How effective has 9mm FMJ proven to be in self defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys,

Despite providing material for never-ending gun-rag debate, I really think that there is little objective difference to discuss here between both rounds.
Click to expand...

Well see, that's the problem, 481. You think there is little objective difference. Nomad, 2nd claims differently. I think we should reserve judgment until either Nomad, 2nd shows us the supposed proof or we relegate his post as being a crank, without credit or merit. :scrutiny:

Of course 481, you did show your work and that goes a long way towards supporting your claims.
 
Double Naught Spy: said:
Well see, that's the problem, 481. You think there is little objective difference. Nomad, 2nd claims differently. I think we should reserve judgment until either Nomad, 2nd shows us the supposed proof or we relegate his post as being a crank, without credit or merit.

Of course 481, you did show your work and that goes a long way towards supporting your claims.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, DNS.

Just for the sake of honesty, my work, courtesy of Duncan MacPherson's penetration model, really wasn't displayed all that thoroughly since I didn't feel like cluttering the place with all of the math that it took to generate those two numbers.

Just the same, thanks for realizing that I didn't just pull the numbers outta thin air either. :)

As for Nomad 2nd's assertions, I agree with you, let him show what material he uses to support his claims or otherwise have his post relegated to that of unsupported hyperbole.



.
 
I know if i was a soldier in todays Military id do my best to get HP's into my weapon and if not id make sure i never have to rely on that weapon.
Click to expand...

If you were a soldier................you would know not to do that. ;)
 
I am always amazed by those who argue "equipment" (platform, caliber, ammo type, etc.) instead of "training".

It ain't the "arrow", guys, it's the "Indian".
Click to expand...

...and it is 481 for the win!
 
Well I passed out around 4 am from all the beer,combined with the bloating from the popcorn, I feel miserable; however I've caught up on all the posts and I'm ready for more.

P.S. Please mention Glock vs 1911
 
What is it that chieftan might want to rethink about the physics? Are you saying that somebody has proven one cartridge to be better than the other?

For God's sake, don't keep such insights to yourself. Based on the discussion in this thread alone, you seem to be the only one who knows this information.
Click to expand...

I have 2 hammers here:

a 1 pound sledge hammer

and a 2 pound sledge hammer.

Which would you rather I smash your hand with?

Not saying it's gonna be 'earthshaddering', and I am aware that there IS a velocity difference, but given the relative slow velocities we are dealing with, and the minimalness of pistol rounds...

There's a winner here for one round.

NOW, when we're talking 7 vs 15....

That may be a different story and open to more debate.

But no matter what yoru GF told you... Bigger is better!;)

(Or should we replace .50BMG's with .22's?):D
 
So, to recap:

Our friend 481 posted:
Guys,

Despite providing material for never-ending gun-rag debate, I really think that there is little objective difference to discuss here between both rounds. (the .45 ACP 230 grain FMJRN and the 9mm 124 grain FMJRN)

The .45 ACP 230 grain FMJRN @ 850 fps will produce a minimal temporary stretch cavity and a very narrow permanent crush cavity while (almost) guaranteeing "through-and-through" penetration with 29.7 inches of soft tissue penetration capability.

The 9mm 124 grain FMJRN @ 1275 fps (M882) will produce a minimal temporary stretch cavity and a very narrow permanent crush cavity while (almost) guaranteeing "through-and-through" penetration with 31.8 inches of soft tissue penetration capability.

I've been accused, and perhaps rightly so, for seeing things in purely "black-and-white" terms, but there appears to be very little practical difference between the two, at least from a "physics" perspective.
Click to expand...


Our friend Nomad, 2nd posted:
I have 2 hammers here:

a 1 pound sledge hammer

and a 2 pound sledge hammer.

Which would you rather I smash your hand with?

Not saying it's gonna be 'earthshaddering', and I am aware that there IS a velocity difference, but given the relative slow velocities we are dealing with, and the minimalness of pistol rounds...
Click to expand...

The first post actually dealt with the ballistics of the two rounds under discussion and showed that the .45 round performs less effectively than the 9mm when measured for depth of penetration.

Now I was pretty sure the OP of this thread posed a question about the effectiveness of the 9mm round rather than hammers, but to ask for a clarification on the second post, is there any evidence that a one pound sledge hammer would be ineffective if used to smash one's hand?
 
