are missing the BG and the unhit BG is returning fire.

Seems pretty stupid to me.

kcshooter
August 7, 2008, 01:50 PM
Wow, really got a few of you stirred up here. lol Was this your goal?

I think most people here just wanted to make sure you had the correct information, especially since your source for information, while a police officer, was inaccurate in retelling facts over conjecture. Statements like yours, however, make it sound like you were trolling for a reaction from fellow members.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 01:53 PM
Let`s move past this to kill or not to kill and stick with the subject of the thread. I`m happy with the interest of people on the K or Not to K and its a subject that needs to be addressed but not here.
Please, lets move on.

Zak Smith
August 7, 2008, 02:02 PM
Because they work better. Firearms are lethal force. Lethal force is legally and morally justified is some circumstances to be used to stop a thread as soon as possible. The only guaranteed ways to stop an aggressor are to disrupt his central nervous system or lower his blood pressure such that he loses consciousness. A good defense JHP bullet design can do this better and faster, on average, than FMJ. There is loads of scientific data to back up this paragraph.

Master of Arms, most of the effort in this thread has been expended to correct your mistakes and misunderstandings about ballistics, various criteria, use of force, and the disposition of LEOs. That could have been avoided and a more useful discussion could have taken place had you done ten or twenty minutes of "google research" before posting.

* http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

mothergoose
August 7, 2008, 02:04 PM
It seems to me that the subject of the thread is kill or not to kill. You point out in your first post that your brother said they use HP's because they are less leathal then FMJ's and you want to know why anyone would carry HP's over FMJ's. I think it has been shown by other posters here that neither HP's nor FMJ's can be considered "less leathal".

Not all situations are the same, and you can debate the "What if they have a coat on?" or "What if they have body armor?" or even "What if it's raining in Cleveland causing the pressure system in Arkansas to be lower then normal?" all day long if you want.

I attempt to carry the best all around round for general SD purpose. That is widely accepted in the firearms community as being a HP round. The reasons are listed in detail in many of the above posts and if you are unwilling to read them all then that is up to you.

easyg
August 7, 2008, 02:16 PM
If hollow-points weren't more effective on the streets than FMJ rounds, cops (and criminals) would have stopped using them years ago.

I work in a hospital and from the shot people I've X-rayed (both living and dead), hollow-points almost always do more damage.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 02:19 PM
I did research the ballistics of HP`s and I`ve gotten so many different stats til its difficult to determine which one is correct and which one isn`t. I also understand how the use of deadly force is defined. My point is that there are many variables in determining ballistics. Hince the difference in all of the stats. My initial thread was posted because a friend and I had this discussion yesterday and I thought that the HP`s were the better of the choices. He didn`t. So I posted the thread as to suggest that I leaned toward the FMJ`s. I actually use both in each of my mags so I guess that I get the best of both worlds. I could have confused the statements from my B`nLaw or he may have misunderstood his trainer. Either way there`s no reason to get bent out of shape about it. Just voice an opinion. Off the subject, I understand the legality of the use of deadly force but who is to say what anyone would do in such a situation. Regardless of what`s printed in a book or taught in a class. Who know`s? The person with the gun. With that said, I have many different loads of HP`s and FMJ`s that I experiment with. I use plastic barrels filled with water, Phone books, 4X4 planks, milk jugs, cardboard boxes filled with different types of dirt, clay mud, etc. and I do these things at various ranges from 1 foot to 400 yards so I`ve got a pretty good idea of what each type of the different bullets are capable of.

I love the sport, I love shooting period. Whether it be old guns, new guns, big or small I love it. I also learn something new everyday. I base my knowledge from facts that I`ve seen with my own eyes or studied in books. No trolling here. Just learning. I wish that video could be posted on THR. That would be wonderful.

CJ
August 7, 2008, 02:25 PM
Regarding the original question way up there...I'd say it depends on caliber choice and time of year.

As some mentioned, winter time, with extra clothing, might warrant FMJ even for someone who otherwise might prefer JHP.

For certain calibers, such as .380, some might choose FMJ for the additional penetration it might provide over JHP.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 02:30 PM
As some mentioned, winter time, with extra clothing, might warrant FMJ even for someone who otherwise might prefer JHP.

