Full Metal Jackets vs. Hollow Points

[BADUNAME37]

Which do you think would be a bigger problem:

You put an assailant out of action with a 9mm JHP to the center of mass. It stays in his body.

You shoot an assailant with a 9mm FMJ center of mass. The bullet does a through and through and kills a 3 year old a half block away. Your assailant continues the fight maiming or killing you.

I wouldn't shoot unless I am certain the bullet I am using will not overpenetrate and possibly injure/kill others. Always be CERTAIN of your BACKSTOP.

In the scenario given, I wonder if the 9mm jacketed hollow point could actually stop short of killing/maiming the bad guy if the bad guy has enough layers of clothes on with a heavy coat over top in which case the assailant may overpower and maim/kill you.

 

[jim4065]

Maybe what lechiffre means (although I don't know for sure) is that the lawyer representing the bad guy is NOT going to allow most of us to sit on a jury judging his clients claims. The only times I was selected to go down for jury duty it was educational to watch the "white males" or, for that matter, ANY well-dressed "prosperous" male citizen get thrown out as a potential juror. They didn't even have to use one of their "arbitrary exclusions" with me - 'cause I failed to qualify on three points:

1. Clean-cut
2. Middle-aged
3. Male

That's reality. Whether it's "right" or not depends on your viewpoint.

 

[skeptiq]

The case I read was about Harold Fish from Arizone. Here are a few sites I found.

This one is the article where the juror was swayed by the type of ammo (still the Fish case):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/5/

Here is Fish's defense site:
http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/welcome.htm

If anything it's an interesting read!

 

[mi2az]

You do not want penetration so that your neighbor may get hit. LAW SUIT....

 

[Japle]

I wouldn't shoot unless I am certain the bullet I am using will not overpenetrate and possibly injure/kill others. Always be CERTAIN of your BACKSTOP.

Boy, that sure sounds good. Might be a tad difficult to manage when someone's shooting at you and you've got major tunnel vision.

Let's see..... Try to save my life or look to see if there's a kid in the shadows a half block away.

Decisions, decisions!

 

[Mike J]

I believe JHP would be best to use. More effective, less chance of overpenetration. I agree with Shusky about finding out what your local PD uses-caliber & cartridge wise. Hard for them to demonize it when they use the same thing.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Quote:
I wouldn't shoot unless I am certain the bullet I am using will not overpenetrate and possibly injure/kill others. Always be CERTAIN of your BACKSTOP.

Boy, that sure sounds good. Might be a tad difficult to manage when someone's shooting at you and you've got major tunnel vision.

Let's see..... Try to save my life or look to see if there's a kid in the shadows a half block away.

Decisions, decisions!

What I was trying to say is to know BEFOREHAND what your gun will do in different scenarios. Know if your gun will penetrate a door, sheetrock walls, etc. and act accordingly when the time comes. Don't wait until "the time comes" to then wonder whether your gun is going to overpenetrate and hit the kid a half a block away.

"Being certain" of what your gun will (or won't) do takes practice and shooting at many different materials as opposed to trying to figure it out while someone is shooting at you.

Shouldn't we ALWAYS be certain of our backstop, even if it means some kind of preparation BEFOREHAND?

Not doing that would be the same as taking your car out in an ice storm and driving 60 MPH, hoping for nothing bad to happen.

 

[CoRoMo]

I thought that I heard something about a couple states like NJ that prohibit the use of hollow points in carry weapons. FMJ only, so that is why a couple ammo manufacturers now offer expanding FMJ rounds.

A little note...

My CCW class recommended the use of hollow points for self defense.

My Dad & Mom's CCW class recommended the use of FMJ because of the "evil connotations" associated with hollow points.

Weird huh? No... it's just unproductive because my Dad actually carries FMJ in his defense gun. When/if he carries.

 

[mgregg85]

Lawyers can and will make you look bad by any means neccesary, no matter what ammo you use. So relax and use the most effective ammo available to you and worry about the potential trial afterwords.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

WE are ALL potential jurors.