Nomad 2nd: said:
I have 2 hammers here:

a 1 pound sledge hammer

and a 2 pound sledge hammer.

Which would you rather I smash your hand with?
Click to expand...

What's the point?

Your analogy is seriously flawed and proves nothing because either sledgehammer would seriously damage and incapacitate the hand that it was used to smash.

Both sledgehammers would crush and break the bones in the hand struck rendering each hand struck, respectively, equally useless. If anything, your analogy actually proves my point.

There would be little difference in the remaining use of a hand smashed by either sledgehammer. To argue otherwise suggests a departure from reality.


Nomad 2nd: said:
NOW, when we're talking 7 vs 15....
Click to expand...

We are discussing a specific bullet configuration's "effectiveness", not a pistol's magazine capacity.


From the apparent lack of substantive or independent material presented in support of your assertion above, I can only conclude that you've got nothing.

Your prior claims seem to have been nothing but empty proselytizing.
 
I am always amazed by those who argue "equipment" (platform, caliber, ammo type, etc.) instead of "training".

It ain't the "arrow", guys, it's the "Indian".
Click to expand...

...and it is 481 for the win!
Click to expand...

Thanks longhair75. Every once in a while I come up with a good one and have to pass it on. I am certain that it has been said many times before and I first heard it from a great Firearms Training Instructor at my first Academy many years ago.
 
But if I can swing the 1lb sledge faster then the 2lb sledge I may get more hits and you may not be able to avoid the sledge. How many of you have swung a 1lb or 2lb sledge ? Anyone done it for any 8hr day? Been there and done that.


Was the 556 in an M4 or M16? Read Mr Wakeman's article on his website.

Having used both neither would be my battle rifle of choice and I did not carry one unless it was a mission requirement.

Each scenario requires a choice of weapons and calibers to do the job most effectively and expeditiously.

The operator and his or training is paramount in this discussion. Type of weapon and caliber really doesn't matter if the operator has not been trained.
Most LE and soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors aren't going to hit the target in a high stress situation. Either is a civilian.

Va herder
 
Okay, so Nomad, 2nd offered his proof that had nothing to do with ballistics or even the ammo being discussed. So the claim of proof is relegated to being without credit or merit. It is a crank post.

Your prior claims seem to have been nothing but empty proselytizing.
Click to expand...

I didn't use the P word because I can't spell it. It is a very good $2 word, however.

Nomad, 2nd, I am very disappointed with your post. You sounded so confident that you had some high science proving one caliber was betterthan the other and all you left us with is a barrel of hammers.
 
Double Naught Spy: said:
I didn't use the P word because I can't spell it.
Click to expand...

Hell, neither can I.

Had to look it up just to make sure that I didn't misspell it.
 
You can research the actual street effectiveness of just about any handgun ammo here: http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=15

9mm comes out a bit behind the .45 in just about any form from hardball to the latest hollowpoints. However, (and it's a big however), the data does not factor in any of the other things that might sway a shooter to choose one over the other. Things like magazine capacity, speed of follow-up shots, etc.

If ballistics was the only valid criteria, we'd all be carrying .500 S&W's.


.
 
Been carrying 9mms and 45s since the late 70s Carried both calibers as an LEO and military. Had an M9 in Afghanistan 2009-2010.

I like both, and would not feel outgunned with either. If I had to choose one over the other for a fight, it would be the 9mm. Nothing to do with caliber. I go with capacity - given the choice, I will take 15+1 any day over 7+1.

Shot for shot ~ bigger is better IMO, but when your down to chunking rocks, less is more.
 
This thread is 3 pages long and we still haven't touched on birdshot vs buckshot or polymer vs steel.

Come on guys, we can do it!
 
vaherder: said:
But if I can swing the 1lb sledge faster then the 2lb sledge I may get more hits and you may not be able to avoid the sledge. How many of you have swung a 1lb or 2lb sledge ? Anyone done it for any 8hr day? Been there and done that.
Click to expand...

"Follow up" (aka: "shot-to-shot" times) has nothing to do with how a particular bullet configuration behaves in flesh.

