FMJ for Self Defense?


PDA






Glock19Fan
August 6, 2012, 06:10 PM
If you had to use FMJ and was forced to pick between 9mm and .45, what would you choose?

Weapons and ammo- Glock 19 and full sized 1911. Ammo was WWB, and the direction of travel was from the right.

The .45ACP is on top and 9mm is on bottom.

http://i50.tinypic.com/jua58j.jpg

I use Gold Dots, I just thought it would be interesting to show this test.

If you enjoyed reading about "FMJ for Self Defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
August 6, 2012, 06:13 PM
Between a G19 and a 1911, you can fit more than twice the ammo in the G19, so that's what I'd go with. Between a G17 and a G21...that's a harder call.

Glock19Fan
August 6, 2012, 06:17 PM
The question was geared more towards caliber selection rather than platform/weapon.

I just wanted to see what caliber people would prefer if stuck with FMJ.

One_Jackal
August 6, 2012, 06:21 PM
Both rounds have penetration issues with hollow point ammo. You have to ask yourself, "Do I want a large, slow moving chunk of lead? or Do I want a smaller, faster moving chunk of lead?" I would go with the 9mm. Ammo is cheaper and readily available.

Skribs
August 6, 2012, 06:21 PM
Yes, but you specified the G19 and 1911. I guess that was more for what the test was, I thought it was part of the question. If I were limited to FMJ, I'd definitely opt for a 5.7x28mm, since the wounding potential of that round is based around the velocity rather than expanded diameter. Between 9 and .45, I'd probably opt for 9 for the same reason I already do - the holes aren't that much different in the scheme of the human body, but the 9 will carry more rounds (even between the G17 and G21).

Devonai
August 6, 2012, 06:31 PM
Given an equal amount of ammo overall, I would choose the 1911. In this scenario, I would prefer the slight advantage of .45 FMJ (granting that such an advantage may be marginal). Since you did not specify the mission, I default to self-defence. If you're talking about combat, either one will be fine as a backup to a rifle.

2wheels
August 6, 2012, 06:44 PM
I'd go for the bigger .45.

jad0110
August 6, 2012, 07:04 PM
If you had to use FMJ and was forced to pick between 9mm and .45, what would you choose?

With just this criteria, I'd go with a S&W Model 25 in 45 ACP loaded up with full wadcutters. Or 45 Colt (you didn't specify ACP :neener:)

Between the 1911 and the Glock, I'd go 1911 simply because I shoot that platform better, but YMMV.

nathan
August 6, 2012, 07:19 PM
Dont wanna be at the receiving end of the two. But i do like the .45 acp bec i m familiar with the platform. The Winchester Ranger 124 gr FMJ plus P is a must have if you have to have for self defense like shtF.Got to have that extract juice to reach out and punch through.

jon86
August 6, 2012, 07:23 PM
I'd pick a 45acp if FMJ was all that I could use. Reasons why:

- I shoot a 1911 better than a glock.
- Even if they were of the same platform, for example... xd45 vs xd9... I seem to tolerate the recoil impulse of the 45 better than the 9. I prefer the straight back recoil impulse more than the snappiness of the 9.
-45 is simply bigger, and if limited by FMJ, I'll opt for a bigger cartridge.

However, I would still feel pretty well armed if all I had was a glock 19 with 16 FMJ's.

silicosys4
August 6, 2012, 07:38 PM
I would shoot each as much as possible, decide which works for me better, and then shoot/practice alot more with the one I picked.

56hawk
August 6, 2012, 08:00 PM
Does anyone else notice that it looks like the 9mm made a bigger hole?

italy4nra
August 6, 2012, 08:24 PM
Based only on the gel, I would go with the 9mm FMJ.

allaroundhunter
August 6, 2012, 08:46 PM
I will take the bigger and slower moving round....and the one that has proven to be a better stopper in FMJ form. .45 ACP

Steve C
August 6, 2012, 08:57 PM
Personally I don't think it matters that much which you choose as they're both pretty equal anecdotal stories aside.

The NYC PD used 9mm FMJ's for many years and there are plenty of real world shootings to look at the data. If you look at the MS data shown at http://handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp you will see there's minimal difference between performance in the .45 acp 230gr FMJ and the 9mm 115gr FMJ and if you want to nit pick about a few % then the 9mm wins. Plenty of shooting to compare data with so the stat's should have high correlation to actual.

M7
August 6, 2012, 09:12 PM
Both 9mm and .45 FMJs will exit a human body from almost any imaginable angle of attack and the smooth, rounded nose profile of the FMJ guarantees that either will slip through soft tissue with a minimum of damage.

According to the Schwartz bullet penetration model found in my favorite book, Quantitative Ammunition Selection, a 9mm 115 gr. JHP moving at 1155 fps will penetrate 26.3" of soft tissue and permanently crush about 1.1 ounces of soft tissue over that distance.

Similarly, .45 230 gr. FMJ moving at 835 fps will penetrate 25.1" of soft tissue and permanently crush about 1.7 ounces of soft tissue over that distance, again, according to the Schwartz bullet penetration model.

Shot placement aside, for it's slightly greater ability to do more damage, I'd prefer the .45

.45 > 9mm

Craig_VA
August 6, 2012, 09:14 PM
I am really curious as to the reason for the FMJ limitation. I know there is a reason for FMJ under international conventions for military use (Geneva Convention, etc.) but other than the New Jersey ban on hollow point ammunition, why this limit?

Glock19Fan
August 6, 2012, 09:15 PM
56Hawk- I thought it would be more obvious that the 9mm seemed to outperform the .45ACP in this test. Either people are answering the Topic Title without looking at the actual post, or they assume by the photo the better of the two was the .45ACP?

I just wanted to see if this test, along with a test I posted several weeks ago, would change any opinions within the community.

M7
August 6, 2012, 09:29 PM
56Hawk- I thought it would be more obvious that the 9mm seemed to outperform the .45ACP in this test. Either people are answering the Topic Title without looking at the actual post, or they assume by the photo the better of the two was the .45ACP?

I just wanted to see if this test, along with a test I posted several weeks ago, would change any opinions within the community.

The topic of ammo selection is a sensitive and often emotional one for lots of folks- even if that is not the case for you and me or someone else reading this thread. I doubt that you'll see much in the way of anyone making a huge change in their philosophy, but stranger things have happened. Most will remain firmly entrenched in the position that they held before reading this thread.

The topic of FMJ for use as self-defense ammo comes up regularly here- some would probably say too often- and I find myself wondering what it is that so many find to be so fascinating or alluring about the concept of using FMJ for self-defense. Sometimes I think that some may "romanticize" its use, others may have guns that feed nothing else but FMJs reliably, and still others may distrust JHPs for all sorts of reasons.

Eventually, the vast majority of these threads degenerate at some point, circle the drain and end up being locked down. Nature of the beast. :)

grendelbane
August 6, 2012, 10:39 PM
If you want me to make my decision based on pictures of gelatin, I am going to need to see many more blocks of gelatin which have been shot with both calibers.

While it does appear in your picture that the 9mm left a larger permanent cavity than the .45, it is only one incidence. It could easily be a mis-interpretation of the picture.

If you had numerous examples which all showed pretty much the same situation, it might mean some thing, but a single example doesn't mean much.

For example, it is not unknown for bullets to yaw. (Yaw is Latin for tumble:D).

Suppose your 9mm bullet yawed in the vertical plane, and your .45 bullet yawed in the horizontal plane? From the side, it would look like the 9mm was tearing a much bigger hole. The .45 might actually be doing more damage, though.

Not saying this is what happened. I am just saying that one example like this is not enough to base a decision on. I will also say that the superiority of one over the other is going to be minor.

There really is no wrong choice, both will work.

Kendahl
August 6, 2012, 10:58 PM
The 45 ACP vs 9 mm controversy predates the development of modern hollow point ammunition. With FMJ ammunition, history shows that the 45 is adequate while the 9 is marginal. However, unless you have a very good reason for limiting yourself to FMJ, you should carry hollow points. They are better at stopping the bad guy and less likely to overpenetrate and hurt innocent bystanders.

Glock19Fan
August 6, 2012, 11:46 PM
GrendelBane- Early models of wound ballistics done by Fackler (?) show the exact same performance as shown in this block of gelatin. I have tested FMJ in both calibers before, and in every test, the 9mm yawed, while the .45ACP remained point forward. The shape and center of gravity of the .45 bullet is just too far to the front to allow yaw or tumbling, unless of course it glances off something.