I don't think any of us are either...the moment the DA in jury selection finds that you ever even though about owning a gun....you go home.

 

[ChemicalArts]

Was

He

Justified

In

Firing?

Exactly!

That perfectly sums up the issue. As long as the bullets you use are legal, the shape of the tip shouldn't affect your decision to use deadly force. I live in Texas (a pretty gun friendly state), but even here, you still have to be justified in your actions. This is not only a requirement of the law, but of our conscience. If someone threatens my family, it is my responsibility to stop him. If someone does not appear to be a threat, then it is my responsibilty to use good judgement and proceed with caution. I think we'd all prefer not to shoot if at all possible. It is one of the last options on a list of unpleasant options. For me, it is only ahead of the bad guy hurting an innocent person.

 

[Auburn1992]

When I retrieved some of my 500 Magnum hollow points from the berm at the range, I found that some actually did not open up due to the hollow (point) being filled with DIRT!

Hollow points are generally designed to expand in water type substances, not dirt.

I was also wondering why some of the .40 HP's I shot didn't expand in dirt, then found out.

 

[oneounceload]

dead is dead, so in a serious scenario, you do whatever it takes to stay alive and go from there

 

[DarkSoldier]

FMJ or JHP, the lethality of the bullet is unimportant. The ability to stop threats, however, is critical.

I use hollow points because I believe that bullet type gives me an advantage in stopping power, not because they are supposed to be more deadly.

For practical purposes on the street and for legal purposes in court, the end in view is not to kill but to incapacitate the attacker/s as quickly as possible and thereby stop the threat. It is critical to articulate that point to everyone you talk to post-shooting from the the moment after you pull the trigger until you are called upon to explain yourself in the next life.

Just my thoughts. Others may feel differently.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[BADUNAME37]

Good LOCAL article: When Is Homocide Self-Defense?

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?s=8867721

So, basically, it says that you shoot to stop the apparent attacker, whatever s/he may brandishing/weilding, and then once they stop, you must STOP shooting. This is Vermont, other states may vary considerably.

Chester, Vermont - August 19, 2008
The issue of necessary self-defense has taken center stage in the case of a shooting that happened in a Chester park. One man shot another but claims it was all in self-defense. Kyle Bolaski, 24, says it was justified self-defense because he was being chased by a man with an ax.

But Bolaski was charged with murder because he fired two shots. The prosecutor agrees the first shot was justified self-defense but said the second was unnecessary and that made it a murder. "The deceased stopped pursuing the defendant and was no longer brandishing an ax," Windsor County Prosecutor Robert Sand explained on Monday. "Jurors may well be reluctant to second-guess someone who's in that type of situation," said Robert Simpson, a former Chittenden County Prosecutor.

Simpson declined specific comment about the Bolaski case, but he says there have been similar cases where defendants who claim self-defense and perhaps used way too much force nonetheless got sympathy from the jury. "They put themselves in a situation where they or themselves or their families are threatened. And it is necessary to respond with deadly force then to say you used too much... It's very difficult for them to say, gee I don't know if I were in that situation if I would have been able to have stopped," Simpson said. A recent case indicates Simpson may have a valid point. Last year, Skylar Underhill was tried for murder for fatally shooting an unarmed man at a party in Burlington. Underhill claimed it was self-defense because he thought the man was reaching for a knife. The jury agreed. Underhilll walked away scot free.

Simpson says it's all about the fundamental legal principle that permits citizens to kill in self-defense.
"If you reasonably believe that the person you want to use the gun on presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to you or your family and you reasonably believe it's necessary to use deadly force to stop them," Simpson explained. For now, Bolaski is jailed on the murder charge while police continue to sort out all the facts including that of witnesses with conflicting accounts.
Brian Joyce - WCAX News

Another good, related article:
http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=9417395

And yet ANOTHER ONE!
http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=9421053

 

[jeff-10]

The Florida "Stand-your-ground" law does not take into account make or model of the ammunition you choose to use. Since you are granted immunitiy from civil as well as criminal suits it really doesn't matter what the lawyers say.