For certain calibers, such as .380, some might choose FMJ for the additional penetration it might provide over JHP
This is a great and logical answer.

leadcounsel
August 7, 2008, 02:44 PM
He said that the police use them because they really don`t want to "kill" anyone. His police rounds that he`s required to use are the Federal Hydra-Shoks. They`re taught that this bullet will normally enter the body at a distance of about 4-6 inches.


:what::what::what:

No offense, but it astounds me how many people in Law Enforcement or the Military that have ZERO clue about ballistics...

Now, for what I"m about to say many will flame me. But it works for me so I continue to do it.

HPs expand well against flesh and often fill with drywall or other material (effectively turning them to FMJs for 'overpenetration' purposes) when shooting through material. www.theboxotruth.com HPs do devestating wounds to flesh, but aren't as good penetrators through cover/concealment (car windshields, full refridgerators, heavy wooden doors, wall studs, etc.).

FMJs don't expand well and risk overpenetration of construction medium (but because HPs also do, these aren't as exaggerated as some would have you believe). However, FMJs perform better at penetrating and shooting through cover/concealment (car windows, heavy wooden doors, wild dog or other similar animal skulls, heavy winter clothing, etc...).

For this reason, I stagger my HPs and FMJs and practice shooting until the threat is stopped. No, I don't 'count' and try to predict which is next up (some people here just don't understand...). Instead, the goal is to shoot until the aggressor is stopped. In some cases an FMJ may be more advantageous and 1 in 2 of my rounds will be an FMJ.

You just never know what your aggressor will be (big wild dog, thug with concealed body armor, punk in a t-shirt with a knife, perp with a handgun in your house that you engange in a gunfight with and he hides behind a big heavy wooden piece of furniture, maybe a carjacking where you have to shoot through the windshield, etc....). If you have aimed shots then 1 HP will hit and 1 FMJ will hit. But maybe the HP doesn't have the 'gas' to accurately get through the car window or the refridgerator full of food and liquids whereas the FMJ does.

HPs and FMJs all have their part in self defense and I alternate mine.

Soybomb
August 7, 2008, 03:05 PM
Wow this thread is full of terrible information. As usual I'd encourage anyone with an interest in such matters to do your own research. Look for reputable sources and not just what some guy on the internet says, including me.

I like hollow points because I've been taught that they won't penetrate an outer wall of my home if I miss an intruder in my home
Unless your home is brick, thats probably unlikely. Either way the difference between hollowpoint and fmj would be pretty much irrelevant.

99.9% of the time hollow points barely expand.
Can you give a citation for this? Here's a peer reviewed journal article from way back in 1991 with 147gr winchest jhps and measurements taken off people shot with it. Your numbers aren't at all correct. http://ammo.ar15.com/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf

There`s no bone in gelatin.
Again I think you need to educate yourself further on the matter.

Testing with ribs embeded in gel has been done and the results published by the IWBA, FBI, and RCMP--as the presence of ribs didn't significantly alter test results, they are no longer included in test protocols.

Hollow points are used because they make a bigger hole. A bigger hole is more likely to stop your attacker quicker. As an added bonus the expanded round will be less likely to leave the body of your attacker.

ugaarguy
August 7, 2008, 03:31 PM
I know that the use of a firearm is deadly force but "deadly" force isn`t always the intent. As for the "head shot" remark, they are taught to apply a double tap to the chest or torso and one to the head when deadly force is warranted.
If you're shooting deadly force is warranted, and for a LEO it had better meet the capability/opportunity/intent standard. Never think for a minute that a firearm isn't deadly force - it should only be used to stop grievous bodily injury or death; or "loss of life or limb" as some state laws word it.

The two to the chest, one to the head is known as a Mozambique drill. It is valid for stopping close range attackers, and is sometimes necessary for LE to use.
Gelatin testing can be done by most anyone. I saw a test once where a 9mm was fired into the gelatin with a really deep penatration and then a 30-06 was fired with mmuucchh less penatration but it cut the gelatin a complete flip. This was shown on the Discovery channel show MythBusters.
Did you even look at the site? The difference here is that while almost anyone can do ballistic gel testing, they can't all do it to FBI protocol. JE223 can; he's a hydraulics engineer so he has the professional knowledge to understand how fluids and gels work. He also calibrates his blocks and corrects depths based on calibration. The man has spent untold sums of his personal money and time to provide a resource to the gun owning community, and you want say 'well anyone can do it.' No, not just anyone can do it right, and very few who can make the results so easily accessible at no charge.

elChupacabra!
August 7, 2008, 03:31 PM
Yeah I have to agree with Soybomb that this thread may have more misinformation than any I've seen recently.