I know for a fact the .45 stayed nose forward, and while cutting up the block observing temporary and permanant cavities, the .45 remained consistant the entire path. Up until the 6 inch mark, both bullets showed similar permanant cavities. However, once the 9mm yawed, and penetrated base forward, the permanant cavity seemed slightly larger towards the end of the path.

I am still an enlisted solider, and this arguement comes up many times on the power and capabilities of the two cartridges. As mentioned, in the civilian world I would always recommend the JHP but I thought I would show everyone how similar the two cartridges really are, in their best form (JHP) down to the simplest (FMJ).

grendelbane
August 6, 2012, 11:56 PM
The shape and center of gravity of the .45 bullet is just too far to the front to allow yaw or tumbling, unless of course it glances off something.



The most likely thing for it to glance off of would usually be bone. So the gelatin test tells us nothing about what happens in that case.

I am not arguing for or against one specific cartridge. Just pointing out that there is indeed little difference between the two

We could always change the shape of the .45 FMJ, and make it tumble also. Conventional JHP would still be superior though.

The old 9mm FMJ was a truncated cone style bullet. The pointy tip round nose came along to make 9mm more reliable for sub-machine guns. Might be interesting to shoot some of the old style stuff into gelatin.

56hawk
August 7, 2012, 01:32 AM
56Hawk- I thought it would be more obvious that the 9mm seemed to outperform the .45ACP in this test. Either people are answering the Topic Title without looking at the actual post, or they assume by the photo the better of the two was the .45ACP?

I just wanted to see if this test, along with a test I posted several weeks ago, would change any opinions within the community.

Yeah, the more research I do the better the 9mm looks. I have always been a big 40 S&W fan and I think it still has a slight edge on the 9mm and at least I don't lose much magazine capacity.

Sadly it does seem like there are a lot of 45 guys on this site who don't want to believe the truth that 9mm is as or more effective than the 45 ACP.

allaroundhunter
August 7, 2012, 02:12 AM
The shape and center of gravity of the .45 bullet is just too far to the front to allow yaw or tumbling, unless of course it glances off something.

How many things are there in the human body that can deflect a bullet or otherwise alter its trajectory?....

I will stick with the bigger, slower moving bullet.

JTQ
August 7, 2012, 09:04 AM
Glock19Fan wrote,
while the .45ACP remained point forward. The shape and center of gravity of the .45 bullet is just too far to the front to allow yaw or tumbling, unless of course it glances off something.
While I have not personally done any testing of .45ACP ammo, nearly every test I've seen of .45ACP ball indicates it does yaw, quite a bit.

This article, while referencing rifle ammo, explains the connection between bullet nose shape and the tendency for yaw.

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/articlepvdw.html

BSA1
August 7, 2012, 09:39 AM
Personally I don't think it matters that much which you choose as they're both pretty equal anecdotal stories aside.

The NYC PD used 9mm FMJ's for many years and there are plenty of real world shootings to look at the data. If you look at the MS data shown at http://handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp you will see there's minimal difference between performance in the .45 acp 230gr FMJ and the 9mm 115gr FMJ and if you want to nit pick about a few % then the 9mm wins. Plenty of shooting to compare data with so the stat's should have high correlation to actual.

This date is also supported by research by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow in their book "Street Stoppers". According to their research the 9mm Winchester 115gr. FMJ gave one shot stops 67% of the time and the vaulted R-P and Federal 45 acp 230 gr. FMJ gave one shot stops 69% of the time.

Drail
August 7, 2012, 12:30 PM
NYC police and Marshall and Sanow? You may as well obtain your "facts" from Wikipedia.

mljdeckard
August 7, 2012, 12:43 PM
I would choose the .45, but the real world difference is probably negligible.

Keep in mind, the reason we work so hard to improve the performance of pistol bullets is that they all suck. Premium JHP bullets suck a little bit less than FMJs. I think that the .45 has a slight advantage, and when you are fighting for your life, you want all the advantage you can get, but 9, .45, JHP, FMJ, it's the same plan, the same way. Get as many COM hits as you can. Hopefully the threat will stop with a few good hits. If they don't, keep shooting.

wildehond
August 7, 2012, 02:08 PM
Between the 9mmx19 and the 45ACP I would pick the 45ACP in FMJ.

mdauben
August 7, 2012, 02:22 PM
If limited to FMJ ammo, I would definetly go with the .45. Without modern expanding ammunition neither would be considered a stand out "stopper" but AFAIK the available evidence indicates the .45 is significantly supperior (or should I say, less inferior?) than the 9mm.

That said, I would never limit myself to FMJ in a SD senario. Modern JHP is just too much better.

M7
August 7, 2012, 02:24 PM
If limited to FMJ ammo, I would definetly go with the .45. Without modern expanding ammunition neither would be considered a stand out "stopper" but AFAIK the available evidence indicates the .45 is significantly supperior (or should I say, less inferior?) than the 9mm.

That said, I would never limit myself to FMJ in a SD senario. Modern JHP is just too much better.
This. :)

CraigC
August 10, 2012, 05:19 PM
Between the two, definitely the .45ACP. The rhetoric about them being equal sounds like a lot of wishful thinking on the part of 9mm fans. The Marine Corps didn't just order $22million worth of 1911's because they look cool. Change the discussion to modern JHP's and you have a valid argument.

That said, FMJ is a terrible, terrible, terrible choice for self defense. Did I say terrible??? It slips right through causing very little tissue disruption. Nobody who has ever used hardball on flesh would use it for self defense unless there was absolutely no other choice.

Shawn Dodson
August 10, 2012, 10:04 PM
Does anyone else notice that it looks like the 9mm made a bigger hole?

The 9mm bullet yawed, contacting and crushing more soft tissue (simulant), which is why it produced more disruption than the .45. This is a common characteristic of 9mm FMJ.

The most likely thing for it to glance off of would usually be bone. So the gelatin test tells us nothing about what happens in that case.

What bone would it "glance off of" in the torso?

M7
August 11, 2012, 01:43 AM
What bone would it "glance off of" in the torso?

A rib.

Still, I think that testing bullets in gelatin are the best we have. Kind of hard to find volunteers for stuff like that.

Glock19Fan
August 11, 2012, 05:37 AM
JTQ- I never seen any test indicate .45ACP yaws in penetration with the exception of JHPs. Did you have any links to the tests?

Also, basing the effectiveness of something becuase of a military purchase means nothing. As an active duty service member, I can assure you not everything the military purchases is performance based. Besides, almost all SOF still carry 9mms and are perfectly fine with it.

The Man With No Name
August 11, 2012, 06:27 AM
The 45 ACP vs 9 mm controversy predates the development of modern hollow point ammunition. With FMJ ammunition, history shows that the 45 is adequate while the 9 is marginal. However, unless you have a very good reason for limiting yourself to FMJ, you should carry hollow points. They are better at stopping the bad guy and less likely to overpenetrate and hurt innocent bystanders.
This sums up how I feel about it. Personally I would choose the more proven round in FMJ, the 45 ACP. For me it comes down to the fact that having lots of ammo in a mag doesn't make me feel safer. Bullets that are controllable and more likely to get the job done do. I find in the guns you are using as your example the 45 would be much more controllable. 9mm is snappy to me in recoil thus slowing me down for rapid fire work (follow up shots).

Also on the subject of bone, I've personally seen failures of +P+ 9mm to break bone. With that in mind I'd go for the heavier bullet (45).

Friendly, Don't Fire!
August 11, 2012, 07:01 AM
.45 4-me

Shawn Dodson
August 11, 2012, 01:36 PM
A rib.

Not an issue. Rib bones aren't solid. It'll blast right through to enter the thoracic cavity unless it collides with the rib at a low tangential angle.

M7
August 12, 2012, 12:47 AM
Shawn,

You asked-

What bone would it "glance off of" in the torso?

I said-

A rib.

Not an issue. Rib bones aren't solid. It'll blast right through to enter the thoracic cavity unless it collides with the rib at a low tangential angle.

Wouldn't colliding with a rib at a low tangetial angle be "glancing off of" the rib?

