Defense ammo vs target ammo for handguns

[Outlaw75]

All it takes is a little logic and common sense: Did LE agencies - who were all using round nosed lead, WCs, SWCs, or FMJ ammo - suddenly decide "Wow! We've got too much over penetration, which is a danger to innocent people. Let's have ammo manufacturers come up with a new design of bullet that doesn't do that."???

I seriously doubt it. Over penetration might now be considered a factor, but at the time agencies first began to adopt hollow point ammunition, I doubt it was a major concern.

That seems to be the way everyone spins JHP's now a days. But I remember back in the 80's when they were much less common (as was defensive concealed carry) most everyone focused on the damage potential, no one thought at all about overpenetration. To be clear; this was your average shooter, not Law Enforcement.

 

[golden]

At the time that law enforcement shifted to hollow points, increased stopping power was pretty much the only requirement. The wholesale shift to semi-auto's did not come till the mid 1980's, so most departments were trying to get gun media and police unions off their back. The numerous failures of the .38 Special lead round nose was getting a lot of attention in gun magazines and being picked up by the police unions who were hearing the same thing from many of their members.
There were a number of attempts to NOT FIX the problem for political reasons. By then, the .357 magnum had established it's reputation as a man stopper and large caliber rounds like the .45ACP were touted as inhumane. In the end, the kitchen got to hot for many departments and they switched to more effective ammo like the 158 grain hpswc +P .38 Special and used +P+ ammo as an alternative. Then the under-gunned argument took off with departments trying to keep a revolver, any revolver and not switch to the semi-auto.
Then after the FBI-MIAMI fiasco, it was "BIG BORE MANIA" and the .40 S&W took off like a rocket, only to bring its own problems. Now the trend is back to 9m.m.

So it goes. I am happy to be going back to the 9m.m. as it means that I am carrying a GLOCK 19 and not my previously issued H&K P2000, which I never warmed up to. If we had switched to a different .40 caliber, it might be a different story, but we did not.

Jim

 

[obiwan1]

During the "disagreement" in SE Asia some 50 years some of the guys carried 9mm pistols sent from home. 9mm ball wasn't a very good stopper then. Neither was .45 but it was better than 9mm. I never considered buying a 9 until recent major ammo advances happened. That said I own a couple of 9s (among others) and have a sufficient supply of good defensive ammo. If I have to use all of it - for defensive purposes only, then we're in a serious civil war. If I run out of 9mm JHPs, then I WILL use my range ammo and deal with its deficiencies.
Before I do that, however, I will utilize my very sufficient quantity of pre DHS Border Patrol/INS issue 155gr .40 cal. The Beretta breaker ammo.

 

[golden]

Obiwan,

If you run out of good 9m.m. ammo, then the situation probably requires a rifle like an M-4 with lots of ammo.

Jim

 

[fxvr5]

All it takes is a little logic and common sense: Did LE agencies - who were all using round nosed lead, WCs, SWCs, or FMJ ammo - suddenly decide "Wow! We've got too much over penetration, which is a danger to innocent people. Let's have ammo manufacturers come up with a new design of bullet that doesn't do that."???

I seriously doubt it. Over penetration might now be considered a factor, but at the time agencies first began to adopt hollow point ammunition, I doubt it was a major concern.

When I worked in LE in the '70s and was part of ammo selection for our department over-penetration was a major concern and figured heavily in the decision making process.

Are the people who are saying it wasn't a concern actually working in LE at that time and involved in their department's ammo selection? Or are they just making crap up? If you nay-sayers were working in LE and deciding which ammo to use, please share your criteria.

I can only speak for the department I worked in. I can't say what other departments considered important when selecting ammo.

 

[azrocks]

when looking at this further it is important to understand that while budget guns may go bang everytime,there bang may not be the same as a more quality gun. When you study the velocities of projectiles fired from to guns of similar length and measure their muzzle energy at 10 feet you will see that almost every time the more expensive Gun wins .

I'm sorry, but this is not even close to true. Price is a reflection of many things. Some of those things speak to the quality of workmanship & materials. Many others don't. But even if price was a predictor of quality, velocity would not be a measure of it. Different barrels of the same length with the same ammo can produce consistently different velocities. It doesn't make one better than the other (or worse) based on that alone. Also - regarding 'quality' - what may be considered high-performance in the realm of punching paper may be considered inferior in a self-defense capacity where often slightly looser tolerances are desirable.