I especially can't believe how many people seem to be ok with staggering rounds in a magazine between FMJ and JHP. Recoil feedback will, in my experience, be different enough that accuracy and follow-up shots will suffer from moderately to dramatically. POI may differ between the two rounds... and I wonder how a jury would look at your exotic ammunition choices (and the fact that no respected military or police unit in the world, to the best of my knowledge, carries out this practice does appear to me to make this an exotic ammunition choice). That's an interesting question to have to answer on the record.

The effectiveness of handguns and ammunition can be difficult to nail down due to the stigma of actually shooting living things for testing, but still, research HAS been done and I will base my defensive ammunition and firearm choices on credible research rather than what some guy - on the internet, at the range, in my family, whatever - told me.

I really am flabbergasted by this whole thread. Reading it is like watching a train wreck.

VHinch
August 7, 2008, 03:38 PM
Jesus, is it time for this thread again already?

"Shoot him in the shoulder"???? I'm starting to smell troll.

Zoogster
August 7, 2008, 03:55 PM
Actualy for pistol rounds it really is quite simple (rifles wounds have extra factors.)
You need a round that penetrates deep enough to reach vital areas to stop an attacker against thier will. While a wound or gunshot will stop some of thier own free will many times (and simply that possiblity even more times), others will be determined and the body actualy needs to be stopped.
For some smaller calibers what penetrates to vital areas can be a FMJ. Many of the calibers used though for self defense have more penetration than necessary to reach vital areas, which is wasted. How do you make good use of that wasted energy? You use it to create a wider diameter wound.
The wider a caliber for a given amount of energy the more resistance the bullet faces, and the less penetration.
Since most defensive calibers penetrate deeper than necessary to reach organs, they benefit greatly from expanding projectiles against the average individual.

There is also the shape of the projectile. Neither JHP or FMJ shapes are ideal shapes for tissue destruction, but JHP is better as it is opening up. Smooth soft edges allow tissue to flow around. Sharp edges and irregular shapes cut even the tissue that flows around the projectile.


So JHP are usualy better for most defensive calibers. They give a wider diameter wound in the more important inches of penetration.

They`re taught that this bullet will normally enter the body at a distance of about 4-6 inches. Not sure what is meant by that, whether be fired from that distance away (not correct as most gunfights happen from a few few away) or penetrate to that depth. I am going to assume you mean penetrate to that depth, which is actualy more accurate than many here realize.

Most rounds penetrate about 4-8" even though they penetrate 12-16" in ballistic gel. That is because ballistic gel simulates soft tissue, and does not account for bone, like ribs, slightly higher density skin, or changes in medium. When a projectile changes through different density mediums it is also slowed more than taken into account in simple equations. Just like a bullet will travel less distance in water fired from above water into water, than if fired under water. The change between mediums deflects and causes a loss of some energy. Well the body has very different internal mediums, some organs are elastic, some are not, some are light and soft, some are hard and dense.
Some people are built very solid. Some are covered in dense muscle, some more in not dense fat.
Now a round will usualy penetrate more total inches in a fat person because fat is not very dense. So you could say it penetrates 12 in one person, while it woudl go 6 in a thinner more solid individual. So you really cannot make general statements for all people since everyone is constructed differently. There is some very solid thin people, and some very soft large people. You have more lightly built female frames, and denser male frames.