Shawn Dodson
August 12, 2012, 01:45 PM
At a shallow angle (tangential hit) any bullet can simply glance off a rib, producing a "grazing" wound.

When hitting at an angle to producing a penetrating wound of the thorax a rib will have negligible effect whether or not the bullet is JHP or FMJ.

easyg
August 13, 2012, 12:36 AM
9mm all the way.

Glock 19 all the way.

jimbo555
August 13, 2012, 06:51 AM
45acp all the way. 1911 all the way.

willypete
August 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
This date is also supported by research by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow

Do people still quote those guys and expect to be taken seriously? They've been debunked for quite some time. Their results are questionable and they won't release their data for peer-review.

JShirley
August 13, 2012, 01:07 PM
The Winchester Ranger 124 gr FMJ plus P is a must have if you have to have for self defense like shtF.Got to have that extract juice to reach out and punch through.

I have no idea what you're talking about. First, you end an ill-constructed sentence with an acronym that I usually translate as "the preceding was null and void, as I have no idea what I'm talking about" followed by...what? Ordinary 9x19mm FMJ over-penetrates. What you get for your dollar in this case is more recoil and more wear on your firearm. :scrutiny:

John

481
August 13, 2012, 06:16 PM
Do people still quote those guys and expect to be taken seriously? They've been debunked for quite some time. Their results are questionable and they won't release their data for peer-review.
Evidently, they still do.

I was under the impression that the dirt had been long patted down on the grave of such farsical stuff.

Oh, well. :)

foghornl
August 13, 2012, 09:47 PM
If I can only use "Ball" ammo {FMJ}, I'll take the .45ACP.

BSA1
August 14, 2012, 10:03 AM
Marshall and Evans debunked?

They have published two books on their research. Can any of you point to any other researchers that have published their results in books available to the general public?

It is easy for any self-appointed "expert" giving themselves a important sounding title and publish a short essay criticizing something. Why haven't these same "experts" done the same amount of research as Marshall and Evans and published them in books available to the public?

All research methods have short comings.

Establishing a relible data base for something as complex as the human body is very difficult as no one reacts the same. For example, I know people who are not affected at all by a faceful of pepper mace. I have been in enough situations where pepper mace was used that I can fight my way through it even after getting snort full. I am not affected by the taser as much as other folks and can usually stay on my feet.

What exact issues do you object to?

Real world shootings often run counter to Internet myths and story tellings. In todays fuel charged drug environment shooting only once is risky but sometimes it is the only choice.

It is a shame that most of you have not spent time in a major hospital emergency room seeing the gun shot victims come in. Again real world vs. the Internet myths and stories.

PabloJ
August 14, 2012, 10:05 AM
I would take the Glock every time. The G21 is far superior to mass produced 1911 in every way except if used as peening hammer.

allaroundhunter
August 14, 2012, 10:25 AM
I would take the Glock every time. The G21 is far superior to mass produced 1911 in every way except if used as peening hammer.

This is not a platform v. platform thread.... it is a caliber war....

PabloJ
August 14, 2012, 10:28 AM
Ok. I will take slower slug of greater mass and diameter.

allaroundhunter
August 14, 2012, 10:30 AM
Ok. I will take slower slug of greater mass and diameter.

+1, from any platform

CraigC
August 14, 2012, 11:33 AM
The G21 is far superior to mass produced 1911 in every way except if used as peening hammer.
Yes, that's why I sold all my Glocks and shoot mostly 1911's now. :rolleyes:

SlamFire1
August 14, 2012, 11:39 AM
I would take the bigger bullet as it would create the bigger hole.

The bigger the hole the faster the blood loss.

Blood loss, in sufficient quantities, is 100% fatal under all conditions for everything that lives and breathes.

481
August 14, 2012, 04:59 PM
Marshall and Evans debunked?


Yep. It's actually Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow.

Here

http://firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#TooGoodToBeTrue

by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters

and here

http://firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

by M. van Maanan

and here

http://firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

by D. MacPherson

Debunked, deconstructed, and demolished.

BSA1
August 14, 2012, 09:35 PM
If that is what you want to believe than that is your choice. However none of critics have attempted a similiar project. I strongly suspect to avoid the same type of criticism Marshall and Sanow have recieved. They don't want to have their research closely studies and have their lily white academic pants dirtied. Academic work is a very dirty business within the community. Tear down your opponents while building your own reputation. Marshall has said he would never have done the project if he had to do over do to the criticism.

Every handgun stopping power project ever done has had its shortcomings. Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

A lot of the problem is everyone has their scared cow. 1911 45 acp shooters are probably the worse group.
There is more b.s. about it than any other gun and caliber.

My question is what part of their conclusions do you disagree with?

frankmako
August 14, 2012, 09:44 PM
45 acp in 230 gr rn for me.

481
August 14, 2012, 10:44 PM
If that is what you want to believe than that is your choice.

I'll take the word of five highly qualified examiners all day long over the "say so" of just any random person. (not singling you out in any way, it's not meant personally)

However none of critics have attempted a similiar project.

There is no need for them to do so. They've deconstructed the work, found it to fail on a level detectable by even the most novice statistician and rendered their findings. There is no need for them to offer an alternative procedure.

I strongly suspect to avoid the same type of criticism Marshall and Sanow have recieved.

That is highly speculative.

Academic work is a very dirty business within the community. Tear down your opponents while building your own reputation. Marshall has said he would never have done the project if he had to do over do to the criticism.

The same could be said of every other profession. It's a "dog eat dog" world.

Every handgun stopping power project ever done has had its shortcomings.

I am sure.

Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

Link, please.

A lot of the problem is everyone has their scared cow.

Why would anyone have a frightened bovine? :confused:

1911 45 acp shooters are probably the worse group.
There is more b.s. about it than any other gun and caliber.

I don't think so. No one has the market cornered in the "caliber wars".

My question is what part of their conclusions do you disagree with?

Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

M7
August 14, 2012, 10:53 PM
:what:

The Man With No Name
August 14, 2012, 10:58 PM
I'm not even sure which side the two of you are taking at this point. Is it 9mm or 45? Personally I don't see how anyone can deny that the larger holes leak more blood and that either should shoot through the average person. So how can one argue that two 9mm holes are smaller than two 45 caliber holes? I'm not a stopping power theory, statistics, or whatever research type believer. I believe what I see. Any round can be deadly with proper shot placement if it will penetrate far enough. Any leo that has been around awhile can recount atleast one instance where a .22 killed someone. Just as many can recount atleast one instance where a 9mm, 357 magnum, or 45 didn't even with jhp. I've personally seen a young dealer shot four times in the stomach with .380 ball and leave the hospital within one week. Did I mention that during the incident he was able to return fire? I think we are all over thinking the original premise of this thread. Is a bigger hole better than a smaller hole? Is the velocity difference between the two really that great where we should expect one to be so much more likely to create shock induced failure to major organs? Won't either pretty reliable go through and through if nothing major gets in the way? I've also seen a guy get shot in the back of his lower leg with 9mm fmj. The round hit that big bone in your lower leg and almost came through but not quite.

481
August 14, 2012, 11:02 PM
I'm not even sure which side the two of you are taking at this point. Is it 9mm or 45?

I like and carry 'em both.

srtolly
August 14, 2012, 11:27 PM
I shoot both and .40s&w. I like the snappy feel of the .40. Given a choice of 9mm and .45 I would have to take the .45 for the larger wound tract and bone destruction. I also shoot the .45 better.

BSA1
August 15, 2012, 09:42 AM
Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

So you don't disagree with their findings just the way they went about it?

481
August 15, 2012, 10:08 AM
Highly flawed methodology, arbitrary criteria, obvious data tampering yielding a desired conclusion.

So you don't disagree with their findings just the way they went about it?

I disagree with it all. The entirety of M&S's work has been throughly debunked by the three sources that I've listed above.




How about that source/link for this?

Maarten van Maanen conslusions are wrong and also has been debunked.

I'd really like to have a look at it.

BSA1
August 15, 2012, 10:34 AM
Well you are either avoiding the issue or I am not expressing myself well enough....darn Internet, it never takes the place of a good face to face conversation. Would you give me a example of caliber and bullet that you feel was over or underrated by Marshall?

Flankerites rely heavily on ballistic gelatin yet I have to meet a person made of gelatine.