Certainly either sledgehammer (one or two pound) would effectively destroy one's hand should it strike it, but again the prior analogy is a poor one for its intended purpose (proving anything about terminal ballistic performance) unless one were to throw the darned things.

I worked my way through college doing that (swinging a sledgehammer among other things) and I am grateful for the perspective that it has provided me throughout my professional career. There is nothing wrong with a day's hard work as it is truly well-deserved money by those whom do so.
 
Now that I remember, at a 4H campout there was a sick skunk that survived several rounds from a .38 super before finally dying. Caliber to body size is huge if it were a person yet it took several rounds to stop it. I also read about some guy that survived a
.41 magnum revolver being completely emptied into him yet had to be run over by the officers partner with the crusier to be stopped.

I'm not looking for a comparison, but how 9mm FMJ performs when someone is shot by it.
 
But if I can swing the 1lb sledge faster then the 2lb sledge I may get more hits and you may not be able to avoid the sledge. How many of you have swung a 1lb or 2lb sledge ? Anyone done it for any 8hr day? Been there and done that.
Click to expand...

Be advise, if you have swing that hammer for 8 hours, I really don't care which weight it is, you already lost the fight. Trust me.

THEY BOTH WORK JUST FINE: That is both hammers and 45 fmj vs 9mm fmj.

If I put my 45acp bullets where they belong, what would be different if I made the exact same hits with a 9mm instead? No maybe's or probably's. I want to know?

If I put my 45acp bullets where they don't belong or poor hits, what would be different if I made the exact same poor hits with a 9mm? Again no maybe's or probablies.

That is my point. That is why every Terminal Ballistic researcher I am aware of states that most bullets do the same thing. Camparing one calibers FMJ to another calibers FMJ, or one calibers quality JHP to another calibers quality JHP, in terminal ballistics there is no measurable or "real" difference.

As stated earlier, IT'S THE INJUN, NOT THE ARROW. You will not be able to buy yourself a win in a real gunfight. You have to do the fighting with the weapons at hand. Reliable platform, training, quality practice, and mindset will win or loose the fight. Not which caliber you have in your gun.

That is an absolute.

I am taking a class next week on being more assertive. Hi Brian

Go figure.

Fred
 
Nomad, 2nd, I am very disappointed with your post. You sounded so confident that you had some high science proving one caliber was betterthan the other and all you left us with is a barrel of hammers.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't figgure it was really so hard to grasp?

From the Relative Incapacitation index:
Big Hole School - In this school of thought, sometimes referred to as the Fackler/IWBA school, and the medically correct one, the more permanent damage that is done to the target (and incidentally the more rapidly the target bleeds out) the more effective the bullet and more likely incapacitation. The more tissue cut, crushed, and/or destroyed by the bullet's passage the better, as more real system trauma results. In addition, in order to be effective at all target angles the bullet must penetrate sufficiently to reach vital organs in the target no matter from what direction the bullet impacts. Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15" being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is about 15cm ( 6")--from straight on, but it is considerably more from various angles. With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability to create the largest diameter permanent hole possible. Most authority seem to agree that the permanent hole needs to be at least .4" or greater in diameter and as deep as possible. A problem arises here in that as a bullet expands it tends to penetrate less, so expansion and penetration have to be carefully balanced by bullet weight and bullet construction. This bullet design problem is exacerbated by the fact that if a target is covered by some material such as cloth, glass, metal, etc. the expansion--and hence the penetration of the bullet--can alter dramatically.

The big hole school tends to favor medium to heavy weight bullets at moderate velocity, with a general preference to bullets of .40 caliber and greater, that penetrate deeply and destroy a lot of tissue in the process. The stated requirements for optimum performance are:

* An average penetration of 12" - 15" in 10 percent bare gelatin
* Velocity of between 800 and 1000 f/s
* Maximum practical bullet weight for the caliber. (9 mm - 147 gr, 10 mm - 180 gr, .45ACP - 200-230 gr) with a preference for the larger diameter (.40" or greater) bullets
Click to expand...