In general though the round will reliably penetrate about 6" of dense tissue in a healthy person even if in gel tests it does near double. It may have to smash into ribs, and go through different mediums. Sometimes it will go further, depending on what is hit. You shouldn't rely on sometimes though. 6 inches of dense tissue is just fine in most cases. Unless they are body builders, or wearing body armor, or as in the case of the North Hollywood shootout are body builders and wearing body armor.
You never know when some massive body builder like a 'Tookie' that normaly just beats people to death in parks may throw on some body armor, grab a shotgun, and kill you because you are "white" or a "Buddha-head" (asian) or something similar. In such cases you may want a little extra penetration. Of course legislation has generaly decided you can't have it in a concealable portable package chambered in common defensive calibers anyways. '18 USC sec. 921(a)(17)'

Most people get so used to citing ballistic gel penetration that they forget it is not the same as human body penetration. Ballistic gel penetration is a very helpful reference point, but not that same thing. Expansion also can be very different when the round impacts clothing, gets slightly crushed and deformed on a rib or other bone, and then enters into tissue. They don't all end up as perfectly opened uniform petals like the pictures of them shot into water or uniform gel.


The best defensive rounds would actualy be those that contain thier own explosive energy. You could fire a projectile with far more energy on target than recoil created at firing. Such projectiles though are also not legal. If they were much weaker calibers would become the minimum reliable defensive calibers. You could have .22 rounds for example that penetrated inches before detonating and creating a small crater in the target. The technology is simple and could be widely fielded tommorrow.
An old grandma with severe arthritis could deliver energy from a .22 pistol that rivals that from much more powerful defensive calibers using traditional rounds.
Our wise overlords though have decided that is unsuitable, and you must deal with increased recoil for increase terminal performance, and citizens must work on improving obsolete bullet designs which are what we call the "latest in bullet technology". Manufactures have created some decent expanding ammunition with those limitations.

The military uses rounds similar to what I described in vehicles known as HE projectiles. They are technicaly banned internationaly for infantry (but not fired from vehicles, the rules are designed to favor the more powerful forces, and limit the less powerful) anti personal roles though there is still some used in that capacity. The Raufoss Mk 211 is used in an anti personal role on occasion and is a similar round.
Similar projectiles in small pistol calibers would be very effective for civilian self defense against a wider range of targets, and could be effectively used from low recoiling calibers.
It really is legislation that limits effectiveness, by limiting the technology that can be employed in projectile designs.
The latest civilian legal rounds are just making the best of restrictive regulations, they are far from ideal, or the best with the technology available.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 04:57 PM
Not sure what is meant by that, whether be fired from that distance away (not correct as most gunfights happen from a few few away) or penetrate to that depth. I am going to assume you mean penetrate to that depth, which is actualy more accurate than many here realize.

Most rounds penetrate about 4-8" even though they penetrate 12-16" in ballistic gel. That is because ballistic gel simulates soft tissue, and does not account for bone, like ribs, slightly higher density skin, or changes in medium. When a projectile changes through different density mediums it is also slowed more than taken into account in simple equations. Just like a bullet will travel less distance in water fired from above water into water, than if fired under water. The change between mediums deflects and causes a loss of some energy. Well the body has very different internal mediums, some organs are elastic, some are not, some are light and soft, some are hard and dense.
Some people are built very solid. Some are covered in dense muscle, some more in not dense fat.
Now a round will usualy penetrate more total inches in a fat person because fat is not very dense. So you could say it penetrates 12 in one person, while it woudl go 6 in a thinner more solid individual. So you really cannot make general statements for all people since everyone is constructed differently. There is some very solid thin people, and some very soft large people. You have more lightly built female frames, and denser male frames.
Thank you zoogster. It`s difficult to tell people something that is different from what they`ve always known as "fact" without creating a storm.
Zoogster, I just read your post to my B`nLaw and he said that he recognized a few of those examples about the transfer of energy and loss caused by the different mediums. Did you see a film on this? Just curious.


I agree with you 100%
I understand that with all of the undoubtable facts of ballistics found online, how one could be lead estray.

My point of non lethal firing is simply based on ethics. I can`t say what any john smith will do in any situation.
I know that the books say one thing but if I really knew that I had the upper hand in a kill or not kill situation, I wouldn`t. And no one can say for 100% surity that they "know" what anyone else would or would not do.

elChupacabra!
August 7, 2008, 05:06 PM
if I really knew that I had the upper hand in a kill or not kill situation, I wouldn`t

Man, you really aren't getting what almost everyone responding to your thread has told you - you WILL NOT know that you have the upper hand. You will be fighting desperately for survival and, if you hesitate, try to hit a non-critical structure, anything like that, you may well end up dead for your weakness. If you chose ammunition that is accepted as general fact to be less effective against human targets - FMJ ammunition in a major caliber defensive handgun - and ever have to rely on it in a life-and-death situation, you may well pay with your life. That's what almost everyone here has told you, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

If you really want to argue with generally accepted fact, if you really want to take the one or two posts out of a 3-page thread that agree with your backwards self-defense ideas, then I don't think ANYONE on this forum can help you, because you've already decided and won't listen to reason.

