Body armor defeating 9mm?

[Deaf Smith]

If you want AP ability...

Get a .357 Sig with 5-6 inch barrel and 90 grain bullets. 1800+fps is feasible.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/357-sig-90-grain-xtreme-defender/

Deaf

 

[jrdolall]

They were initially described as wearing body armor but later described as wearing "tactical gear". Mall ninja type stuff I presume
Initially they had "long guns" and then "assault style rifles".

If you are up against three shooters wearing actual body armor and carrying AK-47s then your choice of ammo probably won't make a lot of difference. Most of us cannot stand head to head with a dedicated killer using a rifle and empty a magazine of 9mm into them. Being able to make head shots while peeking around a corner or prone behind a chair isn't likely so I am guessing pelvis and leg shots. Those will at least slow down the attacker.

 

[AK103K]

Being able to make head shots while peeking around a corner or prone behind a chair isn't likely.....

If you dont strive to make those kind of shots in practice, maybe. For those who do, I dont think it would be a problem.

so I am guessing pelvis and leg shots. Those will at least slow down the attacker.

If you cant hit a head, how are you going to hit a leg at the same distance, and really, what does it gain you? Either way, they are still a threat, even if down, and you still need to address them.

The whole point, is to take them out as quickly as possible, not to keep messing around with them, especially if there is more than one.

 

[TruthTellers]

The issue with armored shooters is you can't tell what level they're wearing. Let's say they're wearing IIIA armor, which is rated for .357 Sig and .44 Magnum up to 1400 fps. The only gun that can beat that is .22 TCM, 5.7 armor piercing (which is illegal for civvies), and a rifle round.

Now, as cool as I think .22 TCM is, I'm not making it my CCW piece until smaller pistols are made to shoot it. Thus, I'm sticking with the popular common cartridges.

As far as I know, there's no 9mm that I know of that can pierce IIIA armor. Even if there was, I wouldn't change it to my EDC ammo because the likelihood of encountering an armored enemy is slim, let alone the possibility of me getting into a situation where I even need to draw my gun.

The best thing to do is stick with the same hardware currently used because if I have a situation where I have hot ammo that can beat armor, but am shooting at an unarmored opponent, those bullets will probably penetrate clean through the guy and on possibly into a bystander.

So, I would not change the ammo and would stick with the same hollow point rounds, but maybe add a laser to assist in making headshots. A lot of manufacturers have come out with compact lasers for .380's and slimline 9mm's like the LCP, LC9, Glock 42/43, etc. On top of a good laser, practice drills for armored opponents.

 

[jmorris]

Most of us cannot stand head to head with a dedicated killer using a rifle and empty a magazine of 9mm into them.

Are we still talking about the same two killers that had over 1000 rounds of ammunition between the two of them and left at least 3 "high capacity" magazines behind and still only got off 65-75 rounds between the two of them?

I am going to assume someone had to do a reload and continue shooting once completed. How fast would you suppose they could complete that reload with me shooting at them?

 

[samweller]

One could have done a tactical reload while the other kept firing. RE: head shots...I am all for them but they are not easy for the average CCW person to make with a handgun while under fire. Even well-trained LEO's and military miss head shots. We are not NCIS or the ridiculous Walking Dead, where head shots one-handed with a .357 magnum at 30 or 40 yards are routine...

 

[stressed]

You can get body armor defeating 9mm. You know that gimmick liberty defense +P 50 grain 9mm? Well, it's good at one thing. Passing through kevlar.

 

[JShirley]

"Failure to stop" drills.

It's okay to have a backup mag loaded with another ammo type for specific situations. It might be a good idea, for instance, to have a backup mag loaded with a deep penetrating round if you are in an area where you might have to defend against or put down a large, tough animal like a hog, elk, or bear. If you do, select your ammunition carefully so that it will have a similar point of aim as your primary carry load.

 

[njl]

Last week I started a mini-firestorm on another forum by asking if the 5.7x45 was a good defensive/counter-attack round to use in a "Paris-like attack" scenario (contingent on having a 5.7-capable handgun as your carry piece). My takeaway from that very informative thread is that most are better off using a 9mm weapon (or something else in which we have confidence).

Today, as we learn the details of the shooting in San Bernadino, CA, I further consider my personal choice to carry a 9mm (G17 or G26). Given my decision to carry a 9mm (as well as a spare mag) at all times, I ponder what with which I will load my backup mag. My carry 9mm is a Hornady 135 gr. +P Critical Duty (or equivalent). After learning that the assailants in the San Bernadino shooting were wearing body armor, I'm considering what my backup mag should be loaded with- so that in a similar situation I could simply switch mags if I was forced to act with deadly retaliatory/self-defense force.

First, I suspect you mean FN's 5.7x28. I've never seen a concealable handgun in anything by 45. IIRC, that's kind of a big gun...but its high capacity, high power/penetration, and low recoil...so you could use one to put a lot of holes in someone pretty quickly.