 

[S&Wfan]

. . . So let's say you are armed lawfully and the SHTF in your little world and you have to use deadly force. Would the press, the prosecutor, heck...the jury, heaven forbid, be more likely to look favorably on the person using a) good old fashioned FMJs, the same stuff allowed by the Geneva convention, the same stuff the boys use in combat, the cheap target ammo you get at Wally's (even though the gun savy know it may over penetrate), or b) someone using carefully engineered anti-personnel rounds, "designed to kill effectively", which the person had to seek out and pay extra for etc (even though the gun savy know they are designed not to over penetrate).

Given that a lot of "them" know nothing about firearms and ammo, would "they" make a distinction when the smoke cleared? My scenario assumes that nobody other than a violent criminal and an armed law abiding citizen were in any way invovled in my scenario.

What do you think?

I think you are thinking like a Sheep, not a Sheepdog.

Hell, if it comes, will come suddenly and totally without warning. While you are thinking about whether to act or not, the time of decision will render your thought a moot point . . .

If you are a sheepdog, not a sheep, you will counter-react instantly with sudden and deadly resolve . . . and if you are well-trained and well practiced, you have a better chance of surviving a surprise attack.

Right now, you are sadly so far behind the required action curve that the least of your worries would be surviving a court case.

To hesitate, is to die.

Train to fight instantly, with sudden fury . . . or you're safer being am unarmed sheep and not resisting at all.

 

[mljdeckard]

Isn't homocide a hate crime?

Stand your ground laws don't guarantee immunity from prosecution from anything. All it takes is a prosecutor with an axe and a judge with a stone to grind it on.

 

[moooose102]

Actually, if I was tried and judged guilty by 12 and had to endure years of gang rape in prison showers.... I would rather be dead

ME TOO!
i carry silvertips, just in case i come into contact with a WEREWOLF!

 

[ByAnyMeans]

I would'nt worry about a hp bullet used in a shooting becasue it's probably what your local police use and definitely what your state police use. Let a prosecutor bring it up and have your lawyer rip him a new one for "sensationalistic" tactics

 

[Deanimator]

I wouldn't shoot unless I am certain the bullet I am using will not overpenetrate and possibly injure/kill others.

Yeah, but how are you going to get him into a CT scanner BEFORE you shoot him, and how will you KEEP him there?

 

[BADUNAME37]

There is plenty of information on the internet about real life bullet placement and penetration. Along with that information, you could do testing of various loads yourself to get a pretty good idea of what will penetrate what.

If I were using my 500 Magnum to shoot a bad guy, I would certainly want to be sure there is NO ONE in the vicinity BEHIND said bad guy.

OTOH, if I shoot the bad guy in the head with a 38 special hollow point (non +P), then I can be pretty sure that bullet will not over-penetrate.

All I'm saying is that we be careful and then take the best shot possible (and pray).

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

Inspector - regards post #13 it was round nose cast slugs I sawed the 'X' into. .32acp, .380acp and 9mm Para 124gr.
I haven't got around to trying any Mak 9X18 slugs or .45acp slugs yet.
some of the slugs broke off a 'petal' or 2.
I couldn't tell any accuracy diff shooting off-hand with the 'sawed' slugs.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Thanks!

I just happen to have 120 Remington round nose lead slugs (bought some loaded ammo) in 38 Special non +P. I wonder if the cuts were on a bit of an angle if that would make a difference.

Thanks again!

 

[76shuvlinoff]

hypothetically

So you're in a crowded shopping mall and a nutjob starts shooting at you, and let's say at others too.... let's also say you have no retreat and no cover. Not likely in a mall but let's just say so.
I find it very difficult to believe that (as stated above) some are not going to return fire with their life and/or their families lives in imminent danger because of a possibility of a through and through shot.

just askin