God help you if you ever have to actually use a gun in a defensive situation, and God help any of us who are nearby.

Master of Arms
August 7, 2008, 05:16 PM
Yes I do get it. But how do you know what the situation will be??? Don`t try to tell me that you know what happens in every situation cause you don`t.
I`ve read all of these posts and I`ve not bashed anyone but you are the one missing the point.
EXAMPLE: You are called to a convenience store where a retarded person has decided to camp. You approach him and see that he`s armed with a knife but also that he`s not all there. He stands and will not drop it. You spray pepper spray, it doesn`t work. You ask over and over and he will not drop it. He approaches you slowly with the knife. Do you shoot him in the chest??? or try to "wound" him by firing at non-vitals or even fire at all?? You know that you have the right to do so but is it necessary?? Thats all I`ve been saying. Every situation is different and NOBODY knows the perfect answer for each because there`s not one answer. The fact of there being only one conclusion to any situation seems to be the difference in what I`m saying and what you are saying. Fine if you disagree, I`m perfectly fine with that.
You also say that people die from a leg wound. Yes they do. My friend was cut on the inside of his thigh and he died in 15 minutes. But we`re stuck on the cop subject so, If a cop is on a scene, there are many, many others coming and that know he`s there. He shoots a person in the leg, foot, shoulder, etc. and and ambulance is on the way which increases the perps chance of survival.
David killed Goliath with a rock. I understand.


Just because you can, are allowed, the law says you can, you have the right to,.... doesn`t mean that you ALWAYS should or will. Cops wear protective items and most are very capable of accurate firing of their weapons.
No matter how you put it, every situation is different. There`s a difference in fighting for your life by struggling for your gun just as it happened in my area last year.
A cop gets in a tussle with a perp , the guy knocks the cop down and pulls a gun , points it at his face and the gun jammed. The perp got up and ran and the cop shot him in the rib cage which killed him instantly. Many said that the cop shouldn`t have shot the guy. I believe he did the right thing. BIG DIFFERENCE
God help you if you can`t understand this by now. There`s a time to kill and there`s a time not to kill. This can`t be that difficult to understand.
Now twist and turn this one.....have fun.lolol

Zak Smith
August 7, 2008, 05:26 PM
You are called to a convenience store
A non-LEO will not be "called to a convenience store" to apprehend your armed retard. On the other hand, a LEO has a bunch more tools at his disposal.

If you want to talk about scenarios, head over to the S&T sub-forum here. Guy has a knife and won't leave? How about everyone else leaves and call in the "cavalry." There are myriad solutions to such a problem: some do not rise to the level of lethal force, and some do.

Do you shoot him in the chest??? or try to "wound" him by firing at non-vitals??
If you didn't need to shoot him somewhere that would actually stop him (and stop him being a threat), then why did you need to use lethal force at all? That'll be a good one to explain to the judge and jury.

Cops wear protective items and most are very capable of accurate firing of their weapons.
My experience at LEO-only competition events does not support this.

armoredman
August 7, 2008, 05:46 PM
You are missing the point yourself, sir. Please, understand, there are THREE parts to any self defense usage of DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE, which is what you are discussing using. One is purchase and training, second is the actualy shooting, third is the court battle.
Deadly physical force is defined by my state as that force which use is likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
Note, there is no distinction WHERE or HOW the force is used, merely that it IS used.
So, the individual with the deadly weapon, (knife, check Tueller Drill, by the way, how did you diagnose him as mentally retarded, and not hopped up on something?), approaches you in a manner which leads you to believe you are about to be threatened with deadly physical force, and you choose to employ deadly physical force in sefl defense. BUT, you shoot to wound. What did you just do? You just demonstrated to the jury YOU YOURSELF DID NOT BELIEVE YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY THE LEVEL OF FORCE YOU JUST USED.
You next step is meeting me professionally for the next 10-25 years, because you just lost your court battle. Hope you look good in orange.

