Best Self Defense Ammo! Please Vote!

Best General Purpose Self Defense Ammo


  • Total voters
    352
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello friends and neighbors // I may need to try some of the others, as my choice of Corbon JHP 125gr. are way in the back of the field.

I chose them because, out of the ammo I have tried, my S&W 586 .357 likes em the best .
 
None of the above should be on that list.

95% of the time my handguns have handloaded LSWC's in them.
 
I voted for Gold Dot, but really any good quality hollow point will serve well. Which one is "best" is splitting hairs.
 
I guess I like the idea of some mechanism keeping the HP from plugging with clothing. The HST and the critical defense both have some gel/rubber which seems to works well and federals EFMJ has its own system to ensure expansion. All these other bullets perform great but I'm just concerned about them not expanding or expanding very little. Ive seen a lot of the gold dots and Hydrashoks clog and penetrate 16"+. I want a bullet thats going to expand every time and penetrate 10"-14"
 
I like the Hornady XTP for smaller calibers --accuracy counts-- but for .45, I don't think there is a better projectile than the 200gr. Gold Dot. I think this is the one called "flying ashtray" and (head) "inspector". If it doesn't expand, nothing in this caliber will.

Main preference though is 180gr. 10mm XTP's.
 
I lucked into a box of 230 gr HST before it went LEO; but haven't seen any since. I use Gold Dot in my 38 Spc and 9mm and XTP in my 357 Mag. All are good performers and will do the job if I do mine.
 
Finding the "best" self-defense round is going to be rather hard as it is a very subjective topic.

How do you define "best"? What standard does everyone agree should be used to determine this? There are many variables concerning various areas.

Are you using projectile expansion as a determinant? Hollow points are going to outperform solid projectiles almost every time. Those Rangers are pretty good.

...unless you consider penetration as your goal. Then those Rangers can't hold a candle to those FMJ's.

So it depends on what variable you focus on.

Velocity? I've put a few SD rounds through my chronograph and those 165gr. Cor-Bon Pow-R-Ball +P's in .45 ACP are speedy little critters at almost 1200 fps out of a 4.25" barrel. Makes those 230 gr. Remington Golden Sabres seem like they're on an afternoon stroll in the mid to high 800's.

So, it depends on what you want out of your SD round in order to classify it as "best".

Personally, (this is just my opinion and has no basis in science) I carry a 1911, and due to the feeding characteristics, I would like a round-nose over a hollow-point for reliability. But, I prefer expansion over penetration, so I would like a hollow point. Therefore, in my 1911, I choose the Pow-R-Balls for the simple fact that they have high velocity, are hollow-points for expansion, and have a polymer ball creating a round nose for reliability in my 1911.

So I voted for it as the "best"..........for me.

I carry Ranger-T's in my .40 XDm, though. When I carry it, they're the "best".

Whatever you choose, I highly suggest you carry it because you believe it to be the "best" for whatever reason you choose to carry it, not because others have done so. They might be using determining criteria for reasons other than what you choose to determine the grounds for "best".
 
A bulllet that expands everytime?...aint gonna happen. Too many variables when shooting a human body as opposed to cloth and jello.
 
Last edited:
Too man variables when shooting a human body as opposed to cloth and jello.

Modern JHP bullets recovered from human bodies overwhelmingly resemble those recovered from ordnance gelatin.

The test of the wound profiles’ validity is how accurately they portray the projectile-tissue interaction observed in shots that penetrate the human body. Since most shots in the human body traverse various tissues, we would expect the wound profiles to vary somewhat, depending on the tissues traversed. However, the only radical departure has been found to occur when the projectile strikes bone: this predictably deforms the bullet more than soft tissue, reducing its overall penetration depth, and sometimes altering the angle of the projectile’s course. Shots traversing only soft tissues in humans have shown damage patterns of remarkably close approximation to the wound profiles.

The bullet penetration depth comparison, as well as the similarity in bullet deformation and yaw patterns, between human soft tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin have proven to be consistent and reliable. Every time there appeared to be an inconsistency…a good reason was found and when the exact circumstances were matched, the results matched. The cases reported here comprise but a small fraction of the documented comparisons which have established 10% ordnance gelatin as a valid tissue simulant.

--Fackler, Martin L.: "The Wound Profile & The Human Body: Damage Pattern Correlation.” Wound Ballistics Review, 1(4): 1994; 12-19​
 
Can you please provide a link to the data you are citing?

Also the body is comprised of tissue that is not just soft...bone, cartilage.

I have friends who have done ballistic tests on gelatin and not gotten expansion 100% percent of the time.

Granted, HPs work quite well and I use them in my handgun, but my rejoinder was regarding seeking a HP that will expand 100% of the time.
 
Last edited:
I can't vote on this. Depending on caliber, I use several of the ammo types mentioned as well as a couple not on the list.

I would feel fine using most of the current JHP ammo in any caliber.
 
Winchester White Box 180gr FMJ. I purchased my Beretta 96 in a state where hollow points were illegal. So I stuck with them. They work. Never a jam.
 
Can you please provide a link to the data you are citing?
None in the public realm that I'm aware of. Sorry.

Also the body is comprised of tissue that is not just soft...bone, cartliage.
Understood.

JHP bullets are designed to expand in soft tissues. Soft tissues contain the fluids required to produce hydrostatic pressure in the cavity which causes the cavity walls to spread outward expanding the annular ring.