The problem with judging any bullet performance is the human body is highly variable. To have repeatable laboratory tests you must have a constant test subject which as we know is impossible with the human body.

I always maintain that shooters need to test their ammo out of their guns. My totally unsciencifitic methods includes shooting through layers of clothing into water, blocks of ice, wood, drywall, sheet metal (car doors) and about every other material I have access to. My results sometimes have been different than then recruiting ads in gun magazines. My limited budget does not allow me to test everything so I am open to the results and conclusions of other shooters like yourself.

I am not starting a war over bullets over calibers, bullets, guns just trying to better understand what your experiences have been.

I had a article rebuting Maarten van Maanen but I lost it during a computer crash. I will post it or email it to you if I find it again. Basically I think it had to do with his math.

Anyway we probably agree more than we disagree as long as we don't talk about blondes vs. burnettes. :D:D:D

powder
August 15, 2012, 10:52 AM
9mm/19

460Kodiak
August 15, 2012, 12:13 PM
I'd pick a 45acp if FMJ was all that I could use. Reasons why:

- I shoot a 1911 better than a glock.
- Even if they were of the same platform, for example... xd45 vs xd9... I seem to tolerate the recoil impulse of the 45 better than the 9. I prefer the straight back recoil impulse more than the snappiness of the 9.
-45 is simply bigger, and if limited by FMJ, I'll opt for a bigger cartridge.

However, I would still feel pretty well armed if all I had was a glock 19 with 16 FMJ's.

Same here on all accounts. I'm more effective with a .45. My attitude used to be that .45 was better, but I don't think it comes down to caliber or ballistics as much as people think. It comes down to how each shooter handles the cartridge. I shoot .45 better than 9mm and a 1911 better than any Glock, regardless of caliber.

It's that "X" factor that kind of makes caliber comparisons between cartridges that generate really similar results almost a moot point, as the answer will be different for everyone. Having more rounds of a cartridge you aren't any good with is not going to help you.

Now if you are comparing cartridges that generate really different power levels like 9mm and .44 magnum, the debate has more merit. Lots of power and low round count, or lots of rounds and low power. The answer would be different depending on the situation. Bears, yeah, I want a .44. People, I'm probably fine with a 9mm. There are further specifics that alter the answer too, but ultimately it still comes back to what the shooter is most effective with. If someone can't control a .44 it is no good to them.

45_auto
August 15, 2012, 03:14 PM
I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm? Or both?

I regularly run scenarios at our monthly pistol matches (IDPA type) where I require the shooters to swap guns. Gives everyone an opportunity to shoot different guns under a little bit of match pressure. I find that there's no appreciable difference in anyones performance. The same shooters always come out on top no matter which guns or what caliber they're shooting. Scores on the stages shot with their own gun or other people's gun will be almost identical. Good shooters will have equally good scores with all guns (barring an equipment malfunction) and poor shooters will have poor scores. The guys who are always at the bottom are the ones where you'll hear the complaints that they "weren't used to that gun" or "weren't used to that caliber". A good sight picture and trigger press will get you identical results with either platform.

45_auto
August 15, 2012, 03:27 PM
I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm?

I regularly run scenarios at our monthly pistol matches (IDPA type) where I require the shooters to swap guns. Gives everyone an opportunity to shoot different guns under a little bit of match pressure. The same shooters always come out on top no matter which guns or what caliber they're shooting. The guys who are always at the bottom are the ones where you'll hear the complaints that they "weren't used to that gun" or "weren't used to that caliber".

seeker_two
August 15, 2012, 03:35 PM
When comparing a .355" hole and a .451" hole, I find that the .096" of difference doesn't make that much difference....

....the place where I'm putting those holes, though, DOES make the difference.....

481
August 15, 2012, 03:45 PM
Well you are either avoiding the issue...

Nope, I was expressed exactly what I meant when I said-I disagree with it all.- the whole ball of wax; lock, stock & barrel; the whole kit & kaboodle; the whole enchilada; it's conclusions are the rotten fruit of a rotten tree.

Flankerites rely heavily on ballistic gelatin yet I have to meet a person made of gelatine.

I don't know what Flankerite is, but anyone who conducts tests in gelatin and knows what they are doing, can tell you that gelatin has never been and was never intended to be a perfect replica of the human body. It is a homogenous test analog meant to duplicate the properties of swine thigh tissue which in turn duplicates the properties of human muscle tissue. It is provides a valid (confirmed via testing by parties too numerous to list here), repeatable test medium. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem with judging any bullet performance is the human body is highly variable. To have repeatable laboratory tests you must have a constant test subject which as we know is impossible with the human body.

That's why the manufacturers and labs use gelatin. It is the "constant test subject" that they rely upon.

I always maintain that shooters need to test their ammo out of their guns. My totally unsciencifitic methods includes shooting through layers of clothing into water, blocks of ice, wood, drywall, sheet metal (car doors) and about every other material I have access to. My results sometimes have been different than then recruiting ads in gun magazines. My limited budget does not allow me to test everything so I am open to the results and conclusions of other shooters like yourself. I am not starting a war over bullets over calibers, bullets, guns just trying to better understand what your experiences have been.

My experience has been that, until we find a perfect test subject (never gonna happen 'cause we can't just start shooting folks for the sake of generating data) calibrated gelatin is the best we have. After that, I like to use the mathematical models that are proposed in www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com and http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/index.html

I had a article rebuting Maarten van Maanen but I lost it during a computer crash. I will post it or email it to you if I find it again. Basically I think it had to do with his math.

Anyway we probably agree more than we disagree as long as we don't talk about blondes vs. burnettes. :D:D:D

I look forward to seeing it here.

erikk8829
August 15, 2012, 03:53 PM
.45 acp

BSA1
August 15, 2012, 03:55 PM
481 you win. I give up trying to learn from you what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective. Say if you aren't one you would make a pretty good politician.

Good day and have a cold one on me.

481
August 15, 2012, 04:09 PM
481 you win. I give up trying to learn from you what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective. Say if you aren't one you would make a pretty good politician.

Good day and have a cold one on me.

No need to become frustrated.

I didn't know that that was what you were asking. You asked me ...just trying to better understand what your experiences have been. and I provided them (albeit in a significantly abreviated from) to you.

This- ...what bullet style and style you have found to be most effective. is the first I've heard of what exactly you wanted to know and I am happy to provide an answer-

Regardless of caliber, I prefer a "heavy-for-caliber" JHP, preferably a premium design.

Better? :)

460Kodiak
August 15, 2012, 05:38 PM
Quote:
I shoot .45 better than 9mm

By this do you mean that your groups are bigger with a 9mm, or do you shoot slower with a 9mm? Or both?



I mean I shoot slower with a 9mm. I find the low recoil in .45 due to the low pressure makes follow up shots much faster for me. Thus I would say I am more effective with it. I had a .40 S&W and had the same issue only worse. The gun was accurate, I shot it accurately, but really slowly. The snap of that cartridge was hard for me to master, and my follow up shot speed negated the entire point of having a semiauto gun. So I sold it and switched to .45 acp based on the above described idea. I was right. I shoot my FNP 45 and my S&W 1911 just as accurately as my old .40 S&W, but am able to empty a magazine accurately, and more quickly than a .40 S&W. Hence "I shoot it better." Since the .40 and .45 are similar in power levels, I never looked back. Ironically, my FNP holds more ammo than my old .40 did, and since I sold that gun to my dad (at a really good price of course) I wonder who he will leave it to when he passes? :rolleyes:

A good sight picture and trigger press will get you identical results with either platform.

I agree with you 100% on this. A particular model gun may not suit everyone or feel right in everyone's hand, but aiming is aiming. It is up to the shooter's skill to aim a gun and squeeze the trigger properly in either platform.

CraigC
August 15, 2012, 05:59 PM
A good sight picture and trigger press will get you identical results with either platform.
I reckon there ain't much difference if your choices are between bad and terrible.

BSA1
August 15, 2012, 06:29 PM
is the first I've heard of what exactly you wanted to know and I am happy to provide an answer-

Regardless of caliber, I prefer a "heavy-for-caliber" JHP, preferably a premium design.

Better?

481 gotcha! I understand now where you are coming from. Like I said before I think we agree more than we disagree.:)

I mostly agree with your choices except in smaller calibers. A friend and I have a Tastes Great, Less Filling debate in the .380. He likes JHP's and I prefer FMJ for better penetration. That said in a worse case situation if the JHP fails to expand it just acts like a FMJ.