MTMilitiaman
August 7, 2008, 05:46 PM
No, dude, you obviously don't get it. You keep saying you do, then recounting the same old tired dribble that has already been disproved by multiple members in this discussion. Actions speak louder than words. You can't say you get it then keep demonstrating that you very clearly do not.

Firearms are considered nearly universally to be lethal force. Most states and most law enforcement agencies require that fear of imminent death or bodily harm must be present and justified in order for firearms to be used. The use of a firearm in and of itself qualifies as lethal force regardless of whether you shoot them in the leg, or the ascending aorta. The difference is that, be you a civilian or a police officer, you will be tried and most likely found guilty of attempted manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon if you shoot them in the leg. Why? Because you then used deadly force when it was not warranted. If the attacker could be stopped with a shot to the leg, then means other than lethal force should have been used to resolve the situation. Using a firearm then, escalated the conflict. If you would bother to consult the laws regarding armed self defense and the use of lethal force in your area, you'd likely see the laws intentionally made such that you can not use a firearm unless you are justified, morally and legally, in killing the attacker. I have to say, I kind of agree with this. Firearms are lethal force. Plain and simple. Using a firearm to shoot an attacker in the hand, foot, or chest is all the same from a legal standpoint. It is lethal force. No 'ifs, ands, or buts' about it.

This is why officers are given pepper spray, batons, tasers, sidearms, and typically, long arms stored in the cruiser. Because an officer must be able to react to any situation with a proper application of force without escalating to deadly force unless absolutely necessary. So lets take your situation:

EXAMPLE: You are called to a convenience store where a retarded person has decided to camp. You approach him and see that he`s armed with a knife but also that he`s not all there. He stands and will not drop it. You spray pepper spray, it doesn`t work. You ask over and over and he will not drop it. He approaches you slowly with the knife. Do you shoot him in the chest??? or try to "wound" him by firing at non-vitals?? Thats all I`ve been saying. Every situation is different and NOBODY knows the perfect answer for each.

As an officer, you know that any time someone pulls a knife on you within range to use it, that is lethal force. I would pull my sidearm, advise the man to drop the weapon, and put distance between me and the threat while radioing for backup. I would try keep the man calm and direct civilians out of the area while maintaining enough distance to negate the threat of the knife. All the while, I would have my sidearm drawn. I wouldn't use the taser as there is a distinct possibility that losing control of muscular function could cause the man to stab himself. If I have time to draw and employ pepper spray as I attempt to gain distance, I do. If not, that is fine. My main goal is to keep the man in one spot and far enough away from me to negate the threat of the knife long enough for back up to arrive. If the man continues to approach me with the knife in a threatening manner, makes angles on me, and attempts to close the distance between us, I front sight center double tap and end the situation. Its unfortunate, but he didn't really leave me any options, and at that point, his mental cognition is irrelevant--knives still kill and maim, and quite simply, no one is keeping me from going home that night. I am going to live, and if I exhaust every feasible option to save this guys life while he still threatens me, well, I'd shoot the Pope Himself in that situation. Once backup arrives, he can be surrounded and contained, and we can either wear him out or make an educated decision at the time as to whether to tase him, tackle him, attempt the use of tear gas, bean bags from a shotgun, or something else. The point, is that from both a legal and ethical standpoint, if I use my firearm, it is lethal force and I am justified in killing him. Shooting him in the leg is Hollywood BS. Cops don't get along well in jail. If I shoot him in the leg, that is where I am going. Because the courts are rightfully going to rule that if I could shoot him in the leg to resolve the conflict, means other than a firearm existed that would have resulted in less force being used without escalating to lethal force.

Most rounds penetrate about 4-8" even though they penetrate 12-16" in ballistic gel. That is because ballistic gel simulates soft tissue, and does not account for bone, like ribs, slightly higher density skin, or changes in medium. When a projectile changes through different density mediums it is also slowed more than taken into account in simple equations. Just like a bullet will travel less distance in water fired from above water into water, than if fired under water. The change between mediums deflects and causes a loss of some energy. Well the body has very different internal mediums, some organs are elastic, some are not, some are light and soft, some are hard and dense.
Some people are built very solid. Some are covered in dense muscle, some more in not dense fat.