Second, unless things have changed again, last I heard, the SB shooters were wearing tactical load bearing vests (lots of mags) and the survivors just saw tac-vests and assumed bullet-proof. I'm not sure what a 9mm JHP does when it hits a magazine of 5.56mm ammo (and does it matter if the mag is aluminum/steel/polymer?)...but its too bad none of the intended victims were able to find out.

 

[AK103K]

RE: head shots...I am all for them but they are not easy for the average CCW person to make with a handgun while under fire. Even well-trained LEO's and military miss head shots.

They are even harder to make, if you dont take them.

Everyone will likely miss them at some point. If you practice them regularly, especially if you do so realistically, your chances of making more than you miss, increases dramatically.

I think the big problem for "the average" CCW carrier is, they are under achievers when it comes to practice, especially realistic practice, and even with regularly carrying a gun.

With practice, these so called impossible shots, are actually quite easy, even at longer distances. The more you do it, the easier they become. But you do have to practice, and regularly.

The ones you never take, because youve always been told you will miss, produce the the exact same result you were told.

 

[F-111 John]

My last couple of times at the range I finished up my session with a couple of mags' worth of Mozambique drills at 7 yds.

 

[jmorris]

One could have done a tactical reload...

Well, they did say that one of them dropped 3 or 4 full mags at the scene, so anything is possible.

 

[jrdolall]

I doubt these guys had ANY practice with their long guns since they are illegal in CA for most, maybe all, people to own. They had probably watched some Youtube videos on the operation and that was about it. They picked out an extremely "soft" target.

As far as head shots are concerned I just don't think it is feasible for even well trained individuals. It is the part of the body most likely to be moving and is not an easy target to hit. Can it be done? Of course. With regularity? Maybe by those with an extremely high level/amount of training but not by the vast majority of CCW holders and by vast I mean well over 95%. None of the cops I shoot with could do it under duress with any kind of regularity but they are all just street cops and not SWAT style

 

[AK103K]

...but not by the vast majority of CCW holders and by vast I mean well over 95%.

Now that is truly a scary thought, dont you think? Not sure who would be scarier in a situation similar to what went on the other day, where both were present.

None of the cops I shoot with could do it under duress with any kind of regularity but they are all just street cops and not SWAT style

And just as scary, but not at all unexpected. Ive shot with some who were great shots, and some who were terrible. Those who where great, were gun people, and practiced a lot. Might be a trend there, and not just for the cops.

 

[jrdolall]

Now that is truly a scary thought, dont you think? Not sure who would be scarier in a situation similar to what went on the other day, where both were present.

I don't think it is a scary thought at all since most CCW people want to keep one in their vehicle or on their person to protect themselves and their loved ones. The fact that most of them are not trained to high standards is not at all scary. It appears that the terrorists in CA were not well trained but they killed a bunch of people. I agree that poorly trained citizens MIGHT not be able to stop an attack by trained people. Unless you consider all the guerrilla fighters in the past that, despite minimal or no training, managed to fend off much more highly trained armies.

I have an uncle that was a police sniper back in the 80's and a brother in law that is a retired Gunny and Marine Sniper. Both of them could shoot out a gnats eye at 100 yards under duress and both of them were in combat with bad guys shooting at them.

 

[AK103K]

Unless you consider all the guerrilla fighters in the past that, despite minimal or no training, managed to fend off much more highly trained armies.

So, does that bring head shots back to the table?

Seriously though, if youre carrying a gun, you should be at least fairly proficient with it, and preferably, "proficient". But thats your choice, and my hope. I just hope if we happen to be there together, youre always out in front of me.

 

[samweller]

It is a matter of odds. Odds are, the average shooter will miss a head shot. Under fire and under stress, odds are that center mass is the best option. If the bad guy is wearing a vest, then you have to change your tactics. It takes more time to line up a head shot, and assume the other guy is shooting back. I would go to lower abdomen before I'd go to head as a secondary target. Sometimes you have to take what you can get...a bullet in the bad guy somewhere is better than nothing.
And, if there is cover available, get there.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Odds are, the average shooter will miss a head shot.

Well that assumes you are an 'average shooter', what ever that is. But if your not?

Deaf

 

[AK103K]

Everything is a matter of odds, thats a fact. Dont you think we should strive to increase our odds, and reduce the other guys, to the best of our ability? Contrary to what we are often told, simply having a gun will not guarantee that, and in some cases, drive them down for the shooter, especially if they are ineffective with what they have.

If all you are in your shooting skills, is "average", especially considering todays "average", then perhaps body shots under stress are the challenge, especially when you consider the "average" handgun carried these days, and how people practice with them. Suit yourself. I prefer to push myself and things a little harder, and in doing so, find it really isnt all that hard to consistently make those shots. It takes practice and a little work, sure, but I think its worth it.