In a defensive shooting the kinds of tissues we’re trying to destroy are all soft tissues. These are reasons why bone isn’t normally used to test JHP bullet performance because: 1) JHP bullets aren’t designed to expand in bone – they just deform, and 2) the bullet’s terminal performance characteristics are entirely dependent on factors that cannot be controlled by the shooter (what bone is hit, where it is hit, angle of impact, depth of location along the wound track, bone density/thickness, etc.). The only terminal performance desired in bone is for the bullet to blast through to reach vital soft tissues. Quite simply, performance in bone is what it is.

Rib bones affect terminal performance very little because they aren't "solid" bone. Other than ribs, hand/wrist/arm bones, shoulder bones, spinal bones and the cranium are about the only bones your bullet is likely to encounter in a defensive shooting when you target the torso and head.

Modern JHP bullets expand completely after about an inch of penetration in soft tissues. Unless solid bone is encountered within the first inch of penetration the bullet will usually expand just like it does in ordnance gelatin. If it encounters bone after the first inch or so, bone will merely deform the already expanded bullet.

In regard to various soft tissue densities and resistance to bullet penetration:
"When a bullet is penetrating any material (tissue, water, air, wood, etc.), the total force the bullet exerts on the material is the same as the total force the material exerts on the bullet (this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion). These forces may be represented as a combination of shear forces and inertial forces (don’t be concerned if these words sound too technical – the concepts are easy). Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall material that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force….

"You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces….

"A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant like gelatin) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces….

"…Anyone who has worked with gelatin knows that a finger can be pushed into gelatin with a force of only a few pounds; this force is similar to the resistance to a finger poked into the stomach, but the tissue does not fracture as easily as gelatin does. A finger poked into water does not meet this kind of resistance, which is due to shear forces. Penetration of a 9mm bullet at 1000 ft/sec is resisted by an inertial force of about 800 pounds; it is obvious that the presence or absence of a 3 to 5 pound shear force makes no practical difference in the penetration at this velocity. This also explains why the fact that gelatin fractures more easily than tissue does is not important.

"The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that there is no practical difference. The tissue types are closer to one another than they are to water, and bullet expansion in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (See Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics).

"Since inertial forces depend on accelerating mass, it makes sense that these forces should be lower at lower velocities (because the penetrated material cannot be accelerated to a velocity higher than the bullet). Shear forces have little velocity dependence, and as a result, shear forces are a much larger fraction of the total when bullet velocity is below the cavitation threshold. This low velocity effect is the reason that total bullet penetration depth is much different in water and in tissue or a valid tissue simulant.

"As a result of the penetration dynamics, most soft solids with a density very near soft tissues (i.e., near the density of water) are satisfactory tissue simulants when shear forces are not important. However, total penetration depth depends significantly on dynamics at velocities below 400 ft/sec, so most materials do not properly simulate penetration depth. The total bullet penetration depth in tissue and a valid tissue simulant should be the same; standard practice is to use calibrated gelatin to insure this. In effect, gelatin calibration is done to ensure that the shear forces in the gelatin are the same as in typical soft tissue (as described in Bullet Penetration, the technical parameter used in the dynamic is viscosity)."

-- MacPherson, Duncan: "Wound Ballistics Misconceptions": Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3): 1996; 42-43​
 
Last edited:
Shawn Dodson I must say you are a badass! Now In your earlier post the quote clearly states that bullet will react differently when hitting bone then when going through ballistic gel. It says that bullet react pretty much the same when passing through soft tissue as when passing through ballistic gel. Obviously they're going to act different when they hit a bone. Then this 9mmforme guy comes back with his whole "well the human body has bones so its not the same as ballsitic gel" yeah we get that and the sky is blue and the grass is green. we just got done stating that. Okay and let me clarify i said I want a bullet that will expand every time. Obviously I know that no bullet will expand 100% of the time but if you really need me to spell things out for you. i want a bullet that will expand more often than any other bullet that is available. There are a lot of intelligent people on this forum who can provide useful information and then there are a lot of people who have nothing better to do than to inform the rest of us that there are no magic bullets and that bullets won't expand 100% of the time and there is no such thing as the best bullet. Its like geez were just talking about what we think works well or what we've seen perform well and you just want to sit here and nitpick details go away.
 
GunNut1976 writes:
I probably should mention theres always one guy who has to pop up in every ammo thread and remind us all that "shot placement is most important" or "whatever your gun shoots best" or "whatever you're most comfortable with". Yeah we got it. Please don't give us that answer as if this talk of bullet technology is so far beneath you...
...you just want to sit here and nitpick details...

You're freakin' hilarious! :)
 
Details are important, words have value. If you state you want something to expand 100% of the time then that's what some people are going to think you are requesting. With that in mind I failed to see Shawns post regarding how HPs perform with bone...my fault for not reading more carefully.

I have already conceded that HPs can be reliable, often, in ord. gel and since the OP now wants something less than 100%, I think his question has been asked and answered. BTW Shawn, thanks for compiling some info on this matter.

Here's a link to another site where a related topic was brought up. The OP now has some other sources so to make an informed opinion.

http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=45187

GunNut1976: If you were referring to me, I'm not going anywhere!
 
Last edited:
In 9x19mm I prefer the Winchester Ranger 127 grain load, but I would also be happy to carry similar weighted Corbon DPX or Winchester PDX1, or the old Federal "Classic" 115 grain load.

My choice for .45 ACP is still the Federal 230 grain Hydrashok.

Hardball in either is a good idea to have along as well imo.

In .38 and .357 I would go with a variety of loads depending on frame and barrel size ranging from the 148 grain lead wadcutters for a 2" .38 to one of several 125 grain loads for the .357.

In anything less or "smaller" I would stick with hardball or solids.

----------------------------------

Je Suis Prest
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top