And:
Interestingly, the big hole school has always been accepted in the dangerous game hunting field as the way to go, yet for some reason tissue damage and deep penetration have taken a while to be accepted by handgunners. Maybe the reason that energy dump and temporary cavity believers aren't vocal in the hunting area is that it is hard to talk when you are in between the toes of a cape buffalo or in a lion's or bear's stomach. Another interesting observation is that much of the existing medical literature on bullet wounds is still full of misconceptions and false statements. While things seem to be slowly improving there is quite a way to go for medical literature to catch up with the truth. (The whole "I have a theory" that is then taken as gospel movement is the same one that seems to infect the global warming folk.)
Click to expand...


As to temporary stretch cavity:

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
FBI Academy
Firearms Training unit
Last paragrah, Page 7
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

I'm sorry, I honestlywas not aware that it would take any more than a simple analogy.

As to 'the speed at which you swing the hammers' I addressed that:
Not saying it's gonna be 'earthshaddering', and I am aware that there IS a velocity difference, but given the relative slow velocities we are dealing with, and the minimalness of pistol rounds...
Click to expand...

To Recap:
Not saying it's gonna be 'earthshaddering',
Click to expand...
-I mean the 'difference in effectiveness'
But there IS a difference.
(Carry a Quality HP);)

As to:
We are discussing a specific bullet configuration's "effectiveness", not a pistol's magazine capacity.


From the apparent lack of substantive or independent material presented in support of your assertion above, I can only conclude that you've got nothing.

Your prior claims seem to have been nothing but empty proselytizing.
Click to expand...
I was stating (As I use a 9mm) That It is my belief (See attached articles... it's hard... atleast for my technologically deficient self to find and post articles/materials from other pages while using my I Phone as I was earlier... so I figured the analogy would work. Apparently I was wrong) that a sinlge round vs a single round... will have one result.

I was just 'looking ahead' (Although I will admit I did not see this degree of an 'attack') As several recient posters have said when you factor in a carry gun, other things (Such as capacity) become factors.

Enjoy the reading, maby next time it'll be a little less hostile.

(And I STILL believe it's apparent...)
 
I'm sorry, I didn't figgure it was really so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

It isn't. You just tried to use a hammer analogy as proof as to the difference in effectiveness between 9mm and .45 acp. It was a poor analogy.

Sadly upon re-explanation, you have still failed to provide any proof. You have provided indices and opinions. Indicies and opinions do not directly translate to real world effectiveness.

So there is a difference in performance? We knew that. The question isn't if they perform differently. The question was one of effectiveness. Nobody has come up with any sort of equations that actually translate into bullet or caliber effectiveness. This is actually important because nobody cares about a bullet's reputation or projected temporary stretch cavity in a gun fight. All they care about is whether or not the bullet will be effective and how effective it will be when it hits the bad guy and there just isn't any math for that.

I am afraid that your ship set sail while you were at the bus station contemplating your barrel of hammers.
 
Nomad 2nd: said:
Enjoy the reading, maby next time it'll be a little less hostile.
Click to expand...

Nomad,

If you've taken anything that I've written here as 'hostile', you have my apologies. Please understand that you have made a claim that you've so far been unable to substantiate and my direct responses are nothing more than that. This format does seem to make direct commentary seem a bit less than friendly at times and I apologize for that.

Nomad 2nd: said:
I mean the 'difference in effectiveness'
But there IS a difference.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps that is what you should've said.

As for professing about the "difference" between the two rounds in question (.45 230 gr. FMJ and 9mm 124 gr. FMJ), you have yet to define any such quantity and the differences therein.

Both rounds produce deep terminal penetration, minimal temporary cavity and a nominal permanent crush cavity. There is very little else to distinguish the two from one another other than the fact that the larger slug produces a slightly wider permanent crush cavity. It is highly unlikely that this rather small difference in width (~2.49mm or about a tenth of an inch) would make a difference on a questionably placed shot or that it would increase the effectiveness of the slightly larger round.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
.380 FMJ For Self-Defense?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
17K
LookAtYou
L
G
  • Locked
.380 fmj
Replies
7
Views
554
bikerdoc
bikerdoc
E
  • Locked
Good Self-defense 9mm ammo?
Replies
21
Views
2K
mec
M
H
  • Locked
Lead-Free or All Copper 9mm Self Defense Ammo?
Replies
5
Views
973
HGM22
H
E
  • Locked
What Ammo For Self Defense ???
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
hinton03
H
Back
Top