 

[WrongHanded]

When I worked in LE in the '70s and was part of ammo selection for our department over-penetration was a major concern and figured heavily in the decision making process.

Are the people who are saying it wasn't a concern actually working in LE at that time and involved in their department's ammo selection? Or are they just making crap up? If you nay-sayers were working in LE and deciding which ammo to use, please share your criteria.

I can only speak for the department I worked in. I can't say what other departments considered important when selecting ammo.

Once HPs were established as the norm, I'm sure over penetration became a factor in ammo selection (I'm sure, because it is a factor today). But I don't believe it was a factor in law enforcement first moving to HPs. If I were to guess, I'd say "over penetration" may have been somewhat of an "excuse" as to why departments were adopting "man-killer bullets". Safety of the innocent bystander is a much easier pill for the public to swallow than more tissue damage.

So unless you're telling me that your department switched from FMJ or LRN to HPs specifically due to over penetration issues, I'm going to stand by my thought process.

I suppose we can argue over whether over penetration was any kind of a factor at all, but I'm still guessing it initially wasn't. And if HPs hadn't proven to have had less over penetration than FMJs, but still had more wounding ability, no one would even be talking about over penetration.

 

[Kleanbore]

Once HPs were established as the norm, I'm sure over penetration became a factor in ammo selection (I'm sure, because it is a factor today).

It sounds as if you have drawn your timeline backwards.

 

[fxvr5]

Once HPs were established as the norm, I'm sure over penetration became a factor in ammo selection (I'm sure, because it is a factor today). But I don't believe it was a factor in law enforcement first moving to HPs. If I were to guess, I'd say "over penetration" may have been somewhat of an "excuse" as to why departments were adopting "man-killer bullets". Safety of the innocent bystander is a much easier pill for the public to swallow than more tissue damage.

So unless you're telling me that your department switched from FMJ or LRN to HPs specifically due to over penetration issues, I'm going to stand by my thought process.

I suppose we can argue over whether over penetration was any kind of a factor at all, but I'm still guessing it initially wasn't. And if HPs hadn't proven to have had less over penetration than FMJs, but still had more wounding ability, no one would even be talking about over penetration.

Your thought process is to create your own “facts”. You’re making this up based on what you want to think they were, or were not, thinking. That’s pretty arrogant. I refuted your statement yet you still hang on to your “I know better than the people who were there” attitude. Well, at least we know where you stand on facts. You make up your own.

 

[WrongHanded]

Your thought process is to create your own “facts”. You’re making this up based on what you want to think they were, or were not, thinking. That’s pretty arrogant. I refuted your statement yet you still hang on to your “I know better than the people who were there” attitude. Well, at least we know where you stand on facts. You make up your own.

My thought process is based on logic. I simply do not believe over penetration was the driving force in the adoption of hollow point ammunition by law enforcement agencies. Because for that to have happened, deaths and serious injuries from over penetration of ammunition in police shooting would have preceded the conversion. And in some significant number. So if that were true, where are all the stories about innocent people being injured or killed by over penetrating bullets shot from the weapons of police officers? Where's the data?

Sure, you've got your anecdotal evidence about how you remember over penetration being a factor in ammunition selection during your time in LE during the 70's. But does that mean it was the driving factor that caused the switch? Are you sure it wasn't originally just an "excuse" to feed the public? Because it certainly sounds like it. Did your department previously have accidental fatalities from over penetrating ammunition? Did most or many other departments? Was there an outcry from the masses to stop accidentally killing innocent people standing behind criminals with over penetration bullets?

Let's face it, cops carry guns to stop deadly threats right now. Ammunition that wounds more, does that job faster. If Occam's Razor is applied to these two possible reasons for the switch to HP ammo - either increased wounding, or decreased over penetration - it seems obvious to me which one was the driving force.

If you really want to believe that a concern of over penetration is the reason HPs were adopted by LE agencies as standard duty ammunition, you can. I don't. Simple right?

If you just want to believe it was one of the factors, that's fine too. But I still stand by my original statement. I do not believe the reason LE agencies use hollow point ammunition is because of concerns of over penetration. I think it's because it works better at stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

 

[Telum Pisces]

Sorry, the Talons on my Ranger T-Series are going to dang hurt and tear some mess up in there more so than a ball 9mm ammo. Both will hurt. But I can promise that Ranger T-Series will be ripping flesh and innards as it travels in you more so than a ball ammo.