Now if we could just get prison inmates to volunteer for being shot...:what:

481
August 15, 2012, 06:50 PM
BSA,

Yep, seems we agree on most stuff. I never addressed the "smaller calibers" per se, but when I go below the self-imposed "floor" of 9mm/.38 Spcl, I also go for the .380 = FMJ in SD roles. Sorry if I seemed guarded, but as you well know, it is not unusual for someone to get "torn up" over their preferences on this topic. My preferences are mine and, as such, not subject to debate.

Although we agree on the "volunteer thing", I don't know how valid such a pursuit would be. Such a study would require a population of several hundreds of thousands to even begin to compensate for the seemingly infinite variances present in the anatomy and that does not even begin to address how we'd determine what constitutes a "success" and a "failure".

BSA1
August 15, 2012, 07:19 PM
:D:D:D

ccsniper
August 15, 2012, 07:34 PM
didn't read most of the posts, in fact I only looked at posts by members with less than a hundred posts, and you know what? Nearly all of them said .45, most of those with more post count said 9mm. This to me says youngins on the forum prefer the MASS DESTRUCTION of the .45 as opposed to the NEVER KILLED ANYBODY 9mm .:rolleyes:

The Man With No Name
August 16, 2012, 09:25 AM
didn't read most of the posts, in fact I only looked at posts by members with less than a hundred posts, and you know what? Nearly all of them said .45, most of those with more post count said 9mm. This to me says youngins on the forum prefer the MASS DESTRUCTION of the .45 as opposed to the NEVER KILLED ANYBODY 9mm .:rolleyes:
Some of the youngins have decades of experience and have seen a variety of people shot with a variety of calibers though. Some of those with high post counts have never seen any of that. And vice versa. I think this falls under the flawed data, bad math, bad science categories. ;)

Seriously though if this had been a 22lr vs 45acp thread what would the overwhelming response have been? Yet people really want to rationalize why the small diameter difference of 9mm vs 45acp doesn't matter when it really does in the end. It may not make one underpowered and the other an instant manslayer but given the restriction of fmj non-hollowpoint ammo why would anyone pick the smaller round other than platform issues or the fact they did not feel they were as accurate with one round or the other.

tomrkba
August 16, 2012, 12:35 PM
I would choose 45 ACP if all I had was FMJ ammunition because the permanent wound channel has a larger diameter than that of 9x19mm FMJ.

ccsniper
August 16, 2012, 05:18 PM
I would choose 45 ACP if all I had was FMJ ammunition because the permanent wound channel has a larger diameter than that of 9x19mm FMJ.
__________________

If you look at the gel in the pick, the 9mm actually left a larger wound channel.

allaroundhunter
August 16, 2012, 05:42 PM
If you look at the gel in the pick, the 9mm actually left a larger wound channel.

That is how it would appear from the angle that we were looking at. You don't know that for sure.

Sent from my HTC One X

tomrkba
August 16, 2012, 07:36 PM
It appears that the 9x19mm bullet tumbled. Was that the case?

As usual, there are a hundred variables that affect terminal ballistics and shooting gelatin only gives us an indication of performance. I'd like to see some actual wound data, but I doubt it's available.

An acquaintance of mine once stated that he never had anyone NOT fall down after being shot in the face three times with 9x19mm FMJ. Other anecdotes expressed similar results from 45 ACP FMJ.

In the absence of JHP ammunition, my inclination is use bigger bullets. I'd prefer flat points over round nose, again for better crush damage.

RevolvingGarbage
August 16, 2012, 08:03 PM
It does appear that 9x19 tears gelatin more, based on the photo provided.

Does that mean 9mm FMJ is a better stopper? Does it even mean 9mm does more physical damage to a human?

For my money, I would bet on the larger heavier round. It's not a scientific observation, just supposition.

Trent
August 16, 2012, 08:14 PM
3 pages of posts and no one has asked the most OBVIOUS of the questions.

WHICH ONE DO YOU SHOOT BETTER?

I find with 9mm, I'm FAR faster and more accurate than with a 45. But I have scrawny arms and wrists - I'm a computer programmer / network engineer, not a lumberjack. Some people can rattle off 45 ACP and shrug of the recoil like it's nothing.

But fact is fact, I shoot 9mm over TWICE as fast - accurately - as I do 45.

I still love to shoot 45's and keep one next to my bed, but in my CAR, where I'm more likely going to need to shoot one handed (in the unlikely event if I ever have to), I keep a 9mm.

coalman
August 16, 2012, 10:11 PM
.45acp

ccsniper
August 16, 2012, 10:36 PM
That is how it would appear from the angle that we were looking at. You don't know that for sure.


But given the evidence in the picture provided the 9mm did more damage.

allaroundhunter
August 17, 2012, 12:38 AM
But given the evidence in the picture provided the 9mm did more damage.

Except knowing that a single test proves nothing, means that you should not draw conclusions such as that from the evidence given in that picture. If I was shown 50 pictures like that out of a sample size of, say, 60, then maybe we are getting somewhere.

And again, I would like to see the other angles as well. It is entirely possible that the .45 yawed on a different axis that cannot be seen from the angle shown in the picture.

Sent from my HTC One X

Ken Rainey
August 18, 2012, 01:13 AM
Well, if considering the two rounds for personal civilian defensive use only, then I'd pick the 230 grain .45 ACP FMJ due to it's better ability to penetrate straighter thru bone instead of being deflected by it ... and, in doing so, will actually lose enough energy to not be as much of a threat if it does exit. Either bullet may over penetrate if only flesh and muscle are hit but the 9mm will carry on the farthest...

If used for military purposes, I'd opt for the 124 grain (full throttle) 9mm FMJs (in a Glock 17) for the better penetration and at longer distances...

Thing is, there is no telling what a civilian defensive bullet may have to go thru to get where it needs to be to do some good ... some circumstances may be optimal for a 9mm FMJ (or hollowpoint) and some may not ... there is just no telling which might be best ... however, the slow, heavy 230 grain FMJ .45 is gonna be a pretty good all around defensive bullet that'll have a good chance of doing what needs to be done - maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst...

I could use either one...but would prefer the 230 FMJ (in a 1911) ...

It's always gonna be shot placement with adequate penetration that is needed...;)

Inebriated
August 18, 2012, 06:03 AM
Two things stop fights; doing everything you can to avoid them, and damage to vital structures (Aorta, brain stem, spinal cord, various arteries, etc). If you manage to hit vital structures, you're getting the same results, no matter the bullet's construction. The only thing that matters to me is penetration. FMJ allows you to penetrate deeper, to assist in shots where the target is at an angle (putting more obstacles in front of the vitals) or if the bullet hits bone. If I could, I would carry FMJ. But the issue is that we can't have a bullet completely pass through, with a lawyer riding on the back. So I personally would like to be reasonably confident that the bullet would stay in the target. I don't care about the extra diameter of an expanded bullet, or a marginally larger wound channel... none of it really makes a big difference when hitting vitals, and certainly not when missing them.

Manco
August 18, 2012, 12:56 PM
If you look at the gel in the pick, the 9mm actually left a larger wound channel.

You have to keep in mind, though, that gelatin is not flesh. In particular, temporary cavitation that looks devastating in gelatin may not have any noticeable effect on flesh at all, short of centerfire rifle kinetic energy levels. It's like stretching a rubber band within its elastic limits--no real harm is done with the kind of energy that 9mm can muster, no matter what the gelatin may seem to indicate.

CraigC
August 18, 2012, 01:23 PM
If I could, I would carry FMJ.
I would not carry FMJ unless I absolutely had no other choice and it has nothing to do with overpenetration.


I don't care about the extra diameter of an expanded bullet, or a marginally larger wound channel... none of it really makes a big difference when hitting vitals, and certainly not when missing them.
I think you'll find that in the real world, "marginally" is not the word for it.

CraigC
August 18, 2012, 02:49 PM
I wouldn't want to be shot with a 1200fps .177cal pellet rifle but that doesn't make it a good fight stopper.

