Why isn't there better information about the performance of 9mm FMJ in combat?

Zerodefect said:

Because it sucks. From the militaries perspective, if you have to use your sidearm, you're having a really bad day. They don't need a study to tell them that their sucky tertiary weapon, sucks. Or that with a different ammo, or larger caliber, it still sucks.

Do we still have a need for pistols? Sure. Do troops in CQB, still transition to pistols? Sure. Do troops not doing CQB stuff choose to leave their pistols behind? You betcha.

Click to expand...

I've killed enough animals with pistols to know that they don't suck and are superior to most man-portable ranged weapons in history in almost every way. Yet you can fit it in your pocket and bring it everywhere, even grandma's house or a job interview. Only a soldier will have a rifle ready when he needs it, because his occupation is to carry the thing around and he doesn't have to do anything else.

You've heard that two is one and one is none. Well, I also believe that, if it's not EDC, then you don't own it.

edwardware said:

Better than what? I can't tell if you've done a bibliography study and didn't mention it, or didn't bother.

Start here, and then you'll have a reference from which to ask further questions:
INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

JTQ said:

In 1994 a USAF Security Police man stopped a threat with his M9 from approximately 70 yards.

https://www.police1.com/active-shoo...-the-fairchild-afb-shooting-11AZrSqTp4IM3diw/

Click to expand...

There are several incidents like that.

People have this attitude that self-defense is a close range affair and that pistols are strictly for close range shooting, but that's because, under normal circumstances, most conflicts occur as a result of a home break in or a verbal confrontation. Circumstances aren't always normal though. Your country could fall into civil war, and you could end up with people trying to shoot you from 100 yards or more for having the wrong skin color or something, or because you're on a list of people with the wrong opinion.

Most modern pistols have the mechanical accuracy necessary to stay minute-of-man at 100 yards, and it's a good idea to train at that range at least occasionally.

JTQ said:

What has your experience told you about caliber and bullet designs.

Click to expand...

Primarily that a wide, flat metplat makes an appreciable difference given that it comes with virtually no drawbacks, and it's a good thing that the military finally figured that out. Round nosed bullets should go extinct just like heeled bullets.

edwardware said:

Fascinating, and entirely outside the scope of defensive shooting, studies, and data, because we aren't executioners.

The goal is to stop, not to maim, or kill, but just to stop. If you're trying to do something else, it's small wonder you can't find data.

Click to expand...

Then use a taser.

John_R said:

I'm still not sure what you're looking for. It's been tested many times that FMJ can overpenetrate and do less damage to the tissues it passed through than JHP. Also that shot placement trumps all else. It would be interesting to see how many innocent bystanders have ever been hit by an overpenetrating bullet and how much injury they got, but I doubt such a study exists.

You don't need a lot of JHP ammo. You need lots of FMJ for practice, but you only need a few boxes of JHP. So don't let availability and price determine what round to save your life with.

Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of 9mm ammo in circulation is FMJ. I want to have a clearer idea of how this ammunition performs because it is the most commonly occurring ammunition in the environment. I want to know exactly how useful the things in my environment are.

Kleanbore said:

That's a fact.
A taser is not a defensive weapon. I is used for compliance.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are attempting to kill that person.

John_R said:

If you hit an attacker's vital organs, he will probably stop. That's all anyone can say for sure. The variables that matter are in your control - i.e. shot placement.

Click to expand...

Then why not use a 22? I could carry my Buckmark and just shoot anyone who messes with me in the T zone out to 50 ft even if they are moving. Wouldn't be any harder than squirrel hunting.

Bazoo said:

You can study FMJ use on some game animals. Coyotes are shot with FMJ to save the pelts.

I believe it was skeeter Skelton that used to shoot jackrabbits with various pistols, in testing different bullet designs. Using 38 RN, they acted nearly uninjured until they succumbed to blood loss. But with a SWC they got whacked hard and went down fast.

Click to expand...

That is precisely my experience as well.

What I don't know is how many of the animals I've lost actually died.

Kleanbore said:

I wouldn't be, and that is not a lawful objective of self defense. If it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had so attempted, that person's goose would be cooked, so to speak.

Click to expand...

The only way you could reliably stop someone without killing them using a firearm would be too shoot them in the kneecap, hip, scapula, etc (or maybe in the eyes with birdshot). If I were on jury duty for your case and knew that you intentionally shot someone in the heart/lung area or the head, I would consider you as guilty of manslaughter or murder. I would vote for your conviction.

edwardware said:

Emphatically, repeatedly, precisely, and finally: NO!

I'm trying to stop them. That is all, and once they're stopped, I'll stop shooting them.

We must have been over this a thousand times on this forum in the past decade. What you are describing, the intent to kill, is in every case either murder or execution.

Click to expand...

edwardware said:

Emphatically, repeatedly, precisely, and finally: NO!

I'm trying to stop them. That is all, and once they're stopped, I'll stop shooting them.

We must have been over this a thousand times on this forum in the past decade. What you are describing, the intent to kill, is in every case either murder or execution.

Click to expand...

You sound the same as a radical leftist talking about gender or race. You're playing stupid, disingenuous word games.