And well, that's what is in my self defense pistols. Expanding rounds will create a slightly bigger permanent wound cavity for sure. But handgun bullets are not man stoppers no matter what. It takes blood loss or CNS hits to completely stop an attack with a handgun. And blood loss even to a vital organ can be seconds for an attacker to keep attacking you!

Most attacks are stopped by the pain inflicted with that first "I've been shot" feeling and mentality.

The saying goes that my handgun is a way for me to fight to my rifle.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

My thought process is based on logic. I simply do not believe over penetration was the driving force in the adoption of hollow point ammunition by law enforcement agencies.

While I posted my disagreement with Mr. Ayoob previously, I'll also have to post a disagreement here.

The problem is that these things are not always based on "logic". Often times such decisions are made based on "perceptions", "legal decisions", "public opinion", "prevailing ideas of the time", etc.

Once these things gain a footing, they have a power all their own...and that most definitely drives actions for individuals and agencies.

Over penetration was (and in many circles still is) a very serious consideration. Therefore addressing it became a serious part in the process of the adoption of hollow point ammunition.

I don't agree that it was the ONLY reason, or necessarily the only OVER POWERING reason. But definitely a serious consideration.

Of course...I'm not in law enforcement and don't have first hand experience on the matter. So take my opinion accordingly. But my readings over the years tend to support this.

 

[Garandimal]

Ok. I know that defense ammo is made to do more damage and from all I have researched on it, I guess it does. Does that mean target ammo won't do serious damage to an attacker? I have seen tests performed where good old ball ammo punches through farther in cases where the hollow point got sort of plugged by outer layer garments like denim. Am I just an old fool to think i am ok using regular target ammo in my firearms for defense. My home defense weapon is .45acp and my carry is 9mm. And yes, both have defensive rounds in them. But am I just being a sucker to marketing to think a couple of target rounds from my 1911 wouldn't be effective enough to get the job done? Someone please straighten me out, even if it means some tough love!

Only hits count.
- Good hits count more.
- Bigger hits count more.
- More hits count more.

3.8" Bbl'ed GLOCK G36.
0.87" Average Expansion.
4-layers of Denim and Two 1-Gal. water jugs (12").




​

GR

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Most attacks are stopped by the pain inflicted with that first "I've been shot" feeling and mentality.

Where does this come from?

Because I don't think this is true, and for a variety of reasons.

 

[Telum Pisces]

Where does this come from?

Because I don't think this is true, and for a variety of reasons.

From the non drug hopped up person attacking you. A mad individual is still human and well, most don't like pain. A determined attacker or drugged up one takes a CNS shot or blood loss.

 

[Craig_AR]

militaries are restricted to FMJ

Well, not exactly. That is a confused and confusing semi-myth in firearms lore.
The 1899 Hague Convention had signator country not use expanding bullets.
For a 2003 medical discussion on penetration and damage, see
The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets
A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues
which quotes the Convention, “The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.”
Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.
You will quite often see a statement from someone who "knows" about this restriction incorrectly attribute it to the Geneva Convention instead of the Hague Convention.

In 2015 as the US Army began the search for a new sidearm, they notified potential bidders they were considering using hollow points:
Army to consider hollow point bullets for new pistol, Army Times, July 6, 2015.
The DOD Law of War Manual Returns Hollow Point Bullets to Armed Conflict August 4, 2015
And an article in 2019,
The Army's New 9mm Handgun is Finally Approved for Full Material Release
noted about the ammunition,
"MHS [Modular Handgun System] is made up of the M17 full-size and M18 compact handguns, as well as Winchester Ammunition's M1152 Ball ammo and M1153 Special Purpose, a 147-grain jacketed hollow-point bullet.
In a significant break from the military's devotion to ball ammunition, Army officials revealed in 2015 that a new Defense Department policy would allow the service to use "special-purpose ammunition" for the MHS program."

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

From the non drug hopped up person attacking you. A mad individual is still human and well, most don't like pain. A determined attacker or drugged up one takes a CNS shot or blood loss.

The problem I have with this is many people sustain quite serious injuries without recognizing/feeling much pain at all. In some examples, it just happens too quickly and it only sets in once they realize it. Cuts, punctures, broken bones, crushed limbs, etc.

What you're essentially doing here is qualifying your original statement by saying this happens only to certain people under certain circumstances. And then, even this is "only sometimes".

It's really akin to people making claims that "the noise of racking a pump shotgun will deter your attacker".