Inebriated
August 18, 2012, 06:51 PM
So tell me what difference that .2-3" extra diameter makes in "the real world".

tomrkba
August 18, 2012, 07:16 PM
There is much to it, but from what I have read, the flesh in front of the bullet is crushed. This tear is permanent and is the primary source of bleeding. The diameter is affected by bullet shape and FMJ round nose creates a channel diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the bullet (something like .3-.35" for 45 and .2-.25" for 9mm--but I have to go find the averages).

Temporary cavity size is not relevant in low velocity handgun bullets in terms of incapacitation. Start here to start drawing your own conclusions:

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


Look around here for many articles:

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

481
August 18, 2012, 08:38 PM
There is much to it, but from what I have read, the flesh in front of the bullet is crushed. This tear is permanent and is the primary source of bleeding. The diameter is affected by bullet shape and FMJ round nose creates a channel diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the bullet (something like .3-.35" for 45 and .2-.25" for 9mm--but I have to go find the averages).

Temporary cavity size is not relevant in low velocity handgun bullets in terms of incapacitation. Start here to start drawing your own conclusions:

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


Look around here for many articles:

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

For FMJs of the round nose variety, just multiply the bullet diameter by 0.688292 (taken from the book in my sig line) to get the diameter of the permament cavity.

0.452 x 0.688292 = 0.311", 0.40 x 0.688292 = 0.275" and 0.355 x 0.688292 = 0.244"

flatlander937
August 18, 2012, 10:20 PM
I'd be interested to see different weight bullets of 45ACP vs 9mm.....

115gr and 147gr 9mm
165gr, 180gr, and 230gr .45

And how they all relate wound channel and penetration-wise.

tomrkba
August 18, 2012, 10:53 PM
In addition to what flatlander said, I'd also like to see what truncated cone and SWC's do.

fastest45ever
August 19, 2012, 12:25 AM
Certainly would be nice if effort was put into designing a TC or flat point FMJ that optimized for speed, less penetration, and tumbling.

I don't see why a FMJ of such design, similar to the 200 grain FMJ Browning originally designed for the .45 ACP, @ 950 fps, wouldn't work very well for SD. Likewise a neglected area of he 9mm is a TC lighter bullet, optimized for 18" of penetration, but that might tumble as well.

It might be hard to sell such a bullet for the very high prices that go with hollowpoints these days.

That said, something is to be said for a 255 grain .45 bullet at about 800 fps.

Inebriated
August 19, 2012, 01:02 AM
In addition to what flatlander said, I'd also like to see what truncated cone and SWC's do.

Same here.

allaroundhunter
August 19, 2012, 01:27 AM
So tell me what difference that .2-3" extra diameter makes in "the real world".

The .45 ACP does not have .2"-.3" more diameter than the 9mm...it actually has less than .1" (. 452"-.355"=.097" )

And it isn't just the added diameter that makes a difference in "the real world".

Sent from my HTC One X

JShirley
August 19, 2012, 02:04 AM
Except for lightweight, fragile rifle bullets that tumble and fragment, all FMJs are poor stoppers compared to decent expanding rounds.

Further, any methodology that only viewed single shots to the human torso is flawed from inception. Yes, I understand there was no other way to do it to make up their essentially bogus ratings, but professionals know to always fire at least two shots at a threat, if there's time. This means that a lower, badly off-center hit would be given just as much weight as a center spine hit, even though that spine hit with anything with sufficient penetration will cause an instantaneous stop. The ratings mean nothing.

Questioning which handgun round has better "stopping power" mean I'll give the poster almost as little credence as someone who writes about *HTF. :rolleyes: I've seen deer take solid hits from rifles, and jump up and run 30 minutes later. Debating what underpowered non-expanding handgun round has more "stopping power" (sic) is about like arguing which color coat Ole Saint Nick should be wearing.

John

fastest45ever
August 19, 2012, 05:43 AM
At what caliber, bullet, bullet design, and velocity do you stop saying handgun rounds are under-powered?

Perhaps you should be more specific:
"service caliber handguns" etc.

John Candy has taken the big five using a 5 gun using the .475 and .500 Linebaugh cartridges.

Others have built 5 guns that are .45-70, .50 Alaskan, 500 Linebaugh Maximum.

For autos you have the .44 Automag. Lee Jurras took nearly everything on the planet using a .44 magnum, 185 grain bullet at 1900 fps, both expanding and non-expanding, depending upon the game. I think BFR still makes the .357 and .44 Magnum autos as well. Also the .50AE.

I've watched a LOT of hogs and deer die in their tracks from a 260 grain .45 Colt at 1150 fps.

So, once again:

At what point in your judgement do handguns stop being under powered?

JShirley
August 19, 2012, 05:58 AM
At what caliber, bullet, bullet design, and velocity do you stop saying handgun rounds are under-powered?

Perhaps you should be more specific:
"service caliber handguns" etc.

True enough. When "handguns" are firing rifle-power cartridges, they're no longer under-powered. Of course, those same rifle-level cartridges in handguns are poorly suited for self-defense due to the size of the platforms involved, and recovery time after each shot.

But you obviously know that, so you're really just here to argue, right?

John

fastest45ever
August 19, 2012, 11:49 AM
Let me rephrase:

NOT being able to run to your rifle, and having to pick a caliber, load, FMJ,
at what point would you pick for a combination of power, manageable recoil, and speed of second shots? What grain bullet, what caliber, and what bullet speed?

It's not a perfect world, and most of us are limited from using rifles for SD for CCW.

Depending on your level of proficiency, that point varies for each person.

While I admit the two headed demon we are skewered on with this question is not a good question, the underlying question of what combination is optimum for a non-expanding SD round is a valid question. It also raises
another question of where is the research on non-expanding FMJ type bullets in service calibers that are not in the most common sandbox?

A committee around 1900 decided that 230 grains and 800 fps was what they wanted for the average military shooter. In this day and age, are horses, and stopping them, that much of a concern?

I am not alone in thinking that a design that limits penetration by lighter bullet weight, but achieves wounding by velocity and wound channel is not an excellent alternative to expanding bullets:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=283
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=269

Jim Cirillo thought so as well.

Here is a .45 ACP round that duplicates the .45 Colt army load in an auto:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=295

It would seem that adopting something like this round for 9mm would be an excellent idea:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127
lighter bullet, flatter nose, higher velocity limits penetration and increases damage.

Seems like this would be an excellent choice for someone who isn't convinced that hollowpoints always work, and that their penetration is ideal.

There is no reason that the light, fast, tumbling bullet approach the military has used for so long can't be adapted for modern handguns.

The Man With No Name
August 19, 2012, 04:21 PM
True enough. When "handguns" are firing rifle-power cartridges, they're no longer under-powered. Of course, those same rifle-level cartridges in handguns are poorly suited for self-defense due to the size of the platforms involved, and recovery time after each shot.

But you obviously know that, so you're really just here to argue, right?

John

The example 45 LC is hardly what I would consider a rifle power cartridge. Deer do stop in their tracks when shot with that load with proper shot placement. It sounded like he asked a pretty simple question. You could have addressed it instead of accusing him of being here just to argue.

jon_in_wv
August 19, 2012, 04:49 PM
While I would never choose FMJs as my defensive bullet if its all you have available then FMJs it is. Practice, practice, practice. The more proficient you are with your firearm the less the bullet will matter to you. I've fired more than 10,000 rounds downrange with my M&P. My ability to put bullets where they count is much more important to me that the shape of the bullet.

JShirley
August 19, 2012, 09:58 PM
No Name,

The Colt bit was added as a quick edit, not part of the OP. And it's still true that it's getting powerful enough that many, if not most shooters would experience problems with shot recovery time.

Again, the poster in question knows this fully well, which is why he made the service caliber comment. Once past the .45 ACP/.357Mag power envelope, platforms are going to be too large, or recoil too excessive for defensive carry.

John

fastest45ever
August 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
"Once past the .45 ACP/.357Mag power envelope, platforms are going to be too large, or recoil too excessive for defensive carry."

I expect facts, numbers, and values to support this position. It's a pretty common mantra that needs numerical definition.

I don't find .45 Colt to be too large, or to excessive for defensive carry.
It's also a caliber that out of a single action can be fired so quickly two shots sound like one, and, it's VERY accurate.

My experience is I can get a non-expanding 9MM to hit at very high speed, with to me, NO recoil, or so little recoil a Sig Sauer 226 won't cycle, yet get great penetration, and a large wound channel, due to velocity. 80-115 grain bullets in 9MM are perfect for this.