Hence the reason the FBI minimum is 12 inches, but 14 to 16 is preferred.

Zoogster
August 7, 2008, 06:22 PM
Zoogster, I just read your post to my B`nLaw and he said that he recognized a few of those examples about the transfer of energy and loss caused by the different mediums. Did you see a film on this? Just curious.
No that is just the way things work in this world. You can find many examples of it. When a projectile goes from one medium to another there is an ineffeciency created.
Waves are effected in similar ways.
Soundwaves are similarly effected transfering between two mediums, a lot of energy is lost transfering. If for example you put a waterproof alarm under water in a pool, and are above water you will hardly hear it if at all. If you put it above water and go below you will also hardly hear it. Yet if you are in either medium the waves will travel to your eardrum much better because they don't transition between different density mediums. If you seperated it by even more mediums it would transfer even worse. Explosive shockwaves are similar, and lose a lot of energy transfer between two mediums. You could set a depth charge off not very far away while above water. Or set the same thing off above water if you were below, while being within lethal range if you were in the same medium.
The human body is a structure with many different mediums, and each time a bullet changes through different mediums energy is used up more than is simply explained by the distance traveled within the mediums.


Hence the reason the FBI minimum is 12 inches, but 14 to 16 is preferred. Exactly, but many people get so used to qouting the numbers they forget that is in gel and one medium. They erroneously start to believe that is the penetration of the round, rather than the penetration of the round in the test medium. Because the test medium simulates human soft tissue they think it simulates the same depth of penetration, but it doesn't.
The gel tests are a very useful reference point.
Yet not even an absolute reference point, because different diameter rounds, different velocity spreads, and different weight projectiles will actualy penetrate different mediums in different ways. Some rounds for example that penetrate X" of gel will penetrate more or less than other very different rounds in different real targets which also penetrate X" of gel (like some penetrate hard targets better, and some penetrate soft targets better.)
So you cannot simply say because X amount of gel is penetrated Y amount in another medium will be penetrated if when comparing very different types of rounds. So you could not for example declare how much steel can be penetrated because of how much gel is penetrated in a static equation for all rounds.
Most pistol rounds are similar enough though that it does not have to be over thought too much.
People must remember it is only a reference point, not the amount of penetration that will be experienced in actual applications of deadly force.

Zak Smith
August 7, 2008, 06:29 PM
They erroneously start to believe that is the penetration of the round, rather than the penetration of the round in the test medium.
Exactly. Anyone who has done his research will know that skin "maps to" a certain number of inches of gel penetration:

Subsequent investigation revealed that unshored skin where the bullet would normally exit the body offers great resistance to bullet passage. In order to pass through, a bullet must overcome the elasticity of the skin and tear the skin to exit. Researchers found that in order for a bullet to exit skin, it must possess the equivalent momentum required to penetrate approximately four inches of muscle tissue. What this means is, in order for a bullet to pass completely through a human torso that is 11 inches deep, the bullet must be capable of penetrating at least 15 inches or more of soft tissue.

This hold-back effect of the skin has been observed in shootings. One shooting involved a gang member who’d been accidentally shot in the neck by a 9mm 124 grain Federal JHP bullet. The bullet passed through about 5 inches of soft tissue in the victim’s neck, exited near his shoulder and continued on to strike his girlfriend in her back. The expanded bullet was recovered when paramedics began treating the girlfriend, and the bullet simply fell out of the superficial wound and onto the floor. The bullet from this particular cartridge normally penetrates approximately 9 inches of standard gelatin.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs4.htm

xd .45 shooter
August 7, 2008, 06:37 PM
the jhp's are designed to transfer the force of the moving bullet into the intended target, not anything beyond. for this reason most leo, security adn even self defense rounds are hollow points. in a war situation the troops use fmj's because collateral damage is more of the opposing soldiers friends, our percieved enemies. there have been many soldiers shot with fmj 9 mm and they did not know till the battle was over. this is due in main part to the body's chemical response to a life threatening situation, being flood the body with large amounts of adrenaline and endorphines. the bullet went in and out so quickly they didn't realize it. now with a round that expands in the body to possibly double it's size doing more damage to soft tissue and ciculatory tissue the shot person will most probably know it. when in an urban environment, and innocent bystanders are involved in a conflict, then responsibility calls for the jhp round to be used. mainly for more damage done in a shot, and the less potential of overpenetration and then hitting little susie on the merry go round. also the more damage done in a shot ends aggression more quickly. i am not a big student of ballistics and such, but i do understand the use and theory of the hollow point round for self defense. still if using jhp's or fmj's shot placement is key, more importantly is knowing when to use deadly force. this should be the last option that is employed though, as it is ending life more than likely.