These things MAY be true...sometimes. But they are poor things to bet your life on.

We use deadly force, when justified, to stop an attacker. What stops the attacker could be any number, or combination of, of things...pain, surprise, perceived threat, loss of blood, hit to CNS, buddies pull him away, etc. Pain would actually be a minor factor in this, and not a reliable one at that.

I am not aware of any statistics, studies, or reports that make pain itself a major factor in most attacks being stopped through the use of firearms. If you have any links,I'd be much interested in reading through them.

 

[John Joseph]

My first experience with JHPs as a LEO was with .357 Mag revolvers.
Statistically (we were told) 125 gr JHPs(or more specifically SJHPs) made the bad guys stop being bad guys faster than any other load /caliber if you had a 4" or longer barrel. Federals were our gold standard. IIRC the stats came from the FBI but I could be mistaken as this was a long time ago.
You needed barrel length to build up the requisite velocity(so we were told.) for the JHPs to work their magic.
I never carried a 9mm although the guys who made the transition carried Speer JHPs in their issued S&W Model 59s (IIRC)
I didn't get the "talk" so I don't know the rational behind that, other than Speer is what I saw being used at our range, however we trusted the dept armorer, training officers and range masters.
Trusted them 100%
Other guys carried .45acps---Remington Golden Sabers and Winchester Black Talons come to mind but I could be mistaken. Ball ammo wasn't approved and all I know about that was scuttlebutt about a rumored propensity to ricochet when encountering masonry structures---maybe true, maybe not.

For SD/HD I'd go with JHPs with enough weight to penetrate and in handguns that can reliable drive them fast enough to 'shroom. If not, I'll choose SWCs for wheel guns or Ball for semiautos. YMMV

 

[Telum Pisces]

The problem I have with this is many people sustain quite serious injuries without recognizing/feeling much pain at all. In some examples, it just happens too quickly and it only sets in once they realize it. Cuts, punctures, broken bones, crushed limbs, etc.

What you're essentially doing here is qualifying your original statement by saying this happens only to certain people under certain circumstances. And then, even this is "only sometimes".

It's really akin to people making claims that "the noise of racking a pump shotgun will deter your attacker".

These things MAY be true...sometimes. But they are poor things to bet your life on.

We use deadly force, when justified, to stop an attacker. What stops the attacker could be any number, or combination of, of things...pain, surprise, perceived threat, loss of blood, hit to CNS, buddies pull him away, etc. Pain would actually be a minor factor in this, and not a reliable one at that.

I am not aware of any statistics, studies, or reports that make pain itself a major factor in most attacks being stopped through the use of firearms. If you have any links,I'd be much interested in reading through them.

You win

 

[Meeks36]

I carry underwood defenders in my 9mm. Its I happy medium for me between fmj and hp. Some say they are a fade. Idk I carry them in my 380 and 9mm. Will buy some 44 to try deer hunting with. If I can find a decent place.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

From the non drug hopped up person attacking you. A mad individual is still human and well, most don't like pain. A determined attacker or drugged up one takes a CNS shot or blood loss.

Are you basing this on some experience or a study?

 

[trax77]

JHPs weren't designed to limit penetration. They were designed to more effectively transfer kinetic energy to innards.

If limiting overpenetration was THE concern, they could have simply lowered the velocity of 9mm FMJ

Hunters have been using all kinds of calibers and bullet types against animals for a century...listen to them. 70-year reputations as "manstoppers" are also worth something.

Solely focusing on wounds or the cavities produced in noncompressible gel is useful but not be all and end all...animals get shot and run all the time. Higher energy produces higher likelihood of DRT stops. Good shot placement matters tons but animals are running dead all the time as are humans.

Up in Eaton County- she shot that guy 9 times to drop him. Dunno yet what the caliber was but given the recent trends she was probably shooting 9mm in some low 300s energy round like 147g std pressure.

.357 didn't gain its rep over 38 because it made loud bangs, but because people noticed it ended fights quicker. the difference was energy not penetration, because all they didn't have HPs then.

There is likely some hydraulic pressure effect created by a projectile...and the severity of it is determined by the impulse curve which is governed by energy.

 

[roque5]

No matter what flavor you have loaded always "Double Tap"

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

The moral of this story is that it's always best to load quality expanding ammunition in you defensive handguns.

If for some reason you do not have any of the above, which currently is a possibility, than FMJ or round nose ammo is a less effective alternative