Pretty much to support the mantra, you need to specify a platform, recoil level that the shooter does well with, and define and build a load for that combination.

Kind of a tell that knowledge, experience and research is considered a fault in this discussion.

Since my simple questions have been ignored, it's real clear there is no discussion here.

I often review, examine, and restructure my own writing to better bring discussion and facts to the table. I guess that's another vice.

JShirley
August 20, 2012, 05:42 AM
Well, good luck with what you expect.

The FBI went to a large, heavy 10mm, and then downloaded the ammunition used because many of its agents couldn't handle the recoil. In a 40 oz platform. So, for practical purposes,.45 ACP energy levels (what the 10mm was tamed down -to 180 grain at almost 1000 fps) can be considered the maximum recoil the average individual could be expected to handle in a duty/service caliber weapon.

Historical fact, used to bolster a common, but educated opinion.

John

mljdeckard
August 20, 2012, 03:48 PM
I don't see why the answer needs to be complicated. It's not like we haven't been looking for a 'best' solution for over a hundred years or anything. :)

No, the difference between 9mm and .45 FMJ wound channels isn't game-changing, but when you get good multiple hits, (which is what you should be trying to do with any defensive handgun,) the advantage multiplies with each hit. In a gunfight, I want every advantage I can get. And having tried many different guns in all service calibers, I find I shoot 1911s in .45 best. Do what works for you.

fastest45ever
August 20, 2012, 05:43 PM
40 oz gun, 180 grains 1000 fps equals Recoil Energy of 5 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 11 fps.

That's an absolutely pathetic level of recoil, a .22lr is pretty close, and most 9mm is at that level. If that is the level of recoil you consider acceptable, then EVERYONE should be shooting light, FMJ/TC type bullets. If recoil is so limited. No commercial hollowpoint ammunition is going to penetrate anywhere near the FBI optimum requirement of 18".

The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.

Given the limitations on recoil for Jill/Joe Q. Public by JShirley, and the FBI findings with their agents, NO ONE should be shooting anything buy
non-expanding bullets.

That does not mean they should be shooting 130 grain ball in 9mm, or 230 grain ball in .45. Those were designed for war, over 100 years ago. The design requirements were/are different then that required for SD/CCW carry situations in present day.

I would suggest JM Browning was ahead of his time when he designed FMJ
at 200 grains, and 950 fps for the .45ACP.

jon_in_wv
August 22, 2012, 09:14 AM
40 oz gun, 180 grains 1000 fps equals Recoil Energy of 5 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 11 fps.

That's an absolutely pathetic level of recoil, a .22lr is pretty close, and most 9mm is at that level. If that is the level of recoil you consider acceptable, then EVERYONE should be shooting light, FMJ/TC type bullets. If recoil is so limited. No commercial hollowpoint ammunition is going to penetrate anywhere near the FBI optimum requirement of 18".


Are you honestly trying to claim a full power 40 S&W load and a 22lr have similar recoil? No, they don't. Not even close. Bullet weight and velocity effect recoil, bullet shape has nothing to do with it. Also, recoil has nothing to do with penetration. Additionally, the FBI report did not state people should carry FMJs nor did they choose FMJs as their preferred load. You can't use a report that doesn't come the same conclusion to support yours.


The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.

Really? Like who? and what data do you have to back up the effectiveness of this ammo over conventional defensive ammunition?

Given the limitations on recoil for Jill/Joe Q. Public by JShirley, and the FBI findings with their agents, NO ONE should be shooting anything buy
non-expanding bullets.

Once again, bullet type has no bearing on recoil and, once again, the FBI chooses JHPs for its carry ammunition so your arguments contradict themselves. You are misquoting JShirleys post to try to bolster your point when the part you should have listened to was this one:

Historical fact, used to bolster a common, but educated opinion.

I believe he was politely telling you something. You should learn from guys like him, you don't have nearly the knowledge to challenge him or most people on this forum.

That does not mean they should be shooting 130 grain ball in 9mm, or 230 grain ball in .45. Those were designed for war, over 100 years ago. The design requirements were/are different then that required for SD/CCW carry situations in present day.

I would suggest JM Browning was ahead of his time when he designed FMJ
at 200 grains, and 950 fps for the .45ACP.

This is just silly. You made all the arguments stating people should carry FMJs then claim they shouldn't carry certain weights because only the 200gr 45 is the answer? Besides the 200gr FMJ and the 230gr FMJ for the 1911 were designed for the same purpose around the same time. The idea one works because it wasn't "designed for war" is just strange.

My experience is I can get a non-expanding 9MM to hit at very high speed, with to me, NO recoil, or so little recoil a Sig Sauer 226 won't cycle, yet get great penetration, and a large wound channel, due to velocity. 80-115 grain bullets in 9MM are perfect for this.


Since when will high velocity 80-115gr JHPs not cycle a P226? Also, I would love to see the "numbers" to back up your claim that a high velocity 80-115gr FMJ makes a "large" wound channel due to velocity. Oh, and throw in the no recoil part too. Honestly, the biggest problem I have will all the statements above is when you said, "My experience". None of these posts seem very knowledgeable or experienced but rather from someone who has read a lot and understood a little. This is a pretty knowledgeable forum and you would do well to sit back and try to learn more rather than spouting off and challenging other to prove their positions while you make all sorts of random claims that honestly don't make a lot of sense.

I applaud your enthusiasm but you can't wade into a group of people knowledgeable on a subject and blind them with BS. I suggest you chill out and ask questions about things you don't understand and try to learn from the wealth of knowledgeable people you can meet in this forum.

fastest45ever
August 22, 2012, 07:55 PM
In a duty weapon for 10MM the level of recoil is so low at the fbi light level power level that it equals what most 9mm guns recoil. MOST service 9mm's are lighter then the guns generally used for 10MM, Glocks being the exception.

What I am saying is that given my choice of calibers, and firearms, that level of recoil is similar to a 22lr to ME.

The FBI results wanted 18" of penetration, ideally. That being Urey Patricks'
writing. Dropping down to 180 grains, and 1000 fps you may get that, but not by a lot. Brassfetcher shows 14.6" for the Hornady.

You can't take a soft lead ball, put a copper jacket around it, and expect it
to penetrate and expand. Even the .45 Colt loads with 260 grain bullets at 800 fps I use don't penetrate that far, unless the alloy is hardened.

I would look at both Buffalobore and DoubleTap for large meplat, or caliber
meplat, lighter bullets, at relatively high velocity. I believe another poster linked to them above.

No contradiction. The FBI originally used ammunition in 10MM that was capable of both the 18" penetration, and expansion. However, the FBIlite
load does call for a much slower expanding bullet to retain the penetration depth. When you do this you give up much of the benefits of HP ammunition, that being explosive, large, expansion.

I reloaded a lot, around 40 years ago, even for people with 9MM guns.
Commercial enterprise. I loaded for a brand new Sig for a friend of mine.
Gave him maximum loads from the Speer manual, using lighter hollow points. With the springs Sig used at the time, the gun would not cycle.
I found I had to use at least 130 grain bullets to get a new Sig to cycle properly, along with maximum powder charges. Didn't have the same problem with Walthers, Browning Hi-Powers, etc. at that time.

I'll try and connect the dots. If you use a light for caliber FMJ, wadcutter, or truncated cone bullet, that gives you more room for powder. You have two factors then giving you more velocity, and a wider wound channel.

I have shot a LOT of things with .45 Colt, and as the bullet velocity increases, the wound channel increases as well. Any hunter would know this as fact, and would not require any proof. Ballistic gelatin supports this as well.

I do have friends that have shot a LOT of game animals with light, non-expanding bullets. Mr. Jurras uses non-expanding bullets for game that requires penetration, and expanding bullets for varmits, or lighter animals.
He also used 185 grain bullets, in both types.

While the common mantra is always use Hollow points for self-defense I suggest you examine the basis of that mantra, where it started, and who perpetuates it, the reasons for it's existence, and it if fits you, and your individual needs.

There is a solid place in self-defense for a non-expanding bullet, with a wide meplat. The advantages to non-expanding bullets are they tend to always work the same way, never failing to expand, never stopping short in the target. They are also much cheaper to shoot. One point that I do agree with is hitting where you aim is the number one priority in SD ammunition.
Logically it would be best to shoot your carry ammunition all the time when you practice, so it goes to the same point of aim, and you have confidence in it.