Zak Smith
August 7, 2008, 06:44 PM
in a war situation the troops use fmj's because collateral damage is more of the opposing soldiers friends, our percieved enemies.
Actual reasons: international law (some of which we weren't a signatory but chose to honor it), cost.

plexreticle
August 7, 2008, 06:52 PM
Can you give a citation for this? Here's a peer reviewed journal article from way back in 1991 with 147gr winchest jhps and measurements taken off people shot with it. Your numbers aren't at all correct. http://ammo.ar15.com/Fackler_Article...hester_9mm.pdf

Is it me or is this link not working?

Soybomb
August 7, 2008, 11:59 PM
they can't all do it to FBI protocol. JE223 can; he's a hydraulics engineer so he has the professional knowledge to understand how fluids and gels work. He also calibrates his blocks and corrects depths based on calibration.
While JE223's site is a great resource and I appreciate his work, I would also encourage people to read about gel testing standards. His blocks are often (and I'm going off the top of of my head here, I can't give a number on/off) not to spec and that seriously limits the usefulness of the then corrected results.

Is it me or is this link not working?
Lemme' try that again http://ammo.ar15.com/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf

Master of Arms
August 8, 2008, 12:44 AM
You just demonstrated to the jury YOU YOURSELF DID NOT BELIEVE YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY THE LEVEL OF FORCE YOU JUST USED
OR you just demonstrated an act of mercy. Because you knew you could take his life but you chose not to kill him. '
Don`t know any jury that would sentence a police officer for an act of mercy.........Dude,

ugaarguy
August 8, 2008, 12:57 AM
While JE223's site is a great resource and I appreciate his work, I would also encourage people to read about gel testing standards. His blocks are often (and I'm going off the top of of my head here, I can't give a number on/off) not to spec and that seriously limits the usefulness of the then corrected results.
That's why blocks are calibrated. His blocks generally are within spec. The calibration is used so that the results from blocks within the accepted standard deviation may be evenly compared to each other.
OR you just demonstrated an act of mercy. Because you knew you could take his life but you chose not to kill him. '
Don`t know any jury that would sentence a police officer for an act of mercy.........Dude,
Every round you fire has the potential to kill someone; there is no shooting to wound. If you're using a gun a you're employing lethal force, and it had better meet established legal criteria for such use. If you're "showing mercy" that means lethal force isn't justified.

easyg
August 8, 2008, 01:07 AM
You are called to a convenience store where a retarded person has decided to camp. You approach him and see that he`s armed with a knife but also that he`s not all there. He stands and will not drop it. You spray pepper spray, it doesn`t work. You ask over and over and he will not drop it. He approaches you slowly with the knife. Do you shoot him in the chest???
Yes, the cop should shoot him in the chest COM.

The cop is not a psychologist....the cop has no way of knowing if the guy is mentally handicapped, or high on drugs, or suicidal, or just plain out stupid.
It's not the cops job to determine such.

But any guy with a knife IS dangerous.

And you can best believe that the cop intends to go home to his wife at the end of the shift....and if that means shooting a guy with a knife in the chest, so be it!

Here's how they do things over in Gaston County, North Carolina....

http://www.gastongazette.com/news/sult_20242___article.html/officer_boone.html

Stephen A. Camp
August 8, 2008, 01:19 AM
I think this thread's lived its useful life and that we need to move on. Everyone's certainly had the opportunity to express his or her view on the poster's original topic " Why Hollow Points instead of FMJ or Soft Point Ammunition" and not the drift to police tactics and when they should or should not shoot.

I don't see much good coming from this thread remaining open. We're already starting to see the beginnings of personal "wars" that should be taken to PM's if not ignored completely as the best that such usually does is to get threads closed and members banned.



So, "Ashes to ashes"...

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Hollow Points instead of FMJ or Soft Point Ammunition?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!