By practicing like like that, Im thinking my odds will be a bit better than "average", if I ever find myself in the position of taking the bet.

 

[Richard Head]

It's okay to have a backup mag loaded with another ammo type for specific situations. It might be a good idea, for instance, to have a backup mag loaded with a deep penetrating round if you are in an area where you might have to defend against or put down a large, tough animal like a hog, elk, or bear. If you do, select your ammunition carefully so that it will have a similar point of aim as your primary carry load.

That's a really good idea, I wonder why I didn't think of that? I wouldn't want to use a round that can penetrate a bpv unless I had to. Over penetration is much less likely to happen with expanding bullets and they're much more effective.

 

[jmorris]

Sarcasm on:

Now I am wondering if I should just carry a gun so I can shoot myself if I happen to be somewhere an armored attacker(s) show up?

Sarcasm off:

I guess if you are a self defeatist, you likely don't need to carry anyway.

I wonder if the killers were wearing safety glasses? If not, hitting a cinder block wall near them could have bought enough time to get the hell out of there.

Lots of "if's, but's" but I would rather die trying vs crying.

 

[2ndunamended]

22 TCM conversion kits for Glock 17 are available. there are videos on you tube of that round defeating body armor and your magazines will be lighter.

whether or not you need to worry about terrorists w/ body armor....

Very interesting... I need to do some research on this round, although I still don't think I'd make a converted G17 my EDC.

 

[samweller]

AK and Deaf, I am not talking about those of us with military and LE training. Could I make a head shot with my BHP under fire at SD distance...it is likely that I could, probably at a bit longer distance. I would not want that to be my only choice, however. I had in mind advice for regular guys and gals on here that do not have time for a lot of range work and who have never been under fire or in a stressful life/death situation. I do not think it is wise to counsel head shots for these folks. Again, the chances of them facing someone in body armor are slim, but that is not to say it could not happen. Odds again. Anyway, I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just don't think it is practical advice for a lot of people. Shoot him in the abdomen or upper legs...you may hit the femoral or, when he falls, approach cautiously and put one in his head from closer up. Say he was still reaching for his weapon.

 

[Plan2Live]

So, does that bring head shots back to the table?

It’s interesting how these threads morph. What started off as a thread dedicated to armor piercing 9mm has now morphed into a Tactics and Training thread.

I think it is fair to point out that this website is visited by a broad range of people, including people new to the shooting world or people with limited training. Given that, I think it is reasonable and responsible to point out that the concept of taking head shots in a high stress situation is probably not the best advice for the average shooter because of points already made by others above, not to mention over penetrating the bad guy’s head and harming the innocent. I think it is reasonable and responsible to advise anyone and everyone to think about limiting their response to parameters that are within their level of ability. Not the level of their ability on their best day when they made that one great shot but within the level of their normal ability.

Have you ever been to an indoor shooting range and seen the incredible number of bullet holes in places bullet holes shouldn’t exist? Do you really want to go onto an open forum and suggest that head shots in an active shooter situation is the best option knowing that the person responsible for one of those errant bullet holes at the public range might take your advice and might be in the same room with you and that active shooter?

I have served as a Range Safety Officer at a public shooting range. I have observed the “average shooter’s” ability level. I am certified to teach our state’s concealed weapon permit class and do teach that class or assist others with their classes. I have seen firsthand the skill level of the “average shooter” coming into those classes. I am fully aware of the laughable accuracy level established by our state as the minimum necessary to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in public. Suggesting to the “average” student leaving those classes that taking head shots in an active shooter situation is not great advice, in my opinion.

Being associated with firearms training I also know just how few of those students take advanced classes and improve on their skill level. Being around ranges frequently I know how few ranges offer the ability for the “average concealed carrier” to practice drawing from a holster, shooting from cover, shooting in a low light environment and firing more than one shot per second or one shot per two second interval. In other words, real world training is not something the average shooter has affordable and frequent access to or ever engages in.

Thankfully, history seems to confirm that the “average” legally armed citizen does typically operate within the level of their ability.

So to summarize and clarify, no I do not think head shots are the best option in every situation and I don’t think they should be practiced or suggested as the primary target zone. No I do not want to see the government step in and increase the accuracy level required to obtain a carry permit but I also think we are giving the typical concealed carry permit holder a false sense of accomplishment under our current standards (in South Carolina). Yes I encourage all gun owners to seek out advanced training under qualified instructors on a regular basis and to base their practice sessions around the correct execution of the skills learned in those training classes.

Does that bring head shots back to the table? I suppose.

 

[M-Cameron]

Why do people Think headshots require some mythical level of accuracy?

The size of a human head is roughly equal to the effective center of mass.......yet we have no problem teaching people to shoot COM.....

If you can shoot someone in the chest at SD ranges.....you should have no problem hitting them in the head. .....if you can't do that, you nees more training