What non-expanding load you decide to use has a far wider range then the two loads posted here.

One issue that is very clear is the factory options for FMJ SD ammunition
is nearly an oxymoron.

481
August 22, 2012, 08:51 PM
The current post brings up an interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers. They are designing wide, light, non-expanding ammunition that gets penetration and wound channel from diameter, not bullet weight.



Really? Like who? and what data do you have to back up the effectiveness of this ammo over conventional defensive ammunition?


Like jon, I'd also like to know who "they" are and the specifications of "their" ammunition.

fastest45ever
August 22, 2012, 09:19 PM
Read post 107 in this thread. Click on the links.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Buffalo+Bore+ANTI-PERSONNEL+

481
August 22, 2012, 09:56 PM
Read post 107 in this thread. Click on the links.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jim+Carillo


https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=283

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=269

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=295

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127



OK, so you've provided links to mid- and heavy-weight wadcutters and hardcast falt nose bullets in .380, .44, and .45 calibers at some fairly stout speeds. Nothing new to see there, it is not a new concept.

According to the Schwartz bullet penetration model, those mid- to heavy-weight WCs and HCFNs are guaranteed to produce lots of penetration-

-the .45 caliber 225 gr. WC @ 1050fps will penetrate to a depth of ~19.6 inches

-the .44 caliber 200 gr. WC @ 1300fps will penetrate to a depth of ~22.2 inches

-the .45 caliber 255 gr. HCFN @ 925fps will penetrate to a depth of ~31.0 inches

-the .380 ACP 100 gr. HCFN @ 1150fps will penetrate to a depth of ~23.7 inches

- and nominal expansion, and will likely exit a human at any imaginable angle.

Not very desirable characteristics for SD ammo. :scrutiny:


So who is producing these "wide, light, non-expanding" designs that you refer to?

:confused:

fastest45ever
August 22, 2012, 11:12 PM
Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.

If you require a bit less penetration, lighten the bullet a bit. It's all ready real close, penetration wise, to the 18" mark, at least according to Schwartz.

As far as these loads: your OPINION, situation and experience suggest these aren't ideal for Self-Defense. If you live in Texas, Alaska, etc. you might have a completely different opinion.

As for Schwartz: you enjoy a formula that gives you ballistic gelatin
penetration results by using water results :confused:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

jon_in_wv
August 22, 2012, 11:36 PM
Dude makes no sense. Sorry.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

481
August 23, 2012, 12:04 AM
Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.

That is not true. "Light" for the .44 would 180 grains or less, for the .45 "light" would be 185 grains or less.

If you require a bit less penetration, lighten the bullet a bit. It's all ready real close, penetration wise, to the 18" mark, at least according to Schwartz.

Really? Just whittle them down with a pen-knife or a dremel? No thanks. There are much better options than modifying SD ammo.

As far as these loads: your OPINION, situation and experience suggest these aren't ideal for Self-Defense. If you live in Texas, Alaska, etc. you might have a completely different opinion.

Not just my opinion- it is the opinion of those who've done massive research in the field and know better than you and me what they are talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, not everyone lives in Texas or Alaska. There are 48 other states that present widely variable environments as opposed to the remote regions that make up most of Texas and Alaska.

As for Schwartz: you enjoy a formula that gives you ballistic gelatin
penetration results by using water results :confused:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

Lighten up, dude. :cool: If you can't provide a source for the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers", just say so. It is not the first time that someone has made a claim on the 'net that they couldn't support and it probably won't be the last.

If you don't have it, you don't have it. No big deal.

I'd suggest that you take advantage as recommended above and "learn from the wealth of knowledgeable people you can meet in this forum". It's a good place to start learning about the field. :)


Dude makes no sense. Sorry.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

;)

fastest45ever
August 23, 2012, 02:24 AM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by fastest45ever View Post
Compared to standard loadings, the wadcutters BB picks are light for caliber for the .44 and .45 Colt.
That is not true. "Light" for the .44 would 180 grains or less, for the .45 "light" would be 185 grains or less."

I suggest you go ask Gary Reeder what his opinion of 'heavy for caliber bullets' is.

Gary Reeder, Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen, John Linebaugh, John Taffin,
Lee Jurras, Tim Sundles, Ross Seyfried, John Moses Browning, Bob Munden, Bob Baker would argue that for hours, each with their own opinion. I don't see any of them posting here, at least not from your end.

"Not just my opinion- it is the opinion of those who've done massive research in the field and know better than you and me what they are talking about. In case you hadn't noticed, not everyone lives in Texas or Alaska. There are 48 other states that present widely variable environments as opposed to the remote regions that make up most of Texas and Alaska."

Excellent point. So then you'll concede that one 'experts' solution to the SD/CCW solution might be different then another, depending upon their location in these United States, or Afganistan? Also that an 'expert' might have different recommendations for different places?

Opinions and experts have one thing in common, or maybe two. Please don't try and play some expert knows more then I do. Doesn't really work here.

If you want an example of two experts, have a look at Mas Ayoob and Shawn Dodson, then do a little research on their opinions of each others 'facts' and writings. Makes for fascinating reading. Suffice to say they don't see eye to eye. Many consider both of them to be 'experts'.

I might say I favor Shawn's writings, position, and recommendations on using FMJ for CCW. That might put me at odds with Mas' position.
Now I'm on the horns of an expert dilemma.

"Lighten up, dude."

"4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer."

I find your remarks condescending and insulting. Feel free to attack my arguments, not my person.

sniper5
August 23, 2012, 08:37 AM
.45 Federal EFMJ.

481
August 23, 2012, 11:19 AM
I suggest you go ask Gary Reeder what his opinion of 'heavy for caliber bullets' is.

I never asked for Reeder's opinion. I simply asked for the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". So far, I've yet to see anything in the way of an example.


If you want an example of two experts, have a look at Mas Ayoob and Shawn Dodson, then do a little research on their opinions of each others 'facts' and writings. Makes for fascinating reading. Suffice to say they don't see eye to eye. Many consider both of them to be 'experts'.

I might say I favor Shawn's writings, position, and recommendations on using FMJ for CCW. That might put me at odds with Mas' position.
Now I'm on the horns of an expert dilemma.

This tangent is purely diversionary. All I asked for was an example of the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". It is becoming ever clearer that you have none.


I find your remarks condescending and insulting. Feel free to attack my arguments, not my person.

I never attacked or insulted you. I asked for an example of the "wide, light, non-expanding ammunition" that you've claimed fits an "interesting trend in ammunition by the small makers". You failure to provide one, and my recognition of that fact, does not constitute an attack on you.


Opinions and experts have one thing in common, or maybe two. Please don't try and play some expert knows more then I do. Doesn't really work here.

Ah, I see. You're the expert here? Oh-kee-dokey then.

Given this comment and your conduct on this thread (re: JShirley and a host of other members), it is patently clear that you're really just here to argue. John nailed it and I can see that I should have left it alone. I am through feeding the troll.

Out.

fastest45ever
August 23, 2012, 06:59 PM
"Ah, I see. You're the expert here? Oh-kee-dokey then.

Given this comment and your conduct on this thread (re: JShirley and a host of other members), it is patently clear that you're really just here to argue. John nailed it and I can see that I should have left it alone. I am through feeding the troll."

""Lighten up, dude."

"4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.""

I am not a dude or a troll. I take both of those labels as personal attacks.

jon_in_wv
August 23, 2012, 07:20 PM
I don't see someone asking you to answer simple questions as trolling. In fact it was you that demands people quantify their statements yet you seem to expect everyone else to take your claims as gospel. In my case I questioned you when you stated the 40 s&w and 22 lr have practically the same recoil, which you tried to quantify with some strange math, so you just changed your story and said you meant it was the same "to you". Then you constantly quote and misquote experts who supposedly prove your points and expect us to take that as gospel too. Sorry but you only have a few posts on thus forum and you have already earned some frustration for a reason and it isn't because people on this forum are a bunch of trolls. I can tell you from being on this forum for years it is one of the most fair you will find.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

fastest45ever
August 23, 2012, 08:18 PM
Posted by accident.
Supposed to be a PM.

If you enjoyed reading about "FMJ for Self Defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!