So what you're saying is that .380 ACP and 9mm Parabellum in FMJ would not be really effective for self defense, that is, these bullets would not do the job perhaps?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from watching few ballistics videos with FMJ ammo I get a notion that all of them penetrate better that HP's and leave permanent wound cavities that are only few times bigger than their actual diameter, which leaves me thinking that the actual permanent damage to a target would not be so much different lets say between .380 ACP and 9mm Parabellum round in FMJ...? Also, as 9mm Parabellum would have higher velocity and it would penetrate with greater ease, thus, leaving proportionally less of it's energy in the target...? So if this is true there shouldn't be that much difference in the stopping power of FMJ rounds, but their potential to penetration would be much different and it would be better to carry one with less penetration potential...?
.38 Special and .357 Magnum are available in FMJ here locally. One shop offers GECO .38 Spl 158gr rounds which cost 0,40$/pc (which are pretty much the cheapest rounds for .38 Spl here). Also, how can a revolver have a empty chamber with ammo being in the cylinder? Anyhow it seems that we are allowed to carry revolvers without external safety with ammo in cylinder.
P.S. Also wanted to mention that the temperatures in Latvia are averagely from -20 C (-4 F) in winter to +30C (+86 F) in summer. With that being said, for at least half a year I'm wearing gloves depending on outside temperature - thus quite thick gloves in winter, and thinner in autumn and spring, so another aspect of choosing a handgun should be the possibility for me to use it with gloves.
I'll address each concern individually:
So what you're saying is that .380 ACP and 9mm Parabellum in FMJ would not be really effective for self defense, that is, these bullets would not do the job perhaps?
They've certainly killed people since @1903 and 1908, respectively, in FMJ loadings, but the recent JHP offerings in both calibers increase their effectiveness greatly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from watching few ballistics videos with FMJ ammo I get a notion that all of them penetrate better that HP's and leave permanent wound cavities that are only few times bigger than their actual diameter, which leaves me thinking that the actual permanent damage to a target would not be so much different lets say between .380 ACP and 9mm Parabellum round in FMJ...? Also, as 9mm Parabellum would have higher velocity and it would penetrate with greater ease, thus, leaving proportionally less of it's energy in the target...? So if this is true there shouldn't be that much difference in the stopping power of FMJ rounds, but their potential to penetration would be much different and it would be better to carry one with less penetration potential...?
Penetration vs. expansion is a give and take; to get one, some of the other must be given up. Actually, it is a three-part conundrum; penetration vs. expansion vs. velocity. Obviously, bullet construction is a big factor also. An FMJ bullet won't expand terminally, unless driven fast enough into bone. A JHP bullet is designed to expand even without hitting bone. Bullets cause damage (death) in two ways: hemorrage, and tissue damage. A bullet that expands in a body will cause more tissue damage
and more hemorrage than a non-expanding type.
This is actually an over-simplified explanation; the study of terminal ballistics is fascinating. I recommend reading Julian Hatcher's writings on it.
I find it ironic that FMJ bullets are outlawed in some places, even though they are safer for both the user (That is, they are more effective at causing an attacker to cease attacking{by either bleeding them out or damaging vital organs better} ) and anyone beyond the target, because they are much less likely to exit the target.
.38 Special and .357 Magnum are available in FMJ here locally. One shop offers GECO .38 Spl 158gr rounds which cost 0,40$/pc (which are pretty much the cheapest rounds for .38 Spl here). Also, how can a revolver have a empty chamber with ammo being in the cylinder? Anyhow it seems that we are allowed to carry revolvers without external safety with ammo in cylinder.
If you can get .38 Spl. FMJ ammo at that price, that would be the choice I'd make. To answer your question, a revolver has more than one chamber, usually five or six. Just load five if it holds six, and align the empty one with the barrel as you close the cylinder. Bingo, empty chamber in front of the firing pin, and easy to bring into action; just pull the trigger. If you can legally carry a round in the chamber infront of the firing pin also, so much the better! [/QUOTE]
.S. Also wanted to mention that the temperatures in Latvia are averagely from -20 C (-4 F) in winter to +30C (+86 F) in summer. With that being said, for at least half a year I'm wearing gloves depending on outside temperature - thus quite thick gloves in winter, and thinner in autumn and spring, so another aspect of choosing a handgun should be the possibility for me to use it with gloves.
OK, so it's a little warmer there than here in Wisconsin.....
Seriously, the Taurus and Rossi revolvers have more than enough room inside the trigger guard for everything but the bulkiest of gloves. My son shot a deer two years ago with his Taurus .357 while wearing gloves.
