MTMilitiaman
Member
I would rather have too much penetration than too little. We don't even have to think in terms of barrier penetration for it to be apparent that we need a decent amount of penetration in order to be effective.
Consider that 40% of the United States is overweight and 30% of them are obese. Even among those who are not overweight, Americans tend to be bigger than a lot of other people. We have genetics from a lot of Northern Europeans (ect), and plenty of nutrition. Now consider the typical threat posture. Whether your assailant is coming at you with empty hands, a knife, or a gun, chances are high that one or both of their arms are raised between you and their upper chest. Wounds to the hands and forearms are common. Finally, consider much of the United States is at a latitude that allows inclement weather to be possible for much or all of the year. Here in Montana, it is not uncommon for people to have multiple layers of clothing on for six to eight months of the year. So even without penetrating intermittent barriers, we have a fair to high probability of having an assailant physically larger than most of the Earth's human population, in multiple layers of clothes, and with their arms in front of their thoracic cavity. That is asking a lot from a compact handgun.
Now consider how much time you spend around vehicles. Windscreen in particular is difficult for many bullets to penetrate. Most pistol bullets will be deformed and many will be deflected. Other barriers, like common core foam doors and drywall offer little resistance, but can still plug conventional JHPs, leading to erratic and unpredictable performance.
The possibility of having to shoot through a barrier is more important than the probability. Considering probability in a civilian lethal force encounter is difficult because the event itself is an anomaly. Most of us live dull, monotonous lives of routine and boredom. We try to avoid conflict, we mind our own business, we go to work, and otherwise try to relax. So if we ever find ourselves in a shooting situation, it is 8 seconds of mind-numbing terror in 80 years of otherwise predominately uninterrupted relative boredom. Statisticians know outliers and anomalies are typically removed from data sets because they tend to obscure trends. Studying these data points is difficult because it is hard to derive an average anomaly. So saying most civilian defensive shootings won't require more than "x" number of shots, or won't require shooting through barriers. ect, is difficult and of little practical usefulness. The whole point of carrying a gun is that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. The gun itself is useful only for its ability to poke holes in things. Equipping your tool to best do its job makes sense. Not equipping you firearm to be able to poke holes through things is like taking the head off a hammer so it can't effectively smash things. It is counter-productive in nature to severely limit the penetration of your self-defense firearm/ammunition.
All of this is then taken into consideration with the fact that handguns themselves, especially the small ones favored for concealed carry, already have a reputation for inadequate and inconsistent performance. If you intend to make due with something "better than nothing" when someone is trying to kill you or your family, well, that is a personal choice only you can make. But I would rather not settle for the bare minimum, Murphy's Law is not kind, in my experience, to those who do not prepare ahead of time. I was a Boy Scout. I believe in being prepared.
I have for years had but one handgun, a Gen III Glock 20 10mm Auto. I carry this with full power, Norma spec 200 gr XTPs @ 1200 fps. If I am able to get the SIG Legion I have been drooling over for a couple years now, I will carry it with Hornady Critical Duty 135 gr +P. Handguns don't use energy like rifles do, but physics still applies, and momentum is key to achieving straight line penetration, whether we are talking destroying a hip joint while grappling with a former 350 pound defensive lineman or making it through the humorous on a side profile shot of someone trying to drag your significant other into their vehicle, or having to engage someone through your front door as they try to force entry or through your windshield in a fender bender turned so much more.
I am not advocating carrying armor piercing rounds or doing anything irresponsible, just that guns exist to poke holes in things and I suggest you equip them to do so effectively. Carrying ammunition designed to severely limit penetration at or below the minimum FBI requirement, which I feel is a pretty good standard derived through research and bloodshed, limits your options and really makes carrying a gun an almost impractical waste of effort done more to placate your own concerns about being able to "do something" than actually provide a feasible means to end a physical threat.
Consider that 40% of the United States is overweight and 30% of them are obese. Even among those who are not overweight, Americans tend to be bigger than a lot of other people. We have genetics from a lot of Northern Europeans (ect), and plenty of nutrition. Now consider the typical threat posture. Whether your assailant is coming at you with empty hands, a knife, or a gun, chances are high that one or both of their arms are raised between you and their upper chest. Wounds to the hands and forearms are common. Finally, consider much of the United States is at a latitude that allows inclement weather to be possible for much or all of the year. Here in Montana, it is not uncommon for people to have multiple layers of clothing on for six to eight months of the year. So even without penetrating intermittent barriers, we have a fair to high probability of having an assailant physically larger than most of the Earth's human population, in multiple layers of clothes, and with their arms in front of their thoracic cavity. That is asking a lot from a compact handgun.
Now consider how much time you spend around vehicles. Windscreen in particular is difficult for many bullets to penetrate. Most pistol bullets will be deformed and many will be deflected. Other barriers, like common core foam doors and drywall offer little resistance, but can still plug conventional JHPs, leading to erratic and unpredictable performance.
The possibility of having to shoot through a barrier is more important than the probability. Considering probability in a civilian lethal force encounter is difficult because the event itself is an anomaly. Most of us live dull, monotonous lives of routine and boredom. We try to avoid conflict, we mind our own business, we go to work, and otherwise try to relax. So if we ever find ourselves in a shooting situation, it is 8 seconds of mind-numbing terror in 80 years of otherwise predominately uninterrupted relative boredom. Statisticians know outliers and anomalies are typically removed from data sets because they tend to obscure trends. Studying these data points is difficult because it is hard to derive an average anomaly. So saying most civilian defensive shootings won't require more than "x" number of shots, or won't require shooting through barriers. ect, is difficult and of little practical usefulness. The whole point of carrying a gun is that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. The gun itself is useful only for its ability to poke holes in things. Equipping your tool to best do its job makes sense. Not equipping you firearm to be able to poke holes through things is like taking the head off a hammer so it can't effectively smash things. It is counter-productive in nature to severely limit the penetration of your self-defense firearm/ammunition.
All of this is then taken into consideration with the fact that handguns themselves, especially the small ones favored for concealed carry, already have a reputation for inadequate and inconsistent performance. If you intend to make due with something "better than nothing" when someone is trying to kill you or your family, well, that is a personal choice only you can make. But I would rather not settle for the bare minimum, Murphy's Law is not kind, in my experience, to those who do not prepare ahead of time. I was a Boy Scout. I believe in being prepared.
I have for years had but one handgun, a Gen III Glock 20 10mm Auto. I carry this with full power, Norma spec 200 gr XTPs @ 1200 fps. If I am able to get the SIG Legion I have been drooling over for a couple years now, I will carry it with Hornady Critical Duty 135 gr +P. Handguns don't use energy like rifles do, but physics still applies, and momentum is key to achieving straight line penetration, whether we are talking destroying a hip joint while grappling with a former 350 pound defensive lineman or making it through the humorous on a side profile shot of someone trying to drag your significant other into their vehicle, or having to engage someone through your front door as they try to force entry or through your windshield in a fender bender turned so much more.
I am not advocating carrying armor piercing rounds or doing anything irresponsible, just that guns exist to poke holes in things and I suggest you equip them to do so effectively. Carrying ammunition designed to severely limit penetration at or below the minimum FBI requirement, which I feel is a pretty good standard derived through research and bloodshed, limits your options and really makes carrying a gun an almost impractical waste of effort done more to placate your own concerns about being able to "do something" than actually provide a feasible means to end a physical threat.
